Loading...
2001-04-26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 26, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES ABBATE PAUL HAYES NORMAN HIMES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-We’re going to vary slightly from the agenda as you probably have it. We have a tabled application from last week, which should not take very long, we hope. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2001 TYPE II GARY AND MELINDA LEWIS AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 237 FIFTH STREET EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 480 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 12-2000 (WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT) ZONE: SR-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 131-7-11 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.15-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 GARY & MELINDA LEWIS, PRESENT MR. STONE-Would you read the tabling motion in. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Motion to Table Area Variance No. 21-2001 Gary and Melinda Lewis, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 237 Fifth Street Extension. In order that Mr. Lewis provide a survey of his property, so that adequate knowledge of the relief desired is known to the Board, and that Mr. Lewis be prepared to discuss possible alternatives concerning offset from the main house. Duly adopted this 18 day of April, th 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes” MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Lewis has provided a survey dated May 5, 1987, which shows that the house currently, the corner of the house closest to the property line on the front, is 19.3 feet from the property line, versus a required setback of 30 feet. The addition, as we have best been able to determine, would be at 14 feet from the property line, therefore requiring 16 plus or minus feet of relief. It also requires approximately a half a foot of relief from the 30 foot total side setback requirement of the SR-1A zone. We also, we have to consider relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, since the house does not currently comply with the current zoning in that area. So there are three things that we have to consider. Mr. Lewis, do you want to talk about this survey that you’ve provided? Add anything you want? Just state your name, again. MR. LEWIS-Gary Lewis. It’s all pretty up front right there, what you’re seeing in front of you, as far as dimensions. The only thing that’s not really shown on there is, it is 12 foot 4 on the survey, to the actual road front, if you’re wondering what that dimension is there. That’s the only thing I really have to add at this point. MR. STONE-How deep did you say your property line was from the road? MR. LEWIS-Twelve foot, four from where the survey takes off to the front of that house right now, from the road front. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LEWIS-There’s a span right there, it doesn’t show a dimension. That’s actually 12 foot 4, yet, to the road there. MR. MC NALLY-That’s the distance from your property line to the edge of the paved surface of the road? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. LEWIS-That’s absolutely correct, yes. MR. MC NALLY-So, effectively there’s what, a 31 foot, 31.3 foot to the road, and, Mr. Stone, the corner of the addition’s going to be how far from the line, you said? MR. STONE-About 14 feet from the line. MR. MC NALLY-Fourteen feet, plus another 12, approximately. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-What it is, I reproduced a 20 by 24 addition on that survey map that you have, and as I scale it off the survey map, it scales 16 feet from the closest point to the front property line, and 14 feet from the closest point to the side property line. So those would be the proposed setbacks. If that’s what the applicant’s comfortable with. MR. STONE-Sixteen feet or fourteen feet? MR. BROWN-Sixteen feet from the front property line to the closest point of the front of the house, and 14 to the side line. MR. STONE-So that’s 14 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-Fourteen feet of relief. MR. STONE-Rather than 16 feet of relief. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-So it’s 14 feet as you’ve determined it, then, that we need. MR. BROWN-Correct. That’s what I get, if that’s what the applicant’s comfortable with, to the front property line. MR. STONE-To the property line, okay. MR. MC NALLY-And the side is, they need a relief of what? MR. BROWN-I don’t believe they need any relief from the side. It’s a minimum of 10 with a total of 30. MR. STONE-Okay. So your Staff notes are? MR. BROWN-Well, with the addition of this information, the side setback relief goes away. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-It appears. MR. STONE-We still need a nonconforming. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-And we certainly, if we grant this application or this request, we will definitely need an as built survey to go along with the completion of the project. MR. LEWIS-So you’d like the survey updated once it’s been done? MR. STONE-Once it’s done, we need an up to date survey, accurately reflecting exactly where it is on the property. MR. LEWIS-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions? The public hearing is still open. Any other questions of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis? MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question I asked you last week about feasibility of having your addition, rather than a continuation of the front of the property, just set back some 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) distance, I’d be of the opinion that, from the front, it might look a little more appealing, but that’s not important, but certainly it would reduce or possibly eliminate the need for the variance. Remember the last comment that I made was I’d like to hear why that can’t be considered. MR. LEWIS-I don’t know if it’s being selfish or not, but sort of the way I’m looking at it is I plan on living here the next 30 years of my life. I’ll be paying on it the next 30 years. So, basically, what we came up with is an idea, putting an addition on the house, making it look all as one, not looking chopped up at all, per se, and we do have a leachfield, not far behind where we’re proposing the addition. So basically if were to offset it, it could cause maybe chaos in that situation there. Literally, right behind where the 20 by 24 is where our leachfield system falls. MR. HIMES-Okay. That doesn’t show on your original drawing. It shows the septic tank, but. MR. LEWIS-We literally just found this out from our neighbor, as of like Tuesday night, that the people that lived there previously had a whole new leachfield put in, I think he said in like ’94, right in that area, and according to him, he said that was the general area that they threw the leachfield in. MR. HIMES-Well, I’d kind of like to know where that really is, or whether we can get any corroboration there, because I think it has some bearing on how I would feel in connection with the absolute need for the variance, or the amount of the variance that you would need, notwithstanding that you’ve said that you would prefer to have it straight. MR. LEWIS-Just on account of roof line and everything. I mean, it’s going to really break it up, I think, if we started messing with setting it back. Do you know what I’m saying, though? I’m not trying to be a jerk about it. MR. HIMES-Yes, I do. I can understand. MR. STONE-Does anything that Mr. Lewis said, Craig, concern about the septic, distance to the septic system? MR. BROWN-What are you asking? MR. STONE-Are we within 10 feet? MR. BROWN-If there’s no basement, no exposed or open basement as part of this addition, it can be almost right next to the septic system. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-If there is a basement, it’s got to maintain a 20 foot setback from the septic system, and that’s something that can be dealt with during the building permit process, but I don’t know, I haven’t seen any building plans for the addition. Is there going to be a basement under this addition? MR. LEWIS-There is going to be a full basement, yes. MR. BROWN-That would be identified in the building permit process, where he’d have to stay 20 feet from it, or not have a basement, or change the septic. MR. HAYES-That’s a Code Enforcement, then, essentially. MR. BROWN-Exactly. MR. STONE-Yes. It isn’t something we have to put into a variance? MR. BROWN-No. MR. STONE-Okay, but if it’s too close, then that throws the whole thing out of line. MR. HAYES-They won’t get a permit. MR. STONE-Right, they won’t get a permit. MR. BROWN-Right, correct. He’ll have to show the septic. MR. STONE-Which has nothing to do with us. MR. BROWN-As part of the building permit, he’ll have to show where the septic system is, yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Does that help, you, Norm? MR. HIMES-Well, there’s two, then the building people need to know it also. So, as far as I’m concerned, at this juncture, I would like to know that, and then think further. That’s the only comment I have. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments? Any other questions? If not, I will continue the public hearing. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any additional correspondence that we didn’t read in? MR. UNDERWOOD-These are just letters that got returned, just notifications. MR. STONE-Okay. All right, then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? If not, then we’ll talk about it. Let’s start down at the end. Roy, we’ll start with you. MR. URRICO-I’m sort of in agreement with Norm on this. Assuming there’s no problem, as far as the septic system, I’d like to know if there is an alternative means to place this addition? If it seems like he’s locked in to this location, then I would not have a problem with it, but I really want some further clarification on where the septic system is, leachfield. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Without repeating myself, I might just add to what my previous comments were and what Roy has said. Depending on how the information to be obtained turns out, it still, in my opinion would be some possible discussion in terms of what the alternatives might be, even under those circumstances. If you look from the standpoint from our side of the equation, that it’s something you would like to do, and, on the other hand, we have obligations in connection with the Code as it stands, we try to balance things out in some way. I just need to think long and hard and maybe hear a little bit more from you, in terms of what it is that, for example, that necessitates the addition in the size that it is, and so on. That’s all for me, thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. In the interest of time and fairness, I was not here last week. So, consequently, I’m going to abstain. MR. STONE-Mr. McNally? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the application. If you look at the five factors, the benefit to the applicant would certainly be that they would be able to build an addition to their home, for their growing family, in a relatively respectful area of the Town of Queensbury. While there might be the alternative of offsetting the addition from the house, it makes it more difficult to build. This is a relatively small lot. There’s a septic system behind the house. So I don’t know how far back you can even push it further than it is now, with the rest of the house, and it might be an alternative, but I don’t think it’s a feasible one, given the depth and the small size of this lot. I would think that the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, in the normal course. They’re looking for, what, 14 feet of relief? MR. STONE-Fourteen feet, fourteen plus or minus. MR. MC NALLY-But in this case, from your line in the front of the house to the paved surface of the road, there’s another 12 feet. So that 12 foot, and then 16 foot to the addition, means effectively about 28 feet between the house and the road surface. The Code calls for 30 feet, 28 feet, 30 feet, there’s not much of a difference. So, just because of the fact that the road is further from their line than it would be, I don’t think it’s very substantial. I don’t see any effect on the neighborhood or community whatsoever. You’re maintaining a respectable distance to your neighbor’s home on the one side, and the addition’s going to be just as far from the road as the current house is. So you’re not going adding to it or making it worse already, and I don’t see it as self-created. It’s the nature of t the beast. You’re on a curve. There’s no one, basically, across the street that’s going to complain. Your neighbors are supportive of it. So I’m in favor of it. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-Mr. Hayes? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think, in this particular circumstance, in particular, the curvature of the road place the addition in a direction that it doesn’t raise too many concerns for me, and apparently not for your neighbors, as I read the minutes. There didn’t seem to be a lot on the table there as far as neighborhood objection. In fact there was some support. So, it is a small lot. Two tenths of an acre is, you know, we’ve dealt with some of these before. We have smaller lots and people want to increase the size of their homes, and that, to me, is a benefit to the applicant that I can appreciate enough where I think, in a cumulative sense, that the test falls in favor of the applicant. I think that that’s a natural thing of raising a family or having a family in this particular case. So, having said that, I would be in favor of the motion, or in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would also be in favor of the applicant’s application for this project. I think the amount of relief off the front, you know, is balanced by the fact that you have that other room in the front, out to the road frontage, and at the same time we’re only adding a 480 square foot residential build out on that side of the house. To build it anywhere back, in the back yard would, you know, negate having your back yard, and it’s a pretty small back yard to begin with, and I think with a family it’s nice to have a little open space in the back, no matter how small your lot is that you live on. So, I’d be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-I concur with the three gentlemen who have preceded me. I am comfortable with the fact that the septic will be considered when the building permit is sought, and if it’s going to be too close to it, then that’s going to have to be something you’re going to have to decide to do, but as far as the front of the property is concerned, with the matter that’s before us, I’m comfortable, when you consider that, as has been said, the neighbors have not complained. They’re all, at least they haven’t said anything against it. The fact that the road, the property line is well set off the pavement, and therefore we have this additional distance between the new construction and the road, I can be comfortable with it. Having said that, I need a motion to approve the variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2001 GARY & MELINDA LEWIS, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 237 Fifth Street Extension. The applicant proposes the construction of a 480 square foot residential addition and seeks relief from the setback requirement with respect to the front. Specifically, the applicant requests 14 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of an SR-1A zone, that is Section 179-19 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, since the structure does not currently comply with the 30 foot minimum front setback, relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, pursuant to Section 179-79. I move the approval because, one, the applicant would be permitted to construct an addition to their home for their family at the desired location. Two, while there are alternatives that may be possible, such as offsetting the addition from the main home to a more compliant location, taking up a further portion of the rear of their yard, I don’t see this as feasible, since it’s a modest lot, and moving the addition back would result in an inordinate amount of cost for the few feet of additional frontage that we might save. The addition might interfere negatively, with respect to the septic system and I don’t see this as being a feasible alternative. The relief is not substantial relative to the Ordinance. Because whereas it’s 16 feet from the front line, there’s an additional 12 feet, as we noted earlier, from the front line to the paved surface of the road. So effectively there’s 28 feet distance between the road and the house, and given the fact that there’s only a 30 foot requirement, I think effectively it’s two feet of relief, which is relatively modest. There’ll be no effects on the neighborhood or community, and the difficulty is not self created. It’s more a circumstance of owning a lot on a curve such as this, and trying to build a home that would fit your family. For all these reasons, I move the approval. My motion is conditioned on the applicants, after they construct their addition, having a survey done showing the footprint of the house and the addition, and submitting that to the Town so that we have a record of exactly where this addition is and how it was built. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSTAINED: Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-So it’s approved. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much. MR. MC NALLY-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON D/B/A FISH TALES ICE CREAM AND FISH FRY OWNER OF PROPERTY: STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON LOCATION: 1036 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A FREESTANDING SIGN OF 50 SQ. FT. AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE HC-1A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/11/2001 ZONE: HC-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 68-1-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.09-1-15 LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION 140 STEVEN SUTTON, PRESENT MR. STONE-Before we get into the application itself, I have a statement that I have to read. I will read, not that I have to. I do read . “Two years ago, one of the next applicants publicly and harshly castigated me at a Town Board meeting about how I did my job in a proceeding effecting the applicant. Although I know I handled the proceedings correctly, the applicant took exception to my actions. I recognize he had the right to say what he did, but he deeply hurt me. Since I have preached that public officials must be aware that apparent conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest, and it might be perceived by some that I do have a conflict, I should not be involved in these deliberations. I, therefore, recuse myself” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 24-2001, Steven and Donna Sutton, Meeting Date: April 26, 2001 “Project Location: 1036 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 32 sf freestanding sign and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11.30 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing free standing sign at its current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11.30 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-520 issued 7/26/00 32 sf free standing sign BP 2000-115 issued 4/19/00 1584 sf restaurant c/o pending SP 14-2000 res. 2/22/00 conversion of office to restaurant approved AV 10-2000 res. 2/16/00 TCO setback relief approved Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It appears as though the paved area in the front of the building was increased in depth thereby decreasing the green area in which the sign was originally planned. The plot plan submitted with the sign permit application depicted the proposed sign to be located 15 feet from the front property line. A review of the historical record for this site did not reveal a sign permit for the existing signs on the building. SEQR Status: Unlisted” MR. BROWN-There’s a County referral, and just if I could, for the record, the agenda states a 50 square foot sign. That’s a typo. It’s actually a 32 square foot sign. There is a County referral some place, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a “Warren County Project Review and Referral Form April 11, 2001 Project Name: Sutton, Steven & Donna Owner: Steven & Donna Sutton ID Number: QBY-SV- 24-2001 County Project#: Apr01-21 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant seeks after-the-fact relief from setback requirements – 15’ required, 3.7’ exists – for a free-standing sign. Site Location: Route 9, 1036, 2 parcel north of Montray Road. nd Tax Map Number(s): 68-1-10 Staff Notes: Staff is concerned about potential impacts to Route 9 traffic and recommends discussion. The application materials did not include a site plan indicating the signs location or any site impediments to placing it the required distance from the lot line. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for April 26, 2001 County Planning Board recommendation: Deny Local Action:/Final Dispensation (Provide reason if local action is contrary to Warren County Planning Board recommendation)” Signed by Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 4/12/01. MR. HAYES-You understand, Mr. Sutton, that that means that you will need a super majority from this panel to get a positive motion, which is five votes. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. MC NALLY-Does that mean the Planning Board had a meeting tonight, on the 26? th MR. HAYES-No, they were referring to our meeting, I believe. MR. MC NALLY-Referring to our meeting. MR. HAYES-Yes. Craig, the last sentence in the Staff notes, we’re not dealing with that tonight? MR. BROWN-No, that’s correct. It’s just a reference to the site, if the question came up, yes. MR. HAYES-All right. Fine, I just wanted to make sure we’re touching all the bases here. Mr. Sutton, is there anything you’d like to add to your application? Well, unfortunately, I was out of town last week for the Warren County Board meeting and it totally slipped my mind, and I probably should have went and argued my case. I thought it was, for some reason it just got by me. I understand for any kind of variance you do have to show hardship. I think the major hardship there, when you say that we’re the second parcel in from Montray Road, the State property is there, and with their chain link fence just about out to the road when you go by G Rays or what used to be G Rays, as you’re coming north on Route 9, it pretty well blocks the entire parcel. So we do feel there is a legitimate hardship there. The paving was, we pretty much followed exactly what Leonard Insurance had there. There was just a small spot of green space out front. I have to say that when the sign was put there, unfortunately, I had some medical problems last year. I was out of town for the whole summer. My son being inexperienced, and when the sign people came to put it up, there was that little bit of green space. They plopped it where they thought it would be, and rather than try to conform, which now would put it in the drive lane as people come in, if we move it to the 15 feet, there’s a very slim area of drive through there which was approved by the site plan review and everything. So it would really start to hinder traffic coming in and out of Fishtails itself. So I, you know, seeing where it is now, seeing where the existing signs are up the road, including Suttons, the Toy Cottage, the Village Shop, and Fishtails, as you look down the road, nothing interferes with any of the signs. They’re all kind of look like they were planned and belong there. I do apologize for having the sign there and being here after the fact. I know that’s not the way we normally do business. It’s something that happened in my absence, that normally we would have gone through the proper channels to get it up. Unfortunately, it’s there now, and it would be considerable expense to change it now, and I’m not exactly sure where that change would possibly be because it’s, to make it conforming, like I said, you’re going to be back into the drive lanes and that’s going to make it very difficult for cars to get in and out of there. It’s pretty tight. So, that’s pretty much it. The main thing, again, being the State property to our south that we tried to leave the pine trees there and there was a lot of concern to leave as much green space as we could. You don’t see that property until you’re right up on it, and we purposely kept that sign down to 32 square feet to give it a nice hand- carved look, and we didn’t feel we needed a big sign. It seems like where it is now it’s not really hurting anything, but I know what the rules are and I know you have to prove hardship. So I’m here to plead the case. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant from any Board members? MR. HIMES-Thank you. The concrete aprons, the one closest to Suttons, is that pretty close to the line? I’m asking in terms of, well, what if the sign was put further to the west, to help take care of the matter of people’s view approaching it. MR. SUTTON-People to the west or north or south are you talking? MR. HIMES-North I’d say, I’m sorry. MR. SUTTON-North. We’re pretty close to the Village Collection property there. I mean, there’s a U-Shape that’s formed by the entrance and exit there, and it seems to be the natural spot for the sign. It’s hard to visualize it anywhere else. When you get to that gravel area, that’s actually going on to Betty Jane Baxter’s property, which is. MR. HIMES-The next lot north. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. HIMES-I can’t tell how much distance there is from this map, but it looks like your concrete apron is pretty close. MR. SUTTON-Yes. I think part of the building variance that was granted, because of the Leonard property being pre-existing there, we were already, you know, encroaching the northern boundary. There’s just enough room for the drive lane one way coming out around the back of the building as it is. So I don’t foresee it being anywhere south or north. There’s maybe three feet to the pavement, going east, toward the building. Not that that still would require a variance to go, to get it three feet . 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) I mean, to get it 15 feet, we’re going to be right in that drive lane, which I think is really where the real hardship lies. The only other alternative, obviously, is to have it on the building, but then again, when you’re coming up from the south, you don’t even see that building until you’re past that State property, especially when the trees leaf out, during the peak season. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I just have one other comment. I’m glad, when you started your comments, that you spoke of the hardship from a business standpoint, because on the application file here, you gave as the reason, to conform to existing signs along the road. MR. SUTTON-I wasn’t quite sure how to answer that. It’s a little vague. MR. HIMES-And I thought, well, that doesn’t, you should be trying to conform to the Code. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. HIMES-You’ve explained, from your standpoint, business reason, that you can’t see it until you’re about past. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. HIMES-Without the sign being where it is. All right. Thank you. MR. SUTTON-Okay. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thanks. Thank you. There obviously has been a decrease in the green area, and I guess I’m posing this question basically to you, Craig. Does that affect permeability, and should we focus on that? MR. BROWN-I’m not sure if it effects the permeability or not, but that’s not part of the application tonight. So I would definitely not focus on that. MR. ABBATE-All right, and also, in the Staff Notes, Mr. Sutton, there’s a statement that a review of the historical record for the site did not reveal a sign permit for the existing signs on the building. Is that correct? MR. HAYES-I spoke to Craig at the beginning of the application, though. He said that that’s not on the table tonight either. MR. ABBATE-Well, I better keep quiet, I’m two down. I better not say another word. I’m probably better off saying, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my comments at this time. MR. MC NALLY-I had a couple of questions for Staff. Craig, how was this violation noted? Who picked up on it? MR. BROWN-During a final site plan inspection for the Certificate of Occupancy, I performed a site inspection, and part of that, is the landscaping done, is the paving done, is the sign up, does it appear to meet the setbacks? To me, it appeared to be relatively close to the sidewalk, so as part of the Certificate of Occupancy, a final plot plan is required, and on that final plot plan, it was discovered that the sign was. MR. SUTTON-That’s where it came to our attention, too. Although I was in New York at the time, but. MR. HAYES-So it’s sort of like a temporary CO still? MR. BROWN-Temporary Certificate right now. MR. MC NALLY-Is this the document that was submitted with the sign application? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-And it shows a 15 foot setback? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Sutton, who prepared the application? Was it your son? Who said it would be set back 15 feet on the application? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. SUTTON-I thought we didn’t have an application. MR. BROWN-For the freestanding sign there’s a sign permit application. MR. SUTTON-I was incapacitated last summer, as I say, and it kind of got away from me. So I’m kind of at your mercy here. MR. MC NALLY-The other thing is, we granted relief, when this was being built, from the Travel Corridor Overlay. MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Seventy-five foot, right? MR. MC NALLY-It’s a 75 foot setback required from the road, and the building is how far back approximately? MR. BROWN-I knew you were going to ask that question. MR. SUTTON-Fifty, I believe. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So we granted like 25 feet of relief, something like that? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-When I drove by this place, I agree with you that you come up from the south, that drainage lot, right to the south of you, does block the view of your business. No question about that, but did I remember that the driveway in the front of the building was supposed to be a single lane and now it’s a double lane? Enough to accommodate two cars side by side? Wasn’t it intended, originally, as a single lane drive, and then you would drive in the back and around to the parking area? MR. SUTTON-Well, that’s what it’s, the arrows all go to take it out the south exit, comes in and around and then the arrows are all to come out back around. MR. MC NALLY-Is this a lit sign? I don’t think I’ve ever noticed it at nighttime. MR. SUTTON-It’s not a back lit sign. It’s got a couple of very subtle spotlights on it. It’s more the gold leaf on the carving that really makes it stand out. Not really much of a nighttime business. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe I should ask you. Wasn’t your original plan that there was going to be a single lane around that green space in the front? Did it become two lanes, and how did that happen? That’s the way I remember it. MR. SUTTON-The general contractor really, I kind of put everything in his hands, I mean, me not being there. So I’m not exactly sure, it’s really not a two lane drive through. I mean, because what people want to do, we have no parking lanes there. If you notice there are no parking spots, but that’s where people want to come in and they want to park there. It’s hard to stop that. They want to pull up to the front door. I mean, they’re not used to going around the back yet, and, hindsight being what it is we probably should have demolished the building, set it back 20 more feet, put the deck on the front, had it more visible. It wouldn’t have been as nice, but hindsight’s 20/20, but people do tend to park there, which even makes that even shorter, smaller, tighter. So it just makes it, you know, that much more difficult. I know it’s hard to come here and plead ignorance, but things did get a little bit out of control, and there was nothing done intentionally to try to circumvent, you know, which, I’ve been around long enough to know that you’re not going to circumvent any of these things, but I guess, you know, I think it’s an attractive sign. I think it fits the area, and it fits everything that’s going on up and down that road. MR. MC NALLY-The next door building, the Village mart or something like that? MR. SUTTON-The Village Collection. MR. MC NALLY-And its sign is about as far from the road as yours. MR. SUTTON-Approximately. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. MC NALLY-And then you own the toy store next to that, and that sign’s about the same. MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. MC NALLY-The Sutton Market one’s set back at least 15 feet, though, from the road? MR. SUTTON-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So that’s in compliance. MR. SUTTON-Right. In fact, we’re further back than that, actually. At the time, that was a mistake also in the other way, but it works. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I have no other questions. MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy, you had a question? MR. URRICO-Well, my question was what Bob covered. At what point did it go from the parking lot, extend, you said you tried to keep the lot that was there when the Leonard Agency was there? MR. SUTTON-Right. MR. URRICO-So this building permit map that was submitted, where it depicted the sign at 15 feet from the road, at what point did that change? MR. SUTTON-I have no idea. I didn’t do that drawing myself, and I wish I could tell you, I mean, that’s kind of a curve. I know between Wheeler Signs and my son, somehow it got placed there, and it’s kind of water over the dam at this point, but it wasn’t done intentionally, at least not on my part. Although, if I was to place it, I would be back here asking for this same variance, because it seems to be the only place that makes sense to put the sign, other than, which I would consider a big hardship if we had to put it back and only have it on the building, because we obviously can’t put it in the drive lane. It would totally bottleneck everything up there, and I think that would be a hazard to both pedestrians and people trying to squeeze around that spot, now that we have sidewalks there and walking traffic as well. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. SUTTON-All I can say is there wasn’t any intention to change it without going through the proper channels. Sometimes other priorities in your life take over, and last year, unfortunately, I had one of those. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEITH CRIST MR. CRIST-I’m Keith Crist. I have the facility kitty corner to Fishtails, and as Steve says, coming down Route 9, heading north, there’s a sign in the building and everything, the way they left all the trees standing on that property line, it really hides the building quite a bit, and I would say that by moving the sign in, back, setting it back would be kind of defeating, which is a beautiful sign as well. So, all in all, I would like to say I’m in favor of where the sign is. It has no bearing or problems with me on our side, and the whole facility next door looks great. If I could get the south side of me looking like that, I’d be a happy camper. MR. URRICO-Which facility are you? Where are you located? MR. CRIST-A-2000, directly across, Della Honda was next to me, until last week, and G Ray’s is across the street, it’s been an eyesore for I don’t know how many years now. Like I say, an improvement like Steve on his side of the street has been wonderful. All right. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone that would like to speak opposed to the application? At this time, is there any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see anything, no. MR. HAYES-Okay. At this time, I’ll close the public hearing. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And poll the current Board members. I guess this time we’ll start with Mr. Himes. MR. HIMES-Thank you. Listening to what I’ve heard puts me in a very sympathetic position with the applicant, and especially, I think that we, barring some outrageous interference, that you’ve got to support our businesses as best that we can, and I think that, on the balance of the matter, and the fact that I have driven by that place many, many times and not noticed that the sign was as close as it is, that’s probably because I’m always going north and having passed 50 other signs that are already pretty close to the road as they are on that side of the highway coming out from Town. So, to make a long story short, I think that the business reason is reason enough for me to say that it’s a nice looking sign. It wasn’t built to maximum. Of course I do recognize that there were some oversights and mistakes made with its placement, and I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Thanks a lot. Okay. Reputation plays a large in my decision on this, Mr. and Mrs. Sutton, and as far as I’m concerned, I echo the feelings of my Board member, that we must support our businesses in the Town of Queensbury, and in terms of reputation, as far as I’m concerned, Suttons has an excellent reputation, in terms of good business, good service, etc., etc. I believe that there were, in fact, mitigating circumstances, and we won’t dwell on that, which I happen to know includes personal hardships and what have you. I don’t believe there’s any malice aforethought on this issue here, and I’m certainly in favor of this application. However, I have not been feeling well. I’m on medication. So I’m going to interject a little humor here, if you don’t mind. Your sign says ice cream and fish fry. Why not fish fry and ice cream, out of curiosity? MR. SUTTON-I think it was just, Fishtails, fish fry, just didn’t ring. MR. ABBATE-Didn’t ring. MRS. SUTTON-It was an aesthetic thing. MR. SUTTON-Yes. MRS. SUTTON-Having fish and fish side by side. MR. SUTTON-That was her idea. MRS. SUTTON-hat was my idea. MR. ABBATE-I raised a sore issue here, but anyway, to sum it up, I am in favor of supporting your application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Whenever someone puts a building up and they don’t get a permit, or they build a building that’s too high or too close to the line without getting a variance, and then after the fact they come in and ask for relief, it’s sometimes harder to do that, and a sign permit is not much different than that, in some respects, but when this happens, I know what I’ve tried to do is think, what would I have done had they come to us first and asked for a variance, without having a sign up where they did, and I tried to look at this application in that light, and in some sense it’s a close call. I think the benefit to the applicant is relatively straightforward. I agree with you that the sign should be closer to the road, to compensate for the fact that that damn lot is on the corner, with the chain link fence and all the brush growing almost basically to the sidewalk. You can’t see your business, and I agree with Norm I think it was who commented that, I don’t know how many times I’ve been by that lot and all of a sudden I see Fishtails out of the corner of my eye, as it’s passed me going north. So as a businessman, I can understand the benefit that you’d receive, and I understand the need for it. It’s important to have recognition of your business so people know where it is. When you talk about feasible alternatives, I think that you could relocate the sign to a more compliant location. There would be some cost involved, and it certainly would not be as preferable, but, you know, it can be done. The relief that you’ve requested, the Code says you have to have 15 feet from the line, and you’re asking for a sign 3.7 feet from the line on the road. I find that substantial. The effects on the neighborhood or community, however, I don’t think it’s going to be a big deal, because like you said, two businesses north of you certainly have a sign that close, and in large part it’s a very nice sign, and it’s a sign that I think is, as a community, we should take pride in, because there’s a hell of a lot worse signs than that going up and down the road. I think the difficulty is self-created, which is the fifth test we have to do. As much as it may be in error, whether it was the contractors or whoever, that was put there basically by yourselves. When I look at this, if you look at our Sign Ordinance, it says, 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) if you’ve got a 50 square foot sign, you’ve got to be 15 feet from the road. If you’ve got a 64 square foot sign, you’ve got to be 25 feet from the road. So, in other words, the bigger the sign, the further you have to be. Well, you’re 32 square feet, right? Is that right? So I can understand that it can be closer to the road than maybe a 50 square foot one would be, but I think that there should be a concession or two, and the concession or two that I’m thinking of is that the sign would be limited to 32 square feet, and that it would never be increased in size, and the other thing I’d like to see, I like it that it’s externally lit. I think it’s tasteful. I think it shows your business. I think it indicates where your business is, and it’s a nice sign. I don’t know if I want, whenever you sell this to the next ice cream stand 50 years from now, we’re going to have a Carvel sign internally lit from there. I don’t know if maybe we should ask that it should not be internally lit, also, and it should maintain it’s size at that location. That’s what I think, but with those kind of concessions, which I think aren’t a big deal, I think I could support your application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would also be in favor of the applicant’s plea for the relief that he’s requested, and at the same time, I think I’d have to compare it to the other signs on that side of the road. Certainly, the other side of the road where the setbacks are so much greater on the buildings, you know, it would be a different story, but you have to keep in mind the fact that, like everyone has said, you don’t see that sign until you’re right up on it, and if it were set back eight feet more, it would make it that much more difficult to see it. So I think it should remain where it is. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. When you examine the criteria that we’re pledged to weigh this against, then I agree with Robert on this, and the rest of the Board, that the weight seems to uphold Mr. Sutton’s position. I drive past there maybe 12, 13 times a day, and you can’t see it coming north. The biggest eyesore on that side of the road is that chain link fence, and so therefore I don’t feel this is, I feel there’s a benefit to the applicant. I do not think there are feasible alternatives. The relief is substantial. I don’t see this as having a great effect on the community, other than to make it better, and the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, but I think if I was putting a sign there, that’s probably where I would locate it as well, and I would be in favor of this application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, first of all, let me say that we’re all lucky, in this particular circumstance, that I’m the substitute Chairman, because you’re being spared a speech about already built variances, per usual, but I essentially agree with the rest of the Board on this matter. I think if we examine this strictly from the criteria that are involved with Sign Variance, I think the benefits to the applicant are clear. This is promotion of his business in a tasteful manner. Number Two, the feasible alternatives, and I believe that’s largely where this particular application rotates around, I believe that they are limited in this particular case, based on the fact that it’s already been pointed out that the shielding from the adjoining properties creates a situation that a sign on the building, for example, would be inconsequential, or possibly have no benefit whatsoever. Certainly, the relief is substantial, in this particular case. As I read this application initially, and also knew that you needed a super majority, I wondered how this application would go, and if the relief, in my mind is correctly identified as substantial. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe that there will be. I think the sign, as has been pointed out, is actually very consistent with the signs on that side of the road. It’s a quality sign. It’s constructed well. It compliments the building. I can’t imagine anybody feeling that that has a negative impact on the surrounding properties, and we’ve already had one immediate property owner speak to the fact that he thinks it does. He thinks it’s fine. So, is the difficulty self-created? I think Mr. McNally identified that it certainly is, in that sense. I mean, you chose to put it there, whether it was you or your agent, but I still think, as the owner, you have to take responsibility for that, but considering that, I think three of the five criteria that are involved with this specific test fall in favor of the applicant, and, in that simplistic way, I think that the balancing test falls in favor of the applicant as well. I think that’s really as simple as that. So, having said that, I’d like to ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-2001 STEVEN AND DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 1036 State Route 9. The applicant has constructed a 32 square foot freestanding sign and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief required, the applicant requests 11.30 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, Section 140-6. The benefit to the applicant is that they would be permitted to maintain the existing freestanding sign at its current location Feasible alternatives, as has been said, the feasible alternative may include relocation of the sign to a more compliant location. It’s possible. Is it feasible? Well, that’s questionable. It lacks in effectiveness, being moved back because it’s out of usable view from approaching traffic, mainly from the south. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 11.30 feet from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. That is so. However, the neighboring municipal or 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) state law, county perhaps, and trees along the line impairs the sign’s use at 15 feet from the front line. Although the zone code is important, we do have to balance the fact of what we’re trying to accomplish, and it’s not just simply the code itself. There are factors that come into play, and that’s why we’re here, to evaluate them, and we feel that the importance of the variance and the fact that there are a lot of other signs along there that are close to the road, too, are not the influence. It’s the fact that your business would be impaired by observing the code as it’s written. The effects on the neighborhood or community, well, the code has been relaxed as an exception, a negative, some might say. The positives are it’s a comparatively small sign. It’s a very, very attractive sign, which is a plus to the area. It does some good for what we hope will be an important business in the area. Also as conditions, the sign would be limited to 32 square feet, and it would not be internally lit, as Mr. Sutton has agreed to. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. HIMES-Did you want a condition in there about the sign? MR. MC NALLY-I would ask Mr. Sutton, first, whether he’d consent to the imposition of the two conditions, limiting the sign to 32 square feet, and having a provision that it not be internally lit. Is that something you can accept, sir? MR. SUTTON-Sure, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Then I would include that as conditions on the motion, with Mr. Sutton’s consent. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. I would like to include the comments made by Bob, and Mr. Sutton’s agreement to it as part of the approval. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone MR. SUTTON-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2001 TYPE II G. CHARLES & LISA MUNZENMAIER AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: G. CHARLES AND LISA C. MUNZENMAIER LOCATION: 16 RENEE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/11/2001 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ZONE: WR-1A , CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 10-1-1.52 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-95 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION 179-16 CHARLES & LISA MUNZENMAIER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2001, G. Charles & Lisa Munzenmaier, Meeting Date: April 26, 2001 “Project Location: 16 Renee Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2800 sf residential addition and seeks relief from the setback and height requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and 3 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR- 1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include downsizing and relocation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: Both the 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement and the 3 feet of relief from the 28 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be sufficient room for compliant construction on this site. It does not appear that a relocation of the addition, 11 feet to the north, would deprive the applicant from a reasonable use of the property. Three feet of relief from the height requirement does not appear to present any adverse impacts on neighboring view sheds. Apparently, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the existing garage into a storage building/workshop, thereby addressing the issue of a second garage. SEQR Status: Type II” 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-Is there any County? MR. BROWN-There should be a County, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form April 11, 2001 Project Name: Munzenmaier, G. Charles & Lisa Owner: G. Charles & Lisa Munzenmaier ID #: QBY-AV-25-2001 County Project#: Apr01-19 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose to construct a 3,200 sq. ft. two story residential addition including two bedrooms, 2 ½ baths, a family room, a 2 car garage and a basement. They seek relief from front setback (30’ required, 19’ proposed) and height requirements. Site Location: 16 Renee Drive, Cleverdale. Route 9L to Harris Bay, turn into Renee Drive. Green house on left is #16. Tax Map Number(s): 10-1-1.52 Staff Notes: The proposed addition would more than double the size of the existing house – expanding it from 2,400 square feet to 5,600 square feet. The application materials address the issue of septic capacity and function. The applicant has agreed to test the system as soon as the ground thaws. Though the site plan does not indicate the location of the tank and leachfield, a sketch plan of part of the parcel does indicate that it is located west of the house. This is a matter of particular concern since the entire eastern section of the parcel is part of a large wetland known to contain rare species. The application materials do not indicate any stormwater mitigation measures, though the Town of Queensbury does regulate stormwater. Due to concerns about potential impacts to water quality in a sensitive environmental area, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for April 26, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve with condition that the stormwater and septic system plans meet Town of Queensbury regulations. Local Action/Final Dispensation (Provide reason if local action is contrary to Warren County Planning Board recommendation)” Signed by Thomas E. Haley Warren County Planning Board 4/12/01. MR. STONE-Craig, before we start, with that stipulation, does it have to go to the Planning Board, the septic? MR. BROWN-Stormwater stipulation? No, that’s typically handled during the building permit process. MR. STONE-That’s only the building permit. Nobody else, if we grant the variance, only the building permit? MR. BROWN-Unless you think it reasonable to forward it to the Planning Board for review. It’s not required to go. MR. STONE-Okay. The other question that I have, you wrote in your Staff notes, 2800 feet, County said 32. Which is the correct number? MR. MUNZENMAIER-This is Charles Munzenmaier, the owner of the property. I think the difference is, what, 400 square feet, and that is the proposed basement area. So it doesn’t effect the plot. It’s just another area underneath, and it’s not livable. MR. BROWN-Is it living space or utility space? MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, it’ll be just a cement floor with a door into it. MR. BROWN-Yes, I didn’t consider it as living space in my notes. MR. STONE-I just wanted to make sure we don’t have that in. MR. HIMES-Before we get started, I have a question, perhaps, of Staff, too. Looking, when I went by there, I see on the map, too, the garage, the attached garage, or as it says on the map existing shop it says, appears to me to be much closer to the line than anything else, being proposed or what not, and I’m wondering whether that, would that make this a nonconforming, does that have any impact on this? MR. BROWN-No, because the proposed addition is to a totally different structure than the freestanding garage. They’re not proposing any changes to that freestanding garage, just an addition to the residence. MR. HIMES-But the accessory structure, Waterfront One Acre has to abide by the same setback requirements as the principle structure. So even before this came along, as it is at this moment, it seems that this, the garage, is just a few feet from the line, much closer than, well, I’d say several feet at least, than the house. Is this a nonconforming situation? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. BROWN-I think the freestanding garage is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, but that’s not really even part of this application. I’m assuming, and I don’t know the history of the property, but it was built some time before the regulations said you couldn’t build it at that location, and it’s just been maintained there. MR. HIMES-Wouldn’t it, normally doesn’t (lost words) as a nonconforming? MR. BROWN-If there’s an action proposed, an addition proposed to that structure, sure, we’d identify it as nonconforming, and it would be a different set of rules you’d be looking at, but this is a different building on the property, and we’re talking about the house, which is a conforming structure. MR. HIMES-It is going to undergo some construction, because it’s going to be changed from a garage to a workshop. MR. BROWN-Yes, if you take the garage doors off and put on a swing door, that doesn’t require any variances. You’re not making the building any bigger. There’s no structural changes. It’s just a conversion of the building. MR. HIMES-Okay. So we don’t pay any attention to the fact that that is right up on the line? MR. BROWN-You won’t be seeing that back in front of this Board unless they propose to make it a different size. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-I have one question, Lew, if I may, please, to the Staff. Are percolation tests appropriate in this instance? MR. BROWN-I think if you read the letter from Dave Hatin, which was submitted as part of the application, that addresses the building, yes, that’s the building code’s position, the Building Department’s position. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Munzenmaier, anything that you would like to add, subtract, multiple or divide, in terms of the application that we’ve read so far? MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, we’re here to answer your questions. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll ask a couple that I asked you this afternoon. How high is the current house above grade, using the measurement of a plumb line from the highest point of the house to the ground? MR. MUNZENMAIER-I can’t get a plumb line from the highest point. MR. STONE-I understand, but. MR. MUNZENMAIER-From the ground, where you told me to measure, to the eaves, was 18 feet, and from the eaves to the highest peak on the roof was another seven feet. So it’s 25 feet. MR. STONE-So it’s currently 25 feet, approximately? MR. MUNZENMAIER-From that corner, right. MR. STONE-From that corner, okay, and the other question that I had, which was not on the drawing, the height of the, I’ll call it the bulkhead or what, I haven’t got the right word. MR. MUNZENMAIER-The retaining wall. MR. STONE-The retaining wall, and the subsequent fill inside the retaining wall, how high is that wall supposed to be? MR. MUNZENMAIER-The line of sight, I’ve got five feet, from where it’ll tie in. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, measured from the ground as filled, but, at least I’m concerned that there’s an additional five feet down to the hill, as it slopes away. I mean, even though it is going to be filled all the way across, it will be as if there, as I understand it, there’ll be, it’ll come out here and drop straight down. The retaining wall will be on all sides. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. MC NALLY-Effectively 36 feet down to the ground. MR. STONE-Yes. I’m not sure how we handle that, Craig, to be, I know we talk about as filled, as finished, along the side of the house, but this is going to be out in front on a slope. MR. MC NALLY-Overlooking the lake. MR. STONE-Overlooking the lake. I want to be sure we understand that and know that. MR. HAYES-That’s going to drop off there, but you’re going to measure from here down to here, I think. MR. STONE-Yes, I know we are. MR. HAYES-You’re measuring from right here to right here, not from out here down to here. MR. STONE-We’re going to measure from here to here. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. BROWN-Assuming that this stone wall is facto, and this is the final grade here, we would measure to point adjacent to the building, to final grade. MR. STONE-There’s going to be a crib all the way around, is that? MR. MC NALLY-Mr. Munzenmaier, on your drawing you show a stone wall. That stone wall is about five foot tall. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Basically, it can be anything, okay. Right now, I took a line of sight from the current grade, here. I took this point out here, okay, and the way the property grades down, and this distance would be five feet. If I put more fill in, it could be three feet, whatever. I don’t know what the extent. MR. MC NALLY-We just wanted to know what your plan was. Your plan was to have an exposed stone wall as depicted on that plan? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Exactly. MR. MUNZENMAIER-So, aesthetically, all these posts are the same dimension, rather than this one being this long, this one being. MR. STONE-And these rocks would go across the front, the east side? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. MR. STONE-Just the same way? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-He’s not going to backfill unless he has to. MR. STONE-It’s going to be backfilled. MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, I’m going to fill that up inside. MR. STONE-Inside. In other words, it’s going to be like, forget the house, there’s going to be a crib of dirt. MR. MUNZENMAIER-The distance, the height variance will be how high I make this wall. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Okay. If I made it another two foot, I’d be down to 29 foot. MR. STONE-No, you wouldn’t, because the house would go up two feet. MR. HAYES-No. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-No, this is a wall. MR. MC NALLY-He’d just build the wall up. MR. ABBATE-No, it would stay at 29 if he did it. MR. BROWN-But realistically, that’s not going to happen, because he needs to walk out this slider here. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. BROWN-This wall’s not going to get any taller. MR. STONE-But just help me. If you built this wall now, forget the house, you built this crib, I’ll call it, and you go all the way across the front, the east side of the house, and you come back on the other side with stone. Is that what you’re planning? And there’ll be stone across the front. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Right, on the outside of the deck, away from the house. MR. STONE-Yes, and then you’re going to fill that triangle. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Backfill inside, yes. MR. STONE-That whole triangle will be filled? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. MR. STONE-And therefore, the house will start at the top of the wall or the top of the fill, whichever it’s built on. So the wall could be up four feet. It’s still what’s inside. MR. ABBATE-Which still comes to 31, is what you’re saying? MR. STONE-Yes, it still comes to 31. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Just for clarity, this wall is actually removed from the house 12 feet. MR. MUNZENMAIER-On this side it’s 16 feet. On this side it’s 10 feet. MR. BROWN-That wall is out here, underneath the edge of this deck. Is that correct? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. MR. BROWN-So your house is back in 16 feet. MR. STONE-Yes, but the intent is to fill that whole thing, so essentially that’s the surface of the ground. MR. BROWN-That’s the final grade. MR. HAYES-That’s not even the intent. If he doesn’t do it, he’ll be out of violation. MR. STONE-I understand that. I appreciate that. Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. MUNZENMAIER-But the question that you asked me, as far as the roofline, so that that is only, from 25 to 31 is six foot difference that we’re, in essence, adding on. MR. STONE-You’re three feet under conforming and three feet over conforming if we grant a variance. MR. MUNZENMAIER-The majority of the house would be under conformance. MR. ABBATE-I wonder if you’d clear this up for me, please. I see that you had a conversation with Mr. Hatin, the Building and Code Enforcement, and you basically, and I want to make sure that this is correct, that I’m stating that you would be willing to upgrade your current, you currently have a 1,000 gallon tank. You’d be willing to upgrade it either to 1250 tank or install an addition 1,000? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. MUNZENMAIER-I think by Code I, for a four bedroom, I have to upgrade it to 1250, and if I’m going to buy a tank, why not, I’ll see what the differential cost between a 1,000 gallon tank, put in series, add it that way, or remove the 1,000 gallon and replace it with the 1250. MR. ABBATE-Craig, with a four bedroom, how many gallons would be required? MR. BROWN-Don’t quote me on this, but I’m under the impression that a 1250 tank is the minimum required for a four bedroom system. MR. ABBATE-So if we made that as a stipulation, there should be no problem. MR. BROWN-Not even necessary. MR. ABBATE-That’s a Code, you’re right. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anyone other questions? MR. MC NALLY-Did I understand some of it was going to be used as a workspace, that you’re converting? MR. MUNZENMAIER-I’m converting the garage, the existing garage. MR. MC NALLY-What is your business? Is it for business, sir? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Well, I do little projects. My wife does stain glass, that type of thing. MR. MC NALLY-And Craig mentioned the garage doors being removed. Do you have plans in that regard? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. There will be, yes. I don’t have plans now. MR. MC NALLY-Do you intend to side it with the normal siding that you’re going to use otherwise? What are your plans? What are you going to do? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Take the door and put plywood right over it, and paint it, because I already have an access door from the other side of it. I might put, one of them might have a door. MR. HAYES-Just as long as you understand that it can’t be a garage door, or else you’ll have two garages. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Understood. MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you build a house within the height requirements of the Town, 28 foot? MR. MUNZENMAIER-It’s difficult with the slope of the land, with the contour of the land. MR. MC NALLY-I see the slope of the land, but I mean, the house itself is 31 feet tall. I was just trying to figure out, you know, what makes your house need that extra height? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Three floors and a roof. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Can I say something? The majority of the house is actually going to be conforming within the height requirements. Because of the slope of the land, the front, actually the front facing the lake is much steeper, which is requiring, you know, in order for it to be even, we’ve also put on a hip roof to try to minimize it. Our design has a hip roof to minimize the height going up, and we would have actually preferred more windows in the front, but because of the height restrictions, we kind of minimized it as much as possible. MR. STONE-Okay, but the thing is, you are building up the ground. So you’re starting with a level piece of ground, as far as the house is concerned, and you’re going to be 31 feet above that piece of ground. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. MR. STONE-It has nothing to do with, and the question that Mr. McNally asked, why have you got to be 31 feet? MR. MC NALLY-Do you understand what he said? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. MUNZENMAIER-I understand what he said, but if you look at the, I can show you this print. If I didn’t do this, okay, which would allow us a little deck and the ability to walk out on the porch to have a sliding glass door, if I didn’t do this, I’d be six inches from conformance, but just for the aesthetics and the looks, we felt that coming out here, off the hip roof, would be the right thing to do, from an architectural standpoint, and a desirable standpoint. That’s what creates this. MR. MC NALLY-Right, and then having the basement walkout is what you want? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Because if the grade was leveled, you’d only be a two story home, rather than a three story home. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Right, exactly, and the contour. MR. MC NALLY-I know the land. I saw the land, and I can see how it slopes much further on one side. MR. MUNZENMAIER-And we’re also set back some 200 and some odd feet from the lake. So we’re not on the water with a 31 foot structure like I think some others are. MR. MC NALLY-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Aesthetically, your point is well made there. MR. MC NALLY-In the rear, on the road, what’s the elevation there? It’s significantly taller than the wood shed and the garage. MR. MUNZENMAIER-It will be, but again, it will be the six foot, not from here. MR. MC NALLY-Ballpark. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Ballpark, it’ll probably be the six, the seven foot difference. MR. ABBATE-What do you have, Craig? MR. BROWN-I’ve got 20 to the eaves. MR. ABBATE-Twenty to the eaves? MR. BROWN-I just did the first one. That’s where the final grade is, but to the highest point of the house, 26. MR. STONE-You’re talking on the back. MR. MC NALLY-Is that going to be visible from the road, to any significant degree? I see the shed. I saw the shed and the garage or the workshop, I guess, when I drove by. The house is behind there, but it’s going to be closer to the, if I look at this plan, there’s the woodshed, and there’s going to be 26 feet tall. So I’m just trying to figure out what kind of impact it has on looking at it from the road. I’m just trying to think about it. MR. MUNZENMAIER-This is a winter shot, okay. We are about 15 feet above 9L, and this shot was taken from 9L. MR. MC NALLY-Right. MR. MUNZENMAIER-It might be up to here. It’s going to butt up right against here. So it’s going to be like this. MR. MC NALLY-The question is, how noticeable is that going to be. MR. ABBATE-This is what you’re talking about. It’s going to butt up to this part, and then will rise, is this correct? MR. MUNZENMAIER-On the opposite side. MR. ABBATE-On the opposite side. Which what you’re saying is very visible from 9L. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Right. That’s five foot in to the other side. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. MC NALLY-I mean, if this was flat on the road, no question, it would be a different situation. You’re fortunate in the sense of being so high up off that cliff, because it is not as noticeable. MR. STONE-And the fact that there’s also a big State buffer in there, too, I mean, there’s, what did we figure, 10, 15 feet? He doesn’t go to the cliff. MR. MC NALLY-No, he’s 19 foot from the cliff, though. MR. MUNZENMAIER-No, no, 19 foot from the property line. MR. HAYES-Yes. That’s the property line. The cliff’s out here. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Then I’m mistaken, then. MR. MUNZENMAIER-See, what you’re talking about, this garage, that’s (lost word) see it. That is right up against the property line. It’s going to end up in front of this shed. MR. HAYES-Can you scale that out to see how far it is from Route 9L to the property line? MR. MC NALLY-What kind of siding do you have? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Shingled, vinyl. MR. MC NALLY-Painted, stained? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Like a clapboard look. MR. MC NALLY-White? MR. MUNZENMAIER-No. MR. MC NALLY-What color? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Either a gray, and we’re doing all of this, the whole house, everything. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, I would think you would. MR. MUNZENMAIER-What colors did you want? MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Well, I think we were going to make it like a tan with a Hunter green, and maybe (lost words). I think it’ll look much better than the (lost words). MR. STONE-The garage is going to be on the west side, the west end, or no, south. Is that going to be one story, or is that going to have something above it? MR. MUNZENMAIER-That’s going to have something above it. MR. MC NALLY-That’s two stories. MR. STONE-Because I don’t have an elevation. MR. MC NALLY-Right there. That’s where, the garage is underneath that corner, on the left. The first floor is the garage. MR. HAYES-Okay. So there’s windows in the garage, then, like regular (lost words) windows. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Three of three will show what you’re looking at. MR. STONE-I have two of three twice, I think. I’ve got three pages, but I’m not sure I have, I’ve got the same thing twice. MR. MC NALLY-Here, Lew. MR. STONE-Okay. The garage is going to be here. Okay. I don’t even have that on mine. No, that’s not right. The garage is over here. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. HIMES-What would be the square footage of the proposed garage, approximately? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Twenty by twenty-four. MR. HIMES-It looks about the same as the existing one. MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes. MR. HIMES-Pretty close. So that’s 500 or less. I ask that because there’s a 900 foot maximum. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-No. We just want some place to be able to put the cars in the winter, without the snow, get the groceries in the house. MR. HIMES-It’s a good idea, attached and heated. MR. STONE-Here’s the addition over here. Where’s the garage? On the other side of this? MR. MUNZENMAIER-That will be driving in to this way. MR. STONE-This comes out? MR. MUNZENMAIER-Yes, that comes out. MR. STONE-Okay. So we are looking right here, and we just don’t get the depth. Okay. I hadn’t seen this one before. MR. MC NALLY-My only concern was the height, because this is at the road. MR. STONE-Well, it says 21 feet, 20 and a half. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-How far from the road were you? MR. HAYES-The property line’s 42 feet, plus or minus. Then you’ve got the additional. MR. STONE-Yes, it’s a long ways from the driveway. MR. MC NALLY-There has to be a 30 foot setback. MR. MUNZENMAIER-From the property line. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant before we talk about it? Okay. Let’s start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m comfortable with the setbacks off the road. I think that, you know, given that extra corridor that’s there, that when the trees are leafed out, as shown in the pictures, even in the winter time, what’s showing there is not going to be substantially obtrusive to the neighborhood, and pretty well protected, and also I think we have to consider the fact of how far it’s set back from the lake. Of course, I always try to put in by beef for a little bit of vegetation out in front, you know, and not just a stark view, a straight view, but it’s not really a sticking out like a sore thumb view like a lot of them are up there. So, I’d be comfortable with the relief from the road, and as far as the height relief, I think that it’s going be balanced a little bit with that in-filling. It’s going to be a little bit above height, but at the same time we’re not talking that it’s one of those ones that really sticks up and it’s out in the middle of the open. So it is set back from the water. So I’m comfortable with what the request is. MR. STONE-Jamie? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. HAYES-I feel similarly, in this particular circumstance. The benefit to the applicant is fairly obvious. It’s what they want to do and, as far as feasible alternatives, I think that the Staff notes correctly point out that there are feasible alternatives, in this particular circumstance, including downsizing, but really, as I look at the plans, and particularly after the presentation, what really struck me, in the cumulative sense, was that the property is, in fact, 200 feet from the lake, and, you know, a three foot variance that’s two hundred feet from the lake, to me, I don’t think that that amounts to substantial relief. I think, in fact, really, it’s minimal. I know, in the past, we have often discussed that that particular relief is very, rotates very heavily on how far we’re talking about being away from the lake. Three feet away from the lake, at 50 foot, to me, would be a much greater concern, but in this case, the property is well back from the lake. So, I’m comfortable with the three feet. The side setback I think also in this particular case, after examination, is heavily mitigated by the State right of way from Route 9L. I think there’s going to be, most of the time, some heavy vegetation there, and I don’t think that this is going to represent a negative impact on that neighborhood, from that perspective. I think it’s going to be back far enough to be very minimal. There has been no neighborhood opposition in this particular case, and I was very interested to see how the neighbor that shares the right of way through the property there would react, and if they had some concerns, I certainly would have considered that, but they’re not here. So I have to presume that they’re comfortable with the project. As far as the difficulty being self created, I think that it is in the sense that the 31, the height of 31 appears to be a product of your architectural plans and stylistic impression, but, after listening to your explanation of that, I’m not sure that that’s unwarranted in this case, based on the fact that, you know, you’re far enough away from the lake, and that this provides a symmetrical aesthetic to the addition. So, on balance, I think I’m okay with this application, as it sits. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Well, I agree with Jamie. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. I certainly agree with my two Board members. I think your plans are well thought out. I had some concern about the height being 31 feet, but as you indicated here, from 9L it’s going to be sloped going down, and this is, the pictures were taken when there was little or no foliage there, and during the summertime, etc. Well thought out plans. I think it will certainly add to the area, particularly as you described the type of siding, and you’ve taken into consideration a number of things. You’ve even made some concessions as, although it’s not a matter for us to discuss, with septic and what have you, and I certainly, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Mr. Himes? MR. HIMES-Thank you, Lew. I, too, agree with Jamie’s comments. I’d just like to add a little to them, in that, in connection with the highway view, from the height standpoint, you’re only going to see a part of the house anyway, you know, less than you would see of a normal structure as you drive along the road anyway. So, from the highway, the no impact, even though it is less than Code requirements from your property line, and from the lake view, as Jamie pointed out, it’s quite a long ways away, and as Lew said earlier, and Jamie, too, that’s somewhat uncommon. I might add, too, that the modest height, how noticeable it might be, from the standpoint of a view, which is mainly from a commercial boat yard. The area involved, it’s not like looking out across the lake. So I think that’s important, too, in that I think it isn’t, I don’t think it’s going to be very imposing on anyone. So I do support the application. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members. I want to compliment the applicant for a well thought out, well presented plan. You answered all the questions we needed answered, and basically I agree that, in this particular case, with these setbacks, I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-First, I want to thank you for listening to my thoughts today. We don’t always get a chance, when we’re out on location, to talk to the applicant. You were very responsive to my request, at least, for those dimensions, and they’re very helpful to me. I hope they were helpful to the Board. I think Mr. Hayes captured my thoughts, too. Normally, any variation in height is one that really raises the hair on the back of my head. I’m a strong supporter of the lake. I happen to live on the lake, but having said that, the particular location that you have, and as I think was pointed out, there is a marina between you and the lake, really, and even the lake that is right in front of you is one where most boats don’t even go, and that’s one of the things we’re concerned about. Sometimes we may dwell too much, as far as people are concerned, with the view from the lake, but that’s important to us, but that area behind the island, I don’t even go in there, because you go in at your own risk, I think, and if you want to bend prop it’s a good place to go. So there won’t be much 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) boat traffic. You’re not going to impact very much at all, and as I say, I think Mr. Hayes captured, for me, and obviously for most of the Board, our particular thoughts. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance, both for setback relief and height relief. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2001 G. CHARLES & LISA MUNZENMAIER, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 16 Renee Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 2800 square foot residential addition and seeks relief from the setback and height requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement and three feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to construct the addition to their house as these plans depict. Feasible alternatives, I believe that feasible alternatives could be considered in this case, but the applicant’s plans seem to be tasteful and well placed, based on the existing configuration of the house and its existing driveway. Is the relief substantial relative to Ordinance? I don’t believe that it is in this particular circumstance, for two reasons. I don’t believe that the height relief of three feet is substantial, based on the fact that the applicant’s current residence is 200 square feet from the lake, and that the height of the home will not, in this case, interfere with the view of any neighbor. There is no neighbor behind the house, in this particular circumstance, that would be impacted in any way. As far as the 11 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement, I believe that that’s moderate, and I believe that that is significantly mitigated by the fact that there is significant vegetation between what would be the furthest south point of this addition and the highway, and the fact that that buffer will remain undisturbed going forward into the future. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that there’s a minimal impact on the neighborhood in this particular circumstance. The applicant has expressed a desire to continue a coloring scheme that will also blend with the existing house and with the natural surrounding area, and the particularly immediately impacted neighbor did not object to the proposed plans in this particular circumstance. So there is no noted public opposition. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe that the difficulty is self-created, in that both the height and the dimensional relief has to do with the applicant’s desire to place the addition where he would like to and at that height that he wanted to, but in the cumulative sense, on this balancing test, I believe it falls in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. In addition to my motion, and contingent upon it, I would require the applicant to provide the Town with an as built survey that indicates the placements, as far as the dimensional relief requested, and depicting the height at the maximum point, as to height relief. Duly adopted 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Just a couple of, did you want throw in? MR. STONE-We need an as built. MR. BROWN-Do you want to do the height? Since you’re doing height relief, do you want to confirm the overall height of the construction, or not? It’s just a thought. If you’re going to confirm setbacks, do you want to confirm height? And I don’t know, somebody talked about landscaping. Is that something you’d considered as a condition? I think Jim, I don’t know, just to remind you of what you discussed. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Well, I mentioned the three feet. That’s the vested relief we’re giving him. So if he builds above 31, he’s. MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess, in order to confirm that, like we do with an as built survey, we confirm setbacks from property lines. Do you want that survey also to reflect the height of the house? So that we confirm that it’s done. MR. HAYES-I think that’s a reasonable condition in this particular circumstance. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-You have your variance. MRS. MUNZENMAIER-Thank you very much. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. MUNZENMAIER-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Best of luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2001 TYPE II PATRICK A. & SALLY H. RUSSO AGENT: DENNIS J. TARANTINO, ESQ. OWNER OF PROPERTY: PATRICK A. & SALLY H. RUSSO LOCATION: 6 NEVER REST LANE (GLEN LAKE ROAD TO END OF ASH DRIVE) APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,274 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ZONE: WR-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 39-1-43 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-59 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES SECTION 179-16 DENNIS J. TARANTINO & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2001, Patrick A. & Sally H. Russo, Meeting Date: April 26, 2001 “Project Location: 6 Never Rest Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing one family residence and construction of a 2,274 sf single family dwelling and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home 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?: 17 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as a substantial request. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be an area available for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Relief of this magnitude may support future arguments for such complete “replacement in kind” requests. There appears to be an area available for compliant construction. A site inspection revealed discrepancies with the filed plot plan. The drive, represented as dirt, is actually paved. How was it calculated for this application? The paving appears to be much closer to the existing residence than as depicted on the filed plot plan. Were additional field measurements taken? Is the impermeable percentage accurate? Confirmation of the septic system proposed in this application has not been received as of 4/23/01. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-You’re on, sir. MR. TARANTINO-Thank you, sir. First of all, I understand that Dave Hatin has signed off on this project. MR. STONE-Introduced yourself. MR. TARANTINO-I’m sorry. Dennis J. Tarantino, agent for the applicant, Mr. Stone. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. TARANTINO-I do want to catch that last report. It’s my understanding that Tom Jarrett, who works for us on this project, has been in touch with Dave Hatin. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-For the record, a confirmation of the septic information, design information, was received yesterday or today. So the Building Department has confirmed that. There should be a letter in the file that it’s consistent with the requirements. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-So that’s up to enforcement, then, essentially, as far as this application? MR. BROWN-But typically it’s addressed before it gets before this Board so it’s not a concern. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s been addressed? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. TARANTINO-Secondly, of course this is the first I’ve heard the Staff comments, in reference to our survey map, which was prepared by Mr. Rourke, but I would like to just give you some brief background. This particular location, this particular improvement, has been in this location since 1941 when Dorothy Russo purchased the property from James McPhillips. The Russos are from South Glens Falls. Dorothy was married to Ralph, also known as Massie Russo, Massie’s Restaurant. In 1993, Dorothy Russo transferred this property to Patrick and Sally. So this is family property which is intended to be continued as family property in the future. In balancing a request of this nature, we really are talking about spacing of the property, and I’m sure you’ve all had an opportunity to see the property in question, but to appreciate the variance request, you’d have to either view the property from above, or from the lakeside, and when my office was first involved, we contacted adjoining neighbors, because obviously this is, although we’d say arguably not substantial, 17 feet certainly is a substantial variation. We found that both neighbors, both adjoiners, favor the variance, because if we were compliant, we would, by spacing ourselves center, affect their properties adversely, and I believe one of the neighbors is here tonight to support this application. So we feel strongly that by continuing this location, it’s going to continue to improve the neighborhood where we’re situated. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, a question, again. Going for strike two for Staff. The house is presently nonconforming, correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. HIMES-So the, I think according to the calculations and the floor area worksheet, that the proposed addition is about 61% increase. So would their also need to be a variance for, in connection with the enlargement of the? MR. BROWN-If this was an expansion of a residence. We’re talking about a removal and a construction of a new residence. MR. HIMES-And rebuilding. So there’s no? MR. BROWN-There’s no expansion of a nonconforming. MR. HIMES-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. STONE-It would become nonconforming if we make it so, with a variance. MR. BROWN-It would be an expansion of a nonconforming if they were adding to it. MR. STONE-I understand, but if we grant the variance, it becomes nonconforming, though, for future. MR. BROWN-Right. It still doesn’t make it a conforming structure just because it has a variance, right. MR. STONE-Right. That’s what I’m saying. All right. There were a couple of questions that Staff raised which I don’t think you answered, about permeability. We have a paved driveway. Do you have any idea about the percent of permeability on the lot? MR. TARANTINO-What I can tell you, Mr. Stone, is that we contacted Mr. Rourke, when we completed the application, and of course he prepared the map, and we asked him to give us those figures, and so those figures that we have in our application came from Mr. Rourke, his calculations. MR. STONE-I have to admit, I didn’t look. Where are we? MR. TARANTINO-Site Development Data. MR. STONE-Twenty-nine percent. MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s less than 35. MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Are you satisfied with that? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. BROWN-If that includes all the paved area, and if it includes the driveway as paved, rather than dirt that’s shown on the map. MR. STONE-Well, he shows paved, gravel and other hard surfaces, 4802. MR. BROWN-Is that counting the driveway as paved or dirt? MR. STONE-If the parcel is 20,000 square feet. The parcel area is claimed to be 20,700. Is that the size of the lot, to the best of your knowledge? MR. TARANTINO-I’m sorry, I was listening to my associate. MR. STONE-Okay. The total area of the lot, according to the survey, I’m not sure, if it’s on here, I haven’t found it. The total area of this lot is in fact 20,778? MR. HAYES-Right. MR. ABBATE-Yes. That’s it exactly, 20,778. MR. STONE-That’s what the number says, yes. MR. ABBATE-But is it actually, is your question? MR. STONE-Yes. Is it actually? MR. TARANTINO-To the best of my knowledge, yes. MR. HAYES-So what’s in question has to do with the paved areas, essentially, as they impact? MR. TARANTINO-Right, and my associate confirmed that when he spoke to Bill Rourke, he counted that area. MR. STONE-He counted the driveway as paved? MR. JARRETT-He counted it as paved, even though it says dirt driveway, he counted it as paved, as impermeable. MR. STONE-Okay. So you stand behind these numbers as taking into account the driveway as paved, and that brings the permeable area to, non-permeable to just less than 30%? MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct. MR. BROWN-And my other observation at the site was that the actual paved, I don’t know if you have this survey map, part of your application, the paving, it goes basically right up to the building, and almost to the front portion of the house as it’s shown on the map, and on this map, it doesn’t do that, and I just, I mean, that could be another couple thousand square feet. MR. HAYES-What’s the maximum percentage of impermeable in this? MR. STONE-Thirty-five. MR. HAYES-So the question is whether that would be six percent or not. I know what you’re talking about. It hugs closer to the. MR. BROWN-It’s closer to the building and closer to the lake. That’s all. MR. HAYES-But that’s on the applicant’s side. If it goes over that, then that’s going to be something they’ll have to deal with. MR. BROWN-But do you want to confirm it now, or are you comfortable? MR. HAYES-I don’t know if we’re going to be able to, right, without that measurement. MR. MC NALLY-Is it an issue? I mean, it’s not something that’s on the table. MR. STONE-It is something that we would have to grant a variance to, if it is over. Staff is concerned that it might be over the 35%. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. BROWN-Only because what we’re talking about is rebuilding a house, albeit slightly bigger, bigger than what’s there, and if it’s already out of compliance, do we want to make it more out of compliance? That’s the only question I’d have. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, but, correct me if I’m wrong, I mean, if it turns out that it’s more than 35% impermeable, then that’s their problem. MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-They’re going to have to come back and get a variance, or they’re going to have to take up part of their driveway. MR. BROWN-And there isn’t really another forum to figure that out, unless you guys ask for it right now. It doesn’t come up in the building permit process. It doesn’t come up as an annual site visit. It’s something that maybe you could ask for here, if you felt it necessary. MR. MC NALLY-A calculation or verification of that number? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re saying. Okay. MR. STONE-We need a true survey of the non-permeable areas, I guess is what Staff is suggesting to us, and I certainly think that it’s a good idea. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think we need to adjourn it for this, though. It’s just something you can make as a condition of the approval. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Just that you need an on site survey. MR. STONE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-At the same time, I wanted to throw out the concept of, I really think that in a lot of cases over here on the lake, people have put in these macadam areas that are so large, and there’s some question in my mind as to why we really need this just to park cars out there. I mean, I consider it, you know, a driveway is one thing, but this is a substantial large area down there that’s paved over, and maybe, as a condition, you know, maybe that could get changed to gravel, or something. MR. STONE-Not gravel. Gravel is non-permeable. MR. UNDERWOOD-But Number Two stone or whatever that is. MR. STONE-I don’t care what you guys said last night. I mean, technically, gravel is non-permeable, in Queensbury. MR. TARANTINO-May I respond briefly to Mr. Underwood? Tom Jarrett’s with me tonight, who worked on the septic. He can address the fact that we may have less with this septic system. MR. JARRETT-Well, we might have a mitigating factor here. If you’ll see, I think in your package there’s a sketch regarding what’s proposed for sewage disposal, and you’ll notice that we’re proposing a leachfield or a leach bed right behind the new structure. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’ll remove some of the paved area. MR. JARRETT-Yes. We’ve already told the owners they’re going to have to remove some of the parking there, the macadam parking lot, to accommodate this system. So I think we can definitely modified the impermeable area to come within compliance. MR. STONE-Okay. So I think we will probably put a condition, if we get to that point, that we have to know exactly what the impermeable is. MR. JARRETT-Sure, that’s reasonable. MR. STONE-So it has to be in conformity. I don’t care if it’s 34.9, or 25.9, it has to be in conformity, as far as we’re concerned, at this point. Okay. Is that the two points that you were concerned about? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. HIMES-Excuse me. Could I ask a question? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. HIMES-This is a shared driveway and all, isn’t it, in parking? I’m just flashing through my mind here. I don’t know if I’m asking a sensible question or not. In terms of the impact of the driveway and the parking area, does that all fall on this lot, or the fact that the people on the other side use it also, right? MR. STONE-Well, but the line goes down the middle of the macadam, I assume, and therefore they’re responsible for their side. MR. MC NALLY-All this macadam is on Mr. Russo’s property. MR. STONE-It’s all on? Okay. MR. MC NALLY-So what they do is, the permeability is per lot. So whatever it is on that lot, whoever uses it, it doesn’t matter, but whatever it is on that lot, as a percent. MR. HIMES-I was just thinking as like a credit to nothing being on, you know, that’s all I was thinking. MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re, yes. MR. BROWN-If I could just for clarification, the applicant’s agent in his application noted that this lot doesn’t have frontage on a Town road. That is, as much as I don’t like to admit it, an oversight on my part in the notes, which is something you should get relief for tonight, to avoid another hearing. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-A technicality, but it should be included in the relief. MR. MC NALLY-Is that like a pre-existing condition, though? MR. BROWN-It’s a pre-existing condition but once you take the house down, then you start again, and to build a house it has to have frontage. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. I know that particular rule. Okay. MR. STONE-Yes. Remember, we have no footprint rule in the Town of Queensbury. That’s why we’re here. Anything else you want to add? MR. TARANTINO-Simply that in this process we do have the support of both adjoining owners. We do have access, certainly, by insurable access to our property. We’ve had that since 1941, and we’d appreciate the Board voting on this this evening. Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask a question, Mr. Tarantino? Looking at the papers, I was struck at how so much relief is being asked, since the house is on the line. When I visited it, it occurs to me it looks like every house is so close to their side lines. So they’re evenly spaced apart. MR. TARANTINO-Exactly. MR. MC NALLY-But I was just curious, on some of the paper, in the statement of consent, there’s an attachment there, a drawing, and it shows Lot 11, Lot 10, and Lot 9, and that conforms to the subdivision. I think that the applicant’s lot is Lot 10, and a portion of Lot 9? MR. TARANTINO-That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-How did that happen? It looks as if it was built centered on Lot 10. The next door neighbor’s house is built centered on Lot 9, but somewhere along the way the lines got shifted. MR. TARANTINO-Well, that’s a good question. We were talking about that this evening when we got here, but looking at the abstract of title, the parcel that Russo purchased in 1941 in fact came in just exactly as it is today, but again, if you see the properties from the lake, camp on the left by Touba, Camp of Russo and Camp of Prenderville are perfectly spaced, as they exist today. So I think there’d be more hardship to our neighbors if we followed the Ordinance. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-I see what you’re saying. MR. STONE-Okay. I will open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? I propose, by the way, to read in these two statements of consent, just to have them in the minutes rather than just in the record, when we get there. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LINDA WHITTY MRS. WHITTY-My name is Linda Whitty. I live on the property behind them. Actually, it’s the property behind the Clark residence, and it overlooks the Russo residence. I’m here, if I may say, on my own behalf and also my parents, who are the Clarks, who are unable to attend, but I did come over to the Town and we went through the plan together, and discussed it. I sort of wrote out something. It makes it easier. As I said, I had an opportunity to view the plans in the Building and Codes office, and we felt that this is a welcomed asset to the neighborhood, both aesthetically and otherwise. Might I add that they did a nice job with the plan, the design and the position of the building. They have always been respectful, responsible neighbors, and it is nice to see them on a full time basis. We do have some concerns, and those concerns really have been addressed. So I would just like to just re-echo them if I may. We had trouble finding the well on the map, but eventually that location was discovered, and between the new well position and the septic, these are the questions we came up with. Has the permeability rate for the new septic been figured based on a dirt driveway, as indicated on the map, or has it been based on the paved driveway which exists on the property? And if the driveway continues to exist as it is, will there be vehicle traffic over any part of the leachfield or any sensitive area of the new septic? On the overall, we are in favor of the Russo’s proposal, so long as there is careful consideration and appropriate guidance on the part of the Town to protect the quality of the lake. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Next? MARK BROWN MR. BROWN-I’m Mark Brown. I live on Birch, on the end of Birch. I’m on the other side of Clark, about the same distance she is, and the lot lines are generally, as I’ve looked at the survey maps, they’re measured from the lake back, and the way the houses are situated, it kind of bends around, but they’re pretty much lined up, and we can see the house from two of the bedrooms, and our house (lost words) and it’s not offending like it is. We can see it from the parking lot. What I would, we’ve got a lot of water problem over here in my parking lot, and I hope they don’t raise the elevation of their property when this construction, so that the drainage drains through Clark’s into my yard, because I’m already getting it from Birch Road and from all the other neighbors, and at times I’ve got a foot deep of water there, and I’d rather not add to that, but otherwise I’d be, because to get through Clark’s yard, it’s got to go uphill just a little bit, as it is present. So if they just keep it the way it is, it won’t add to it, but if they backfill in between their house and the whole, as it comes away from the lake, it slopes uphill generally in everybody’s yard in varying different degrees. If they raise their back yard when they raise the structure, I will be a little bit annoyed if I end up with more water in my yard now, but otherwise, I would be 100% in favor of them having their house It looks nice the way they’re all lined up, the same way as they are now, and my house is nine inches off the property line at one point and thirty-five foot on the other side, and as far as I can tell my place was built in like 1907, before the properties were subdivided. So, they surveyed off my surveys when they were doing some of this initial work, and I’m not, I hope to get along with the neighbors. MR. STONE-Technically, Craig, you’re responsible for your own stormwater, correct? MR. C. BROWN-Sure, that’s correct. MR. STONE-So if they do anything that gets on to your property, they have to mitigate it. That’s, Mr. Brown’s, one of his responsibilities. MR. BROWN-I just don’t want to add to what’s there. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BROWN-If they keep that elevation there. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MARK PRENDERVILLE MR. PRENDERVILLE-My name is Mark Prenderville, and I’m in favor. I’m the next door neighbor, and I own the property that they had the easement across to come down. They’ve been great neighbors for many years, and I can shed a little light on why the buildings are built the way they are. Our house was there in 1904, and it was part of an association at one point, and when the association broke up, part of the land went to the next door neighbor, and part of the land went to us, and that’s why the house is built where it is now, and then the Russo’s, or whoever owned it at that time, built on their property next door. As you look at all the houses from the lake, they’re all set about equal distance apart, and they all are located on one side of the property. If they did have to move into the middle, to conform, it would be a hardship not only for me, as a next door neighbor because I’m close to that line, but also for Mrs. Whitty, because it would affect her view from back in her house down to the lake, I believe. MR. STONE-I was surprised she didn’t say that. I figured she was going to. MR. PRENDERVILLE-Also, one thing to remember is they’re two feet from the line now. They are moving to three feet from the line. So that is giving a little bit of setback. They’ve been great neighbors over the years. They’re honest, hardworking, very good people, and I’d like to say I’m 100% in favor of their building. Thank you. MR. STONE-I meant to ask you a question, just for edification. You say they have an easement through your property. So you own around behind where the drive is? MR. PRENDERVILLE-Back in 1985, the Clarks and my parents purchased a piece of property in back of the houses, up to the road that’s up there. The line, as you look at, yes, Ash Drive, it goes at an angle up. MR. BROWN-But this is in the packet, the Prenderville to the north. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead. MR. PRENDERVILLE-That’s it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Anybody wishing to speak for, I’ll go back to for. Anybody against? Anybody in opposition? Any correspondence? What I would like you to do, just for the record, is read in, summarize the beginning up here and just read the filing with the Zoning Board of Appeals, for these two pieces, just to get it into the record. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This is to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, regarding this application, and it’s from Mark Prenderville, “The undersigned consents to the application of Patrick A. and Sally H. Russo to demolish the existing two story frame dwelling and to construct a year round residence in the same or similar location notwithstanding that said new construction may violate the existing town code for the Town of Queensbury.” The undersigned consents that an original copy may be filed with the Queensbury Zoning Board, and that’s essentially what this is. MR. STONE-Okay. And then read the other one, basically the same language. MR. UNDERWOOD-Basically the same language, again, on that one, and this one is from Riza & Jacqueline Touba, owners of Tax Map Parcel 39-1-44, that’s the parcel just to the west, and it’s basically the same thing. “The undersigned consents to the application of Patrick A. and Sally H. Russo to demolish the existing two story frame dwelling and to construct a year round residence in the same or similar location notwithstanding that said new construction may violate the existing town code for the Town of Queensbury.” MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak? Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Tarantino, you may come back up. Do you have any responses to anything that you’ve heard that you want to comment on? MR. TARANTINO-I don’t believe so. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-The one neighbor expressed some concern about runoff, and I presume this construction is not going to result in any runoff onto his property? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. TARANTINO-Not if Mr. Jarrett does his job properly. We don’t anticipate a problem there. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Jamie, let’s start with you. MR. HAYES-Well, I guess this is the second case in my mind that looked worse on paper than it did after the presentation by the applicant, and I guess Mr. Tarantino is to be complimented in that capacity. As I look at this, the benefit to the applicant is obvious. They want a new camp, and while the one they have is nice, it’s, I can understand why. Feasible alternatives, in this particular case, I think it’s a point well taken that, in this particular case, feasible alternatives, it might actually impact several of the neighbors adversely in this, by centering it on this lot. So while this Board is going to maintain a high degree of examination toward replacement style variances, because of their implications and any precedent they’d be setting, in this unique case, I think that feasible alternatives are negative by comparison to placement of the replacement home where this one is. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly it is. Seventeen feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement, there’s no way to not call that significant, and I think that the applicants have acknowledged the same, but that relief, that dimensional relief, again, is actually consistent with the surrounding neighbors. They all, by testimony, are relative close to their property lines, and that, in the cumulative sense, actually makes for good setbacks from each other. So, I’m not sure what the official language for that would be, but that’s the result. As far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t believe that there really will be any in this particular case. I think they’re minimal, certainly. As long as the Russo’s agree to comply with the permeability requirements of the Town and the concerns of immediate neighbors, I think that replacement of the camp is going to be an addition to the neighborhood. If I was next door, I think it would be a positive. So, as a matter of record, as far as I can see, we have all four sides of this property with strong neighbor support, and that’s important to me. I mean, I think that they’re the ones that are immediately impacted, as far as this small neighborhood, and they’re all for it, in this particular case. So, is the difficulty self created? I don’t think it is entirely. I think that the configuration of these lots and the placement of the Prenderville’s house and the Touba’s house on the left in this particular case, I think that this goes back decades in this particular circumstance, and I don’t think it’s a self-created difficulty. I think this difficulty was created by the nature and placement of all the existing homes in that neighborhood, and therefore, in the cumulative sense, I think most of the test falls in favor of the applicant, outside of substantial relief, and I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-Like Jamie said. When I opened up my packet, and I saw that they were going to build a house right next to the line, I said something like a cold day in Hell, as far as that, because whenever we see this, and they’re going to take down a house to the ground and build a new one, we make them (lost word), but when I got to the site, it only makes perfect sense that the house would be built where it is, because of the history of it, and also, you know, the purpose of the setback requirement is to give yourself some elbow room on either side, and you’d be going against that public purpose by making them center it on this particular lot, given the circumstances that are here. I don’t find any effect on the neighborhood whatsoever. I’m in favor of it, and the other thing is, when I open up the packet, is I was surprised to see that it’s only a 2,200 some odd square foot building. It was nice to see that someone wasn’t going to put a 10,000 square foot house on a lakefront home. This is a modest, very comfortable home and a nice place. It’ll be in keeping with the neighborhood. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I would agree. I believe that this is a reasonable request. I think that, as Jamie indicated, that this construction will be a positive addition to the neighborhood. I think the location makes perfect sense, as Bob has indicated, and I think if we coupled this with conditions of approval dealing with impermeability areas, what have you, I would have no problem supporting the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I agree with what Jamie and Bob and Chuck have said. I’d add only one thing. I don’t think it’s come up. It’s a slight but perhaps important item, that you’re actually moving it back a little bit to be in compliance with the shoreline setback. They’re within 50 feet now, and they’re moving it to 50 feet, even though it’s only a half a foot or so that they’re going, which is commendable, and we’re glad that that was taken into consideration. Otherwise, I agree with what’s been said, and I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Roy? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. URRICO-In adding my metaphor to the growing list on this Board, I’ll compare this to Alice in Wonderland, where nothing is quite what it seems on paper, and I admit, when I looked at this packet when it arrived, I was a little shocked at what you were asking, but visiting the property, and hearing the presentation, I understand why, and as far as the weight of the community, which would have been a negative from my standpoint, would be the equivalent of straightening out the Leaning Tower of Pisa, that if you put this in the center, it would have a cumulative effect on the neighborhood of everybody having to conform, and that certainly wouldn’t be better for the neighborhood. So, I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board. MR. STONE-Any more metaphors? MR. URRICO-No, I think I’ve used them up. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Living over on the lake, I paddle by these three places over here all the time, and the one thing that always strikes me with them is that, you know, they’re the classic old style camps on the lake, and somebody had the forethought, even back in the early 1900’s, to lay them out in such a manner that none of them are offensive to each other, and I think that the present, you know, structure as it stands is in the right place. The one that you had proposed is a well thought out design, and I think it preserves that look of the old camp and I think everybody in the neighborhood is satisfied, you know, I’m satisfied, too, that this is the best way to go. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly concur. I have no metaphors, but I have to admit, it took me a little longer than it might have taken Mr. McNally. I wrote down, after looking at the property, without having the benefit of this gentleman’s kayaking by the property all the time, and other people having maybe an airplane to fly over, of this uniformity, I wrote, no, but I want to congratulate you on your presentation, because it was extremely helpful, to me, to allow me to say this is really a good project, and we’re not really giving away anything, particularly when you consider that the house is still up against a hill. I know it’s a hill because I walked down it, because I went to the wrong property first. I came down through the side, so there’s definitely, there’s protection from the other house, and when you consider everything else that was said by the group, particularly Mr. Hayes, I have no problem with this thing. The one thing I would ask, as I call for a motion, I would like two things to be included, one is that the matter of permeability. I would just like to make sure that this is, well, it’ll be a new house, so there will be an as built, but that it does reflect the permeable and impermeable surfaces on the property. I would also like something, if we can get it in, to relieve the concern expressed by Staff that relief of this magnitude may support future arguments for such complete replacement. So I would like the kind of discussion. MR. HAYES-Special circumstances. MR. STONE-Yes, in the motion. MR. HAYES-And we need this, too, this is the motion. MR. STONE-Yes, the motion about the public right of way. We’ve got to have that, too. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2001 PATRICK A. & SALLY H. RUSSO, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 6 Never Rest Lane. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing one family residence and the construction of a 2,274 square foot single family dwelling, and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Specifically, the applicant requests 17 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and relief from Section 179-70, requiring 40 feet of frontage on a public road. The benefit to the applicant would be that they would be permitted to essentially rebuild a new camp in the location that their existing home sits. Feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives have been discussed in this matter, but I think the general consensus is that the current location of the home, as a rebuilt site, is preferable to feasible alternatives, in that the home is now placed in an area that provides adequate room between the existing camps and also a balance in the neighborhood. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Certainly 17 feet of relief from a 20 foot requirement is substantial, and the applicants have acknowledged same. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that, through testimony and also letters and other public input that, in this particular case, the effect on the neighborhood or community will be a positive one. The new camp will be a compliment to the neighborhood and certainly upgrade an addition or an improvement of the existing septic field will be a positive on the neighborhood as well. So I think, from that perspective, in a cumulative sense, it will be an improvement on the neighborhood and a compliment. Is the difficulty self-created? I don’t believe that it is entirely self-created. I think that the placement of this home, as a replacement home, has to do with the pre-existing locations of the existing camps, both this one and the camps in 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) the immediate area, and, therefore, this difficulty was created decades ago, and this is not created by the current applicants. As a contingency to this motion, I would like to make it contingent that the applicants understand and comply with the requirement that the non-permeable surface on this parcel not exceed 35%, as stipulated by the Code. I think, as a further stipulation to confirm the permeability, we’re going to require an as built survey that confirms the dimensional relief requested, which is substantial, and also to confirm that the permeability requirements in the front, the setback from the lake are all met, so, essentially, compliance with the Code. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-There you go. MR. TARANTINO-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2001 TYPE II TERRY KARANIKAS AGENT: N/A OWNER OF PROPERTY: TERRY KARANIKAS LOCATION: 19 QUEENS WAY; KINGSWOOD ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 432 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ZONE: MR-5 CURRENT OLD ZONE: USE R-3 (R-5 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ZONING AMENDMENT ON SEPT. 5 , 1973) OLD TAX MAP NO. 70-4-19 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.61-1-11 LOT SIZE: 0.01 ACRES (RESIDENTIAL CONDO) SECTION 179-18 (OLD ZONING R-3) TERRY KARANIKAS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2001, Terry Karanikas, Meeting Date: April 26, 2001 “Project Location: 19 Queens Way Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 432 sf residential addition and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the old R-3 zoning district. R-3 was the zoning designation of the property at the time of the subdivision approval; June 8, 1974. 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. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The current zoning; MR-5 allows for a 10 foot rear setback. The property is surrounded by common lands of the subdivision/Home Owners Association. Has the applicant received an approval, if necessary, from the HOA? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I’d just like to explain what I just handed to you, and I’m sure the applicant can do more. It’s a revised application. The addition square footage goes from 432 down to 288, and it’s not 18 feet off the back of the house it’s only 12 feet off the back of the house, effectively removing itself six feet further from the property line. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-So I’ll pass it to the applicant. MR. HAYES-So he’s now requesting four feet. MR. BROWN-Six feet less than what he was before. MR. HAYES-So he’s requesting four feet of a thirty foot setback? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I’ve got an HOA approval for 12 feet only, and that’s pending, you know, architectural drawings and what it’s going to look like, which I haven’t gotten to that point, other than the sketches that you see. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-Okay. You’re requesting, therefore, six foot of relief from the thirty foot minimum. MR. KARANIKAS-Four feet. MR. STONE-Four feet. MR. BROWN-Four feet of relief. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, sir. Anything you want to add? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I’m Terry Karanikas. I’ve lived at 19 Queens Way for 10 years now. I moved there with my wife and one son, and it was large enough, and we like it there, and we’ve recently, and I have a daughter, also from another marriage that would come from New Hampshire and stay over in the summertime and stuff, and we recently had two children in the last three years, and obviously it’s too small for me now, and I really my area, and I had asked, we just bought the property. We’ve been renting for say nine years of the ten years, and I was asked by the owners to buy it, and I had told them that we were thinking of moving out if we couldn’t build out, and they had said other people have done up and out, it shouldn’t be a problem, and so what I did is I asked my next door neighbor at the time, was the only one Bob Scarano, to go out, have dinner with me to tell him what the Antis’ were asking me to do, and I had asked him if I could build out without opposition from him, and he had told me at that time that he didn’t have a problem with it. So I said well, please tell me if you do, and I’ll have the consideration of moving on, because we obviously need to move on, once my daughter came out of the crib, and he said he didn’t have a problem with it. So I asked the Board if I, well, I had to buy the place first, because that was the first consideration, because I knew everybody else had gone at least 12 feet, and in one case there was one 18 there that I guess was on the original building option, I guess, at the beginning of the (lost word) built, and they had granted me the 12 foot pending architectural, make sure it looks like the same design as what’s there, and there’s three other, I think three other, 12 foot additions. So they said that they felt that the 18 foot wasn’t something I could do and I wanted to do it, but they would go 12 feet. So I have the resolution in there, as far as what they allowed me at that time, and I guess I kind of screwed up when I went for the application. I forgot about my patio. So I put it in for 18 because I wanted my patio, and he said that I could build back to 12, and have my patio, if I got the variance for it, but then, obviously, everybody got my information, because they’re entitled to it. They got a little upset. So I said, okay, I’ll just make sure I get my 12 feet, and submit the plans before the building permit, and I’m here today. MR. STONE-A couple of questions. One of my concerns, looking at the property, was the condition of the fence back there. Now I know not many people see that, but would you be willing to make that fence up to aesthetic qualities? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, of course. What happened is that the, we were having problems with trees falling on our buildings in the last two years. So I had some trees removed, and that’s what happened to the fence last year, and I had had the intention of building another fence, you know, as we’re going to build the back. Right now I think it would make a good construction fence until I was done, and then I’d make a nicer fence around it, you know, to keep the children in. MR. STONE-I mean, it would help me, in granting this, if you would agree, when we get there. MR. KARANIKAS-I think I put in there that the existing fence would be, obviously, upgraded, I think. I’m not sure. MR. STONE-Any questions of Mr. Karanikas? MR. MC NALLY-May I ask, Craig, the property had a septic tank and field originally, and now the field is being replaced by a seepage pit, drywell, is that what’s happening? MR. BROWN-I think probably Mr. Karanikas has further information. MR. KARANIKAS-It was a pit. MR. MC NALLY-It’s always been a seepage pit? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I think in the, I don’t know which page it is, but it shows this map here, and it shows the seepage pits, the existing ones. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So by bumping out this house, you’re going to have to have to put in a new seepage pit? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I have approval for that, from the last Board, Board of Health, two days ago, I guess it was. MR. BROWN-Yes, the Town Board gave a septic variance. MR. KARANIKAS-And it was approved. MR. STONE-And you got permission to put it on HOA lands? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, as long as I don’t go into other people’s property. MR. ABBATE-Did you receive a letter from the Homeowners Association? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, it’s on the last page. MR. STONE-It’s in the minutes, it’s there. I read it. Signed by the applicant, who is the Secretary of the organization. MR. KARANIKAS-There have been other people that have needed it at the time. Obviously, I was like, well, I need one also because I knew that 12. MR. STONE-I’m only making a joke. I mean it’s nice to be able to sign your own permission. MR. HIMES-Excuse me, but the letter that’s in the file, does that pertain to the septic part of it going on to the land, as I recall in here somewhere reading that, and what I was wondering about is the Homeowner Association support for the extension itself. Is that in writing? I don’t think I saw that in the file. Maybe it is in there. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I think this is this. Yes, I missed it. MR. MC NALLY-You showed two photographs. MR. KARANIKAS-Right. MR. MC NALLY-These are photographs from where? MR. KARANIKAS-That’s from our condo. MR. STONE-I couldn’t make heads or tails out of it. MR. KARANIKAS-Actually, I didn’t take the other three photos of the other ones that are in the back, but those are the two that, I was showing 18 feet and then somebody went up, and that precedent I thought was warranted that I could do it as long as Bob was okay with it, and I guess. MR. STONE-These are other homes, not yours. MR. KARANIKAS-Right, other condo units. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And you’re showing bump outs of 18 feet, by these photographs, at other units, is what you’re saying? MR. KARANIKAS-Right. That one on the bottom was originally, I guess, an option that they could do when they were building the condos, and the other ones that I didn’t show were built after. They didn’t need a variance because they were, 12 feet was fine. I guess mine I need one. So, that’s why I’m here, and the one that shows the second story, I was just showing that somebody had built up above their footprint, and it’s a two story. MR. STONE-Okay. I had trouble finding what. MR. KARANIKAS-Okay. Because one side is garage, and he had built another section of his house above that garage. So it’s kind of like this. You probably just didn’t pick out MR. ABBATE-Your modification has been reduced from 432 to 288. Am I correct on those figures? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAYES-It’s two story, though, right? MR. KARANIKAS-That’s all I’ve been allowed by the Homeowners. MR. ABBATE-And four foot from the six foot minimum is what you’re also requesting? MR. HAYES-From the 30 foot minimum. MR. ABBATE-The 30 foot minimum. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. KARANIKAS-Now, if I want to put my existing patio in there, is that a problem? MR. HAYES-No. MR. KARANIKAS- See, that’s where I got confused. MR. MC NALLY-Well, it’s a stone patio? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, well, it’s block stone, yes, pavers. MR. MC NALLY-So that doesn’t impact the Town Building Code. The Homeowners Association may have your own rules, but MR. HAYES-It’s not a structure, essentially. MR. BROWN-It’s an at grade stone patio. MR. KARANIKAS-I must have misunderstood them, like it was going to be a deck I was putting back there. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re starting from the same, you’re not increasing the height of the building? MR. KARANIKAS-No. MR. STONE-You’re starting from the ridge line. MR. KARANIKAS-What happened at the meeting is that the other person, the picture there, the roof, the snow comes down and knocks out other people’s fences or whatever, and the concern with them is that if I did the same thing, it throw snow in each one of these back yards. So, I said okay, if you go with it, I’ll shoot it back. It’s not a great pitch to do, and I’ll have to probably watch it, but I’m willing to take care of my own snow off my own roof. MR. STONE-So this is going to be a flat roof type? MR. KARANIKAS-Whatever that pitch is that’s on the front dormer. MR. STONE-But I mean it’s going to go straight back the whole width of the house? MR. KARANIKAS-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEITH POWERS MR. POWERS-Hi. My name’s Keith Powers. I’m Treasurer of the Association. I don’t have a problem with him. What we did, we voted to give him 12 foot clearance or, you know, setback that he could build a 12 foot, as long as he, you know, he’s going to keep the same roofline. He’s just going to pitch it back. I don’t have any problem with the building of it at all. I mean, he needs the space. The Board, we still have to approve it, and if we move it forward, then I don’t have a problem with it. Okay. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-You said, I’m sorry, you said your Board had to approve it still? MR. POWERS-Yes. Well, when the plans come in, you know. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Because we’ve got some approval already. So, is that? MR. POWERS-We granted him, yes. We gave him permission to seek for 12 feet. MR. MC NALLY-And then you’ve got to final approve the plans. Is that what you’re saying? MR. POWERS-Yes. He’s going to give us, I guess, architectural drawings of it and what not. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Elevations. Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? ANN BLANCHARD MRS. BLANCHARD-I’m not speaking either way. I’m just going to speak. I’m very tired and it’s very late, and I know you are volunteers, and so am I. I’m here tonight. MR. STONE-Name, please. MRS. BLANCHARD-I’m sorry. My name is Ann Blanchard, and I’m here as President of the Homeowners Association at Kingswood. Our full Board is here, along with a couple of homeowners. We are governed by a set of by-laws. Our by-laws clearly state that no addition can be added, etc., without written approval from the Board of Directors. As you’ve probably gathered, Mr. Karanikas happens to be on the Board and happens to be the Secretary. We don’t even know what you have before you tonight. We discussed the 12 foot additions. I have one on my back which is 10 by 14. He’s talking, now he’s gone from 18 to 12, but he’s also talking 24 and he’s talking two story. We met on Tuesday night and indicated that we would need to see an architectural blueprint, it was shown here tonight. We also need to seek input from the others. There are 28 units at Kingswood. There are 28 homeowners, and then we will proceed. So I’m simply here to let you know that there is a Board, and we do have by-laws, and we have to live with them. MR. STONE-And all we’re discussing tonight is the back edge of the possible extension, where does that sit, visa vie the property line, and that all we’re talking about. MRS. BLANCHARD-And that’s it. MR. HAYES-And if he has a private agreement with you, that’s enforceable amongst yourselves. MRS. BLANCHARD-So this is just for the back? MR. STONE-This is just for back. MR. MC NALLY-Setback relief from the rear property line. MR. HAYES-And it does not supercede your private agreements either. I mean, this is the public portion of it. MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay. MR. STONE-In other words, you couldn’t, even if you wanted to give 18 feet, let’s say, he could go back 18, he’d still have to come to us because that wouldn’t meet the setback requirements. So, all we’re saying, all we would say tonight is that the northern edge of this house is okay. We’ll grant relief to go as far north as he wants to go, to the extent, on his property, the property line. That’s what I mean when I say that. Within his property, he is required to maintain 30 foot from the property line. He is asking relief from that 30 feet. MR. HAYES-To be 26 foot. MR. STONE-That’s all he’s asking us. MRS. BLANCHARD-And also there was a letter faxed over by Bob Scarano. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got that. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay. I just wanted to make sure you got that. MR. STONE-Yes, we’ll read that in. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read that in. MRS. BLANCHARD-So, I just, for our satisfaction, I just wanted to make sure that. MR. STONE-We are doing nothing to take away your jurisdiction. MRS. BLANCHARD-But my question is this. If someone did propose to put on a back porch, let’s say eight by ten, would they need a variance from the Town? MR. STONE-If it doesn’t, if it’s closer to the property line than 30 feet. MRS. BLANCHARD-Than 30 feet. MR. HAYES-It depends on where it situates compared to the rear property line. Everyone’s going to be slightly different, by definition. MRS. BLANCHARD-So as long as there’s 30 feet, you don’t need a variance? MR. STONE-That’s correct. MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay. MR. STONE-But they still need your permission. MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes. MR. STONE-And we are not superceding that in any way. MR. HAYES-We don’t intend to. MR. STONE-We don’t intend to. MRS. BLANCHARD-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-So the Homeowners Association with then review this. MRS. BLANCHARD-The Board of Directors will, and hopefully we’ll get, we have a couple of homeowners here tonight. I think we need to get input from the other homeowners, and then we’ll see an architectural blueprint like was presented here earlier tonight, and then we’ll make a decision. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Have you seen what they’ve submitted? MRS. BLANCHARD-We came over last week and got the original. We did not see what he submitted tonight, no. None of us have seen that. MR. MC NALLY-From what I see it looks like it just reduces it from 18 to 12, basically. MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HAYES-The same width. MRS. BLANCHARD-The same width. MR. STONE-It’s the total width of the house. MRS. BLANCHARD-Of the house, of the building. MR. HIMES-And it’s the septic that’s the thing that’s involved with the (lost words). MR. STONE-No, they gave permission to put the seepage pit on HOA property. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. HAYES-They’ve done that with other people, apparently. MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Both the Town and the Homeowners Association? MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes. MR. STONE-But the septic tank will be 10 feet from wherever he’s going, and it’ll be far enough from the property line to be fine. MRS. BLANCHARD-Right. MR. STONE-It’s the seepage pit that encroaches on HOA property and they’ve given permission for that. MRS. BLANCHARD-Yes. We have. MR. HAYES-That’s not part of what we’re handling here. MRS. BLANCHARD-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BLANCHARD-Thank you for your time, gentlemen. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak, either way? JOHN SULLIVAN MR. SULLIVAN-My name is John Sullivan. I live at 9 Queens Way Drive in part of the Association, and the person with me is Catherine Jones, who lives next door to Mr. Karanikas on the other side of where Mr. Scarano lives. First of all, I feel some personal involvement here because I was the one that helped Mrs. Jones access and purchase the property and come up there with the idea what she was purchasing, and the very first thing I want to say is, if you go back 12 feet is one thing. There are homes that have gone back 12 feet, both with permanent, year round and also sun porches, mine being one, and was there, excuse me, when I purchased the property, but if you go back 12 feet and go two stories, then it definitely impacts them, Mr. Scarano and Miss Jones’, property. It also impacts on their privacy and also their view, and it would block off one section of her windows in her dining room completely. The other problem that I see, and I don’t know if this addresses your situation, either, that also then you start the problem, since they are so close, of there’s going to be water problems, water drainage problems off the roof, both in the snow, in the winter and also in any time of rain. She also presently has an extension off her, the side of her, directly next to Mr. Karanikas’ property, his building. Incidentally, the property is outside his common property on our buildings, and I think her extension from the roof to take the water off now goes back at least I think 12 feet. If he goes back another 12 feet, now you’ve got to go beyond that with an extension to, just to take the rain off, without getting some type of drainage, and I’m not an engineer or anything else like that, but I know that could be a problem, both to her, and maybe to even his property in the future. MR. STONE-Again, that argument is, I think, for the Homeowners Association. MR. SULLIVAN-Right. MR. STONE-Really, all we’re concerned about is the back wall, technically. We’re actually concerned with even less than that. MR. SULLIVAN-Right. MR. STONE-We’re concerned with the closest point of this back wall to the property line. MR. SULLIVAN-To the property line, I understand that. MR. STONE-If it were canted it would be one little point, but it’s the closest point. MR. SULLIVAN-It’s my understanding there’s several questions that asks, talks about hardship and unavailable difficulty because of this. Mr. Karanikas bought this property I believe last summer. He had lived there prior as a rental. He knows there’s an Association. He knows there’s a process. I 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) would think, if I was to buy a property, and I already looked at it and thought that I would want to build on to it, that before I closed, that I would certainly take legal advice to find out, you know, that I would put a purchase offer down with a contingency, before I just went ahead and purchased the property, no matter how good the deal, if I wasn’t going to be able to, later on, do what I needed to do. So I question that, in a projection of difficulty, finding being pinched by circumstances, and I really have a problem with that. I’ve also heard, as far as the roofs, and taking care of the snow is concerned, none of us, as homeowners, have permission to go on the roofs ourselves. None of us have permission, it’s my understanding, according to the By-laws, to contract an outside agent, unless approved by the Board, and gone through the Board’s approval, and also the Board’s contracting, to making sure that there’s liability and other insurance’s. So that’s, you know, I hear that as a quick response as saying, we can do this, but my understanding, according to our By-laws, that is not permissible. That’s all I have to say at this point. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? ED ROBITI MR. ROBITI-Good evening. My name is Ed Robiti. I live at 7 Queens Way in the same development. There was a question earlier, I forget who asked it, relative to the fence, replacement, repair, whatever, of the fence. MR. STONE-I did. MR. ROBITI-Fences are specifically prohibited by the By-laws. That’s Number One. If the fence is taken down, because it is there. The fence is there and it’s probably a nonconforming use right now. If the fence is taken down, the possibility of putting up another fence is questionable, and I don’t know if that comes within your purview or if that is something that’s strictly, again. MR. HAYES-Private agreement. MR. ROBITI-By private agreement. MR. STONE-As long as the fence meets the height requirements of the Code, and it, I mean, we have a Fence Ordinance part of our Code. As long as it meets that, then it we don’t get involved. If he wanted it to be seven feet high, then he would have to seek a variance, but the fact that he can put it in, if it meets the Code. MR. ROBITI-But if the fence has to be taken down, the fence that is presently there, if it has to be taken down, to be replaced, is that a problem for any of the Planning Board to consider? MR. HAYES-It’s a problem for the Homeowners Association. MR. MC NALLY-I had a sense, Lew, maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong, I think Mr. Stone was concerned because of the condition of that fence. MR. STONE-Yes, the condition is what I was talking about. MR. ROBITI-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that if it was something that was okay, he might make it as a condition that it be replaced with a new one, so it would look better, but, if the Homeowners Association prohibits them all together, then we don’t have any say in that, unless maybe he wants to help you guys to have it done. MR. ROBITI-Well, that clarifies it greatly to know that we’re talking about, that your only concern, at this point, is the back wall, as you say, the distance from the setback. MR. STONE-The back wall, but we have the best interest of the Town of Queensbury. We have a balancing act, as you may have heard all evening long, between the benefit to the applicant and what we call the detriment to the community. Now, granted, I realize behind there is, I guess it’s a drive-in theater back there, but the point is, it can be seen, it can be seen by someone visiting or who lives in Queensbury, and some of the times, when we get a variance, we put certain conditions on it, just because it’s an opportunity, the applicant is seeking something and we’re saying it would be better for the community if this looked better. MR. ROBITI-Right. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. STONE-And we can put that condition on. Now, if we were to put that condition on, and your rules would still take precedence over having a fence. All we would say, if you’re going to have a fence, it ought to look nice. MR. ROBITI-Okay. There was something that I noticed in the application process that was relative to being detrimental to the character of the surroundings. MR. HAYES-That’s part of the test. MR. STONE-That’s part of the test. The community, in this case, is your area, primarily. MR. HAYES-The neighborhood. MR. STONE-The neighborhood. MR. ROBITI-But the consideration as to whether it’s detrimental to the character of the neighborhood is a consideration for us on the Board. MR. HAYES-And us. MR. STONE-And us. MR. ROBITI-And you. MR. STONE-But certainly you. I mean, you have your rules and regulations. MR. ROBITI-Okay. MR. HAYES-We just can’t get into the enforcement of private agreements. You have your own attorneys for that. MR. STONE-I mean, yes, that’s a good point. If, in the middle of the night, the applicant, and I don’t want to use his, but an applicant, somebody put in an addition, if they could do it overnight, and it met all of the other Code requirements, we could not say take it down. You could say take it down, as your Homeowners Association. MR. ROBITI-Okay. So the architectural approval, then, is in our ballpark. MR. STONE-It’s in your ballpark. MR. HAYES-By your By-laws, whatever they are. MR. STONE-By your By-laws. MR. MC NALLY-Yes, we can tell him that he can bring it back an extra four feet, so it’s a 26 foot setback, incepted of the required 30, and that’s not much relief actually. It’s kind of minimal, but to go up two stories, the full length of the lot, glass siding, whatever, that’d your business. MR. ROBITI-Okay. Thank you. That clarifies it very much. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read this. MR. STONE-All right. Read that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. This is a letter from 18 Queens Way, Queensbury, NY, 12804, dated April 20, 2001, Charles A. McNulty, Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Queensbury, RE: Area Variance No. 27-2001, Terry Karanikas, 19 Queens Way, “Dear Mr. McNulty: I would like to request that the variance request above be denied. Mr. Karanikas is requesting that the area of his structure be allowed to be increased by over 42%.” I guess we’d have to change that now, because it’s no longer the 18 feet. Right? MR. STONE-Right. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, “This would be done in a townhouse community that consists of 7 buildings of four units each. One architectural feature of this community is the uniformity of these 7 buildings. Of course, an addition of this magnitude is a major alteration and degrades the community be virtue of creating such a large difference between one building and the other six currently similar 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) buildings. The area of this addition would occupy at least 18’ of the total depth of 37 ½’ of the back yard of this property. There are four very similar back yards behind Mr. Karanikas’ building. One would be half occupied by this addition. This would be a very disruptive structure. As a next door neighbor, I am concerned with the effect of the structure on my back yard as far as drainage and the absence of sunshine. Mr. Karanikas’ stated purpose is to provide more bedrooms. Again, the character of the community and owners’ property values should be considered. This has always been a quiet area with one or two people occupying each unit. With townhouse widths of only 24’, higher population densities are degrading to the peaceful nature of this area. Allowance of this variance would be a step toward conversion of our neighborhood from a quiet, slightly upscale community to a low income housing project for tightly packed families. I believe this change would be very distressing to our large older population. This addition would produce a dramatic deterioration to a neighborhood that has not changed in the 20 years that I have lived here. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robert V. Scarano” And that was by fax. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? MR. KARANIKAS-That was my dinner buddy. MR. STONE-Any other, you want to respond to anything that you’ve heard? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, I mean, as far as keeping it small, communities are small families, I mean, is that something that you guys try to do, as far as? Okay. I just wanted to know. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there any other questions? Any comments that you want to make? MR. ABBATE-Let me ask a question, just to clear this up for me. This picture that you’ve submitted to us, the top portion of it, this was an extension? MR. KARANIKAS-That top one? That was an extension two stories up. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That was approved by the Homeowners Association? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. KARANIKAS-By our prior Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. So there is precedence for this? Okay. Thank you. MR. KARANIKAS-And the two other people that sat up here, one was the President, and the other one has, their extension is 12 feet up, and that’s why they allowed me to do 12 feet, because it had the precedence of 12 feet. That other picture shows 18 feet, and I didn’t want to make any waves. Obviously, I want to get into my bedrooms. MR. ABBATE-This is 18 feet here? MR. KARANIKAS-No, the other one. MR. ABBATE-This one here? MR. KARANIKAS-Right. MR. ABBATE-Both of these were approved by the Homeowners Association? MR. KARANIKAS-One of them was pre-built, I mean, built when they were building it. MR. ABBATE-Pre-existing, okay, the bottom one. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, and then the other one. MR. ABBATE-And this was an addition? MR. KARANIKAS-Right. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MC NALLY-You said that there were three other additions? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-What were they like? MR. KARANIKAS-They were single story additions. MR. MC NALLY-Single story, kind of like the bottom picture here? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And were they built with the original structures also? MR. KARANIKAS-No. MR. MC NALLY-They were added on afterwards? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. They, I’m not sure if they were full length. Like I said, I didn’t take any pictures of them, but they are built out 12 feet. MR. HAYES-There might be some rebuttal. MR. STONE-Yes, let me re-open the public hearing. If you have some rebuttal, if you think something has been said. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED ED ROBITI MR. ROBITI-My name is Ed Robiti, 7 Queens Way. The two pictures that you have, the one on the bottom is the original footprint of the house. That is not an addition. The woman who had that built, when they were building the entire building, had them copy a house that she had in Connecticut, as it turned out. She wanted it built like that. So that was not built as an addition. Now we’re talking back in the 70’s, okay. That was built on the, so that’s the original footprint. The picture on top, the gentleman, and I wasn’t on the Board when this happened, but it was like seven or eight years ago, put a second story over the garage, so he didn’t extend the building. He went up. Okay, and that’s why I was getting, that’s not an extension. MR. ABBATE-So the garage is pre-existing. MR. ROBITI-The garage is pre-existing. He built on top of the garage. MR. STONE-Okay. Have there been any extensions similar to, of 12 feet? MR. ROBITI-Yes, sure there have. MR. STONE-So there are some in there? MR. ROBITI-There are some, but they are all one story in nature. I have one myself. It’s one story. It may not even be 12. It may be 10 by 12 or 10 by 11, but, I mean, it was professionally built. MR. STONE-Okay, but there are some. MR. ROBITI-But there are some, but all of the other extensions are single story extensions on the back of the building, usually put on as a little family room or a sunroom. MR. STONE-Again, that’s your, you have control of that, we don’t. MR. ROBITI-I know what you’re saying, but I did want to clarify because I was getting the feeling that you were hearing about extensions, that being another extension, and it is not. MR. ABBATE-I’m glad you clarified that. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. ROBITI-You’re welcome. MR. STONE-Okay. Everybody clarified? Can I close the public hearing again? Well, we’ll try again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Any comments? Well, if not, let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Bob. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got a little camp on Loon Lake that’s part of a Homeowners Association, and those Homeowner’s Association meetings are exquisitely painful sometimes. So I sympathize with the applicant and I sympathize with the other members of the Homeowner’s Association, but we’ve got a very limited application in front of us. We’re not here to decide whether it’s two floors, the full length of the lot, plastic siding, shingles, or whatever. We’re here just to decide whether it’s possible for this applicant to extend back a distance of 12 feet, which is four feet into the 30 foot setback. The benefit is certainly that this applicant would be able to build an addition, which is something that other members of this community have been allowed to do, although the extent of that is something subject to the Homeowner’s Association’s discretion. There appear to be very few alternatives for him to build and get additional space, other than going to the rear. The relief, I don’t feel, is substantial relative to the Ordinance. He has to build at least 30 feet from the rear line. He’s asking to be allowed to build 26 feet from the rear line. Four feet of relief on thirty is not that much. The effects on the neighborhood or community, from just the distance relief, the dimensional relief, four feet, I think is minimal. Now, building two stories up, building the full length of the lot, that’s a different story. That’s for the Homeowner’s Association to decide, not for us, and that may have a more substantial impact, but you guys can work that one out. Is the difficulty self-created? It’s self- created in the sense that you’re the one that’s chosen to go back. It’s not self-created, though, in the sense that you are in a town home, and there’s only so many places that you can build to purchase a property where the expansion opportunities were limited. On balance, though, I think I would approve the variance, and leave you folks to your own decision as to the rest of it. MR. STONE-Okay? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I would also echo Bob’s comments that I don’t believe 26 feet rear line, requesting four feet, is substantial at all, and you have indicated that your family is increasing. I think there is a logical progression to wanting to have more space. I don’t believe that’s inconsistent with human beings, and what have you. We’re addressing a very limited area here. You’re proposal of 288 square feet, which ends up to be, I think you’ve indicated 12 by 24 addition. I don’t think I’d have any problems with it because indeed the feasible alternatives are just about nil, so to speak, because of the situation, townhouses, etc., etc. So, on balance, I would support your application. MR. STONE-Norman? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with Bob’s comments, and I would just like to add the Staff comments that the current zoning, MR-5, allows for a 10 foot rear setback. We have to stick to what we’re called upon. However, this is just another ingredient that tends to make me support the application. So, I’m in favor of it also. Thank you. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Speaking specifically to this issue, four feet of relief from the thirty foot requirement is only thirteen percent, and I do not have any problems granting that, or voting to grant it but I would suggest that people get together here. I mean, it’s all in our benefit that communities get along, and rather than fighting each other, maybe trying to sit down and work this out. We’re all trying to live, and maybe some communication among your neighbors, neighbors with you, Homeowner’s Association, might go a long way toward making this process a lot smoother after it leaves our desk here. I’m all set. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement with my fellow Board members. I think the amount of relief requested is very minimal. I don’t think it’s really going to have that much impact on the back property line or anything like that. As a member of the community, I would echo Roy’s sentiments. I sit here trying to figure out, you know, if I were a member of the Association what 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) would I do. That’s not really my domain to do that, but the only other suggestion I could think of was, you know, maybe you could do a build out over the garage and do a one story in the back. So, that may be something you want to consider as an alternative, if things don’t go the other way, but it’s a hassle, but, you know, I think you guys have to remember that we’re all young. We all grow old, and keep in mind, do something reasonable for everyone. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I, essentially, agree with my other Board members. I think, in this particular case, four feet of relief on a thirty foot requirement, pretty close to definitionally, is minimal, in this particular case, and I think the applicant, even though he was requested by his Homeowner’s Association to do it, the very fact that it’s now back six more feet, you know, in my mind is something for our area of examination, has to be considered. It’s no longer 10 feet of 30. It’s only four. I think Bob went through the parts of the test very well, and I agree with what he said, and I also think that Norm’s point that, in this particular case, under the current zoning, and typically in clustering of this magnitude, a 30 foot setback would be, you know, is a very generous one. So, in this particular case, a 26 foot setback, in my mind, is adequate. So I think, on balance, considering everything that’s been said, I think I’m in favor of the application, as it sits. MR. STONE-I certainly agree. Fortunately, tonight, ours is the easy job. Obviously, you’re going to have to, as the applicant, you’re going to have to face a group who are concerned about their quality of life, and that’s very important to them, and they have a right to be concerned and to examine your request very strongly, very carefully. Our job is easy. As the Board members have said, four feet of relief from a thirty foot setback is really minimal, and I have no problem in approving this variance. I will say one thing, a note that I wrote, and this is to the people in the back of the room who represent the Homeowner’s Association. I thought the land between the property lines and the drive-in theater could look better. That’s an observation that I made when I drove back there, and I was round and round that circle, I have to admit, a couple of times. It’s just a comment. Having said that, I need a motion to approve this variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2001 TERRY KARANIKAS, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 19 Queens Way, Kingswood Estates. The applicant proposes construction of a 288 square foot residential addition and seeks relief from the setback requirement. Applicant requests four feet of relief from the thirty foot minimum rear setback requirement of the old R-3 zoning district. R-3 was the zoning designation of the property at the time of the subdivision approval, June 8, 1974. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition. Feasible alternatives, they appear to be very limited. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Four feet of relief from the thirty foot requirement is minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the action, in, from our standpoint, in view of the Town zoning apparatus, we will recognize that they have some issues to settle with their homeowners association, in connection with effects on the neighborhood and community, but as far as the community is concerned, we’re concerned with, it’s minimum or nil. Is this difficulty self-created, well, yes, as I see it only in that you want to create an addition, but your choices are so limited that it’s kind of hard to blame you for what might be perceived by some as a problem. We haven’t seen any real drawings at all. So we would like, as a condition of approval, an as built survey showing the dimensions, the distance from the line, the actual property line. Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. HIMES-And we did, I think, have an agreement, did we make it a condition, we cannot make it a condition about the fence, I don’t believe? MR. STONE-I think we’ll leave it to the Homeowner’s Association, in this particular case. MR. HIMES-Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty MR. MC NALLY-Best of luck. MR. BROWN-You’re all set, Terry. MR. STONE-You’re all done. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) MR. KARANIKAS-Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. HAYES-We’ve got to re-do one part of an old one. So, just hang on. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I ask one general question? How do you find out how much setback you have on your house? MR. BROWN-I’d defer to a licensed land surveyor. MR. STONE-A surveyor is how you’ve got to find out. MR. HAYES-You mean for you personally, how much setback? AUDIENCE MEMBER-We were told, we thought that we had 50 feet behind our houses, our own personal property. MR. HAYES-You would want to look at your deed. MR. STONE-You would want to look at your deed. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’ve got it and it doesn’t say anything. MR. STONE-Well, get a surveyor to look at it. Get somebody. MR. HAYES-Well, you’d want a lawyer to look at it first, because it might not even be true, before you get it surveyed. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I thought there was a plan somewhere we could look at. MR. ABBATE-Get a good attorney. I can name a couple if you wish. MR. STONE-Okay. We have a matter to finish up. MR. HAYES-All right. Okay. Gentlemen, on the Sutton application, we should have done a SEQRA before we made a motion. So what I’m going to do is make a motion on the SEQRA, and then we’ll re-vote on that exact same motion, okay. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT FORM EAF SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone BASED ON THAT NEGATIVE DECLARATION, I MOVE THAT WE RE-VOTE ON THE MOTION MADE FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 24-2001 STEVE AND DONNA SUTTON, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 26 day of April, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. MC NALLY-In other words, we’re being asked to simply re-affirm what we did earlier this evening. MR. ABBATE-Including this portion that we just voted on, that’ll be a part of the re-vote? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, you’ve done that. MR. HAYES-It’s the same thing, yes. The answer is yes. We’re re-voting, having made the environmental motion, we’re re-voting on the exact motion that we voted on earlier today. MR. ABBATE-Fine. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 4/26/01) AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Thanks, guys. MR. STONE-Did we adjourn? Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 47