The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-06-27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES PAUL HAYES ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2001 TYPE II REGINALD BURLINGAME PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: SW CORNER MEADOWBROOK & CRONIN ROAD 159 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM AREA, LOT WIDTH AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 59-2-2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-25 LOT SIZE: 3.20 ACRES SECTION 179-20 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2001, Reginald Burlingame, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Property Location: 159 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a three lot subdivision. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and 0.12 acres of relief from the 1 acre minimum lot size requirement of the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. Additionally, § 179-30, C. – Lots Abutting Collector or Arterial Roads requires all residential lots fronting on collector or arterial roads to have two (2) times the lot width required by the applicable zoning, or share a common drive with another or other lots. The applicant seeks 169 feet of relief from the 300 (150 x 2) foot lot width requirement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to develop a three lot subdivision as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration to allow for more compliant development. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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. Lot Three has been created to encompass the existing structures and drive on the property. All three requests for relief are for lot three. There appears to be potential for a more compliant design. With the majority of lot 1 and portions of lots 2 & 3 within the Flood zone of Halfway Brook, consideration may be given to feasibility of a two lot subdivision. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves, and I represent Reginald Burlingame in this application. As the Staff has stated, this is a proposed three lot subdivision on the corner of Cronin and Meadowbrook Road. Being on the southeast of the subject 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) property, is the existing home, shed and the barn out back. Anybody who’s driven by the property, they know that this is the fairly much open area on the corner opposite the apartment buildings on the other corner. There is a small area in the back corner, which would be the southwest corner, that is a DEC wetland. We can accommodate the 100 foot setback. There’s no problem there. As far as the required variances, some of the Staff comments on the reconfiguration, yes, you could reconfigure the lot line around the barn not to need a setback on the existing barn, but it just jogs into the next lot, and we thought it would be more beneficial to get a setback for that, since it was going to be in the back yard of the lot fronting on Cronin Road, and it would make a better lot. As far as the acreage, back in the 60’s, when they relocated the road, it ends up with a 2.877 acre lot. So it’s, you know, .13 acres we’re really looking for, actually .123. It’s a fairly minor, in my estimation, variance for the area. Yes, the three requirements all fall on the one lot. We think it’s justifiable with the sewer and water in the area, and the surrounding lots in the area, as depicted on Sheet C-1, shows you the lots that are consistent up and down Meadowbrook Road, to the north of the subject property are all within the same size as the lots we’re proposing, if not a little bit smaller, and open for any suggestions from the Board. MR. STONE-Let me ask Staff a question. The collector road is Meadowbrook or Cronin? MR. BROWN-I think they’re both collector roads. MR. STONE-Both of them? MR. HIMES-They both are. MR. STONE-So, in other words, Lot One needs that double? MR. STEVES-Just Lot One because we’re sharing a driveway on the other two lots. It says double the lot width or a shared drive. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s not all on the same lot, the variances? MR. BROWN-Yes. Lots One and Two share a driveway. So they’re not required to have double the frontage. MR. STEVES-It’s Lot Three that requires all the variances in this application. MR. BROWN-Right. Lot Three has its own driveway, and since it’s on a collector road. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re saying Lots One and Two. MR. BROWN-Share a driveway. So they don’t have to do the double the lot width. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-And that’s the current driveway that is there. No new driveway is proposed on Meadowbrook Road. MR. STONE-Right. I understand. MR. STEVES-But whether or not there is 150 feet, 20 feet or 400 feet, it’s still the one driveway in the location it is now. It’s not going to change. MR. STONE-Did I hear a question? MR. HIMES-I have a question for Staff, again, Craig. In order for them to share a driveway and meet Code, don’t both lots have to meet the 150 foot requirement? Or is this grandfathered? MR. BROWN-The average lot width of 150 feet? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. BROWN-The average lot width, yes, not 150 feet of frontage, but the average width has to be 150 feet. MR. HIMES-Okay. Lot One, I don’t know what the average would be, but I follow you. How did you come up with the 169 feet of relief for Lot Three? MR. BROWN-I took three measurements at the front, the middle where the angle point is, and then the back, and just came up with an average. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. HIMES-Okay. All right. MR. STONE-That was a question that came up to me today, Craig. Is there anything in here that I have not seen, that tells us how to figure average lot width for irregular lots? MR. BROWN-It’s just an average. If you want to go every inch you can get it right down to the tenth of a foot. MR. STONE-I mean, a planimeter would do it, right? MR. STEVES-There’s a couple of ways to calculate it. If it’s a lot that both, side lines, if you have 100 feet on the road, and they taper back to a 200 foot width in the back and there’s no jogs in the side, it’s a fairly simple one, you know, 100 and 150 or 200 in the back averages out to 150. With some more jogs and stuff on that, what we do is on the computer, fortunately I have those tools, it wasn’t always so easy, is every five feet in width, or every five feet parallel to the road line, or the shortest distance between the property lines, I can’t use a diagonal across and say it’s the average lot width, take the shortest distance on every five foot increment and have the computer average that for me. MR. STONE-And what is your determination on this lot? MR. STEVES-On every one of them they exceed the 150 except for Lot Number Three. MR. STONE-And you agree with the 169? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. STEVES-And like I say, I think the Board can see the reasoning behind putting the burden on Lot Three, because that’s what’s existing there and that’s what Lot Three has always been using. The rest of it is mowed and maintained, but what I have shown as the lot line for Lot Three is what Lot Three has historically used as their property, basically. They mow everything else that’s around it, but nothing has to change there. No new driveways, no new buildings, that kind of thing. MR. STONE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-Is the plan to maintain that barn? MR. STEVES-I’d let the applicant speak for that himself. Mr. Burlingame is here. Do you have any maintenance of that barn? Are you going to maintain the barn, Reggie? REGINALD BURLINGAME MR. BURLINGAME-That’s going with the house. My name is Reginald Burlingame. I am the owner of the lot that’s in question. Thirty-five years ago, my mother-in-law and father-in-law bought that property. For 35 years, they’ve been paying for 3.2 acres of land. We went to break it up, it seems as though it’s a little short. The people in the Town measure it with a scale. All we want to do is we want to put two houses on the two acres, if we can break the one less acre up. The barn and the house, hopefully, will go together, if that’s the way it can be broke up. MR. STEVES-You’re going to maintain the barn. You’re not going to tear it down? MR. BURLINGAME-No. We just put $10,000 into that barn to keep it up. We’re not going to tear it down. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me ask a question. You have an interior setback line on Lot Three. The barn is over that. Do we need a variance on that? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STONE-Is that in here? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s the five foot of relief. MR. STONE-That’s the five foot. I’m sorry. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STEVES-I could create a jog around the barn that would incorporate the setback. MR. STONE-Then it messes up the other one. MR. STEVES-It makes for an odd configuration lot. It may have served a purpose. Really here I think the benefit is to keep the lot as proportional as possible, parallel to the southerly lot, without creating a funky looking jog just to accommodate the setback. MR. STONE-Well, it messes up, brings the other lot into nonconformance. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-How do you access the barn? From your driveway? MR. BURLINGAME-Through the driveway, yes. MR. HIMES-And does it end there? MR. BURLINGAME-The driveway? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. BURLINGAME-Yes. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. BURLINGAME-Mr. Stone, I want you to understand that all we want to do is keep the family together. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. BURLINGAME-We just want to build two little houses. MR. STONE-We’re not bad people here. MR. BURLINGAME-I just want you to understand what we want to do. We don’t, I mean, because of the wetlands, there’s nothing else you can do with that property. MR. STONE-So you’re saying you propose to sell this to family members? MR. BURLINGAME-No. I’m not going to sell it at all. One’s going to my mother-in-law, Mrs. Sipas. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, you’re going to keep the family together. MR. BURLINGAME-That’s right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-One is going to your mother-in-law and the other is going where? MR. BURLINGAME-To me and my wife. We’re going to live next door to each other. MR. MC NALLY-And the existing house goes where? MR. BURLINGAME-We’re going to sell the existing house, so that we can build the other two houses. It won’t be enough when we sell the little house. Me and my wife will sell our home, and we’ll take our money and put it in a pool, and then we’ll borrow some more money. MR. STONE-Okay. So the barn is going to go with the property you’re going to sell? MR. BURLINGAME-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Then Lot Three, make sure I have this correct, Lot Three, then, will be a potential selling point which will include the barn, the shed and the house. MR. BURLINGAME-The barn, the shed and the house. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. ABBATE-And then your family will assume occupancy of Lot One and Two? MR. BURLINGAME-The other two full acres. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. BURLINGAME-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DESMOND P. SULLIVAN MR. SULLIVAN-My name is Desmond P. Sullivan. I’m an attorney in Glens Falls, and I’m appearing for Raymond R. Rios, who’s busy at the family restaurant at the moment, and his wife Anita Rios, who is here. They own the property immediately abutting Lot One to the west, between the proposed subdivision and Halfway Brook, which is, in fact, their boundary line. I indicated, and I apologize for not making copies of their survey, but if you’d like to circulate that, and as you can see, that was the initial proposal for my client’s home. However, because of its proximity to Halfway Brook, because of the flood conditions, and because of the existence of the cemetery brook, which is not shown on that survey, is not shown except by indication on this applicant’s proposed subdivision, and is not mentioned at all in the application. I presume that’s that wavy little line, and the area that Mr. Steves referred to as a wetland, down in the southwest corner of the Burlingame property. In fact, my client’s advised me that it is in fact something more than a wetland. In fact, it is a running water course. It’s not the Colorado River, but it does, in fact, maintain it’s flow, goes northerly and meets Halfway Brook, about opposite the location of my client’s house. The proposed location that’s on the survey I handed to you, Mr. Stone, was required to be changed in my client’s application some 13 years ago, in obtaining their building approvals and permits, because it was too close to Halfway Brook and the floodplain. So that actual house, I would estimate, is about 125 feet, about opposite the house location shown here on Lot One. So there’s a concern, I believe, or there should be a concern, for the nature and the preservation of this wetlands area and the running water courses that are, in fact, close by. My clients tell me that the water level rises substantially in the spring and of course the water runs through those two brooks. Consequently increases substantially. When my clients built their home, one of their requirements was, in fact, that they raise the whole location of the house up by production of substantial fill, and I’m no expert, for certain, but I raise the question about whether the effect of this configuration in premises may in fact have a detrimental effect on those so called wetlands or the running water courses. I notice, in reviewing the application, that both of these proposed construction lots, one and two, are, in fact, funnel shaped, and read into each other with the narrow portion of the proposed lot virtually meeting at this common drive area, and I understand that, numerically or arithmetically, the lots may in fact have the average size, but the effect of these two lots, as you can see, I believe, is to funnel that two house traffic to a point about 100 feet away from my client’s drive area, which is immediately adjacent to, or not very far from the, what would be the westerly line of this subdivision survey. Of course the purpose of the statute is to preserve Queensbury’s suburban residential neighborhood, I read, to enhance and protect the character of Queensbury’s suburban neighborhood, and provide for residential development opportunities. My clients bought the property with the notion and understanding, of course, that the neighboring lots were in a common zone, and would maintain a common size. Mr. Steves mentioned the lots coming down from Cronin down Meadowbrook, opposite Regency Park, as being of a sort of a similar size to the proposal here, but if you look at that, one of the neighborhood maps, in fact the lots that go along west on the south side of Cronin are larger than the zone calls for. Most of them run about an acre and a half, and my client’s is, you’ve got the survey, I think it’s close to two acres, 1.88 acres, and the other lots that are immediately further to the west are of similar size. So that’s a consideration. Both of these roads are collector roads, Cronin and Meadowbrook. So I’m sure you will consider the effect on both, not only the existing lots running south on Meadowbrook, which may in fact have been subdivided or created prior to the Zoning Ordinance, but also those that run from the south side of Cronin to the west. I don’t know, and I’m an old dog, and you know old dogs don’t like new tricks. I have never appeared here before, and I’ve never appeared before any zoning person. I would like to have someone inform me if this subdivision, three lot subdivision, in fact approved, or is the proposed, or the indicated residence location in fact where, does the subdivision require the party’s to build where they? That’s just an indication? MR. STONE-It’s an indication. First of all, we’re not ruling on subdivision. It’s not our purview. MR. SULLIVAN-I thought that was? MR. STONE-No. We are, that is the Planning Board’s purview. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. SULLIVAN-All right. MR. STONE-We are looking at, if the division, it’s like cart before horse. MR. SULLIVAN-I understand. MR. STONE-If the division is allowed, there is one lot that, to even consider it, I understand the Planning Board did look at the Sketch last night, but we’re saying if they approve this three lot subdivision, this lot needs a variance. Am I correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. SULLIVAN-So it’s really up to the Planning Board? MR. STONE-Yes. All we’re saying is that the lot which is furthest away from your client’s lot requires variances to exist, if and when the subdivision is allowed. MR. SULLIVAN-I understand that sir. I understand that portion here, for this particular, within the four corners of this application. My point is, of course, that in permitting this configuration, you, in fact, create these two funnel shaped lots that peak or meet, and you create a density of structure. MR. STONE-But we’re not saying that these lots are buildable. The other two lots. We’re not saying they’re buildable. That’s for another day. I mean, if, in fact, it’s, I mean, obviously the applicant feels that these three lots all can be built on, the two one acre lots, which is the zoning. These can be built on. The wetland setback, that may require a variance at some point in time when the house is actually sited. MR. SULLIVAN-May I ask, will the Town Planning Board be reviewing this at all or not? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. SULLIVAN-They will. Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-I am correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-I just want to be sure. MR. SULLIVAN-While the Zoning Ordinance, as I read it, talks in terms of arithmetic setbacks, sideline and front setbacks, in fact, we’re talking about the general character of the neighborhood, and I’m suggesting to you that by permitting the applicant to, in effect, shoehorn these three lots slightly smaller in size than what would otherwise be permitted. MR. STONE-Only one. The other two are one acre lots, which is SFR-1 Acre, and those two are 1.00 acres. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes, but my left foot is not my right foot, but they both help to propel me down the street. So while Lot Number One is the one that’s getting the variance, in effect, its variance permits two and three to exist. MR. STONE-It may very well be that the Planning Board, when they get with whatever relief that we may grant, and there’s no guarantee that we will grant relief, they may say, because of the points that you’re making and the points considering the wetlands, that maybe you can only put two lots in there. That’s not our call. MR. SULLIVAN-I understand, and I would call your attention, obviously it has some effect, since the Staff referred to it, that the applicant would be compliant were he asking for a subdivision for two lots, and that’s, of course, what my clients would prefer to see. That’s their investment their home, and they live there with their two children. While I’m the old dog, I was glad to appear for them because I’ve known them for a number of years and I know that they are the kinds of people that the community is glad to have. I heard Mr. Burlingame talk about the family plan about selling this to finance part of the construction of the other two premises, and I can appreciate that. On the other hand, my client, as well as any other people in the neighborhood, are concerned about their investment and value of their property and its affect on their adjoining lot and also sort of the quality of life you enjoy. Mr. Steves referred to the open air and of course ideally I guess my clients would like nobody to build on it, but they know that somebody is going to build on it, but they think that 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) the more reasonable approach would be for the Board to indicate that the two lot compliance division would be preferably. MR. STONE-That’s something we can do, if we don’t want to grant the relief, but that’s all we can do. MR. SULLIVAN-I agree. I’ve lived here 35 years in the neighborhood, over a boundary line, and I enjoy being a Queensbury neighbor. I noticed that in the hearing notice, and I’ll remind you, that Queensbury calls itself the home of natural beauty and a good place to live. My clients chose to settle here precisely because of that reason, and I think a two lot subdivision would help carry out that end. I’d be happy to answer any questions anybody might have. MR. MC NALLY-How far is the real home from the property line, the west property line, approximately? MR. SULLIVAN-I left you the one copy of the survey I had. MR. STONE-Here it is. MR. URRICO-Would you mind pointing it out? MR. STONE-Yes, could you show us where the house is? MR. SULLIVAN-Again, I’m not a surveyor, but I would say it’s roughly opposite here. Because of the shape of Halfway Brook having a jog, the middle of the brook is now the westerly property line. The original location of the house is going to be 50 feet back. I would estimate about a hundred and a quarter. It would be roughly opposite this phantom structure that’s shown on Lot One. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. SULLIVAN-Sure. MR. HAYES-It’s just down Cronin Road towards the Harvest, that direction basically. MR. STONE-Yes. It’s down in that direction. MR. HAYES-I have one question for Matt, just to maybe save time. Are they going to lose density if that’s wetlands back there and make this a nonconforming subdivision? MR. STONE-He’ll explain when we get through. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. STONE-You’re done? MR. SULLIVAN-Thank you for your time and attention. MR. STONE-All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody else wishing to speak against this application? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Steves, do you want to come back up and comment on what you just heard? MR. STEVES-Certainly. As for the location of the brook that that Mr. Sullivan referred to, if you look on Page Three of the Staff Notes that you have, it depicts the tax parcel numbers, and the DEC wetlands as designated on the tax map. The brook is completely off of our property. It’s on property located to the southwest and to the west. If any of the wetland falls on our property, it’s just a very small corner of the property on the southwest, as I described before, and that we do not encroach even on the 100 foot setback. So we would not need any permit from DEC. As far as the wetlands, the flags that we have on the back we found about two and a half, three feet from the property corner. It wouldn’t be a significant amount of wetlands. I am working on that for the Planning Board, but it might be a couple of hundred square feet at best, we located in the southwest corner of the property, almost as depicted on the tax map. The tax map has the line drawn that may be a little bit more westerly on the property line than what it really is in the field, but that’s a fairly 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) accurate depiction that you see there. As you can see the lot that Mr. Sullivan is referring to, to the west of us, is the one that has the two streams, or Halfway Brook and the other Brook that come in on to it. No portions of either one of those brooks lie within the bounds of our property. So I don’t have any problems with the brook. As far as setback from the wetlands, we have no problems obtaining and meeting all the required setbacks from the wetlands. MR. MC NALLY-On the survey you drew, Mr. Sullivan mentioned a curvy line? MR. STEVES-That is the depiction of the DEC line as shown. MR. MC NALLY-The designation of the wetland area? MR. STEVES-Of this DEC map, that’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-He also mentioned a cemetery brook. Where is that? MR. STEVES-That’s the brook, if you look at the, that Page Three, just to the east of the word “DEC Wetland”, there’s a line that comes down through there and goes right through the number 59-2-1, and connects to Halfway Brook, that is Cemetery Brook. MR. MC NALLY-And it’s your testimony that that is not on the subject parcel. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. HAYES-That’s behind the Rios’ even? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else you want to add? MR. STEVES-We did have Alan Koechlien from DEC come out and confirm that wetland, as I had stated. MR. STONE-Is that in the file? MR. BROWN-Probably not the variance file, but I’m sure it’s in the subdivision file. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions of the applicant? So we’re talking about this, so we all know, we’re talking about a variance for proposed Lot Three that would require five foot of relief essentially for the barn, which is currently existing, and it would need five foot of relief. We also need .12 acres or .128, acres of relief for that one lot, plus the width of the lot. Does everybody understand what we’re talking about? All right. Let’s talk about it. Chuck, why don’t you start. MR. MC NULTY-All right. I’m trying to look at the criteria that we’re supposed to follow. It strikes me that the applicant can accomplish subdivision without these variances if he went for a two lot subdivision rather than a three lot subdivision. I think that then becomes a feasible alternative. The relief required, I don’t have a big problem with five feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback, and I don’t have a great deal of problem with .12 or .128 acres of relief from the minimum lot size, but the 169 feet of relief from the 300 foot width strikes me as being substantial. I think this will have some effect on the character of the neighborhood, in that it would increase density. I can understand the applicant’s desire for the three lot subdivision, but I guess when I look at the entire proposal and the cumulative impacts, I think the balance falls to the neighborhood rather than the applicant, and I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I essentially agree with Chuck. I used the same criteria for measuring whether to, how to rule on this, and I, too, have no problem with the five foot of relief from the twenty foot minimum, the .12 acres of relief from the one acre minimum lot size, but the third variance about the 169 feet of relief from the 300 foot lot width because it’s a long collector road, really stops me cold. That point, I tried to measure it against the test that we’re asked to measure it against, and it fails that test, for the same reasons that Chuck gave. I even tried to divide this into a brief, an equal 2.8 acres divided by three and see if it would make a bit of difference, and it still comes way short. I can’t see granting the relief, 56% of relief, from that 300 foot lot width requirement. I would be opposed at this point. MR. STONE-Norm? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. HIMES-Thank you, yes. I, too, don’t have any problems with the five foot thing with the lots being broke up, and the aspect of collector road access, you’re going to have a little over 300 feet along there, with just one access, the one that’s there now, and there, theoretically or positively, would be no access on Meadowbrook Road from Lot Two. It’s access is going to be on Cronin Road, with that of Lot One. One thing that was running through my mind earlier, Mr. Steves, I asked about access to the barn, the driveway goes all the way back there, and I know it’s going to bump into the five foot offset here, but what if that, this is kind of awkward, I know, but what if there was no other choice, and you just continue that driveway on back to connect with the other two? Would that be feasible? MR. STEVES-To connect to Lot One or Lot Two? MR. HIMES-Yes, the exit for Lot One and Two, if the driveway which goes all the way back to the barn now, and I had asked if it goes any further, earlier. MR. STEVES-Right, and it doesn’t. It goes to the barn. Are you asking to have only one entrance off of Meadowbrook for all three lots? MR. HIMES-This is what I was saying. I’m wondering if that might be a, from your folks’ standpoint, anything that might be possible? Staff, would that be any problem? MR. MC NALLY-That house on Meadowbrook’s been there forever, though. MR. STONE-There is no problem on Cronin, the way they’re proposing. MR. HIMES-Right, but what I’m saying is that those of us that are objecting are saying that the relief is on the Meadowbrook side. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t know if, you know, you kind of wind a driveway around one side of that barn or the other, I mean, yes, I understand the point, but irregardless of that, if there’s a two lot subdivision with no variance necessary, it’s still going to have a driveway on Meadowbrook and a driveway on Cronin, and I don’t know if maybe some of the Board members are looking past the fact that if I broke it the opposite way and let the one acre run on a dog leg along Meadowbrook Road, the existing lot now does not have 300 feet along Meadowbrook Road. It always has had one driveway. Always will have one driveway, and we will state that that Lot Two cannot access from Meadowbrook Road. So, what is there now will still be there, and there’s no additional driveways. I’m really having a problem seeing what the problem with the existing driveway is now. I understand the 300 foot lot width requirements in that zone. The lot now does not meet that. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t think there’s a problem with the driveway so much as some of the members have complained about the road frontage, which is tied in with that. MR. STEVES-But the road frontage is not existing at this point. MR. MC NALLY-I hear you. There’s a 206 foot lot frontage right on Meadowbrook, for the corner lot, right? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got 90 foot for the house that’s existing. That’s 296 feet, right? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, 296.3. MR. MC NALLY-Because then you were going to cut a driveway onto Meadowbrook across that 206 foot length? Would the owners be willing to stipulate that there’ll be never be a driveway across? MR. STONE-He just said so. MR. STEVES-That’s what I just said. MR. MC NALLY-And that would be a condition of any variance? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. STONE-Well, let’s keep going. Norm? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. HIMES-Well, I just brought that thing up, the fact that if it came down to it, that might be some kind of a compromise, although it might seem a little ridiculous to people living in the house to go halfway across town to get out when they’re now right on the road. I don’t tend to be so impacted with the aspect that the variance is needed onto Meadowbrook. We’ve got 300 feet, pretty close to it there, one access, so I would tend to support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I’m going to place the burden of my comments directly on the shoulders of Chuck and Roy, in that I concur with their positions. I would also like to add the fact that Counsel makes some compelling comments, as far as I’m concerned. He mentions character of the neighborhood. Why is that so important? Well, we have it in our Zoning Ordinance. I believe that there is a feasible alternative, and I would be a heck of a lot more comfortable with two lots versus three, and the fact that there’s a 169 foot variance from a 300 foot sub front gives me some concern. So, based upon what I have just stated, the comments of the applicant, the comments of Counsel, at this point I would be against the application. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-We are concerned only with Lot Three, and I think we’re concerned with, as everyone has agreed, whether or not that lot has to have 300 feet frontage on a road, or whether to grant a variance for less than that. The five foot barn relief is nothing, it’s minimal. It won’t have any effect on the neighborhood. The fact that one lot is .88 acres rather than 1.0 acres is nothing, too. Twelve tenths of an acre is not going to amount to a hill of beans and the effect upon the neighborhood whatsoever, and when you say the character of the neighborhood, the character of this neighborhood is one acre zoning. So, effectively, the proposal is what the character of the neighborhood should be. We still keep coming back to the frontage, at least I do, and it seems to me that one of the things the Town Board wanted to do was keep some open space and try to eliminate as many driveways from collector roads as possible, both for aesthetics and for the practical purposes of avoiding traffic on roads where a lot of vehicles come in and out. I think this house on Meadowbrook’s been there forever. The driveway that’s there today, it’s going to be there tomorrow, and Mr. Steves’ point that there is only now going to be one proposed driveway on Cronin Road is true whether there’s two or three lots. Effectively, and with the stipulation that there can’t ever be any other driveways along that section of Meadowbrook on either Lot Two or Three, we have, effectively, a 300 foot frontage, at least in terms of safety, in terms of aesthetics. So, you know, there’s no hard and fast test as to what’s right or wrong in these things, but on balance, considering the effect upon the neighborhood and the variances are all related to the house here on Meadowbrook, not close to the home of the people that had some complaints about it, I’d have to be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I think in this particular case, focusing on Lot Number Three, the question that really seems to be the fulcrum of this decision for most of us anyway seems to be the relief from the lot width, and I think in this case, by agreeing and stipulating that there won’t be a driveway on Lot Two onto Meadowbrook, essentially, as Bob pointed out, there’s going to be close to a 300 foot width there. It’s my understanding that part of the rationale behind the lot width requirements and the driveway requirements is to reduce curb cuts and to provide line of sight for traffic, and in this particular case there’s 300 feet of line of sight there for that traffic. Another thing that comes into my mind, being very familiar with these properties is that they’re designated collector roads, but as far as line of sight and the amount of road frontage that I think would be needed, is certainly less than Ridge Road or some of these other roads that have higher speed traffic, in my mind, in balancing all the issues here. They’re still residential in character. Also, Bob pointed out that as far as the impact on the neighborhood or the character of the neighborhood, this is a one acre area, and essentially the Burlingames are only asking us for .13 acres of relief. That’s not a big amount of relief considering that the other two lots are going to be completely compliant. I guess the bottom line for me is, as far as the lot width variance, which seems to be the hardest one to approve because of its size compared to what’s required, I think there’s going to be one driveway on Meadowbrook and one driveway on Cronin Road and the driveway on Meadowbrook is already there. So we’re talking about one additional driveway which is compliant on Cronin Road by Code. So I think, on balance, in my mind, I think that this is a pretty reasonable request, and I think it would fall in favor of the applicant. MR. STONE-I agree with the last two gentlemen completely, and certainly I agree with Norm, who said pretty much the same thing. We’re dealing, here, with our most restrictive zone, the SFR-1 Acre. We are creating two one acre lots that are both going to come out on one driveway, onto Cronin. That’s commendable. Nobody’s saying that the new lots, if you will, are going to be anything less than the requirement. The property as it currently is constituted is really .88 acres. I mean, that’s where the house is. That’s where the barn is. That’s where the shed is. There is one 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) curb cut on Meadowbrook. There’s going to be one curb cut on Meadowbrook, and if you hadn’t volunteered to say that we could put that in, I would have said, please let us put it in, because otherwise you probably wouldn’t get approval. It seems to me that we, this is almost a win/win situation. We’ve got two new one acre lots in a one acre zone area. We’ve got a lot which is substandard, but that’s the lot that’s been lived on, basically. The rest is beautifully mowed. It’s taken care of, but they’ve been living on .88 acres, and therefore I have no problem. I think this will be certainly a benefit to the applicant. I think it will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood in any way, shape or form. I think we’re going to have two one acre lots in one acre zoning, and a third lot that is slightly substandard, but that’s been the lot that’s been there all the time, in one sense. The request, yes, I think the number that has scared some of my fellow Board members is the 169. It’s a large number, yes, but in effect it’s not really a large number because we’re not really going to change the character of Meadowbrook Road, it’s curb cuts or access at all. So I have no problem, and therefore I don’t think that request, even though it’s a large number, is substantial, and I don’t think it’s going to have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or the community, and while, yes, it is somewhat self-created, the applicant is doing his best to make two conforming lots and to recognize the lot on which the current housing and barns live. So I have no problems. Having said that, it appears to me that I want a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2001 REGINALD BURLINGAME, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 159 Meadowbrook Road. The applicant proposes a three lot subdivision. Specifically, the relief that is requested, the applicant requests five feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement and .12 acres of relief from the one acre minimum lot size requirement of the SFR-1A zone, Section 179-20. Additionally, Section 179-30, Part C, lots abutting collector and arterial roads requires all residential lots fronting on collector or arterial roads to have two times the lot width required by the applicable zoning or share a common driveway with other lots. The applicant seeks 169 feet of relief from the 300 foot lot width requirement, which is 150 times two for doubling. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to subdivide the property as depicted on the survey, and build houses to maintain their family on one parcel, or one parcel now divided into three. Feasible alternatives, certainly there are some feasible alternatives, but I think in this particular case the alternatives have been explored. The very fact that the two new lots share the driveway, reducing the amount of curb cuts to one on Meadowbrook is a good alternative in my mind that was pursued here and depicted. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe the five feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback is not substantial at all. I believe that to be minimum. Certainly, .12 acres out of three lots in total also is very minimal in this particular case. The 169 feet of relief from the 300 foot requirement I believe is moderate, but I believe that that amount of relief is mitigated by the fact that the applicants have agreed to stipulate that no driveway will ever be applied for or granted from Lot Two onto Meadowbrook Road in this case, and therefore there would be a great deal of effective line of sight safety in this case, and the fact that the lot that is requesting such relief already has a driveway in the exact location, and that’s going to remain unchanged. So I believe that it’s not a fatal amount of relief in this particular circumstance. The effects on the neighborhood or community, it’s been pointed out that the applicants propose three one acre or very close to one acre lots in this subdivision, in an area that is, in fact, zoned one acre. They’re proposing single family housing, which in my mind makes the desire or the expressed intentions of the subdivision to be entirely consistent with the neighborhood or community in this particular case. Is the difficulty self-created? I guess that it is, being that they’re asking for a subdivision to do what they desire, but in this particular case, I think, on balance, the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I would move for its approval. I would move for its approval with the official stipulation that no curb cut or driveway is applied for from Lot Two onto Meadowbrook Road, that in fact it always remains a shared driveway onto Cronin Road. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. HAYES- I would move for its approval with the official stipulation that no curb cut or driveway is applied for from Lot Two onto Meadowbrook Road, that in fact it always remains a shared driveway onto Cronin Road. MR. STONE-That’s acceptable to you? MR. STEVES-Acceptable. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman and Members, that is Note Number One that is on the preliminary map that is being submitted to Staff for the subdivision, Note Number One because the Subdivision Reg’s also state that no driveway is to be allowed on Lot Two fronting on Meadowbrook Road, and that Lot One and Two must always share the common drive. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-I believe that was four, three in favor. So you have your variance. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. SULLIVAN-Thank you for your consideration, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2001 TYPE II ROBERT HUGHES & CLAIR HENSLER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 160 AND 125 MANNIS ROAD, GLEN LAKE NORTH FROM BLIND ROCK ROAD, BEAR LEFT AT FORK, SITE IS ON RIGHT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 4,392 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS A REAPPLICATION OF PREVIOUS AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2000 APPROVAL OF APRIL 21, 2000 THAT HAS EXPIRED. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 29-2000/SP 46-2000 OLD TAX MAP NO. 40-1-42 & 43 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-8; 289.18-1-9 LOT SIZE: 1.17 ACRES, 0.60 ACRES SECTION 179-16 ROBERT HUGHES, PRESENT MR. STONE-And I should tell you, Dr. Hughes, that we’re going to start charging triple for applications that expire. We’re having a rash of them all of a sudden. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2001, Robert Hughes & Clair Hensler, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Project Location: 125 and 160 Mannis Road, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 4400 square foot single family dwelling and seeks height and setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement and 10 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 home in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include reconfiguration and relocation to both a compliant location and height. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 25 foot setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate and 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be a compliant location available. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 29-2000 res. 4/21/00 Setback and height relief AV 8-1999 res. 2/17/99 – extended 12/15/99 Second principal dwelling AV 109-1989 res. – 9/27/89 Shoreline setback relief for SFD denied Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While this lot is unique, with regards to the topography, with additional site work it appears that there may be sufficient area for compliant construction of a home, garage and septic area. It does not appear that a stringent application of the ordinance would preclude a reasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Any County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-All right. Before we start, this is the exact same application that we had last year? DR. HUGHES-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Exact. DR. HUGHES-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Because we ran into a problem last week. MR. ABBATE-No changes, right? DR. HUGHES-No, sir. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. ABBATE-No modifications? DR. HUGHES-No. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, sir. DR. HUGHES-I have very little to add because nothing has changed. I think it was an oversight. MR. STONE-Identify yourself. DR. HUGHES-Robert Hughes, owner of the property and a lifelong resident of Glen Lake in this immediate vicinity. We were, my wife and I were under the impression, erroneously, obviously, that since site plan was required, that the variances would somehow be linked in a temporal manner to the site plan. So that we assumed a one year timeframe with the site plan, not realizing that the timeframes were different with the variances themselves. We realize that the variances were required to do the site plan. However, did not recognize the timing issue. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re just asking us to reconsider it just the way we did the last time? DR. HUGHES-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions? MR. MC NALLY-I wasn’t here the last time to vote on it, all right, and I’m not sure why the relief is being requested from the side lot restriction. We’ve got a 25 foot setback requirement and you’re looking for 15 feet instead. That’s 10 feet of relief, and I just look at the other side of the property, you have an awful lot of space to move that house over a bit, and when I visited the site, it’s all sand and fieldstone and stuff like that. There’s no rock there at all. So, it’s easily moved and excavated. Why do you need the relief on that side? DR. HUGHES-Okay, again, the same argument would have been as for last year, but I think that you need to understand a couple of things. First of all, there’s a driveway issue. The garage of our neighbor is actually less of a setback than the garage we’re asking, because there is a steep hill at that point, it actually works to both the neighbors’ advantage and ours to back them up against each other. It has a way of preserving the space in this relatively tight lot. You don’t appreciate the sense of the tightness, but in order to create a driveway, it’s pretty much a necessity. MR. MC NALLY-This is a side entrance garage, right? It’s not facing Mannis, the drive is to the side of it? DR. HUGHES-Correct. MR. STONE-You’re coming up the hill and turning to the east, let’s say. DR. HUGHES-Right, into the garage. Any other questions, or are you going to read Mr. O’Connor’s whole treatise of a year ago? MR. ABBATE-If I may ask you a question please, sir. Do you, as the applicant, see any potential impact or impacts on the Glen Lake and/or the wetlands? DR. HUGHES-No, I do not, and this was also addressed at the last meeting. The homes on Glen Lake for the most part, are even, especially the newer homes, tend to be larger than the house we’re proposing. We presented numerous photographs at the last meeting of the character and types of homes currently existing and being constructed on Glen Lake, and this is certainly within that character. We did all we could to try to lower the level, so that it wouldn’t stand on top of a ridge, to make it more appealing. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Craig. Craig, has it been determined whether that’s a State wetland or a Corps wetland? MR. BROWN-Yes, it has. It’s not a DEC wetland, and if it is a Corps wetland, it’s what’s called an isolated wetland, that they don’t really have any jurisdiction over anymore. They don’t want to assert any jurisdiction over anymore. MR. HAYES-That was a Supreme Court case, right? MR. MC NALLY-Relatively recently. The other thing is you want 10 feet of relief from the usual height requirement. Why is that? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) DR. HUGHES-Again, that has to do with the topography of the entire Glen Lake region. If you drive around the lake, there’s a lot of ridge all around that lake, glacial moraine or whatever you want to call it, and as a general rule, most of the homes have exposed basements in order to build them and so as a result you tend to get some relatively high structures. Again, the height relief we’re asking for is consistent with many, many homes on the lake, and again, photographs were presented at the last meeting showing that consistency with the rest of the character of the lake. MR. URRICO-Do you have any photographs with you? DR. HUGHES-I believe we would have left them last time. MR. STONE-Anything in the file? MR. MC NALLY-So you said the elevation you show shows an exposed basement, and then two floors on top of that and then like a couple or something, a third floor almost. DR. HUGHES-It’s a venting cupola so the roof doesn’t, it’s for temperature control, and energy efficiency. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a question for Staff. Craig, help me out here, will you, please? What was the rationale behind the Staff comment that substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action? Help me out. MR. BROWN-A 38 foot tall house in a zone that allows 28 feet may present some sort of visual impact from the lake. While it’s located 15 feet from a property line, rather than 25, the cumulative impacts may, while individually may be minimal to moderate, the more you add together, the more it could make a significant impact. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. You indicated earlier that you didn’t feel there was going to be any impact at all. Apparently you disagree with Staff. DR. HUGHES-Well, I see that happen here a lot. I think I would like to point out that we own 225 feet of frontage, which for Glen Lake is considerable. We also own over an acre of land, which I view considerable, judging from the character of the lake, and we’ve done everything we can for the 45 years of my life to preserve the natural beauty of that lake, and I’m not about to change my 40 year behavior at this point. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? Well, then let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, again, using the test as my criteria, I feel, not having been here for the last meeting, I’m inclined to go along with the 10 feet of relief from the side setback, but I have a hard time with the 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement. I have not heard a good reason why we should. I’ve looked through the notes. I still don’t see it. Maybe I’m missing it, but based on the five criteria, yes, there would be a benefit to the applicant. To me, there seems to be feasible alternatives. I think the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. It’s hard to tell whether it has an effect on the neighborhood or community, but we’re talking about the community at large, which is what we represent as well. I think going 10 feet beyond the maximum height requirement is substantial, and I also believe that this difficulty was self-created. So, based on the weight of that evidence, I would be against it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I supported the application the last time it came up, and in connection with the height, I think that what lessened my concern about it was that the way the structure was 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) shouldered with land on each side of the structure, so even though if you got right in front of it from the lake, you’d look at a narrow part of the house, and then the cupola was set back, and it would, certainly you could see that it’s high, but because of the topography of the lot and the fact that it’s coming down like this and the house is, well, they’re digging out and setting this house down in it and filling in the basement and filling in, if I recall, part of the second floor, that, you know, as you walk up the slope, you’re seeing less and less house sticking out in front of you, but I recognize there still is a considerable variance there. However, I did approve it, and I think that I would continue to support it at this time. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I guess a major concern is the impact on the area. I believe that, if it were not for the 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement, I probably would not have a problem with this application, but I do believe, even if we take a medium, you indicate that there is no impact. Staff indicated earlier that it’s substantial. If I take even the middle road of this thing, there is an impact on the area. At the present time, and under the submission of your application, with the 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirements, I would be inclined not to support this application. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I was not here for those two other variances. So I have to look at it as a new application, even though I know some other Board members approved it some time more than a year ago, and in the case of a new application, you do the five part balancing test, like we always do, the benefit would certainly be that he’d be permitted to construct the home that he desires in the preferred configuration, and I take into account the fact that he is a lifelong resident of the Glen Lake area. The feasible alternatives, though, I think that there are. I agree with Chuck. I think the garage really is not significant. Ten feet is a lot, and I think that you could center this house on the lot better and the garage further from the line, but I take you at your word that it’s going to be built into a slope, and therefore the net effect on yourself, the lake and your neighbor is minimal, but when it comes to the height of this house, it’s going to be one beautiful house. I don’t doubt it, but I’m always struck with, if it’s a beautiful house, are we supposed to approve it just because it’s going to be done well? Or are we required, in a lakeside area, to try to make sure that the height requirements are met. Now, I know that a lot of people on Glen Lake have homes with exposed basements. Every one’s a walkout basement, then they have a balcony and a balcony and a high ceiling, vaulted ceiling roof, and it results in very high buildings consistently, and I think it’s because people want to have lots of glass on the lake. When I was there, you could look over Glen Lake and it’s one hell of a view, and even when you take into account it’s on a ridge, basically, looking down. So it’s kind of tall, and I think that that does have an effect on the neighborhood or community. I know others in the past have done it and I know others in the past have gotten away with it, but, you know, I’m the one that has to vote on this thing. The difficulty is self-created. I like the fact that Dr. Hughes put together two lots. So he has a larger lot than a lot of people do on that lake, most people do on the lake, and I think that they’re going to do a great job building their home, and it’s going to be a benefit to our community, but I think that there might be feasible alternatives with respect to the height. I’m not pleased with the height. So I’m having a difficult time with that aspect of it. MR. STONE-Is that it? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, like Bob, we’re trying to merge a couple of other hearings into one here. I was here for one of the original hearings in this particular case, and I think I feel now as I felt then, that the applicant has demonstrated a unique topography situation here, in this particular case, and as Norm pointed out, the building itself as depicted is going to be shouldered nicely on the property. Additionally, the applicant has a very large lot, in this particular circumstance, for Glen Lake standard, which means that, if anything, this house may be, in my mind, more well proportioned than some of the other ones that we’ve approved. Glen Lake, because of the unique topography, has presented us with height variances before and we’ve entertained them. We’ve certainly approved many, not all, of course, but in this particular case, I think to remain consistent, for the same reasons that I was in favor of it before, I think in this particular case, on balance, considering that there’s been no neighbor opposition whatsoever, and that we have approved height variances where circumstances were demonstrated to us in the past on Glen Lake, I think that the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I’d be in favor, as I was before. MR. STONE-Chuck? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. MC NULTY-I end up being torn with this application. I did support it last time, and as I recall I kind of felt the same way the last time. The height relief is significant, but as Mr. Hayes has indicated, I think the thing that makes a difference for me is the way the house sits into the topography. It’s a unique site, and I think the way the house is proposed, it’s going to mitigate a lot of the extra height that is technically there. So, I think, based on what I heard last time, it’s the same proposal, same situation, I’m going to be somewhat reluctantly in favor. MR. STONE-I share the thoughts of the last two gentlemen. I’m re-reading what I said a year ago. Obviously the height is the only thing that I’m really concerned about. The other things are minimal. I think certainly the benefit to the applicant is they’d be able to build a very nice home on a very unique lot. I’m sorry, on a unique lot. I never modify the word “unique”. On a unique lot. As I said the last time, if this were a standalone home on a flat lot, you wouldn’t get one vote for 38 feet, but because of this particular lot, the way it sits in the saddle, so to speak, between those two hills, and the way it’s going to be viewed from the lake, I can’t say I have no problem in granting that kind of relief, but on balance, I think it’s a reasonable request, and therefore, sharing the same feelings that Mr. McNulty and Mr. Hayes in particular have expressed, I would go along with re-granting, if you will, this variance, the way you want, and again, I would call for a motion to approve. Do you want to do the same one you did the last time? MR. MC NULTY-I can do that. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2001 ROBERT HUGHES/CLAIR HENSLER, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 160 and 125 Mannis Road. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 4400 square foot single family dwelling and seeks height and setback relief. Specifically, the applicant requests relief of 10 feet from the 25 foot minimum side setback, and 10 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. In considering the approval of this variance, we considered the benefit to the applicant, which would be the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives could include reconfiguration and relocation to a compliant location and height, but the site topography and situation I think argues for the project as proposed. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Ten feet of relief from the twenty-five foot side setback requirement is generally moderate, but the way the garage that requires the 10 foot of relief is situated, the impact is going to be minimized because it will be set into the side of the hill. Ten feet of relief from the 28 foot height requirement also could normally be interpreted as moderate or possibly even substantial, but again, the topography of the site tends to mitigate the impact of that extra height. Effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate effects on the neighborhood could be anticipated from this action, but again, given the topography of the site, I think it is probably closer to minimal impact. Regarding the difficulty being self-created, the difficulty probably is self-created because there are other things that could be done to make the project compliant, but again, the uniqueness of the site, I think, justifies the proposal as presented. For that reason, I move approval of this variance, and the septic system to be constructed would not be within 100 feet of any State designated wetland. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Before I call for a second, and this, basically, is for other people here and for the public at large. If you don’t use your variance, be aware that we don’t always think the same from year to year. The Board’s character changes. Situations change, and it’s going to be a lot closer this time than it was the last time, the way I look at the vote. So this is just for everybody. You’ve got a year. If you get a variance, go ahead and build. Do I have a second? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. DR. HUGHES-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2001 TYPE II DENNIS DALY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: 4 MOCKINGBIRD LANE, LOT 22, INSPIRATION PARK 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 576 SQ. FT. TWO-CAR GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 26-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 148-2-22 NEW TAX MAP NO. 315.06-2-42 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-67 DENNIS DALY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2001, Dennis Daly, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Project Location: 4 Mockingbird Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sf two car garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement and 6 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-20 zone, § 179-19. Additionally, the applicant seeks 5 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation requirement for accessory structures. 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 garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller attached garage which may meet the setback requirements. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 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 as there appears to be an area available for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 26-1999 res. 4/28/99 Pool in side yard denied Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. It appears as though the applicant has aligned the garage front with that of the home in an effort to maintain some architectural consistency. Consideration may be given to further encroachment on the setback to the undeveloped Homeowners Association land to the rear rather than the public right of way. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Daly? MR. DALY-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Anything you want to add, subtract, multiple or divide? MR. DALY-The only reason we’re asking for the five feet on the side is because if I go 10 feet I’m going to miss the driveway that’s already there, and then I’d have to put in another driveway. That’s why I tried to cut it down to five feet. I’m trying to keep them lined up with the house, because the house is on an angle, because that road goes on an angle. We’re trying to keep everything so it looks dress by dress as you want to call it, I guess. MR. MC NALLY-We were there this afternoon trying to figure out where it was. We were damn sure it was right at the end of the driveway and we could see that the one corner was even with the front of the house, as shown on your drawing. MR. DALY-And the shed’s going to be taken right out of there. I’m going to give that to my father to get rid of that. MR. STONE-Okay. So that was a question that I had. So the shed goes. MR. DALY-The shed goes. MR. URRICO-Are you planning on taking out the basketball hoop? MR. DALY-The basketball hoop’s going to go on the side of the driveway. My kids won’t let me take that out. MR. MC NALLY-Now, it’s 10 feet from the house. MR. STONE-No, he wants he five foot. MR. DALY-It’s going to go 10 feet from the house but 5 feet from the porch, because when I take the side porch off and put a cellar stairs going in, it’s going to be going into my master bedroom, and I don’t think that would look too good. MR. MC NALLY-That’s why you have that stairs on the upper level, it’s living area? MR. DALY-Yes, it goes right into the kitchen. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you put it attached, though, even if it doesn’t go into your master bedroom, why can’t you attach it to the house? MR. DALY-Because with the garage door the way it is, it’s hard to attach the garage that way, plus I’ve got a landscaping business, and I’ve got a lot of chemicals. I don’t want a garage attached to the house where anything can happen. MR. MC NALLY-I mean, you’re going to be walking out it anyway. It’s not going to be a walk-in to your house garage. So I’m just curious, if you snugged it closer to the house, then you wouldn’t have this problem with the variance. You’d be one, two, three done. No? MR. DALY-If you attach it to the house? I’d have to do away with the kitchen door. MR. MC NALLY-The one up on top? MR. DALY-Right. MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got a double set of doors in the back and you’ve got a front entrance in the front. MR. DALY-I’ve got sliding glass doors in the back and the front entrance, right. MR. MC NALLY-So you’ve got three exits from the house. I don’t know how essential that would be, but on the raised ranch, if the fire’s in the dining room, they’re not going to be able to get to either one because they’ve got to go down the stairs to get to the front door, or the sliding glass door. MR. MC NALLY-The sliding glass door is on the lower level? I thought they were on the top level? MR. DALY-They’re on the upper level, but if the fire’s right there, how are they going to get to the, because there’s a half a wall that goes through there. The kids aren’t going to be able to get through that. So the kitchen door is good for safety for the kids. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. ABBATE-That was basically going to be my question, but you’ve already answered it, why not just attach to the house. Then you’d not be concerned with the variance, but you’ve explained your reasons, and, okay. Those are your reasons. MR. DALY-I’d feel safer if I didn’t have an attached garage. MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. MC NALLY-The Homeowner’s Association property is to the back of your house, right? MR. DALY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-So you’ve been there before for another application, I think, at one time, where that was involved? MR. DALY-A pool. MR. MC NALLY-There was a pool in the side yard. That’s right. Before, it seemed like your Homeowner’s Association was relatively flexible people. It was never going to be developed. That’s been my impression. Any chance of scooting that garage back, so you’re outside that area? MR. DALY-Out of the Homeowner’s Association? I mean, not line it up with the front of the house? MR. MC NALLY-Yes. I mean, as Staff noted that it might be better to give your variance to the rear, rather than to the front of your house. So, in other words, if you’re garage was going to intrude on something, it would intrude on the front line, the back line, not the front. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. DALY-I’m trying to make it so the house and driveway and everything line up, because the driveway goes right to the front of the house, and if I put the garage right there, everything would line up and look right. MR. MC NALLY-Why can’t you scoot it back and put it in five feet of pavement at the end of the existing driveway, and connect the two? I mean, five feet of pavement’s not going to cost you anything. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. DALY-I thought it would look nicer if it was all dress by dress. I guess that military stuff comes into the plan. MR. ABBATE-I think Staff has it appropriate here. He says that, has aligned the garage front with that of the home in an effort to maintain some architectural consistency. MR. DALY-Because you’ve got that loop, and as you come around, you want everything to look right when you’re driving by. See, it doesn’t pay to be a Drill Sergeant in the Reserves, I guess. MR. STONE-Any other questions. MR. MC NALLY-I did drive by a few times. That garage isn’t going to affect any view or distance. MR. STONE-We’ll give you a chance to talk about it. okay. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor? Anybody opposed to this application? Obviously the garage doesn’t bother people. The pool did. Okay. Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. There is one piece of correspondence. It’s from Craig I. Taylor, it says “I am the owner of 6 Mockingbird Lane for 8 ½ years and a Board member of Inspiration Park Homeowner’s Association for 5 years. I am not opposed to Mr. Daly building a garage on his property, in fact I welcome the idea. It would be great if he would stop unnecessarily parking his vehicles on the road in front of his house. It is a serious hazard causing a blind spot, which makes it very difficult to see oncoming traffic around the curve. However, I am not convinced a detached garage protruding into the front yard 30’ setback would be good for the neighborhood or a good precedent to set. As one of the original homeowners in this 42 home development, I selected my lot, my home and I determined where my home was to be located on my property. In fact, every home was placed so that at least a single car attached garage could be constructed. I have included the pre- construction plot plan the Daly’s had agreed to, in 1992. It clearly shows “FUTURE GARAGE” 24’ x 22’ and no need for a variance. I believe Mr. Daly can achieve his goal without need for significant relief. I am not opposed to minor relief in the side or rear setbacks, they would not have near the adverse impact on the neighborhood as a structure being built within the 30’ front setback. The average lot size in the Inspiration Park Subdivision is 100’ x 100’. If any other Homeowner chooses to build a detached garage, almost certainly would need to get a variance. Currently there are 4 completed garages in Inspiration Park, 38 more to go. Please note: the detached garage at 1 Mockingbird Lane was built prior to the construction of Inspiration Park and Mockingbird Lane and is not part of this subdivision. As is usual for Mr. Daly, I believe his difficulty is self-created. He would not have this problem if he had chosen to build an attached garage or placed his home differently on his property originally. I do not know why Mr. Daly has chosen a detached garage other than for economic reasons. I believe these savings in construction costs could have a negative impact on the neighboring home values especially if this garage is not pleasant to look at. If this Board approves this variance, I recommend that reasonable conditions be included and enforced. That the structure enhance the community by being finished in a timely manner, be finished to match the existing home appearance including siding and roofing. Furthermore, I pray the Town Building and Codes and this Zoning Board of Appeals monitor this project closely, saving me and the community the burden of getting Mr. Daly into compliance once again. I respectfully request the Zoning Board of Appeals deny this request, as it is currently presented. Sincerely, Craig I. Taylor” MR. MC NALLY-Is there a drawing of the lot and the garage as it was originally intended? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I can pass it around. MR. HAYES-Which neighbor is he, Mr. Daly? MR. DALY-He’s the one that’s the President of the Association, the one that tries to run the whole place. He tries to intimidate people. MR. HAYES-So he’d be Lot 22, right here? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. DALY-I’m Lot 22. MR. STONE-Is he the one, as you look at your house, to the right or the left? MR. DALY-He’s the one as you look to the right, yes. MR. STONE-To the right. MR. ABBATE-So he’s 24, then, 2-24. MR. DALY-I believe that’s what his is, yes. MR. URRICO-As I recall, he had a garage there? MR. DALY-Yes, he does. MR. ABBATE-Yes, he had a garage there. MR. STONE-And no other letters? MR. MC NULTY-No other letters. MR. STONE-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you want to comment on what he said? Do you have any thing? MR. DALY-He wants everybody to have a garage attached to their house. A lot of people in there are not going to. There’s a guy on Goldfinch right now who’s putting a garage on that’s not going to be attached. He just wants everything to go his way, but just because there’s a Homeowners Association, I’m not going to let him run my life and run my house. I want to do what I think is right. MR. STONE-You’re dealing with the Town of Queensbury, not the Homeowner’s Association. MR. DALY-Right, but that’s what he’s referring to. MR. STONE-I understand. Did you, that porch and that door, is that all added after the house was built? MR. DALY-That was all there when I moved into the house. MR. STONE-It was? MR. DALY-Yes. MR. STONE-And you built this house, I mean, you’re the first owner? MR. DALY-I’m the first owner. Everything is the way it was when I moved in it right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DALY-But we didn’t have a choice to put the house on this lot where we wanted to because of the shape of the lot. MR. MC NALLY-It’s an odd shaped lot. MR. ABBATE-Yes, it is. MR. DALY-Because it would be too many variances, once we got that lot. They said your house has to go here because of the Town of Queensbury. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DALY-So you’ve just got to accept it and do the best you can with what you’ve got. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Daly. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. URRICO-Just looking at this map here, it looks like the corner would still have required a setback, the one that the Homeowner’s Association submitted. MR. STONE-It would still require the back. MR. URRICO-No, no, the corner. MR. MC NALLY-That’s a dimensional line. MR. STONE-No, the relief is from the back and the front. Okay. Let’s talk about it. I don’t hear anymore questions. Norm, how about you? MR. HIMES-Thank you, yes. I feel that, along with what Staff has submitted, as well as the content of the letter, that if something could be done to move the thing further away from the front road, I’d like to see that happen, whether it’s attached or not, something to get it back a little further where it might be, not need a variance from the front. It appears, from what the Homeowner’s Association man said, that they wouldn’t have any objection to a variance or to a short coming in the back. So, again, as submitted, I would not be in favor of the application, but would be if something could be done to move it back further. MR. STONE-Before we go further, I hear you. Craig, if this thing were to be moved straight back, what would be the relief required on the back side, because we’d be moving this on a diagonal. It’s not a straight, move it away six feet and pick up six feet, is it? MR. BROWN-Maybe. MR. MC NALLY-It would still require five feet of relief on the side. MR. STONE-Separation, yes, but I’m just wondering. MR. BROWN-It would be about a 10 foot setback to the rear property line. MR. STONE-It would be 10 foot. MR. BROWN-If you just move it straight back, move it straight back so the front left corner is right on the 30 foot setback. It would be about 10 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Just for the record I wanted to know that. MR. HIMES-That’s all for me, Lew. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Daly, I sympathize with you. I don’t, at this point, have any real objection. It’s your home. I’m, for one, not going to be intimidated by a Homeowner’s Association. However, I would ask you this. If there is any possible way that you could compromise your plans to please the Homeowner’s Association and/or perhaps this Board, in setting it back or attaching it, I would suggest perhaps you might want to consider that, but, having said that, at the present time, if it were a motion, I would support your application. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I am bound and determined, one day, to vote on something in Mr. Daly’s side yard and approve it. I know you want to use that (lost word) and I appreciate it. If you look at the five factors, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage in the preferred location. I think in this area it goes without saying that people need garages, particular in wintertime. So I sympathize entirely with your need, and I understand your desire. The relief is moderate in my opinion. There seems to be a neighborhood with kind of cookie cutter type lots, a certain uniformity with the setback and the way that it was constructed, which most of the houses, if not all of them, comply with. So in some sense it is going to have an effect upon the neighborhood or community. The difficulty is self-created, in the sense that Mr. Daly purchased an odd shaped lot, and you knew that there would be limited uses as to what you could use with it. I don’t have anything, if you want a detached garage, I think that’s your business. You’re welcome to make that decision for yourself. The only effect we have is do we let you build within the setback, and in this case, if you could scoot that little sucker backwards a bit, I think you can build your garage, and I don’t think, architecturally, it’s going to have any effect on the neighborhood. It’ll be just as pleasing, in my opinion. Will you have to add a bit of asphalt? Yes, but I don’t think it’s going to change much, and I’d be more inclined to give you relief from the rear, since that’s all forested, then from the front on the street where you’d be merging in to. I’d be inclined to grant something like that. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, I think Mr. Daly senses that the Board’s preference would be to have this be a little less relief in this particular case by moving the garage back. That being said, I think that based on the unique configuration of this lot, I think that feasible alternatives are fairly limited. I think Mr. Daly’s options are going to be difficult, in this circumstance, to do something that’s going to satisfy everyone, the homeowners, the Board, etc., but in this particular case, I think it’s a fairly modest request. I think Mr. Daly’s desire to have it be flush with the front of his house, while not necessarily ideal from the Board’s perspective, outside of it being a major negative impact on the neighborhood, I guess it’s kind of my belief that that should be the homeowner’s decision, as a matter of taste in this particular case. So the 2.4 feet of relief is very moderate, and the six foot relief, again, I think those are both moderate numbers in this particular case, particularly when you consider that these are, you know, small lots, for homeowners. The five feet of relief from the ten foot minimum separation requirement, I guess I’m okay with that, based on the fact the applicant’s indicated that he does not want to give up the door off his kitchen, and that’s the rationale behind that, and again, if that’s your rationale, I don’t see the relief as being significant enough to go beyond that, in this particular case. So I guess, on balance, I’m going to leave it to the applicant’s judgement, and I think I could support this application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I don’t have any real problem with the relief requested with this. Technically, we’re asked to give five feet of relief from the ten foot separation, but the note on the sketch is the garage is going to be ten feet from the main house. It’s just that porch that juts out has to be counted. So that makes the five feet, I could sit for it, I think, the garage where it is or the garage set back, but I don’t think it’s going to make a great deal of difference. This is a residential area. I don’t think the garage jutting in to the 30 foot front setback is going to impact sight line distances greatly, as far as at least a safety factor, and I can understand the reasons why the applicant does not want to attach the garage to the house. I think it’s a reasonable request, and I’d support it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I essentially concur with Jamie and Chuck. I think it’s, he satisfies the test, and especially since the garage is not entirely in the area that we’re talking about. It’s the corner of it that juts out into the area being sought for relief. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Before I start, I do have one concern that I heard you say, Mr. Daly, something about storing stuff in the garage that you use in your business. You don’t run a business out of the garage? MR. DALY-No, like gas for your lawn mowers and oil and all that stuff. MR. STONE-You said chemicals, though, for your landscaping. MR. DALY-For fertilizing my lawn and stuff, but nothing. MR. STONE-For your lawn. MR. DALY-Yes, but not for customers. MR. STONE-Okay. I thought you said for business. MR. DALY-No, I can’t keep business stuff in there. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, that’s right. The other thing I, and you were going to use this garage to house your vehicles. MR. DALY-Yes, I’ve got a truck, a car. MR. STONE-And they will be in there most nights? MR. DALY-They will be in there all the time. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Would you mind if I put a condition on that you don’t build the garage and then leave the vehicles out? MR. DALY-Right. The only reason the vehicles are out now is because it’s not wide enough for two cars side by side. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-I understand. I mean, that was one of the concerns your neighbor expressed in the letter, but, having said that, I agree with the majority of the Board, that I think this is minimal relief, certainly on the back side. The front side, because of the configuration of the property, and I’ve driven there at least two or three times, as you come in off Corinth Road and drive in there, I don’t even think you’re going to see the garage, because of the sweep of the land, and I think six feet of relief is not really going to make, six feet closer is not going to make a real problem, and certainly being close to the house, yes, if we had our druthers, we’d like it away, but I understand the reason that you’ve given, and I’m certainly willing to go along with that, and, having said that, I would like a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2001 DENNIS DALY, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 4 Mockingbird Lane. Mr. Daly proposes construction of a 576 square foot two car garage. Relief required, the applicant requests 2.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback, which in my opinion is moderate, and six feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-20 zone, Section 179-19, which I also believe is moderate. Additionally, he seeks five feet of relief from the ten foot minimum separation requirement for accessory structures. The benefit to the applicant, Mr. Daly would be permitted to construct the desired garage in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, in my opinion, are extremely limited, due to the configuration of the lot. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Cumulative request for relief may be interpreted, in my opinion, as moderate and reasonable. Effects on the neighborhood or community, minimal to moderate effects on the community may be anticipated as a result of this action, and is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, however, due to the unique configuration of the lot, I believe that Mr. Daly has limited alternatives. So, in view of that, I propose that we approve the motion. There is a stipulation that I propose, that Mr. Daly concur with the fact that the garage will be used exclusively for the storage of his personal vehicles, and he will make an attempt to store those vehicles as appropriate in that garage. We want that garage to be used as storage for his vehicles and not anything else. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Two things. The Town Zoning Ordinance doesn’t permit any on-street parking. So that itself would be a violation that could be pursued, but if you want to put it in, and the other one is would you feel comfortable with an updated final survey? I think, in this case, we have a survey. It would be easy enough to snap the tape and line up the house and see if it’s in line, rather than a final survey. It’s up to you. I know we’ve done it in the past, with dimensional relief you get a survey, as an updated, but if the intent is to line it up with the front of the house, I mean, we can figure that out and measure if it’s ten feet apart, but that’s your call. MR. STONE-Yes. I don’t think it’s necessary. Does anybody have any problem with that? MR. ABBATE-No, I don’t have any problem with that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I wonder, the Chairman made it a point, it is a fact that that garage or what have you is not used for commercial enterprise. Is that correct? MR. DALY-No. I rent a garage on Pinewood Avenue for that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just thought I’d point that out. MR. STONE-That’s good. All right. Do I hear a second? MR. HAYES-Second. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. DALY-Thank you. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-I want to congratulate you, at this point. Your side yard really looks better than it did two years ago when you came to us with the pool. MR. DALY-Well, there would have been a lot more there, if I got the pool, too. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2001 TYPE II JOHN HARRIS & J.G. HARRIS PROPERTY OWNER: J.G. HARRIS ZONE: WR-1A, APA, LG PARK CEA LOCATION: 171 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,120 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/11/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 7-1-28 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.07-1-33 LOT SIZE: 0.83 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JOHN & J. G. HARRIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2001, John Harris & J.G. Harris, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Project Location: 171 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,120 sf two story addition to a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Further, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non- conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to gain additional living space on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7 feet of relief from the 16 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (44%). 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 2000-868 issued 11/15/00 septic alteration Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed project appears to be seeking relief for the conversion of the bunkhouse portion of the garage/apartment/bunkhouse building into more formal living quarters with a permanent heating source, additional bedroom and bathroom as well as laundry facilities. While the bunkhouse portion appears, at this time, to be for extended family, the potential exists for what would be a third dwelling unit on the property in the future. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2001 Project Name: Harris, John & J. G. Owner: J. G. Harris ID Number: QBY- AV-44-2001 County Project#: Jun01-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicants propose the expansion of a building which, because it is a second principal dwelling is non-conforming under the ordinance. Site Location: 171 Assembly Point Road Tax Map Number(s): 7-1-28 Staff Notes: The applicants propose to enlarge an existing 1164 sq. ft. bunkhouse 200 sq. ft. to 1364 sq. ft. The primary dwelling is 1314 sq. ft. Together, they would provide 7 bedrooms on this 0.83 acre lakeshore lot. It appears that the variances requested are to enlarge a nonconforming structure (a second primary dwelling which also does not meet the height restrictions) The height of a second building cannot exceed 16 feet; the existing bunkhouse is 19’ 4” and the proposed new roofline will be approximately 23’. The applicants state that they recently upgraded the septic, and the leachfield’s location is shown on the site plan (attached), but they do not indicate its capacity or the number of bathrooms in the proposed and existing structure. This parcel is located in an already extensively developed section of the lakeshore. Due to concerns about the potential water quality and aesthetic impacts to Lake George from overcrowding, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for June 27, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/2001 MR. STONE-Mr. Harris? MR. HARRIS-Well, I’m John, and my father, J.G., is over here on the side. I’ve got a couple of things to talk about. First of all, the square footage is in error. Eleven is the number that was used. I’ve got a breakdown. If you don’t mind, I’ll pass it around so you can follow along with it. I don’t know whether it’s an interpretation or whether it’s a mistake, but I think maybe if you go through this you’ll straighten it out. The existing bunkhouse was built in two section. There’s a front section that’s 14 by 20 and a back section that’s 10 by 20, and that back section is the one that’s built on the slab, and it’s deteriorating and really has to be replaced. We would like to add a 10 by 20 foot section to the back of the back section. So, in other words, we’re going to tear off the 10 by 20 and actually add on a 20 by 20, but in essence, if you take the existing building, we’re adding 200 square feet to the back of that building, okay. That would give us a total first floor footprint of 34 by 20, or 680 square feet. So if you take the 680 square feet for the second floor and add that 200 square feet that 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) we added to the back of the first floor, we are asking for an addition 880 square feet, not the number that was on the plan. I think what, and one of the reasons that number may have been on the plan is I believe it may be your process that when you demolish a section of the building, you must also include those numbers in the part of your, for the reconstruction, and if that’s the case, the total would then be 1080 square feet, not the 1120 that was on the thing. I don’t know if square footage comes into your deliberation or not, but I just thought we ought to have it straight anyway. The floor plan that I gave Craig, and I don’t know whether you have copies of the floor plan or not, is not a final. It’s being changed as the family meets and gets together. I was told that I don’t have to have a final floor plan until I bring it to the next stage, but what I do have to indicate to you is the number of bedrooms that are going to be in there, and the current number of bedrooms we have are three very small bedrooms. What we intend to do is make three larger bedrooms, so we have room for cribs and things like that as a family is getting along and bringing the children with them. Also, the laundry facilities is currently in the apartment, and it’s going to stay there. There’s already been a change from when I talked to Mr. Brown last time. The family has decided that there will not be any, I was going to try and use the central stairway that is currently there for the apartment and also use that to serve the second story of the bunkhouse. The families want no interaction between the apartment and the bunkhouse. So what I’ve done is set up another set of plans that will have a stairs in the bunkhouse itself, and I have four copies of that that I can pass around if you want, just to see where we’re headed with it. MR. STONE-Unless the Board wants it, it’s not part of the relief that you’re seeking. MR. HARRIS-Okay. So, there’ll still be three bedrooms. There will be an additional bathroom, and there will be a t.v. or a sitting room, whatever you wish to call it, and we haven’t decided whether that’ll be on the first floor or the second floor. Again, that’s still up in the air, but the total increase would be an additional bathroom and the t.v. sitting room, but we’re still going to maintain the three bedrooms we have, but they’ll be larger so we can, therefore, put in, you know, a crib and so forth. The current heating source for the house, for the building, is all electric heat. It does have electric in the bunkhouse. It does have electric heat in the apartment, and that’s getting to be just too expensive, and so what I would like to do is put in baseboard hot water, and in the 20 by 10 foot section that we’re adding on to the back, I want to put in a utility room where I can therefore put in a couple of oil storage tanks, and put the heating system and so forth in there, and it would be zoned so that we can only use those parts of it that we need at the time, but that would then service the whole complex, the whole building. There is no intention to change the use of the bunkhouse. It will be used as a bunkhouse. I know that expressed by the County that this would make another residence. It’s not another residence. It will never be another residence. We’d be willing to state that. That’s not our intention. It’s just basically, the family’s gotten bigger, and we need a place to put them. I’ve looked at different plans as to how we could take and make the best effect as far as the height and so forth goes. Currently, the front of the building is 19 feet 4 inches, and we want to go to 23 feet. I have a plan here. Do you have copies of these? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HARRIS-Okay. That gives you an idea of what I’m looking at with the front of the building. My intention was to continue the existing roofline straight on up until it reached the wall, the right hand wall of the existing apartment, and then run down the other way. So I would make as minimal increase in the height as possible. Did I cover all the questions? MR. STONE-When was the original bunkhouse and the garage, that whole, that building that’s there now, when was that built? MR. HARRIS-Gosh, it was not built as one complex. The bunkhouse was a tool house, and we took the tool house away from my father, when we started to need a bunkhouse. We then built the garage, the bunkhouse on the side of the tool house, and gave him a workshop in the back of the garage, and it’s happened over many years. Dad, approximately when was the? MR. J.G. HARRIS-I was in Puerto Rico and you just built it, 1976 or ’77. MR. STONE-When the building was built. MR. HARRIS-Parts of it. I believe that the apartment and the garage was built in the early 70’s, maybe late 60’s, early 70’s. MR. STONE-And that’s prior, Craig, prior to zoning, right? MR. BROWN-Yes. Well, I don’t think it’s prior to zoning, but prior to any zoning that would have prohibited it probably. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I’m asking. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. HARRIS-And then I believe the bunkhouse part of it was built before that, even. I think I built that when I was in college. So that would be in the early 60’s, ’63. MR. STONE-Was there a kitchen in the apartment? MR. HARRIS-The apartment, yes, but not in the bunkhouse. The apartment is a complete residence. MR. STONE-So it is, that’s a second residence. MR. HARRIS-It is a nonconforming residence, nonconforming based on today’s current zoning, yes, it is. MR. J.G. HARRIS-I bought this in 1942, before I was married. It still has my wife’s maiden name on it, and I have three children, and they had nine children. So I have nine grandchildren. Two of them got married. Now I’m up to 11 grandchildren, and now I have two great-grandchildren. They all come home at Christmastime, and believe me, it’s a hard (lost words) to sleep them, but I’m glad they come. In fact, next week they’re all coming again, two from San Diego, two from North Carolina, three from Boston, and all over. MR. HARRIS-It’s an occasional use kind of thing that drives us. MR. STONE-You say you upgraded the septic system. MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. STONE-To what standard? MR. HARRIS-Seven bedrooms. MR. STONE-Seven bedrooms. I’ve got the current maps and so forth. It was done, is it Scudder maybe? MR. J.G. HARRIS-Charlie Scudder. MR. STONE-Okay, but it’s fine for what they want to do? I mean, Dave has certified it? MR. BROWN-The number of bedrooms isn’t increasing, correct? MR. HARRIS-Is not. MR. BROWN-Okay. It’s all set. MR. HARRIS-Yes, we just did this this past Fall, with the idea that we were not going to increase the number of bedrooms, just make them larger. So we figured there’s no reason to make it any bigger than what we had. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HARRIS-We could have done so at the time, but we didn’t feel any need to. MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. J.G. HARRIS-That whole back yard is a septic system now. He did a beautiful job. MR. STONE-How big is that shed back there? Isn’t there a shed on the property, too? MR. HARRIS-The wood shed, it’s probably 10 by 30 maybe. It’s strictly a wood shed. It’s got wood storage in it. MR. STONE-What’s the status of that, Craig. That’s still supposed to be 10 by 10, right? MR. HARRIS-He can probably get it off the map. I don’t have it. MR. BROWN-Is there like a lean-to portion on the back? MR. HARRIS-Yes. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. BROWN-Overall, I’ve got 13 by 39. MR. ABBATE-When was that constructed, that shed, approximately? MR. HARRIS-Sixties, maybe. MR. ABBATE-So, it’s, okay. MR. HARRIS-It’s been there a long time. MR. ABBATE-That answers my question. Thank you. MR. HARRIS-Okay. MR. STONE-Any questions of the Harris’? MR. ABBATE-Well, let me make sure this is cleared up. So you have no intentions of increasing the bedrooms. You did indicate there’s another bath going in? MR. HARRIS-Yes, there is another bath. MR. ABBATE-And the septic system is capable of handling seven bedrooms you indicated? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And then there was also a modification. You indicated that you’re really asking for 880 square feet, but taking into consideration the mathematics involved with the compliance, that it boils down to 1,080 square feet, rather than the 1,120 square feet. Am I correct? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. All right. Thank you very much. MR. HARRIS-Yes. I didn’t know how much those numbers played in your deliberation, but I wanted to make sure you had them accurate. MR. STONE-As long as you’re within, well under the 22% Floor Area Ratio, it doesn’t really. MR. HARRIS-And I believe we are, under all those. I know we did a lot of figuring on it and tried to get it right. MR. URRICO-Mr. Harris, what do you do with that space when family’s not up? When the family is not around? MR. HARRIS-It’s vacant. It’s not used. MR.URRICO-Not by anybody? You don’t rent it out or anything? MR. HARRIS-Nobody. It’s not rented, not loaned out, nothing. MR. HIMES-The apartment also? MR. HARRIS-No. The apartment is rented. The apartment does have a tenant. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. HARRIS-And that’s where we’ve had our family discussions, whether we want to have a joint stairway. My niece said no. She said if I have to go from upstairs to downstairs and the bunkhouse, I don’t want to have to go through the common stairway. So therefore my plan was voted down. We’re back to Square One re-doing. MR. STONE-So this is rented to an outsider? MR. HARRIS-The apartment, yes, the second story, over top of garage, that apartment is rented to an outsider. He’s been with us I think maybe eight, nine years now. That is, yes, that’s how my father pays for his taxes. MR. STONE-Craig, does that cause any problems? Because I’m not sure we’ve had that, in my experience. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. BROWN-Does what cause any problems? MR. STONE-Having a tenant in this second residence? MR. BROWN-If it’s rented, is there a problem that there’s a second residence? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-No, I think the problem is that there is a second residence. The occupancy of it doesn’t, whether it’s owned or rented doesn’t. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-This is almost a third residence. MR. HARRIS-The bunkhouse is not really, is not a residence. I mean, there is no kitchen, no plans for a kitchen. There is going to be two bathrooms. There is an existing bathroom downstairs, and I wouldn’t even be putting a second bathroom upstairs except my children have requested that we have a tub for washing the babies. They say if you’re going to do it, you’ve got to put a tub in so we can wash, you know. So I said, fine, we’ll put a bathroom upstairs, then. MR. MC NALLY-It’s unusual. MR. STONE-Yes. You’re getting to the area that concerns me. MR. HARRIS-And I understand. MR. STONE-This is a very busy, old lot, I mean if you consider that it goes back before the zoning would have prohibited some of these things, and the question I have to ask myself is should we make it busier. I mean, I know it’s great, and I certainly have family myself, and we always want them to come to the lake, but there are practicalities, and I’m concerned, and I don’t know where I’m coming out on this. MR. HARRIS-I guess I don’t think it’s actually going to make it any busier than it is now. Now what they do is they come up and we sleep on the cellar floor, and any place we can find to sleep. I mean, it’s not going to cut down or change the number of people involved. It’s just going to make it more comfortable for them when they are there. I mean, because it makes it difficult, they still, I mean, my kids have had Christmas up there since they were babies, and they still want Christmas up there with grandpa and grandma, as long as they can do it. So, you know, they’re willing to go through any hardships they can in order to do it, but this would certainly make it more comfortable. MR. STONE-The thing that, and I always hate to be morbid when we talk about these things, but we are all mortal, and times do change, and I don’t want Mr. Harris, who I’ve known for a few years, to leave us, nor do I want to leave us, but it is something that, when we grant a variance, it’s forever. It has nothing to do with the age of the owner or anything else. MR. HARRIS-That’s why I was thinking that, I’d certainly be willing, and I believe the family would be willing, to stipulate that somehow or other that there will not be a change in the use of that building. It currently is a garage, an apartment and a bunkhouse, and that conforming use will stay. Like I say, we are not interested in another residence, and the County brought that up also, and I don’t know how to prove that. MR. ABBATE-Let me get this straight in my mind. I think you made an excellent point here. I just want to reiterate it. What you stated, if I’m correct. If I’m incorrect, bring it to my attention. MR. HARRIS-I will. MR. ABBATE-What you’ve stated is that, regardless of whether these modifications are granted, the amount of traffic will remain consistent? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HARRIS-I mean, they come up and visit. It just makes it much harder. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you very much. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody wishing to speak opposed? Would you read the ones that we got in the packet, and any other things, actually, just read one and then put the names on it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-All right. We have four short notes that say, “I have spoken to Mr. Harris concerning the variance he’s requested concerning the addition to second story of his bunkhouse. I am in favor of his being granted the variance.” And signed by Jane Shires, Marie M. Laursen, Lois Garrard, and Peter Thomas. MR. HARRIS-Those are the neighbors immediately on either side. MR. MC NULTY-And we do have a record of a telephone conversation between a Dr. Carol Collins and Pam Whiting of the Planning Office, on 6/25/2001 indicates that “She is unable to attend the meeting but wants to go on record that she is opposed. It’s important that variances are not granted in CEA’s.” MR. STONE-Knowing Dr. Collins, it’s the first time I’ve heard her come up in a situation like this, which is kind of interesting. Any others? That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other comments anybody, anything they want to ask? MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, under “Feasible Alternatives”, I meant to list, and I apologize for not having it in there before, and I think I know the answer to it already, but I’ll just ask the question. Why couldn’t we convert the apartment in to family living space, rather than add additional living space, and I think I know the answer. I think they discussed it was for a financial reason, but maybe to get it on the record, if you want to hear the answer to that question. MR. ABBATE-Good question. MR. STONE-That’s a good question. MR. HARRIS-Yes. Basically the economics of it. My father’s on a limited income, and that money he does derive from that apartment certainly makes it able for him to stay at the lake. MR. STONE-One could ask, if you all come up and use it, why don’t you contribute to the taxes? MR. HARRIS-I suppose, yes, we do contribute in a lot of ways, but we don’t contribute financially. It’s a good point. MR. STONE-It’s a reasonable question. MR. HARRIS-Yes, it’s a reasonable question. Good point. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it. Chuck Abbate, let’s start with you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Harris has submitted a number of documents here, and I listened to what he had to say, and what his dad had to say. I listened to why you want these improvements, family considerations. I’m not so sure that I could honestly object to anything that you’ve said because if I were in your position, I would probably be saying the identical same thing. I think, in my opinion, what you’re asking is reasonable, and based upon the information that you provided, and the documents and your verbal testimony, unless there’s something that another Board member brings up, I would be inclined to support your application. MR. STONE-All right. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-This is a tough one. Your proposal is far enough from the lake that I don’t think it will have any impact on the lake whatsoever. We’re usually, at least I am, pretty critical when it comes to buildings of greater height than the Code allows when they’re adjacent to the lake, but by the same token, this is an expansion of a nonconforming structure, to really effectively make a third residence on a single family lot. Now I know that you’ve got a main house. Then you’ve got a 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) garage with an apartment over it, and then this bunkhouse which, while it doesn’t have a kitchen in it, is one kitchen shy of being a separate residence. It’s going to have three bedrooms. It’ll have a living area, it’ll have a utility room, it’ll have two bathrooms. MR. HARRIS-No utility room. MR. MC NALLY-No utility room in the back? MR. HARRIS-No. MR. MC NALLY-Where are you going to put the water heater and the heater? MR. HARRIS-I’m sorry. I thought you meant like a washer and dryer utility room. No, okay, I apologize, I’m sorry. MR. MC NALLY-And it has, it smells like a third residence. It seems like a third residence, and with all due respect, your folks live in one, a tenant lives in another, and nine children and so many assorted grandchildren live in the third, which is the bunkhouse that’s being proposed. I think the relief is, you’re here for the height requirement and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. I don’t see it currently as having any effect on the neighborhood, because you’re using it already, effectively. In the future, though, there’s no way for the Town to enforce whether or not this gets converted to a third residence or is rented out or sold or anything like that. MR. HARRIS-Even if we make a written statement to that effect? MR. MC NALLY-There’s no way we can enforce it. Twenty years down the road we’ll find out that there’s a 30 year rental history or some such thing. I don’t know. I’m willing to listen to the other Board members. It just, it’s an unusual request, and it’s something that we don’t, I’ve never seen in my experience on this Board, that there would be essentially three residences on a single lot, and that we are being asked to approve of its expansion. I’d like to hear the other Board members. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think I essentially agree with Bob to a large extent. In this particular case, the height factor from the lake, in my opinion, is not going to be significant. There’s some very heavy, big trees there, and I don’t, I really don’t think that’s going to be a big problem. As I looked at this application and visited your property this afternoon, which it is a very nice piece of property, I was on the fence initially, but to be perfectly honest, getting the information that the apartment is rented to a third party, to me, heightens my concern, which has already been mentioned that, in fact, expanding, as you propose to do, would in fact be creating three separate residences on the property, and I think, in my mind, that’s over the top, in this particular case. I think the Staff has correctly pointed out that if your true intention is to house all your grandchildren and children, certainly that’s a very noble thing to do. You have the alternative to convert that apartment into a family use. It may not be, you know, economically great, but it is certainly a possibility, and if that was more of your proposal here, it would be easier for me to approve, in this particular circumstance. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I think that, you know, 44% of relief on the height, I think that’s moderate, but expanding the nonconforming structure, in this particular case, to what I consider to be the significant potential of three residences on one piece of property that’s less than an acre, is a dangerous precedent to set, in my mind, going into the future, because it could make for some unusual applications, just like this one, that are difficult, and even have good reason now, but going into the future, we’ll lose control of those reasons and just have property that will be over utilized, in my estimation. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Again, I believe that by approving this type of a variance in this particular circumstance, I think we’d be setting a precedent that could effect the neighborhood in general going forward. I think right now you’ve got the privilege of having two and a half uses on this property, and that’s a lot, and I think you’re lucky to have that, and I’m happy that you do, but in my mind, that’s enough, in this particular circumstance, and certainly, the fifth part of the test, in my mind, you fail as well. Because certainly what you’re trying to do is self-created. I mean, it’s noble and it’s understandable, but it’s certainly self-created. So, I would say, in my mind, four of the five parts of the test weigh against you, and I think that that’s too much. I would be opposed to this application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Like some of the other Board members, the height I think I could go along with, given the situation where their property is located. I don’t think the additional height is going to affect anybody. Also, like several of the other members, I am greatly bothered by the use. I’ve been kind of on the fence which way I would go, but thinking about it, if you were proposing adding the apartment as a new thing or you were proposing adding the bunkhouse as a new use, I would say no, it’s too much use for the property. So that brings me back to the point where I don’t think I can 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) really condone the expansion of the nonconforming use, because I wouldn’t approve the current use if it were a new proposal. I think it’s just going to be too much for the property, and again, like has been mentioned, I think we have to look not only to how you would use it, but the potential, some day, that that property might be sold to somebody else, and how they would use it. Then we’re selling something that’s got, as I say, basically three residences on it. So I think in balance, I’m going to have to be opposed. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree with Jamie and Chuck reluctantly. I would really like to give a positive statement to this, but I don’t think I can. I think it’s very shaky territory that we’re stepping into, and given the reasons that they both stated, the potential for expanding this nonconforming structure just over weighs any other positive aspects of it. I don’t have a problem with the height relief. It’s a beautiful piece of property, but the potential for three residences there really weighs against, from my standpoint. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel the matter of having an apartment that is rented out to a third party is a matter of choice. You decided to do that. That’s the important thing in my mind, in connection with your application. In terms of the family and so on, I might say that even without the apartment being considered, that I think there are a lot of people I the community who have resources less than you and families of the same size, and they have to make do some how. There are many small residences in this community with large families, sometimes all living under the same roof for years. Just living from week to week is a challenge. So, in that respect, although I can certainly agree, and it’s wonderful to try to get the family together, I can see that there’s something else there that enters into it. So, on the whole of this application, I’m sorry to say that I cannot vote in favor of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-I basically concur with what I’ve heard the majority, Mr. Hayes in particular. I’m reading from 179-16, Waterfront Residential zones. The purpose of the Waterfront Residential zone is to protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development. WR-1A, the zone that you’re in, at least one acre is required for each principal building within the zone. Maximum density, one principal building allowed for every one acre. Now, you’re very fortunate that you have almost an acre. We don’t have too many of those on Assembly Point, or certainly Cleverdale or Rockhurst, but we’re trying to go, and I think the deciding factor for me is the point that Mr. Hayes made, that when you’re renting out, it changes the whole complexity. I mean, I certainly applaud the desire to have the family come and to get together as often as possible, but when there is a business transaction going on, and I recognize the need and the value of doing it, but it really becomes three residences on one, where the Code clearly calls for one. The height portion I think Mr. McNulty said it very well. Back where this is located is probably less of a concern than any other height concern that I’ve expressed on lake property, because it can’t be seen from the lake. There’s no question, unless somebody really wants to sit there, where can I find a house that’s legal. So, I would have no problem, in the sense, if you would want to expand the bunkhouse the way you do, but not with the information that I have in hand. The only way I can prevent there being three “residences” is by denying. Now, that puts a number of alternatives before us. I mean, if I, as I looked at the vote here, and I don’t know where one person would come down on this thing, but certainly I have five people who are not inclined to grant the total variance that you’re asking, which puts the ball back in your court. I mean, we can vote to approve, and get a no action because we’ll probably get too many votes (against), or we can vote to deny. If we vote to deny, then the burden becomes on you to come back to us, if you still want to do something, with a very modified request. MR. HARRIS-And along those lines, one of the things that does concern me is this electric heat thing. Would requesting the 10 by 20 first floor addition for the utility area to put a furnace in and oil tank and so forth, and not put the second story on, is that something that might be looked on favorably, or is it inappropriate to even ask? I don’t know. MR. MC NALLY-Well, you’re saying that you would consider putting a 10 by 20 addition to the rear, that would be a utility type room? MR. HARRIS-To the rear, yes, that would be single story. MR. MC NALLY-And you would not increase the height? MR. HARRIS-Not increase the height. I’ve got to go look and see if I can do the roofline. MR. MC NALLY-As long as you kept it within the 16 foot, I think, you wouldn’t require a variance for height, but you would require a variance for expansion of a nonconforming structure. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. HARRIS-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-So that’s where you would be. You’d modify it in that respect, and then we’d have to think about it. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, if you want, we can table it for up to a couple of months, if you want to re-think the whole thing. Obviously, you have a very interesting group of people who’ve expressed their views very clearly, in terms of what they want. MR. HARRIS-Yes, they do. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, let me ask Craig. Craig, let me ask you a question, please, because I want something cleared up. The subject is residences, three residences. There appears to be a concern about three residences. Does a rental unit in the WR-1A reconfigure the definition of WR- 1A? MR. HAYES-It’s up to each Board member to determine that. MR. ABBATE-I’m talking about a legal definition. MR. BROWN-Yes. I’m not sure I completely understand the question. If it has a complete, separate set of living quarters, bedrooms, bathroom, kitchen, it’s a residence. It’s a principal building. So if there’s two of those, there’s no way around it. MR. HARRIS-The apartment does. MR. ABBATE-It does. MR. HARRIS-But the bunkhouse section does not. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That clears it up for me. MR. STONE-So, it’s your call. I mean, you can say you’d like us, you’d like to take it away, without having a vote tonight, and come back within a month or two, up to 62 days, with a modified proposal, and we can discuss it again. MR. HARRIS-I think probably that’s what I would prefer, because I think one of our issues. MR. STONE-I mean, is that something the Board would be interested in having them do? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-I think we’d like to help your family, but we’ve got some problems with your proposal. MR. HARRIS-And I understand the concern. I can also understand how you can think that’s a third residence. I don’t know how I can express any more seriously that it will not be in our use, but, you know, again, you indicate if it’s sold we have no control over that. I don’t expect it to ever be sold, but you don’t know. You can’t read the future, but my two concerns are is that back section that’s got the slab is crumbling. That’s got to be. MR. MC NALLY-You can always repair an existing nonconforming structure. MR. HARRIS-Well, yes, but I think at the same time I do that, I would pour the foundation in and bring that what, now there’s two steps down into that section. That would bring it up to level, and then I would also put on that utility room so I could put a furnace in, and I think that’s what I’m thinking is a possibility. MR. STONE-I would be willing to ask the Board to table it, and give you a couple of months. MR. HARRIS-Thank you. MR. STONE-Is that reasonable? MR. ABBATE-It’s a fair position. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2001 JOHN HARRIS & J.G. HARRIS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) 171 Assembly Point Road. For up to no more 62 days, so that the applicant can prepare a revised application, based on the comments made by the Board this evening. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. HARRIS-Thank you. MR. J.G. HARRIS-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Sorry we can’t be any more specific. MR. J.G. HARRIS-This weekend we’re having 16 guests, two from San Diego with a seeing eye dog, four from North Carolina, two from Denver, and the rest will be up from the Utica area. Our family’s quite close together, but thanks for your consideration. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2001 TYPE II THOMAS HARDING PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD. TO BRAYTON LANE, LEFT OF RAPPAPORT ROAD TO HARDING DRIVEWAY, 18 HARDING LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 672 SQ. FT. DETACHED 2-CAR GARAGE WITH SHOP AREA AND SEEKS RELIEF FOR A SECOND GARAGE. ALSO, THE APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK AND HEIGHT RELIEF AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 6-3-22 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-79 LOT SIZE: 1.48 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-67 THOMAS HARDING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2001, Thomas Harding, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Project Location: 18 Harding Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 672 sf two car detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement and 3 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Accessory structure separation relief is not necessary as the proposed structure would be located 10 feet from the home. Additionally, since there is currently a detached garage on the property, the applicant requests relief for the construction of a second garage on the same parcel. The proposed garage square footage total would be 1042 sf compared to the allowable 900 sf. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a second garage and gain the desired storage area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a downsized proposal in a more compliant area and addition to the existing garage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial (80%) while the 3 feet of height relief from the 16 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be feasible alternatives. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP99-667 issued 11/1/99 dock Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. A second detached garage, placed 5 feet from the property line may present an adverse impact on the neighbor to the West (Grasso). While alternate locations for construction may be more difficult, it appears as though there is room for compliant construction. It does not appear as though a strict application of the ordinance (one garage) would deprive the applicant from a reasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we have “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2001 Project Name: Harding, Thomas Owner: Thomas Harding ID Number: QBY- AV-45-2001 County Project#: Jun01-24 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a detached 2-car garage with shop area and seeks relief from the requirements for a second garage, side setback relief, height relief, and accessory structure setback. Site Location: Assembly Point Road to Brayton Lane, left of Rappaport 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) Road to Harding driveway. Tax Map Number(s): 239.12-2-79 Staff Notes: The lot where the applicant proposes constructing a 28’ x 24’ garage already has two existing accessory structures – one 15’ x 12’ and the other 18.5’ x 20’. The applicant states that he wishes to have a garage located closer to the house for autos and a shop area. Side yard variances are not typically matters of County concern, but in this case Staff believes that the variance may be indicative of lot crowding. This parcel is on Lake George, so crowding is of particular concern. The applicant has not provided any information about stormwater and erosion mitigation measures during and after construction. Due to concern about the potential water quality and aesthetic impacts to Lake George, Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing is scheduled for June 27, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/01. MR. STONE-Mr. Harding, state your name for the record. MR. HARDING-My name is Tom Harding, and I’m the applicant and the property owner. I guess I’d like to start by just a couple of comments in regard to the way the relief was stated that I needed, because in our pre-app meeting there might have been some confusion because the way the plan is, is there is 10 feet from the main house to the proposed garage. So there’s really no relief asked for with that. MR. STONE-The notes state that. MR. HARDING-Okay. The other item is with measuring the lot width, and the stated concern, why we discussed it at the County and here, the lake frontage, due to the undulating shoreline measurement, and the lot width tapering back, going up the hillside, where the garage is proposed to be is only about 115, 120 feet in width. Going a little farther back, it’s about 80 some feet in width. So I submit that with, in regard to the relief asked for, that’s it’s really a 20 foot setback that this would be under the regulations for, as opposed to the 25 because the lot is not 150 feet wide, and certainly not on average. MR. STONE-Craig, do you agree with that? MR. MC NALLY-Do we have a survey? MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-Did you do this drawing? MR. HARDING-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Did you have a survey you took it from? MR. HARDING-The tax map and the other map there that I used for the locations, the properties that are adjoining and all around have been surveyed. So the measurements and so forth, I had an original survey when I bought it, and that was used for the measurements, and both side lines have been surveyed and there are pins there, and that’s where I ran the tape. So, within a few feet, I’m quite sure of the accuracy of it. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have that survey here today? MR. HARDING-I think I do. MR. STONE-Craig, you believe the average is 150 or more? MR. BROWN-Yes. Typically what we’ll do is if there’s a lot that’s irregular, we’ll either try and take an average, if it’s consistent, or we’ll use the dimension of the lot in the area of the development, and based on this drawing, where the garage is proposed, you know, the shortest distance across the property scales about 150 feet. Certainly if Mr. Harding’s measured between two survey points, that’s going to be something that I would default to, but this drawing, based on the dimension across where the garage is proposed, is about 150. MR. STONE-Okay. So it may mean that we would have to get a certain. MR. BROWN-What it would mean, it would mean a 20 foot requirement rather than a 25 foot requirement. Still relief, but MR. STONE-It may be, but it still needs relief. There’s no question of that. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. HARDING-It still needs relief, but when I read that in the beginning, with the setback from the main house and so forth, it looks pretty negative. MR. STONE-Well, the house, obviously, was in the agenda, and obviously that’s been changed. It’s going to be at least 10 feet from the house? MR. HARDING-Yes. MR. STONE-The original agenda. MR. BROWN-That was misidentified. MR. STONE-So that’s gone. That’s not a problem. MR. HARDING-So to proceed, I’m saying that, in actuality, if measurements are done with the survey, that the lot is narrower than the 150 feet, and certainly by average, but, nevertheless, what I’m proposing, why I do need relief and therefore I’m here with the present plan. Going down the benefit, the problem is, is there was a garage that was built in the 30’s, and it was built back up the hill from the home, and it was built by the gentleman, and I have a photograph and album that’s been handed down, with his Model T Ford and so forth, and I don’t use it as a garage. I use it to put my parent’s car in there in the winter, when they go to Florida, but you have to have two people in order to back in because it’s so narrow. It’s a double but it’s got posts in the middle and so forth, and then once you get it in there, that’s why I have to do it for them. It’s a trick to get out of the car to get out of the garage, but anyway, it’s 230 feet, plus or minus a few feet because it’s on an angle, behind the house, and up a slight hill, and so we don’t park there. The family, friends and so forth, everybody parks down near the house, and this lot is an acre and a half, 1.48 acres, and it’s large enough that I thought, gee, it would be nice to have a garage that you can put your car in when family members come, my aunt, and I was telling this story last year, who’s 80 years old, has her nice Buick, drives in, you say goodbye, and I see the pine pitch all over it, and so I spend the next hour and a half trying to get it off of her car. She goes home and so forth, but to me, to have a nice place that I’ve worked for and save for my whole life, ever since, you know, growing up on Trout Lake and working at the Grand Union there and caddying, this is my dream, and house with a large lot on the lake, it seems like a garage would be appropriate. Yes, strictly, maybe there is already a garage there, even though the practicality of it, and so forth, is very small, and I’d be willing, because I heard of another neighbor that built a new house and they wanted an additional structure, but they couldn’t get that for a garage, so they called it boat storage. Well, I have kayaks and a canoe and wind surfer and so forth. I’d be willing to call it a boat storage, the present structure, so that it could be classified that the new structure would be a garage next to the house where it would be usable, and so that’s the idea behind it. As far as the siting of it and putting it very close to the property line to the west, with Grasso, his garage there is four feet from the line, and he built a new house there. There was that structure already. He put new siding on it and so forth, but I’d like it there because that blocks my view, looking out a number of windows, from his traffic, his garage doors, people coming and going. The same reason, if I build this garage, if this particular location on the property, he’s in support of it because it gives him the privacy. So I understand and appreciate zoning and the regulations, but that’s why I’m here for a variance, because I think with the topography of this site, also talking to an architect and spending some money on ideas and how to do it, this is the suggestion, not have it attached. Have it detached, for scaling, because I’ve got essentially two story, plus dormers in an attic area. So the house appears very tall, and then to have a garage next to it, on an angle, with some height, but greatly diminished, it gives a more pleasing view of the residence, in my mind and the architect’s, and that’s why we did it. The height being, I asked for 19, sure I could build a garage at 16. The pitch on the existing house is a 12/12 pitch. The neighbors, they have a 12/12. Their house is 12/12. To the east, Bradley’s is a very steep pitch, too. So for the consistency of the architecture in the neighborhood, why, we wanted to match somewhat of the pitch. It’s still a little less, but it’s close, and that was the only reason for going over in the height, because we all thought it looked better, the neighbors and myself. If you flatten it out, it looks like the garage was added at a different time, and you see it in many sites, but it’s not as aesthetically pleasing, and that’s the only reason. MR. ABBATE-This garage you indicated was constructed around the 1930’s? MR. HARDING-Yes. Well, one way we could eliminate the word “second garage”, on this application is to take down that 1930’s garage. Would you be willing to do that? MR. HARDING-Right, and I would not be willing to do that, because I think, looking at the garage, you know, they’ve got a storage area above it. It used to be an apartment, but I disconnected all the pipes when I bought the property 10 years ago, and ripped out all the electricity and the pipes going up the hill to it and so forth, because I don’t want it as such, and I just use it as storage, but the structure is certainly good enough now, especially for storage, and with lake places, storage is very 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) handy, that it would be foolish on my part to tear down a perfectly good structure. It is not dilapidated, and I had it recently painted, and, you know, cleaned it up. MR. STONE-I was going to ask you. So there was an apartment there? MR. HARDING-Right. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s what it looked like as I drove out it. I wrote a note as I drove out this afternoon. You’re saying that there is nothing in there that’s livable anymore? MR. HARDING-The electricity is gone. There’s no plumbing. MR. STONE-What about the other one? MR. HARDING-The other what? MR. STONE-The little shed. MR. HARDING-The little shed, the original builder built that, I think that was built in the 40’s, it was going to be a studio. That is just a concrete floor. There’s nothing in there. There’s a sink in the corner, but there’s no water going to it. They had a pipe going to the outside of it, and, you know, I cut all of that off. There’s no electricity, no plumbing. So there, I don’t need that one. I’d be willing to take that down, but, it’s all stone construction, and everybody that drives in and the neighbors says, God, gee, that’s cute, what’s the story behind that, and everybody likes it, and there’s a history to it, and I’ve tried to clean up this property and work hard on it for 10 years, with landscaping stone walls and so forth, and make the whole area better, and to make something old, and to keep it and to renovate it, and I like that. MR. STONE-Craig, if he takes the garage doors off, what does it become? MR. MC NALLY-It’s still a garage. There’s a car in it now. MR. BROWN-A garage with no doors? MR. STONE-I thought we could take those off. MR. BROWN-We talked about this that day I met on the site with them. If the building could be modified where you can’t get a vehicle in, it’s not a garage anymore. MR. STONE-Right. MR. BROWN-But I don’t know if that’s the position that Mr. Harding wants to take. If you want to put a couple of columns in the doorway so you could only get canoes in and out, it’s a boat storage building, but if you do that, then you can’t get the antique cars in there, and I don’t know if he’s got an interest in doing that. MR. STONE-I’m just asking the question. MR. HARDING-Right. It seems one of those things, sure, it could be done. Yes, I would be willing to put a post in the middle, but in practicality, I’m not using it as a garage now, and things like that seem foolish to me, if I might be so blunt as to. MR. MC NALLY-Wasn’t there a little sports car downstairs? MR. HARDING-Yes. MR. MC NALLY- There is a car in it now? MR. HARDING-Being stored, because it’s the same thing. You have to bend the mirrors in and whatever, and that’s trying to be sold, and that’s the only reason it’s there. MR. ABBATE-But that 1930’s garage can accommodate a vehicle. MR. HARDING-Right. MR. ABBATE-So in effect it’s a garage. No matter how you cut it. MR. STONE-Yes, well, he’s asking for a second garage. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s still in our purview to do. I didn’t mean to suggest that, we still have to make that decision. MR. HARDING-No, I’m not trying to be, you know, I’m here because I can’t use it. I want something near a house. This is 2001, a very valuable piece of property. I’d like to have a garage near the house. MR. STONE-No, the only reason I ask the question is that sometimes, and I can’t say for this time, sometimes the more relief that’s needed, in other words, side setback, height you’re asking for, second, we start to get uncomfortable when we get up to three, four and five. That’s all. That’s the only reason I asked the question. MR. HARDING-That’s what I was trying to diminish that, okay, you know, with the height, the accessory it’s not there, the second garage is relief, if you call it that, but I just heard about the boat storage, and, fine, I’d be willing to call it boat storage and do that. MR. STONE-Okay. Are you done? MR. HARDING-There must be something else that I’ve forgotten. Yes, the effect on the community, from the back, you come down a hill into the property, okay. So the neighbors will see it. From the lake, it’s 125 feet back. Maybe it’s 100 feet depending on what part of the water, you know, you come from, but it’s very well set back from the shore, and there are trees in front of it, and a very amateur drawing that Norm suggested, why don’t you do something, because you don’t have a sketch as to what it’s going to look like from the lake, but if I put a workbench in the front, I thought windows and so forth, with the architect, that, you know, it looks more quaint that the back of a garage and so forth. It’ll be siding to match the house. It’ll have brackets, the old style that we have on the side of the house, up in the fascia, and from the lake, minimal I think. From the back, nobody will see it. The neighbors, Mr. Grasso, who you might say is most effected, he likes it. The letter is in the file for support, but then, as opposed, talking to Mr. Stone, he said if other people want to come and support it, that’s great, or they can write a note. So I have the other property owner’s to the east, the Bradley’s, the other property owners on the other side of Grasso, and then the people up on the driveway when you come in, the Carey’s, and I showed them the plans, because I think in a neighborhood, you know, explain what you’re trying to do, and what are your concerns, and so they all have notes which you don’t have, in support. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’ll give them to the secretary, we’ll read them into the record. MR. HARDING-And I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions? Bring those up and we’ll put them in the file, and when we get to the public hearing, we’ll read them in. MR. MC NALLY-I had a couple of questions. The 16 foot height is enough to accommodate ceiling height for a garage, and what’s above there, just storage space? MR. HARDING-Well, like you look at, I’d probably get my trusses from Curtis, and they have their garage package, just to start it off, but you modify it and so forth, like with windows and whatever. So you do your truss, where your truss ends, but in the middle you’ve got like a box, I can put things up above, if you have a stairway that pulls down. So there’s no stairway. There’s no plans for a room or any. MR. MC NALLY-Right. Well, what is the height there, four or five feet maybe, max? MR. HARDING-Well, you’d have eight, ten, and then with your trusses coming up above it, yes, you’d have six feet, seven feet, you know, depending on what pitch you wanted it. MR. MC NALLY-Right, and you said that the reason you needed the height was to match the pitch of the surrounding houses? MR. HARDING-It would look better, because all the homes, the Bradley’s, the Grasso’s, and my own, all have 12/12 pitches. So to put something flatter in there, it’s not going to look as good. Sure, I can conform. It’s one of those things that, yes, we’re here at the meeting. We’ve got the rules and regulations, but in practicality, riding by in the boat, or the neighbors, they’re all going to like it I think, and what they said, better that way. It’s not the rule, but. MR. MC NALLY-Do I understand that you’re proposing a 1,042 square foot garage? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Total. MR. MC NALLY-Total. MR. STONE-Between that other one up the hill and this one. MR. MC NALLY-Really? MR. STONE-Yes, that’s the total, right? That’s the total of the two. MR. BROWN-The new structure is 672 square feet. MR. MC NALLY-I’ve got to do my math, then. MR. ABBATE-Yes, the new structure, right. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and the other thing, when I went down to the property, you’re looking at the house, lake’s in front of you, why can’t you put the garage on the right hand side? MR. HARDING-Because that’s where the leachfield goes. MR. MC NALLY-Well, maybe your drawing is not accurate. MR. HARDING-My drawing is off there, when I look at, because that’s why I tried to meet every member that came, and I missed you, and I’m sorry, but to show where the leachfield went, where the neighbor’s property is in the bushes, so forth. That’s the logical, but also, that has the most impact from the lake, because you’re looking at the side. So the Bradley’s and people going on the lake are going to see the whole side of the garage and the front of the garage, or the lakeside, in that location. MR. MC NALLY-So what you’re telling me is that that grassy area between the septic depiction on your drawing and your house is also septic? On this drawing it says future patio area. MR. HARDING-Right. MR. HAYES-That’s where the plastic is now, or whatever. MR. HARDING-Right. I’m trying to kill the grass there. So I’ll put patio brick down there. MR. MC NALLY-And the driveway actually goes down straight, as if there would be a garage there, though. MR. HARDING-Well, that’s where we go to put boats in and out, or the neighbor’s jet skis or whatever else. They use that going down. MR. MC NALLY-So you can’t use that because that would interfere with the roadway into the lake, then? MR. HARDING-Well, but also you wouldn’t have the width to do anything more than a skinny garage there because the leachfield comes out over there, right on the edge of that path going down to the lake. There’s not enough width there. Looking at that map, I said, something’s off scale because the natural thing, if somebody doesn’t look at the property, and walk it, they’re going to say put the garage there, but when you walk the property, as I showed you with the property line where it is with the Bradley’s, it doesn’t fit, unless I tear up part of the leachfield. MR. MC NALLY-It seems big enough to me, though. MR. STONE-I had no problem with where he wants to put it. I have to admit, I didn’t look that hard over there. Any other questions? MR. URRICO-I have a question about the exact side setback relief we’re now requesting, based on the 20 feet or based on 25? MR. STONE-He wants to put it five feet from the line. It will either be 15 or 20, depending on whether it’s needed 20 or 25 feet. MR. URRICO-Okay, but on your application it says five feet to fourteen feet. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. HARDING-Right, because we’ve got it on an angle. It’s not just parallel to the property line, because we thought it looked better from the lake, in relation to the house. MR. STONE-We only care about the maximum, though. I think I tried to tell you that this afternoon. MR. HARDING-Right. MR. STONE-All we care about is the closest point. Any other questions? If not, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anybody opposed? Why don’t you read those letters in. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We have several letters. One’s from Michael Grasso, it says he’s reviewed the plans for Mr. Harding’s new garage and supports his project. He does not object to any aspect of these plans. MR. STONE-And he is the next door neighbor to the west. MR. HARDING-To the west, and he has a garage that’s four feet off the line. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-A note from Sally Carey at 6 Rappaport Drive, “I have no disagreement with Mr. Harding’s plans to build a two car garage and workshop on his property. I believe that his new building would not interfere with his neighbors in any way. Sally Carey” A note from Linda Bradley, “I am one of Tom Harding’s neighbors. He has shown me his plans for his proposed garage. I have no concerns with his construction and support his project. Sincerely, Linda Bradley 20 Bradley Way Lake George, NY 12845” A note from Ripenske, Mr. and Mrs., “Dear Sirs: We have seen the plans for Tom Harding’s proposed garage. We support his proposal. Thank you.” And then we have a note from Gertrude Young. It says, “I am writing in regards to Area Variance No. 45-2001, Type II. We are unable to attend the meeting due to impaired vision, so we can’t see at night. We are opposed to changing the variance laws so Mr. Harding can build a second garage. Sincerely, Gertrude Alexandra Young” And she apparently also talked with Craig Brown on June 25, and indicated they are not in favor of Mr. Harding’s request for relief. They would like to be on th the record as voting against the application. MR. STONE-Do they give their location? MR. MC NULTY-No, they don’t. Their home address is in Schenectady. MR. STONE-Okay. Do you know where they are? MR. HARDING-Yes. They’re the other side of Cantanucci. MR. STONE-So they’re further to the west? MR. HARDING-Further to the west. MR. STONE-Okay, toward Assembly Point Road? MR. HARDING-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HARDING-Yes, and I’m shocked because I didn’t know anything about it. MR. STONE-Well, we notified within 500 feet. MR. HARDING-Right. MR. STONE-Either she was notified or she heard about it. She lives in Queensbury and she can comment. MR. HARDING-I mean, she can’t see it. MR. MC NALLY-It’s in the newspaper. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-It’s in the newspaper, yes. Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other, do you want to comment on anything that you’ve heard? MR. HARDING-Only, I guess, listening to some of the other cases earlier, and listening to sizes and so forth, I’d like to suggest the consideration, if this was a smaller lot, I wouldn’t consider it, but it’s 1.48 acres, and it’s a large piece of property, and due to the topography, I don’t think it’s going to have a negative impact on that. If it was a smaller lot, why, I wouldn’t want it myself, or I’d want to tear something down, but I think if you visited the site, and with the trees and so forth, I think it can certainly handle it, and I think the house might even look, you know, a little nicer with the garage. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? Bob, let’s start with you, then. MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with the height relief. I do agree that these buildings are perceptually tall, and their roofs are peaked such that I could understand someone would want a different pitch on their roof that might require a little bit of relief from our height requirement. That’s not a problem with me at all. I also agree with Mr. Harding that it is a large lot. He says it’s 1.4 acres. So a second accessory structure in the rear, it’s kind of out of the way. It’s not going to hurt anything. If he wants a newer one closer to the house, then so be it. I can understand that entirely. I still have a concern about the 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement. It is a large lot, as he said. It is 1.4 acres. Perhaps I missed the opportunity to visit and see exactly where that septic system was, but it did occur to me that there are more compliant locations, and while perhaps, there are more compliant locations, and I’m not certain that the Statute couldn’t be accommodated. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, when Mr. Harding first called my house, I was a little bit alarmed, because I said this could be a doosy, but, actually, having spoken to him, and listened to him tonight, it’s actually understandable why he did. I would say, basically, he has covered the concerns that I had, looking at this initially, strictly from a Code perspective, and there are some, because there’s enough relief here, but I think that, basically, in these circumstances, Mr. Harding has explored feasible alternatives pretty thoroughly, in this particular case, and I think where he’s sited the garage, in my mind, makes the most sense. I think it’s actually a good site for the thing. I was very concerned to hear what the neighbor to the immediate west had to say, the Grasso’s, because they certainly are the most affected. The most substantial portion of the relief certainly goes toward them, but when I visited the property and saw that they had a garage that was four feet from the property line there, and essentially this is going to be a mirror image of that, and they don’t object, and they both like the privacy that the garage has created, I think that that’s mitigated. I don’t think it’s a problem for either neighbor, and I don’t think that where the garage is going to be located, or I should say I do think where the garage is going to be located is going to produce the least impact on the view shed from the lake. It’s going to be tucked in there. It’s going to be angled, and it’s going to be probably, based on the roof of the garage, it’s going to look like it was part of original parcel in the end, if it’s sided like you say, etc. As I pointed to originally, the relief, you know, there’s several pieces of relief here, but none of them bothers me even cumulatively, based on the fact, again, that in my estimation, it’s not going to produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or community. I don’t think that the existing garage, and it is a garage, I don’t think that that would be adequate for me or for anyone else in 2001 as you said. I think that that was built in a different time and a different era, and it’s so far away from the house that I don’t even think that it has the stigmatism that one might associate with having two garages on one parcel, which can be distasteful from an aesthetic viewpoint, but in this particular case, I don’t think that applies. It’s on 1.4 acres. The garage is 200 feet, the old garage is 200 plus feet away from this house, which in a practical sense is impractical, in my mind, and finally, the garage itself is going to be 672 square feet. That is not, to me, the kind of structure that I would be troubled by, as far as going too large, too big, biting off a lot in this particular case. So I think, it’s a small garage. The height variance has to do with an architectural idea that I think makes sense, myself. So I think, all things considered, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant. I think it’s a good plan. I think it’s well thought, in this particular case. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can understand why the applicant wants what he’s proposing, where he’s proposing it. I don’t think I have a problem with the height variance because I’ll agree that it would be better to have a peak that matched and roof slope that would match the surrounding buildings, 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) but the cumulative effect of some of the other variances do bother me. Five feet from the lot line is pretty close, and even though somebody else has got something five feet or four feet from the lot line doesn’t mean that everybody else should also have that same privilege. So that bothers me some. As Bob indicated, it strikes me that there probably are some other compliant locations on the property that would accommodate a garage. Being over the square foot limit for garage space bothers me some. I know it’s not over an awful lot, but if it’s not over an awful lot, then it would be possible to shave a little bit off the proposed building to go into compliance, or, I think alternatively, as has been suggested, convert the current garage into a storage shed. So something so it’s no longer a garage, and then you don’t have the square footage problem and you don’t have the variance for two garages on the same piece of property. I guess the thing that bothers me is being over the square foot limit and two garages on the same property. I see no compelling reason to grant that. So, as the request is currently formulated, I’d be opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-This reminds me of a case we heard few weeks ago, about a month ago, off of Glen Lake on Glen Lake, where one of the structures was sort offset on their property, but it was done so for a reason, for an aesthetic reason. We granted relief based on that, and this is sort of similar, in that I appreciate what Mr. Harding has presented, in that he has an appreciation for the look and feel of the property, an appreciation of the existing structure. It seems like his design or the way he’s set up this garage is to take that into account. His unwillingness to sacrifice some nice structures there to save a garage is to be admired, I think, and I feel that, when I look at the weight of the criteria, to me and basically echoing what Jamie has said, falls in favor of the application. I realize there’s a lot of relief there, and the side setback, but you talk about balance sometimes, and the balance here seems to indicate that it should be next to that other garage that’s so close to that property line. Anywhere else might actually make it stand out more than it should. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, too, am in favor of the application for the reasons that the garage placed where it is, and the type of architecture that the house is conventional place, the garage is going to be built to appear that way, too, and the placement of it, the way I look at it, compliments the garage, which is on the next door neighbor’s property, and in terms of, I tried to imagine how it would look from the lakeside, and the way the shoreline runs, the trees and shrubbery and so forth seem to kind of embrace the size of the structures that face the shoreline. So I think the aspect of a second garage, it’s not a problem in terms of them being so close to the neighbor’s line, and back to the matter of the garage, perhaps, the second garage that is, there could be a condition, if this is approved, that the other garage, which is so far away and so awkward to use, not be used for storage of vehicles, and lastly, the height variance. I believe, too, that having looked at the drawings the he proposed, that it is again a complimentary thing that is better than to just flatten it out for the purpose of the Code. So, for those reasons, I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Harding is correct in that 1.4 acres is quite large. However, 80% relief is, in my opinion, quite substantial. I do believe that there may be more compliant areas in which this garage could be constructed, and in the final analysis, I believe that the cumulative effect, there will be a negative cumulative effect on the entire area, if this were approved. So I would not be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I am in favor of the application, and I’ve heard everything that’s been said, and sometimes I surprise myself when I listen to things, but I really think the location, yes, the particular location next to the property line, yes, it’s very close, but I think somebody said, and I don’t know who it was, I like mirror images, and it works there. I think it provides, without interfering with anybody, either party’s view, Mr. Grasso or yourself, it provides protection to both of you, and since his is there, I see no reason why yours shouldn’t be there, and whether it’s 15 feet of relief or 20 feet of relief, I have no problem putting it there. I would like, if Mr. Harding were willing, and if it’s necessary, to maybe lower the house, but then I hear everybody saying, architecturally, it might be nice, I mean, lower the garage, not the house, to lower the garage, well, that’s one way we can, no, to lower the height, but it doesn’t bother me that much, particularly the way it’s tucked in, the way it is behind trees almost, as far as the view from the lake is concerned. I guess I wish Mr. Harding would offer, and I’m not going to force it, but I wish he would offer somehow to put a column in or something, so that this other thing can’t be used as a garage, because, while the square footage doesn’t bother me, the 100% variance always bothers me, but on balance, and I think that’s the most important thing, I think, when we consider the benefit to Mr. Harding and then, I don’t see any detriment to the immediate community. Yes, if you extended this Town wide, we are granting a great deal of relief as far as having two garages is concerned, but when you consider the house next door, Mr. Grasso, you consider the house next to that, the complex that 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) seems to grow as we look at it, Mr. Cantanucci’s property, which is coming along very nicely, I don’t have any real problem with this thing. So I would call for a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2001 THOMAS HARDING, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 18 Harding Lane. Applicant proposes construction of a 672 square foot two car detached garage. Relief requested. The applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement and three feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16. Accessory structure separation relief is not necessary. Additionally, since there is currently a detached garage on the property, the applicant requests relief for the construction of a second garage on the same parcel. Proposed garage square footage total would be 1,042 square feet, as compared to the allowable 900 square feet. Benefit to the applicant, the applicant will be permitted to construct a second garage and gain the desired storage area. Feasible alternatives, in connection with the placement, may be to downsize the proposal in a more compliant area. However, the practicality of the issue is that the garage is desired to be closer to the house. It’s position is placed in regard to a very similar structure belonging to the neighbor to I think it is the west, which has a garage, too, which is right next to what is being proposed in this application, and probably the same size or perhaps a little bigger. Also, the garage, proposed garage, is placed so that as far as lake view is concerned, it is hardly visible. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Twenty feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, while the three feet of height relief from the 16 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Recognizing these variances, we feel that they are not degrading, in terms of the affect and impact of what is being done. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Moderate effect on the neighborhood may be anticipated. We’ve heard from the neighbors. The immediate neighbors are strongly in favor of the proposal, and I move that we approve the application. Also, that the garage can’t be built closer than five feet to the side line, and there will be an as built survey. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. HIMES-When we speak of a second garage here, we would like to have a condition in this motion that the original old garage not be used to store or park vehicles. So, in effect what we’re doing is that we’re not adding a second garage, it could be said. MR. STONE-Would you talk about that condition you put on, that it not be used for the storage of vehicles? You don’t want anything physically done to it, though? MR. HIMES-Would you like to do that? MR. STONE-No, I’m just asking you what you did, and then I want to talk to the applicant. MR. HIMES-Okay. No, I didn’t specify any construction to the old structure. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re asking that he refrain from using it for vehicle storage? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Do you hear that? Is that something that is acceptable? MR. HARDING-Yes, it is, and I’d rather do that than put a post in the middle and if you are putting a canoe in, you’ve got to go to the side of the post and so forth. MR. STONE-Okay. So we have a motion to approve with the condition that the second garage, or the building up to the back of the property not be used for vehicle storage. Okay. Everybody understand that? You’re willing to accept that? MR. HARDING-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Do we need to say it’s 15 feet of relief? MR. STONE-Well, it’s 15 or 20. I don’t know. MR. BROWN-I think what the confusion about the size of the lot, if you’re comfortable with 20, that’s the most relief you can grant. MR. STONE-Yes, that would be the easiest thing to do. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. BROWN-You may want to consider a final survey to confirm that, both the setback and the height, if you’re going to grant both types of dimensional relief. That’s the condition you could put in if you want to. MR. MC NALLY-If an argument is made the setback has to be only 20 and you grant 20 feet of relief, you’d be right on the line, why doesn’t the motion reflect that the garage can’t be built closer than five feet to the side line? MR. STONE-In addition to the relief we’re granting? Okay. Would you accept that, Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-In other words, he’s saying we’re allowing the garage to be built five feet from the line, the relief being 15 or 20 feet, depending upon the determined width of the property. MR. HIMES-Okay, and there will be an as-built survey? MR. STONE-And you want to ask for an as-built survey. MR. HIMES-All right. MR. MC NALLY-Well, let me ask you this. I see which way this is going, all right, and I see the sense of it in some way, but do you really want to tell him he can’t use that other garage for storage of vehicle? In my sense it’s far enough away, if he’s willing to stipulate, that’s fine, but why would you not want him to do that? MR. HIMES-Well, from the aspect that you could say, then, that there are not two garages on the property. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. HARDING-May I say something? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. HARDING-I’d rather not, not that I’m going to use it for the storage of vehicles, but when my parents want to put a car in there for the winter, I’d like to be able to do that. I don’t think that hurts anybody, but during the summer there’s no need for any cars in there. MR. ABBATE-See, therein lies the problem, Mr. Chairman, and this is the point I was going to bring up. You’ve already indicated, Mr. Harding, that you would accept the provision that the garage will not be used to store vehicles, and you said fine, and then after further conversation you said, well, except, either you will or you won’t. MR. HARDING-I was saying except because Mr. McNally said. MR. STONE-For summer storage of vehicles, and that for over wintering, it can be used. MR. MC NALLY-But we’re fine tuning this. MR. STONE-Yes, we are, I know, and he’s not going to go out and look, and we know that. I’m sorry. MR. MC NALLY-He’s got a thousand square feet worth of garage, that’s not that much. It’s in two places. That’s all, and it’s on a big lot. MR. STONE-Well, we’ve got a motion. Would you be willing to modify it not to be used for summer storage of vehicles? MR. HIMES-All right. Yes. MR. HARDING-That would be great. Then I could make my mother very happy. MR. ABBATE-Well, make me happy for a second. What is the problem with him using that second garage, since it appears it’s going to be approved, for storage of motor vehicles? I mean, I’m against it, but if we’re going to allow a second garage, why can’t he use it? I guess I’m not so sure. MR. STONE-We’re trying not to use it as a full time second garage. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. ABBATE-I’m not so sure we should do that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-I mean, either we’re going to approve a second garage or we’re not. If we’re going to approve a second garage, he has every right to store vehicles in there. MR. STONE-Well, you have to talk to Mr. Himes. He’s the one making the motion. MR. MC NALLY-I think the motion should let him use it as a garage. MR. STONE-Having said that, are you going to vote in favor of it? MR. MC NALLY-I think I will, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-I’ll take him at his word that there is a septic system in the place I think it should be. MR. HARDING-I have never dug it up, because the septic system was there when I bought it, and the previous owners showed me where it went and so forth. So I can only testify to what I know. MR. STONE-What we really want you to do is, we’d much rather have you expand the house so that you have to upgrade the septic system, but that’s not on the table tonight. MR. HARDING-I heard that’s where you were going this afternoon, and I’d rather just keep it to a garage. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. HIMES-I guess it appears that I’ve missed something along the way here, as usual. So, all right, I will take out the thing about the condition of not using it to park cars or store cars. Would that make everyone happy? Is that felt to be more reasonable? MR. STONE-We’ll see. MR. ABBATE-That’s a very reasonable approach. MR. STONE-Okay. Do I have a second to that motion? MR. URRICO-I second it. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. It’s approved. MR. HARDING-Thank you very much, and maybe, now it’ll seem like I’m brown nosing or whatever, but I would like to thank you, because I appreciate, I’ve been in the real estate business all my life, and building and so forth, and on voluntary boards and so forth, and taking the time to come to properties, inspect them, go through it, and whether you agree or disagree, there’s quite an effort being made, and, you know, I appreciate it. So, thank you. MR. STONE-Well, thank you for your kind words. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2001 TYPE II JOHN & E. LYNN HIGGINS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: BRAYTON ROAD, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 421 SQ. FT. SHED AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 11-1-26, PORTION OF 11-1-3.1, 11-1-3.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.08-1-15; 240.05-1-2; 239.08-1-58 LOT SIZE: 0.25 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-67 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2001, John & E. Lynn Higgins, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Project Location: Brayton Road, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 421 sf shed. Relief Required: Applicant requests varying amounts of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16, with the maximum request for 24 feet of relief. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the shed in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a downsized shed in a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 24 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial (80%). 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.): None applicable Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be area available for more compliant construction, minimal relief. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And we do have a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2001 Project Name: Higgins, John & E. Lynn Owner: John & E. Lynn Higgins ID Number: QBY-AV-46-2001 County Project#: June01-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a shed and seeks relief from the accessory structure requirement as well as setback relief. This is an after the fact application. Site Location: Brayton Road, Cleverdale. Tax Map Number(s): 11-1-26 and portion Staff Notes: The shed in question does not meet setback requirements from Russell Harris Road, which has been determined to be a Town road by use. Though this parcel is within 500’ of Lake George, Staff does not identify any significant impacts to State or County resources from the shed. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for June 27, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/01. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Could I trouble Mr. McNulty to read my cover letter into the record? MR. STONE-Okay. Surely. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter from Jonathan C. Lapper to Chairman Stone, “On behalf of Jon & Lynn Higgins, I am hereby submitting an application for an area variance for their existing shed which is located within the center of the loop road known as Brayton Road. This area variance involves the placement of a shed last summer which the Higgins did believing that they did not require any approvals from the Town. This was based upon a conversation with Craig Brown and their belief that the loop road was not a Town road. Craig has now confirmed that Brayton Road is a Town road by use and therefore the entire frontage of the Higgins property within the center of the loop is required to comply with the front setback applicable to the WR-1A zone (30 feet). The location of the shed was chosen because of the steep slope which begins just south of its present location. It is therefore not possible to move the shed farther from the road to create any additional setback. As you will see from the enclosed survey map (where the road is designed Russell Harris Road instead of Brayton Road) the Higgins’ are about to obtain title to additional property from the Lake George Boat Company, Inc. which includes property currently occupied by their deck and a portion of their trailer. Utilizing the interior of the loop road for the storage shed is certainly preferable to placing it on any area which would be visible to the lake. Moreover, the 2,208 square foot parcel to be acquired from the Lake George Boat Company, Inc. is subject to a right of way which benefits all of the neighbors. I hope that the Zoning Board will see that the shed size and location are appropriate and do not create any problems for the neighborhood. It is my understanding that the neighbors are supportive of this variance request. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of the June Zoning Board meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” MR. STONE-And here you are. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, and good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, and John and Lynn Higgins are here behind me and available to answer any questions. I’d like to just quickly start out talking about the after the fact nature of this, which is something that is always sensitive to this Board. Certainly not anticipated or intended in this case. First, they went to Garden Time to pick out a shed, and got a little pamphlet that said you don’t need approvals from the Town. What that meant is, you don’t need a building permit because it’s an accessory structure, which is completely irrelevant to our discussion, but that’s how they started out. They then went in to talk to Craig about the location, and Craig apparently looked on a map, and there’s some issue that this, at one point, this was a private drive, and now it’s a Town road, but when they went in, they believed that this was a private drive. So that there wasn’t a 30 foot setback issue, and Craig determined that it is a 30 foot 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) setback issue because it is now a Town road, whenever it wasn’t, and I’m not sure of the history and haven’t researched when it became a Town road, but apparently it is a Town road now, and therefore everything is a front setback because they’ve got the road all along the parcel. So they’d like you to understand that they certainly didn’t go build it first and ask permission later. They thought that they had every right to put it there. Secondly, just to explain, in terms of this neighborhood, what’s going on here, up until a year ago when they started preparing to put the shed here, this whole area was a m mess with weeds and growth and brush and old water heaters, and they and their neighbors cleaned everything up. Actually, this was part of the property that’s owned by Mr. Bette. What the map says is the Busher Estate is now owned by Bette. So this was part of his property, in the center of the loop, and they and their neighbor purchased it. The road is only 11 feet wide, and up until this was cleared out, and I’m sure you all saw it, to be used for parking, there was no place for any of these people to park. They were all tiny lots and everyone would just pull over to the side of the road. So they all went in with their neighbors, cleaned the thing up, and the intention was that the would put a shed there because, as you can see from the map and from being out to the site, I’m sure, they have a tiny parcel and a tiny home, which is a seasonal home. The survey is incorrect, in that the parcel above where it says camp, the next parcel, is also theirs and Craig shows that on the tax map attached to his notes, that they do have a lake access parcel that’s narrow but is also theirs, but what I mentioned in my cover letter, they’re seeking, because they have such a small home, they’re seeking additional storage for their boat in the winter and for stuff in the summer. They’ve got virtually no room on their site, and the idea of putting it on the property that they’re acquiring from the Lake George Boat Company or on their lake parcel, any of that would be worse than what’s proposed here because it would be visible from the lake. This is, essentially, a useless piece of property that doesn’t impact any, and we have letters from the neighbors, and even though the variance, and of course you have to look at it as the worst case, the six foot from the property line, as the twenty-four foot relief, that, of course, is only one corner, the worst location, but the reason why they placed it there is because of the slope, and I presume everybody got to see that. That’s the only place they could put it because it would start to fall down the hill, and finally, just in terms of their intentions for how they cleaned it up, I’m sure you saw how this is painted and flowers and the trees that they planted and they’ve really gone out of their way to make this nice, and the neighbors are supportive, and that’s all I have to say at this time. MR. STONE-Okay. I have a question, Mr. Lapper. Can you, we’re saying that Russell Harris Road or Brayton Road is a Town road, and yet this survey shows the property line going across the road? MR. LAPPER-This is a road by use. So at some point. MR. STONE-At some point they gave it up? MR. LAPPER-No, it wasn’t. The public has somehow acquired an easement over the road, as a road by use. In my mind all the roads that became roads by use, and Bob may know this better that me, was under the Highway Law of 1910, and it was all roads, as of that time, which were thoroughfares, became public roads, if they were roads by use, and I’m not aware of how a road becomes a road by use after 1910, because usually it has to be dedicated. MR. STONE-We know a guy we can call. MR. LAPPER-So I haven’t researched it. Instead, we felt that it was just most appropriate to concede that Craig was right, that the Town has this listed as a Town road now, and to come and ask for the variance, but they still do own the fee interest under the road, the bed of the road, if you will, and the Town has acquired some sort of an interest to the public thoroughfare. MR. STONE-Okay. This hook that goes down to the lake, now is this all one lot from the lakeshore to the circle? MR. LAPPER-Now, it is not, because the area to be conveyed, that big piece which is under that other existing easement, which includes their deck. Obviously, they didn’t get title insurance when they bought the parcel, because part of their house, and I haven’t asked them how that all came about, but it’s all being remedied because they have an agreement from the Boat Company to buy this additional property. MR. STONE-So, in other words, but this trailer basically went from one side of the property line to the other? MR. LAPPER-And beyond. MR. STONE-And beyond. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So now they will hook all together their lake access parcel, the parcel they’re acquiring on one side of the trailer, which is not exactly a trailer, but a home that looks like the 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) dimensions of a trailer, and on the other side, and then the piece that they acquired in the center of the parcel, and I guess the only other thing I’d like to throw in is that there is an argument that if this is now a separate parcel because it’s surrounded by a road, that somebody could have bought this whole thing and tried to build a house on it as a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. I’m not suggesting that anybody would want to, but this is a more minimal use than that. MR. STONE-This lot, this shed is just storage? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-It’s a very attractive, the most attractive shed I think I’ve ever seen. It’s really pretty, but it’s just shed? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. The other concern I had, and I’m still not sure it’s solved, but is the permeability, because with this trailer sitting on no permeable land, do we get to 65% permeability? MR. LAPPER-With the land, when I did the application, I didn’t take into account the lake piece because I didn’t know about it, because I was looking at the survey, and that piece is bigger than the pieces that they’re acquiring. So the way I did it, with the pieces they were acquiring, and I ran this by Craig, they would certainly be complying, and that’s why I didn’t ask for a 22% variance. So the answer is. MR. STONE-No, that’s floor area. I’m talking permeability, 65%. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry, and if they were okay, it’s only one story, both cases. MR. STONE-Permeability has nothing to do with story. You cover the ground and they’ve got a lot of gravel around. MR. LAPPER-In this case, the floor area ratio and the permeability would be the same analysis because it’s only a one story structure. So if they’re at 22% building, they’re beyond 65% permeable. Right? MR. STONE-Right. MR. LAPPER-Okay. So there’s no issue. They comply. MR. HAYES-What about the gravel? MR. BROWN-Yes, pavement and gravel counts as well, as permeability. MR. STONE-See, gravel is non-permeable in the Town of Queensbury. We keep reminding people. MR. LAPPER-But there isn’t any. MR. STONE-It’s all gravel. MR. LAPPER-In the front of the parcel, for the parking lot. Okay. MR. STONE-It’s a concern. I’m not going to dwell on it, but it is something that we’ve got to think about. MR. LAPPER-Is that on your side? JOHN HIGGINS MR. HIGGINS-Mr. Stone, most of the gravel area is on the other half of the circle. LYNN HIGGINS MRS. HIGGINS-It’s not ours. MR. HAYES-That’s Dufresne’s? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MRS. HIGGINS-See, originally we were going to buy it and have all six people go in on it, and we couldn’t because it’s too little, the piece is too little. MR. STONE-Okay. So you own just, okay. MR. LAPPER-Just that piece. MR. HIGGINS-I’d like you to think of it as our side is the grass and his side is the gravel. MRS. HIGGINS-Because that’s how it is. MR. STONE-Okay, but you have a shed on your side anyway. MRS. HIGGINS-Our side is the shed. MR. STONE-Okay. So that’s what you want. You’re saying you didn’t build it. You didn’t deliberately set out to build it without getting a variance because you didn’t know. Okay. Any questions of Mr. Lapper? MR. ABBATE-At this point, I’m afraid to ask any. I’m so awed by his argument. It’s getting late. MR. MC NALLY-Did the Higgins’ get a building permit for it? MRS. HIGGINS-We didn’t build anything. MR. LAPPER-Garden Time delivered it. They own the land now. MR. HIMES-In the circle? MR. LAPPER-The northern half. MR. HIMES-Okay. They do? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HIMES-All right. MR. LAPPER-All ready. MR. HIMES-And are you going to hook up electricity to the shed? MRS. HIGGINS-It has electricity. MR. HIMES-It does already, underground. Okay. MR. STONE-For what purpose? MRS. HIGGINS-Lights and stuff, so you can see when you go in there. MR. STONE-Okay. All right, any other questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-I take it we don’t know when it went from a private road to a public road? MR. STONE-No, you’d have to ask the Highway Department, and I’m not sure they, it’s on their survey, though, you’re saying? MR. BROWN-It’s on the inventory. It’s listed in the Clerk’s Office as well. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-It’s a road by use. MR. STONE-Yes, like I have a road behind me that I think was on our deed originally, but it’s become a road by use, and since the Town wants to plow it, so be it, they can have it. MR. HIMES-It seems like some of the structures and all around it are less than 30 feet away from the road, too, not just the one we’re looking at, but two or three of the other dwellings and what not appear to be pretty close to the road. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Yes, but they’ve been there a long time. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? And we obviously have a piece of correspondence here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have a note from F. Hager and Jane Johnson, Mrs. Damela Howell, and Mrs. Penny Witkowski, “The undersigned are the family of Raymond and Elizabeth Van Patten. The property at 28 Brayton Lane has been in the family since 1950. We in no way object to having the subject shed owned by John & Lynn Higgins 20 Brayton Road remain where it is located, and ask that a variance be granted.” MR. STONE-Another one? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a letter from Matthew Bette, “Unfortunately I am unable to attend the public hearing on June 27. I would, however, like to express my opinion as the immediate adjacent landowner to the above referenced property. I have no objection to the location of the structure installed by the Higgins. They have thoughtfully placed the building and have appropriately landscaped the area in an effort to minimize any negative impacts. I would recommend that the Board grant the requested relief from the setback requirements in this instance. Sincerely, Matthew Bette” MR. STONE-Okay. That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, Jamie, let’s talk about it. MR. HAYES-Well, first of all, I was greatly relieved, and I’m sure the other Board members had concerns about a structure being placed and then an area variance being requested after the fact, but I was greatly relieved that there had, in fact, been a communication with Staff, and that an effort was made, initially, to place this in a compliant location. To me that dramatically reduces the burden in my mind in this particular case. The fact that it was later determined to be a Town road, if it’s on the inventory it is, and then that makes it a Town road. So, I mean, Craig is only just indicating what is factually in front of him. So, I don’t have a problem with that. In this particular case, this is a very unique neighborhood. So I’m going to view this as a unique application. There’s a lot going on between the Boat Company and your properties, and a lot of the things that are close to property lines and now roads that weren’t roads, and I say that because I’m prefacing the fact, as far as substantial relief. Normally, 24 feet of relief from a 30 foot requirement could be fatal even. I mean, it’s a big number, 80% is always a big number, but I think this is a totally unique circumstance, and I’m going to view this application as it sits in that way. So I don’t see, based on the fact that this has been determined to be a Town road, I don’t see where any shed could be placed, almost any shed could be placed in an area that would be compliant. I think that the Higgins’, in this case, have made an effort to clean up this piece or this uniquely conformed piece of property. They took responsibility for the immediately surrounding area to their home, which if we had that in our community, that would be certainly a positive for the neighborhood in every circumstance. The shed, as I view it, is well done. It’s tasteful. It’s attractive. As much as anything can go in this neighborhood, which I perceive as a completely diverse neighborhood, I think it does in this particular circumstance. There’s been neighbor’s support. So normally that’s a lot of relief. It certainly is substantial, but I think in this particular circumstance the rest of the test, the benefit to the applicant, that they need storage and that they went out and did it in a tasteful manner, and that there are no real negative effects on the neighborhood or community that I can foresee or good alternatives, I think that, cumulatively, in a very, very unique circumstance, I’m okay with this, and I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll basically agree with Mr. Hayes. My initial reaction seeing it is well, gee, it’s a little bit large, and it’s so neat it could easily be a guest cottage, but with the assurance that it’s not a guest cottage, and as has been pointed out, it’s a unique area. Places are close together there. There’s probably no other place to put a storage shed of this sort. It has improved the area. So, in a 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) different circumstance, I wouldn’t be in favor of it, but in this particular area and the circumstance, I think I can go along with this request. So, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think Mr. and Mrs. Higgins were a victim of circumstances that lay beyond their control. I’d like to thank Mr. Lapper for shedding some light on the situation, and I’d be in favor of the application for the reasons given so far. I think there was an attempt to comply with the regulations and Staff did their best to give them the right direction at the time, and I think for those reasons I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I agree, too, with what Jamie has said, and I think my own personal thing, in connection with this road business in Queensbury has me somewhat confused. I mean, a week or two ago we had a problem because there wasn’t a road, or it just stopped, and, you know, there’s still the same thing with lacking of pavement that goes on. We’ve got something else later tonight, too, I think. Standard here, this is very small road. To conform, they’d have to be much further from the road than the road is wide. There’ll never be much traffic around this thing. I don’t think it’s so small. So I don’t expect, in the future, there’d be any problem with having the shed where it is. So I tend to favor the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, when I first read the application, as constructed, which means after the fact, I was quite concerned, and after hearing the testimony this evening, of all parties, I believe that all parties acted in good faith. It’s a unique set of circumstances, a unique application, and I hear, read a letter or a note from a neighbor who has no objections to this, and under the unique set of circumstances, I would be in favor of this application. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’ve listened to my other Board members, I agree with them, and I am in favor of the application. MR. STONE-I, too, agree. I mean this is a very interesting piece of property over here. I’ve never understood it. Every time I go over there, I’m not sure where I am and who I’m doing what to whom, but the fact that you have chosen to buy this piece of property and to improve this piece of property, forgetting the shed, just cleaning it up and making it nice, and when you realize there is no other place to put this shed, and the fact that you have a piece of property where you have a home on it, a summer home, and it’s limited by the size of the lot and the size of the home, and you need some place, I think it’s fine. I mean, obviously Mr. Lapper made our speech for us, but there were mitigating circumstances. We always love to make the speech about, you want a variance now that you built it, but having said that, I would call for a motion to approve this variance. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2001 JOHN & E. LYNN HIGGINS, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Brayton Road, Cleverdale. The applicant has constructed a 421 square foot shed. The relief required. The applicant requests varying amounts of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-16, with the maximum request of 24 feet of relief. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to maintain the shed in the current location. Feasible alternatives may include a downsized shed in a more compliant location. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Twenty-four feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, but there were mitigating circumstances here that necessitated them coming for the variance after the fact, which seems to be a set of circumstances beyond their control. The effects on the neighborhood or community are moderate. There was one letter received that didn’t have a problem with it, and I don’t see any effects to the neighborhood otherwise, and is the difficulty self-created? It could be interpreted as self-created, but I don’t think it is. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2001 TYPE II MARK RYAN PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 28 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,036 SQ. FT. SEASONAL COTTAGE AND SEEKS ADDITIONAL SETBACK RELIEF, SUPPLEMENTAL TO AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-1999 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 104-1999. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 9-99, AV 51-1999, SP 30-99, AV 104-1999 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 16-1-4 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-58 LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2001, Mark Ryan, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Project Location: 28 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1036 sf seasonal cottage and seeks additional setback relief supplemental to Area Variance No. 104- 99. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Area Variance 104-99 granted 4 feet of relief. This request is for an additional 1.7 feet of relief. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing structure. 2. Feasible alternatives: the acquisition of additional lands is not feasible as the affected boundary line is that of a public right of way. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The additional request for consideration may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR 9-99 res. 4/20/99 U shaped covered dock boathouse SPR 30-99 res. 9/21/99 second story addition Septic Variance – res. 7/19/99 holding tanks and setbacks AV51-1999 – res. 8/18/99 relocation and second story addition AV 104-99 res. 12/16/99 shoreline, sideline and front setback relief BP 2000-078 issued 3/31/00 1036 sf single family dwelling Staff comments: Apparently, the front (Rockhurst Road) setback was measured, during construction, from the edge of the pavement, not the properly line thus the error. The error, however, does not appear to be consistent with the other setbacks on the property. Could the house fit as originally proposed or were errors introduced in the previous application? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2001 Project Name: Ryan, Mark Owner: Mark Ryan ID Number: QBY-AV-47-2001 County Project #: Jun01-31 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a two story, two bedroom seasonal cottage and seeks setback relief. Site Location: 28 Rockhurst Road. Tax Map Number(s): 16-1-4 Staff Notes: The required setback from Rockhurst Road is 30’, but the applicant received a variance to encroach upon that setback 4’, and sited and constructed the house based upon a survey. A subsequent survey has revealed that the house encroaches upon the setback an additional 1.7’. Staff does not identify any significant impacts to State or County Resources from this action. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for June 27, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/01. MR. STONE-I want to ask Craig, can you explain your Staff comments a little bit to me? The questions that you wrote at the bottom, what did you mean there? MR. BROWN-If the house ended up being 1.7 feet closer to the road than was originally proposed, you would think it would be a foot and 1.7 feet further from the other setbacks as it was approved before. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-If you moved it back to meet the 26 foot setback, it would still meet the other setbacks if it all worked originally. So it’s 1.7 closer to the road, but it’s not 1.7 further from the other setbacks. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-That’s what I was trying to say. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Would you read Mr. Lapper’s letter? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. A letter from Mr. Lapper to Mr. Stone, “On behalf of Mark Ryan I am, unfortunately, submitting a request for a modification of the existing approved area variance with regard to front setback from Rockhurst Road to the southeast corner of the newly constructed home. I am enclosing fifteen copies of the original survey by VanDusen and Steves which was prepared by the applicant for the Zoning Board along with fifteen copies of the as built survey by David Barass. At the time of the variance request Mr. Ryan scaled the house and the distance between the house and Rockhurst Road and came up with a front (road) setback of 26 feet which was granted by the Zoning Board. As you will see, the original survey showed that the edge of pavement and the property line intersect at the road frontage. However, according to the as built, the edge of pavement is 26.2 feet from the corner of the house while the property is only 24.3 feet away. We are therefore hereby requesting that the variance for front setback be modified to permit 24.3 feet rather than 26 feet. The area of the house affected is only a five square foot section of the corner of the house. All other setbacks of the house are in accordance with Town Zoning and the prior variance. There is no neighbor across Rockhurst Road affected by the less than two foot difference because the parcel across the street is owned by Mr. Ryan and is used for his gravel parking area. While I expect that the members of the Zoning Board will not be pleased with this unanticipated need for a modification of the variance, I hope that the Board will see that the granting of this request will have no effect on the neighborhood. I am enclosing copies of the original variance application along with a new general information sheet and setback requirement sheet showing the requested modification along with an agency authorization form. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of the June ZBA meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, may I suggest that you get a new secretary. MR. LAPPER-This was probably done on the day of the submission, like usual. There are typos, but Mr. McNulty saw through them. Thank you. For the record, I’m Jon Lapper, and Mr. Ryan is right behind me. When I said in the letter that this is unfortunate, I’m referring to, when I read the minutes of your approval, and I wasn’t here on behalf of Mr. Ryan at the time, I think it was Mr. McNulty who voted against the application for the reason that he was not pleased with the fact that Mr. Ryan took a survey from a licensed surveyor, but then did the site planning himself, and unfortunately that is partially what has resulted in this situation. Because when he scaled it for that 26 feet, the four foot of relief from the road, apparently that was wrong, and when he had another surveyor do the as built, it showed what happened, but on his, or to his benefit, I sent both maps in with the application, and on the map that was done, that was submitted to you, that was done at the time that he asked for the variance, the property line and the road do bisect at that location. On the as built, there is this 1.7 foot difference, and so what Craig is pointing out, and fortunately, in terms of what the more important setbacks are, at least as far as this Board is generally concerned, the lake setbacks are met exactly as was requested, and the only way to have remedied this, I believe, looking at these two surveys together, is that he should have asked for another foot and a half, but of course you would have, you could have granted that or denied that at the time. I don’t know if that would have made a difference, but I think the mistake is in not asking for it, because if it was scaled properly or if the line was determined, it would have been apparent that he needed the additional 1.7 feet of relief, but in any case, he had the as built done to submit to the Town for a CO, and it was obvious that the four feet of relief was violated, and we’re here after the fact. In terms of the magnitude of the variance, because it’s just this five square foot footprint of the house, because it’s just that corner, fortunately it’s not any worse, because again, it wasn’t intentional. It was a mistake, and fortunately it wasn’t any worse, but we’re basically throwing ourselves on the mercy of the Board and asking for this additional relief, which is obviously not the way anybody likes to come before you. MR. STONE-I have two questions. Is it unusual to have a different surveyor do the as built, and why wouldn’t you have the original surveyor? MR. LAPPER-We’d have to ask Mark. MARK RYAN MR. RYAN-My name’s Mark Ryan. I’m the owner of the property. It was a matter of availability. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Steves couldn’t do it? MR. LAPPER-I can testify. Matt is pretty busy, and it’s taking longer than usual to get surveys from him these days. MR. STONE-Okay. 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. RYAN-And the reasons why he didn’t do the drawings was the same thing. We had so many different changes, because of the septic tank, the bank, the seasonal use of the bay, the moving of the property, and so on, and not being able to purchase more property, they must have done seven or eight different scenarios, and as asked for more, I was just having an availability problem. MR. STONE-I don’t understand how you can have the survey that shows a two story house which was supposed to be built up from an existing building which was moved and have them both on the same survey. MR. LAPPER-Are you looking at the as built? MR. STONE-I’m looking at the as built. MR. LAPPER-Is that building now removed? MR. RYAN-Yes, it is. I obtained a demolition permit, and it’s been removed. MR. STONE-I thought you were going to move it? I thought you were using it to start the construction? MR. RYAN-We had a lengthy debate about what was possible. We had a sidebar meeting with the Town. We had one of the officers over there, it was apparently a Takundewide issue and so on, and it was determined that I could just build it, remove the other (lost words). MR. BROWN-I thought that was discussed at the Zoning Board level as well, that there was a potential for new construction. It was to be considered new construction. MR. STONE-Do you guys recall that? That they were going to build completely new for the existing, for the new structure? I thought they were going to use the original one? MR. MC NALLY-I thought that was discussed at some point. MR. STONE-Okay. I don’t remember. I may not have been here at the time. MR. BROWN-I thought it was discussed. MR. MC NALLY-But I think ultimately we decided. MR. RYAN-Yes. I was willing to move it, and build up. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that would explain why they both could be on the same survey at some particular point in time if that hadn’t been torn down. Okay. MR. MC NALLY-The footprint was basically the same, right? MR. RYAN-Identical. MR. MC NALLY-So six of one, half dozen of another. Why make him move it when he could just build it new in the same footprint. Where’s the harm? MR. STONE-I thought that was the original proposal. MR. MC NALLY-Tell me who “they” are that scaled this off or built this house. You keep saying “they” built it, or “they” didn’t scale it right. Who are you talking about? Did you actually scale the foundation? You actually marked it off? MR. RYAN-On the drawing, I took my ruler out and said, it’s the same identical size house, at 41 feet and 5 feet, I put it down and said 26. So I wrote 26 down on the application. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe my question is wrong. When you got to the house and started constructing it, did anyone measure where to put that corner? MR. RYAN-I was very zealous with the foundation people to meet the 41 feet and the 5 feet, because the 18 by 28, to me, those were the two most important numbers. MR. LAPPER-The side setback and the lake setback. MR. RYAN-Right, and the 18 by 28 size of the house would just fall in place. 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. LAPPER-So nobody measured from the road to the corner? MR. RYAN-I don’t think so. I don’t know, though. I mean, a rectangle pointed with two points would fit in a certain spot. MR. MC NALLY-Who was your foundation contractor? MR. RYAN-Gary Sutliff. MR. MC NALLY-Sutliff, and you have a General Contractor? Who’s that? MR. RYAN-No. I’ve had mostly sub contractor. MR. MC NALLY-Who organized the construction overall, is what I’m trying to get at? MR. RYAN-That was me. MR. MC NALLY-That was you, okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody has? MR. MC NALLY-When I was there, I noticed that there were like five boats at your dock, all right, and a number of boats, I assume, are rentals? MR. RYAN-No. MR. MC NALLY-You don’t have a marina permit for anything like this? MR. RYAN-No. MR. MC NALLY-Those are just your boats? MR. RYAN-No. MR. MC NALLY-Friends’ boats? MR. RYAN-One’s my cousin’s, and one’s a friend, and one is a fireman that asked me to keep his boat there while his dock is being repaired. MR. STONE-So you don’t have permission from the Park Commission to have a Class B Marina? MR. RYAN-I talked to a Sergeant, I don’t recall his name, and asked him if I needed a permit, and he said if it’s not for trade or not for income purposes or any of those pieces. I told him, you know, I’ve got my cousin’s boat there, my boat there and a friend’s boat there. He said as long as it’s not for any sort of income generation or like, like services, like if I traded for a (lost word) or something. MR. STONE-You talked to a Sergeant of the Park Commission patrol? MR. RYAN-That’s right. I’ve got the file, the time I talked to him. MR. MC NALLY-I take it that Mr. Ryan’s waiting for his CO? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And that’s what’s holding this up, this problem? MR. RYAN-Two things, right, Craig? They’re waiting for a copy of the deed restriction and an approval for this? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. MC NALLY-What was the deed restriction? MR. LAPPER-The Town Board, this has a holding tank, and there were, the Town Board said seasonal use only and no permanent heating system. This doesn’t have one. I have, just this day, prepared a deed with that restriction which I’ll submit, not to get approval tonight, but to have Craig review it and both file it and sign it as soon as the Town Board approves it. 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-It’s unfortunate that this had to happen, because we have had, this has been an ongoing battle, if you will, between Mr. Ryan and this Board. We’ve had a number of discussions over a period of time, and it’s unfortunate that we have to consider this. MR. MC NALLY-Do I understand it right that the house now extends 1.7 feet further than it should, yet the dimension of the house is greater than the original plan? In other words, the house at the other corner is where the plan said it was, just that the house now is longer? MR. LAPPER-It’s not so much that the house is longer, but maybe the lot is shorter. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. So the house has the same dimensions as on the original application, it’s simply shifted, it’s not gotten any bigger? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Well, I mean, if you look at these two surveys, I guess it’s the edge of pavement and the property line are quite different on the two. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-These are both licensed surveyors. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Disturbing. MR. LAPPER-But that’s why you ask for as builts. MR. STONE-That is correct. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other questions? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor? Opposed? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HAROLD KIRKPATRICK DR. KIRKPATRICK-I’m Dr. Kirkpatrick, Dr. Harold Kirkpatrick. I’m a neighbor. This is an unfortunate situation, but I think it gives the Board the chance to correct the mistake they made when they approved this structure. The structure is too close to the lake, too close to the road, too close to my land. You put it five feet from my line. Your septic tanks are too close to the road or too close to the house. He’s even too close to the power pole that sits there next to his house. So I think there’s been a mistake made here and this is your chance to correct the situation by not approving this house. I don’t think it should be occupied, in my situation, until certain things are done. There was considerable damage done to the value of my property by putting it five feet from my line, and I’ve spoken to Mr. Brown here, and I want a privacy fence up. Also, I allowed him to put, to keep a holding tank on my property, that is one of the three holding tanks for this house. Now, Mr. Ryan is going to put a manhole cover on my lawn, and I don’t want a manhole cover on my lawn, and I spoke to Mr. Brown about that, too, and I didn’t get too much of a response from him. MR. STONE-Yes. That’s a property matter, isn’t it, Craig? I would think. MR. BROWN-Unless it was a specific condition of the septic variance, that he have easy access. MR. STONE-Yes. Was it? MR. BROWN-I don’t have it in front of me. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I signed nothing to allow a manhole cover. He said I did, I didn’t. I signed nothing about any septic variance for a manhole cover. Previously, it was a lawn, and when it was serviced, dug up a little bit, took the cap off and emptied it, put it back on and I had a lawn there. Now I’ve got a great big manhole cover, and I want that removed. I’ll remove it if I have to, but I think that’s something that you probably should order, but I think I deserve some privacy also from this situation, that this structure, besides all those other things, I think this is a three story house, 55 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) sitting down on a very small lot. It’s inappropriate to even have this house with all the variances and all the setbacks you people have approved for this man to have, I don’t think that’s right, and one of your statements says there’s no impact on the environment because, to the south, there’s nothing. Well that nothing was my land. So there is something, and now I’m looking at this big structure, and I don’t like it, and I don’t think it should be occupied until I’m happy. MR. STONE-And I don’t want to put you on the spot, sir, but you did sell him some of this land. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I sold him a piece of property that had a little house on it, and he told me he was just going to raise it up a little bit to increase the size of the house where it was. I gave him extra land so he’d have a little more access around his house, and that was how I sold it to him. Now it’s his land, because you’re the ones that are allowing him to do these things to it, and I didn’t expect to find this kind of a structure sitting next to my property. MR. STONE-You were made aware that. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I sent a letter that was read here. MR. STONE-Okay. DR. KIRKPATRICK-And then you went ahead and passed this variance anyway. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, your words are understandable. That’s why we’re here. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I’ve heard you talk tonight of all the responsibility you take to make sure that the aesthetics are appropriate for the area, and wouldn’t allow any setbacks if they weren’t appropriate. Well, this man has had setbacks, numerous setbacks, variances, and I think, as you mentioned, when an application comes up with multiple setback requests, that a red flag should go up. Well, I would think that many red flags should have gone up on this variance. MR. MC NALLY-I’d have to agree it was an unusual variance, but let me ask you this. You say you want a privacy fence, with all due respect, isn’t that going to just complicate things a little bit more so, and add yet more clutter and more. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, as you say, he’s got five boats up there already, and I’m sure there’s going to be overflow onto my land. MR. MC NALLY-But I’m just asking you, the privacy fence, I understand what you’re saying, but I’d think that would be a little bit, that would add insult to injury. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, have you seen the property and the house? MR. MC NALLY-I did. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I have no other recourse. I have no other recourse. I’ve got to look at it. I’d like a privacy fence up. I can’t put any shrubs that will be high enough to block some of it, but at least I can block some of it, and of course there are restrictions, too, on the size of the fence you can put up and where you can put it. MR. MC NALLY-I think that, you know, the manhole cover, I’m not sure what right he had to place a tank on your property. DR. KIRKPATRICK-No, I allowed him, the tank was there from the cottage. MR. MC NALLY-Right, but the continuation of it is something. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, no, I allowed him, I allowed him to have continued use of the tank. MR. MC NALLY-And I don’t know how you did that? DR. KIRKPATRICK-I just gave him an easement on it. MR. MC NALLY-You gave him an easement. I think you’d have to refer to that easement to see exactly what rights he has, whether he can have a tank with a manhole cover or a tank without a manhole cover. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, I don’t want a manhole cover on my land, on my grass. It’s one thing to have the tank there, and without the manhole cover, you don’t even know it’s there. You can mow over the top of it. 56 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. MC NALLY-Sure. MR. STONE-Well, this is a holding tank, though. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Yes, there are three holding tanks. MR. STONE-How does it get emptied? DR. KIRKPATRICK-How does it get emptied? They dig up the cover and empty it and put the cover back and put the dirt over it again. That’s the way many of them are done. That’s the way. MR. STONE-That is true for septic systems which are done about every three or four years. This is a holding tank which is probably pumped every month or less than that. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I don’t care if it’s pumped every day. MR. STONE-Okay. DR. KIRKPATRICK-I don’t want a manhole cover on my lawn. MR. STONE-Okay. I hear you. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Now, I have a question. What rights do I have, as far as occupancy of this property until I get some satisfaction? MR. ABBATE-I’m not so sure we can address that. I would respectfully request that perhaps maybe you should retain an attorney and address that question again. DR. KIRKPATRICK-And what about this application for this variance? What rights do I have? MR. STONE-You have stated your opposition. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Right. MR. STONE-And now we will. DR. KIRKPATRICK-Well, I have no doubt you’ll approve it, because it is only a couple of feet. I have no doubt about that, but I’d like these other things addressed, too. MR. STONE-Then you can take us to court. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe Mr. Lapper or Mr. Ryan will have something to say about it, too. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe they’ll concede some points. We’ll see. DR. KIRKPATRICK-All right. The structure’s up. The man has spent a lot of money and a lot of time. I realize that, but I think, as an adjacent property owner, I should have some rights too. You went ahead and let him put that within five feet of my line. MR. HAYES-Well, he’s asking us for some relief, and we have the right to ask for some things back, or not the right, but we certainly can do that. MR. STONE-Absolutely. DR. KIRKPATRICK-All right. I’d appreciate what you can do, then. Thank you. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. Anybody else who wants to speak, for or against? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I have one note here that I believe may be a record of a telephone conversation. It says RE: Mark Ryan, apparent from Mr. J. Moynihan, P.O. Box 298 Cleverdale, and the comments that are written on this note are, “Has done a great job so far. Okay to continue project. No objections to project”. And indicated called Zoning Office 6/22/01, 1:50 p.m. And that’s all. MR. STONE-That’s it? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. 57 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Would you like to comment on, any offers, comments? MR. LAPPER-Well, obviously, the neighbor is not happy, but it’s also obvious, since you’ve seen the site, that Mr. Ryan has taken great pains to build a very nice house and landscape the property very nicely. As came out under questioning, there is a deeded easement for that holding tank. Obviously, a holding tank is not the preferable way to go, certainly not for the property owner because it’s expensive and much nicer to have your effluent in the ground so you don’t have to deal with it, but because it’s a holding tank, it does have to be pumped out monthly or more often, and that’s why it has a manhole, and I mean, if the neighbor thinks that that somehow goes beyond the easement, and I think he’s probably wrong, because if you have an easement for a holding tank, that would ordinarily and reasonably involve a manhole so that you can pump it, unlike a tank in the ground for a septic tank, but that’s something that, I don’t think that’s a Town issue that if he thinks that Mr. Ryan has gone beyond, and certainly, you know, we could talk to him about landscaping or what have you. I think a fence five feet from the property line is not something that Mr. Ryan would think would be aesthetically an improvement, more of a spite fence situation, and I think that the neighbor’s house is hundreds of feet from this house, and that it’s really a commercial marina that we’re talking about there, but we believe that Mr. Ryan is in the right about the holding tank, and we are here to talk about 1.7 feet, which we realize is procedurally significant, although not a lot of distance, and we’re sorry to be here. MR. RYAN-The power pole, one portion of it has been moved across the street, the Niagara Mohawk portion. Verizon or the phone company and the cable company has not moved their portion of it at this time, as of yet. They’ve got other issues with the north property, with, their wire (lost word) is almost 12 feet off the ground. So they’ve been notified, and I’ve been promised, well, for months, that they’re going to do something about it. MR. HAYES-How do you feel about the fence? I mean, obviously, Dr. Kirkpatrick is upset with what we approved. I mean, how do you feel about installing a fence? MR. RYAN-I don’t think a fence would fit the character of the neighborhood. I know he has fences on the other side of his property, and I’d plant bushes, trees along there, if that would be acceptable to him. He’s never approached me, though, until, this is the first time I’ve been notified that he wants me to do something there. MR. MC NALLY-I should think to screen your house from his home, the trees would have to be planted on Dr. Kirkpatrick’s land. Little shrubs against the base of your foundation is not going to do anything. MR. RYAN-That would be fine with me. You’re right. I mean, that would be fine with me, too. MR. MC NALLY-Well, he would have to concede that, if that, in and of itself. MR. RYAN-Right, again, this is the first time. I’ve never been asked about it. MR. MC NALLY-So, if we don’t approve it, then there’s no CO, and something has to be done. MR. LAPPER-That would mean probably chopping off the corner of the house to get the CO. MR. STONE-If I look back over some of these minutes, I mean, I’ve seen my own actions, and I wonder how we got to this point, because there were so many variations and fits and starts on this whole thing. Obviously, we hold a certain power here, and I think we have to figure out how to use it. Any other questions before we start talking about it? Anything else you want to offer? MR. LAPPER-We don’t have anything else at this time. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie, why don’t you start talking about it. MR. HAYES-Well, as Lew pointed out, this was certainly an ongoing work in progress application from the beginning. Mr. Lapper was not involved with it at that time. I believe you were representing yourself, Mr. Ryan. MR. RYAN-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-But in my almost four years on this Board, having viewed the property today as we’re required to for any new application, I can honestly say it’s the first time that I regret approving what I did, in this particular circumstance. I think that the extra height and stuff and the proximity to the property line has, in fact, negatively valued your neighbor. Having said that, we have it in our power, 58 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) in this particular circumstance, to ask for some remedies that I think can do the most for Dr. Kirkpatrick, immediate neighbor, as possible, and I think we should ask for them, and if they’re not agreed to, then I would vote against the variance, myself, in this particular circumstance. Having said that, the house is constructed. It is where it is. The height, the dimensions of this place probably aren’t going to change, but I think Mr. Ryan has an opportunity here. He’s asked us for some additional relief, and the additional relief is significant in my mind, being that, as I read through the minutes from prior meetings, we all had great concerns about the cumulative amount of relief on this project, great concerns, and that was why it was tabled and re-heard and tabled and eventually, based on some massages and some concessions, it was approved, but there was great concern, and now there’s additional relief. So the 1.7 feet, in this case, in my mind, is more than that, because there was, there definitely was a lot of concern expressed by this Board, as to what the relief was. So, I would like to hear what the rest of the Board members have to say, but in this particular case, any motion that I would be willing to support at all would require some significant screening, and I mean more than the traditional amount, and even possibly a concession on the manhole cover, as to possibly mitigating that to the most minimal impact on Dr. Kirkpatrick’s property, and at that point, I would feel that compromises had been made and that maybe at that particular point, the effects on the neighborhood or community to granting this additional relief, the immediate community, Dr. Kirkpatrick’s property, would be mitigated, and maybe at that point the balance of the test would fall in favor of the applicant, but without some remedy of privacy issues and even septic issues, I would think the balance falls against the applicant. We were pushed to the limit as far as relief in the past and now we’re asked for more. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I believed before and I believe now that really this probably meets the definition, to me, of an unbuildable lot. I think we probably should have declared it an unbuildable lot way back when, but the house is there now, an investment’s been made. If there were some place to move the house, I would say jack it up and move it back 1.7 feet, but I think if we do that, we’re just cutting in to other setbacks, so I don’t see any real alternative. I can see where the mistake was. It wasn’t because he made the house a little bit bigger. It’s just that the surveys came out different, and the lot line on the road side moved, if you will. So that’s what caused the problem. Frankly, I don’t think there’s going to be any kind of screening that can be done that’s going to make a heck of a lot of difference as far as screening this house from the neighbors. I think probably the best thing that can be done is for the lot to be maintained in really nice condition. It’s a new house, and I think that’s the best that can be done for the screening. It strikes me that there is some kind of potential that could be pursued, as far as the manhole cover over the holding tank on the other property. Maybe there’s a way to make it a little smaller. Maybe there’s a way to put some bushes in around it or something to screen it. With it being a holding tank, as has been pointed out, I think as a practical thing, probably, you’ve got to have some kind of a manhole cover to get to it. If you dig up grass and put it back every month or half a month, it’s going to be dead grass pretty soon. So I don’t think there’s probably any way around that. I’m not sure that this Board’s going to be in a position to specify a specific remedy. We can certainly encourage the applicant to pursue some kind of satisfactory solution with the adjacent land owner. I would prefer we hadn’t approved this to begin with, but now that it’s there, I don’t see that there’s much choice except to approve it, and on that basis, I would be in favor of approving the variance. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m trying to view this with blinders on, having not sat in on the number of sessions that occurred prior to this, and look at this as if it were just being presented to me, or us. I’m having a hard time doing that. It seems as though there has been quite a history. I had a chance to really read the notes, and it seems hard for me to understand, given the cumulative effects of this, and the number of variances that were requested, that there wasn’t more care involved in setting the house down in the right location. This seems that, given the circumstances and how many of the Board members prior to me objected, or at least raised concerns about where the house should be located, that it not be, the better care not being taken to put it in the right, in the proper location, and I look at the test, and I have a hard time granting the relief that’s sought, based on the test and also the prior history, and I would vote against it. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I guess what sticks in my mind here, many times I look at some of these survey things and all the lines and everything else, and I have a headache when I’m finished. We’ve got something by one surveyor. We’ve got something from another surveyor, and they don’t agree. Maybe we need something that can dependably, reliably, determine what is, what are the measurements. One surveyor saying one thing, another saying another, it appears to me. Am I right there? This is a difference in the drawing. Maybe there would be a finding, and we don’t have a need for a variance. How do we know? I mean, does anybody, I mean, am I way out on this? The fact that we’ve got one thing that looks like it’s, you know, the before thing is supposed to be okay. 59 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. BROWN-I think, given the application and the information submitted with the application, you’re going to be held to the information submitted by the applicant, and the applicant chose to give you that map that showed those numbers. That’s the information you should go with. MR. LAPPER-We’re all relying on the one that’s the problem, the as built. MR. HIMES-Right. MR. LAPPER-Being the worst case, as probably true. MR. HIMES-Okay. I, too, feel that the, I was not involved in the proceedings prior to tonight, while I have read all the history, and I agree there is an awful lot of it. I do think, when I went out there, that I thought that the structure looked a little out of place, and I thought, well, maybe it’s because of the color, you know, it’s a little different than, you know, it’s a stained color, and it looked a little different in color, perhaps. I know as far as anyone that sat through this stuff before, that it’s awful hard to visualize what it’s going to look like. I mean, if the thing was legal all the way around, there might be some people that still wouldn’t like it’s appearance, but there wouldn’t be anything that could be done about that, could there. So I have some sympathies for the applicant, but I also have some sympathy for the neighbor, and I don’t know what normally would go along with the holding tank easement, what would be a manhole cover, as opposed to some other kind of an apparatus that’s going to just not be visible or what not. I agree with what Chuck said, in terms of, you dig it up, once every three or four weeks, it’s going to look pretty bad anyway. So, in that regard, I wonder about the complaint in connection with the manhole cover. Dr. Kirkpatrick, I think, indicated that perhaps there was some other things that he wanted to have done or something happen before occupancy, but I didn’t understand what he said that those might be. So perhaps we could hear a little bit more from him. I am, this isn’t the only time we’ve seen a mistake made or what not that resulted in something going up that isn’t in the right place. This isn’t the first time that’s happened in the past year or so, and this connection, well, would it be off, would it need another variance if it were moved a foot and a half away from the road. I mean, it’s assumed, I think a couple of you have said, well, if you move it a foot and a half it’s going to be too close to the lake or too close to some other line. Is that the case? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. HIMES-So we’re, a comment in the notes, I think, about the fact that it doesn’t jive. So I just don’t feel confident voting yes or no on this with the information that’s there, I mean, if something’s out of whack, and I don’t like the position that that I’m here, but we can’t just make it go away. We can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again, and put it back where it was supposed to be originally, and all that. I think that’s going a little too far. MR. LAPPER-It would be closer to the lake, or closer to the neighbor. MR. HIMES-So, all that said, I think the one and a half feet that’s all, say, that we were involved with, worrying about history, one and a half feet is an awful lot. So, if push comes to shove, I think I would vote in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. The information this evening from the applicant is disturbing. The information from the neighbor is disturbing. The record of the meeting that I read is disturbing, but putting all emotions aside, and taking a look at the practical approach to this thing, are we going to ask them to tear it down? Are we going to ask you to burn it down? The building is there. That’s a fact. That’s not going to change, and if we were to take the history, and all these disturbing things that were bothering me and put it aside, and take a look at the application as it is submitted, I don’t believe that the application, as it is submitted, not taking history into consideration, is all that unreasonable. In terms of the septic cover, I think someone indicated that there was an easement. That becomes litigation. That’s none of our concern, as far as, that’s my opinion. Based solely on the application, I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m not disturbed by the record, because we made a decision based upon the facts ahead of us. You may not know this, but there was a house 10 feet from the lakeshore that Dr. Kirkpatrick sold, and these people were going to use that house and update that house 10 feet from the lake, and they came to us with an application that said, listen, we’ll move it back the 41 feet, and we’ll also get it away from the lake and improve it by adding a new septic system and holding tanks. They probably had a barrel placed, 20 years ago, in the ground with the dump that was there beforehand. So in those circumstances, we were confronted with, do we let this guy modernize an 60 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) existing structure, and there was an investigation as to whether or not more land could be purchased, because we were not happy with the placement that was the best available placement on the lot, furthest from the lake, that we had, and after some investigation, it was apparent that the property owner to the south would not sell any additional land, even though there were several hundred feet between that line and his house. So you couldn’t move it. You couldn’t place it, and under those circumstances, we had that house there on the lake, let’s move it back and see what happens, and we made a decision. We said, this is the way it should be. So I have to agree, I mean, we’ve busted our chops trying to find a place to do this and accommodate Mr. Ryan to a great degree. There were repeated meetings, and I think that this meeting is the one that breaks the camel’s back. I agree with Jamie. For all the factors that we consider, we should look for some concessions in order to accommodate this. I’m not going to tell the man, or I might tell the man, to take a chainsaw to that one and a half feet. It does seem silly. By that same token, Dr. Kirkpatrick has put up with a lot of variances, and yet another one is being asked tonight, and I’m not sure there might be some way of accommodating him with respect to screening. I would not be in favor of a fence, but I think that there might be some way of substantially requiring screening, not just six foot bushes, but something else, and I don’t know how the parties can come to terms on that. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Ryan is willing to substantially visually screen or plant that border, if that would make the Board and the neighbor happy. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not sure what that means, and I’m not sure Dr. Kirkpatrick knows what that means, and it’s not going to make him happy, but certainly it will alleviate some of my concerns, and it would have to be on his land, too. MR. LAPPER-We have a drawing of part of Mr. Ryan’s landscape plan that shows an arborvitae hedge running the entire length of that boundary, that we can submit. MR. MC NALLY-On your side of the property? MR. RYAN-It is on my side of the property, but I’m willing to do whatever he’s reasonably asked me to do, but he’s never asked me. MR. MC NALLY-What size arborvitae? MR. RYAN-Well, these show six to seven foot on a mound, and there’s 28 of them. MR. MC NALLY-Three foot center or something like that? MR. RYAN-Well, I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-We’d have to figure that out. MR. STONE-Well, that’s where I would, are you done, Bob? Because that’s where I was coming out. I would prefer the applicant to offer some relief, and I’m not sure what it is. This certainly is helpful. I know, I think we’re in the middle of a neighbor’s feud, too, which bothers me. MR. RYAN-The land that’s next to me is a parking lot for a commercial marina. You understand. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. MC NALLY-We do remember the background of what’s there. That was also part of our consideration, what was right there. MR. RYAN-And the commercial marina is now in front of me, also, somehow. MR. STONE-Well, I think Bob, for me, made a very good discussion of the past actions, and while I am, if you look back at the record cold, I am not happy with what we did, but I know why we did it. I think Bob made it very clear, we took a building that was 10 feet from the lake, we don’t like that. We got it back to 41 feet. We felt very good about that. To do that, we obviously put it close to the property line, but we also recognized that, while we did have a letter from Dr. Kirkpatrick, that he didn’t want it on the property line, if you read it literally, we said five feet from the property line. We also recognized, I think Bob made it very clear, that there is a lot of land that Dr. Kirkpatrick owns between this house and his house, and that came into our thinking. So I think, you know, we were pretty happy, but I think Bob also put it very well, there is a point beyond which we, it’s hard to go, and I would really prefer, I’m also concerned, and I want to say this, that I’m concerned that early in the game there was some possible misuse of surveys. I mean, it’s very clear, you look at the survey, the latest one notes unauthorized alteration is a violation, and I’m concerned that that may have happened, when I see notes on here, per setbacks by Mark Ryan. 61 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. LAPPER-For the record, the property line is not something that Mr. Ryan touched. I mean, he drew the arrow and the distance to the building, and he may have scaled it wrong, but there is certainly a survey done by a surveyor that shows the property line and the road, edge of pavement, the same. MR. STONE-But anyway, I’m in a position where I would like to see, I mean, you’ve obviously done some thinking. I would prefer that you come back with some thoughts about some relief. MR. LAPPER-Well, we are proposing, if the Board accepts it, that is a large investment in an arborvitae hedge, if that is something that the Board would be interested in. In terms of the manhole cover, it’s just not practical. It’s got to be pumped out. That’s on a parking lot. It’s a grass parking lot, but it’s located in a parking lot. DR. KIRKPATRICK-It’s not a parking lot. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I think Mr. Abbate makes it very clear, that if there was some kind of easement, there are words, and that becomes a matter of some legal discussion, that’s not our area. MR. LAPPER-If that’s not a parking lot, there could be some bushes around the manhole cover. That’s not a problem. MR. MC NALLY-I think our Board’s sense, though, is that the manhole cover is a subject of easement, and whatever language is in that easement gives Mr. Ryan whatever rights he has, and if he doesn’t have the right to have a manhole cover, that’s a matter of issues between the parties. MR. LAPPER-We agree. MR. MC NALLY-Not for this Board here. MR. STONE-Yes. Well, are you guys, looking at it now, do you have any feelings about it? That offer, the offer you’re looking at, of the arborvitae, isn’t that what you’re looking at? MR. HIMES-No. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, there it is. I’m asking about something you haven’t seen, nor have I. So, describe again for the record what you’re proposing. MR. LAPPER-Six to seven foot tall arborvitae, 28 of them, on a little bit of an earth berm, meaning building it up before you plant them, within that 5 foot setback on. MR. STONE-Starting where? MR. RYAN-Starting from. MR. LAPPER-Near the road. MR. RYAN-Near the road to the corner by the lake. MR. STONE-Okay, all the way to the lake. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Which is 80 plus 27 plus 16. MR. STONE-Okay, that whole. MR. MC NULTY-There’s no way that you’re going to put that kind of thing on your property next to the house, and have those live. I mean, five feet. MR. MC NALLY-Well, it’s at an angle. MR. STONE-It’s only five feet at one point. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s only five feet at a very. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, but at that point, you’re going to have to be over on Dr. Kirkpatrick’s property. Well, that’s a pretty picture, but that’s not in proportion. MR. STONE-I was just about to say that. 62 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. MC NULTY-I mean, arborvitae, once it grows, is going to be that wide. You’re going to be almost five foot diameter on the thing, and you don’t want it right against the back side of your house. So I think, if they’re going to propose something like that, they’re going to have to sit down with Dr. Kirkpatrick and come to some kind of agreement of what they’re going to do. MR. STONE-Yes. I don’t even know who made this up. So certainly there’s more than five feet on, if you do this to scale. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and especially if you put a berm under that first. MR. MC NALLY-I have the sense Dr. Kirkpatrick is not in any mood, he can correct me if I’m wrong, to make any concessions regarding where these things are going to be planted or what else might be planted. I mean, this is what this applicant is proposing, and this is what we’ve got on the table. MR. STONE-And I’m saying, looking at this thing, that I don’t think this is realistic, when you consider this point as five feet. MR. MC NALLY-He’ll keep a chainsaw for the trees rather than the house, trim it. MR. RYAN-The nursery people said as they grow in, we’ll probably be taking them, some of them out, because they grow together. Because they’ll be touching. MR. STONE-One of the problems that we have seen over the years, not us, the Town, has seen lots of planting things from very landscape people, and they bear very little relationship to what it really looks like when the stuff gets done, and if these things are, how wide is an arborvitae? MR. LAPPER-Well, you can trim them. MR. HAYES-Yes, plus by the height, they have to be a certain width. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, would you agree that that’s not five feet? MR. HAYES-Well, I don’t know whether we want to get into any further maps that don’t line up. MR. LAPPER-I guess what you’ve seen is that there are two neighbors here who don’t communicate, because as Mr. Ryan said, he’s not been approached. So if you send us off to go and cut a deal, I don’t know if that’s going to happen, but we’re offering a substantial expenditure along the property line to address what you’ve asked for, and we think it does address what you’ve asked for, and Dr. Kirkpatrick is here, and if he wants to say that he’d like something else, we’re happy to listen, and if he wants trees on his property, that’s okay, too, if that’s his preference. MR. HAYES-Do you want to comment on that, Dr. Kirkpatrick? DR. KIRKPATRICK-I’m not unreasonable. I would accept something. MR. STONE-Well, would you be willing to work it out with them, with Mr. Ryan, and come back to us? That’s what I would prefer. MR. LAPPER-I guess the issue for us is that there’s no CO at this point. MR. STONE-And I understand there’s not going to be one until we’re happy, and I didn’t get the sense that we’re happy. MR. LAPPER-We understand that. MR. ABBATE-It seems to me that if Dr. Kirkpatrick and Counsel and Mr. Ryan could get together, in a reasonable manner, as soon as possible, and work this thing out, in a reasonable way, and present it to this Board. MR. STONE-Or if you want to take a few minutes, because we’ve got this other thing, we’re going to be here for a few minutes, if you want to go caucus and put this on hold for a moment. MR. ABBATE-We can do that. That’s a reasonable approach. MR. MC NALLY-Just expect the parties to be reasonable, no unreasonable demands or requirements, but certainly something’s got to be done. 63 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-So why don’t we put this on hold, while we take up the next one, and we’ll be here. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 48-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL SCHUERLEIN PROPERTY OWNER: PGS PLUMBING, INC. AGENT: HOWARD KRANTZ ZONE: UR-10 LOCATION: 310 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT SEEKS TO ESTABLISH A NONPERMITTED USE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ALLOWABLE USES OF THE UR-10 ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VAR. 77-1997 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01 OLD TAX MAP NO. 92-2-7 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.09-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES SECTION: 179-17 HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 48-2001, Paul Schuerlein, Meeting Date: June 27, 2001 “Project Location: 310 Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has established an additional nonconforming use on the property and seeks relief to maintain the supplementary use. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses of the Urban Residential, UR-10 zone, § 179-17. Use Variance No. 77-1997 approved a plumbing and heating use on the property. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? The application does not address method of original purchase; was mortgage secured? What are the current mortgage obligations, taxes, expenses, utilities for the property and rental income(s) if any. A $54,000 mortgage at a 10% interest rate could have a $474 monthly mortgage payment. Additional taxes of $180 month could require a total monthly mortgage obligation of $650. What income is generated by PGS Plumbing, Inc. to offset the expenses? Is PGS Plumbing Inc. still in operation? 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood? Unique hardship relating to this property would be limited to the character of the pre-existing structures on the property. The property itself is no more unique than a substantial portion of the neighborhood. The property has ample access to public right of way and no notable site constraints. 3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. An additional commercial use may present an adverse impact on the neighborhood. 4. Is the alleged hardship self-created: The alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. The Town of Queensbury zoning classification for this property has not changed since 1997 nor has the listing of allowable uses. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Use Variance 77-1997 res. 11/24/97 Plumbing & Heating bus. in UR-20 zone BP 98-651 issued 10/23/98 Certificate of Occupancy BP 98-2370 issued 10/23/98 sign Staff comments: It does not appear as though the applicant has, with the information supplied, met the standards necessary for the approval of a use variance. Demonstration of operation at a financial loss, uniqueness of the property, and the imposition of an unnecessary, unforeseeable hardship do not appear to have been demonstrated. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-And I believe there is a “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 13, 2001 Project Name: Schuerlein, Paul G. Owner: PGS Plumbing, Inc. ID Number: QBY-UV-48-2001 County Project#: Jun01-32 Current Zoning: UR-10 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant seeks a use variance to allow additional businesses in this building. A previous use variance for this building (UV 77-1997) was given for a plumbing business only. Site Location: 310 Dixon Road. Tax Map Number(s): 92-2-7 Staff Notes: The applicant is continuing to use the structure for his plumbing business, but apparently wishes to share the space with a tenant. It appears that the additional business proposed in this structure is a countertop fabrication business. Staff is concerned about the solvents and adhesives likely to be used in countertop fabrication – how the building will be ventilated, how wastes will be handled – and the potential negative impact on the nature of this primarily residential neighborhood. The application materials do not indicate if this proposed use is consistent with the Town’s 1998 comprehensive plan. Staff recommends discussion. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for June 27, 2001. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 6/15/01. MR. STONE-You’re on. MR. KRANTZ-Good evening. It’s after midnight. Let me say, without tongue and cheek, since you’re too smart to be buttered up, having served on the Queensbury Board of Education for 10 years, having sat through dozens of meetings that lasted close to this, not quite this, and it’s not going to affect your vote, you guys deserve a medal. Anybody who volunteers their time, on a Planning Board, Zoning Board, school board, deserves a Bravo in the Editorial Section of the Post 64 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) Star, not just when they vote in favor of a project, at the editorial board it was in favor of, but you’re volunteering your time. You could be home, if you’re an NBA fan, and watching the draft, or you could be home with your wife and kids. MR. STONE-Could be asleep, too. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I mean, not only that, I’ve seen Boards, and I don’t say this critically, get tired and testy, and you’ve maintained your poise, and it’s to be commended. Now to the merits, this property was built in 1949, I’ll be very brief, it’s late. It was built as a commercial building. There were two businesses that basically operated out of there for about 50 years a carpet cleaning business and a separate reupholstering business that continued until the creator of the property died, and the following year it was sold to Paul. Paul’s purchase of the property was contingent upon getting a Use Variance for his operation of a plumbing and heating business. Basically he has used the property for storage of parts and tools, and he just goes and gets what he needs, puts it in his truck and off he goes to do his work for the day. Now he doesn’t have need for that entire space and Rich Simms, since, what, a couple of months ago, two and a half months, since April, has been in approximately half of the main building making new countertops. It’s a one man operation. He’s there by himself. As far as any details as to how he actually makes them, he can gladly come up and answer your questions. So we have a parcel that is truly unique. It is commercial. Residences have come up, subsequent to it. Almost all of them we’ve taken pains to attach to our application the detailed financial data regarding the purchase of the property, but in response to Staff notes, we have some additional information as to the actual monthly and yearly expenses. Right now the expenses are $22, 702 per year. Mr. Simms is paying $500 a month, $6,000 a year from Mr. Simms. I would say in all fairness that if Mr. Simms is paying $6,000 a year in rent, occupying about half of the space, you’d have to reasonably allow that additional income for Paul, who’s occupying the other half of the space. So, effectively, you’ve got about $12,000 in your income. Expenses of about $22,000 a year. So you’re looking at a loss of about $10,000 a year on the property, and he’s like to get some income and just reduce the loss from about $16,000 a year to about $10,000 a year. As far as the neighborhood is concerned, it is going to be no greater intensity of use than you had before. As we’ve stated in the application, no retail. There hasn’t been any objection, to my knowledge, from any neighbors. As a matter of fact, about a dozen immediate neighbors have indicated their approval. There was one lady here tonight that was going to speak in favor, but left hours ago. In addition, I did get, in all fairness, I got one phone call from Virginia Slate. I don’t know if she’s actively still practicing law, but she’s representing a client who I believe lived across the street. She just wanted to know if there was going to be retail sales. When we assured her that there was not, she said she was going to send a letter expressing no objection. I don’t know if it ever was received by your Planning Department or not. As far as the Planning Department’s, in all fairness I would call it slightly negative comments, I would say that it’s intriguing. It’s a little baffling how the same property, three and a half years ago, can have positive comments from the Planning Department, and now the same property has somewhat negative comments. I don’t want to go through the whole list, but I’ll just pick one out, for example. Number Four, is the alleged hardship self created? Back three and a half years ago, no, this is the Planning Department, no, the hardship is attributed to the Zoning Ordinance not allowing the use for which the original structure was constructed. Yes, obviously. Today, the alleged hardship could be interpreted as self created. The Town of Queensbury zoning classification…. So I don’t understand it. I don’t want to get into a debate about it, but the building hasn’t changed. I take that back. The building has changed. Since Paul has purchased the building, he’s made substantial improvements, any of you who’ve been by, most of you have probably been by dozens of times, put in lawn, landscaping, shrubs. I mean, the neighbors are thrilled with the improvement, with that property, compared to the eyesore that it was for decades. So, other than that, I’ve tried to be concise as we can, provided you with the financial data that you need. Basically you’re going to have is Paul reducing his usage to half, keeping his parts and supplies there, basically a one man operation. Rich using the other half, making new countertops, a one man operation, no retail sales. MR. STONE-I’m sure Craig can speak for himself, but three years ago, whenever the Use Variance was granted, there was no business there that was nonconforming, except the one that was grandfathered. MR. KRANTZ-Correct. MR. STONE-So the comments were made about a new business, to use this property. Now that business is there. It’s still going, and if it was a bad business decision, we don’t necessarily have to bail people out of a bad business decision. I mean, if the applicant is spending too much money on this piece of property, for the amount that, for doing the work that he wanted to do four years ago, I’m just throwing that out. I’m not saying where I’m coming from yet, but it is a different situation. PAUL SCHUERLEIN MR. SCHUERLEIN-I could have also left the building in disarray and not fixed it up. 65 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Of course, but you were granted the opportunity to do your work on that property, by this Board, based upon the fact that you couldn’t make a living on this property having a school, having a synagogue, having a swimming pool, all the other things that are in there. MR. KRANTZ-It’s a commercial building. He just doesn’t need the entire space. MR. STONE-Well, did he need it four years ago? MR. MC NALLY-One of the tests that we have to meet is it’s not a self created hardship. MR. STONE-We have to meet them all. MR. MC NALLY-He’s got to meet them all. So, it’s a difficult, that one is a difficult hurdle. He purchased the property knowing the zoning requirements and was fortunate enough to secure a Use Variance once. That’s, you know, how would you address that? MR. KRANTZ-It’s a commercial structure, Bob. In other words, other than, my understanding of the law is other than the existing grandfathered use, which was that carpet cleaning and upholstery, if that were continued, no Use Variances would be needed, but because it’s sitting in a residential area, this commercial building, every time there is a change of use, the applicant has to come back and seek a Use Variance. That’s my understanding. MR. STONE-Yes, and you have to show that you cannot get a reasonable rate of return on any and all of the possible uses of that property. MR. MC NALLY-Under the Urban Residential zone. MR. BROWN-Including the nonconforming use that’s currently on the property. MR. MC NALLY-Exactly. MR. STONE-Yes, right. MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got a variance showing the use as a plumbing supply, plumbing storage, plumbing business place. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. MC NALLY-So you actually have to show that there is no reasonable return, even in that nonconforming use that it’s currently being put to. So, the question would be, in my mind, he would have to rent places. He would have to store his equipment. Where is this in the market showing that he’s not getting a decent return based upon the fact that he has the use of this building for his existing business? MR. KRANTZ-The market has apparently determined that the use of approximately half the space, Bob, is worth about $6,000 a year. MR. MC NALLY-I know that, but the question is, does he get a reasonable return based upon his use over the last four years, without that carpentry business being there? MR. KRANTZ-Well, that’s what I’m talking about, right. In other words, let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that the arms length tenancy, if you will, that has been worked out is fair market value for that space. What I did, what I said to the Board before, that if you extrapolate that to the entire building, then you’re talking income or a value of about $12,000 a year. The expenses of that building are over $22,000 a year. MR. MC NALLY-That’s assuming that his use of the other half is six grand. I mean, Mr. Schuerlein’s business would have to be somewhere else. MR. KRANTZ-Right. I’m saying whether it’s two and six thousand or one and twelve thousand, the fair market value of that rental of that building appears to be approximately $12,000. MR. STONE-And what was it four years ago, about $12,000? No, I mean, the same expenses. MR. MC NALLY-When he came to us and asked for a Use Variance, he had a use of that building that he put it to, and presumably he was making a reasonable return, since he came for that use. He came to this property. I mean, now, four years later, things have changed? 66 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes, I bought the building. MR. MC NALLY-I think I understand what you’re saying. MR. KRANTZ-I think it’s more, not that you’re getting a reasonable return. You’re getting closer, in other words, you’re getting less of a worse return, is what it is. Can you ever get a reasonable return on that property? I’ll go on the record and say, I doubt it. I doubt you could ever do anything with that property to get a reasonable return out of it. What happened three and a half years ago, it went from a bad situation to a less bad, somewhat of a less bad, still not a reasonable return. It’s a loss. It’s a loss. I can’t argue that. It’s a loss, but it’s less of a loss under the current situation. No, this does not put him in the black. It does not do that. It does not give him a reasonable return. MR. STONE-What was the anticipation, three and a half years ago, when you sought a Use Variance to do a plumbing, whatever you do on that property? What was the anticipation? You didn’t buy this property to lose $10,000 a year, I hope. MR. SCHUERLEIN-Well, no. I didn’t figure that everything would be so expensive, between the taxes and the mortgage and the insurance and everything else, it’s too much money. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, then I will repeat, it is not our job to bail people out of bad business decisions. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I guess you could force him just to keep it himself, but I don’t know what that’s accomplishing, as the sole use of the building. MR. MC NALLY-Your expenses indicate $500 a month or so in insurance expenses for your business? That’s what you’re paying on an annual basis? MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Is that the insurance for the building or the insurance for your business? MR. SCHUERLEIN-No, that’s the insurance for the building. MR. MC NALLY-Six grand a year? The liability and automotive and stuff like that? MR. SCHUERLEIN-Just liability. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s not reasonable, that has nothing to do with the property. That has to do with your business. MR. KRANTZ-Part of it does. MR. STONE-Part of it, yes. MR. KRANTZ-I don’t know what the breakdown is. MR. URRICO-Mr. Krantz, you also indicated that by renting this part of the building out it would not satisfy the entire nut that you’re holding. So is it expected at some point that another tenant would be wanting to fill up that remaining space? MR. SCHUERLEIN-There’s no more space. MR. KRANTZ-I’m sure he’d be willing to stipulate that he can’t have more than, there was two businesses in it for about 50 years, reupholstering and the carpet thing. MR. STONE-You only own the one building? MR. KRANTZ-Paul owns that main building, for the plumbing supplies, and Rich is in there with the countertops. He owns the garage which is used for storage next to it, and Paul also owns the next two houses. MR. STONE-The silo type building? MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes, the barn. MR. KRANTZ-The barn and I think two houses going up Dixon. Paul owns those, and those are used residentially. They’re rented out. 67 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Is that part of the mortgage? MR. SCHUERLEIN-No. MR. MC NALLY-Have you included that? MR. KRANTZ-That’s different properties. MR. SCHUERLEIN-A different parcel. MR. KRANTZ-If you look at, we attached a map to the application which shows separately the rental houses. Those are separate parcels, separate expenses. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Let me ask, go into a different area here. How would you respond to this, if I said it is well settled that a Use Variance cannot be granted where the unnecessary hardship complained of has been created by the applicant? MR. KRANTZ-That’s where I disagree. I don’t believe it’s been created by the applicant. MR. ABBATE-Okay. So it’s a question of where we stand on the term creation? MR. KRANTZ-Right. In other words, I see the problem, I see the zoning problem here as a commercial building that was built in 1949 approximately, when was the Zoning Ordinance? MR. BROWN-’67. MR. KRANTZ-Okay, approximately 18 years before the Ordinance. That is really the entire part of the problem with this parcel, and you could slice it anyway you want. I don’t see how you could get a reasonable return. We looked at it, he looked at razing it, trying to use it as a. MR. STONE-Yes, but what is zoned is the land, not the buildings. MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MR. STONE-The buildings, are you telling me that you can’t put a professional office building on that property? MR. KRANTZ-And get a reasonable return? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-After $84,000 into the lot? I don’t believe so, no. MR. STONE-Well, but that’s not competent financial evidence. You can say that all you want, multifamily dwellings including apartments, condominium projects and townhouses of fewer, or am I on the right one? Yes, I’m on the right one, of fewer than 100 units, a hospital, nursing home or health related facility. You have to show us each and every one of these that you cannot make a reasonable return, and we’re talking the land. We’re talking that portion of the land, the buildings, you may have bought the buildings, but that’s not the zoning. The zoning is the land. MR. KRANTZ-If you require us to come back and go through each use with math, we’d like the opportunity to do that, because we cannot get a reasonable return here. MR. ABBATE-Well, you really have no choice, because it says here that the Otto case requirements are requirements. They’re not options, and that they must be used by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and further the Board must find that each of the above standard tests have been met by the applicant, or no approval can be made for Use Variance. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I guess the Board’s view of what is required for hardship varied from three and a half years ago, because nothing’s changed. MR. ABBATE-My decision is based on the facts presented before me this evening. MR. KRANTZ-Right, but what I’m saying is that I don’t know what’s changed, zoning wise, from what occurred three and a half years ago with this commercial building, but if you insist upon our coming back with math for each and every item, we would like the opportunity to do that. MR. ABBATE-I would prefer you not say we insist. I prefer that you say that these are regulations. 68 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. KRANTZ-I didn’t mean to banter with you on it. Please don’t take it wrong. We would like, if you require, or the law requires that you have that exact math to each and every item, we would like the opportunity to do that. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a copy of the Otto rules? MR. STONE-The words that are on our list, cannot realize a reasonable return, substantial as shown by competent financial evidence, for each and every permitted use. It is very clear. I don’t know how we even granted, I can say I wasn’t here. So I’m easy, but the Board made this decision, whatever the reasons were, and you’ve got a lot in the file. A decision was made for a plumbing business, but it was not made for plumbing business and a countertop business, as nice as it might be, but we’re saying now that you’ve got a lot of things to show us. MR. HAYES-I was there that night, and I think the biggest reason that we treaded lightly in the reasonable return area, if you will, is the fact that you were going to convert an empty, dilapidated building and improve it, which you did, to your credit. I mean, you held up your end of the bargain, if you’re asking why it happened. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Well, even if you assume, all right, that the value of Mr. Schuerlein’s business, or the rental, fair rental value of Mr. Schuerlein’s business, the use of that property is $6,000 a year, and I don’t agree with that, and I don’t think it’s been shown, but if you assume it’s $6,000, forget the carpentry, I’m sorry, Mr. Simms, just $6,000. He paid $54,000 for this building, and $6,000 is nine percent of $54,000. Is nine percent return a reasonable return for someone’s property? MR. KRANTZ-I don’t think that’s a correct analysis for a return, for capitalization, because you’re not taking into account any expenses whatsoever. You’re only taking into account the purchase price, Bob, and I think, for capitalization, you have to take in all the normal costs of carrying a piece of property, which would be taxes, insurance, you know, maintenance, normal routine maintenance, whatever the expenses are. If you were to just look at purchase price, I would agree with you. The math is six over, you know, fifty-four. MR. STONE-It’s 11%, actually. MR. KRANTZ-But I believe to do a correct capitalization, reasonable return test, you’re supposed to take into account all the normal expenses you would have with carrying a property. MR. MC NALLY-But I’m thinking in terms of when a man buys a piece of property. He’s coming to the problem. He knows what the zoning is. He gets approval for a use of the plumbing business, and in that first year it’s $54,000 and his use of that property is worth $6,000. So it’s a nine percent effective return. MR. STONE-Eleven. MR. MC NALLY-Eleven, whatever. I mean, I have some difficulty with some of the requirements that have to be met to show that a different use is mandated for this property. It’s a difficult thing to prove. Chuck was right. I think you do have to demonstrate, at least the cases say that, that every single use, both permitted and nonconforming, must be shown to not result in a reasonable return. That’s a tough thing to show. MR. KRANTZ-We think we can do it, if we’re given a reasonable opportunity. MR. ABBATE-Is this a corporation, by the way? MR. SCHUERLEIN-Yes. MR. ABBATE-You are incorporated? Okay. So if Bob is correct, many of the expenses that you were talking about are written off as operating expenses. MR. KRANTZ-I’m not an accountant. MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m going to tell you, that’s true. MR. STONE-So what would you like us to do, besides approve it. MR. MC NULTY-Before you look too far, there’s another factor I’d like to bring up, too. The bottom line on our little list here says that if approved, we grant the minimum variance necessary, and all the wording that’s been in this so far has said commercial use, but I’d like to suggest that we 69 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) really aren’t talking about a commercial use. We’re talking about a Light Industrial use, manufacturing of countertops, and to some degree, even the plumbing business is a warehousing. It’s not a retail plumbing business. There’s no retail sales. MR. KRANTZ-No, it’s not retail, right. MR. MC NULTY-So the next step after proving a reasonable return can’t be made is what’s the next least intrusive that would be there, and it might not be a Light Industrial use. MR. STONE-And the thing that you have to satisfy each and every one of the five conditions for each and every, well, the financial is for each thing, but then you’ve got to satisfy all the other ones. Remember, an Area Variance is a balancing test. We balance the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the community, and there’s a lot of factors going there, and you’ve heard us tonight. We are all over the place. Here you have to meet every one of this Otto rule so you can follow the guidelines. They’re very stringent. I’ll tell you what, if you can’t get a copy, I’ll fax you a copy myself, if you can’t get it. MR. MC NALLY-The other thing is, some of the information, from my personal, if you come back, a list like PGS Plumbing expenses, all right. For instance, the insurance I know is wrong. There’s no possible way that could be true. So I’d like to see back up documentation. The cases say you have to show by dollars and cents, hard and fast evidence that those numbers are accurate, not that I’m sure that this was done with the best of intentions, but I know you didn’t pay $6,000 for insurance on that building, and I’d like to see some of those other proofs, to see what they are. MR. ABBATE-And the important fact here, it’s competent financial evidence. That’s the key, competent financial evidence, at least that’s my position. MR. STONE-Yes. We’re not very comfortable granting Use Variances. I mean, we haven’t had many opportunities because they’re very difficult. MR. SCHUERLEIN-What I don’t understand is how can so many people operate businesses out of their house and they do it every single day? MR. STONE-You can operate a business out of your house. It’s a home occupation. You could even work in your house. MR. SCHUERLEIN-So I could make countertops out of my house? MR. HAYES-No. MR. MC NALLY-You have to look at whatever the zoning is, and there are certain occupations that are permitted. MR. STONE-Can he make countertops in his house, if there’s only one other employee? MR. BROWN-I don’t know if that’s what we want to talk about tonight. MR. STONE-No, I’m not putting you on the spot. MR. SCHUERLEIN-As a businessman, I operated four years out of my house. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SCHUELEIN-I do it, if you want to look in my neighborhood, there is, 60% of the people operate a business out of their house. I’m taking a business out of my house and putting it in a professional building, and I don’t understand what the problem is? We’re not being obtrusive. We’re not doing anything that’s out of the ordinary. MR. MC NALLY-Maybe you need a zoning change. Maybe that would be more, see, that’s why a lot of people do ask, along Quaker Road, where the car center is going, they all asked for zoning changes, and they got them, from the Town Board, because it’s sometimes easier to get that kind of a change than it is to come to us, because we’ve got this stupid test, and it’s like, you know, if you don’t meet it, that’s it, but that’s, again, your choice, and how come people can work out of their homes? Sometimes you can, sometimes you can’t, sometimes you don’t get caught? MR. STONE-I mean, do you want the definition of, I mean, a home occupation? I’m sure you can look it up quicker than I can read it. MR. KRANTZ-He doesn’t want to operate out of his home. 70 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Okay, but I mean, there’s a lot of things you can do out of your home that are perfectly legal. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. Are we going to table this, or did you want more time to think about it? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-That’s reasonable. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 48-2001 PAUL G. SCHUERLEIN, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 310 Dixon Road. For up to 62 days, so the applicant can return with a more complete presentation about the competent financial evidence for each and every permitted use in the UR-10 zone. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Just to give the applicant some more direction, are you looking for utility bills, corporate returns, are you looking for all those types of information, or just a general checklist? I think Mr. McNally wanted some back up information, tax returns, insurance bills, those kinds of things? MR. MC NALLY-From my personal opinion, I see these lists of expenses and sit there and I say, is this true, and I’d like to demonstrate, to see what you’ve got, to be honest with you. MR. BROWN-And that’s all confidential information. That’s in your file. It’s not public record. Parts of the file are public record. That information’s confidential. MR. STONE-Yes. It doesn’t go anywhere but here. Okay. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Okay. You’re back? MR. LAPPER-We’re back and we have reached agreement, and in five minutes with Dr. Kirkpatrick. MR. STONE-I’m impressed. MR. LAPPER-We are, too, he was agreeable to the arborvitae hedge. MR. STONE-Hold it. We’re back on Area Variance No. 47-2001, Mark Ryan. Go. MR. LAPPER-Dr. Kirkpatrick agreed to the arborvitae hedge, when he saw the landscape plan, he was supportive. He asked, we told him that it would be just what the plan said, six to seven feet tall, 28 of them. We showed him where they start and where they end, and what we submitted can be kept for the record by the Board. He asked that it be planted on Mr. Ryan’s property, so that Mr. Ryan would maintain them, but that as long as the trunk was on that property, he had no problem if they grew over onto his property. We also agreed that we would sink the manhole cover under three or four inches of sod, and he was happy with that. So that is a reasonable solution, certainly as far as we’re concerned, and he was satisfied, and we hope the Board can now approve it. MR. STONE-Let me take a quick poll? MR. URRICO-Yes. I would go with it. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Yes. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-It sounds reasonable. 71 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/27/01) MR. STONE-Okay. I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2001 MARK RYAN, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 28 Rockhurst Road. The applicant has inadvertently constructed a 136 square foot seasonal cottage that is 1.7 feet beyond the relief previously afforded him in Area Variance No. 104-1999. Specifically, the applicant now requests 5.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Area Variance No. 104-1999 granted Mr. Ryan four feet of relief. This request is for an after the construction additional 1.7 feet of relief for a corner of his property. I move the approval of the variance for the following reasons. First, the applicant would be permitted to maintain the existing structure having constructed the same at undoubtedly great cost and expense and time and effort. The feasible alternatives are few and far between. It is possible that he could ask to remove the offending structure, at least the portion that’s over the permitted amount, but as a practical matter, that’s not reasonable, and the acquisition of additional lands would also be not feasible given the position of Dr. Kirkpatrick on the southern boundary, that this is something that’s never going to happen. It’s also possible that there could be some screening, and as a result of meetings this evening between Dr. Kirkpatrick and the applicant and his attorney, they’ve agreed that a landscape plan depiction of an arborvitae hedge, six to seven feet high, would be constructed on Mr. Ryan’s boundary, along the Kirkpatrick parcel, as depicted in that plan. The effects on the neighborhood or community? In large part the additional 1.7 feet of relief, given this somewhat congested area, is not going to have any significant effect on the neighborhood or community. It certainly has an effect on Dr. Kirkpatrick, at least he tells us it does, and therefore the amelioration of the problem by the screening is satisfactory result. The difficulty is self-created, but on balance, I believe that the factors favor approval of the variance. Therefore, I move it’s approval, contingent upon the screening and construction of an arborvitae hedge, as depicted in the landscaping plan. This would be done within 30 days, as the applicant has indicated. This is also contingent on the manhole cover having several inches of sod being placed over it after it’s being sunken. The cover would be sunk, and there would be sod placed over the top so it would be maintained as grass. Duly adopted this 27 day of June, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-How about a timetable? MR. LAPPER-Well, we would like to ask for 30 days, but we’re hoping that he could get a temporary CO with the condition that the hedge be planted within 30 days. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 72