Loading...
2001-05-23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY PAUL HAYES CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-Before we start, I want to make one point of personal privilege. Because I think the public, even though we don’t have many people here, should know that Mr. Hayes and I were invited by the Glens Falls Zoning Board to a workshop the other night, and the two of us and their Board exchanged some very interesting ideas about how we both operate, and at least, I will say this publicly, at least at our level, we do cooperate between the Town and the City, and it was a very good evening. MR. HAYES-I feel the same way. MR. STONE-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2001 TYPE II JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER OF PROPERTY: JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY LOCATION: 10 WATERS EDGE DRIVE , CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 884 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT REQUIRES RELIEF FROM THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 6-1994 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 9, 2001 ZONE: WR-1A, CEA OLD TAX MAP NO. 16-1-13 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-30 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60, 179-67 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOAN DONNELLY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2001, Joan and Mike Donnelly, Meeting Date: May 23, 2001 “Project Location: 10 Waters Edge Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 884 sf detached garage and seeks setback relief as well as height relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of both the WR-1A zone, § 179-16 and Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations, § 179-60. Also the applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement of the WR- 1A zone, § 179-16. Further, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation distance requirement of § 179-67, Accessory Structures and Uses. 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 relocation to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The cumulative requests for relief may be interpreted as moderate to significant, relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Neighborhood opposition has been noted. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing house as it appears as though any addition to the house or construction close to the house would require relief. However, there appears to be area available for more compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 107-1993 withdrawn by applicant, similar request, 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) more relief AV 6-1994 res. 2/16/94 same as current proposal BP 94-036 issued 3/25/94 several renewals, current stop work order Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be area available for more compliant construction. Previous approval granted 45 feet of relief from the then 75 foot shoreline setback requirement. The 20 foot height referenced in these notes was scaled from the applicants drawings. The application references a 17 foot tall proposed structure. Staff considers the proposed construction to be a detached garage as there is no interior connection between the house and garage. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 9, 2001 Project Name: Donnelly, Joan and Michael Owner: Joan and Michael Donnelly ID Number: QBY-AV-31-2001 County Project#: May01-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of an 884 sq. ft. garage and seeks relief from setback requirements. Site Location: 10 Waters Edge Drive Tax Map Number(s): 16-1-13 Staff Notes: The proposed garage would be set back 24’6” from the parcel boundary. This location was chosen in order to site the septic system as far from the lake as possible. This side yard setback variance request is not due to lot crowding and is not particularly severe. Therefore, Staff does not identify significant impacts to State and County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 5/14/01. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Before we get started, could I ask Mr. McNulty to read my letter that accompanied the application? MR. STONE-Have you got it there? MR. MC NULTY-Is this it., April 25th? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. April 25 letter to Chairman Stone from Jonathan C. Lapper. “On behalf th of Joan and Mike Donnelly, I am hereby resubmitting an identical request for an Area Variance which was granted by the Zoning Board in 1994 for the construction of a two car garage on their property. The Donnelly’s currently have a building permit for this project and the excavation has already commenced. However, their neighbors to the south, Mr. and Mrs. End, have challenged the issuance of the current building permit alleging that the Town Building Inspector did not have authority to renew the permit. Without prejudice to the Donnelly’s rights to maintain that the existing permit is valid, they have elected to make this application, in the interest of time, for the Zoning Board to again grant the area variance. As indicated on the information materials, the property is triangular in shape and the location of the garage was chosen to maintain a sufficient side setback from the End’s property. Unfortunately for Mr. & Mrs. End, the house which they purchased is merely a few feet from their property line. There is no other location on the site which can accommodate the garage due to the location of the septic system which is properly placed as far away from the lake as possible. As you will see in the record of the prior variance application, in 1994, the Zoning Board granted the variance after requiring that the garage be moved back as far from the lake as possible and still be adjacent to the existing home. We are hopeful that for all of the reasons which the Zoning Board granted the application in 1994, the Zoning Board will again grant this application. The Donnelly’s are year round residents of this property and it is important that they therefore have a garage. I should also mention that the delay in the Donnelly’s proceeding with this construction was the result of Mr. Donnelly’s diagnosis of cancer and subsequent treatment. Please place this matter on the agenda for one of your May meetings. Very Truly Yours, Jonathan C. Lapper, Esq.” MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, before you start, let me just make a comment about the ’94 Board and this Board. They are separate entities. As you know, we do have an ongoing, life of each Zoning Board reflects its members and their balancing of the benefit to the applicant and the detriment to the community. Just a caution. Just because they did it doesn’t mean we will. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-To begin with, Mike and Joan are right behind me and are available for any questions. To begin with, the Donnelly’s, of course, were surprised because they applied for the building permit. Mike got sick. They didn’t build it. They renewed the permit, and it was renewed, the last time, and while that last permit was still effective, in terms of the dates of the permit, they got their contractor in and they were finally going to build the garage, and, once the hole went in the ground, the neighbors to the south brought a lawsuit against the Town seeking to stop the issuance of the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) building permit. The Donnelly’s were not named in that action. It was just the neighbors against the Town. So we found out about it. The attorneys for the Town contacted me, and they actually went to the Judge and said that the proper required party wasn’t named. So the Judge threw the thing out, just procedurally, because we should have been made parties to it, because they’re the real party in interest because it’s their permit, but when I reviewed in the law in the Town, apparently, the Building Inspector has, as a matter of practice over the years, been renewing permits for more than just the two years that the Town Code allows. So the Donnelly’s, whether or not that was appropriate, it was just what was done, and the Donnelly’s didn’t know any different, that there was any issue about two years, and it kept getting renewed. So then they hired the contractor to start moving dirt, they didn’t think anything of it. So this just was a surprised. They were also surprised because they thought that they had a good, friendly relationship with the neighbors. They had sponsored the neighbors in the Lake George Club a few years back, and a week before the lawsuit started, the neighbors came to them and asked them for a letter of support for a mound septic system, which they needed a variance for, and they signed the letter, and nobody said anything at that time about having any problem with the garage, and then, you know, a week or so later, they find out that there’s a lawsuit. So just in terms of their relationship, and that there was no discussion, it was just sort of a shock the way this unfolded, especially when they had a hole in the ground which for the last six weeks has not been filling up with water, but today when I went to look at it, it certainly is because we finally have rain, and it’s just not a good situation. So they need to remedy that. The other situation is that when the neighbors increased the size of their dock, a few years ago, to build a covered dock with a sun porch on top, that was something that is right at the lakeshore, of course, and right outside of the Donnelly’s picture window. So in terms of impact on view, which is what we’re here eventually to talk about because that’s the issue, apparently, for the neighbors, but that was something that really did create an impact on the view of the Donnelly’s, but at the same time, even though they weren’t crazy about it, they certainly never went and opposed it because they’re neighbors and it just wasn’t something they were going to do. So they’re looking at the dock, but it just wasn’t something that they said anything about. Additionally, just in terms of the equities of this situation, when I went to visit the Donnelly’s today and to look at the site, as I presume all of you have recently, what was most shocking to me was that the neighbors property contains a two car attached garage, a two car detached garage, a shed, a screened in gazebo which is used for storage, and then this oversized dock. So in terms of the number of outbuildings, but also the number of garages, and an acknowledgement of the need for garages, that property has lots of garages, and the Donnelly’s, who are year round residents, don’t have a garage, and certainly, living on the lake without a garage in the winter is not a great situation. So they’re pleased to finally be at the point, or were pleased to finally be at the point where they could build a garage, and then all of this transpired, and here we are. Getting to the nuts and bolts of the application, responding to Craig’s comments, in terms of the height. When they first went in, the Donnelly’s tell me that it was the Zoning Board that asked them, that Zoning Board at that time, which asked them to increase the height to 20 feet from 16 feet because they wanted the pitch of the roof to match the pitch of the house, because, architecturally, it would be preferable. It would be a better looking building. The Donnelly’s will go with whatever this Board determines, that if you want them to reduce the height and make it 16 feet, even though it might not look as it good, but that it would certainly be shorter, they will do that. If this Board chooses to do what the other Board chose to do, and ask them to make it 20 feet to match the roof pitch, they will do that. In terms of the alternative locations which Craig mentioned, which certainly is a very valid area for us to explore, when you look at the map, as I mentioned in the cover letter, the End’s property to the south is right on the property line, which is the property line on the right, and the location of the garage does conform with the side setback requirements. As the site narrows towards the road, you’ve got the septic system, but because it’s a mound system, it takes up more room than just where you see the leachfield, in order to create the mound. So there’s really no area, certainly if you draw a line straight down from where the side of the garage, the south side of the garage is, you can’t, if you were going to stay away from the neighbor’s property, because if they’re here with a problem with this application, we don’t want to make it any closer to their property. So all it leaves is really the area where the mound system is, which is not appropriate, and the only other area would be the area on the left side, on the north side of the house, where their current area is, and the issue there, unless you were going to put the garage in front of the house, which I think would be unattractive, if you put it on the north side of the house, there’s not a location where you could respect the neighbor to the north, or the setback, so that the neighbor to the north would have the setback protection. So this is a location which both neighbors are protected because the side setbacks are compliant. It’s not a side setback issue. It’s just a lake setback issue. In terms of the lake setback, and in terms of possible alternatives, Craig and I talked today about possible alternatives, and I asked the Donnelly’s to think about it. I mean, we would certainly be most happy if the Board would approve it the way it is, the way it was approved previously, but just in terms of looking at the site and trying to come up with some alternatives, what the Donnelly’s had applied for last time, if the building was moved eight and a half feet closer to the lake, which may be something that this Board is not interested in, but if the building were moved eight and a half feet closer to the lake, it would allow them, it would be attached, but it would also allow them, their side door would come into the garage, which would be a nice feature, but what it would do, in terms of the site and in terms of the neighbors, let me just show you on the map. What I expect, because of what was in the litigation papers, what I expect that you’ll hear from the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) neighbors is that their house is here and, and even though their primary view to the lake is here, there is a slight view between the house here and the corner of the house here, from, I mean, there’s still a view from their rooms in the back, but from a couple of rooms in the front, the view would be blocked. If we took the garage and moved it eight and a half feet forward, since this view is already blocked by the house, it would be, it would increase the view from the back, which is just an alternative, which is not something that, I don’t know how the neighbors feel about it, but I think that it might address some of their concerns, because it would reduce the impact on their view, since there already is an impact there, and it would be lovely for the Donnelly’s to have a door into the garage, but we’re here with the application for the exact same thing as last time, and we’ll leave it to you to tell us what you want to see. I think that’s pretty much it. In terms of, the benefit to the applicant is to have a garage with a year round residence. In terms of the impact on the neighborhood, I’m sure all of you saw the house to the south is very densely covered with all of these different outbuildings. The mound system creates really the green area for that whole little cul de sac there, that there is some green area. So it would be nice to keep that there, and there was no issue in terms of floor area ratio that this is too much building for the site, and we will, if there are any questions of me or the Donnelly’s, we’re here, and if not, we’ll. MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. Craig, can you clarify for me, we know a variance lasts for a year, if it’s not implemented within a year. Getting a building permit constitutes implementation? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-So even though, as long as you get the building permit, and then that can be extended how many times and how long? MR. BROWN-I think that’s the root of the reason the applicant’s back here right now, that someone’s made the determination that it probably wasn’t done correctly in the past. So rather than litigate, was the building permit issued properly and reissued properly, get another variance, get a new building permit and start again. MR. LAPPER-Okay. What the Code says is it can be extended two years by the building inspector, up to two years. MR. STONE-Up to two years. So that would be three years, approximately, from ’94. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-One year for the variance’s life, and then two more years after the building permit. So then we’re talking, we’re four years beyond that. MR. LAPPER-Right, but the building permit was renewed a number of times since then. MR. STONE-I understand. Okay. MR. LAPPER-I also do have a letter that I want to submit from the other neighbor, the neighbor to the north, in support of the variance. MR. STONE-Well, we can put that in at the public hearing. We’ll read it in later. That certainly answered one of my questions on the building permit. I saw that today and I read your letter and I said, that’s nice. That’s interesting. Any questions? MR. MC NALLY-When was this property purchased by the Donnelly’s? MRS. DONNELLY-I am the owner of the house, and I purchased it in 1988. MR. MC NALLY-And how long have you lived there full time? MRS. DONNELLY-I’m going to say 1993, ’94. MR. MC NALLY-And the septic system, when was that put in? MRS. DONNELLY-Six years ago. MR. MC NALLY-That would be back in 1994, about, the same time this variance? MRS. DONNELLY-I was going to say it probably is. Within a year, maybe a year later. MR. STONE-Okay. I assume the owners recognize that the zoning requirements in the WR-1A zone have changed markedly since 1994. Both as to nearness to the lake from, in this case, a less 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) restrictive, if you will, since then, but the height of the building and certainly the fact that it is considered an attached, an unattached structure and there is a separation requirement, which is all included in the application, but certainly the height is a new one, since that time, and the lake setback is, as I say, less restrictive. So there have been some changes both for and against, if you will. MR. MC NALLY-So I understand, who did you purchase the house from? MRS. DONNELLY-The VanWerts. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. It wasn’t a family member? MRS. DONNELLY-No. MR. STONE-Do you know when the house was built, out of curiosity? MRS. DONNELLY-I think it’s around 70 years, 60, 70 years old. MR. STONE-Sixty, seventy years, and this is not a comment about your living space and the care that you give it, but to me, the house is an abomination, in terms of its closeness to the lake. I mean, it’s, by today’s standards, of course we don’t do that anymore, and it always strikes me, what were people thinking at the time they built it. Nothing against you. You get a view no matter where you are. MR. MC NALLY-I think they were thinking that they’d like to be out on the water, and if every one of us could do that, we’d do the same thing. MRS. DONNELLY-It’s like being a boat. MR. STONE-No. MR. MC NALLY-No? MR. STONE-No, I would not. I did not. Any other questions, comments? All right. Hearing none, I shall open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? MR. MC NALLY-We’ve got one letter. MR. STONE-Well, we’ll read that letter at the end. Anybody wishing to speak in opposition to this application? Please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB & TRISHA END MR. END-We are the neighbors. My name is Bob End. My wife Trisha. We are the neighbors directly to the south of Mike and Joan Donnelly. So we are the neighbors referred to. If I could just respond to a couple of Mr. Lapper’s preliminary comments, just to clear the air on a few things, when we did buy our house in 1994, we did rebuild a dock. We rebuilt it in the same footprint. We did not expand the dock in any way, and I think to a large degree, we improved, it was a dock that was falling down. It had a roof structure that was an obstruction of view. We built a crib dock, or rebuilt a crib dock, and it did not require any variances. Also, Mr. Lapper referenced the fact that Mike and Joan did give us a letter of support. I don’t know if you all recall, but we did apply for a variance on our property earlier this year, and I don’t want to rehash that, but I did take the opportunity to walk Mike and Joan Donnelly through our plans. I did the same thing with the DeLappas on the south side of us, and I did ask both the neighbors that if they did support the project, to give us letters of support. Mike did that. We have had a letter, and I just wanted to point out that we did take the opportunity to describe our plans for the project and give him the opportunity to object if he had any objections. I should also say that, just from a timing point of view, at the time that we got that letter and submitted to you all, that was prior to our finding out that Mike was building a garage. So there was no connection. We were not aware of it, and, candidly, we only found out about it after the fact, happenstance, and Mike did not, Mike and Joan did not pick up the phone to tell us they were doing this. MR. STONE-You were not aware of the previous variance? MR. END-We were aware that there had been a variance granted, and just, I heard your comments that this is a different Board, but that process, Mike applied for a variance in the time period between our signing the contract to buy our house and closing on that house, i.e. Jean Cohen, who received 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) the notice from the Zoning Board at that time, was selling her house. It was done before we, who had a vested interest in the long term character of our property. MR. STONE-So you never were notified? MR. END-We were never notified. We were not a party in interest at that time and never had any opportunity to voice the comments that we’re going to voice tonight. MRS. END-Nor were we notified when the extensions, I don’t know if you’re supposed to when the extensions were granted, that this was still. MR. END-I should also say that I guess Mike and Joan, we consider them to be very good friends of ours. So this is not a process that we are happy about. It’s not an easy process on us. They have been very, we consider them to be very dear friends of ours. When we found out about this, the first thing I did was I picked up the phone and I called Mike, and I said, Mike, I understand you’re building a garage. I’m just surprised you didn’t let us know, and Mike said, well, I thought you knew. You signed the original application. I said, no, I didn’t, Mike. I said, we were not involved in that process at all, and I said, and Mike, that’s not really the point. The point is we’re neighbors. You know this impacts us directly. I’m surprised you didn’t pick up the phone and call us, and Mike said, well, I don’t feel I have to run every little thing past you for your approval, and I said, Mike, I would have handled it differently. I would have asked you for your input, and if you had a violent reaction to it, I can tell you I would not have gone ahead with it. That’s the way we, that’s the way I would have done it. That’s exactly how I did it when we applied for our variance originally. So, I’m not happy we’re in this situation. I also don’t like the fact that you guys get dragged in the middle of this. If we could just walk through a couple of comments. First of all, the plans for this garage, it is an oversized garage. It is, as I understand it, 26 by 34. By any standards, that is a huge garage. It requires a variance on height. That variance, while it’s only 40 feet, is 25% of the Code. The 30 foot setback requires 40% variance. This is a substantial variance request, and I think when you look at the lot, it’s an approximately half acre lot. This garage is not much smaller than the footprint of the house, and I think if you’ve been out to the site, it is a substantial garage. It also has, I think as Mr. Lapper pointed out, our house is situated in an unusual manner on the lot. It is close to the lot line. We bought it that way, just as Mike and Joan bought their house. The reality, though, is our living room does face north, and all of our windows in our living room face north. There is a reasonable sized opening between the Moynihan’s house and the Donnelly’s house, and it is a beautiful view. That view is going to be obstructed from virtually our entire dining room and living room. So this is a material change in character for our property, and that’s why we strongly oppose the variance request. The house, as someone pointed out, is way too close to the lake. This is a property that substantially is in nonconformance or noncompliance today. It is three feet from the lake. The waves splash up into the porch and the ice comes through the porch in the winter time. All we are doing, if this is approved, is making a bad situation worse, and in terms of the visibility of the lake, because of the fact that the house is right on the lake, it takes away the whole expanse of view that most homeowners would have. When you put the garage behind it, you again cut off that much more of the view of the lake. It effects us. I think it effects some other neighbors, although not to the same degree that it effects us. I would also add, though, that it effects, anybody coming by in a boat is going to see a garage, 30 feet from the lake, 25 feet. It is not very far from the lake, and as someone who cares a lot about Lake George, I think it’s a mistake to put a garage that close to the lake, and in particular because I do think, and I think Mr. Brown pointed out, that there are some alternatives. I know this is a situation for you. You’ve got to weigh the Donnelly’s needs and desires with our negative, or our detriment, but as was pointed out, Mike and Joan, or Joan at least, has owned this house since 1988. When she purchased the house, as I understand it, there was a single car garage in the house. They elected to convert that garage to living space. So they gave up the garage. Obviously, they have, if there is a hardship here, they are partly responsible for that hardship. Also, and this is an issue which I understand has changed in the last few days, but the house is for sale. Mike and Joan’s house has been on the market for the last, in excess of a year. We, frankly, have tried to talk them out of selling because they’ve been great neighbors to us, and at the same time it is on the market, and what I was stunned by was that they were going to build this oversized garage, simply to get a little bit more money, and then we who have no interest in selling our property, we’re faced with living with whatever it is that they build. Now, my lawyer had a conversation with Mr. Lapper. He asked Mr. Lapper was aware that the house was for sale. He was not. Subsequently, it has been de-listed. So if you look in a listing today, it’s not for sale, but it has been Mike and Joan’s intention, and more than their intention. They’ve had the house listed for the better part of the last year. So this, at the end of the day, is about money, which is unfortunate. The other thing, just in terms of selling the house, if you look through the listings, there are lots of houses on Lake George without garages, and I think when you ask if this is a hardship not to have the garage, Mike and Joan have lived there for a long time without the garage. Ironically, we had a conversation in March where Joan said, and this was in the context of talking about our request to move a garage, they asked, or Joan made the point several times, that you don’t need a garage. Just take the garage down, build your septic system, do what we do, and you don’t really need a garage. It’s not that big a deal. So as recently as March, Joan made a pretty impassioned argument to me that 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) we didn’t need to rebuild our garage, and I think they have made do since 1994 without the garage, and it doesn’t seem to, in the light of having a building permit, it was not that big a problem. Coming back to the process a little bit, I was disappointed and frankly hurt that we didn’t have the opportunity to have some input. Our lawyer did talk to Mr. Lapper and suggested to Mr. Lapper that we would be willing to talk if there were a compromise here. We never got any response. My wife had a conversation with Mike Donnelly last Sunday. There was never any conversation about alternatives, which is, again, disappointing. If you’re asking for what we would like, and I guess you’re not asking, but we’re offering suggestions, clearly, our preference would be that there not be a garage at all. This lot is small. The house is significantly out of compliance already, and I think to build a garage at all is going to create additional problems. The garage that they have planned is way too large, to the extent that any garage is built, I suppose you could go back to the original one car garage they had, as an alternative. The height we’ve already talked about. It is too high. Their house is a three story house. So it’s a very, very high house to start with, right on the water, and ours is a much lower house, obviously. So I would just suggest that the Board focus on the minimum relief required, if any. Again, we’re not happy to be in this situation, but I would ask that you put yourselves in our shoes. We never had any input into the process. It is, and I think the reason we never had any input is that Mike knew we would be strongly opposed to this, and as a result, he didn’t pick up the phone and call us. I would just, as an aside, when we went through our variance process, we did talk to the people that we thought had the biggest impact, and again, it’s just a little bit of a different way of dealing with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Just two points that I would want to respond to. I’m sure Mr. Lapper will when we get done. You used the term “oversized garage”. The square footage of the garage is legal, within the province of the zoning in this area. You’re allowed a 900 foot garage. So it’s not oversized from a land. It is oversized from a height standpoint, but I just want you to be aware that if that, if there were a compliant location, and they wanted to put a 900 square foot garage, they don’t have to go to anybody but the Building Department. The other thing is, just for the record, and your numbers, you say .37 acres on the thing, you said about a half. Staff tells us it’s .37. I just want the record to be, isn’t that what you say there? MR. BROWN-That’s what’s on the agenda, which is typically taken from the RPS data, which is the Assessment record. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. END-I’m sorry. MR. STONE-That’s okay. I just wanted, just for the record. It depends whether you’re buying or selling the thing, whether it’s a (lost words). MR. END-Mr. Stone, could I add one more comment? MR. STONE-Surely. MR. END-Mr. Lapper also started out by saying that we have a lot of garage space on our property. I hope you don’t penalize us for that. We bought a property that had an attached two car garage, which I think is very large. It’s 24 by 26, and we have a separate detached garage that’s a little bit smaller. It was that way when we bought it. So I apologize, but I hope you don’t penalize us for it. MR. HIMES-One moment, please, if I can ask a question. Do I understand you right, sir, that had they contacted you when this all began, you would have agreed to a one car garage? MR. END-I would have liked to have had a conversation with Mike about a smaller garage, perhaps, in a different location, perhaps, yes. Our intent is not to deny the Donnelly’s a garage. However, what impacts our ability or our interest in coming up with a compromise is the fact that Mike and Joan have stated that it’s their intention to sell their property, and so what we had a difficult time with was the concept of their building a garage in order to make the property more salable, at our expense, at our expense literally or just the enjoyment of the property. MR. HIMES-I understand. Thank you. I just wanted to be, confirm that it was my understanding that you were offended because they didn’t contact you, which is understandable, especially in view of your good relationship you’ve had, but I just wanted to be certain, from our standpoint, and maybe the others feel the same as I, that we wanted to understand that, had they done so, I think that, and you’ve said, yes, you would have talked about a one car garage, and the location. What location? It couldn’t be closer to the lake, or it shouldn’t be. So where, I mean, we’re just trying to, I’m just trying to see what in the area of compromises that might be within the tolerances of the Board, and I’m not speaking for what those might be, what everyone here, just to clarify that point. Would a one car garage, half the size of the one that’s there now? Would that be? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. MC NALLY-I think he was saying, my sense of what you were saying is your preference would be no garage. MR. END-That is our preference, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And if you had to have a garage, then you were talking about downsizing or moving it. Is that your position? MR. END-That’s exactly our position. MR. MC NALLY-And that was kind of up in the air, as far as where or what size? MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-It never reached that point because there were no conversations? MR. END-Exactly. MR. MC NALLY-And maybe you would agree and maybe you wouldn’t. MR. END-Yes. Again, our intent is not to deny Mike and Joan a garage, and if, just to put that a little bit more into context, if Mike and Joan had said that it would make their life much more enjoyable and they would, and their intention is to stay on the property forever, for whatever that means, we would have been amenable to sit down and work out some compromise with them, to the extent that they wanted our input. What is difficult is, as I said, their stated intention to sell the property and build a garage to make it more salable. That’s the most difficult thing for us to deal with. MR. STONE-Just keep in mind that we are not here to adjudicate or to referee neighborhood spats. Our job is to balance the applicant’s benefit to the detriment of the community, and that’s everybody in the community, and I think when we get all done, that’s where we’ll be coming out. I don’t like to be in the middle of something. They’re requesting a variance. It is our job to do our job and to do this balancing test. MR. ABBATE-If I may clear something up, please, help me clear it up. One of your objections is that the size garage, if constructed, would block your view. Did I hear that correctly? MR. END-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. The other objection that you had was that you felt that the height of the garage would also have an adverse effect? MR. END-Yes. That’s not going to impact our view of the lake, but it impacts the aesthetics of the whole area. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. END-I think it impacts the aesthetics from the lake. MRS. END-It’s basically taller than our house is, and it would be 20 feet away from the house. MR. ABBATE-And did I hear you correctly that you were, at least it’s your perception, that you were not notified because of your opposition to the size of the garage? Is that your perception? MR. END-That’s my assumption as to why Mike didn’t call, yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and your desires would be, of course, no garage at all, at this point, but you’re willing to negotiate. Am I correct in that assumption? MR. END-We’re not unreasonable people. MR. ABBATE-You’re not unreasonable people. That’s fine. You also indicated, I’m a little bit confused here. Is this property, perhaps I should address that to the other party. Did you say it was for sale? Is there a For Sale sign there? MR. END-As I understand it in the last couple of weeks they have taken it off the market. MR. STONE-We can let the applicant respond to that. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. ABBATE-Yes, we should address that to the applicant. Okay. Thank you. MR. END-But just to give you one conversation, when we did find out about it, my wife had a conversation with Joan, and Joan said that the reason they were going forward with the garage was to make the property more marketable, that a number of people had come through and said, it doesn’t have a garage, and they never came back and made a bid for it. That was a direct conversation that Joan had with Trish. So our assumption is that that’s why they were going forward with it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Any other questions, comments? Okay. We’ll continue with the public hearing. Thank you. MR. END-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We have the one letter that Mr. Lapper gave us. MR. STONE-I’m sorry. Please come forward. GARY ZIBRO MR. ZIBRO-Can I speak? I’m not opposed or for. MR. STONE-You may speak. Just come up and state your name, sit down and speak into the microphone and tell us what you think. MR. ZIBRO-All right. My name is Gary Zibro. I’m a mutual friend of both parties here, and I hope I’m not too late to the point where maybe there is not a compromise here, but I hope I can petition both these couples. I need to petition both these couples to maybe come up with a compromise, and there are compromises out there, maybe shift the garage a little. Joan and Mike need a garage. I understand their point of view, okay. Trish and Bob live very close to their property line. I understand their point of view of their property being blocked. If the Town is open to the idea of shifting the garage to the other side of the property, maybe that’s workable for both parties. MR. STONE-Okay. You’re a resident in Queensbury? MR. ZIBRO-I’m a resident in Queensbury. I live up on Bay Road. I don’t live right next door. MR. STONE-That’s okay, but you are a resident of Queensbury. MR. ZIBRO-I’m very good friends with both parties here, and I’m sorry it got to this point. I’m sorry, and I’m either going to piss them both off, and I won’t be friends with any of them, or maybe we can come up with some median ground here. Okay. MR. STONE-We appreciate your thoughts. MR. ZIBRO-Yes, that’s what it comes down to. It comes down to friendship. These guys have lived next to each other for a long time. I’ll be the mediator. They can shoot me when they’re done if they’d like, but I don’t like to see the way it’s going. MR. STONE-Well, it may be that we’ll take it out of both their hands. That’s why we’re here. MR. ZIBRO-It may be, but if the Town is open to compromise, maybe we can sit down and compromise and come up with a better plan, before you even make your decision one way or the other. MR. STONE-That’s up to the applicant, at the moment. MR. ZIBRO-Okay, and it’s up to both the applicants. MR. STONE-Not them, the applicants. MR. ZIBRO-Yes. I’ve had problems with my own neighbors, where I’ve been pissed off, and if I could hire a high-powered lawyer, I’d probably be steaming in and want to row them down. MR. ABBATE-You mean high-powered like Mr. Lapper? MR. ZIBRO-He’s as high-powered as they get. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. STONE-Okay. We appreciate your thoughts. MR. ZIBRO-I just wanted to point my view out and I’d be willing to mediate with them, if that’s possible. If not, I think Mike’s mad at me. I don’t know. MR. STONE-All right. We’ll see what happens. Okay. Would you read that letter into the file, please, into the record. MR. MC NULTY-This is a letter addressed to Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, from Phillip J. Moynihan. “I am a long-term resident of the property immediately north of the Donnelly’s home. The Donnelly’s have always kept their property in fine condition for the twelve years that they have been my neighbor. I am fully familiar with their application for an area variance for their new garage. As year round residents of Cleverdale I know that it is important that they construct a garage. I fully support their application and urge the Zoning Board to grant the variance. Very Truly Yours, Philip J. Moynihan” MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. END-My name is Bob End, a neighbor immediately to the south of Mike and Joan Donnelly. In all due respect to Phil Moynihan, Phil is also selling his property. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Otherwise, I’ll close the public hearing, and, Mr. Lapper, you can come back up and respond, if you wish. MR. LAPPER-In terms of whether or not the Donnelly’s wind up selling their house, I don’t think that that’s really an issue tonight, but the house has been on the market over the past year. They tell me they were testing the waters because lake prices have been so phenomenal, but they considered that because they had the existing permit, and didn’t know any different until recent weeks, it’s been advertised with the garage permit which, because it kept getting renewed, they thought that was completely valid. So whether they built it or they had the permit, it was advertised with the permit. So that didn’t make a difference to them, but as a year round resident, they think that it’s very important that you have a garage, whoever lives there. In terms of the compromise that I suggested and I didn’t hear the neighbors respond to the one compromise about merging the garage with the house so that it less impedes the view, and again, I don’t know how the Board feels about it, but I didn’t hear the neighbors talk about that, and we also said that if the Board wanted it to be 16 feet, that it would be 16 feet. That was certainty acceptable. I just think that the neighbors do have these four garages, and they did say, for the record, that they don’t oppose the Donnelly’s having a garage. I don’t think that there’s any location on the site that you could have a garage that it wouldn’t impact the view, because it has to be immediately behind the house or it’s going to interfere with the septic system, but, you know, again, we’re here to talk and listen to what the Board has to say. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Sir, I had a couple of questions. Mr. End mentioned that it was, that there was a garage on the house, and that this garage was converted to living space. Is that true? MR. LAPPER-Joan, do you want to respond to that? MRS. DONNELLY-Joan Donnelly. When I bought the house, there was a cement floor in the middle of it. It had a regular door there. It was never used as a garage prior to my buying it. That’s where the utilities where, and the storage room. It had an oil tank in it, hot water heater. It was not usable as a garage. MR. LAPPER-And what did you do? Did you change the oil heater? MRS. DONNELLY-We moved it back. We moved it to another spot. MR. STONE-Okay. So you never had a garage, as long as you’ve owned the property? MRS. DONNELLY-No, and I’m trying to address a few other things here that I remember. To move the garage to the other side of the property would completely destroy any view the Ends have of the northern view. That would eliminate any view for anybody, if it were moved to the other side. They are losing view from their patio, two double windows in their living room. They still have a double window in their living room, and a double window in their dining room, and a double window in their kitchen that they can see this view from. It’s, I wish they were there in the winter when we have to get the ice and snow off our cars. They’re not here. They’re just here 10 weeks out of the year, and they, as they say, have four garages there. We did have ice damage this year. He spoke of ice coming across our porch. I’ve been there 12 years, 13 years. I’ve never had ice damage, 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) and I know the previous owners, as far as I know, didn’t. One freakish spring, this summer, or this spring, when the ice came in, the wind changed it’s direction, I did get damage on my porch, but I don’t get damage on my porch on a yearly basis. We are pretty much protected. I’m trying to think of the other things that they mentioned, that I really wanted to address. We didn’t have a lot of time. We had to get something into the ground, according to the Town of Queensbury, to get our permit renewed. MR. LAPPER-Let me just explain that. The current building permit said that if they didn’t start the work, that it would not be renewed again. So when spring, when the thaw came and they could start building, they only had a few weeks to get in the ground, but I think the real issue is that they had no reason to believe that the building permit that kept getting renewed, that they had, that it wasn’t a situation of asking a neighbor’s permission, because they had what they thought was a valid building permit, and I know that the Donnelly’s have told me that they believed that during the process, and when the neighbors moved in, which was, you know, right after the variance was granted, that the neighbors were aware of the situation, and we heard tonight that the neighbors said that didn’t know anything about it, but the Donnelly’s, I guess you never spoke about it. MRS. DONNELLY-I assumed that they knew about, that we had the permit. As far as selling the house goes, I don’t think it should make any difference whether we have this garage or not at this moment. For me to sell this house is very painful. I love this place, but we’re still debating whether to stay there or put it on the market. I grew up on Lake George. My family, I’ve been a part of this lake my whole life. The End’s, their home was built after my home. Their house was built on the edge of the property. We really, really do, we need a garage. We need something to protect our cars, and we’re getting older now. To get out there and fight the elements in the winter is not fun. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else, Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think so. MR. STONE-All right. Any other questions before we talk about it? MR. MC NALLY-I did. Mrs. Donnelly, just so I understand it right. There was a space with a concrete floor, and you said it had a “regular” door on it. When you say a “regular” door, what do you mean, a garage regular door or a regular walk-in door that you swing open? MRS. DONNELLY-Just a regular walk-in door. MR. MC NALLY-Okay, and I’ve seen lots of two car garages in the range of like 24 by 24, maybe 300 square feet of car or something like that. Your proposed garage is 26 by 34, and it seems as if there’s extra space that you’re proposing for this garage. What’s your intent for using that space? What are your plans? MRS. DONNELLY-Anybody who lives on the lake knows you have a lot of flotation devices. We have a bicycle. We have garbage cans. We’re trying to clean up the yard. We’ve had all this, we have our rakes underneath our dock, just across the beams. It’s just a clean up to get everything more organized. You all have garages. You probably store things out there other than just your cars, and by the time you get garbage cans, a bicycle, golf clubs, I mean, you know, we just don’t have any storage. MR. LAPPER-Certainly, the size that was approved last time, and that’s applied for, the 26 by 34, would be ideal in terms of storage. We are certainly available to talk about making it smaller, but 24 by 24 is really what you do when you have two cars with no storage, and it doesn’t give you a lot of room for cars. That’s really just like a minimal size. So that would be something that they would really consider too small for the storage needs. MR. MC NALLY-The other thing I didn’t understand is, height. It seems as if it’s 17 feet or 20 feet that you’re proposing. It’s 20 foot that you proposed, and you were willing to negotiate that, I think is what Mr. Lapper said. MR. LAPPER-Twenty feet is what the Board, what the Donnelly’s tell me the then Zoning Board, in ’94, asked them to do. That’s what made the roof pitch the same as the house, and what I said is that, since the Code is now 16, that if this Board wanted it to be 16, it might not be as attractive, but if that was an issue, that they would certainly make it 16. MR. STONE-Was there a proposal to put space, storage up above in the garage? MR. MC NALLY-What were your intents with respect to the beneath the rafters in that garage? Is there going to be floor space or walking space, storage space, what were your plans? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MRS. DONNELLY-It was so long ago. I’m an artist. I really wanted a studio. We were in disagreement over what we were going to do with it. He’d like to store porch furniture up there, outside furniture. I was hoping to paint. MR. STONE-Okay, but it would be used. It shows seven feet in the middle of the, to the crossbeam up there. MR. LAPPER-But that’s something that if this Board wants changed, they’re perfectly happy to change. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And I was there this morning, and the status of the construction, so the record should be accurate, is that the holes for the footings on the garage were basically dug. There’s approximately one to two foot wide trench along the perimeter of where the garage would be, maybe dug three or four feet deep, okay, and you had a contractor do that? MRS. DONNELLY-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-Who was that? MRS. DONNELLY-Varano. MR. MC NALLY-Varano. Mr. End also mentioned something about there was, at least in his opinion, some difficulty marketing your property without a garage. Is that true? MRS. DONNELLY-No, no. Let me just say that, because this was approved in ’94 and we had always had our renewal, we were using that as a point in the sale of the property, and we had four bids on the house, and they were all contingent on the garage. We turned all of them down, but it was, yes, it was a selling point. Yes, sir. MR. MC NALLY-You actually lost sales because it wasn’t there? MR. LAPPER-No. The sales, the offers were contingent. MRS. DONNELLY-They were all contingent on the garage. MR. STONE-Being built by you. MRS. DONNELLY-No, that they could build it. MR. STONE-So these have been? MR. HAYES-They turned them down based on price. MRS. DONNELLY-We turned them down. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. DONNELLY-Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Bob, do you want to start? MR. MC NALLY-I’d be happy to. Whenever there’s a question of difficulty, it’s hard to make a decision which way to go, but I always felt that if you do it mechanistically, with common sense, looking at the five factors that we’re required to, then balance the applicant’s interests with those of the community, it’s pretty much a road map to where we should ultimately be going. So the first factor we always look at it the benefit to the applicant, and in this case, the applicant would be permitted to construct a garage in the preferred location. I see the need for a garage in a usual home in this area, particularly in the winter time, with ice and snow such as you have. Other than that, though, I think that’s the only benefit the applicant has in this case, and this factor would weigh in your favor. In terms of feasible alternatives, the factor that’s second, there are feasible locations, I think, closer to Waters Edge Drive that I would prefer, and find more realistic, than having one so close to the lake. It would be downsized. It would be closer to road, and it may require some side setback variances, but I think that those would be preferred and more feasible than actually having one so close to the lake as it is now, and there’s another alternative that Staff didn’t note, and I think that would be basically having no garage. Some of the lots on Lake George are simply not suitable for garages, that another residential lot somewhere away from the lake might have it. So that would be a feasible alternative there, and the third one, as miserable as it may be, and I’m not sure of the 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) costs involved. I look at this map, and I see that the lot would accommodate a garage somewhere in the center and away from the lake. It certainly would not be attached to the house. That’s because the house is so close to the lake, it’s on the lake, as far as I’m concerned, but there would be costs involved with respect to modifying the septic system, and I’m not sure that’s not possible. I know it would be somewhat costly, but it certainly would be, for a person who owns a home on the lake, an alternative that they should consider when it comes to otherwise impinging on the lake. If they want a garage as badly as that, then that may be an extra cost that they have to incur. The third factor is whether the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. The request for the garage is close to the lake and the size that it has, even though it is within the 900 square foot limit, certainly, in my opinion, would be at least moderate, if not significant, relative to the Ordinance. The setback requirements is 30 feet, 50 feet. In this case, we’re being asked to give 20 feet of relief. I was very impressed, when I was there this morning, how lovely the lot is and how well maintained your landscaping is, but it seems that it’s near a point. It’s out in the open. It’s readily viewed from the lake. It’s readily viewed from your neighbor’s home. It certainly is going to be a large structure, very much closer to the lake than we would otherwise ever approve if this were new construction, and, for that reason, I’d have to say that the aesthetics would be effected, and it does, I think, worsen an already bad situation. So the relief would be substantial in my opinion. The fourth factor is the effects on the neighborhood or community. Your neighbors have already expressed their opposition. One neighbor has expressed his approval. I take Mr. End’s statements seriously. I think the Town of Queensbury always tries to keep construction away from the lake frontage to the extent possible, in order to avoid congestion, in order to avoid the aesthetic difficulties that passing on the lakefront would be by having houses on the water as close as these. It does effect the view. I was impressed how many open views there were off the lake. You could look everywhere from behind your property, up and down that lake, and whoever’s on either side of you would have a lovely situation. It’s a great thing. In my opinion, the effects on the neighborhood or community are going to be worse. It’s going to block views. It’s going to have an aesthetic problem. It’s not certainly something I would ever approve, and lastly, is the difficulty self-created. I can’t speak to what the Board did in 1994, since I wasn’t here, and I didn’t even know the individuals that were there then. In some sense, the difficulty can be attributed to the fact that your house you purchased, it’s on the water, and everyone wants to have a garage attached to their house. It’s only normal, but again, I think that when you purchased this house, there were certainly community standards and setback requirements that were in existence at that time, or subsequently, and it would have been very clear that the community doesn’t want these accessory structures, these garages as close to the water as you’re proposing. I think it’s a mistake to put the garage so close to the lake, and there seems to be an available area for construction, however much it may not be as much as you want. When I think of all the other properties around Waters Edge Drive, where there’s a garage on the road and then you have to walk from there to the house, but that’s because these garages are built usually after the fact, and on balance, I have to say that I’d be opposed to the application. Sorry. MR. STONE-Jamie? MR. HAYES-Well, first of all, I think it was very important that Mr. McNally brought us back to Chapter 267 of Town law, because I think in this particular case there is some equity on both sides. I mean, I think there’s some very legitimate arguments that have been made and put forward by both parties, and quite civilly, I might add, and that’s certainly appreciated by me. As far as the test itself, the benefit to the applicant, I think, you know, in my history on the Board, I think that in our area, paticularly, garages are needed. So, in my mind, that is more than a significant consideration, as far as this particular circumstance. I don’t think a garage, in our environment, is a small consideration. I think it’s very much a necessity, but having said that, feasible alternatives, I agree with Bob in that certainly it appears to me that there’s an underlying feeling here that there is the possibility of some alternatives that could ease the burden of providing relief, closer to Waters Edge and maybe a downsized garage. The ideas of storage are all admirable, but I think when there’s a balancing going on between an important neighbor’s interest, some things have to be put aside in favor of making the request as moderate as possible, and as less impact on the neighborhood as possible. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Certainly, anything built in a Critical Environmental Area is substantial, in my mind. I think that building the garage within the 50 foot setback is something that would be difficult to approve if this was new construction. I agree with Bob, but as I look at the plans and look at the survey map, it is a difficult question to where this garage could be sited and have it make sense on this lot. The new septic system certainly is a benefit to the entire neighborhood and the lake, and that’s important, and it’s a mounded system which makes for even a little more shoulder area, as I saw that, and I think that that does make placement of the garage, where it is now, a consideration, even though I think that there are alternatives, I can understand why and how a desire or an initial plan was to put it there. Number Four, effects on the neighborhood or community, I believe that they’re moderate. The Ends have definitely expressed a desire not to have the garage located where it’s at, but in this particular circumstance, the other immediate neighbor has said that he’s okay with it. So I don’t see it being that much of a view factor from the lake. I have to say that. I don’t see any real impact. I think the position of the house itself creates, this pre-existing house, creates any impact that’s really going to be noted from the lake, and I think the garage would be a very strong second to that, particularly considering how close the end of the house is to the lake, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) and is the difficulty self-created? It is and it isn’t. Obviously, they want a garage. You don’t have a garage, so you’re, it’s self-created, but this home does not presently have a garage, and the configuration of this lot makes it difficult to place a garage in a strictly compliant location. I think everyone agrees on that. It’s certainly apparent to me, and I think, to some degree, we have to give some deference to prior Boards. I don’t think we’re locked into the decisions that they’ve made in the past, but I think it’s important to try and understand that the Donnelly’s did have an approval from a prior Board, and much of what they did was acting, in my mind, in good faith with that approval. I do not see a circumstance where somebody has tried to take advantage or jump the gun. So I see, you know, a very, very difficult circumstance, and I think the fact that they did have an approval prior cannot go without any weight in this, to me. I think it has to have some weight. So, I would like to hear what the rest of the Board members have to say, but I would say that, based on a compromise or a feasible alternative, I’m in favor of the Donnelly’s having a garage. Okay. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Well, like Mr. Hayes, I’m torn on this one. It’s a tough question. On the one hand, I’d like to see some alternate proposals, as Mr. McNally has indicated, something a little bit different sized, somewhere else on the lot, but it strikes me that anything else is probably going to involve side yard setbacks, and I’m not convinced that that’s going to, in total, be any better situation than what’s proposed now, for the community in general. Certainly, it might be better for the neighbors, for the Ends, if something were built perhaps closer to Waters Edge Drive, even it was closer than the lot line. When we come to compromises, I come to the point where I really don’t like to see compromises, as far as size garage. I don’t think if we downsize this garage in its current location, by a little bit, we drop the height by a little bit, that it’s going to significantly improve its appearance or the view for the Ends. So I guess I come down looking am I inclined to approve it where it is or am I inclined to encourage relocation to some other location and change the configuration significantly. I guess I, too, am going to wait and see what everybody else says. My inclination, though, I think at this point, is would be to approve the proposal as it’s been presented. MR. STONE-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I think the Donnelly’s, first of all, I want to thank the other Board members who are putting everything in perspective, Mr. McNally for bringing us back to the Town law that we dealt with, and Mr. Hayes for also mentioning that the previous Board does carry some weight. I don’t think it can be totally ignored. I think the Donnelly’s have been through an unfortunate set of circumstances that it sounds like, through no fault of their own, have had this approved, thinking that it was legitimate for a number of years, and suddenly that’s changed. That being said, looking at the weight of the criteria that we have to abide by, I’m having a hard time also judging whether to approve or disapprove this application. I do believe, as Bob has said, that the weight of the evidence is against them, but I also feel there’s some compromises to be gathered from this, and I would like to see us pursue that, more than just an outright denial, if it’s possible, given the set of circumstances that we’ve seen here. You’ve stated, Mr. Lapper, that you’d be willing to compromise on the height. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-And what about moving it to another location? MR. LAPPER-Well, the problem, I guess we would propose making it smaller in the existing location before moving it, because the problem with moving it is that a 10 foot separation distance is required from the septic system to a structure, including a garage. So even looking where Mr. McNally was talking, even if you put it right up one foot from the property line of the Ends, I still don’t think you have 10 feet to the septic system. So I think it’s just because of the triangular shape, there’s really a constraint on this lot because of that Board of Health requirement, the 10 foot separation distance, and because of that, we didn’t come in with any discussion, you know, we prepared to compromise as much as possible. We don’t think it’s possible to compromise moving it up to the road because of the septic system, and that is the best location for the septic system, which is certainly a public health issue. So, with that in mind, when I met with the Donnelly’s previously and talked to them today, the smallest garage that would serve their needs for both two cars and for some storage, and they have really virtually no storage in the house which is, you know, for outdoor stuff, which is something that I didn’t mention previously, that if it was dropped down to 26 by 28, so that the 34 garage which was previously approved, if you took six feet off of the length of that, down to 28, that is a significant difference, but it would still allow them some extra room for storage, beyond the two cars, and then if we dropped the roof height down to the 20 foot to 16, I hope that the Board would see that that’s a significant reduction, but again, unless you would like us to move it eight and a half feet closer to the lake, which you may have no interest in because it’s closer to the lake, but in terms of the view. MR. URRICO-Why eight and a half feet? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. LAPPER-Because that’s where the existing, the existing door is eight feet and the other half foot would be necessary for studs and exterior walls. So it’s just to get to where their hallway is right now, to that exterior door, and because it would meld with the house, as I mentioned, it would reduce the impact on the view. So if you took off six feet in the length, and then you moved it eight and a half feet into the other house, that would be a fairly significant difference in terms of what the neighbors see. MR. STONE-Are you proposing to take the six off, next to the house, or take it off from the west side, still leaving it corner to corner? MR. LAPPER-Well, if you want to leave the house no closer to the lake, we would propose to take it. MR. STONE-Take it off there. So you’d still require both variances, both from the lake and the 10 foot separation. MR. LAPPER-Well, what I’m suggesting is that the house, that it goes to here, and then you take, so it would come out to here, and then you go back six feet to here. So it would be between there and there. In all truth, if you take the six feet off, it’s acceptable to the Donnelly’s, if the Board prefers it to come off the back or the front. That would be something that you could tell us. It’s the same, that location is not as important as having the use. MR. STONE-Well, if you take the six feet off the east side, or the lake side, then you’ve reduced the request for a variance there and reduced the 10 foot thing. MR. LAPPER-Right, but what’s curious about that is that if you moved the house, if you moved it so that it was attached, that 10 foot would not become an issue because it then wouldn’t be a detached structure. MR. STONE-I know. MR. LAPPER-So that’s kind of a funny one. Okay. Go ahead. Roy, did you finish? Did you come to a? MR. URRICO-I think I’m still thinking about it. MR. STONE-You’re still thinking about it. Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I have been thinking, in many instances in the past, as well as this one, that one of the things that is a problem is it’s a one acre zone, and a lot of lots aren’t one acre. You’ve got a half acre, four tenths of an acre, whatever it is, and then you want all the amenities and all the things that might be okay in a one acre zone. So sometimes I think, you go back probably years ago, a lot of the lots there were originally camps and what not and things were changing and people want more, and back originally the properties probably weren’t intended for that kind of usage, but anyway, in this connection, in my opinion, we can’t make a one acre lot out of this, and the size of the garage and so forth certainly is within reason, in terms of the Code for a one acre lot, and so I have a bit of a problem approving the application as submitted. I would certainly like to see perhaps some changes. Again, we’ve got the 10 foot separation thing, which is another matter, but there are reasons for that, I suppose, the garage right next to the house, whether it meets fire codes or what I don’t know, but it could be attached for that matter, if we went along, and I can certainly see, understand the benefits of having it a little closer to the lake and having an attached garage that you can walk in and out of, but we certainly don’t want to move closer to the lake. So that’s out, I think, but moving it somewhere else, Staff feels that it can be done. I wonder if it would be, as submitted, I think I would not be in favor of it, very reluctantly, because I understand, as Jamie said, the need for a garage, whether it needs to be as big as it is, in connection with the storage, you did say that there was a room back there that was converted to living space some time ago that was used for storage. So, at one point in time, there was some room for some of the things that you’d like to be able to put away somewhere, and we appreciate that. Nobody wants them laying around in the yard and all that kind of thing, but I just wonder whether or not, if it would be possible to use your imaginations and all and try to come up with something where it’s compliant, whether it means doing something to the septic system, I don’t know, but I just, I’m very reluctant to say no. I would like to see some further thought on it. I’m wondering if you could go away and think about it a little bit, and as one gentleman said earlier, maybe work some things out where everyone is okay on this thing. So, to conclude, if I had to decide right now, I would say no. I would more prefer to give it a little more thought, maybe some ideas would come up, and it would be something that we could all agree to. MR. LAPPER-Are you considering my suggestion that we take off six feet to make it 26 by 28 instead of 26 by 34? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. STONE-Well, let me, not answer for him, but let me tell you what my thinking is going right now, as I look at, and I know we’ve got to hear from Chuck and you’ve got to hear from me, but if we’re inclined to deny it, if we end up there, what I would do is I would propose that we deny it, if that’s what the judgement is, and that we grant you the ability to seek another variance without, with just a simple vote, that we would guarantee that we would hear a change, without going, obviously, we’d have to vote, technically, we’d have to vote on it, but I would guarantee a yes vote by the Board to hear a modified application rather than trying to sit here and move this thing back and forth, as we sit here. I think, well, let’s go on, though. Mr. Abbate, why don’t we hear from you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Let me preface my remarks by saying I don’t believe any party is acting in bad faith. Let me start out with that. Balancing. I’m troubled in a number of areas. We’re talking about .37 acres, and while the 26 by 34, even though you suggest you’re willing to compromise, certainly falls within compliance, I go back to it’s still .37 acres. There seems to be a little difference of opinion between the applicant and our zoning representative over here. He feels that there is a more compliant area, and I suspect that there may very well be a more compliant area. The position of your neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. End, was somewhat compelling. We have to take into consideration what’s in the best interest of not only the applicant, but of the community as well as the neighbors. I would certainly take another look at perhaps an approval in the event that there is a re-location to a more compliant area and the garage was reduced to a more appropriate area, based on the .37 acres. At this point, I’m afraid I would not be able to support the applicant. MR. LAPPER-Let me just address the .37 acres, if I could. Because so many of the parcels on the lake are undersized, because the one acre zone was put in place after most of the lakefront was developed, the Town, as you all know, has addressed that by coming up with this new, the Floor Area Ratio in the Waterfront zone. So that whatever the size of your lot is, you take 22% of it as your floor area coverage, and that is sort of a way to address that, to adjust that down. MR. STONE-But you’d still have to meet all the setbacks. MR. LAPPER-Right, but in this case, it’s just worth noting that we are meeting the floor area ratio, and in terms of the setbacks, it is just, I mean, the most important thing is the septic setback, because that could affect lake quality and most people get their drinking water from the lake there, but beyond that, the only other location that would be more compliant would be to put the garage in front of the house, and if you’ve all been to the house, it is really a very lovely structure, and I think that the idea of blocking that with the garage, I don’t think that that would be in anybody’s interest, although, I mean it would still block the neighbor’s view, because you still want to put it between the septic system and the house, and I just think that, aesthetically, that that would be a worse compromise, even though it would be more compliant. MR. ABBATE-You just stated yourself, Counselor, you stated it would still block the neighbor’s view. I’m done, Mr. Stone, thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But if I could just respond to that. All of the houses in the area are built pretty closely. So, in terms of the view, the neighbor’s view, their primary view, is to look east. They’re right on the lake. So the fact that they can also look between this house and the other house is not, I mean, it’s a nice thing to have, but it’s not something, it’s not like they have a view shed easement or something. It’s still their neighbor’s property. MR. STONE-It’s a valid point, but before I make my statement, we who live on the lake think of the front of the house as the one that faces the lake. That’s the back of the house that faces away from the lake, normally, is how we talk about it anyway. This is a difficult situation, and I’ve heard my fellow Board members, and I certainly want to applaud, echo Mr. Abbate’s statement about nobody’s acting in bad faith here. I was impressed with the End’s comments, in that, yes, there was a little NIMBY in there, but they put it up front. They didn’t hide it with, well, it would be bad for the lake. It would be bad for the community, and by the way, it wouldn’t block my view. They said it would block their view. So I applaud that, because quite often we hear people who go to great lengths to make it sound as if their concerns are really for the community at large, and not their own. Having said that, I certainly, for one, over the time that I’ve been on this Board, have been very zealous of the lake. I believe we have a workable zoning for waterfront property, in terms of setback from the lake of 50 feet. I can’t, in good conscience, grant something that’s 20 feet closer to the lake than it should be, or even closer, as you suggest in a compromise. It just would go against everything I’ve talked about as long as I’ve been on the Board. In addition, I mean, yes, you’re willing to make some compromises, and as I interjected my comments, it appears to me, as I look at these things, that there are more votes to deny this than there are to approve it. I think that there is an alternate spot. I think the end of the driveway, with the neighbors help, for example, if we put it a little closer to their line, they certainly recognize that their house is about as close to the line as you can get without being over it, not that they caused it, but that’s the way it is. I certainly think they might be willing, in the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) spirit of compromise, to say, put the garage as close to our line as our house is to their line, if you will, it being the same line. So tuck it over in the corner behind their house, which would give a view of the lake from the room that they’re most concerned about, and yet the garage would be on, there would be a garage. I think there’s space in there. I think that’s probably what Staff was thinking, I assume. That’s one of the things you might have been thinking about, Craig. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. I hate to see, and I know you’ve been willing to make compromises, but, you know, first impressions are sometimes very important when we look at an application, and here’s an application for 20 feet of relief from the lake, 4 feet of relief from the height, 10 feet of relief from the accessory structure, and it becomes a great deal. Now, we’ve made some compromises, but I just think that a lot of this problem comes from the shape of the lot, the size of the lot, the fact that it’s on a point, and I think Mr. McNally said early in his comment, sometimes you can’t put another building on a lot. You have to recognize that there are limitations. You’ve got to get the house on it. You’ve got to get a septic system in there. I mean, if this house were conforming, there would be no place to put a garage. I mean, the only reason that there’s even room to consider a garage is because the house is sitting on the lake itself. I would prefer that we deny this application, without prejudice, if you will, and allow you to come back, guarantee that you can come back with a compromise that hopefully can be worked out between the applicant, and we recognize their interest in having a garage, and the neighbor’s concern, and, yes, as was stated, their view to the north is not, they’re not paying taxes, quite frankly, for that view. They’re paying taxes for the front footage on the lake. That’s where the land values are concerned, but they’ve had this thing, and I think that, we can’t guarantee it, no, but we can certainly help by trying to find a compromise. So I’m inclined, primarily because of the closeness to the lake. MR. LAPPER-I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would just respectfully ask that I did hear, and we might have heard differently, that the majority of the Board is in favor of them having a garage if it can be worked out. So I guess I would ask that if the Board is not prepared to vote and approve a compromise size tonight, then I would ask you to table it, instead of denying it, only because that would send us back to the drawing board, without having to re-apply. MR. STONE-Okay. The only reason that I would be reluctant to table it is that we sometimes table too many things and we get too big a backup, but I’m certainly willing to table it if the Board is interested in seeing a compromise. I’m getting a couple of shakes of the head. MR. ABBATE-A compromise, of course, would initiate from the applicant, not this Board. MR. STONE-No, from the applicant, absolutely. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but the other thing I’d just like you all to keep in mind is that they came in here tonight with, they have a permit in hand, and we can argue, and we can argue with the other side about whether or not that’s valid, but the building inspector didn’t do anything different for them than he’s been doing for everybody else for these years. They kept going in and getting it renewed. We don’t want to be in court. They were sued. They did not sue, but that’s something that is still a legitimate argument, and they came in here, believing that they had the right to build what was approved, and nevertheless, authorizing me to offer compromises, because, in the spirit of neighborliness because they are going to live together. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-But the issue in front of us is whether you get the variance you’ve applied for, not the merits of whether or not the building permit was legitimately issued, or what rights or obligations are created by that continuation. So we’ve got in front of us an application, and the question is do we approve this application or do we accept your request to table it and you come back with something that you think is going to fly. I don’t have a problem with that, but let’s not get into these side issues of what the other litigation. MR. LAPPER-And I didn’t mean to be disrespectful, only to say that, knowing that they felt that they had a permit, that they still came in saying they would be willing to compromise, even though what I applied for was exactly what they had been granted last time. MR. STONE-But we have been told that they need a variance. That’s the job that we’ve been given. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-And we seem to be not of a mind to grant the variances that we’re given. We recognize that we accept compromises. To me, this is such a complex compromise that I, personally, would like to see it on a piece paper before I would feel comfortable in voting for it. MR. LAPPER-That’s completely understandable. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. HIMES-Again, I feel a little uncomfortable, in connection with the compromise and so on. In connection with the, say the distance from the lake, or the three variances that are requested, the compromises that are being discussed, are we agreeing that we are going to compromise? MR. STONE-No, not at all. The tabling motion would be that we’d table this for up to 62 days, so the applicants can come back with a revised application that in their judgement we might grant. I mean, the onus is totally on them. MR. LAPPER-And we may submit a couple of alternatives to discuss. MR. STONE-That would be very helpful. MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. MR. STONE-That would be helpful. Yes, no, it’s all in their court. MR. HIMES-Yes. I just wanted to be sure that they understood that we are not looking to compromise. That they may have a very uphill battle, as far as proximity to the shoreline, and so on and so on. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. HIMES-I think that you know from what’s been said. MR. STONE-You’ve stated that and I’ve stated that very clearly, that I certainly don’t want, I don’t even like going 49 feet, but that’s, we know we’ve done a little bit of that, but this is new construction, and if this were a house and you wanted to go up a second story on the lakeside, then it becomes kind of a different issue, but this is brand new construction. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2001 JOAN AND MIKE DONNELLY, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 10 Waters Edge Drive. For 62 days, to allow the applicant to present modifications to their variance request. Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: rd MR. MC NALLY-I agree with you, and just because they come back with a modified plan, they have to understand, there’s no necessary reason, we may not agree to it, and I know Mr. Lapper understands that. I hope the applicants understand that. Regardless of what you come back with, we may not like it, but we’ll keep an open mind and see it when it does come back. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, it’s obvious that if we were to vote now, we would deny it, I mean, looking at my score card here that I keep. We make no guarantee. We’ll say, please, you’ve heard us, if you have any hope of getting this variance, you’ve got to come with something that, in your mind, based upon what you’ve heard, will, might pass muster with at least four members of the Board. MR. LAPPER-Our job is to come back with an application, with a modified application that we hope you will say is the minimum variance that you could grant. MR. ABBATE-That’s it in a nutshell. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 32-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED FRENCH MOUNTAIN COMMONS AGENT: EDWARD T. MOORE, JR. OWNER OF PROPERTY: EDWARD MOORE, SR. L. & M. ASSOC., L.L.C. LOCATION: 1439 STATE ROUTE 9, #16 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) ROUTE 9, TRAVELLING NORTH ON THE MILLION DOLLAR HALF MILE, ON LEFT HAND SIDE, BEHIND THE MONTCALM RESTAURANT. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/9/01 ZONE: HC-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 35.-1-4.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-55 LOT SIZE: 4.11 ACRES SECTION 140-6 EDWARD MOORE, JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 32-2001, French Mountain Commons, Meeting Date: May 23, 2001 “Project Location: 1439 State Route 9, #16 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 50 square foot freestanding sign and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6 feet of relief from the 45 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, § 140-6. When the front property line cannot be determined, setbacks from the center of the roadway may be used. The setback from the center of a 3 lane road is 45 feet. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the sign in its current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to relocation. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6 feet of relief from the 45 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However, the location of the front property line may show more relief from the 15 foot property line setback requirement. 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 attributed to the widening of Route 9 in this area. Additional lands may have been acquired by the State for the right of way. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 88-1060 issued 3/30/88 48 sf freestanding sign Sign Permit 2000-3490 applied for on 6/5/00 not issued Staff comments: Apparently, the 1988 sign was damaged. The current sign was to be a replacement. The current sign is slightly larger, in a new location and a different configuration and therefore is considered a new sign that must meet the current requirement. Consideration may be given to confirmation of the “new” front property line. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 9, 2001 Project Name: French Mountain Commons Owner: Edward Moore, Sr. ID Number: QBY-SV- 32-2001 County Project#: May01-26 Current Zoning: HC-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Site Location: Rt. 9 heading North on the Million Dollar Half Mile. Left hand side behind Montcalm Restaurant. Tax Map Number(s): 288.00-1-55 Staff Notes: The applicant is making use of an alternate method of determining the required setback, as provided by the zoning ordinance. In this case, 45’ from the road centerline are required, and the applicant proposes a sign 39’ from the centerline. The materials provided by the applicant do not indicate the proposed sign’s distance from the edge of the active roadway and road shoulder. Due to concerns about the potential impact to traffic traveling State Route 9 or road maintenance, Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley 5/14/01. MR. STONE-Question, Craig, before we go. We still don’t know where the property line is? MR. BROWN-The applicant may have some more information to share on that tonight. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. MOORE-No, we don’t. My name is Edward Moore, Jr. I’m the applicant’s agent, and because of the way the Town, I think it’s the State took the land, when they put the sidewalks in off of Route 9, I’m sure you’re familiar with the project. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MOORE-We never got a new survey. So we couldn’t go, we didn’t want to go through the expense of getting the whole property surveyed for the sign. So we elected to use the alternative method, and also, as Craig pointed out to me, where the property line shows, where the telephone pole is, it was moved from basically the road to that location, is where it was about six feet. They moved the telephone pole in to accommodate the sidewalk. MR. HIMES-What is the history on the Sign Permit, the 2000 not issued? Does that have any bearing on this at all? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. BROWN-That’s the Sign Permit for this sign that’s in question tonight. Since last summer, I’ve been in contact with the sign contractor and the applicant to try and get a plot plan to determine the accurate location, and, not having that, we’re here tonight. MR. STONE-Okay. So it was not rejected. It was just not issued, in a sense. MR. BROWN-Well, yes. MR. ABBATE-Is that basically saying it was never applied for? MR. BROWN-No, it was applied for. MR. HAYES-He just couldn’t issue it without it being properly surveyed. MR. BROWN-Without a proper plot plan. MR. STONE-Is there a travel corridor overlay, or does that not come into play? MR. BROWN-It doesn’t apply to signs. MR. STONE-It doesn’t apply to signs. MR. HAYES-Because they’re removable, I guess, or whatever, essentially. MR. ABBATE-Can I ask a question here? I’ll try to reduce this to the lowest denomination here. You had a sign up. The wind blew it down, a storm blew it down, boom, right, and you put another sign up? Right? Is that the bottom line? MR. MOORE-Exactly, bottom line. MR. MC NALLY-And it was in a different location. MR. ABBATE-But a different location. MR. MOORE-We moved it about five feet back and put it in more concrete and metal settings, so we wouldn’t encounter that problem again. MR. MC NALLY-When you said moved it five feet back, five feet back from what? MR. MOORE-North. MR. MC NALLY-Further north. MR. STONE-You went north five feet. MR. MOORE-Right. MR. STONE-So you’re directly under that tree now, you weren’t before? MR. MOORE-Right. We can’t move it back really because we’d be either in the parking lot or, because of the retention. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have any plans to cut any of that tree down? MR. MOORE-If it were me, I’d love to take it down, but to trim it up, we just plan on trimming it up. The applicant has a serious attachment to that tree. MR. ABBATE-So if we gave you the stipulation that if there were an approval that the tree remains, you’d have no problem with that? MR. MOORE-The tree has to remain? MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. MOORE-Yes. MR. STONE-I hate to see trees cut down. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. MOORE-I’d have no problem. We want the tree to stay, the applicant does, the agent doesn’t, but the applicant does. MR. MC NALLY-Now, it shows 39 feet from the center of Route 9. MR. MOORE-Right. MR. MC NALLY-Who measured that? MR. MOORE-Craig and I. MR. ABBATE-Who held the line? MR. MOORE-He held it on the centerline and I ran it to the thing. MR. STONE-You’re comfortable with your measurement? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-And this drawing that we have, it says site plan. It’s a scale of one inch to thirty feet, and that shows the property line before the taking? MR. MOORE-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And do you know if any maps were filed by the State when they did the taking? MR. MOORE-Craig graciously looked for me, and I called the State and tried to get a hold of some and to no avail. MR. MC NALLY-Now, was property taken along this section right there? MR. MOORE-Right. Correct. MR. MC NALLY-And your employer is the owner of that property? MR. MOORE-My father is the owner of that property. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. He never got any maps from the State for that taking at all? MR. MOORE-Not that he recalls or I recall or we can find. MR. MC NALLY-Did you look at the County, by any chance? MR. BROWN-I did not. MR. MC NALLY-(Lost words) filed maps to do the appropriation, and I’ve represented several businesses there and there are maps filed. MR. BROWN-There should be. MR. ABBATE-This was appropriated on the Imminent Domain? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. ABBATE-And there were no maps, is that what you’re saying? I find that strange. MR. MOORE-Not that I could find or get a hold of. MR. ABBATE-That’s strange. MR. MOORE-I would assume that there would be some maps. MR. MC NALLY-What modifications, again, I drove by there. I didn’t pay attention to the sidewalks. They built sidewalks along that section? MR. MOORE-Correct. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. MC NALLY-And they expanded the road a bit? MR. MOORE-I don’t believe they expanded the road at all, but they just, they put the sidewalks in and they put some shrubbery in and they put sod in on the side closest to the road. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MOORE-Crosswalks. MR. STONE-And then they want the Town to plow it. MR. ABBATE-Right, with no reimbursement. MR. STONE-Right. Craig, did you, and this is not germane except that I tried to do some siting. I mean, I stood by the sign and I sited north. The Basketville sign looks closer to the road than this one does. Is it? MR. BROWN-Could be. MR. HAYES-Well, there’s other ones that could be grandfathered. I mean, Montcalm’s is right on the road. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-This sign, all right, is it any closer to the road than the old sign was? MR. MOORE-No, I don’t believe so. MR. MC NALLY-That’s all it is is five feet north of where it was? MR. MOORE-I just moved it five feet directly back, correct. MR. MC NALLY-Craig, is that basically true, to your knowledge? MR. BROWN-Yes. I have the old sign permit here with a photograph in it, if it would help. MR. MC NALLY-But it’s basically in the same position? MR. BROWN-Basically in the same position. It shows the roadway. It shows the old sign. It shows the poles, hydrants. It appears to have been a three lane road at that time, no sidewalks. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. MR. URRICO-But it was enlarged from the previous sign. MR. MOORE-Two square feet, to accommodate the different size tags. MR. ABBATE-The 14 signs for the stores, that’s why? MR. MOORE-Right. MR. ABBATE-And it was moved closer to the tree? MR. MOORE-I don’t believe so. MR. ABBATE-North. MR. STONE-So it’s sort of directly under the tree right now where it probably wasn’t before. MR. URRICO-The Short Environmental Assessment Form it says enlarge sign by two square feet and move two feet south of existing sign, and you’re saying it’s moved north. MR. MOORE-It’s definitely north. I apologize for that. MR. STONE-Any other questions? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak for this application, for? Anybody wishing to speak opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let’s talk about it. Jamie, we’ll start with you. MR. LAPPER-Well, I have to say, on the outset, as you said, first impressions are often a good barometer on these applications, and my first impression was that this really wasn’t a change at all. It’s as highly commercialized area for sure. Certainly some people are of the opinion too much so, but that’s really not what we’re debating here tonight. The benefit to the applicant, in this particular circumstance, is that they can have a sign, a replacement sign that accommodates their needs. The fact that it’s two square feet larger on a sign of this size, to me, is really not a change that I would consider that the applicant was seeking to expand his overall or effective exposure due to the sign increase in size. I mean, two square feet on a sign that’s 50 square feet is four percent, and I don’t see that as the intent or the effect as well. I don’t think that it’s going to effect the neighborhood or the community in any way, negatively. Six feet of relief, whether it’s based on the secondary calculation, that calculation still exists in our Code, and I don’t think that six feet of relief is substantial. I think it’s actually pretty minimal in this case, especially considering some of the older signs in the Million Dollar Half Mile, which, in my mind, including the Montcalm’s, are right out by the road. So, on balance, this is not a tough one for me. I think that replacing a sign that was damaged by a storm is a natural consequence of business and maybe even a responsible thing to do, and the fact that it was not moved any closer to the property line, to me, I think the test falls in favor of the applicant, and I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Good. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’m probably reluctantly in favor. You talk about first impressions. My first impression was, move it. Make it conforming. Although I can understand why it’s where it is because it’s kind of straddling that water retention ditch where it is. So it’s symmetrical where it is and what not, and there certainly are a lot of other signs there as close up through there. I also wonder whether or not we may find that eventually we’re approving something probably across the property line and in the highway right of way, not knowing where the property line is and recognizing that that is a drainage ditch or retention area it strikes me might have been managed by the State, but, that notwithstanding, hearing that it’s basically replacing a sign that was roughly in the same general location, it’s an attractive location where it is. It probably would look weird if it were moved back into the parking lot, and the two feet expansion doesn’t bother me at all, as far as that goes. So I guess, on balance, I’d reluctantly approve it. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I basically agree with my two fellow Board members, but I would like to see a contingency, stipulating that this is not across the property line, that if for some reason the State, when they did put the sidewalk in there, did not move the property line so that the sign is not any longer on their property. I mean, I don’t think it is, but just in case. MR. STONE-Are you saying that the applicant would move it if it’s found to be not on his property? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. STONE-That’s reasonable, I think. Isn’t it? MR. BROWN-Just so I understand, your intent is to have the applicant provide us with information that shows that the sign’s on his property? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-Is that what you said, or if it’s found to be, at some point? MR. URRICO-If it’s found to be at some point, basically agreeing with what Chuck says, that we want to protect us in case we find out that it’s. MR. STONE-I don’t think he’s saying the applicant has to do it. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. BROWN-That’s why I asked. I just wand to make sure. MR. STONE-You just want, if it ever happens, we have covered that. MR. ABBATE-Just as a contingency, that’s all. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. ABBATE-It’s a good one. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I have nothing further to add. I agree with what’s been said by the other Board members, and I tend to support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, and in the interest of time, what have you, I support the other Board members and their position. It’s an attractive sign, and with the stipulation that, the contingency that in the event we find out, or you find out, at some future date, that the sign is not on your property, you have an obligation to move it appropriately, and in view of that, I support the application. MR. STONE-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with the other Board members in large part. This is a placement with minor modifications requiring a variance. I would be inclined to make them have a survey done, to be honest with you, though, but, given the other Board member’s feeling that a contingency would be sufficient to demonstrate to me that this is on your property and not on State property, and that it’s sufficiently back from your property line that I would feel happy. I’m willing to vote in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. I concur with my fellow Board members. I don’t mean to put words into Mr. Urrico’s mouth, but I agree that, if it is found that this is on State property, then it’s incumbent upon you to move it, without even seeking a variance. I mean, you’re going to have to just move it. MR. MOORE-Well, my property went to the telephone pole before. MR. STONE-I suspect it’s not a problem. We’re just protecting ourselves. Okay. Before I call for a motion, I’d like you all to review quickly in your mind the Short Environmental Assessment Form. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Having said that, I need a motion to grant the variance. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 32-2001 FRENCH MOUNTAIN COMMONS, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 1439 State Route 9. Applicant has constructed a 50 square foot freestanding sign and seeks setback relief. Applicant requests six feet of relief from the 45 foot minimum setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance, 140-6. When the front property line cannot be determined, the setbacks from the center of the roadway may be used. The setback from the center of a three lane road is 45 feet. Benefit to the applicant. The applicant will be permitted to maintain the sign at its current location. Feasible alternatives, especially problematical in view of we don’t know for absolute certain where the boundaries of your property are, but in connection with this, we would let the sign stand as is. However, if it turns out at some future date, is found that the sign is on State property, then it’ll have to be reconsidered and relocated. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Six feet of relief from the 45 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However, the location of the front property line may show more relief from the 15 foot property line setback requirement. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated. The 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) sign did need to be replaced. People need to be able to see what’s there, what you’re offering. So it’s good maintenance. Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. MOORE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2001 TYPE II BOATS BY GEORGE, INC. AGENT: PETER SABO, PROFICIENT CONSTRUCTION OWNER OF PROPERTY: GEORGE R. PENSEL BOATS BY GEORGE, INC. LOCATION: 18 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,820 SQ. FT. POLE BARN ADDITION AND SEEK S RELIEF FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 5/9/01 ZONE: HC-1A OLD TAX MAP NO. 36.-1- 37.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-12 LOT SIZE: 1.13 PER SURVEY MAP SECTION 179-23, 179-79 GEORGE R. PENSEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2001, Boats By George, Inc., Meeting Date: May 23, 2001 “Project Location: 18 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 1820 sf pole barn addition and seeks setback relief. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, § 179- 23. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize an outdoor, covered work area. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a compliant addition to another building on site and consolidation of the adjoining parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 9.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-163 applied for on 4/13/01 not issued AV 55- 2000 res. 6/28/00 TCO and side setback relief SP28-2000 res. 5/18/00 development of adjoining lands for boat storage Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The current difficulty exists due to the separated nature of the parcels. Consolidation of the adjoining parcel, also owned by the applicant, would alleviate the setback relief request. The existing “shed” addition to the back of the building did not receive a permit for placement. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 9, 2001 Project Name: Boats By George Owner: George R. Pensel ID Number: QBY-AV-28-2001 County Project#: May01-24 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of an 1,820 sq. ft. pole barn addition and seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 18 State Route 149. Rt. 9 north to Rt. 149. Make a right and head East approximately 1/10 mile on the right. Tax Map Number(s): 36-1-37.2 Staff Notes: The Board reviewed a request for a side yard setback variance for this same building to construct a ramp and deck on the elevation facing State Route 149 at its June 2000 meeting. The applicant now proposes an addition on the rear of the building, that would extend the setback deficiency 35’, though not encroach more than the existing building does upon the property line. The addition would be an open pavilion used as a covered area for boat cleaning. The Board may recall that the owner of this parcel also owns the adjacent parcel. This action would not require a variance if the applicant had merged the parcels as the Board recommended last June. Since the parcels are still distinct, the area variance must be considered for those impacts. However, Staff does not identify significant impacts to State or County resources from a side yard setback deficiency of this magnitude. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 5/14/01. MR. STONE-Mr. Pensel, you’re on. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. PENSEL-Thank you. MR. STONE-Do you wish to add anything? State your name for the record. MR. PENSEL-I’m George R. Pensel, President, Boats By George, and owner. MR. STONE-Do you want to talk about it, before we ask you questions? MR. PENSEL-I don’t know if I need to add anything. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Would you comment, for me at least, comment two things about the consolidation of the two lots and where does that stand? MR. PENSEL-The consolidation of the two lots is inevitable. It’s going to happen. The only thing that’s holding us back from that at this point is just processing, paperwork. The mortgage commitment has been granted. Originally, the two parcels were separated because of two separate lenders on each property, and until such time that I was to get just maybe have one lender or one mortgage, and I would have, on both parcels, and I would be able to merge the two, and that is already in the works. MR. STONE-So as the property owner to the west, you’re in favor of this application. MR. PENSEL-Yes, I am, absolutely. MR. STONE-I thought I’d get that in, before some other wise guy did. MR. ABBATE-That was interesting. MR. STONE-Go ahead. I’m sorry. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. Pensel, I’m glad you appreciate the processing procedures and paperwork that’s so important in these transactions. Would you not agree? MR. PENSEL-I definitely do. MR. ABBATE-Is there any reason why the existing shed addition to the back didn’t receive a permit? MR. PENSEL-Actually, I didn’t, I was made aware that was a non, that shed’s been there a while, and I was made aware that this process into looking into this, that that was, required a permit. At one time I had a school bus back there, that was used for storage of parts and accessories and things, and I replaced that with a versatile shed, a temporary structure, and during the process of looking into this, Craig Brown made it, brought it our attention that that would require. MR. ABBATE-Have you taken any action to receive a permit? MR. PENSEL-I’ve actually, we’ve been told that I have to do what I’m doing here to receive it, really. MR. ABBATE-Plus you need a variance as well. MR. PENSEL-The variance, and I wouldn’t look at a permit until I got a variance. MR. ABBATE-See, the reason I’m asking this, it may be insignificant to some folks. The reason I’m asking this, when I look at the application and I read it in detail, and when I see that there has been some construction or has been some action, in which Town ordinances require proper processing of administrative work and etc., etc., and none has been done, then when the applicant comes before the Board and I raise the issue have you done anything, and the applicant says, well, not at the present time, it makes me leery of the entire application. MR. PENSEL-Well, I have. I mean, this action right here is required. I’m in the process of merging the two parcels, which would be a non-issue at that point, other than a building permit, but the Town is not willing to look at a building permit without the setback requirement, it’s my understanding, being. MR. STONE-In other words, he’s between a rock and a hard place. MR. ABBATE-I see. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. STONE-Is that correct, Craig? He can’t get a building permit for that shed because he hasn’t got a variance for that shed. MR. BROWN-Well, this application is not for a variance for the shed. MR. STONE-I know that. I understand that. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. STONE-But he did not get a building permit for the shed. He couldn’t get one unless he got a variance for it. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct, but that’s not why we’re here right now. MR. STONE-I understand. The next question I was going to ask, is that shed going to stay underneath this thing or not? MR. ABBATE-That’s my question. MR. PENSEL-For now I would like it to, yes. MR. MC NALLY-I’m not sure what the question was. MR. STONE-Is this building going to stay there when the pole barn is built over it? MR. PENSEL-Only if I’m granted a building permit, a permit by the Town to leave it there. I can’t leave it there if the Town. MR. STONE-Let’s assume you had all the permits, is that going to be underneath the pole barn? MR. PENSEL-Temporarily, yes. I would like it to be, yes. MR. MC NALLY-And do you have any plans for applying for a variance with respect to the existing structure, even though that’s not on the table yet? MR. PENSEL-I would probably, before doing that, I mean, it’s not a permitted structure at this point, with the zoning, the setback. If I get this approved, I would apply for more than likely a building permit to enclose a section of that pavilion, to replace, and then apply for a permit from the Town to place the temporary structure at another location on the property. MR. ABBATE-See, I’m of the opinion that that shed should come down immediately. However, I may be in the minority here, before any other action is taken. MR. MC NALLY-Point well taken. It’s not legal, period. MR. ABBATE-That’s my point. MR. MC NALLY-And nothing’s being done to make it legal. MR. ABBATE-Exactly. That’s my point, and it is part of the application, and it becomes moot, the entire application. MR. MC NALLY-Well, he’s here for the pavilion. Staff would have to worry about enforcement. MR. BROWN-In the Staff notes, if you see Building Permit 2001-163, that was applied for. It’s for the shed, but it’s showing the shed in a compliant location, 25 feet from the property line, not for its current location. So that certainly could be issued. I’ve held that from being issued until we get a resolve on this application. MR. STONE-Okay. So there was a building permit applied for, but it was not at 13 or 10 to 12 feet? MR. BROWN-It was 25 feet from the property line. MR. MC NALLY-See, what’s that place at Exit 18, that food place, Aronson’s? MR. STONE-Double A. MR. BROWN-Double A. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. MC NALLY-We had an application to build an extension on that building, closer to the line, and we promise you we’re going to get this additional building right next door to this lot and add it to it so there won’t be any setback problems, and we never actually got, what happened was, so they were going to have two lots, we let them build right up to the line, all right, because they promised they were going to get the next lot over. Well, the next lot never came. We forgot. We accidentally didn’t get it. It fell through. Someone else wanted to sell that lot to someone else. How is this different from that? We’ve got a promise that the next door lot’s going to be merged with an existing lot. If it is, you can do whatever you want, no problem. MR. STONE-Well, but the question that we have on the table, Bob, is as if these two lots haven’t been merged, and can he build a pole barn. The question that Mr. Abbate’s raising is, should we even consider this while he is technically in violation with the building permit. MR. ABBATE-That’s exactly my position. MR. STONE-That’s the point on the table. MR. MC NALLY-I see. MR. STONE-Craig, what does Staff say? MR. BROWN-I think you can. Maybe to answer Mr. McNally’s question, what makes this different is, it’s my understanding the applicant owns both parcels, right now. It’s just a matter of consolidation. It’s not like he’s going to purchase it, but he currently owns it. That might not answer your question completely, but can you consider tonight’s application with the violation on the site right now? Sure. Here’s your variance, lose the shed. You can make it a condition of approval. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. MC NALLY-I look at this as a separate application for the lot on the left, as you look this map. Forget he owns the lot to the right, but as part of your consideration in requesting a variance, you say, hey listen, what’s the problem? I own the lot to the right, to the other side of it. You’re right, but how many times can that be sold out from under us? It’s not going to result. MR. STONE-But Bob, he’s requesting relief from that property line. MR. MC NALLY-I understand. So it’s just this lot that we’re considering? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-And my sense would be, if there’s a feasible alternative location, that he can build that in a feasible location that meets the setback requirements, go ahead and do it. On the other hand, I’d be more than happy to approve this here, if I knew that that lot was going to be merged with the other one, and I had proof of it, rather than just a promise. MR. STONE-Okay. The only comment I would make, Bob, is it was granted relief from this property line previously, up in front, and I mean, I’m not defending the applicant one way or the other, but all we’re saying here is that here is a building that’s going to be approximately 9.5 feet too close to the line. MR. MC NALLY-And you know it’s going to be enclosed at some point in the future. I mean, odds are it will be, or it’ll be used for regular storage. I’m saying now is a nice opportunity to make sure that these two lots are merged, so that there is a compliant location and everything is kosher in the future. MR. ABBATE-And make every approval on a contingency. MR. MC NALLY-Sir, I don’t doubt your plans. MR. ABBATE-No, your integrity is not in question. We’re talking about administrative procedures. I agree with Bob. We need contingencies here. I don’t like the idea that the individual’s coming before us with a variance, and there’s an existing shed addition in the back of the building which didn’t receive a permit. MR. STONE-But that’s a separate issue. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. ABBATE-How can we come to a legal conclusion when there is an illegal act still not attended to? MR. MC NALLY-And taking the merger a step further, that takes care of everything. You merge these two lots, you’re legal all around. MR. STONE-No. He still has an illegal building on the lot. MR. MC NALLY-Well, for building permit. With zoning variance it’s not. MR. STONE-The zoning variance takes it away. That’s correct. MR. MC NALLY-But I presume Staff may not have a problem with an after the fact building permit, if it was built to the Code, I assume, but that’s something you’ll look into. MR. BROWN-That would be a decision Mr. Hatin would have to make. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MC NALLY-What can you tell us about that adjoining lot that will assure us that it’s going to be merged? Give us some definite dates and times. Is that a plan? Are you building a showroom on that lot? Is that your current plan that you’re talking about financing? MR. PENSEL-My intention is to build a showroom on that lot, yes. MR. MC NALLY-Okay. That would be natural, I think. MR. STONE-But you did say that you purchased the lot to the west from the neighbor further to the west, and he held the paper for a period of time? MR. PENSEL-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Do we have it in the files? Do we have that contract of deed? MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Pensel told me that, and I’m just asking for confirmation, and he confirmed it. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. HAYES-Is that preventing you from merging the lots, like a financing? I mean, is there any logical reason? Because I think that would reduce some people’s concern. MR. PENSEL-Yes. I’ve got, I cannot merge the lot until that lender, which is the owner finance, is taken out and paid off, and then I’ve got a mortgage commitment here from Evergreen Bank to do that. MR. MC NALLY-So you have a commitment to pay off the adjoining property owner? MR. PENSEL-Yes, I have a commitment letter in hand. MR. MC NALLY-Actual commitment. MR. PENSEL-Yes. So, you know, I was made aware that the building was not conforming, that we’ve been talking about. We thought maybe we’d place an application to move it, which has been spoken of, and what we thought would make sense would be to deal with the setback issue as soon as possible, and then that would hopefully alleviate the setback problem, and at the same time we could move forward to get rid of the shed completely anyway, but I can’t do it without a, the short term is to get the pavilion moved forward with the pavilion, so that my employees could work in July maybe in the shade. This process, I can wait. This process is going to happen. I wouldn’t even have to meet with the, as far as I know, be before the Zoning Board. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. HAYES-Do you have evidence of that financing of Evergreen? Because, to me, that would satisfy me that you are, in fact. MR. PENSEL-I have a commitment letter in my hand. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. HAYES-Do you want to bring that forward? I mean, that would satisfy me that you do intend to, because nobody’s going to go through that without the. MR. STONE-The other question that I would have, if you had gotten a variance for the shed, and gotten a building permit based upon that variance, and then built it, in other words, it’s now there but everything is legal, what is going to be the position of this pole barn in reference to that building that’s right there now? MR. PENSEL-The position of the pole barn is actually, the setbacks are not as great with the pole barn as they are with the shed. MR. STONE-So the setback, it’s in further from the straight line of the building? MR. PENSEL-Right. MR. STONE-So would this go over that building? MR. PENSEL-Yes. MR. STONE-It would go over. MR. PENSEL-Yes, right over the top, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I was trying to find out. So if this thing were all legal, you would build this thing so that it would cover the shed too? MR. PENSEL-Exactly, yes. MR. STONE-Because you’re using that for parts and you need it locked up. MR. PENSEL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Do you guys understand what I was just asking him? MR. ABBATE-Sure, I understand. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-Tell me this again? MR. STONE-If that shed were legal, if he had gotten a variance to put it where it is, and therefore had gotten a building permit, and built it, and then came in for this, what he’s looking for tonight, that would actually go over the shed. The shed would be in the footprint. MR. PENSEL-Within, well within, yes. MR. STONE-Is that how you understand it? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. URRICO-Could I just ask my own clarification about consolidation? Is that more of an eventuality than imminent? MR. PENSEL-It’s imminent. MR. URRICO-Then why not wait until that happens before applying for this? MR. ABBATE-That was going to my motion, that we table this. MR. PENSEL-Well, the purpose is because right now we’re in the middle of the season, and I would like to get my, help my employees by getting them shaded in the month of July, as they do their work, and out of the rain, in that back area, yes. MR. MC NALLY-If I looked at that commitment, all right, that you just showed us a minute ago, it says your closing’s to be by June 29. Today is May 23. So we’re talking another month, all right. thrd It’s going to take a while to build this thing. I assume your merger’s going to occur within a month’s time. MR. PENSEL-The building would take place prior to the closing, yes. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. MC NALLY-Will start. MR. PENSEL-We would then immediately apply for building permits and have these employees in the shade in July. Otherwise, I won’t have it done until the, you know, and I know we’re dealing with a timetable that, and I know you don’t see it, but it would be a big relief for my employees. MR. MC NALLY-If we make something like this contingent on a merger of the property, and, again, I trust what you’re telling us 100%. We’ve had prior applicants who have done things differently than what they told us, but if we approved your plan, contingent upon the merger of the two lots, and then those lots don’t get merged and this building gets built, what happens then? I mean, are we going to just approve the variance as it is? Maybe the amount of relief requested is fine, and say the heck with it? MR. PENSEL-I’ll agree to take the building down. I’ll agree to take the building down if that didn’t occur. MR. ABBATE-We don’t approve it based on a contingency, we table this application. MR. HAYES-If he’s willing to make it a contingency, though, then we’re arguing over nothing. He’s suffering the burden of this own things. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BROWN-You could make the approval conditioned on no Certificate of Occupancy without a consolidation. It’s built. No CO, you can’t use it without consolidation. MR. ABBATE-Why can’t we just table this? What am I missing here. MR. STONE-Because he’d like to start the construction. How long does merging two properties take? Is that instant? MR. PENSEL-The properties cannot be merged until the mortgage is closed, on June 29. th MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got to pay off the lender. MR. PENSEL-I’ve got to pay off the lender. MR. ABBATE-I understand. MR. STONE-But is the merger an instantaneous thing? If you go to the County? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. STONE-That’s instantaneous? MR. PENSEL-My lawyer is working on the title searches and everything to get that all done right now. MR. MC NALLY-He’ll file a single deed merging the two lots. MR. PENSEL-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Or you can also merge for tax purposes, too. MR. BROWN-And that’s a very quick procedure. Do you own the property, are the taxes current? They merge them under one tax map number. The mapping takes some time, but once they stamp it, it’s consolidated. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s a one day process. MR. HAYES-The applicant is not resisting making this approval contingent on him merging the thing. MR. STONE-No. MR. HAYES-I think that’s our goal. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) MR. PENSEL-Well, I’d like to make it contingent, if possible, contingent on, or actually agree to remove the building if it didn’t happen. If for any reason, the two properties were ever sold, if that property was sold, I will agree, and I’m telling you it will happen, but if the properties, for some reason, if it didn’t happen, I’d take the building down. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s get the public hearing out of the way. All of a sudden it dawned on me that we haven’t had a public hearing here yet, and we’ll get back to any questions. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETE SABO MR. SABO-Pete Sabo, applicant/agent, and I just would probably like to reiterate, on the fact of the shed, that that is actually already there. That has not got a permit for it. What we have done at this point is applied for a permit with Craig Brown to move it 25 feet to meet the required setbacks that are already there, and the other thing is that, that I was hearing here, was that if the building itself, if t the two properties weren’t actually merged together, I think all he’s looking for is a substantial relief on the setback to put the building up. Whether it gets merged or not, I don’t really see how that creates a problem, as far as giving him a setback relief on this building. MR. HAYES-Respectfully, I think you’re confusing the issue as has been defined so far. Because if the applicant has expressed a willingness to guarantee merger of the property at his own folly, then he’s alleviated what I understand to be most people’s concerns. MR. SABO-I mean, if he’s willing to take it down, that’s fine, if something didn’t go right or anything happened in the title search or what not, but I think all he’s really asking for is a nine foot setback relief on one end, and not even that on the other end, the way the property line runs. MR. HAYES-I just don’t think you’re, I don’t you’re properly interpreting the fact that some people are upset by the fact that you’ve applied for this building permit now, even though the building’s already constructed, that’s there. MR. SABO-Well, the building actually wasn’t constructed. It was bought from a place of versatile storage. So it’s an Amish built shed. I don’t actually believe that George knew that he had to draw a permit to set this thing on his property to use it as storage. MR. STONE-Again, I think we’re confused. That little shed is not on the table, except in the minds, Mr. Abbate has expressed some concern, but it’s not on the table. The table, the request is to put this big open area, a pole barn out on the end of his thing, and to do that he needs nine and a half feet of relief, and if the two lots were merged yesterday, he wouldn’t be here. MR. HIMES-Could I just make a comment. Mr. Sabo, in connection with what you’re inquiring, I think I understand what you’re pointing to, that if that were going to be pursued and nothing else here had come up, one of the things we’re asked to consider is are there feasible alternatives, and I think you have a boat storage yard down in back of your property, you know, down the little hill and all. I, for one, would say build it down there. I mean, do you see what I’m? You want to build it up next to the, so you see what I’m speaking about, that we would have other criticisms, maybe, against granting the variance when there are other areas where it could be built within compliance. I don’t know if that helps you at all or not. MR. SABO-Yes. MR. HIMES-That’s all I have. Thanks. MR. SABO-That’s all I had. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it, but let me try to give my slant on it, not from my feelings, but what we’re trying to do here. Yes, there is a shed, you called it an Amish shed, but according to Craig, it could not be placed, even though it was pre-constructed, without a building permit, and to 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) get a building permit where that is placed would have required a variance, but that’s not on the table here. It may be something that is troublesome to people, and it’s certainly troublesome to me when people build things that require a variance and they don’t get it, or a building permit, but what we’re talking about is, everything else being equal, if we didn’t even know the owner of the property to the west, the applicant is asking for 9.5 feet of relief to build an 1820 square foot pole barn that would extend from his current building, parallel to the westerly side of the building, extending back 35 feet, approximately, and that building would be too close to the line, would not meet the setback requirements, and would require relief up to 9.5 feet. Is that correct, Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s the point we’re talking about. Do we wish to grant the variance? Now, there is concern. I hear that, about, are these lots going to be merged? Because if they were merged, he wouldn’t be here, because that’s certainly, and I hear Mr. Pensel saying, we can, in fact, put that contingency on there, and if he doesn’t merge them within a reasonable period of time then, as you said, he has to take the building down. MR. HAYES-Well, no, I just said that’s his burden. MR. STONE-That’s his burden. MR. HAYES-I mean, we could make the approval contingent upon merger, and he’ll have to go beyond that, right? MR. STONE-We could do that, but he’d like to get started. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s doing that. We make the approval. MR. STONE-And be obtained in a reasonable amount of time. MR. HAYES-No. I guess we’d have to give an approval, how would we work that? MR. STONE-That’s what I’m thinking. MR. BROWN-See, if you made the approval contingent upon consolidation. We couldn’t issue a building permit until it’s consolidated, but unless you put a timeframe in there, we could issue a building permit and get him started. MR. STONE-If we say we’ll grant the variance now, contingent upon it being completed, getting the merger within two months, and failing to do that. MR. HAYES-That would stop him from building, essentially. MR. STONE-No. MR. BROWN-It wouldn’t stop him from building. MR. STONE-It wouldn’t stop him from building, but if he doesn’t get, doesn’t do that within two months, then. MR. HAYES-That’s why if we did the Certificate of Occupancy, though. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s a good point. MR. HAYES-Then he can build it, but you just can’t use it until you get it done, but you said you’re going to get it done. MR. PENSEL-Yes. MR. STONE-Do we all understand what we’re talking about? Well, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck. Do you want to start? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ll start. I’ll try to do an abbreviated version of what Bob McNally usually does. Trying to figure this out. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant’s explained that he’d be able to get started right away and have this facility to use. The feasible alternatives, there are some feasible alternatives. One that’s been mentioned is putting is somewhere else. Another is to merge the lots. Is it substantial relief? I’m inclined to agree with Staff that a building of this size, or an addition of this size, getting nine and a half feet of relief, almost 50% of relief from the requirement, is probably moderate to substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community, if the adjoining lot 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) were owned by somebody else, there certainly would be at least moderate, if not significant effects, and certainly the difficulty is self-created. I’ve listened to some of the suggestions. I understand the desire to get this thing underway, but I have to step back and think about the what if. Something could happen, the stock market turns down or something else that it’s conceivable that he’s going to find it impossible to merge the two lots. It’s conceivable even that at some point he might find he’d have to sell the other lot, not that he would want to. The applicant’s made an offer that he’ll tear down what he builds if that should happen, and I think that’s a big can of worms to get into. I don’t think I’d want to be involved in that problem, if it occurred. I guess where I come down, it strikes me there are feasible alternatives, either putting this structure somewhere else where it is in compliance, or merging the lots, and I think the contingencies leave us with at least the possibility of something that’s going to be very difficult to resolve if everything doesn’t happen the way that everybody hopes it will. So I’m probably going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-As I weigh the criteria, I see a tough call. The benefit to the applicant, yes, the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize an outdoor covered work area. That’s pretty obvious. The feasible alternatives, I agree with Chuck on this, there are feasible alternatives, including a compliant addition to another building on the site and consolidation of the adjoining parcel. That brings me to number three, which is, is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? And this is the one I’m having difficulty with as it stands, not talking about consolidation, just talking about it as it’s brought forth. It seems to me last year we approved a variance just a little bit north of here, or was it a staircase or something. MR. STONE-A staircase, yes. MR. URRICO-And it was much closer to that side setback than this one is. It was about a foot or two was it. MR. PENSEL-It was a zero setback, actually. MR. URRICO-A zero setback. So it seemed to me we granted him that relief at that time, because he owned that property. If it was owned by somebody else, they probably wouldn’t have gotten that relief at that time, but now we’re looking at nine and a half feet of relief, which is about 50%, but it’s still the same situation. He still owns that property. So this is sort of a push for me, and as far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, I agree that they’re minimal to moderate effects, and, yes, it’s been self-created. I guess, on the face of it, I would be in favor of approving this variance, with the contingency, but not the contingency that he tear down the building, but a contingency that he come back and let us weigh the evidence as presented, without that consolidation, as if it didn’t exist, because as it stands now, I see it as similar to the case that we had last year. So I would approve it at this point, with that contingency. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think, myself, my feeling is that I would be very sympathetic to request if nothing was said about the merging of the lots. I’m not saying that that doesn’t have to be included, but given the fact that you’ve got so much building already close to the line, and given the type of neighborhood you’re in and what’s around you, I am in favor, period. Secondly, I think also that adds to my sympathy for the application is that here’s a business that is in the kind of products that it has. It’s not located on the water. It’s out in kind of an unusual place. It’s been in business for a while, it’s struggled, it’s made it. He’s increased his business a little bit along the way, in the face of competition that’s right up there on the water and everything else. So I’m sympathetic to the business. However, that’s not my main point. It is that I am in favor of the application, period. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I listened to what the other Board members had to say, and there’s a little bit of truth in everything that they had to say. However, I feel that there are feasible alternatives, in terms of a compliant addition in another area. I think that contingencies are extremely dangerous, and that we then shove the burden on to some other organization or individual to follow through with legal action, in the event this thing falls through. I think the applicant is acting in good faith. I don’t have any problems with that, but I think I have a problem with this, and basically, based on the verbal testimony and the information submitted in writing, I would not be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t see this as a difficult problem. If he wants a pavilion, he can have a pavilion. That’s fine. I can see your employees want to be out of the sun, and this morning they 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) were in the rain. I’d like to see them out of the rain. It’s a good idea. My problem with this application is, and there are compliant locations in which to build this pavilion. You could build it 20 feet from the side lines, even though your existing structure is closer than that. So you can build it there and achieve your objective. You can build it elsewhere and achieve your objective, and I don’t see any compelling reason why we should grant the relief, except for the fact that, as you’ve suggested, you own the adjoining property. I would ask you to build it somewhere else, but for that fact. I makes sense, however, to continue your building along the existing lines, and closer than the setbacks would allow, as long as you own the adjoining property. Who cares? So I’d be in favor of the application, with the conditions that we discussed earlier, ensuring, as I’m sure you’re going to do anyway, that the lots are merged. Then you can get your building started, and as long as the merger occurs, I’m happy. MR. STONE-Okay. Jamie? MR. HAYES-I think I agree totally with Norm in this particular circumstance. The benefit to the applicant would be that he could conduct his business in a way that is most efficient and proficient at what he does, and if he says that he needs this extension to do that, I’m going to assume that that’s a real need, or he obviously wouldn’t be spending the money. As far as feasible alternatives, Mr. Pensel has said that he intends to build the showroom, and I think that the extension of this working area, in the way that it does now, is also going to allow him to build a showroom in a complimentary manner, and I think that, from that perspective, I think that he’s pursuing a building site that makes sense to me, as I would see it, versus other alternatives. I don’t think the relief is substantial in this particular case, I think it’s moderate. I think 9.5 feet of relief in this case is less relief than we’ve granted in the previous variance, concerning this property. This, in my mind, is a heavy commercial area, a transitional area down Route 149, and the proposed expansion is in the rear of his building. It’s away from the main thoroughfare there, being Route 149. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I think, in this particular case, he does own the other parcel, and while it’s not formally merged, the most effected piece of property is the one he owns. If this represented a substantial devaluation of that property, then he would be making a mistake against his own property, and therefore I believe that as far as effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t think there are, outside of any parcels other than his own. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created, in that, in fact, the lots aren’t merged yet, but in my personal experience, including dealing with banks for financing, I don’t believe that Mr. Pensel would go through the cost or the aggravation of pursuing a commitment from the bank unless he intended to merge this property. So, on balance, I’m in favor of this application, as it stands, but I’m even more confident if a contingency as has been suggested is included, that the properties be merged. At that point I would think that he wouldn’t need to be here, in fact, at all. So I think there would be very little reservation, in my mind, that that contingency wouldn’t totally alleviate. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly agree with the majority of the Board, and I think Mr. Hayes put it most eloquently. I looked at this application, knowing that we had, in fact, granted a variance for the front part of the building, in fact a zero setback. I know that the bulk of the building, the existing building, is nonconforming. It’s already too close to the line. Then when you couple that with the fact that the applicant owns the lot next door and certainly has said here, and in private conversation when I visited the site, what his plans are. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is a reasonable request, and as Mr. Hayes said, adding the contingency, however we word it, whether we word it that no Certificate of Occupancy would be granted until such time as the lots are merged, certainly sweetens the pot for me, and makes I even easier for me to approve. So, having said that, I would ask Mr. Hayes to make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2001 BOATS BY GEORGE, INC., Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 18 State Route 149. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,820 square foot pole barn addition and seeks setback relief. The applicant requests 9.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the HC-1A zone, Section 179-23. Benefit to the applicant, the benefit would be that the applicant would be permitted to construct and utilize this outside covered work area as he has stated as a necessity or an improvement of his business operations. Feasible alternatives. I believe that there are feasible alternatives, but all things considered, this particular location makes sense for the continued operation of his business, as also an addition to the applicant’s stated intention of building a showroom on the adjoining parcel of property. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe that 9.5 feet of relief in this particular circumstance is moderate. There already has been dimensional relief on this property that is greater than this particular amount of relief. This is a heavy commercial area, and there have been previous variances in this. The proposed area of relief is in the rear of the property, away from the travel corridor. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I believe that there are very minimal effects on the neighborhood or community. This is a boat yard. It will continue to be a boat yard. I don’t think there’s a substantial change there, really. Is the difficulty self-created? I believe the difficulty, as I’ve stated, is partially self-created 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/23/01) because the lots have, in fact, not been merged, but, having said that, it is an unusual piece of property. So I think that’s medium. On balance, I think that the test falls in favor of the applicant. I would like to move for its approval, contingent on having the Certificate of Occupancy be contingent on the applicant successfully merging these two parcels into one parcel. Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2001, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. Go in and see the man, but get a building permit. Do we have any minutes? I don’t have any minutes. Do we have any minutes, Maria? MS. GAGLIARDI-No. MR. STONE-Okay. I move we adjourn. MR. ABBATE-Second. On meeting motion was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 36