Loading...
2001-09-26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROBERT MC NALLY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ALLAN BRYANT ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LEWIS STONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2001 TYPE II STEPHEN C. MILLER AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 29 MARLEY WAY APPLICANT HAS EXISTING SHED AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR DISTANCE ALLOWED BETWEEN SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. OLD TAX MAP NO. 40-1-19.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-56 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-67 STEVE MILLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2001, Stephen C. Miller, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: 29 Marley Way Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has relocated two accessory structures on the property and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4.17 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation distance for accessory structures per the Accessory Structures and uses regulations; § 179-67. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the 100 sf storage shed in the current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited to removal. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4.17 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. (42%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 53-96 res. 7/31/96 garage addition BP 96-711 c/o issued 12/8/97 garage addition AV 11-2001 res. 2/28/01 accessory structure setback relief Denied Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. At the direction of this Board, the applicant has relocated the 100 sf accessory structure to a point at least 5 feet from the neighboring property. The relief from the setback requirement to the applicant’s carport is the sole issue of this variance request. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please state your name for the record. MR. MILLER-Steve Miller. MR. HAYES-Do you have anything you want to add to your application, Mr. Miller? MR. MILLER-Not at this time. I think the application was pretty clear. The other issue, the setback from the property line, has been taken care of, and in compliance, and basically this is just to seek relief from spacing from the covering that covers the slab attached to my house. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions by any members of the Board for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Miller, help me to understand something. How many structures, accessory structures, do you currently have on your property? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. MILLER-The gray one is the one I’m speaking of now. The red one is still on the property. I’ve been trying to give it away, to get rid of it, but that’s gone. MR. ABBATE-But would you answer my question. How many accessory buildings do you currently have on your property? MR. MILLER-Two. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Is there any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We do have one piece of correspondence. MR. HAYES-Excuse me. We do have someone. Please come forward. JANE BARTIS MRS. BARTIS-My name is Jane Bartis and I live next door to Mr. Miller. We wouldn’t even be here now if Mr. Miller hadn’t put cobblestones and boulders on my right of way, and I had to hire a lawyer and a surveyor, and at that time I found the shed that we are now talking about was three feet on my property. I later learned that there was a five foot setback from my property line, and so in February, I believe, February or March, I was in Florida, and there was a hearing about this shed, and Mr. Miller was told to move his shed, and Mr. Miller finally moved his shed July 31, and now he’s st supposed to move his shed again. I have the five foot, and I’m satisfied with that, but I think that when you have a two car oversized garage, and two sheds on a lot that’s .18 acres, I rest my case. RUSS PITTENGER MR. PITTENGER-My name is Russ Pittenger. I have a seasonal residence on Birdsall Road, and I am really here in support of Mrs. Bartis. I know that, on the surface, this is quite a minimal request that’s before you, but, below the surface is a series of incidents of the shed moving around on the property, some that Mrs. Bartis had instituted as a result of having to retain an attorney and a surveyor to get some actions to happen. So I don’t want to take up anymore of your time. I’m in support of the neighbor who is most affected by the action, and I’m sure the Board will make the right decision. MRS. BARTIS-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Correspondence, please? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Correspondence, from Don Beadleston. He says, “Neither Mrs. Beadleston or myself feel that there is any need for Mr. Stephen Miller to be granted a variance to move structure in question as it poses no problem for him and would most certainly be an encroachment on the property of the Bartis family and an eyesore to surrounding neighbors. He knowingly created this situation when he built the shed in question and, therefore, should find a solution of its own better suiting his needs. Thank you for your consideration. P.S. I’m unable to attend in person as I will be in Albany Medical Center recovering from a seven bypass heart surgery” MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any further questions for the applicant before I close the public hearing? MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller, refresh my memory. You had any original application. What’s the difference between that original application and this? MR. MILLER-The original application was to keep the two sheds right where they’re at, and that was within a foot or two of the property line. MR. BRYANT-You’ve elevated this gray shed, haven’t you? Was that elevated originally? MR. MILLER-Well, it’s up on blocks. It’s always been up on blocks, which was denied. So the red shed’s been moved out of the picture and I’m just waiting for someone to take it away, and the gray shed has been moved to the five feet setback from the property line. This application differs in it’s just from the carport, or the covering of the slab, to the shed, and I would just like to also clarify 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) some comments that were made here about rocks and right of ways and things. The rocks were put there on the advice of my attorney. It’s a civil matter. It’s going to be taken care of out of the scope of this. At no time did I ever say that I would not move the shed off Mrs. Bartis’ property. My position has always been, tell me how far and I’ll move it, and as soon as I was physically able to, I did. I was in a car wreck. I wasn’t able to move it right away. As soon as I was able, and within two weeks after Mrs. Bartis gave me the map, I moved it. MRS. BARTIS-How long after? MR. HAYES-He said two weeks after you gave him a copy of the survey map he moved the shed. MRS. BARTIS-Last July, not this one, the one before that, I gave him the survey map, and he moved it this July. MR. MILLER-I moved it again. I’ve moved it four times now. MR. HAYES-All right. We’d like to stick to the issue at hand here, and that’s dimensional relief. MR. MILLER-Yes, but just to give a timeline to it, after I got the map, I moved it over the property line. There was a small lag in time when I was actually, Mr. Brown stopped by and informed me of the five foot setback. At that point, I applied for a variance, back in February, whatever the first one was, and when that was denied, I moved it again, and it turned out my calculations were wrong, so I moved it again, and now I believe that we are in agreement. It’s five feet from the property line. So there was some time lag in there, but there was an application for a variance, and then there was also a follow up application for a second variance, which was not heard. So there’s some time in there, but there’s reason for that time lag. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess you already heard it from one other member of the Board, and certainly I have a question, though, concerning the compliance, as far as getting rid of this other shed which was part of the other approval, or idea of the other approval. MR. MILLER-Yes, and I fully intended to have it gone by now. Incidents of the last couple of weeks, I was a little preoccupied. I had some family involved with the activity in New York. So I was kind of preoccupied in tracking some family down, but I fully intended to have it gone. It’s empty. It’s just sitting there. It’s waiting for someone to pick up and take away. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? MR. MC NALLY-I was curious, Craig, what zone is this property? What’s the zoning here? MR. BROWN-WR-1A. MR. MC NALLY-And the side setback is 20 feet? MR. BROWN-Based on the lot width. MR. MC NALLY-Based on the lot width. MR. BROWN-Twenty feet, for principal structures. MR. HAYES-Any other questions? Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. This is of the applicant. Maybe, I don’t know, Craig, don’t want to put you on the spot here, but I see in the motion to deny the Area Variance before there’s a statement in here which I think Bob made the motion that it says, alternatives, first there are feasible alternatives as to where to put the shed, first there are feasible alternatives on the lot as it currently exists for the construction of a storage shed of some kind that would be compliant with the Town Zoning Ordinance. Feasible alternatives also would include removal of one or more of the sheds or actual relocation of them to a more compliant location, which I was thinking it would be a little tight, but when I was there, well, maybe it could go some place, looking at the notes that we have for this meeting, it appears that the only alternative is to remove the shed. Can those be reconciled? In other words, is there, do you think, a space where that thing could be put that would be compliant? MR. BROWN-I’m not sure that there’s a space where this shed could be put, in a compliant location. The notes from the previous application talked about the availability of a storage area on the property, and at that point I remember we talked about maybe converting a portion of the carport to a storage area, within the existing structure. That’s apparently not what. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. MC NALLY-When I made the motion, I was thinking in terms of the fact that we have a covered slab that’s open for storage, and yet we have another garage there also, and I was thinking in terms of, as Craig suggested, the covered slab provides a great deal of storage, but also, I was also thinking that there might be, if you look around the garage, a less onerous place in which some storage could be used of some kind or shape. It might require some dimensional relief, but like there’s 20 feet on the one side, and a three foot shed type storage that would be 15 feet from the line and certainly be away from everyone that’s had some problems in this neighborhood, but that’s what I was thinking at that time. There were other alternatives that weren’t being discussed or followed. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Any further questions? All right, at this time I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it. Tonight I’ll start with Allan. MR. BRYANT-Well, Mr. Chairman, looking back through the records and refreshing my memory on the thing, initially, I was in favor of the original variance. I actually voted against the resolution to deny, and my view on it hasn’t changed. I don’t think that the relief is significant, as far as the positioning of the structures, and I would be in favor of approving this application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the major considerations in any decision that’s reached, I suspect, on most of the member’s parts are balance. It is balancing the request with the perhaps ramifications resulting in the surrounding areas, but I have problems here. We asked, and you indicated last time, that you would like one of those sheds to be removed. Now I heard you this evening saying, yes, you’re right, I fully intend, I think that was your word, I fully intend to move. If it were up to me, I would either deny this application or reschedule until you actually have removed one of those sheds, and until you do, I refuse to support this application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Before I go on, let me ask Craig another question. Is it the wood frame part of the carport that is really the matter of the distance? In other words, it’s not the concrete slab? MR. BROWN-Correct. It’s the structure, not the concrete slab. MR. HIMES-And it’s whether it be for fire purposes, you know, spreading and all, whatever the reasons are for that requirement being. I’ve usually felt, in most instances, that it’s something that ought to be observed. I recognize, in your case probably any emergency vehicles would come towards the front of the house. So that wouldn’t create a problem in that regard, or the requirement is still there. From just a personal observation or standpoint, I felt it’s a nice place there. I mean, you do have big garage and all, a nice looking building and everything, but I don’t think that a great deal of effort was put out to make this shed have any charm at all. It doesn’t look bad. I’m not saying that, and recognizing that I think the individual who spoke out against it did say she was satisfied with the fact that it’s away from her line. So that’s that, but I think that, again, in view of some of the comments that Bob made, that I think that there are some other alternatives that we’d like to see considered or reasons given by you as to why this is the only place that it can be. I also support was Chuck here has said that since there’s been no action on one of the conditions or requests that were made previously, that doesn’t stand in your favor either, in spite of the fact you were impaired, I guess, for part of the time. So at this juncture, I would not be in favor approving your application, I’m sorry to say. That’s all. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement on that. I am bothered, I would have a clear conscience about voting on this if that red shed was not there. With that there, I have a hard time seeing this property not being encumbered by excessive amount of structures, and I would vote against it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have to confess, I share the feelings that have been expressed so far, as far as the red shed. I’ve been trying to look at this ignoring the red shed, because as the Staff notes indicate, this issue right now is just the distance from the shed to the carport, but I still come out on the negative side. The regulation for 10 foot separation is there for a reason. When I look at it, I think there are alternatives. They’re not easy alternatives, because it means getting rid of the shed and 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) perhaps building something else that might be a little more compliant, but I think there are alternatives. So that weighs against the benefit to the applicant and on balance, as far as I’m concerned, I’d like to see something either that was more compliant, by being attached to the side of the garage, or a portion of the carport being converted, but as far as where the shed is now, I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I remember this as being a little bit of a dispute between neighbors, at the last hearing, and there being some vocal opposition to the placement of these two sheds on the line and over the line. The applicant’s coming today, asking us to vary the norm of 10 feet distance from a main structure for this accessory building. It’s a tiny lot, .17 some odd acres. There is ample storage area there for a garage, a sized covered shed, and there are still two covered sheds there, even though they’re not supposed to be there. We’d said that before. So someone coming and asking for area relief, where they’ve not complied with the Town Code for, at least since February, it’s a difficult thing. I look at it and I see certainly this applicant wants storage, and he should have whatever storage he wants within the meaning of the Town Code. Feasible alternatives do include removal, use of the existing structures, and construction of sheds at least in a more compliant location, even if that requires a variance, though perhaps not as much of a variance. The relief, in my opinion, isn’t terribly substantial. We’re talking about four point some odd feet of relief from the ten foot setback requirement. The effects on the neighborhood, Mrs. Bartis has said that she is happy that the shed is moved back five feet. It may still be an eyesore, but it’s on his property, and this applicant can have whatever he wants on his property, in large part. So if there’s an impact, I think it’s an impact on Mr. Miller and his property, where he places this thing, is close to his shed. It’s close to the covered deck, and I might be in favor of it, but again, I don’t think this should be done while those two sheds are on the property. It could well be next year we’ll be hearing the same thing is going to happen, that we’re waiting for it to be removed. I don’t know what the status is, but I’m sure that Mr. Miller wants to remove it in good faith, and that being so, perhaps we should table it and see what happens. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I essentially agree with what the other Board members have, certainly in regards to the shed that has already been discussed, and we thought we had made this position of that. I know that the benefit to the applicant is an important aspect of the test that we use, and certainly I value that highly, but in order to place a lot of weight on that, I think the applicant has to come to the Board with clean hands, too, and I can’t say that I feel that that’s the state that we’re at right now. MR. MILLER-I understand that exactly, and I would understand tabling it, and I can try to expedite the removal of the red shed. That’s too big for me to haul away. So I’d try and get someone else to do it. MR. HAYES-I guess, because, you know, beyond that, I think I’m in agreement that essentially, the relief that’s being requested in this case is pretty minimal, to me. You have moved it away from your neighbor’s property line to her satisfaction, and she’s on the record as saying that. The relief from the requirement, as far as spacing between structures, that’s, you’re asking for relief in your own property, and I think that in that particular case, that somewhat is your choice. So I think the relief is moderate, compared to everything that’s around. I think there’s a very minimal impact on the neighborhood in this particular case, in the overall sense, four feet of relief, in this particular circumstance. So having the red shed removed, I think I could be in favor of this application. MR. MC NALLY-Can we condition it, rather than maybe have to take up our time at another meeting? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, a number of the Board members have said, as far as this application is concerned, that they would approve it, however, they don’t like the red shed still being in existence, and I just want to point out that the red shed is not really an issue here. We’re just talking, I mean, there are other matters of recourse. The Code Enforcement Officer can always issue a summons, and go through that process. We’re not talking about the red shed. We’re talking about this, and I think this is just a way to resolve it. Now I don’t know if we can vote on this or mold this application in such a way that he has X number of whatever to remove the shed. I mean, rather than have this delayed for another meeting, why can’t we work in that framework? MR. HAYES-Well, we certainly can do anything, but quite frankly, based on the poll that I took, I’m not sure exactly where the vote will go, even with the red shed. I mean, there’s some pretty definite opinions, but that certainly, crafting a motion with a reasonable contingency is always a possibility. MR. BROWN-I think you may ask the applicant if he’s willing to offer a time, and if that’s reasonable to you, probably something before it would come up at the next meeting, within two 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) weeks, within 30 days, you approve it with the condition that it’s removed within 30 days, or within 15 days. That’s a number that probably you’d want to get from the applicant first. MR. HAYES-Or we may want to get from ourselves. MR. BROWN-Or you can get from yourselves. MR. HAYES-Because it doesn’t seem, in all fairness, that the applicant has been that expeditious in the things that were requested in the past. MR. MILLER-I’ll offer up two weeks. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I certainly don’t want to be unreasonable. I don’t like to be thought of us an unreasonable guy, but I’d like to see something offered to this Board that would be considered good faith on the part of the applicant. MR. HAYES-We can make any reasonable contingency in a motion, and basically, based on the fact that we have a relatively split Board in this particular case, we’ll have to do it by motion. It’s the only way to accomplish this that can go on the record and stay. MR. BROWN-Yes. I think Mr. Miller just offered two weeks. MR. HAYES-Two weeks? MR. MC NALLY-Why don’t we approve the Area Variance of the 4.17 feet, on condition that Mr. Miller removes the shed, the red one, in two weeks time? I could go for that. MR. HAYES-Why don’t you make that motion, and we’ll see where it goes. MR. MC NALLY-All right. Let me make the motion. MR. ABBATE-Before we make the motion, could we condition that, I’d like a follow up on this. Maybe the Zoning Administrator could advise us, because it’s conceivable, and I’m saying this based upon past performance of the applicant, it’s conceivable we approve it, make this motion, and guess what, we come up with, I fully intend, again. Unless you’re going to guarantee some enforcement. MR. BROWN-What the process would be is, with a reasonable condition, and I think this is a reasonable condition you’re talking about, a reasonable condition is placed on the variance, and that condition isn’t complied with, then the variance is no longer in force, and now there’s a violation. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fair enough. MR. HAYES-There’s a mechanism there to take care of that. MR. MC NALLY-We’ll send Craig out. MR. BROWN-Bruce. MR. MC NALLY-Bruce. MR. HAYES-The new guy. Why don’t you make that motion, Bob, so we can keep this moving. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2001 STEPHEN C. MILLER, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Alan Bryant: 29 Marley Way. The applicant has relocated two accessory structures on the property, and now seeks relief from the setback requirements. The applicant requests 4.17 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation distance for accessory structures required by Section 179-67 of the Town Zoning Ordinance. I move the approval with the condition of this variance on the following grounds. One, the benefit to the applicant is that he would be permitted to maintain the 100 foot storage shed in the current location, while getting rid of the red storage shed that he’d been previously instructed to remove. Two, the feasible alternatives appear to be limited to removal, use of existing storage structures that otherwise currently exist, and construction of sheds that are in compliance. However, given the fact that this is an existing, built structure, and the applicant is willing to encumber his own property with it, as close to the house as he is proposing, this is a choice that will have no effect on the neighborhood or community. Emergency vehicles can get on the property. He can get in and out of his garage. The effect and impact is on Mr. Miller’s property and on no one else’s. Particularly given Mrs. Bartis’ concern regarding the placement of these two sheds on and over the lines over the last year or two. Lastly, while the difficulty may be interpreted as self- 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) created, given the size of this lot and the limited location of which a shed of this size can be moved around on the lot, I move the approval, subject to the condition that the red shed currently on the property be removed within two weeks of tonight’s date. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-I believe that’s four to three against the motion. So the motion did not carry. Having gone through that procedure, I guess I need a motion to deny. Would someone like to make that motion? MR. MILLER-Would a shorter timeframe? MR. HAYES-Two weeks is about as short as you can get. MR. MILLER-If this weekend would change someone’s mind. MR. HAYES-I guess I’ll allow this one line of questioning this time. We’re not going to get into horse trading, but if anybody that currently voted no thinks that that would make a difference in their mind, could they please say so? MR. HIMES-I didn’t hear what was offered. MR. HAYES-He offered to have the red shed removed by this weekend, but if your objections are based on content versus the timeframe. MR. HIMES-The red shed is a small factor for me. MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s the same for you, right? MR. MC NULTY-The same for me. MR. HAYES-Okay. Understood. Well, then we need a motion to deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2001 STEPHEN C. MILLER, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 29 Marley Way. The applicant has relocated two accessory structures on the property and seeks relief from the setback requirements. Relief required. Applicant requests 4.17 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum separation distance for accessory structures per the Accessory Structures and Uses regulations, 179-67. The benefit to the applicant, if this were to be allowed, to leave the storage shed where it is presently in its non compliant position. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? The 4.17 feet from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, 42%. Effects on the neighborhood and community. Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, we do have a Code that indicates that there is a requirement of 10 feet, and I believe that perhaps this should have been said under feasible alternatives, that there are alternatives. How practical they might be or feasible they might be, we have not had any evidence, really, to refute the fact that maybe it could be downsized, something else could be constructed, and on and on and on, why none of those would be appropriate or suitable, as opposed to leaving it where it is, in violation of the Ordinance, is what I didn’t hear any testimony for, and therefore I move that we do deny this Area Variance application. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. HIMES-I believe that perhaps this should have been said under feasible alternatives, that there are alternatives. How practical they might be or feasible they might be, we have not had any evidence, really, to refute the fact that maybe it could be downsized, something else could be constructed, and on and on and on, why none of those would be appropriate or suitable, as opposed to leaving it where it is, in violation of the Ordinance, is what I didn’t hear any testimony for MR. MILLER-Well, I think we did discuss that in the previous application, about alternatives. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HIMES-I wasn’t present at the last application, although I have read the minutes. However, it doesn’t alter my thinking at this point in time. I didn’t see anything in the minutes that would sway what I’m thinking now. The minutes of your last, is that what you’re referring to, the last? MR. MILLER-Yes, because we, and actually Mr. Brown and I and one of the Board members actually came up. MR. HIMES-I’m sorry. I didn’t see the minutes. I just saw the record of the denial last time. MR. MILLER-Okay, and we did discuss a shed of significant size, or where I could store what I have in there now would require a setback variance from the property line to move it anywhere else, or to put it out in the front, which I think would be more objectionable to the neighbors than behind the house. MR. HIMES-Yes, I understand what you said, and I could have probably anticipated that. On the other hand, when you have a lot that has certain dimensions or certain configuration, we would normally like to consider something where it shows a tremendous inconvenience or something really unfair to you, personally, as a result of the Code. That’s what I don’t see here. It’s a pretty large facility for the area that you have available. You do have the area where the slab is and so forth, if you chose to use that for what it presently is, and so, you know, there are other alternatives in my opinion. MR. HAYES-He’s already stated his position, and I’m not going to get into the game of cross examination of the Board members. So if you want to complete your motion, we’ll vote on it. Everyone has stated their position clearly and we’re going to move forward. MR. HIMES-So really the only other comment I have is, and therefore I move that we do deny this Area Variance application, and that’s all. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The motion is denied, or the application is denied. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2001 TYPE II ROBERT WALL AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI PROPERTY OWNER: ROBERT WALL ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JON LAPPER & KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2001, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: 15 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2662 sf single family dwelling and a 784 sf freestanding garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief, on both sides of the proposed home, from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement per the WR-1A requirements, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the home as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: A smaller proposal may be a feasible alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 79-2000 withdrawn 10/18/00 single family dwelling addition. AV 101-2000 res. 1/17/01 1178 sf first floor addition & 624 sf garage SP 77-2000 res. 3/20/01 1178 sf first floor addition & 624 sf garage Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. This variance application appears to be requesting relief for structures similar to those which were proposed in previous applications. The overall width appears to remain the same. This proposal calls for the home to be centered on the lot with a 16 foot side setback on either side of the home. SEQR Status: Type II” 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 12, 2001 Project Name: Wall, Robert Owner: Robert Wall ID Number: QBY-AV-63-2001 County Project#: Sep01-45 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish a single family dwelling and to construct a single family dwelling. Relief is sought from side yard setback requirements for both sides. Site Location: 15 Antigua Road. Tax Map Number(s): 1-1-5 Staff Notes: The Warren County Planning Board has reviewed similar iterations of the proposed action six times previously in the past year. The parcel crosses the municipal boundary line, so actions have been referred by the Town of Lake George as well as the Town of Queensbury in the past. In January of 2001, the Town of Queensbury granted a variance for a side yard setback of 9’4” for an addition to an existing dwelling. The applicant has subsequently decided to demolish the existing structure and build a new structure centrally located on the site, evenly distributing the setback deficiency. The Board determined the previous proposals to have no County impact, and Staff does not identify any significant impacts to State or County resources from the revised proposal. NCI County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley 9/13/01. MR. HAYES-Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. HAYES-Since this is a re-hearing, could you please note for the Board the differences in this application from the original one? MR. LAPPER-Yes. For the record, Jon Lapper, Bob Wall, and Kevin Maschewski. We were here earlier in the year, many times, and the project was substantially reduced in size to accommodate the wishes of this Board. Bob then proceeded to have building plans drawn up, submitted them to the Town, to both towns for approval, and the building permits were issued. He then went to get bids from contractors and subcontractors, and what he determined, what we had proposed last time was raising the structure, fixing and improving the foundation, and dropping the structure and then doing the addition, and the difference in cost was $21,000, and what he was told by his subcontractors is that, not only is it $21,000 out of his pocket to get essentially the same house, but that in fact it would be a better house to just start from scratch, in terms of the foundation work. Based upon that, I sent a letter to Craig Brown, and Bob and Kevin subsequently met with Craig. At that meeting, it was suggested that, if they were going to come to this Board to talk about amending the application to do a knockdown, rather than increase the size, that if you were going to get rid of the house that was there, it would be better to take the exact same house, but center it on the lot, so that as the application material that was just read stated, so that the relief would be more minimal on one side, four feet on each side, and that’s why we’re here. It’s the same house. It’s just that it would be centered on the lot, which would be probably better for the neighbor that would have had the larger, or the smaller setback, under the previous proposal. Bob realizes that if this is denied, he will have to go forward and build it as it was approved, and he is certainly willing to do that, and spend the money, because that’s what it is, but since it comes out essentially the same with less setback relief on one side, we wanted to ask if perhaps the Board would consider this, not any different and perhaps better than what was approved. I’d just like to ask Kevin to show you on the plan what the difference is. MR. MASCHEWSKI-The bottom sketch here, the bottom site plan, is basically what was approved previous, the side yard setback to the south is established. There was a nine foot eight relief that was granted. Actually, the house was skewed to that side. This setback was almost 21 feet. So what we had thought was to relocate it in the center of the property, mitigating the skew to the one side, and then asking for the relief of four feet and four feet, being sixteen foot setback and sixteen foot setback. Already had granted, had a building permit granted for the Town of Lake George portion of it. Went back, spoke to the Town of Lake George. They had no problem with the proposed tear down. The main reason is their setbacks from this dash line forward toward the water is 15 feet. So we adhered to the Lake George setbacks throughout the entire portion in Lake George. In the Queensbury part, looking at the setbacks, kind of thinking back to the Town Forefathers, when they established the zoning setbacks for, this is 90 foot wide property setbacks, Craig, correct me if I’m wrong, but 60 feet to 150 foot is a 20 foot setback. The way we kind of looked at this was in that sliding scale, at a 90 foot, the required, or going into that 20 foot, is 16 foot 8 inches. So as that sliding scale or setbacks progresses on to the 150 foot wide parcel, we kind of looked at that. We know the setback is 20, but I think way back when there might have been a thought, as you narrow down the property, to that 60 feet, that possibly a little bit of thinking, and leeway could be given to the side yards, but pretty much it’s the same project, and just shifted the house approximately five and a half feet to the south. MR. HAYES-Is there anything further you’d like to add, Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-No. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. HIMES-Just one. I wanted to clarify some of the notes that are attached. There’s reference to a meeting you had with Craig, and I just want to clarify. It says that, starting at about the fourth line down, constructing an entire new structure based on the previous design approved by the Zoning and Planning Boards, based upon it, I mean, the construction, aside from it’s going to be moved, is the same as what we approved? ROBERT WALL MR. WALL-Identical. Nothing has changed at all. MR. HIMES-I thought so, but I just wanted, for the record, to confirm that. Thank you. That’s all. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, then I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here to speak in opposition to the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-I’ll poll the Board members. We’ll start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. This is a case in which, in my opinion, we see good faith on the part of the applicant. I do recall when you came before us last time, I went over the notes again to refresh my memory, and based upon the presentation this evening, I would have no problem, based upon your good faith moving and reducing everything, of supporting the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. I support the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think it’s much more symmetrical. I like symmetry. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically say the same thing, you know, based upon the fact that we went through this before and approved the basic design, makes sense to center it on the property now. I have no problem with it. I’d approve. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. HAYES-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Just one, can I ask a question? MR. HAYES-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-Basically all you’re doing is moving the house. Right? MR. WALL-Correct. MR. BRYANT-There’s no change in the structure, the design? MR. WALL-No. Design and everything remains the same. Again, like we said, the cost, really, to lift the house and get under, the Board, at one time, had recommended putting a new foundation under the existing house. So, in doing that, we wanted to obviously contiguous pour, number one, and the cost to lift the house was $21,000, and along with that also we wanted to build a garage first, and the house lifter had said to me, Bob, you can’t build a garage first either, because we have to get some 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) serious eye beams in here and stuff to lift the house. So it was a combination of two things, number one, me being able to really remove what is the contents of my house, now, putting it in the garage, and the lifting, and financially it just did not make sense at all, and I know the Board knows, we’ve sat with this six months now with the approvals, basically trying to squeeze these numbers, because the numbers came in a heck of a lot higher than what I originally anticipated. So everything is going to remain exactly the same. There’s building permits in hand right now. I submitted, actually, for new construction, and then the other thing I thought of, too, you’re still dealing with the old floor joist system and stuff, and we were going to marry new to the existing, which was two by eight construction. A lot of additional supports were needed in that. So the combination of both, I think, in doing this, we can build a much, much better house, and as one of the Board members said, it would be very symmetrical on the property. So I know that was very long winded, but to answer your question, nothing, nothing, everything remains the same. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. MR. HAYES-So you’re in favor then? MR. BRYANT-Reluctantly. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I certainly agree with the rest of the Board members in this particular case. I think that we worked with Mr. Wall to protect the Code, in previous applications that he’s run through this Board, and we’ve balanced the interests of the neighborhood as well, as we see them, but in this particular case, the applicant is not proposing going any closer to the lake, or any other major implication, as far as this Board would see, and, being it’s the same construction, and you’re centering on the property, I, too, have no problem with the application as it stands now. Having said that, could I have a motion. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I’ll take the motion. MR. HAYES-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2001 ROBERT WALL, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 15 Antigua Road. Mr. Wall has requested construction of a 2,662 square foot single family dwelling, and a 784 square foot freestanding garage. Mr. Wall requests four feet of relief on both sides of the proposed home, from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements per the WR-1A requirements, Section 179-16. The benefit to the applicant. Mr. Wall would then be permitted to construct the home as desired and explained to us this evening. The feasible alternatives, a smaller proposal may be a feasible alternative, but based upon a number of considerations this evening, as expressed by his attorney as well as the applicant, that would not be feasible, in my opinion. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Four feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community? Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. However, this evening, there was ample opportunity for objections, and there were none. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created, but under unusual circumstances. In view of this, I move that this motion be approved. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The application is approved. Good luck, Mr. Wall. MR. WALL-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2001 TYPE II WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: COTTAGE #25 ONEIDA DRIVE, TAKUNDEWIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 768 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. AV 91-2000 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2000 OLD 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) TAX MAP NO. 11-1-1.27 NEW TAX MAP NO. 239.08-1-31 LOT SIZE: 0.05 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 BILL MASON & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let’s see, this was tabled, if I’m right, from previous? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-So we want to read the tabling motion. MR. HAYES-Please. Tabled, withdrawn. It was tabled, right? MR. MC NULTY-I believe it was tabled. We tabled it. MR. HAYES-We referred it to the Planning Board. MR. MC NULTY-To be referred to the Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. MC NULTY-I just have to find the right one. MR. BROWN-It may have been approved, you may have approved the rehearing of it, with the condition that it go to the Board, and now that they’ve gone to the Board, I don’t think there’s a tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Exactly. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-This is “Motion to accept the application for William and Linda Nizolek, 25 Oneida Drive, for the purposes of reconsidering the variance for their piece of property, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: With the provision that before the Zoning Board of Appeals takes any action or even conducts a hearing, that this be submitted to the Planning Board for their guidance, in terms of the long terms effects, Section 179- 69. Duly adopted this 15 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. th Bryant, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2001, William & Linda Nizolek, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: Cottage #25, Oneida Drive, Takundewide Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 768 sf second story addition as well as construction of a foundation/basement beneath the existing structure. Relief Required: Applicant requests 2 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum setback requirement as well as relief for a total Floor Area Ratio of 67%. Maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio for this zone is 22%. Both requests for relief are sought from the requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Additionally, relief is requested for the expansion of a non-conforming structure, per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include the acquisition of additional lands. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 2 feet of relief from the 12 foot setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal, while relief to allow a 67% Floor Area Ratio may be interpreted as substantial. (204%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate impacts on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the lot configuration. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV91-2000 res. 10/25/00 2304 sf SFD Denied Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Although it is the opinion of staff that, procedurally, the common area shall not be considered when calculating Floor Area Ratio, recognition of the existing lot sizes should be noted. Upon this recognition, it may be reasonable to acknowledge an acceptable FAR, somewhat above the allowable 22%, for these sites. The attached Planning Board resolution acknowledges that while this application may not, by itself present a significant impact to the overall Takundewide development, the potential for cumulative adverse impacts is apparent and that subsequent applications should not be considered prior to the formalization of a master plan for future development in this Takundewide community. SEQR Status: Type II” 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 12, 2001 Project Name: Nizolek, William & Linda Owners: William & Linda Nizolek ID Number: QBY-AV-64-2001 County Project#: Sep01-44 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes construction of an addition. Relief is requested from front, side, rear, height and floor area ratio requirements. Site Location: Cottage #25 Oneida Drive, Takundewide Tax Map Number(s): 11-1-1.27 Staff Notes: The applicant wishes to expand the existing non-conforming structure to an undisclosed square footage. The application materials indicate that the expansion would add one bathroom, but the total number of proposed bathrooms is not given. The expansion would increase the bedrooms to three. The septic is shown on the site plan, located on Association land, but the capacity and condition is not indicated, nor are the locations of septic systems associated with adjacent dwellings given. The applicants’ parcel, upon which they wish to expand a non-conforming structure is 0.05 acres, or 2,178 square feet. The applicant argues that the zoning deficiencies would be less extreme if the applicants’ “share” of 18 acres commonly-held by 32 Association members were included in the calculations. However, the zoning ordinance requires 1 acre for development in this district. Even with the 18 commonly-held acres included, the entire Association area is already overbuilt under the ordinance. Due to concern about the water quality and aesthetic impacts to Lake George from lot crowding, Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 9/13/01. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Mr. Lapper, Mr. Mason? MR. LAPPER-For the record, the applicants are also here to answer any questions that the Board may have. I guess very simply, while the Floor Area Ratio sounds like we’re asking for a lot, percentage wise, we would argue that it’s not, because you have a very small building, which, as Bill pointed out in the application, is smaller than the minimum home size in Queensbury, that 800 square feet. The whole expansion that’s proposed to add the second floor only raises the height of the building by five feet. So in terms of the Area Variance criteria, in terms of the analysis, the impact on the neighborhood, it’s physically a very small addition of 768 square feet, just adding a second floor, but also only increasing the height of the building by five feet. So I don’t believe that that’s a big deal. Because of the location of this particular unit at Takundewide, all the way in the back, it’s not visible from the lake. There are six acres of common property behind it, which is area that’s sufficient to upgrade the septic system to comply, and the discussions with the Planning Board were that the Planning Board were in favor of this approval. They just said that, going forward, they’d like a master plan after this application. This Board has previously, I believe, granted four other applicants the right to add a second story to these buildings, and this is no different, and this application was changed so it doesn’t include a finished basement as was previously requested. So the finished space will be smaller than what was previously asked for. We don’t believe that there’s any kind of substantial adverse impact to the neighborhood, for the reasons that I mentioned, and it’s just a, it’s necessary because it’s just such a small unit for a family to live in. Bill, is there anything you’d like to add at this point? MR. MASON-Bill Mason. Just regarding the neighborhood, we discussed, at length with the Planning Board, about all the issues regarding neighborhood, including septic and water and view, and the property does have plenty of room for the septic system, to make sure it’s in compliance with the current building code. The water system is, I brought in a sketch for a brand new water system that Takundewide is installing this year. The water that will be provided is more than adequate. That doesn’t even begin to say it. That’s an understatement. It’s going to be (lost word) filtered, chlorinated, UV treated. So water’s not an issue. Septic is not an issue, and views, there is no one behind this, so no one to block its view of anything, but it can’t be seen from the lake and it can’t see the lake. So there’s no, I don’t think there are any view issues, unless they’re within the Takundewide properties, and I believe you’ve received correspondence from the directors and so on that they’re in favor of this, representing the members of Takundewide. MR. HAYES-We’ll hear that in the public hearing portion of this. MR. LAPPER-One more comment. In terms of the Floor Area Ratio issue, Planning Staff doesn’t want to look at the entire common area. They just want to look at the footprint because this is an Association. So everyone owns their footprint, and a percentage of the common property. If this is approved as we’ve requested, then we don’t really need to get into that any further, but I think that in this case, you have to look at the whole property, because this is not sitting by itself. There are these many acres of vacant land that make up this Association property. So when you’re talking about Floor Area Ratio, even if the language talks about the lot and the lot is the footprint, if you look at the whole property, which I think is appropriate, in terms of what the vacant area, the undeveloped area versus the developed area, there wouldn’t even be a Floor Area Ratio issue. MR. URRICO-But there would be an issue of too many houses in too little property. You’re using that logic. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. LAPPER-I’d probably let Bill answer that. This area of Cleverdale was developed before zoning, and even with the expansion that we’re talking about, this is certainly in keeping with the whole neighborhood, and Bill has done a chart, which he can submit to you, in terms of the size of the lots in the area. It’s really just that side of Cleverdale is more densely developed because it was developed many years ago. So, even though you wouldn’t get the same number of lots, the same number of buildings, these are very small buildings. So in terms of Floor Area Ratio, I think that, based upon what we calculated, that we wouldn’t need a Floor Area Ratio variance, that you could have the same square feet there, even though it would be maybe fewer units. It may be more building. MR. URRICO-Can you tell me, the houses that encircle that particular property, how many of those are owned by Takundewide and how many are privately owned? MR. LAPPER-Every one’s privately owned. MR. URRICO-They’re all privately owned? MR. LAPPER-Takundewide is owned by a whole bunch of families. MR. URRICO-There are some rentals in there. MR. LAPPER-No. People own their own, and they can rent them out. MR. HAYES-Through Takundewide. MR. MASON-They don’t have to rent them out. They can. They can rent them out through a local real estate. It’s just, that has really nothing to do with this. That’s 32 private owners deciding whether or not they want to rent their property. That has nothing to do with the Association nor with the Nizoleks. The Nizoleks don’t rent their property, and never have since they have owned it. MR. MC NALLY-Could you tell me a little bit about the history of the property? I understand that perhaps the lots are smaller because it was developed years ago, but it wasn’t developed as a year round residential community of homes, more than 700 some odd square feet. How did it start with your family, and was there site plan approval? And what was site plan approval for? MR. MASON-Yes. In 1984, I believe, the Planning Board looked at it with Site Plan Review, because at that point it was a conversion, which was allowed or encouraged under the law. MR. MC NALLY-What was it converted from and to? MR. MASON-From a tourist accommodations, some year round, because there were two year round units in the property at the time. MR. MC NALLY-And there’s 32 units total. MR. MASON-And there’s 32 total, right. MR. MC NALLY-And they were converted from a summer residence/cottage type thing to? MR. MASON-Well, it wasn’t from summer residence. It was from rental, well, actually, the ownership was what changed. The corporation that owned them, owned the entire parcel, was dissolved, and the assets were all split up among the stockholders of the corporation, and so it just changed to a Homeowners Association with 32 individual lots, plus all of the common property. MR. LAPPER-And that was approved by the Town Planning Board. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. HAYES-So it was a subdivision, in a sense, then. MR. LAPPER-Yes. It was a subdivision. MR. MASON-It was similar to a subdivision, although I don’t think that it had, I think there are certain things that a subdivision undergoes, and it was a conversion. MR. MC NALLY-And it had the unifying common area. MR. HAYES-Right. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. MC NALLY-So it’s not a subdivision, per se. MR. HAYES-Right, well, subdivisions have common areas, too. MR. LAPPER-They do have their footprint. So it is a subdivision. I think it was done under an AP A conversion of not multifamily but rental cottage colony type things. MR. HAYES-And the areas around the cottages were minimized, basically. MR. LAPPER-Everything else was put into the common ownership, into this Association. Everyone is a member of the Association and owns, has an undivided interest in the Association property, parking areas, the wooded area, beach. MR. MASON-Tennis courts, so on. MR. MC NALLY-The area of this lot is, what, 2000 some odd square feet? MR. MASON-Forty-four feet by fifty-two feet. MR. MC NALLY-So it’s forty-four feet wide by fifty-two feet long. MR. MASON-Right. The lots at each one of the cottages were drawn with 10 feet surrounding them. I believe, at the time, that there was a 10 foot setback. I’m not certain of that, and I think that that was my understanding, at the time, and that seemed to make sense. Now that might not have been correct, but that, it seems to me like that would make sense, and that would be why you would do it. I can’t think of another reason. I’ve been wracking my brain as to why they didn’t go, actually the setback should be 12 feet. They could have gone 12 feet around. It would have had no impact really. MR. ABBATE-Chuck, let me ask our Secretary a question. I thought earlier you indicated earlier that there’s still an undisclosed something? MR. MC NULTY-That was, I think, in the Warren County comments. MR. ABBATE-Is that currently in effect? It’s still undisclosed, Counselor? MR. MASON-We’re talking about the septic systems, the neighboring septic systems. Is that what that was? MR. MC NULTY-There was at least one reference, it was saying the septic system is shown on the plan, but the capacity and condition is not indicated, nor are the locations of septic systems associated with adjacent dwellings. MR. HAYES-But that’s a site plan and enforcement issue. MR. LAPPER-But the septic system will be upgraded to be complying. We’re not asking for any kind of a Board of Health variance. There’s plenty of room to do a new septic system in the back. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. MC NALLY-You have 32 units, and they’re really seasonal residences, in large part. They’re small. They’re not really meant for a family of six, at least for a long period of time, I don’t think. MR. LAPPER-Right, but they’re not looking to move in. This is their summer place, of course. MR. MC NALLY-But, you know, we’ve had a history, over the last, since ’85, of people expanding them, blowing the roof off, making two stories, and trying to maximize the uses, to the extent they can, and it’s funny, you think of segmentation, in one sense or another. You’ve got single, little tiny postage stamp lots, yet unified within a large homeowner type property, within that embedded area. What are you plans for putting together a master plan, concerning development? MR. LAPPER-Well, first, the technical reason why it’s not segmentation is because everyone owns their own unit. So it’s not like the Association. MR. MC NALLY-You can’t argue that everyone owns their own unit, you have to consider the homeowners land. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, is what I’m saying. Doesn’t that kind of bring the unifying, you’re not fish or fowl. I’m trying to see why you don’t do a master plan for the community of Takundewide. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. LAPPER-Well, what the Planning Board said is that, to go forward, they would like that. I mean, certainly the ones by the lake you’d be more concerned about septic and visual issues than where we are here, and they said going forward, after this one, which they didn’t find to have impacts, they would like that to be done, and we’re going to have to go back to the Association and talk about it, but the simplest answer is that, for all these units, many of the people have no intention now, or probably in the future, to expand. They’re couples, retired couples. MR. MC NALLY-Wouldn’t you agree that over the years, the history on the lake is that properties always expand? I mean, definitely I know from my Board experience, that’s been true. It may not be this year, but it will be in two years, another person will want it, four years, another two perhaps. Why should we have to wait for the next application? Couldn’t we look at it now, before the problems come up later? MR. LAPPER-Well, the problems, usually we talk about in terms of impacts and what the Board and what the notes from the County talked about, and the County approved it after we discussed it. We talked about a visual issue, which here is adding five feet in height, and it’s in the back, and you’d be talking about the health issue, with the septic, if the property could afford, could support the septic, and here that’s not an issue either. So there may be other units where these things would be an issue, and the Planning Board said, look, if there’s going to be expansions, and I think they were looking towards the lake parcels, or the lake homes, that that’s something that should be done, but they looked at this at a two hour meeting and said that it wasn’t necessary for this project, and here, the Nizoleks want to expand for themselves and their family. There are no plans that we’re aware of where anybody else wants to expand at this point. So, to go to the homeowners association, it could be months or years before anybody decides that they want to spend the money for a master plan, because nobody may have any plans to expand at this point, and that’s the difference. MR. BRYANT-Mr. McNally makes a very important point, because one of the first things that you said was that there are four other units that have already been expanded. MR. LAPPER-Over the years. MR. BRYANT-So, with that in mind, the next time someone comes, it’s going to be five units that were expanded. So he makes a valid point, and maybe that’s what should happen first. MR. MASON-I understand what you’re saying, and with the Planning Board we discussed all of these issues about a master plan, and we had a very open discussion. Their opinion, it seemed to me, was they talked in terms of the straw that breaks the camel’s back, that if they approved four of these, five of these, six of these, no problem, you get to ten and maybe no problem, but at some point, maybe at 20 or 25, they’re going to say, wait a minute, this is too far, and that was actually the biggest issue, it seemed to me, that we talked the longest about was septic. That was why they wrote in their, they were rather redundant in their resolution, that they were saying that they didn’t think that the Nizoleks should be the whipping boy for the entire Association, that they addressed the issue of fairness, that it should go forward, just based on the fact that they shouldn’t be forced to support the. MR. HAYES-It should go forward to this Board. MR. MC NALLY-But there’s more in a master plan than just septic issues. There are future plans that we’d like to know as to what the intentions of this Association to develop this property. MR. MASON-But I can’t answer that because I’m a contractor who’s hired by the Nizoleks to do this one project. MR. ABBATE-Let me interject here. You’re a contractor, correct? MR. MASON-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then how would you approach the statement that the potential for cumulative adverse impacts is apparent, and that the subsequent application should not be considered prior to the formalization of a master plan. Now you’re a contractor. How do you address this statement? MR. LAPPER-Well, there may not be any proposed expansion, for five years, of another unit. MR. ABBATE-That’s an assumption. MR. LAPPER-But I guess in terms of fairness, people will now be made aware of the Planning Board resolution, and anybody that wants to expand will know that they’re going to have to talk to the Association about a plan. A plan would require the Association, the majority of the members of the Association, to sign on. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. ABBATE-So what you’re suggesting, Counselor, is that we should approve this, and subsequent to this, then they should be concerned with the master plan. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because there has now been a resolution which will be sent to the Association, so they will be on notice, that the next time people have to plan for it. MR. ABBATE-How about if we say you’re on notice for a master plan. MR. LAPPER-What I would say is that the Planning Board, you referred this to the Planning Board, and they were charged with the conceptual review, to report back to you, and that was not their recommendation. MR. MC NALLY-Their recommendation was that there should be a master plan, but let’s not do it this time, let’s do it the next time. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. MC NALLY-But they acknowledge that this is a concern, and they share our concern. The question is, when do we do it? Do we do it now, or do we wait until later? And then the next time it comes up someone is going to say, hey, listen, why are you singling me out? I’m just doing what everyone else has done already. Let’s do it the next time. MR. MASON-This master plan, part of it came up because of some of the discussion that we were having about the septic and the water and so on, and one of the things that I brought up, because I’m with the Committee had just been formed at the Association, and the name of it is the Long Term Development Committee, and they are looking into all of these issues, which makes sense. These 32 owners, they don’t want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the world is great and nothing will happen to make their world ungreat. They want to plan for it. So, in fact, the Planning Board member said he was going to be taking my idea and putting that into the resolution about the master plan, and at what point I kept saying, but I can’t commit to that. I kept worrying that he thought. MR. MC NALLY-You’re not the homeowners association. MR. MASON-I’m not the Association, and they kept saying, no, but we want you to deliver that message, and that was fine, and that’s fine, as long as we understand that, that’s all well and good, but they did not think, again, going back to their words, on the straw that broke the camel’s back, they did not think we were at that point at all. That they felt that this was way down the line, and that was why they wrote the resolution the way they did. MR. ABBATE-Would it not make good sense, and if I’m wrong, please tell me. Would it not make good sense to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals, after conferring with the other land owners with a master plan, and then say, based on this master plan, Zoning Board of Appeals, we would like to submit our application 64-2001, and based upon our application, and taking into consideration the master plan, everything will work out fine. MR. LAPPER-The master plan could take a year or two, potentially, to put together because you’d have to be doing soil tests, septic tests. MR. ABBATE-I understand. MR. LAPPER-And what we’re saying, that the Planning Board has directed that that should be done in the future, but the reason why it wouldn’t be fair to this applicant, because they didn’t have notice of it when they went and submitted for their plans, but beyond that, the location of this does not require it because it’s in the back with six acres of land. This is not maxing out any development. This is not causing any kind of impacts on any neighbors. So just in terms of looking at this application, it’s not causing those cumulative impacts. There’s plenty of room. MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re suggesting, Counselor, that your client might be a victim, is what you’re suggesting. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I disagree with you, but, nonetheless, you can suggest that. MR. LAPPER-But really, because it’s just the location of this particular unit is different than the ones that are along the lake, that the Planning Board was focusing on. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. MC NALLY-Craig, how would a master plan work? MR. BROWN-I think that’s a difficult question to answer. It’s going to depend on the projects and the implications of what the project, each individual part of a project has on the whole thing. I don’t know, is the answer to that question, but if I could just take a second and maybe address a couple of things that were brought up tonight. Segmentation. It’s a SEQRA term that sometimes gets mixed up with cumulative impacts, segmentation. They’re in the same direction but they’re not really the same thing. I think if this was a project where the homeowners association had come in last year and said, we’re going to do 30 of these things over the next 10 years, and now the Nizolek’s are coming in. We don’t want to do a full environmental assessment. We just want to do this project. You know about the rest of them, but we only want to do one at a time. If you were to move on that application, that would be grounds for a case against segmentation. You know about all the other actions. You picked to act on one without considering the other. We don’t know that here. We don’t know that, you know, 20 other people have an application in front of you. So I’m comfortable thinking that this isn’t an act of segmentation. We don’t have a plan in front of us for the other parcels. I think we can act, and I’m not suggesting which way you act, but I think you can act on this application, individual from the other ones. I think it’s part of the Planning Board’s recommendation that they made to you. They acknowledged that this applicant, they didn’t really make an action. They didn’t take an action. They made a recommendation to you. They had no application before them. They didn’t recommend that this was a good application, this was a bad application. What their recommendation said was that there’s a potential here for adverse impacts. At the same time they recognized that this applicant probably shouldn’t be saddled with the whole burden of the master plan, the full environmental assessment. It’s really something that should come from the homeowners association. The common lands are affected. The association is made up of the owners. So they’re the ones that have an interest in all the other development on all the other parcels. So while they did recognize this applicant’s position, at the same time, I don’t think they recognized that 15 or 20 of these down the road is going to be the one that breaks the camel’s back. I think that this one is the last one on. The next one on is going to be, now it’s time for the master plan, not 10 years down the road it’s time for the master plan, but the next one on is time to start with the master plan, and as part of that master plan, you may find there’s only room for 10 more of these. You may find that the impacts caused by the next one is the last one the development can support. I think those are the impacts, or those are the Findings that the master plan is going to deliver. MR. ABBATE-You know, but, Craig, this is like setting precedent. What’s to stop another applicant from coming before this Board, and saying, wait a minute, why are you making me the victim? Why didn’t you raise these issues with Mr. Nizolek? MR. BROWN-I think at this point, the Planning Board has made a motion, they’ve made a recommendation to the Zoning Board. You can make it part of your motion, if you choose to act on this, that, well, you can’t really do that, you have to be specific to this applicant, but they’re going to be on notice that any future applications that come before either one of the Boards, the Planning or Zoning Board, had better not show up without having a master plan in place that’s been reviewed and approved by the Planning Board and the homeowners association. That’s what’s going to limit the next person from coming in and saying, well, why are you picking on me. They’re going to be put on notice. This applicant was put on notice at the time the application was presented. MR. ABBATE-That helps. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-There also were no impacts identified on this, for this project, because of the location. The septic will be upgraded, and this really won’t be visible from the lake. MR. HIMES-First I’d like to ask to clarify something, Craig, and maybe this was done while I was busily looking for something in my manual, which, as usual, I couldn’t find. In the relief required it states 10 foot minimum setback, and then further down, more correctly under Item Three, it’s got 12 foot setback. Two different. It’s 12 feet. MR. BROWN-Twelve feet. MR. HIMES-So what’s the first, the relief required? MR. BROWN-They’re requesting a 10 foot setback. The requirement is 12. MR. HIMES-Yes, okay. MR. HAYES-So the relief is two. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. BROWN-The relief is two feet they’re seeking. MR. MASON-The existing building has the 10 foot setbacks. It wouldn’t change. MR. HIMES-Okay. One of the questions I had was, when was the property acquired by the applicant? MR. MASON-The Nizoleks bought it approximately three years ago. MR. HIMES-Three years ago, and how old are their children? LINDA NIZOLEK MRS. NIZOLEK-Nine, eleven, thirteen and seventeen. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MRS. NIZOLEK-We need the room. MR. HIMES-That’s the only questions I had. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Could we just go over the size of the current house again, the cottage? MR. MASON-The current house is 24 feet by 32 feet, for 768 square feet. MR. URRICO-And how much would the addition be? MR. MASON-It’s exactly the same size, it’s missing a little bit on the corners, because of the way the roof cuts off the corners on like a cape cod, but it’s negligible the amount. So we say it’s 768 square feet up. According to the Code, I believe you’ve got a 50%, if I don’t look at the floor area ratio worksheet, 50% in a nonconforming area is allowed. MR. URRICO-I just want to know the total. MR. MASON-So we’re really asking for 384. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HAYES-Are there any other further questions for the applicant at this time? Then if there’s no more questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL WETHERBEE MR. WETHERBEE-Good evening. My name’s Bill Wetherbee, and I live at 18 Hillman Road, which is directly north of the proposed project, on the other side of the road. Takundewide is a very well maintained development. The residents support the quiet nature of our neighborhood. In short, Takundewide is a very good neighbor. The primary effect of this project, that it would have on my property, is the disturbance of my view. However, due to the landscaping of my property, and landscaping around Takundewide, my view will not be adversely effected by the proposed changes to Cabin 25. I’d like to state that I would not support a plan to add additional homes or to enlarge the footprint of the homes that exist. However, I do not oppose adding a basement and a second floor to the existing home. In conclusion, I support this project. I’d also like to add that I appreciate the concerns that you’re bringing up here. As a neighbor, I don’t want to see a large development go into that property. However, earlier additions, earlier modifications to homes such as this one have been done very tastefully, and have been within the size footprint of the existing homes. As I mentioned, Takundewide is a good neighbor. I have the utmost trust that they are not going to try to expand this into something larger than what they’re proposing here tonight. So, with that being said, I would just like to say that I support this project. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed to the application? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m not necessarily opposed to the application, but I have some procedural concerns. Mr. Brown talked about SEQRA process. SEQRA process 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) requires the agency, at the earliest possible moment, to do an environmental review, and you’re supposed to consider those activities that are likely to occur in the future. An expansion of these other buildings is a very likely occurrence. I agree wholeheartedly with the plan. It’s long overdue. In fact, I’m wondering why it’s not in their declaration of covenants and restrictions. My wife and I own property, townhouse/condominium type property, and the restrictions on us are in the homeowners document. No way could I go outside of the homeowners association to a board such as yours and ask for relief and do improvements and building on my property not in conformance with the restrictions in the homeowners document. Because homeowners are stockholders. Homeowners are stockholders, and we have rights. That a particular homeowner goes and gets a permit to do something, I don’t understand how that can work, from my knowledge of the way homeowners associations are put together. Procedurally, as we read the outline of tonight’s meeting, it seems to me that the applicant, in this case, should be the Takundewide Homeowners Association. They should be the applicant and not an individual homeowner. If I owned property at Takundewide and this applicant were given some variances, some relief to do something. It may impact on my property rights, and my value as a stockholder. So I think it’s the homeowners association that should be the applicant, and you can very well, at any time, require the homeowners association to put forth a plan. The Town did this with the Great Escape. Remember that? They did a five year plan. This is no different. The parameters by which you measure these various variance requests, I don’t think are applicable. The Town created, in 1983, 32 substandard lots. Every one of these lots is landlocked. It has no road access. It doesn’t even have its infrastructure utilities on its lot. They’re some place else. I don’t think you can make a review of a project like this, what they want to do, in the context of our Zoning Ordinance. It doesn’t apply. This is no longer a one acre Waterfront zone. There’s 33 dwellings on how many acres? It’s nonconforming from the get go, and the Town made it this way, allowed it to be, understanding that there were, these requirements were going to be provided in common. I think the review, the whole review process has to be looked at. It’s unfortunate that these people come along at this point and find themselves in this position, but it’s long overdue, and particularly at this property. It is long overdue. I would suggest you leave this public hearing open. There are many, many issues to be settled. This project could take many different courses, and the public should be allowed to be heard. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have a couple of pieces. We have a letter from the Takundewide Homeowners Association. “Please be advised that Takundewide Homeowners Association, Inc. has reviewed this application for a second story addition. The association’s architectural control committee is very critical of proposed projects. It is concerned with aesthetics, size, septic design, utilities, use and many other factors. In all of these respects, this application meets the association guidelines. It is viewed as a positive change to the community. Historically, there have been two buildings approved and built at Takundewide matching this application in both size and design. These were reviewed and approved by the Town of Queensbury and Warren County. In addition, there are three other buildings at Takundewide, with second story additions, which went through the same rigorous approval process. Taken in totality, these changes have had a positive impact on this association and the surrounding community. Investment of this nature, improves property values of all surrounding properties. It has a positive impact on the school district because the tax levy is shifted to the improved properties with no increase in attendance. We have sent under separate cover a letter expressing our intent that the common property at Takundewide be used to make a determination regarding allowable floor area. These 18 + acres must be considered because they have no other use except as a compliment to each of the individual properties at Takundewide. The taxable assessed value of the common property (tax map #240.05-1-13) was reduced to $2000 because of these issues. The assessor had to deal with the differences inherent in a homeowners association with common property and did so in an equitable fashion. On behalf of all the owners at Takundewide, we wish to express our support for the approval of this project. Sincerely, Michael Dennis, President Sam Lightbody, Vice President Robert Mason, Director” And we also have a letter from John W. and Janet M. Hickey, they say “As summer residents of Queensbury (Cleverdale) and in particular the Takundewide community for the past 35, we strongly support the Nizolek’s proposal to build a second story addition to their residence. Such an addition would in no way pose any negative impact on the residents of Takundewide nor its surrounding neighbors. On the contrary, it would enhance the community by blending in with other existing structures. We trust that you will look favorably on this proposal. Sincerely, John W., Jr. & Janet M. Hickey” MR. HAYES-Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. HAYES-Craig, as far as the public hearing, I mean, how do you feel about keeping it open? What are the plus and minuses to that? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. BROWN-I think if you make an action, I think you probably should close the public hearing before you make an action, or take action. MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, we’re going to try and take some action. That’s what we’re here for. MR. LAPPER-Could we respond to the public comments? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. LAPPER-Just very briefly, you heard from Mr. Wetherbee who is a neighbor, who lives outside of the Takundewide community, supporting this, and from the Association and another member of the Association separately. So that there’s support inside and outside of Takundewide and the neighborhood. Mr. Salvador’s comment about HOA approval was a good comment, and the declaration of covenants does require that there’s an architectural review committee. There are very strict architectural standards to any changes, in terms of the color. The architectural detail has to match, because they want all these to match. So that the Nizoleks did have to go before the architectural review committee to receive their approval and the letter from the Board, the President, shows that they did approve it. There were some other applications that were denied, and they got into an argument within themselves over the summer that was settled at their annual meeting when they actually came up with even more stringent architectural standards than they had, because somebody had proposed building something that was different than what was there, and most of the members of the Association were not in favor. So they’re very carefully monitoring and arguing among themselves as to what’s appropriate for an expansion. In terms of Mr. Salvador’s comment about the HOA being the applicant, the reason they’re not is because the Nizoleks are only one thirty second shareholders of this Association. So the Association isn’t proposing anything. That’s why it’s not segmentation. The other comment that expansion is likely to occur, I mean, I certainly, Mr. McNally’s comment that houses on the lake have, historically, been expanded and approved is certainly true, but there’s nobody that we know of who hasn’t expanded already, that’s looking to expand. So if you just take what the Planning Board said and say, going forward, we’d like their to be a master plan, we’ll communicate that to the Association. They can take the next however many months or years it takes to do that, and that would not be unfair, because people would be on notice, and the Nizoleks weren’t on notice, but also, I don’t see that there’s any impact, just because of the location and the septic of their building, and it’s really only five feet, and so we hope that you will grant this, as the other ones have been granted, with the understanding that we will communicate to the Association the Planning Board’s request. MR. MC NALLY-At the Homeowners Association meeting this summer there was discussion about other proposed construction? MR. LAPPER-There was, one of the other homeowners. MR. MASON-We try not to get too specific. MR. MC NALLY-How many other people are thinking of constructing homes? MR. MASON-There was a dock that had been built that we were, that we had a big fight among ourselves over the appropriateness of the architectural style and size of it. MR. LAPPER-It was a replacement of an existing dock, wasn’t it? MR. MASON-No, a brand new dock, and that prompted the Board of Directors and the members to call for it, and we, as Mr. Lapper said, we revamped the entire architectural control, reviewed it all, and just beefed it up, and when I got into that discussion with the Planning Board, they said that would be the basis for this master plan. That’s in answer to somebody else’s question, what form would it take. They were trying to give me guidance to give back to the Association, that we would put together all of our existing rules and regulations which are very strict, and bring them in and present them. MR. LAPPER-Some of those, for example, I recall that the handrails on the dock, that they wanted them to match the design of the handrails on all of the other docks. That was one of the issues. The exterior color of the units and the shutters. MR. MASON-They were very picayune. In fact, what typically happens at Takundewide is an owner first goes to the Association to get approval, and once they hammer that out, then they come to the Town and the County and so on. Because it’s very difficult, sometimes, to get things through. MR. LAPPER-But to answer your real question, it was not because there were a bunch of people saying we want to expand. It was because some guy had done a dock that people didn’t like because it didn’t match, and that’s why they got into this revamping the architectural review. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. ABBATE-Counselor, are you suggesting, and your client, that, after your meeting, and in view of the fact that we received a letter from the Association, and that the position is now that, yes, we should approve this application, but we’re putting all the other folks on notice that prior to any expansion of the property, we will have a master plan implemented. MR. LAPPER-I believe that’s exactly what the Planning Board said. MR. ABBATE-That’s exactly what the Planning Board said, that this is okay, but after that, that’s it? MR. MASON-That’s what the Planning Board said to me. MR. LAPPER-After that, they want a master plan. MR. MASON-I said to them, I can’t commit to anything. You understand that, and they said, no, we want you to deliver this message. MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, I want it on the record, that’s why I’m asking. MR. MASON-That’s exactly right, and that is the message that I am delivering to the Homeowners Association, and they’re going to have to get to work. MR. ABBATE-So what you’re saying is that the Homeowners Association has asked you to pass on the message to this Board. MR. MASON-No. The Planning Board asked me to pass on a message to the Homeowners Association. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-With no commitment on their part. MR. ABBATE-But there’s no commitment on the. MR. MASON-Well, I can’t. I would love to commit to different things. MR. ABBATE-Well, you’re one thirty-second shareholder. I understand all that. MR. MASON-I’d be the first casualty. MR. MC NALLY-You’re not promising anything. MR. ABBATE-Right. No promises. MR. BROWN-Mr. Abbate, I just want to make one thing clear. I heard some back and forth there. In the Planning Board’s recommendation, they didn’t say that this project was okay. They didn’t act on this, because it was not before them in an application. They said that this applicant probably shouldn’t be burdened with the responsibility of the master plan, but they didn’t say this is okay, give it any sort of blessing. MR. ABBATE-Did you ask the Planning Board who should be burdened with it, then, if not this applicant? MR. BROWN-I think they made it clear that the Homeowners Association, which is made up of all the owners in the property, are burdened with that responsibility, before the next application comes in. MR. URRICO-Craig, can we condition a granting of a variance with the condition that no further action will take place on this, can we do that? MR. BROWN-This is an individually owned property within the Association. I don’t think you can put a condition on the rest of the properties. MR. LAPPER-You could deliver the message, though. MR. BROWN-I don’t think you can condition what happens on the rest of the properties, based on this application. You can make any kind of condition you want on this development, this size and shape and color, but not on the other parcels. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. ABBATE-Not on the Association. Yes. MR. MASON-The other thing that the Planning Staff at the Planning Board meeting pointed out, to that exact question was, that you wouldn’t want to do that anyway because if somebody were to come to this Board with a very small application, that you didn’t want to look at a master plan for, you’d want to have that flexibility, by law, or maybe you wouldn’t want to have the flexibility, but she said, by law, you really have to look at them. You can’t do it, and that maybe makes sense. MR. ABBATE-One further question from me, and then I’ll keep quiet. Do you believe, I’m asking, not attorney but I’m asking you. Do you believe that it is essential that a master plan be developed? MR. MASON-Am I in favor, as a voter of the Homeowners Association, for a master plan? MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. MASON-I think it’s a good idea. MR. ABBATE-You think it’s a good idea. MR. MASON-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Could you tell me why? MR. MASON-For all of the reasons we’ve stated. You want to go forward with a plan. It makes sense. MR. ABBATE-Why? MR. MASON-Well, I don’t have any problems with some of the issues that different people have. I think that there’s plenty of acreage for septic. I think that we’ve got a great water system, and I don’t see the views as really an issue, although I do see views as an issue among members of Takundewide that you don’t want somebody building a huge structure in front of you. The Town has seen projects that. MR. ABBATE-So that a master plan, then, would probably be in the best interest of all the landowners? MR. MASON-I think it would be. MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. MR. URRICO-I have one more question. It was stated earlier the Nizoleks would be using this home as a summer residence? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Do they have any plans to make it a permanent residence? BILL NIZOLEK MR. NIZOLEK-Bill Nizolek. No, we have no plans to live there year round. We reside in Saratoga. I mean, if we’re going to invest in the addition of the cabin to bring it up to Code, I guess, it does have to be winterized. So that is our only reason for going whole hog, so to speak. We have six children. MRS. NIZOLEK-Four. MR. NIZOLEK-Six of us, four children. We just don’t want to get into a fight in the morning because we can’t use the bathroom. We’re residents of the North Country. We’ve grown up here. Nobody appreciates this country and this lake like we do, and I agree with your concerns. MRS. NIZOLEK-This bathroom is not even a big bathroom. This is like a tiny little bathroom for six people. When we bought Takundewide, there were already a few built up. We knew how strict Takundewide, as an Association, was, with what you could do with it. To us, that was the big issue was can we deal with their restrictions. We decided that we could because we loved the community, and thought it was worth it, but we were, since a few of these houses had already been built up, we assumed that this is, you guys approved that, that you would approve us in the future when our children grew, that we could do that, and they have now grown, and it has become pretty unbearable, and even with the addition, it’s still a small house, for six people, so we wouldn’t be living there year 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) round. I mean, we’re staying in Saratoga. I mean, this is just a summer place. We just would like to get through a summer without killing each other. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. NIZOLEK-You’re welcome. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Mr. Salvador? Be brief if you would, please. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll try. With regard to the septic system, a little bit of background . When this project was approved in 1983, it was foreseen that we would have a wastewater collection system in North Queensbury. It wasn’t until 1984 that the EPA came out with their findings recommending against sewering the Lake George basin, and so that whole project went on hold, if you will. Have you seen the site plan? They talk about enough land to support the septic system, but there’s an awful concentration of these septic systems in a small part of the total property. No one in their right mind would, from scratch, do a development with the concentration of dwellings and these individual septic systems all over. I think it’s incumbent upon you, if you’re going to move forward with this project, when you do your environmental assessment, that you make an attempt to identify the cumulative impacts of these systems trying to function in close proximity to each other. They don’t have separation distances like you would find on normal one acre zoning, if you will. They’re on top of each other. The effect is different. This young family, I can understand their situation. We rented, for years, to families. I can tell you, the length of a teenage shower is a function of the capacity of the hot water tank. I dare say that, I don’t know if this septic system needs upgrading. It’s going to be upgraded, but why? Has it failed? If it’s failed, it’s their responsibility to, Number One, upgrade the system before they get a permit to expand the dwelling. You don’t do the dwelling and upgrade the system along the way. So, those are things I think you should try to evaluate, and maybe you have to do some kind of an environmental review of this wastewater discharge, and the cumulative impacts of all of these 32 systems in a small area, not the total lot, just the area where these dwellings are located. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or in opposition to the application? Mr. Underwood? JAMES UNDERWOOD MR. UNDERWOOD-I was the lone attendee at the Planning Board meeting, because I had an interest in it, since we had previously voted on this one, just to see what their feelings were, and I think that they felt kind of the way that we did last fall, that taken individually, if we were only considering this project, and probably the ones that preceded it on the property, that it’s not going to be that big of a thing, but they were concerned that down the road, you know, maybe 10 years from now, when 20 of these have been done, that we had some kind of a massive failure because of the distances of the septic systems from each other, that, you know, we would be saying to ourselves, why did we allow this to happen, you know, and I think that we may have seen ourselves in that position before, within the Town, on other projects, too. At the same time, I think that they were pretty adamant about, you know, in their language it said, if approved, this would demonstrate a need for the development of a master plan, and this master plan should precede any other future development on that property, and I think that’s what their intent was. I don’t see it as if they were trying to waffle the vote. I think that they still wanted us to consider the vote as the voting members of the Zoning Board to render a decision that we thought was best, and I think that we are looking at the Nizolek application on its own accord, but at the same time we can direct, you know, as they did, I think, to us, the direction that they want the whole Takundewide Association to go, and that is to consider a plan that’s going to be in effect for all future development up there at the same time, but I think most of the questions you’ve had were answered by the Board that night, but since nobody was there, I don’t think anybody got the answers, either, other than myself, but I’ll leave it up to your vote. MR. HAYES-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Just one final comment, just to clarify. There’s no septic issue. We’re saying that the septic system will be upgraded. When you submit for your building permit, you have to have your septic system plans approved by the Town also, and there’s just no reason for any variance, that this system will be upgraded to comply with Code for the expanded second floor and the new bathroom. MR. MASON-There has not been any failure on this system. The statement that it will be upgraded is based on just assumptions. I know that it’s got a 1,000 gallon concrete septic tank that will be fine if the location is fine and the Building Department thinks it’s fine, it will be fine to use it again. I know that the drain field is PVC Perforated pipe. I don’t know how big it is. I’m expecting, based on the history of the property, that we’re going to have to put in a new drain field, use the tank and put in a new drain field. There is plenty of room. There’s plenty of different locations on the map. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) You can see, I can show you a number of locations that we could go to. They have an easement over the common property to put it in. We will do whatever is necessary to satisfy the Building Department and put in a septic system that passes Code. MR. HAYES-Is that it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Therefore, at this time, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And I’d like to poll the Board members. The lucky fella on this one is Norm. MR. HIMES-Thank you. A couple of things. One is, I did ask the question about when the applicant acquired the property and what the family situation was then. So it’s, I think it might be said that, well, they certainly knew that the place was very small in relation to what their needs were at the time, as well as what they might be in the future, notwithstanding that they may have thought that there wouldn’t be any problem with expanding the place. The other matter, again, I was very sensitive, all throughout this conversation, thinking in terms of what Mr. Salvador said in his last point, that you’ve got the common land and it’s, of course, on the mountainside of the development, which you might expect if it’s going to be some property that’s in proximity to the lake, but when things are done in this way, my feeling, well people want to have some nature out there. They want to have common land reserved for just that, and so I feel, too, that then you’re dealing with what’s left, and what happens on it and how it’s treated, and I kind of feel that in that respect, we are really kind of looking at the floor area ratio as reflected here, and I don’t, personally, feel that bringing in the outlying land, in this instance, or anyone like it, is part of the calculation in my opinion. So, I feel that this, the aspect of these places, charming little neighborhood and all, that what is happening is, to my own personal opinion, is not necessarily good, given the status quo. So we’re back to the situation again of, well, from an overall standpoint of this and other developments like it throughout, up and down the areas of Lake George with what little land there might be left to develop, let’s put something together that can be dealt with what where we have some input from bodies other than ourselves that are expert in the total impact of, well, if the Association feels that it’s okay to do this, and eventually it might happen with all of them, well, here’s how it’s going to happen, that would help us, I think, in terms of how we might then look at any applications for variances. In this particular case, I’m sorry to say that I would not be in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, much to my surprise, I’m trying to focus in on this application as a single application, and I’m finding myself leaning toward the applicant, and for the reasons of the criteria that we have in front of us, and that’s, would it benefit the applicant, I think, yes, it would benefit the applicant. I’d like to also point out, well, I’ll get to that. Are there feasible alternatives? Well, I’ll give as an example the acquisition of additional lands. Well, that’s not reasonable, and I don’t think that’s feasible. In the matter of the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, the two feet of relief from the 12 foot setback, I don’t consider that to be the issue. Obviously, the issue is the 67% floor area ratio, which is a significant drop from the 101 percentage that we had before us last year. The applicant has made an effort to comply, and a small house, they want to add a second story, and I think they’ve made an effort. Yes, it is substantial relative to the Ordinance, but I think these are unusual circumstances. As far as the effects of the neighborhood or the community, I think that’s something that we’re all concerned about, and I would be in favor of a strong statement, if we approve this application, to the effect that, to Takundewide, that this is it. I mean, we need a master plan before we go ahead with anything else, and we can’t state that for a fact, but we can let them know that this is where we stand. We did make a note, in the last variance deny, the denial of a variance, we noted that there are 32 separate dwellings in this development, and there’s the potential for about 27 more of them requesting similar type expansions, and I think we could make that statement again, and then as far as the, whether it’s self created, yes, it’s self created, but I think, based on the weight of the evidence, I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ve been struggling, trying to look at this as a single application, too, because there’s the temptation to be thinking about what if, what can happen in the future, and I expect we’re going to get more applications, I think it is going to be a problem in the future, but trying to look at this application, and again, going down the list of criteria, the benefit to the applicant, certainly it’s going to be a benefit to the applicant if they can expand their seasonal residences. They’ve explained, I think very clearly, what the benefits will be, and I have to agree with them. Feasible alternatives, for me the sticky part here is the term feasible. What’s feasible, what’s not feasible. I think there are some alternatives, perhaps not really acceptable ones to the homeowners, but there are some 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) alternatives. Wait until there’s another place available in Takundewide and buy a second place. There’s also the possibility of moving, sell that place and find a bigger place somewhere on the lake, or a third one for the Association to consider, and one thing that hangs me up, the attorney has mentioned that we ought to consider a share of the common land, because they all own it, when we figure the floor area ratio, but this owner does not control that common area. He can’t, by himself, determine what’s going to happen to his one thirty-second share. He’s only one of 32 votes in what happens to that. So that leaves me a problem trying to add in common area for the floor area ratio, but in any event, I think there are at least three alternatives out there. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? As Staff has pointed out, I think two feet of relief from the 12 foot side setback is not a big deal, and especially considering that this would be an addition that’s going straight up, I wouldn’t have a problem with that part of it, but the floor area ratio does strike me as being substantial, and that gives me a problem. Effects on the neighborhood or community. I think this is going to have an effect on the neighborhood. I think this kind of thing is going to change the character of neighborhood. Now I understand that the neighborhood, at least as represented by the Association, feels that it may be a favorable change, but nevertheless, it is going to, I personally think, going to be a change to the neighborhood. Is the difficulty self created? Yes, is it. The property was bought three years ago. They now decided they want to change it. In effect it’s their problem, not somebody else’s. Having said all that, I think I’m coming out on the negative side. A master plan done now, conceivably, could change my conclusion that the expansion wouldn’t change the character of the neighborhood, or wouldn’t be a negative change, but right now, I’m left feeling that it’s going to be a negative change, and I’m going to be opposed. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-This is a very close decision to make. I think that there are factors weighing each way. The benefit to the applicant is certainly understandable. With four children in a home, in a cottage this size, you will kill each other by the time you’re there a month, and certainly that would be a nice thing to have, a bigger summer home. The feasible alternatives could include some of the things that Chuck just mentioned. There’s also another alternative, which is waiting for the master plan and then re-filing. I think that is a feasible alternative. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Again, I’ve seen the properties that have been expanded, and two feet of relief from a 12 foot setback requirement isn’t going to kill anyone in that community. If you take this project on a standalone basis, it doesn’t really matter, and I know that the property owners that own it now, and certainly the management group that’s going to be building it is going to take great care in making sure that it’s done tastefully and done well, because I’ve seen your work. I’ve seen how you maintain that property over the years. What makes me worry about something like this, though, is another community not very far from Takundewide called Rockhurst, and that is not quite the same thing, but there are lots of a similar size, which over the years, if you looked at any one project, yes, it’s only going to be a little bit extra. It’s only going to be a little bit closer to the line. It’s only a small variance, so that any one project is not difficult, but when you stand back and you look at that place, it is kind of extreme what has happened. Is that going to happen at Takundewide? I doubt it, but I think that there’s a need to look, in a Critical Environmental Area, for the overall considerations that maybe we sitting here looking at one project don’t see. I know that it’s not, per se, segmentation, but this has characteristics unique to, I think, most planning, in the sense that it combines individual ownership and joint ownership. I don’t know what you would call it. It’s like a cluster of properties in a larger parcel. That was done, probably, without any thought to a cluster or a HUD type project. Overall, though, I don’t think that this proposal has any significant effect on the community currently, and the difficulty is self created, since the purchasers came to this property knowing its size and knowing the limitations of the Town Code, or at least presumably knowing what those limitations were. On balance, I think I’m going to approve it, but I’m not sure, because I’m not sure how telling Takundewide that you need a master plan really amounts to a hill of beans. We can say that all we please, but if the next owner comes here and says, I want the same kind of thing that these folks did, we might be hard pressed to deny it to them, on a case by case basis. So, that’s what I think. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I really think that we’re walking on eggshells. It’s very difficult to look at this application as a single application, and I think if this application were to be approved then we would be looking at future applications, and maybe there would be a master plan. Maybe there wouldn’t be a master plan. There’s nothing to guarantee that there would be at this point. A couple of the other Board members have gone through all the criteria, and I’m not going to rehash those, but, you know, I can sympathize with the owners. I have four children, too, and as they were growing up, I had to buy a new house to fit the four children, and I had to buy a new summer camp, so that we could all fit comfortably, and I understand when the property is in the family for a long period of time, and I can understand that concept, but in this case, we’re talking about three years, knowing full well what the restrictions on the property were, and I’ve got to say, this shouldn’t be a problem for the Zoning Board. It’s really a problem of the applicant, and so at this point, I would have to be opposed to the project. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I am in a quagmire. I truly am. If I, I’m perceiving this situation in two parts. One, as an individual application, but then again, I perceive it as the potential for cumulative adverse impacts, which may very well happen, and the third, and I suppose this probably bothers me the most, is that we have no master plan, and yet your Association has said, well, we have no problems with this application, but what happens when your Association comes up with another letter with another applicant and says, we have no problems with this plan, and another letter that says, we have no problems with this plan, where are we? Where have we been? Has the Zoning Board of Appeals done its job? So I have three areas that I have to take a look at, and I’m going to be very, very frank. I don’t know where I am on this thing. I honestly and truly don’t. I’m just going to listen to the, if there’s any other Board member’s comments, and I’ve listened, I’m trying to be very, very fair about this thing, and I’m having a problem with it. MR. LAPPER-I just have one question, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think that anyone has identified any detriment to the neighborhood of this project. I understand what everyone’s saying about a master plan going forward, but in terms of adding what is essentially five feet to the top of this to do the second story on the same footprint, and upgrade the septic, I don’t see what the detriment to the neighborhood is. There’s no view impact. The neighbors have said that they don’t have a view impact, and you can’t see it from the lake, so I just don’t see what the detriment, we know what the benefit is, but in terms of the balancing test, I don’t think that there’s been any detriment identified. I don’t think there is one. MR. BRYANT-I don’t think that it’s necessarily that type of detriment. I think in my view it’s more a continuing precedent. We’ve got five. Now we have six, and pretty soon we’ll have seven, and this will never be resolved. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know what the number is, where it becomes a problem, but no one’s said that the first five that have been ahead of the second story added have created any problem. I know you guys all went to the site. Visually, I don’t think there’s been a problem. I can’t sit here and say that if every single one some day had a second floor it would be a problem. If the septic couldn’t handle it, obviously it would be, but I think that the addition is so minor, I just don’t see what the detriment to the neighborhood is. MR. ABBATE-See, here’s the problem. Here’s another problem, Counselor. What you’re basically saying, and you haven’t said, is that there has been some precedent set. Well, it’s possible that the Zoning Board of Appeals may have erred. Even the U.S. Supreme Court errs. MR. MC NALLY-You know where I stand, Mr. Lapper. I’ve said I’m in favor of this project, but my concerns regarding the impact on the neighborhood or community are several. First, these homes are clustered at the lake frontage. MR. LAPPER-Except for this one. MR. MC NALLY-While this one is further from the lake, it is still clustered at the lake frontage. I think that there may be visual impacts, depending upon what kind of trees are cut in the future. This is certainly an increase in height, and with 32 houses clustered in front of the lake at this height, there would be a concern. I think that there’d be an increase in usage of the house. We’re adding bedrooms. We’re adding baths, in the sense that it allows a greater usage than perhaps otherwise might be there. Again, this single individual property isn’t a problem. Thirty-two of them might be a problem. The number of people, the number of boats, the number of projects along the frontage, that kind of thing. I also think that Mr. Salvador’s comments regarding a septic system are well taken. I don’t doubt that any one individual system is probably to Code or will be to Code, but again, the concern is that they are so closely clustered together that no one is looking at the overall problems that might occur on this project, and my concern, again, I’m going to approve it, my concern is that, as a Board, we have to balance the applicant’s desires to have a larger home versus the effect on the neighborhood or community, and I think that there may ultimately be one. I’m agreeing with you it’s not here, but I really think that there’s a significant problem with this entire community that has to be addressed with a master plan. That’s, when you’re asking for the effects on the neighborhood or community, the things I’m thinking about. MR. MASON-At the risk of, I don’t want to argue with you, because as you’ve said, you’re going to vote for it. I just want to help, a few of the things that are said, and it might help to put your mind at ease on some of the discussions that have gone on there, and they’re also common sense, and I would think that this would make sense to you. The acreage in the back, actually, it’s not the bulk of the common property. The 18 acres is really spread out among the whole property. There’s only about six or seven acres in the back that is undeveloped. So that’s a different issue, but that acreage has been thought of many times for the eventuality of a common septic system for the 32 homes at 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) Takundewide. It would be ideal for that system. We haven’t moved anywhere on that. We’ve been moving on other major projects up there, because we’re waiting for the community system to go in, and I know that when I said that to the Planning Board, we all had a big chuckle about that, and we might just as well put in our own system. Everybody agreed, but really, if in a couple of years, there’s federal dollars and there’s all of this going into that system, then it would be a waste of money to put in a huge system, especially considering there are no failing systems at Takundewide. You know when you have a failing system. There is, that’s that clay soil. The failures do not go under the ground. They go across the top of the ground, and when we’ve had problems, I mean, we have had problems. A truck goes across a pipe and crushes it, and before you know it, you’ve got a problem, and you fix it, but it goes away. They’re problems that are easily addressed and easily fixed with the amount of land that we’ve got. So I just wanted to assure you we do deal with all of those issues. I wanted to say one other thing on usage, and I said this at the Planning Board meeting, and one of the members really took heart in it. It’s only anecdotal, but I can tell you from my experience and from all of the years that I’ve been at Takundewide, these started to be sold privately or they started to go into this not being rented mode in 1985, and I’ve been there throughout the whole process, and I can tell you that the property is being used less and less every single year, because ownership discourages use. When the property is rented for $2,000 a week in the center of the summer, the people pack, six, seven people in it, and they use it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and then they leave, and you’ve got a brand new batch of people, but the owners, such as the Nizoleks, come and go throughout the summer, and I’ll walk up and down the property, as the manager, doing my job, and I’ll look around and 10 of the houses, the lights will be out, and I’ll be, a beautiful summer night and nobody’s there, it feels like to me. We used to talk about things like we needed to put in a swimming pool to take care of all of the excess spillover people at the beach, because the property seemed to be going in that direction, as a resort would do, but I can tell you, since 1985, it has gone in the exact opposite direction, and so the intensity of use, although, yes, you had more bedrooms and, yes, you can’t tell what the future’s going to bring, but history is showing me, and this woman on the Planning Board said she knew of another parcel very similar, and she said the exact same thing happened there, years ago when she was there, and watched the same occurrence. So I don’t know why that wouldn’t continue to happen. It really is logical. MR. ABBATE-What you say, I agree with what you say, but it’s a very simple question. Would it not be in the best interest of the community to have a master plan? MR. MASON-Absolutely, and I can also say that this Board, as I was listening to all of you speak, I won’t come to this Board helping somebody else without a master plan first. You can rest assured that that will happen, from my standpoint, but I don’t represent all of them at all. MR. WEHTHERBEE-May I ask one question? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. WETHERBEE-Could the variance be granted on a claim that a letter be registered to the organization that runs Takundewide stating that they have been notified of a certified letter that no other proposals can be brought forward without a master plan? MR. HAYES-It’s certainly a good idea, but I think we’ve already discussed the fact that, to a large degree, it would be ineffectual because there’s 32 other owners, and it would be based on their thing. MR. WETHERBEE-Yes. I thought from your standpoint you’d have some protection that they’ve been put on notice, if you had a certified letter that next time someone comes, I appreciate your idea of a precedent being set, but the next time someone comes before you, you could say the Association governing body has been put on notice by this certified letter. MR. HAYES-That’s really not a bad suggestion. It’s just, at this point, any contingency that we could place on the Nizoleks would not be, I just don’t think it would have enough of an impact on the Homeowners Association, from a legal perspective. Mr. Mason’s the manager of the property, too. We’ll let Craig do it. MR. BROWN-That’s what I was going to say. I think, procedurally, what’ll happen is the direction that the Planning Board has given the Zoning Board, please don’t consider anymore without a master plan, having that information, and if that’s confirmed by this Board, in any resolution you make, either to approve or deny, the Zoning Administrator will make a determination, inform the Homeowners Association that no further application will be considered without a master plan. They’ll be informed. They’ll have the option to accept that determination or appeal it, at which point they’ll be back in front of this Board, and you can confirm that either, yes, no more applications will be approved or considered, or they’ll accept it and prepare the master plan before any application. That’s the realistic potential as to what’s going to happen, after tonight. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to add to my comments one thing. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. HIMES-Running around in my mind, you know, the references to the master plans. You don’t know what that’s going to be, and the fact that, okay, a master plan comes up in connection with this application tonight, how might it be changed if there was a master plan that was approved by the boards? How might that impact this particular application. So the fact that some day there may be a master plan, in my opinion, would not be a substantive reason for going ahead with this application. That’s all I wanted to point out. MR. LAPPER-But there is no plan. That’s the thing. MR. HIMES-Yes, I know. MR. LAPPER-No one else is saying they want to expand. So the Nizoleks are sort of between a rock and a hard place. MR. HIMES-I understand, thank you. I’m just saying that, to my fellow Board members, let’s not be lulled into thinking, well, okay, we’ll let the nonexistent and perhaps some day future plan take care of this problem. MR. LAPPER-But it cuts both ways. MR. ABBATE-Yes, it cuts both ways, Counselor, but I know you’ll understand this, but the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of the Association, not this Board. MR. LAPPER-But the Association is not the applicant. That’s the difference. MR. ABBATE-Well, okay. MR. MASON-And if I understood your concern, where would this house fit in with that master plan, and if it was the Association, if they have anything to say about it, of course, by their letter of support of this plan, and by the fact that this plan matches anything else. MR. HIMES-It’s pretty likely to be that way, but we don’t know, until the plan goes through. MR. MASON-Well, we could know with as much certainty, I mean, that, I wouldn’t think, is a concern. I mean, it’s a 24 by 32 foot structure, on a 44 by 52 foot parcel. This is one of the issues that we wrestled with after last October was the feasible alternatives, because, based on that lot size, I don’t know how you can change that building, and I did hear some other alternatives, like selling, and in fact the Nizoleks have thought about that, but as far as acceptable buildings, there aren’t that many different plans to put a second story on that they would and could go along with. MR. HIMES-Let’s say if a master plan came along, and it gave all these specifications, I wouldn’t be in favor of it. I won’t be voting on a master plan probably, it may not be my review, but I wouldn’t. Others that may be involved with that master plan and how it gets to become the boilerplate for any applications that might need to come before us for variances or the Planning Board for something else, in so far as my comment came from that standpoint, that I would hope that your master plan somehow deals with all the matters that most of us have discussed, and you all, too, the interests of the people that live there, what it’s going to be in the future. You see the aspects of not being heavily used, well, I think that all these some day will become year round residents and occupied, like so many others in the Lake George area, over time, I think that’s been the trend, camps, then year round residences, renters go, and then it’s no longer summer. It’s fully occupied, and that’s been pretty much the way it is with most of Lake George, in my experience, and it’ll probably happen here, some day. MR. HAYES-Mr. Mason? MR. MASON-Mr. Chairman, I just have one other thing. It’s been sitting here. I keep putting it away and taking it out. It was something I prepared. It was regarding the neighborhood and it dealt with the septic system and whether or not we had to size for the septic system, and as I drew it up, I thought it was revealing in a lot of different ways. It’s just all of our neighbors within 600 feet along the shoreline of Lake George to the north and to the south, and I’d like to hand each one of you a copy of this for your perusal. There are 21 lots with an average lot size of .36 acres, and at Takundewide we have 21.35 acres in 32 lots or .68 acres per lot. So that’s, I was thinking that was speaking mainly to the septic area, that if we have a problem, with density on septic areas, then how are all of these little lots that are right along the shoreline, and no more than 100 feet deep, it seems to me that is a bigger issue, and that’s more similar to the Rockhurst problem that everybody brings 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) up. That’s what I’ve always thought, growing up up there, that because the lots are so narrow, that’s what aggravates that problem. MR. MC NALLY-See, I can answer those questions, though. MR. MASON-Okay. MR. MC NALLY-But the difference is that you’re here in front of us asking for relief. They’re not in front of us, and if they do come in front of us, we’re going to ask them very much the same questions. MR. MASON-But these lots, at this size, are building today. They’re very big homes going up, and much larger than the one that’s going up up here. MR. HAYES-Two things. Chuck, where are you at, just so I know, as far as a motion? MR. ABBATE-I would probably be not in favor of it. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. I’m going to re-open the public hearing for the Nizoleks, and that’s going to be the last, because I’ve already closed the public hearing twice. So if you’d like to come up and speak, but that’s going to be it. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MRS. NIZOLEK-I’m a little confused, because on the one hand, you’re not looking at what we’re asking. You’re looking at the whole Takundewide, like we’re all here asking for something, and it’s just us, and on the other hand, you’re telling us that we can’t use this common property that you’re looking at for the expansion, for the floor plan ratio, even though we pay taxes on this property. If you want to do an agreement where we don’t pay taxes on that, to me, I just don’t understand where you guys are at. I mean, on one hand you’re telling us that we have to consider the whole thing, and on the other hand you’re telling us that we can’t. MR. HAYES-Well, I can’t speak for the other Board members, but there’s actually five parts to the test that’s involved with an Area Variance, and some of those have to do with the effect on the neighborhood or community, in the cumulative sense, and some of them have to do with, is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance. Now the floor area ratio, your representatives have submitted that we should, in fact, count the common area property to reduce your relief on the floor area ratio, and I’m not sure where everybody comes down on that, but that’s the case that they made, and that’s why we’ve talked about it in that way. There’s two different parts of that test that are involved with what you’re talking about, not just one. MR. MC NULTY-I can explain where I come from on the common area. Take an extreme case, but if we allow your one thirty second of the common area to count toward your floor area ratio, and then you get a whole bunch of tennis fanatics in the Association, there’s no way you could prevent them from deciding they want to pave 99% of that common area to make tennis courts. Now that won’t happen, but nevertheless, you don’t have control over the common area that you have a share of. There’s no way that you can promise us that something won’t happen to your one thirty second of that common area, because you can easily be outvoted. Now there are a lot of cases of lots you can find all over the Adirondacks where the requirement is three acres per lot, and somebody wanted to subdivide and get the maximum number of houses on it, and you’ll find the lot’s 100 feet wide and 5,000 feet deep, and that could be done at Takundewide if they wanted to. It would make a whole bunch of funny looking lots, but they could give you your one thirty second of the common area, and give you control of it. MR. HAYES-Do you have anything else to add, though, from a factual perspective, versus kind of polling us about why we’ve arrived where we have? Because that’s really why you should, at this point. MRS. NIZOLEK-Just to answer a couple of the things. You know, you said that we went into this knowing how big that the cottage was, which is, I want to clarify we did, but we also knew that there were other cottages that were already rebuilt, and so we were going into this knowing that for a while this was going to be adequate, but that we would be able to rebuild it in the future, and the other thing is that the increase, because the increased use, you know, it’s still just our family in this cottage, and I understand you’re going to say, well, we could bring all of our relatives. MR. HAYES-Or the fact that none of us are going to live forever. MR. NIZOLEK-We really do monitor ourselves more than you would ever believe. Nobody cares about the quality of life more than the people that reside there. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HAYES-Thank you. Okay. At this point I’m going to close the public hearing for good. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-All right, and I guess I have to speak, and then we can go from there. I thought, when we first heard this particular application several months ago, we did the right thing, because I think that everybody here is certainly concerned about what’s going to happen cumulatively, or what might happen cumulatively, if not what’s happened already. I chastise myself personally. I’ve been on the Board long enough to be involved with some of the other expansions in the past, and it really didn’t occur to me to be dealing with the cumulative effects then. We could have referred this to the Planning Board earlier. Maybe that was a mistake that was made, and I certainly take some responsibility for that, in this particular case, but we kicked it to the Planning Board, and it’s their job to determine character and size of proposed uses and future creation of problems that might occur, based on a particular project that’s not our concern, and they kind of sent it back to us with the idea that they intend to do that in the future, and their recommendation, I guess by definition, is that the Nizoleks shouldn’t bear the brunt of the rest of that idea, and I think that, in this particular case, I think that that viewing this application just on the merits, on this particular case, I think that the feasible alternatives are very limited, in this particular case. The only feasible alternative that really is out there is for them to buy another place, and that, to me, is not necessarily one that is fair to force a conveyance of property and a reacquisition, in this particular case. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? I think the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. I have no problem at all with the two feet versus the 12 foot setback, and none of the other Board members seemed to stumble on that either, but the floor area ratio, being that the Town, in its infinite wisdom, decided to create these lots as they did, with the very little area around the property and abundance of common area, I think there has to be some consideration, as pointed out in Staff notes, to the fact that somehow some of that community property could be somewhat interpreted as also part of the overall floor area ratio, or the density of the development that we’re allowing on any particular site. The fact that this second story addition is only going to be five feet in height above where the first story is, and that we have approved other applications with similar small increases in height, small impacts on the overall appearance of the project, I think this case mirrors that. It only mirrors it to the extent, in my opinion, that I can say that I would not personally vote for another application like this without a master plan, without the recommendation of the Planning Board. I guess I’m bowing a little bit to their judgement and their wisdom, going forward on this, stating that they’re prepared to deal with this on the very next application, and based on how we all feel or certainly how I feel, it’s not any too soon, for sure, but, is the difficulty self-created? I think that it is, and it isn’t. I think certainly, like as has been pointed out by other Board members, the Nizoleks bought this property with full knowledge of the property setbacks around the land. I doubt, however, though, that they were aware of the Floor Area Ratio calculations, not many people are, and if they were, they’d probably try and forget it, but, in this particular case, I think looking at this application, simply on the merits of this single application, and also knowing that we will not be faced with this proposition again, as far as the effect on the neighborhood or community without a master plan, on a very narrow margin, I could vote for this application. Having said that, at this time, my poll indicates that we’re three for, and four against, with Chuck being pretty much no, or on the fence. So, we’re going to have to resolve this through some motions and see where it goes. That’s the only way. It wasn’t clear. MR. LAPPER-I guess what I would say is that the Nizoleks don’t want to be in a position where the only way they can protect their property rights is to challenge a denial. So I would like to propose that we table this, go back and talk to the Association, see if it’s possible for the Association to start to think about a master plan, and we’ll let you know. We’ll talk to Planning staff and let you know if that’s a possibility. We might as well explore the possibility of that before we take a denial, for that reason. MR. HAYES-I understand. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, Counsel, in his infinite wisdom I suspect, has made an excellent suggestion, in the interest of justice, and fairness. MR. HAYES-There’s no prejudice, as far as this decision. I think everyone feels that it’s a very close decision. So we’re not here to make a denial, necessarily, just to make a denial. That sounds like a reasonable course of action, to me, and therefore, I will make a motion, gentlemen. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2001 WILLIAM & LINDA NIZOLEK, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Cottage #25, Oneida Drive, Takundewide. Tabled to allow the applicant to work with Staff and Homeowners Association to derive or find a direction for an overall plan or master plan or something that’s going to change somebody’s vote on this matter to the extent that satisfies this 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) Board to re-hear the case. Tabled for 61 days, and then if something happens in the interim, we may re-table it. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, would you want to put a time on that, of up to a certain amount of time, to hear back from the applicant? MR. HAYES-I think in this particular case, is it permissible for us to table something longer than 61 days? MR. BROWN-I think if you go past that time period, the public hearing notification has to take place again. You’re required to make an action on an application in a certain time period after the public hearing is closed. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-You’d have to hold another public hearing if you want to reserve your action for any longer period of time. MR. HAYES-Well, I think, in that case, the burden would fall on the applicant to submit, I guess it would amount to a new application. You’re going to have to pay for re-advertising. Of course that defeats a tabling motion, I guess. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’d rather not get the denial. MR. HAYES-I understand. So I so move, we’ll table it for 61 days, and then if something happens in the interim, or you may re-table it or something. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The application is tabled. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2001 TYPE II CHARLES & DALE FARRAR AGENT: N/A PROPERTY OWNER: CHARLES & DALE FARRAR ZONE: SFR-10 LOCATION: 27 PERSHING ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 84 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ONE-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. OLD TAX MAP NO. 114-2-31 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-12 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179- 20, 179-79 CHARLES & DALE FARRAR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2001, Charles & Dale Farrar, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: 27 Pershing Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 84 sf garage addition. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 8.4 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR-10 zone, § 179-20. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand the garage as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the addition to the rear of the garage. However, such an addition would also require some form of setback relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 8.4 feet of relief from the 10 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial. (84%) 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? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the home on the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 93-112 issued 4/23/93 inground pool Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) result of this action. The proposed addition appears to be in character with the existing structure as well as the neighboring properties. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Please state your name for the record. MR. FARRAR-Charles Farrar. MRS. FARRAR-Dale Farrar. MR. HAYES-Do you have anything you’d like to add to the application? MR. FARRAR-The way the house is built, the way the house was built, if you look at this property map, I have no idea, but if you look at this property map, there are so many houses on Pershing Road that sit either on the property line or near the property line, you know, yes, it may be attributed to the location of the home, but they’re all like that. So I don’t see that that would be a negative impact on the neighborhood because a lot of those houses are on the line. There’s a ton of room on one side, but whoever built these. Additionally, if you came by the house, you saw the garage. You saw the chimney. The problem is, that chimney is inside the garage. So if you pull the car in, you can open one door, but you can’t open the other. If you come out seven feet and match the front line of the house, you can pull a car in, and you can open both doors, so someone can actually get out on the driver’s side. MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. ABBATE-Just a comment. He has a very persuasive argument, particularly in view of the fact that the proposal, as Staff notes indicate, appears to be in character with the existing structures as well as the neighboring properties. So, what I’m basically saying, you’re right. MR. BRYANT-Just a point of clarification. The application says 84 square feet. It’s actually 94 square feet. It really doesn’t have anything to do with the actual relief. MR. HAYES-Just dimensionally. MR. BRYANT-I didn’t have a calculator. MR. FARRAR-My thing says 94, that I filled out. MR. HAYES-Norm, did you have a question? MR. HIMES-Yes. I agree with what Chuck said, and definitely the changes still will look very much like so many of the other houses there. It’s a nice little neighborhood, beautiful cut lawn and so forth. I’m sure that, as far as appearance is concerned, there wouldn’t be any impact. Was that garage, at any point in time, altered inside it, to add more room to the house? MR. FARRAR-Our neighbors tell us varying stories, in terms of, this piece was added or that piece was added or this was bumped and that was moved. MR. HIMES-I guess I should have said, did you do any construction to that side of the house, to reduce the size of the garage? MR. FARRAR-No. We took out a wall between the family room and the kitchen, and changed the doorway into the garage. MR. HIMES-Okay. So the garage has been the same size since you’ve lived there. That’s what I thought. Yes. Good. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone that would like to speak in opposition? Correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Lets talk about it. I guess, Roy, you’re first. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. URRICO-Yes. This seems a pretty easy one for me. The applicant, certainly the benefit from it obviously needs the extra space. It’s not going to encumber anybody anymore than it already is, and it’s in character with the neighborhood. So I see this as a positive, and I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I feel basically the same way. If you look just at the numbers, it sounds like a significant relief, 8.4 from the 10 foot requirement, but basically all the applicant’s asking is to extend what already exists seven feet more, which is minimal extension. Good reasons for doing it. I agree that the benefit to the applicant is clear. So I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I’m in agreement with the other Board members. It’s an insignificant addition, in terms of square footage, and it brings into square the front portion of their house, without encroaching on the line any further, in large part. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-I’m also in favor of it. I think the addition would kind of make the house look square in the front. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m in favor. I think it’s a straightforward application, and I think the changes, aesthetically, would be positive, and I would be in favor of it. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. For the reasons given by fellow Board members, I’m also in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I agree with the rest of the Board members in this particular case. I think the relief is inconsequential, and I don’t think there’s any real negative implications for the neighborhood or the community in this case. So I think the test falls clearly in favor of the applicant. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll take the motion. MR. HAYES-Thank you, Roy. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2001 CHARLES AND DALE FARRAR, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 27 Pershing Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 94 square foot garage addition. The applicant seeks 8.4 feet of relief from the 10 foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR-10 zone, 179-20. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per 179-79. The benefit to the applicant certainly would be they’d be permitted to expand the garage as desired. Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the addition to the rear, but that doesn’t seem feasible. It seems like a perfect place to put the addition, to square up the front of this home. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Yes, it is substantial, but no closer to the side than it currently is. So in that respect it really is not substantial, and there are no effects on the neighborhood or community. It’s in character with the neighborhood, and while this might be considered self-created, it’s certainly needed by the people that own this home. I move for its adoption. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Good luck. MR. FARRAR-Thank you. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2001 TYPE II FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND MIKE GARGIULO AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: LOT 12 GUNN LANE HOUSE NO. 24 GUNN LANE CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,104 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 12-3-22 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-20 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 JON LAPPER & MIKE GARGIULO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2001, Five Oaks Development, LLC, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: Lot 12 Gunn Lane House No. 24 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3104 sf single family dwelling. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 4 and 5 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, § 179-16. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a narrower, compliant plan. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4 and 5 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirements may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created as there appears to be sufficient area available for compliant construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. While this proposal calls for a home to be constructed with a 60 foot shoreline setback, the existing home is some 140 feet from the shore. Last year, the adjoining property to the North applied for and received an Area Variance; (81-2000, Domers Golden Properties, res. 9/20/00) for side yard setback relief on both sides of the home. Staff understands that the applicant has interest in both properties, as Mr. Gargiulo was the applicant for Domers Golden. Consideration should be given to the potential outcome of this variance when coupled with the variance granted last year to the adjoining property. Domers Golden was granted a 13 foot 6 inch side setback on both sides of the home. The current Five Oaks proposal calls for a 15 foot side setback on the Domers Golden side. Approval of this variance would effectively alter the required minimum building separation distance of 40 and allow a 28 foot separation and allow a new home to be constructed 80 feet closer to Lake George than currently exists. It does not appear as though a strict application of the requirements would limit the applicant from a reasonable use of the property. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 12, 2001 Project Name: Five Oaks Development, LLC Owner: Five Oaks Development, LLC ID Number: QBY-AV-69-2001 County Project#: Sep01-35 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes removal of an existing camp and construction of a new 3,104 sq. ft. single-family home. Relief of 4’ and 5’ is requested from the side yard setback requirements. A minimum of 20’ is required. Site Location: 12 Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. Tax Map Number(s): 12-3-22 Staff Notes: The proposed dwelling would have three bedrooms and 2 ½ baths. The applicant has addressed septic with a 1250 gallon tank and a 20’ x 26’ absorption bed. The proposed action does not violate the permeability requirements (see attached development data sheet). Staff does not identify any significant impacts to State or County resources. However, since the applicant has provided large drawings not reproduced for Board member packets, Staff recommends discussion to give members an opportunity to review the application drawings. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 9/13/01. MR. HAYES-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-I’m with Mike Gargiulo. Very simply, because of the narrow lot, 76 feet, Mike did not design a house that was too big for the lot. We’re not here talking about floor area ratio, but the 44 foot width of most of the house is not an excessive width, and from the picture you can see how it’s built into the ground. It’s, hopefully, what you’ll find an attractive house, but in order to justify, knowing how this Board feels about projects right on the lake, in order to justify the side setback relief, Mike agreed to move the house back 10 feet from the lake, beyond what would be required. So he could build a different design house that would be narrower, but it would be closer to the lake. So we tried to be fair and to move it back to make up for the difference, to help justify the variance, and just in terms of the side setbacks, it’s really very similar to what Bob Wall was granted, which was 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) four feet on each side, and this is five feet and four feet. I don’t know if there’s any more than we need to add at this point. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application? MR. GARGIULO-No. I mean, we did, the second reason for keeping the house back the 60 feet was to make sure that the house didn’t impair on the vision of either the two directly adjoining lots. Faulkners, who are to the south of us, the house is, the actual house itself is behind their house. Portions of the deck kind of interfere with the back part of their house, where it’s currently located, and then the house on 22 Gunn Lane, right next door, starts behind, you know, this house starts pretty much at the front of it. So that individual property owners in the area aren’t going to have their view obscured by the construction of the new house. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? MR. ABBATE-Am I interpreting this correct, that you have the two properties, 22 and 24? MR. LAPPER-The other house Mike built, developed, and we’re having a closing. It’s completed now. He’s built it, and now he’s selling it. MR. ABBATE-So that’s a separate entity, then? MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s Mike’s family, his dad and his sister. After we were, he was in the ground on the other one, this one became available. So he purchased this lot. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Then at this point, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-Okay. Then I guess we’ll poll the Board members. At this particular time, it’s Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m torn on this one. I hear the arguments of moving the house back 10 feet from the minimum shoreline setback, and I can understand the desire to have a house this width, to keep the design. At the same time, I hear the Staff comments loud and clear that, in effect, having granted the adjacent property side setbacks, and granting this one, we’re, in effect, changing the zoning, which requires a 40 foot separation between homes to one that requires 28 feet between homes, and that bothers me. I’m going to listen to the reasoning of the other Board members, but at this point, I’m inclined to vote no. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m, essentially, in agreement with Chuck on this. I think I’m going to strictly adhere to the zoning code on this one, because I think that a dangerous precedent is going to be set if we pass it. MR. HAYES-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-The relief, I don’t find as substantial, relative to the Ordinance. It’s about 25% of the side setback on either side. Four and five feet, in the scheme of things, isn’t a great deal. The effects on the neighborhood or community are, I don’t think, very large. The property to the north is certainly a new home, and this house is going to compliment that house, and it’s going to be planned and built a sufficient distance, in my mind, that I don’t think it would cause any untoward effect upon the neighborhood. The difficulty is self-created, though, and certainly it’s the applicant’s request that the house be built in this configuration, and as it’s new construction, the point is well taken that you can start from scratch, and the question might be asked, well, why can’t we build to a compliant configuration? I haven’t heard an answer to that yet. So that’s what I think. MR. HAYES-So that’s a question mark, then. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HAYES-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Honestly I don’t know at this point, I, too, question why you can’t build a house that’s more compliant. You made a comment that if you made the house narrower, it would then be closer to the lake, and I’m not really understanding that. MR. LAPPER-Because we would have the right, Mike gave up, he voluntarily moved the house back 60 feet, instead of 50 feet, as shown on the site plan, that, to give the Board justification to grant the variance, he moved it back, and it also helps the neighbors, in terms of their views. We could go to the Planning Department/Building Department and submit an application for a building permit for a compliant house that would be 10 feet closer to the lake. Usually this Board goes out of your way to look at these lake projects from the perspective of the lake and boaters. So we’re saying that we voluntarily moved the house back to help justify the fact that he needs the side setback relief. So if he could find a design of the house that was suitable, that was 36 feet, which is a pretty narrow house, he would then be able to move it 10 feet closer to the lake, and that would be compliant. MR. BRYANT-So what you’re saying is it’s not a physical impossibility, it’s a trade? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Exactly. Usually the Board cares more about that setback than the side setbacks. MR. HAYES-You’re undecided then, essentially? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I listen to what my other Board members say, and, quite frankly, they make some sense, and the question that I have, and as Bob says, it hasn’t been answered, is that there appears to be sufficient area available for compliant construction. Now, you gave us figures, Counselor, which was great, but in the final analysis, if we approve this, the house, the new home to be constructed, will be 80 feet closer to the lake. That’s the bottom line. MR. LAPPER-Well, with all due respect, I’m not sure that that’s a valid comparison. I know that that was what the Planning staff said, but the house right now is so far set back to the back of the lot, that that’s not compliant. So, I mean, the line to look at is the setback line where you’re allowed to build, because it’s a new build. So I’m not sure that it’s relevant, because there’s this little shack on the back of the property. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, I’ll grant you that, and let’s say it’s not relevant. Now answer the question please, then. Why can’t you comply with construction? MR. LAPPER-Because a 36 foot wide house, which would allow 20 feet on each side. MR. ABBATE-But what happens if we reduce the size of that house? Then it complies, doesn’t it? MR. LAPPER-No, no. I’m saying that he would have to pick another design of a house that would be 36 feet wide, and just the way the rooms lay out, it would not be preferable, but, obviously, if he did that, it would move it 10 feet closer to the lake. MR. ABBATE-So it’s essentially personal preference, then? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but it’s also, we’re trying to say, in terms of the neighborhood, that we’re voluntarily benefiting the neighborhood by moving it back and helping the two property owners. MR. ABBATE-I understand. I’m not questioning the good faith of this thing, but it seems to me, I’m still firm on this unless you can convince me otherwise, that there is compliant construction. MR. LAPPER-But all I can say is that, this Board has traditionally said that the most important setback on lake projects, is the lake setback, and you’ve been reluctant to give lake variances, setback. So, knowing that, we came in and said, we will voluntarily move it back to make up for it, and the side setback, the neighbor’s views are out toward the lake. They don’t care so much about who’s next door to them, and Mike, just for the record, Mike went around with a measuring tape, after we got the Staff comments, and what did you come up with in that area? MR. GARGIULO-Yes. We found in the area between the houses that are existing, that have been there, that the average was 22 to 24 feet separation from existing structure to existing structure on adjoining lots in the area, directly in the area of us. Additionally, the house that we plan on removing, currently, is 11 feet from the side line setback, and it’s about 10 feet off of the road. So 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) that we’re taking a nonconforming structure that’s sitting basically out in the road, with no parking, that blocks the road when you have folks over, and moving it out into the middle of the lot. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. ROLAND FAULKNER MR. FAULKNER-Mr. Chairman, you moved this closed, and I had had something to say, but I didn’t want to interrupt anybody, but you said I’ll close it. I’m the next door neighbor, and I respectfully request that you allow me to speak. MR. HAYES-So granted. Please come up. MR. FAULKNER-Thank you very much, and my wife also, my wife Rosemary. My name is Roland Faulkner. My wife Rosemary. We are the neighbors on the south side of the property in question. MR. HAYES-You’re the house down by the lake, then, essentially? MR. FAULKNER-We’re closer to the lake than Michael is planning. That is correct. Our place was built, I don’t know, 1917 or 1919. It’s what some of you might call a camp. We call a cottage, and my wife has done a beautiful job fixing it up. We don’t like to see all this new modern construction come in, but we realize things happen. That being the case, I think Michael is trying to accommodate us, and we appreciate that. The accommodate that we appreciate, and I want to impress the Board, because I sense what you’re getting at, is our cottage is, the main living portion, is 24 by 24. It’s one room, living room, and there’s my wife and I, two children, five grandchildren. We need our front porch. It’s a screened in porch. That screened in porch is basically where we live during the day, in the evening. We even eat out there. That’s where our dining table is, until it gets to be weather like it is out tonight. We appreciate not having to look over, if Michael comes up to within the 50 feet, we’re going to lose our privacy of the porch. Now I’m being selfish about it, but we treasure that privacy. Michael has offered, and has planned, I guess, on moving back 60 feet, which does bring it back behind our porch area or our living area, whatever you call it. It would be so much less offensive to us. So I’m not here to oppose the plan as he puts it. If he chooses, or has to modify his plan so that it becomes narrower and longer, so that he can get the same square footage of living area in, that it is going to come down, and then I really am going to be upset. So I’m asking the Board to please go along with what Michael is proposing. It is acceptable to me. My wife will speak for herself, and thank you for letting me speak. MR. HAYES-Certainly. ROSEMARY FAULKNER MRS. FAULKNER-I think the issue at hand is the ratio, the land to building ratio, which is 22% there, and Michael is coming in at 21.8 or 21.7. He’s maximizing everything that our rules and regulations allow. Keeping that in mind, I would rather see him 60 feet back. Michael knows that I will support him in this, because I’ve told him that, and he also knows I think what’s going on on Lake George is awful. These great big, huge buildings that are 28 feet high and 3100 square feet is not the way I think of that up there. MR. FAULKNER-We’ve been in our place for 30 years. MRS. FAULKNER-Yes. We’ve been on the Lake for 45 years. So, I mean, but he’s within his legal rights, and if it necessitates a variance from you to allow some of the privacy that was created there, at the turn of the century, then this is what I’m asking. MR. FAULKNER-Thank you for letting us speak. MR. HAYES-You’re more than welcome. MR. FAULKNER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess, Chuck, you’re on the fence? MR. ABBATE-I don’t know. That was pretty persuasive. MR. FAULKNER-I might add we drove all the way up from Schenectady tonight, and we have to drive back. MR. ABBATE-I will not be personally effected by this, because I don’t live in your community, but I have heard from your neighbors, and they have given you such an overwhelming endorsement, who 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) am I to object, and so I’m no longer on the fence, and based upon that endorsement, I would probably approve the application as it is. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I, too, am glad that the neighbors showed, and I think the fact that, in the applicant’s favor, and I noticed when I was out there that the present camp, as charming as the little thing is, is right on the road, and almost right on the property line, but, you know, the shoreline, and before the other house was built, the one that you already completed, it kind of zig zagged up to a couple of houses further up the road than where you are, but I’m, I think, in favor of the application, in view of the, we approved the next door one, which is kind of part of the problem of how far apart the structures are, and this seems to be kind of splitting the difference here. So I think it’s a lot of house. There’s so many of them going up there that are, but the floor area ratio isn’t part of our problem, so I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. All right. In this particular case, as I look at the property, certainly the house that was built next door is an attractive piece of architecture, for sure, but I can’t help but look at Staff notes and think that, basically, they’re right on par in my mind. I have a tremendous problem with what I consider almost horse trading relief from the lake for setback relief, when, in fact, there already was setback relief on the neighboring properties. I think there’s a great danger, in this particular circumstance, of creating almost a wall of housing. I think that that minimum separation distance, particularly when there’s some over, you know, when there’s some perception of overbuilding in a particular area, that separation at least allows for lines of vision to the lake, which improve the overall aesthetics of the area or the views from the lake in reverse. So in this particular case, I just can’t see how a compliant house is not possible, in this particular case. I think that a slight variation and a different plan could easily make this compliant, even if it was closer to the lake. Based on where the neighbor’s property is, I think that if the house was, in fact, 50 feet from the lake, I would not see that as a problem or a detriment to anyone’s view, except for possibly the other Mr. Gargiulo. So I think in this particular case, I would be against this application, largely because I believe that compliant alternatives are definitely available in this particular case, and I also think that four or five feet of relief, in and of itself, is moderate, but when it’s combined with the fact that the immediate property next door also has dimensional relief, side setback relief, I think the cumulative impact of that is substantial, in my opinion, and I think it would affect the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. So I would be against this application as it stands. So, based on a poll, at this particular time, we have three noes, two yes’s, and two maybes. So I think, basically, we’re going to have to resolve this through a motion scenario, and we’ll have the maybes decide where they’re going to go, which is part of the process. MR. BROWN-If this goes to tabling, you may end up leaving the public hearing open. MR. HAYES-We re-opened the hearing so the neighbors could speak, and now I’ll close it. Having said that, is there a motion out there, yes, no? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2001 FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 24 Gunn Lane. The applicant proposes the construction of a 3104 square foot single family dwelling, requesting four and five feet of relief respectively from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirements of Section 179-16. I say this because the factors weigh in favor of the applicant. First, the benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration. Feasible alternatives would include a narrower compliant design, and certainly with new construction, this is a factor that weighs against the applicant. The third factor is whether the relief is substantial to the Ordinance. Four or five feet from the 20 foot side setback requirements, I don’t find, are substantial, and I don’t see that the effects on the neighborhood or community are going to weigh against the applicant, and I say that particularly, given the neighbors who’ve clearly indicated a desire to have the house placed in the place where it is. Is the difficulty self-created? Yes, it is, but overall I think that three of the five factors weigh in favor of the applicant, and therefore I move the approval. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Stone 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HAYES-That’s four to three against approval. So at this point we would need a motion to deny. Would someone like to make a motion to deny? MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2001 FIVE OAKS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Bryant: 24 Gunn Lane. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 3,104 square foot single family dwelling, and is requesting four and five feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum side setback requirements of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16, and in considering this motion, we’ve considered the benefit to the applicant, which would be the applicant would be able to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration and location. Feasible alternatives include constructing a narrower, more compliant home. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Four feet on one side, five feet on the other from the twenty foot side setback requirements can be considered as moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community, moderate effects can be considered on the neighborhood or community, especially considering the variance allowed on the adjoining property previously. Is the difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created, since there is sufficient area for compliant construction. Given that there’s room for compliant construction, and no overwhelming reason to allow the variance, I move that we deny this application. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-The application is denied. AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2001 TYPE II H. PETER & ROSEANN BENTLEY AGENT: N/A PROPERTY OWNER: H. PETER & ROSEANN BENTLEY ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 12 WINCREST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. OLD TAX MAP NO. 69-3-21 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-34 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-20, 179-79 PETER BENTLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2001, H. Peter & Roseann Bentley, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: 12 Wincrest Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sf garage addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage addition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include a smaller, more compliant addition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. (50%) 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? A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the location of the existing home. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed addition appears to be no closer to the side property line than the existing garage. While a strict application of the requirements would not appear to deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of the property, it does not appear as though the proposed addition would present an adverse impact on the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Hello. Please state your name for the record. MR. BENTLEY-Peter Bentley. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application? MR. BENTLEY-Just that I’ve garaged my cars forever. I just moved into the neighborhood two months ago, and I can’t even get my small sized pickup truck into one side of the garage, with the 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) snow blower in there or anything else. So I’d like to make it deeper. I’ve got a 35 year old sports car that I want to garage in there, too. So, I’ve had that longer than my wife and kids. So I want to keep good care of that, but other than that, no. MR. HAYES-There’s a lot of us that feel that way. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. MC NALLY-You’re just going straight back from the existing garage? MR. BENTLEY-Straight back. MR. MC NALLY-You’re not going any closer to the line than the garage is already. MR. BENTLEY-No closer to the line. The roof lines, everything is going to be the same. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that’s here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes, there is some correspondence. We’ve got a note from I guess it’s Jean Zuloff at 10 Wincrest Drive. She says, “We will be unable to attend the Town meeting on Wednesday, but I approve Mr. Bentley’s plan to extend his garage.” And we have a note from Bob Ruggles, “I have no problem with the proposal as presented.” MR. HAYES-Where is Mr. Ruggles in relation? MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Ruggles. MR. BROWN-He’s across the street, I think. MR. HAYES-Across the street, okay. MR. BENTLEY-I haven’t met him yet. I’ll make it a point to meet him. MR. MC NULTY-Ruggles, let’s see. MR. HAYES-Craig said he’s across the street. That’s close enough. MR. MC NULTY-He’s close by anyway, and we also have a note from Steve and Marcia Collins, who I believe are also across the street somewhere close, and they say, “We have no problem with the enclosed letter of appeal.” I think that’s it. MR. HAYES-Thank you. At this time I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And I’ll poll the Board members. Bob, it’s your turn to go first. MR. MC NALLY-When I went by the property, I was impressed that it didn’t seem to have any real significant impact on your next door neighbor, and for that reason, I don’t think that there’d be a problem with this whatsoever. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I also don’t see any problem. The new structure doesn’t really go any closer to the line than the existing garage. So I have no problem with the application. I would move to approve it. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. I have no problem with the application. It’s pretty straightforward, and in view of the fact that three of your neighbors, some unknown to you, have offered no objections, then I have no problems with the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I agree with the application. I would vote yet. Thank you. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with my Board members. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. I see no problem at all. MR. HAYES-I similarly have the same feelings as the rest of the Board members. The relief, while moderate, would seem to have no negative impact on the neighborhood. In fact, you have neighborhood support for the project, and it’s certainly understandable, living in the area that we do, why some extra storage can be needed on occasion. So, I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, do I have a motion for approval? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2001 H. PETER & ROSEANN BENTLEY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert McNally: 12 Wincrest Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 400 square foot garage addition. The applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the SFR- 1A zone, 179-20. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure, per 179-79. The benefit to the applicant, in connection with this approval, is they would be permitted to construct the desired garage addition. Feasible alternatives could include a number of things, none of which need to be considered under the circumstances. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Ten feet of relief from the twenty foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. However, the structure, as it has existed all along, is of the same out of variance situation, and this is just a continuation of what is there now. The effects on the neighborhood or community. There’s no negative impacts at all, and from what we’ve heard, neighbors of the applicants have approved what he’s undertaking. I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Good luck. MR. BENTLEY-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 72-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATES, LLC AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. PROPERTY OWNER: WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATES, LLC ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 105 WEEKS ROAD (PREVIOUSLY ROBERT GARDENS APTS.) APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 50 SQ. FT. CARVED WOODEN SIGN AT THE SITE ENTRANCE ON WEEKS ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 71-1-2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296-17-1-39 LOT SIZE: 15.59 ACRES SECTION: 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 72-2001, Whispering Pines Associates, LLC, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: 105 Weeks Road (previously Robert Gardens Apts.) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes increasing the existing freestanding sign to 50 sf and relocation of the same. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14 ft. of relief from the 15 minimum front setback requirement of the Sign Ordinance per § 140-6. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct and display the preferred sign. 2. Feasible alternative: Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign to a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial. (93%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there appears to be area available for compliant 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Sign Permit 87-123 issued 7/1/87 BP 2000-023 issued 2/29/00 residential alteration BP 99-732 issued 12-22-97 non residential demolition Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. There appears to be sufficient area available for compliant construction. The subject property is located on a dead end street. It does not appear that a strict application of the setback requirements would substantially limit the visibility and effectiveness of the sign. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form September 12, 2001 Project Name: Whispering Pines Associates, LLC Owner: Whispering Pines Associates, LLC ID Number: QBY-SV-72-2001 County Project#: Sep01-47 Current Zoning: MR-5 Community: Queensbury Project Description: The applicant proposes replacing an existing non- conforming sign with a 50 sq. ft. carved wooden sign at the site entrance on Weeks Road. Relief is requested from setback requirements for the sign. Site Location: 105 Weeks Road (formerly Robert Gardens Apartment). Tax Map Number(s): 71-1-2 Staff Notes: The applicant proposes replacing a sign which is located one foot from the property line. Given the Board’s empirical close scrutiny of sign variances, Staff recommends discussion. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 9/13/01. MR. HAYES-Do we need to make the motion on SEQRA right now? MR. BROWN-Before you make a motion to act on the application, yes. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. BROWN-You probably should do the public hearing and hear all the public. MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Please state your name for the record. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Dave Valente and Jim Valente. They are the new owners of this apartment complex, Dave is. Whispering Pines Associates is the owner. Ordinarily, I certainly understand this Board’s historical preference not to grant substantial Sign Variances, and ordinarily what we would be asking for, one foot off the property line, would seem pretty substantial. The mitigating factors in this case, as mentioned in the application, are that there is a substantial distance between the edge of pavement and the property line here, that the two signs across the street and in virtual identical the same location on the other side of the street, in relation to the edge of pavement and their property lines, and I assume that all of you went out and saw this location as well as the signs that are there. There’s also the existing sign for this property, which is right on the property line, and in a less attractive spot, right when you first get there, rather than what we’re proposing on the grassed island, which is a more appropriate location, but most importantly, this is a fancy and expensive carved wooden sign from K.D. Wheeler Signs, which really do the nicest signs in the area. Holly Wheeler is here to answer any questions about the sign. They could be proposing the back lit, standard plastic sign like everybody else, and this is something special, and the only reason why they’re asking for it to be moved up is just so it will be visible, and it will seem appropriate in relation to the other signs that are there across the street, and if it was moved back 15 feet, it would be back in the trees and tower poles, and it would be something you’d have to really look for, rather than right up ahead. Beyond that, this particular road, there’s virtually nobody that travels there, other than people who live in these three apartment complexes. I guess that’s it. Anything else that you guys want to add, at this point? MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? MR. ABBATE-Counselor, you have to reconcile something for me. You indicated that strict compliance, I think you said, would cause this beautifully structured, wooden structured sign, to be in the trees? Is that the statement you made? MR. LAPPER-There are some, I don’t have the location of the trees on my map, but there’s a power pole, and there are some trees on that island towards the back of it. Mostly it’s the distance, though. MR. ABBATE-So it wasn’t a statement of fact, it was just a statement. It really wouldn’t be in the trees. MR. LAPPER-It would be closer to the trees. It’s not that they’re directly blocking it, but there are trees in that location. MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. BRYANT-The sign’s going to be inside the power pole. Is that correct? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BRYANT-The utility pole. How far from the utility pole will it actually be? MR. LAPPER-Do you guys recall exactly where the utility pole is? DAVE VALENTE MR. VALENTE-From the utility pole in the front, where we’re going to put the sign, it’ll probably be laying about three feet behind the utility pole, but there’s utility poles running right down that side of the road. As you’re running down that narrow road, it blocks the visibility of the sign, the line of poles. MR. BRYANT-So, you have the utility pole, and then coming in from the road you’re going to have your sign about three feet in? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Right behind that pole, though, I’m looking at the map, and that does locate the pole. MR. BRYANT-The two signs on either side of the driveway, that indicate what building you’re going to, is that going to obscure your sign at that point? Are you going to move those signs or what are you going to do? JIM VALENTE MR. J. VALENTE-Those signs were at the request of the Code Enforcement Officer, and were situated in accordance to your specifications. MR. BRYANT-Are they going to obscure your new sign? MR. J. VALENTE-No. MR. BRYANT-No? MR. LAPPER-Do you remember who it was? MR. J. VALENTE-Yes, Dave Hatin. I worked with Dave Hatin on situating those particular signs in those particular locations, in cooperation with our sign application, and that’s where we thought it would be best suited for those access roads coming in to the property. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. HAYES-Presumably for emergency services, I guess, right? MR. J. VALENTE-And also in cooperation with emergency service. They were involved in helping us detail the access roads. We placed Needle Park Circle as the identifying access roads into the property, to help identify building location and apartment unit number, so that 911 would be more accessible to the property. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. Just a couple of comments and questions. I certainly agree that moving it is a good idea. I mean, someone could find themselves driving in, knocking on Ames’ back door, where the sign is now, if you’re as dopey as I am. I didn’t do that, but I mean, is the present sign that’s there, that’s non-compliant now, right? You have a variance for that? MR. LAPPER-The previous owner got the approvals for it and there is a sign permit for that sign in the file, but we don’t know the history. MR. HIMES-And the other two signs across the street they referred to, are they in compliance? MR. BROWN-I didn’t do any investigation into the signs across the street. MR. HIMES-So, in any respect, if they don’t have variances, reference for them to support this application is not worth much as I can see. However, in my feeling, it’s a dead end street. It would be nice to have a nice sign there that you’re talking about. There’s not a lot of traffic coming and going down there, I mean, except someone that might be looking to rent an apartment, and they’d have to find the place, and it would be nice to have a sign that kind of directs them to where the 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) office is, and normally I’m a little tight on sign variances, but I think in this case, well, excuse me. I’m going on to the, really trying to hurry this thing up. My questions are over. MR. BRYANT-Can I ask another question? MR. HAYES-Certainly. MR. BRYANT-Your sign is 10 feet high, it says on your detail. How high is it actually where, you know, where the iron mesh is, or decorative iron? The real overall height. MR. VALENTE-I could probably answer that for you. We’re going to look at about three feet below. So we’re going to look at about 13 feet to the top of the “WP” on that sign. So it’s a 10 foot sign. MR. LAPPER-Three feet off the ground. MR. VALENTE-And three feet off the ground. MR. BRYANT-It’s going to be about 13 feet by 5 feet wide. MR. VALENTE-Well, there’s going to be air space from the ground. Below the black iron on the bottom, there’s going to be air space of a couple of feet, three feet, right there. MR. LAPPER-So the sign is 10 by 5. MR. VALENTE-Exactly, just what it says here. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a 13 foot high sign. Just, the top of the sign will be 13 feet off the ground. MR. BRYANT-How does that compare to the other signs on that block, the other apartment complexes, or whatever they are? HOLLY WHEELER MRS. WHEELER-I’m Holly Wheeler, Wheeler Signs. It’s definitely going to be higher than the other signs on that street, but the other projects on the other side, they opted for smaller signs lower to the ground, but it complies with the Code, in terms of height and square footage. MR. BRYANT-Thanks. MR. MC NALLY-What kind of people do you want to attract, by this sign? I take it you’ve got apartments that are rented on a long term basis? MR. HAYES-People that pay. MR. MC NALLY-With any luck. MR. J. VALENTE-Seventy-five percent of the project is senior citizens, which we pay very close attention to, and we seem to attract at this property, and I would expect that that would be the same, you know, in the future. MR. MC NALLY-But they’re long term rental space. You’re not renting on a daily basis? MR. J. VALENTE-No. However, you know, that does change from year to year, and this year, for example, we had an unusually high turnover, which is a little unusual for this property. Turnover rate being anywhere from 25 to say 40%. MR. LAPPER-You also told me you were concerned about people seeing the signs across the street and not seeing your sign. MR. J. VALENTE-That’s correct. The one unusual factor in this application is that we’ve had a number of prospects come into the property, inquiring about our apartment units, and indicating that they thought that the property across the street and the property that we own, was one in the same, and that was a real important detail that we addressed at acquiring the property, and for that reason we certainly had to change the name. So the signage, we feel, is a imperative, and certainly important for our business. MR. URRICO-That sign’s going to be perpendicular to the road or parallel to the road? 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. J. VALENTE-It’s going to be perpendicular. MR. LAPPER-Two sided. MR. MC NALLY-Do you have an office on the property, a sales office, a management office? MR. J. VALENTE-It’s going to be one sided, seen from one. It should be pretty perpendicular. MR. LAPPER-You have an office on site. MR. J. VALENTE-We have an on-site rental office on the property as well. MR. URRICO-This used to be Robert Gardens? MR. J. VALENTE-Robert Gardens South. MR. URRICO-South, and the other complex you’re talking about, Robert Gardens North? MR. J. VALENTE-Robert Gardens North apartments is just before this property, about a couple hundred feet. It looks like one and the same, quite honestly, and the construction being that the two properties were owned by the family, it makes for a situation that you would think, coming in, that it looks very similar. Now that they maintain separate names, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we’re not assumed to be the same. So it’s a competitive thing going on. MR. ABBATE-I don’t want to hold up the meeting, but this is bugging me. How do you respond to this, it does not appear that a strict application of the setback requirements would substantially limit the visibility and effectiveness of the sign? MR. LAPPER-Well, we feel that if it was 15 feet back, because you’ve got about four feet of property between the edge of pavement and the property line, that it would actually be 19 feet back, and that that would be just too far from the road, and not visible, especially with the signs across the street right at the road. So it would be unfair. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other further questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s from Richard Paulsen at Robert Gardens North, it says “Re: Variance sign #72-2001 Application requested by Whispering Pines Associates, LLC to install a 50 sq. ft. sign at site entrance on Weeks Rd. Comments: As property owners on Weeks Rd. we would not contest this variance as long as we are assured in the future we would be given the same approval, should we elect to install a larger sign at our entrance. Richard Paulsen Robert Gardens North, LLC” MR. J. VALENTE-That’s the competitive edge we were talking about. MR. HAYES-Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence. MR. HAYES-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-It’s time to talk about it. We’re back to Allan. You’re first. MR. BRYANT-Thank you. I don’t have any problem with the application. It’s an awfully big sign, and I know it’s compliant, but I do believe, if you went back 15 feet, you wouldn’t be able to see it from the road. The fact that it’s a dead end, there’s not a heck of a lot of traffic, other than the residents of those buildings, I really don’t have any problem with the application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I basically don’t have a problem with the application. You indicated, though, that senior citizens are attracted to your establishment, your business, and there’s an 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) unusually high turnover rate this year. What do you attribute that to? You don’t have a restaurant there or anything, do you? MR. J. VALENTE-No. I wish I knew that. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, too, am in favor of the application for what Al and Chuck said. I might add that I think that it is a much better location than the existing one, and the existing one itself is right up there. So, you know, in terms of any big change, in terms of how far from the property line or what not it is, there’s not a heck of a lot of difference. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. HAYES-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I, too, am in favor of it. The only concern I really had was whether it would obstruct drivers coming out of there, but I came in and out of it a few times, much to the consternation of the people that were living in the complex, I kept driving, but I also noticed that the other sign, the Robert Gardens North sign, is fairly close to the road as well. So I would be in favor of this. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I guess I’m in favor, too. My initial reaction, if you were proposing the same general area as the original sign was, no, it’s time to move the signs back, because I agree. The other two are probably about a foot from their property lines as well, and my druthers would be to move them all back into a compliant location, but the place you’re proposing to put your sign, I can see that moving it back 15 feet would probably make it ineffective, and so I would approve it. I would second the caveat that was just made that it might be wise to make sure that it’s not going to block visibility of cars coming out when you place it. MR. HAYES-Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I look at the Sign Ordinance pretty strictly. I have to be the stick in the mud, I guess. Certainly, you know, the apartment complex would like as large a sign as close to the road as possible. That’s true of every business. So the benefit to the applicant is clear, but in this case, I really do think that there’s a feasible location. Yes, it would be great to have it four feet from the edge of the pavement. This isn’t a case like on Quaker Road where you’ve got a 60 foot setback of municipal owned property. This is a sign that’s going to be 19 feet from the road, 50 square feet. I don’t think anyone’s going to confuse where this property is. I think the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance. They want 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot setback requirement, and that’s a lot, and the effects on the neighborhood or community, just generally, I don’t like the signage as close or as big as businesses would like it to be, and is the difficulty self-created? I don’t think there’s any question of it, and I have to add, with all due respect, I don’t think there’s going to be too much hardship on the applicant, because most of the residents certainly know where the property is, and to the extent there may be occasional perspective tenants, when I went by there, I don’t think you’re going to miss this sign. You might have to go down further than you thought, but you’re going to see it as you go down, and I don’t think you’ll miss the property, but I guess I’m in the minority. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, historically, as has been pointed out, we have been very protective of the Sign Ordinance in the past, and I think for good reason. This area is very concerned about visual pollution, particularly visual pollution that we can’t remedy once granted or once in place, but in this particular case, I don’t think that that’s a problem, and I think that’s already been pointed out by other Board members. I think that this is on a dead end road. The people that are driving through there are either potential apartment seekers or live there already, and it’s just not a case of over commercialization that’s going to expose people coming into our community to something that’s unattractive. I also think, in this particular case, particularly as Chuck pointed out, that there’s almost, there really is an issue of fairness, being that these other signs are placed right up next to the road, and on first glance, putting the sign back 15 feet could provide, you know, this apartment complex being the second choice unfairly or not based on the merits of the apartments or whatever. So I think that, normally, this would certainly be a lot of relief, 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement is a lot. Probably under 90% of other circumstances I would vote against that type of relief, but in this particular case, I think it’s consistent with the other signs in the neighborhood. I think it’s going to be an attractive sign, and I think, because it’s on a dead end road, I don’t think there’s any real negative effects on the neighborhood or community. So, I would be in favor of the application in this particular circumstance. Having said that, let me do a motion, I’ll go through that basic overall motion. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MOTION THAT AFTER REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS WERE FOUND AS A RESULT OF THIS PROPOSED ACTION, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Is there a motion out there for approval? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 72-2001 WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATES, LLC, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 105 Weeks Road. The applicant proposes increasing the existing freestanding sign to 50 square feet and relocation of the same. The applicant requests 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum front setback requirements of the Sign Ordinance per Section 140-6. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct and display the preferred sign. Feasible alternatives may include relocation of the sign to a compliant location. However, this has been discussed, and when I discuss effects on the neighborhood or community, I will address that issue. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, 14 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as substantial, 93%. However, these are unusual circumstances in that granting of this request would be consistent with other signs in the area, and based upon objectivity and fairness, and based upon that information, there should be no problem with this. Effects on the neighborhood or community. Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-created? Yes, it is self-created, and based on this information, I move that we approve Sign Variance No. 72-2001. Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes NOES: Mr. McNally ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2001 TYPE II NANCY BURKE AGENT: N/A PROPERTY OWNER: NANCY BURKE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 55 JENKINSVILLE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,029 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. OLD TAX MAP NO. 52-1-36 NEW TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-8 LOT SIZE: 0.62 ACRES SECTION 179-19, 179-79 NANCY BURKE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2001, Nancy Burke, Meeting Date: September 26, 2001 “Project Location: 55 Jenkinsville Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1029 sf residential addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, § 179-79. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to expand the home as desired. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the proposed addition is located as far as possible from Jenkinsville Road. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal adverse effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty can be attributed to the location of the home. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-529 issued 2/16/98 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) Demolition Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Renovation and expansion of the current home may prove beneficial to this property as well as the neighborhood. The existing home is located extremely close to Jenkinsville Road. The proposed addition appears to be requesting minimal relief, as any other addition would require greater relief. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. HAYES-Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. BURKE-Nancy Burke. MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to the application, as the Secretary read it? MS. BURKE-The only thing is there’s already existing 357 feet on the second story, but unfortunately, back in the 1900’s, people must have been short because you can’t even stand up there. MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I have a few questions, actually. I’m really not understanding what you’re adding to the house. Is that an addition in the back that’s 28 by 24? I mean, I see the sketch, and I’m trying to really understand. MS. BURKE-Yes. It’s directly behind the house that’s already there. MR. BRYANT-But it’s only a one story addition? MS. BURKE-Right. MR. BRYANT-Okay. How do we come up with 1,029 square feet? MS. BURKE-It’s counting the 357 that’s on the second story that we want permission to go up four foot. MR. BRYANT-Okay, because that doesn’t show anything on the drawing. I don’t see that. So you’re going to basically add this wing that’s one story, in the back, and then you’re going to add a second floor. MS. BURKE-Well, the second floor is there, but we just want to go up four foot, so that you can stand. MR. HAYES-So that it’s usable. MR. BRYANT-And what does the porch have to do with it? MIKE REGAN MR. REGAN-Because right now, the porch is real low, and it’s got an odd angle. MR. BRYANT-I know, but you’re renovating the porch now. MR. REGAN-Right. MR. BRYANT-Is that all part of this process? MR. REGAN-We just want to straighten it out, that’s all, so they’re all four/twelve pitch everywhere. MS. BURKE-Actually what we did was we took the blue tarp that’s been hanging there for years down and we just had the support at, I mean, it’s basically as you can see, falling down. MR. REGAN-Yes. We’re trying to clean it up. That’s all. MR. BRYANT-What was the deck like? MR. REGAN-It was a wood deck. It was just a wood deck down there. MR. BRYANT-What are you adding, actually, to the house, as far as rooms, bedrooms? MR. REGAN-Basically just a main bedroom upstairs, for ourselves, and a large dining room and living room. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) MR. BRYANT-In the lower level? MR. REGAN-Right, and to the new addition. Which the upper level would be the entrance and her kitchen area, and the lower level would be the dining room and the living room. MR. BRYANT-And then upstairs is going to be a bedroom and a bathroom? MR. REGAN-Right. The bathroom’s already downstairs, but it’s just going to be a bedroom upstairs. MR. BROWN-I’m sorry. Could we just get Mr. Regan’s name on the record. MR. REGAN-Sure. I’m Mike Regan. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any other questions? MR. HIMES-I’ll go along with Al on this. I’m still not sure, you’re going up. You’re fixing the porch and you’re going up. Are you adding anything on to the back? MS. BURKE-Yes. MR. HIMES-Because it looks, you know, I thought, when I was looking there, that it’s like a permanent back door, and then there’s a new, some new construction that sticks out about a foot. MR. REGAN-That’s just for the, there’s just like a bow window there is all that is, and the reason that there’s a new door there is, I don’t have the actual drawing of the blueprint of the layout of it, but as you turn into this entrance way, that will be lower. It’ll be like a foyer. That door comes out and gets turned around and the door was bought because I got a good deal on it. So that’s why it’s where it is now. That’s where the original door was. MR. HIMES-I was just curious. There’s a pipe out there, not far from the back, southwestern corner, with a can over the top. MR. REGAN-Right. That was where the old addition was. When we got a demolition permit, I guess that’s where the kitchen was then. That’s a copper pipe that sticks up. So basically it’s just a vent that’s got to be cut down. MR. HIMES-But we’re just, evidently, right, we’re just concerned with the front. MR. BROWN-Well, the setback requirement is 30 feet. MR. MC NULTY-And the back of the house isn’t 30 feet from the road. MR. BROWN-Yes, exactly. So that the new construction, although it’s behind the house. MR. MC NULTY-So that the front end of that addition is still within the 30 feet. MR. HIMES-I see. I thought the porch had something to do with it. MR. BROWN-That’s an existing part of the house. MR. HIMES-Yes. All right. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Hearing that, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Is there anyone here that would like to speak in opposition to the application? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-We have one record of a telephone conversation, received on Monday the 24, th from Shirley Smith, who lives at 42 Jenkinsville Road. Miss Smith stated she has no objection to Nancy Burke rebuilding her house. Miss Smith wished to inform Nancy Burke that the tree in front of the house, which has three main branches, is dying and eventually, within the next 10 years, will fall onto her house. MS. BURKE-I think before that. MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I will close the public hearing at this time. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HAYES-And being our polling process. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I’ve driven by, I hope this isn’t cause to recuse myself, but I live off of Jenkinsville Road, across from the ballpark there, and if nobody on the Board objects to me voting, that would be fine. I drive by there almost on a daily basis, and I think any improvements that you make would certainly add aesthetically to the area. I mean, in a positive way and not a negative way, in a positive way, and I would not object to the approval of this application. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, I, too, for the same reasons just voiced, am in favor of the application, and there must be a lot of history in this old building, but not for us to talk about today, but I’m glad to see that it’s being retained and improved. Thank you. MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I am also in favor of the application, for the reasons given. MR. HAYES-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I, too, am in favor. I think there’s minimal alternatives, short of jacking the whole house up and moving it back. So I think you’ve made the best choice possible. I’d be in favor. MR. HAYES-Okay. Bob? MR. MC NALLY-I agree with my other Board members. MR. HAYES-Thank you. I, too, agree. The improvements to the house that are proposed. MR. BRYANT-Don’t I get a chance to talk? MR. HAYES-I’m sorry. Allan. MR. BRYANT-I kind of agree. I just have a question. When you say the applicant seeks relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, the fact that it’s more than 50% of the structure, it’s like 8,000%, is that what you’re thinking about? MR. HAYES-No, it doesn’t meet the setback requirements now. MR. BROWN-Probably both of those. I just said that a general identification that it’s a nonconforming and they want to expand a nonconforming. If you want to consider that more than 50% in your rationale you make your decision on, that’s fine. MR. BRYANT-I kind of exaggerate. It’s only 300%, but based on what it looks like now, and what it could look like, I’m in favor of it. MR. HAYES-For accuracy’s sake, then, is that also going to be the same section as relief from? MR. BROWN-Same section. MR. HAYES-Okay. Now that I’ve let Allan have his say, I’m in favor for the same exact reasons. So, thanks. Having said that, is there a motion out there? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2001 NANCY BURKE, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 55 Jenkinsville Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,029 square foot residential addition. Applicant requests four feet of relief from the thirty foot minimum front setback requirement of the SR-1A zone, 179-79. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per 179-79. Benefit to the applicant is the applicant would be permitted to expand the home as desired. Feasible alternatives are somewhat limited as to the existing siting of the house and its proximity to Jenkinsville Road. Is the relief substantial to the Ordinance? Four feet of relief is minimal. Effects on the neighborhood or community are both, for neighborhood and community, are going to be an improvement. I move that we approve the application as submitted. 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 9/26/01) Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-Good luck with your project. MS. BURKE-Thank you. MR. REGAN-Thank you. MR. HAYES-Did everyone get a chance to read the minutes for the August 22 meeting? nd CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 22, 2001: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING AUGUST 22, 2001, Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 26 day of September, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNally, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes ABSENT: Mr. Stone MR. HAYES-I move that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MR. ABBATE-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman 52