The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-01-16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE ROY URRICO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT PAUL HAYES ROBERT MC NALLY ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2002 TYPE II JOSEPH AND NANCY POLONSKY AGENT: CURTIS D. DYBAS PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH AND NANCY POLONSKY LOCATION: 98 BAY PARKWAY ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING PEAKED ROOF FROM A BOATHOUSE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW SUNDECK/FLAT ROOF. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELINE AND WETLANDS REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/9/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO 9-1-18 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-19 LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-60 CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2002, Joseph and Nancy Polonsky, Meeting Date: January 16, 2002 “Project Location: 98 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing peaked roof and construct a new 560 sq. ft. sundeck/roof. Relief Required: Applicant requests 7.2 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Shoreline and Wetlands Regulations per § 179-60. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited, other than leaving the existing structure as is. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 7.2 feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self- created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 86-2001: 11/15/01; demolition of garage and construct 528 sq. ft. two-car garage. AV 14-2000: 2/23/00, expansion of deck and setback relief sought. BP 98-380: 10/13/99, temporary c/o; 2670 sq. ft. single family dwelling. BP 98-379: 7/1/98, demolition of structure. AV 5-1998: 2/18/98, setbacks and FAR relief. 2500 sq. ft. house, setback relief (second 1 year extension denied 8/23/97). AV 55- 1995: 8/23/95, demolition of 2000 sq. ft. house and replace with a Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant claims the roof of the existing covered dock is deteriorated and in need of replacement. The proposed new construction will be slightly more compliant than the existing structure, and the proposed sundeck does not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 9, 2002 Project Name: Polonsky, Joseph and Nancy Owner: Joseph and Nancy Polonsky ID Number: QBY-AV- 1-2002 County Project#: Jan02-20 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove the existing covered dock roof and construct a new sundeck/roof cover. Applicant seeks relief from the setback requirements of the shoreline and wetland requirements. Site Location: 98 Bay Parkway Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-1-19 Staff Notes: The applicant currently has a deficient side yard setback (12’ in lieu of required 20’) and proposes no additional encroachment. The applicant will retain the existing dock and replace the existing covered slip with a flat roofed sundeck canopy. Staff does not identify any County issues with this variance. Copy of applicants 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) pictures provided. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing has been scheduled for January 16, 2002. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken. Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 1/3/02. MR. STONE-Mr. Dybas. MR. DYBAS-Curtis Dybas, and I’m agent for Nancy and Joseph Polonsky. I think, as read into the record, covers pretty much the application. My client wishes to remove an existing peaked roof cover over their existing dock and replace it with a sundeck/roof. The existing southern setback for the existing roof is 12 feet, and in doing the measure up, the existing roof has a little lisp to the south and in straightening it up would give us 12.8 feet. Also, the area of the sundeck roof will be less than the existing peaked roof structure that is there. In height, looking through my notes, the sundeck, the top of the rail of the sundeck would be a foot higher than the peak of the existing roof that’s on there. The top of the rail of the new sundeck would be 12 feet 10 inches above mean high water, which is less than the required, is it 14 or 16? MR. STONE-Fourteen. MR. DYBAS-Fourteen feet. MR. STONE-In Queensbury. MR. DYBAS-In Queensbury. So that’s basically the summation. MR. STONE-Did the applicant give you any reason why he has been going through this piecemeal variance process? I mean, we had the house. We had the deck in front, then we had the garage, and now we’re coming to the dock. MR. DYBAS-The deck in front and the house I had no part of. As you’ll recall, a couple of months ago I was here with the garage. When I was talking to Craig on doing the garage, just before I submitted the application, he said Mr. Polonsky is also going to need a permit for his dock, and I looked at him and I didn’t know anything about it. I didn’t know what he was talking about. Come to find out, he does have a Lake George Park Commission permit to do this work, and Elite Docks, I believe, came to file for a building permit and was rejected and said they needed a variance because of the setback, and I figured I was all done, Mr. (lost word) and he called me up out of the blue, I had a message that said I have another job for you, and I didn’t know what he was talking about until I called him and I said, okay, if that’s what we have to do. He thought the dock was just a replacement in the same footprint and did not need a permit, and obviously that was the way the project was being pursued until we hit this snag. So that’s why I’m here tonight, gentlemen. MR. STONE-Okay. I appreciate that. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Is there any reason why the applicants are not here this evening? MR. DYBAS-They’re in Florida. MR. ABBATE-They’re in Florida. MR. DYBAS-The inside of their house is being painted, and fixed up. MR. ABBATE-So it’s not suitable for? MR. DYBAS-No, and I don’t blame them. I’d be in Florida, too. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, I have questions. So I blame them. MR. STONE-Well, you can ask them of the agent, just get them on the record. MR. ABBATE-That won’t be good enough. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s a note came back on the notice, from a Mr. Lester, I guess, Milford Lester. He says, “I’m sorry I cannot be there in person to say what the applicant proposes is fine with me. I have no problem with this request.” And that’s all. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. STONE-For the record, Mr. Lester is four houses away. Okay. Hearing no other correspondence, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Are there anymore questions, gentlemen? All right. Let’s talk about it, then. Roy? Just for the record, though, looking at this picture. Did you put this thing together? MR. DYBAS-Yes, I did. MR. STONE-Did you write “facing west elevation”, when it looks east? MR. DYBAS-If it’s on there, I did. MR. STONE-I think it’s facing east. I think it’s looking east. That’s okay. Because he couldn’t take that picture, he couldn’t see those mountains, because Assembly Point, I mean, Long Island would be in the way, or it would show. MR. DYBAS-You are correct. It is looking east. I’m looking at the map, and, yes, that’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Just two comments off the bat is I am concerned about the piecemeal applications that are being made, and had this been presented in one shot, it may not be as easy to approve, but I think there was some planning involved in this project from the beginning, and I would appreciate if you’d tell that applicant that it would have been nice to receive all of it in one shot, rather than a little bit at a time. The other thing, going by the criteria, I’m satisfied that most of the criteria are being met. The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in this preferred location. Obviously, he would benefit from that or they would benefit from that. Feasible alternatives are limited because the existing structure, other than leaving the existing structure, which seems to me needs to be repaired or changed, and, yes, the relief is substantial, in a sense, to the Ordinance, but it doesn’t require any more than is currently being taken, as far as that relief. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I don’t see a lot, in terms of effects. We received one letter which said it was okay with them, but I went around the neighborhood a little bit there, on my own, just to see what it would look like, and I don’t think it would have an impact, and is this self-created? Yes, it may be interpreted as self-created. So the five criteria, I think out of those five, I see three, at least, in favor of the applicant, and that’s what I would base my judgment on, those three. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I guess, in terms of all the piecemeal applications, that we are probably making progress, because in connection with this one, the work hasn’t been done yet, and I think his experience from the first one, he’s probably, he’s cautioned. In connection with this application, however, I don’t have any problem with it, the same footprint. The roof isn’t falling apart, but it won’t be long before it does, from the way I looked at it. It’s even going to be a little bit smaller, and I can’t think of any reason, especially in view of no critical word from any of the neighbors. So I would support the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I, too, basically would not have any problems with this, and acting in the interest of fairness and justice, I would probably support the application, but I must say that I am of the opinion that if this project is that important, then it seems to me the applicant should be here so we could ask some particular questions, and what concerns me, as well as several of the other Board members, is the piecemeal. There seems to be a subtle something, I can’t quite put my finger on, and I think I would be satisfied if I could ask the applicant some questions, but unfortunately they’re not here. However, I can’t allow that to fog my judgment. So in the interest of justice and fairness, I would support, reluctantly, the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would support this application. I think that, you know, with a pre-built structure that’s been there for quite some time, you’re actually going to be decreasing the amount of setbacks, and as far as the height of it, it is kind of sunken down from ground level. So it doesn’t stick up in the air. It actually appears lower than most boathouses we deal with. So I’d be in favor of the applicant. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I had some misgivings about this project. It struck me, in one sense, that Staff was right, that it’s kind of in character with the neighborhood, but on the other hand, I didn’t see a lot of other structures similar to what’s proposed in that area. It does concern me a little bit that it’s got the potential for 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) moving activity out away from the shoreline a little bit, and raising it up a little bit, but if that was a concern of neighbors, I would have expected to see neighbors here objecting, and, absent objections from the neighbors, I can only conclude it’s not a problem for them, and I’ll agree with the other Board members, that, beyond that concern, the setbacks are going to be improved a little bit. The height doesn’t change that much. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly concur with the rest of the Board members. My basic concerns were the piecemeal effect. I mean, this is not a big property, and yet we’ve had three pieces of construction on this property in about two and a half, three years, which, it just seemed to me an awful lot. However, I think a couple of people have mentioned it. The impacted party is not here. They, obviously, are not concerned, and if you know the size of the property on which this intrudes, they’re not even going to notice it because their dock is way on the other side. There’s certainly an uninterrupted view on the whole area there. So, I don’t see much of a problem. Therefore, I would be, on the basis of all of the things that we have to consider, the benefit to the applicant, the alternatives and the relief and the effect, I think it’s all in favor of the applicant, and I would call for a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2002 JOSEPH AND NANCY POLONSKY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 98 Bay Parkway. Applicant proposes to remove existing peaked roof and construct a new 560 square foot sundeck/roof. The applicant requests 7.2 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement of the shoreline and wetlands regulation per 179-60. Benefit to the applicant with this approval is that they will be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, there really appear to be none, from a practical standpoint, that would benefit the applicant. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 7.2 of relief from the 20 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood and community would be very little. In connection with the future deterioration of the roof, this is probably going to be of benefit to the neighborhood, certainly, to have this construction done. In connection with any self-created contribution to this, I really don’t think that the applicant has given us any difficult in that connection, where the situation is such that we need to be concerned about it. So I’d move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. DYBAS-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED U-HAUL AGENT: U-HAUL OF GLENS FALLS PROPERTY OWNER: U-HAUL OF EASTERN NY LOCATION: 112 MAIN STREET ZONE: CR-15 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/9/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 135-1-4.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-81 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 140 MARK ZOLLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2002 U-Haul, Meeting Date: January 16, 2002 “Project Location: 112 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to keep an additional 11.5 sq. ft. double-sided freestanding sign. Relief Required: Applicant requests to keep existing signage on both sides of propane storage tank and seeks relief from § 140-6B(3c) of the Sign Ordinance. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to maintain the additional existing signage on the sides of their propane storage tank. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include removing decal-type signage from the sides of the propane storage tank. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The relief may be interpreted as minimal to moderate as the sign is less than 12 sq. ft. per side and less than five feet above the ground. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action being two neighboring properties also offer propane for sale. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-831: 11/14/01; temporary sign permit for same signage of this application. SV 117-1992: 11/19/92; erect new sign and relief from side setback. SP 75-90: 11/20/90; construction of metal building to contain self-storage units. UV 032-1990: 4/25/90; 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) same as SP 75-90. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The variance request was initiated because of enforcement action resulting from a complaint by Joe Ramsey who owns a neighboring business, which also sells propane. The signage has been in place when the tank was installed two years ago. The applicant claims the signage is not that observable from the road, considering its size and height, and is meant as advertising for U-Haul customers already on the U-Haul site. However, the signage on the west side of the tank faces the adjacent parcel (Mobil). SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 9, 2002 Project Name: U-Haul Owner: U-Haul of Eastern NY ID Number: QBY-SV-2-2002 County Project#: Jan02-26 Current Zoning: CR-15 Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes an additional freestanding sign and seeks relief from the Sign Ordinance. Site Location: 112 Main Street. Tax Map Number(s): 135.1-4.2 Staff Notes: This sign is the existing lettering on a propane tank identifying the on site service of filling propane tanks. Staff does not identify any issues significant to County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing is scheduled for January 16, 2002. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken.” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 1/3/02 MR. STONE-Sir? MR. ZOLLER-Thank you. My name is Mark Zoller. I represent U-Haul. We’ve had this sign in place for a couple of years. It’s a clear based sign with some lettering on it. It’s been on there since we put the propane tank in. It was meant to, if you’ve driven by our location, we have the barricades around the propane tank. I mean, coming from the, I’m not sure which direction it would be, from the east, normally our front line of trucks are parked there in the front, with the side, you don’t even know we have a propane tank. Coming from the other side, again, it’s mostly blocked by the barricades. It was meant for people that are there already visiting, coming into our facility, and making them aware that we have propane. Without the signs, that would look like that’s what we’re using to heat the building. I mean, it would be very difficult to identify that we have propane for sale there. MR. STONE-Would you comment on, your own words, this sign is hardly observable from the road. The primary purpose is for customers who are on our lot, and yet there is a sign, right against the property line on the west side. MR. ZOLLER-When the sign was put on, we get two signs, we want to identify that we have propane. When you pull into our lot, coming off the Northway we get a lot of traffic that way. They pull in. They can see it when they pull in. When they get in on the lot, they go to leave the facility, they can look at the propane tank and see that we sell propane. MR. STONE-So it’s not primarily for people on your lot. MR. ZOLLER-No, it is primarily, sure. If you drove past it, when you drive past our location, I mean, unless you’re, with all the traffic that’s there and all the activity at the Mobil Station, it’s not lit. There’s nothing to bring your eye to it. It’s off the road. It has those big yellow barricades around it. So they turn on our lots, hey, there’s a propane tank, they get on our lot, they see the sign. MR. STONE-You’re just asking for a guess, of the total signage on that side, of each one, how much is required, 50%, 75%? Because you have required stuff on there. MR. ZOLLER-Gee, the required stuff I would say is probably pretty close to the 50%. I mean, you look at the picture, I submitted a picture. I don’t know if you can make it out. You’ve got, Suburban has their name prominently displayed, and then you have the. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, there is a lot of words that have to stay. MR. ZOLLER-Yes, there is. MR. STONE-That’s the only point I’m trying to get at. Okay. I had a note to myself, and I’ll let the other guys talk, but I thought the tank sold itself, but you made a very interesting observation that someone might think it was for heating purposes. I have to admit I did not think of that. I thought propane tank, on a property where you’re renting stuff, maybe would be obvious, but you raise a valid point. Any other questions, comments, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-I have a comment for Bruce. Bruce, offhand, what are the Queensbury local ordinances for barbed wire, in terms of height and strands? Do you happen to know? MR. FRANK-For barbed wire? MR. ABBATE-Yes. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. FRANK-The Town doesn’t allow barbed wire unless you get a variance, I believe. MR. ABBATE-The reason I was asking is there is a depiction here that there are three strands of barbed wire on a, looks like maybe a 30, 40 degree angle of 12 inches. MR. ZOLLER-You’re looking at what side? MR. ABBATE-The fence detail. MR. ZOLLER-That detail was done when they had the storage approved, the freestanding buildings. That barbed wire is not existing anymore, and to be honest with you, I don’t know if it was ever even installed. It looks. MR. ABBATE-This document, you’re saying, is not accurate. MR. ZOLLER-The barbed wire is not there. MR. ABBATE-The document is not accurate. MR. ZOLLER-You’re absolutely right. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-That document is dated 1990. MR. ABBATE-I know, but it still says barbed wire. MR. STONE-Yes, no, that’s a good point. Good catch. MR. ABBATE-And you’re indicating that there is absolutely no barbed wire? MR. ZOLLER-There is no barbed wire. MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s on the record. That’s fine. Thank you. MR. FRANK-And, for the record, since you did ask the question, barbed wire is not allowed unless it’s for farm, limited industrial or utility purposes. MR. ABBATE-I had to ask the question, Bruce. I knew what the answer was, but I had to ask the question. MR. FRANK-Okay, just for everybody else’s knowledge. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? All right. Hearing none, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? As I understand it, Bruce, this was enforcement action based upon a neighbor’s complaint? MR. FRANK-That’s correct, as I indicated in Staff notes. MR. ABBATE-Do we have the contents of that neighbor’s complaint? Just to be fair, so that we have a balancing act here. Is the neighbor here that complained? Let me try it that way. MR. STONE-No. MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. I had enforcement action on the individual that made the complaint. He also sells propane. He pressed the issue. He called his Councilman, and so this is why we’ve come to this. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is that gentleman here who filed the complaint? MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. I don’t see him. MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. MR. STONE-That’s why I hesitated on the public hearing, waiting. MR. ABBATE-It can’t be that important, the complaint. MR. STONE-Okay. Hearing no other questions, gentlemen, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Norm. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I recognize what the applicant is saying. I think that some of the things said in connection with driving by, it’s not like anybody’s going to swing in there for that reason because it’s so hard to see it, but on the other hand, once on the property, you have allowable window signage that you could have in the establishment that could call attention to this as well as perhaps some other things that you might offer for sale or for service. So my feeling is that I don’t think that it would be, do great damage to your progress, the status of your business, if that part of the lettering on the tank that is other than was required were removed. So I’m sorry to say that I’m not in support of this application for the variance. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I must say that your comment changed my mind, and your comment made a lot of sense, which I simply didn’t perceive before. It didn’t strike me to think that a tank of this size could be perceived as heating the building, and you’re absolutely correct, and I was not expanding in my thinking. There are no objections, that I can see. It would seem to me that if individuals who were objecting to whatever you’re doing would be here this evening expressing their outrage, but apparently, their objections are not that significant, as far as I’m concerned, because they’re not here this evening. Based on your comments, and based on what I read here, I would support your application. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Given the fact that this tank has been here for two years, it obviously was permitted two years ago, and no one’s really complained about it up until this recent enforcement action here, and, you know, whatever the reason, whether it’s a vindictive, it sounds to me vindictive, in any case, I really don’t that this is something that needs to be changed. I’d be in favor of you keeping your signs. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I hear the argument about, it’s possible to conclude that the tank is there for heating purposes, but I think the previous comment that’s been made is valid, that there is an opportunity for window sign to say that the propane’s available on the lot. I’ll agree that the signage probably doesn’t really grab your attention as you drive by, but it definitely is visible from the road, and it strikes me that if we allow this signage here, then that puts us in the position of, to be fair, allowing additional signs on the two other neighboring properties that also sell propane out at about the same distance, to put them on an equal footing, and it strikes me that there’s more than enough signage on this property now, between the legally defined signs and the mobile signs that have got wheels, but all the trucks that are out there, and it strikes me that it’s a legitimate complaint on the part of a competitor. It would have helped if the complainant had been here to express his frustration. At the same time, it strikes me that he may figure that, having filed the complaint, that it’s the Town’s responsibility to enforce the zoning laws, and didn’t see a need to, in effect, do the Town’s job for it. Anyway, doing a balancing act, I can see the benefit to the applicant, but I think there’s also a detriment to the neighborhood and to competitors, and thinking in terms of the effort to improve the Main Street gateway, I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Chuck and Norm on this one. I would never look at a tank and think that you’re not selling propane. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me, but if I see a tank, with or without a sign, I know they’re selling propane, especially that far away from the building, and it’s not like there’s a lack of signage on that property. You have plenty of advertising. I would be against it. MR. STONE-This is about the simplest kind of Sign Variance that we can have, and yet obviously you have engendered a great deal of concern on the part of a number of the Board members, even those of us who approve. Mr. McNulty mentions something which is very important to us. We had an applicant last month on Main Street and we’re very much aware of what the Town is attempting to do, and hopefully will do when they pass the new Zoning Ordinance next week, I think, in terms of Main Street. It does represent a sizeable effort to improve the entrance both to Queensbury, off of Exit 18, and the City of Glens Falls, and I applaud what the Zoning Ordinance is supposed to do. Your property, and I know it’s legal, in terms of the trucks, 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) but is one big sign. It is a huge sign. I know it’s legal, and we can’t change that, but the impression that it gives to somebody looking at it, and while you helped me with the idea that maybe people can think of this as heating for the building, I think there’s a way to put a sign on there, some kind of informational sign, it doesn’t have to be quite so big, that may indicate that, on one side, that you can fill a propane tank from that big tank. I think as I listen to everybody who has spoken, and I look at my own notes, the fact that I think, with all of those things, all the trucks on it, that I just think it’s overkill. I think we’ve got more signs on that property than one can imagine, and I would like to see some kind of compromise. I mean, I know that you’d like to tell people that they can come up to that tank and get it filled. I think there’s a way to do it, rather than this big decal on there, particularly on the west side, and using your own argument, that this is for people who pull into your lot to do whatever they’re going to do, in terms of renting trucks or buying boxes or thinking about storing, every reason they come in there, I can see why your argument that, primarily for that, and yet we have two signs on this thing. The way the application stands right now, I would be forced to vote no. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, in the best interest of everybody concerned, including the applicant, you might want to suggest to this Board, before a decision is made, as to some type of compromise. MR. ZOLLER-Okay. I just would like to talk a little bit about some of the arguments against taking the sign out of there, that it’s, the mobile signs, as you call them, the signs on wheels, are, that is, you know, that’s just a vehicle. MR. STONE-Agreed. MR. ZOLLER-It is not a sign. Okay, and we’re not looking to clutter, okay. This sign is not something that clutters your view coming into Town. It’s an attraction, more than anything else, when you take the time to look at it. If you take the sign off of there, you have a big, white, plain, ugly looking tent, is what you’re going to see, and as I’ve driven around, and I pull into a commercial location, and I see a big, white, ugly yellow, white tank, I don’t picture that that person, no matter who they are, sells propane. We’re not known as propane. Most of the locations that you go to these days have their propane tanks sitting in a cage right up against the building, for selling propane, a lot of locations, and this sign is, I’d be willing to compromise if I need to, I just, I think that by taking the sign off is more of a detriment to the appearance of the property than allowing me to keep the sign on there. MR. STONE-Well, we’re now into a matter of judgment, and four of us, our judgment is that it’s too much of a sign. Let’s put it that way. MR. ZOLLER-Okay. All right. MR. STONE-I think Mr. Abbate is asking you, and I would do the same thing, could you come up, at the next meeting, or the meeting after that, with an alternative to what you currently have that, hopefully the Board could agree with? You obviously got two votes of people who’d say they’d vote for you. Of the other four, I didn’t hear anybody who was, with the exception of, well, Mr. Abbate was ready to vote for it, and he’s the one asking for the compromise. So, I didn’t hear anybody say that they would like to see a compromise. I’m saying I would like to see a compromise. I would like to see some good faith on your part, because obviously we have a concern. MR. ZOLLER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-If I might, as a suggest, this is certainly not a demand, a suggestion. I can’t see any objections to an American flag, God Bless America, and take this off and you wouldn’t have that white space there. MR. ZOLLER-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other suggestion I would make is if you took it off the western side, obviously people aren’t going to know when they’re driving towards it that you sell propane, but you did indicate that most of your sales are to people pulling in to your site. So if you left the one on that side, that one’s really not offensive. MR. STONE-That’s a reasonable compromise, at least for me. I don’t know about the rest of the guys, but would you like to think about it? We can table it until the next meeting. MR. ZOLLER-Yes, I would. MR. STONE-Unless you have something to propose right now that we can modify the application. MR. ZOLLER-Well, what if I reduce the sign on the west side, instead of having, that’s, I don’t know, it’s 11 and a half square feet is the overall size of the sticker. If I reduced the size? I’m not quite sure what are the required signs on here. I’m just under the assumption that everything that came on the tank is required 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) signage, and to be honest with you, I didn’t look at that to see what’s on there that may reduce what’s on the tank already. MR. STONE-Well, certainly the placard on the right side has to stay. MR. ZOLLER-The placard has to stay. MR. STONE-That has to be there, and there’s got to be something about flammable I assume. MR. ZOLLER-Yes, on the left side it looks like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Suburban’s not going to take their name off. They’re the supplier MR. STONE-Well, yes, they’re the supplier, but I’m not sure they have to be there, from a legal standpoint. Propane is propane is propane, I assume, but I guess I would like you to research it yourself and come back to us. We’ll give you up to 62 days to do that, and certainly by tabling it you will be allowed to keep the sign up until that time. We’re not going to force you to take it down. So, having said that. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2002 U-HAUL, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 112 Main Street. For up to 62 days, in order to allow the applicant to revise his application to make it more palatable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Keep in mind, we also, we didn’t do the SEQRA, but we will have to do it the next time, but there’s no reason to, since we’re tabling it at the moment. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. ZOLLER-Okay. Thank you. Now will I need to fill out a whole new application or what do I need to do now? MR. STONE-No. I would come in, you might talk to Bruce, but, no. Just give us a modified plan, because what you’re still asking for is additional signage. It’s only the character of the additional signage. MR. ZOLLER-Okay. MR. STONE-So the same application would apply. MR. ZOLLER-All right. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2002 TYPE II JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB AGENT: JAMES MARTO PROPERTY OWNER: MELANIE SCHWAB LOCATION: 573 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD ZONE: SR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.84 ACRE +/- PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.645 AC. AND 1.056 ACRES. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING NEW LOTS FRONTING ON AN ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR ROADS. LOTS FRONTING ON ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR ROADS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE DOUBLE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY AND DEC WETLANDS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 123-1-9 NEW TAX MAP NO. 301.13-1-4 LOT SIZE: 2.80 ACRES SECTION 179-30 JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2002, James Marto & Melanie Schwab, Meeting Date: January 16, 2002 “Project Location: 573 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.84-acre parcel into two lots of 1.645 acres and 1.056 acres with road frontages of 164.38 feet and 176 feet each with its own driveway. Relief Required: Applicant seeks relief from the requirements 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) regarding new lots fronting on an arterial/collector road. Lots fronting on arterial/collector roads are required to have double the minimum lot width per § 179-30. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: The applicant would be permitted to create two new lots each with a driveway. 2. Feasible alternatives: A feasible alternative would be creating the two new lots and sharing a common driveway, which would not require a variance as per § 179- 30C. Another feasible alternative would be the acquisition of additional land from the property to the north to create a lot with 300 feet of road frontage, which would also eliminate the need for a variance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 135.62 feet and 124 feet from the 300-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 2-2002: January 22, 2002 review; subdivision of a 2.84 ac. parcel into two lots of 1.645 and 1.056 acres. 2001-016: 1/23/00; 1050-sq. ft. residential second-story addition. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Being feasible alternatives exist, the creation of another lot with its own driveway on West Mountain Road, which already has considerable traffic, warrants careful consideration. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 9, 2002 Project Name: Marto, James & Schwab, Melanie Owner: Melanie Schwab ID Number: QBY-AV-3-2002 County Project#: Jan02-23 Current Zoning: SR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.84 +/- parcel into two lots of 1.645 ac. and 1.056 ac. Applicant seeks relief from the requirements regarding new lots fronting on arterial/collector roads. Lots fronting on arterial/collector roads are required to have double the minimum lot width. Site Location: 573 West Mountain Road Tax Map Number(s): 301.13-1-4 Staff Notes: Staff does not identify any issues significant to County resources. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken.” Signed by Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 1/3/02. MR. MARTO-My name is James Marto, Acting Agent. MS. SCHWAB-Melanie Schwab. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything you want to add to your application? MR. MARTO-Primarily I think the concerns they were saying, as far as alternatives, was sharing a driveway. The concerns that I have, primarily, is safety. Because we have children, and the children will be playing in front of the house and the driveway is basically directly in front of the house, and their idea is primarily to share a driveway that’s already there. So that’s tantamount in our minds, because the children are going to be playing in front of the house. Secondly is going to be liability practice. Another is going to be where, the concern over responsibility as far as maintaining the property, as far as maintaining the driveway. Where does it stop? Where does it end? And the same thing holds true for the liability. Where does that stop? Where does it end? But, I mean, these are small matters, but. MR. STONE-Let me ask Staff. Bruce, when you wrote that, were you thinking of the existing driveway, or a new joint driveway? MR. FRANK-I believe Craig actually spoke with Mr. Marto. I never have myself. It was based on my conversations with him. I believe it was for the existing driveway. Correct me if I’m wrong. MR. STONE-For the one in front of the partially built home? MR. MARTO-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Strange. I never would have considered that, personally. I thought it would be in the middle. MR. MARTO-No. My understanding of what Craig Brown was telling me, informing me, was that the driveway that is presently there is the driveway that would be used, as far as if there was to be shared, and we have very, very strong concerns over that, and it’s primarily the safety of the children who would be playing in the front. MR. STONE-I share that concern. MR. ABBATE-And I do, too, because inevitably any kind of common driveway always ends up in civil litigation, one way or another. MR. STONE-Well, I’m not so concerned about a shared driveway, but it’s the location that I’m most concerned about at the moment. MR. MARTO-Right. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. STONE-Can you tell me, are you done? I mean. MR. MARTO-No, I mean, if you have other questions, I’ll be happy to answer them. MR. STONE-Where does Iroquois come in, the street opposite? MR. MARTO-Iroquois is, I don’t have the map in front of me, but if you’re looking from the front of that house to West Mountain Road, it would be to the left, and I would say approximately 170 feet, 175 feet. MR. STONE-Yes, but if it were extended straight across, would come on to your second lot? MR. MARTO-If what? MR. STONE-If Iroquois. MR. MARTO-Went straight across the road, on the lot that’s presently there? Yes, it would come straight across onto the lot. MR. STONE-The one acre lot? MR. MARTO-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MARTO-I don’t know exactly where. I’m assuming more towards the end of the lot that’s actually being proposed and subdivided. So actually, if you wanted to look at it that way. My driveway would be the present driveway that is there, and then the driveway, if you went across from Iroquois, if it went straight across, it would actually go almost to the end of the property line. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I thought, but I just wanted to hear you. MR. MARTO-But again, I mean, if you’re asking for specifics, I can’t give that to you. MR. STONE-What’s going on with that house right now, out of curiosity? MR. MARTO-Well, I don’t want to go into so much detail. MR. STONE-No, you don’t have to go into detail. MR. MARTO-But primarily what it is is that we are presently in litigation with the contractor who failed, according to our attorney, to uphold the lien provision or the contractor’s code of ethics or whatever it is, I’m paraphrasing for lack of the actual technical phrase. Our contractor did not pay the creditors. The house is on a construction loan draw, and anyone who’s in the contracting basically has the understanding that it’s done primarily in three phases, four depending on the size. As a phase is completed, the bank sends out an appraiser. They evaluate the work that has been done, based on the criteria that the bank has set, and agreements with the contractor, when he first submitted the job, and the application, that those particular items are completed and the check is sent. Basically, what’s happened is that the contractor, the funds that he received from, basically me and the bank, he used to usurp other means other than the creditors. So that’s basically what’s happened, and we’re kind of in a situation, unfortunately, that we have to come to this. We have to primarily subdivide the property, and use the proceeds to finish the house. MR. STONE-Okay. That was my next question. So that’s why you want to. MR. MARTO-This is why we have to do it, because the thing is that this situation has put us in such a financial quagmire because the debt load is getting crushing because we are battling, you know, A, we’re trying to get within a timeframe, because the bank, when they lend, they lend for a certain period of time, and they expect the property to be completed on that time, okay. We are now past that. So now I’m negotiating with our lender, from the construction loan, and then at the same time we’re battling, you know, the litigation with our contractor, and we’re almost, we’re strained, both mentally, financially, and this and that, and this would ease our problems, because we do have people already lined up to come in and finish the property. I mean, if you’re familiar with the area, I just moved up here from New York City not too long ago, but you folks are probably more familiar with the area than I am. MR. STONE-We’re supposed to be. MR. MARTO-Or supposed to be, but the thing is, I mean, this is a project, I mean, I’ve had neighbors, strangers come up to me, while I’m working on the house myself, and they’re saying, what’s going on, what’s going on, what’s going on, because this is a project that’s been going on for like a year, and it’s because of this situation, unfortunately. So this is why we’re here in front of you. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. ABBATE-You indicated, if I understand what you were saying, you indicated the primary purpose for splitting this up into two parcels is to receive some proceeds in order to take care of other financial obligations? MR. MARTO-Well, the financial obligation is to finish the property. MR. ABBATE-Right. Well, yes. Do you have someone lined up to purchase this other parcel, in the event it was approved? MR. MARTO-We do have somebody, yes, who is interested, and has shown a strong interest in buying the property. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Any other questions? The one thing I’m disturbed about is that, I mean, joint driveways can work, but they’re usually in the middle between the two lots, and I guess I don’t understand why that isn’t a possible alternative, because I’ll tell you, I’m concerned by the fact that you’ve got a road across the way that’s coming in to these properties right about where there might be traffic, but let’s listen to the public. Any other questions, gentlemen? Okay. All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TONY SIGNORELLI MR. SIGNORELLI-I’m Tony Signorelli. I own the lot just north of him. I bought that entire northern section. MR. STONE-The one with the house on it. Isn’t there a house on it? MR. SIGNORELLI-On my lot? Yes. I’m talking to you in reference to safety, as far as the driveway. As I understand it, according to Craig Brown, the lot is big enough to sell. The lot can be sold. The problem is the driveway. So being that the lot can already be sold, he is looking to put a driveway. The Town says he can’t have it because he doesn’t have the right amount of frontage. He needs 300 feet. He had 150, and according to that he has 175 now. They won’t give it to him because he’s supposed to have 300 feet. MR. STONE-Well, that’s why he’s here. MR. SIGNORELLI-Correct. All right. I’m on board. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SIGNORELLI-If I, just hypothetically, and I’m not buying the lot next door, okay. If you took his corner, his farthest northern corner and mine, and took his 175 feet and took my 125, because I have enough, if I wanted to, there would be the 300 feet. I could put that driveway probably anywhere I felt like it, if the Town approved. So, theoretically, a driveway could go out there if I bought that. What is the difference if the driveway goes out anyhow and that line is in exactly the same spot. It’s just somebody else owns that last 125 feet, but nobody would know that. Nobody coming down the road would know that. Okay, and the reason this whole thing came about for me is the safety. I can count, I’ve been in that house for 12 years. There’ve been three accidents within the last five years, one right on that lot took down the trees out front. One, one of my neighbors saw a Water Department truck somebody pulled out on West Mountain, went on his property, maybe caught a corner of mine with a dump truck, and one was a property over, a car went off the road and ran into the trees. West Mountain Road is a nasty road. You do 50, you do 60 and faster. You’ve got logging trucks. You’ve got all heavy equipment coming down that road. If these people have two cars with children with two cars, there’s four. The people are buying it, two adults and two kids, that’s eight cars, possibly, coming out of one driveway. Somebody coming down the road, people coming in and out, I think another driveway would make it safer, in my opinion. Basically, excuse me, that would be it, the accidents that were there, but the point being, if I bought that lot, there’s 175 feet of road frontage. I, theoretically, have the room to buy another 125 feet. There’s the 300 feet. I could put another driveway out, which is much, much safer. Because what they’re talking about, according to that plan, is a driveway coming in, if the driveway has to stay where it is, it’s not in the center on the property line, because this is an existing lot. MR. STONE-Right. MR. SIGNORELLI-Okay. So what you’re talking about is moving that existing lot over to the center of the property line, but then they’d have to move their driveway, which I don’t know if they’re going to do. That I don’t know. Then the two could come together. I just picture everybody coming in and out of that, much 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) safer. There are children that play in the area. There are, there are many kids in that area, and if somebody goes off the road and the kids are out, they’re dead. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me just explain it, because I think you’ve got a pretty good handle on what you’re trying to tell us. What they’re asking for, because they’ve been told they have to, is permission to put in driveways on each of two lots, lots that do not have the required road frontage on West Mountain Road, and we can grant them that. That’s why we’re here. We can say, you can put a driveway in, even though the lot is, the frontage is substandard. MR. SIGNORELLI-Correct. MR. STONE-That’s what we’re considering. MR. SIGNORELLI-Correct. I’m just saying my opinion is it would be much safer. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SIGNORELLI-And then there’s just that hypothetical one where if I did buy that property, I could put another driveway out. Point being, I could buy it and put the driveway out and there’d be no say in the matter because I have the 300 feet. So what is the difference if I purchased it, and the driveway comes out, or you guys just grant them that the driveway could come out? MR. STONE-Because you would have one driveway, and then there would be two. If they put it in, there would be two driveways in that 300 feet. Because you have a driveway, right? MR. SIGNORELLI-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay. If you bought it, yes, you could get away with one driveway, but if the lot is subdivided, and they get what they want, and I’m not saying where we’re coming down, because we haven’t really gotten there yet, there would be two driveways in that same 300 feet. That’s the question that’s before us. I mean, it’s a very logical statement that you’re making, but nevertheless it’s one driveway versus two. MR. SIGNORELLI-And if I bought it, it would still be exactly the same. MR. STONE-It would be one driveway, though. You wouldn’t put a second driveway in. MR. MC NULTY-You wouldn’t put a second one in. MR. STONE-You’d have one driveway for the whole lot. Right? MR. FRANK-Just to clarify matters, Lew, Mr. Signorelli he has like 440 feet of frontage on West Mountain Road, and if he purchased that property, and he subdivided his five acres and gave up 125 foot of road frontage, he would create a lot with 300 foot frontage. He wouldn’t need an ordinance. He still would have over 300 feet left over on his adjoining parcel. I believe that’s what Mr. Signorelli is trying to say. MR. SIGNORELLI-I would still have my own. MR. FRANK-He is the neighbor to the north, and he has a five acre parcel with 440 feet of road frontage. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-So the hypothetical situation he’s proposing MR. STONE-So if ill would have over 300 feet left over on his adjoining parcel. I believe that’s what Mr. Signorelli is trying to say. MR. SIGNORELLI-I would still have my own. MR. FRANK-He is the neighbor to the north, and he has a five acre parcel with 440 feet of road frontage. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-So the hypothetical situation he’s proposing MR. STONE-So if you bought it, then we’re not here. MR. SIGNORELLI-Correct. MR. STONE-But you don’t want to buy it. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. SIGNORELLI-Do you want to lend me the money? MR. STONE-Well, no, you just said you didn’t want to buy it. MR. SIGNORELLI-My driveway is to the north end of my property. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. SIGNORELLI-So if I bought it, I would make a new one, and theirs would stay the same. So actually what they’re asking for is to put another driveway, and it would be exactly the same as if I purchased it, and the reason I’m saying it is because it would be so much safer. MR. STONE-I agree, but what Staff is telling us that you could subdivide. You could buy that property and make two lots, and there wouldn’t be a question. MR. SIGNORELLI-Correct. Then I could put that driveway exactly where they want to put it. MR. STONE-That is correct. You could do that. MR. SIGNORELLI-And sell that lot. Okay. That’s all I’m trying to say. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. MR. SIGNORELLI-Okay. Thanks. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I shall close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Does anybody have any additional questions now? MR. URRICO-I have a question. I need some clarification. The existing driveway is the gravel drive? MR. MARTO-That is correct. MR. URRICO-And the proposed new driveway is the one furthest to the north. Does anybody know the distance between the existing gravel drive and the proposed new drive? MR. STONE-That’s the one. That’s the driveway that they’ve been, you mean if they put one on the other one? If you didn’t have the requirements, where would you put the other driveway? MR. MARTO-On the far end of the property that’s being subdivided. So basically you’re looking at a distance between the driveway that presently exists to the proposed new driveway, you’re looking at approximately 185 to 190 feet in distance. MR. STONE-Okay. You would put it next to your neighbor’s property. MR. MARTO-I don’t have the figures in front of me. MR. FRANK-It scales almost 200. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Which is more than one lot would be, normally. The frontage of one lot would be about 150 feet. So this is about 45 feet beyond. MR. FRANK-What’s existing on this, on West Mountain Road, not what’s required of. MR. MARTO-The requirement is 150. MR. URRICO-Right, if it wasn’t on an arterial road, it would be 150. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. STONE-Okay, and the one driveway that goes to the house that’s being built is legal because originally it was two and a half acres, and the road frontage was more than enough. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. You’ve created your own problem, is what we’re going to tell you, and we’re going to figure out whether we can help you or not. Any other questions, gentlemen? Well, Chuck, why don’t we start with you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Mr. Marto has clarified, for me, what was going on, because I said to my fellow Board member, there’s something I can’t quite put my finger on, something that bothered me, and your explanation of the financial problems, etc., etc., I understand, now, the entire picture and your position in this whole thing. It helps me quite a bit. It’s obvious to me that there is a major concern, not only from yourselves but from your neighbors, of safety of children, and in my opinion, that’s probably one of the greatest priorities we should be taking a look at. Based upon what I’ve heard this evening, and taking everything on balance, I would be in favor of your application. MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. ABBATE-That’s it. I couldn’t have said it any plainer. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that this is a case of if only, you know, if only things had gone according to plan, no one would be here and, you know, this would be a moot point, but I think that we have to consider the circumstances, and it’s logical what you’ve proposed here. In other words, the property line with the skew that kind of goes to the middle there, and, you know, it makes sense as to what you need to do to complete what you originally started, and I think that the other thing we need to consider is that, you know, the 300 feet, it makes sense on this road, and I think probably we’re going to see a lowering of the speed limit eventually on that road. I mean, at some point someone’s going to raise the red flag and say, enough is enough, you know, where there has to be some kid getting run over, which we don’t want to see, but I would be in favor of it as is. I think it’s logical. MR. STONE-All right. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, when I came in my inclination was to say no way, it should be one shared driveway, but I was thinking in terms of a shared driveway that would be somewhere near the lot line, and go both directions, then the safety of the children is incumbent on the people that live there not to drive 50 miles an hour on your own driveway. The financial problem you’ve got certainly goes towards the item that we’d have to consider, benefit to the applicant, I think, beyond that, it’s not up to this Board to pull people’s irons out of the fire, but having said that, that combined with the explanation of the lot to the north, and looking at it, and if we allow a second drive now, there won’t be another additional drive put in because your neighbor to the north isn’t going to have enough room to have 600 feet to put in a second drive. So, as he has pointed out, the net result is still going to be three driveways in that total length of your property and his, which he could accomplish if he bought this piece that you’re dividing off. Given that, and the fact that putting a new shared driveway in near the lot line, which makes sense, is obviously going to cost you more money, I think the argument for the drive that you’re asking for makes sense. I think the benefit to you outweighs any possibly detriment to the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application also. I think there is a substantial distance between the two driveways. I normally don’t like to see a variance given on an arterial road of this nature because of the, obviously, it’s put there so we don’t get too many driveways in too little spaces, but I think this case there is enough room to still be considered a safe driveways, both of them being safe, and adding Mr. Signorelli’s land to the north, I think we’re going to have still a pretty, as safe as possible in that area. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I feel, I’m opposed to the application, in that I think the Code should be upheld in this situation. I believe that the proposed structure isn’t there yet. It can be placed anywhere where desired. The two driveways could, part of the existing one and the proposed one, could be made to converge at some point, with one access on West Mountain Road, so that the amount of shared driveway is absolutely minimized. The entryway could be minimized to just a few feet, so who plows or who this and who that is brought to a very minimum, and I think the benefit, in this connection, would be improved safety. Again, as time goes along out there, with perhaps more subdivisions going on, I think we have to recognize that we have to stand up for what we’ve decided in the past, and I don’t think this would cause undo financial 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) hardship on you. I may be wrong, and it appears it doesn’t make any difference anyway, given the vote, but I am not in favor of the application for those reasons. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you, Norm. In listening to my fellow Board members, I am not troubled. I’m perplexed by some of the things. Mr. Himes makes a very good argument, and one that I would normally subscribe to. However, having said that, this is one where I think the applicant’s problem has to be considered. You never wanted to subdivide this lot. You bought this piece of property, I gather, to have two and a half acres, or whatever it is, and build a house on it and keep the two and a half acres and have one driveway, and fate didn’t work out that way, and as I say, you didn’t plan to subdivide it. It happened, and in this particular case, I’m inclined to help the situation. I don’t, I mean, I would have liked to have seen you come in and say, well, we could put one driveway in the middle of the road frontage, but you’d be going from a situation where you had total control over this two and a half acres, the way you wanted to have when you bought the property, to having whatever complications developed over a shared driveway, and while rules and regulations and covenants and agreements can be put into place, that’s not what you bargained for when you bought the property, and in this particular case, I’m inclined to go along with trying to help, is really what it does. I think, we have the rule in place for a very good reason. Yes, it is a road that gets a lot of traffic, particularly in the evening, I suspect, when West Mountain lets out, during the winter season, but I think the danger is, by having two driveways, is not a high thing. I know why we do it, and we certainly have that on a lot of other roads, but I think, in this particular case, I’m inclined to grant the variance. Having said that, again, well, one of the reasons I say that, I wouldn’t interpret this as self-created. It is, and yet you’re a victim of circumstance, and therefore it’s not what I would call self-created. It just happened, unfortunately. So I need a motion to approve. MR. ABBATE-I’ll take the motion, Mr. Chairman, if I may. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2002 JAMES MARTO & MELANIE SCHWAB, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 573 West Mountain Road. Mr. Marto and Ms. Schwab propose subdivision of a 2.84 acre parcel into two lots of 1.645 acres and 1.056 acres with road frontages of 164.38 feet and 176 feet each with its own driveway. The relief that they’re looking for is relief from the requirements regarding the new lot’s frontage on an arterial collector road. Lots fronting on arterial collector roads are required to have double the minimum lot width per Section 179-30. Benefit to the applicant, I think both the Chairman and several other members of this Board has addressed the issue of not only safety, I would also like to address the issue of fairness. If we approve this, the benefit to the applicant, they would be permitted to create two new lots each with a driveway. Feasible alternatives, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman and Board members, are extremely limited. As the Chairman indicated, this is not a situation of your own making. There was no intention of you dividing, prior intentions of you dividing these lots, but based upon life and circumstances in life you, in my opinion, became victims. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 135.62 feet and 124 feet from the 300 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate. Effects on the neighborhood and community. Well, we heard this evening an immediate neighbor who expressed concern of safety of children as well as the safety of the children of the applicants as well. So moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated. However, in view of the verbal testimony this evening, it’s obvious to me that it was favorable. Is this difficulty self-created? I don’t believe, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that this difficulty is self-created? I think this is a situation of circumstances above and beyond the control of the applicants, and so based upon that statement, Mr. Chairman, I submit and request that the application be approved. Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. Himes ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. I hope you sell it soon and get this thing taken care of. MS. SCHWAB-Thank you. MR. MARTO-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2002 TYPE II RICHARD AND WENDY DE SILVA AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, JIM PERKINS PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD AND WENDY DE SILVA LOCATION: 139 SEELYE ROAD, CLEVERDALE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE WITH A STORAGE AREA ABOVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 1/9/2002 OLD TAX MAP NO. 16-1-37.5 NEW TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-58 LOT SIZE: 0.49 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2002, Richard and Wendy DeSilva, Meeting Date: January 16, 2002 “Project Location: 139 Seelye Road, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 352 sq. ft. garage with a storage area above. Relief Required: Applicant requests 11.8 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per the WR-1A requirements; § 179-16, § 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, with a storage area above, in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing the garage in a compliant location west of the existing building. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 11.8 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action due to the proposed structure being built in the footprint of the existing carport. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-857: applied for 11/20/01 (never issued); 144 sq. ft. sunroom and 16 by 22-foot modification of carport into a garage with storage area above. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though there appears to be ample room for a garage to be constructed in a compliant location west of the existing building, the proposed garage/storage area will occupy the footprint of the existing carport. Additionally, the neighboring parcel 8.2 feet from the carport is an undeveloped 35- foot lake access lot. Also, the aesthetic quality of a garage might be considered greater than that of a carport. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form January 9, 2002 Project Name: DeSilva, Richard and Wendy Owner: Richard and Wendy DeSilva ID Number: QBY-AV- 4-2002 County Project#: Jan02-19 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a garage with a storage area above. Relief is requested from side setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 139 Seelye Road, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s): 227.17-1-58 Staff Notes: An 8.2’ side yard setback was previously approved for a garage. The applicant only built a carport and now wishes to build the garage on the same footprint of the carport. Staff does not identify any issues significant to County resources. Local actions to date (if any): A public hearing is scheduled for January 16, 2002. County Planning Board Recommendation: No Action Due to lack of a quorum of the Board, No Action was taken.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 1/3/02. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, and with me tonight are Rick and Wendy DeSilva, the property owners. I think that the Town Planning Staff properly characterized this as pretty much of a modest application, which is how we’re viewing it, and we hope you view it as well. Although the carport was built, a garage could have been built. A building permit was issued, and they wanted to side it and finish it as a garage, I believe that they have the rights to do that, the vested rights, because that permit was issued, but, as you see, I’m sure that you all saw the site, and we have photos. That carport is not very attractive. It looks kind of like a shed, not a lot of imagination, not well constructed, and as you see from the building plans prepared by PBS that we submitted with the application, the DeSilva’s are trying to really upgrade the house. The sunroom area is very small and modest, and the garage is small. This is a one car garage. When do we ever see a one car garage these days? They’re just trying to finish what’s there, but to re-side the house to make it look much more attractive, which we think is the main issue for the neighborhood, to really upgrade the property. I want to just show you a photo. MR. STONE-It looks worse in the picture than it does when you look at it, in terms of the size of it. MR. LAPPER-We were careful to take the picture. The DeSilvas didn’t build that. They purchased the house with that, and they want to improve it, just to clean it up, but to have a garage, and we don’t view the change as substantial at all to the neighborhood. Is there anything that you guys would like to add, at this point? MR. STONE-Are you done? I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-I think we are. MR. STONE-Can you talk a little bit about this right of way which, according to this drawing, you seem to own the road in front of the right of way. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) RICK DE SILVA MR. DE SILVA-That’s correct. MR. STONE-You own the road. MR. DE SILVA-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Who plows the road? MR. DE SILVA-I guess we all pay to have the road plowed. MR. STONE-You do, but the Town does not come down that far? MR. DE SILVA-No. MR. STONE-They stop where the paving ends? MR. DE SILVA-Where the paving ends, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But that right of way is a significant issue that I should have mentioned, because there is this 35 foot wide deeded right of way next door that can never have a house on it or any structure. So in terms of view shed, in terms of access to the lake, the non lake property owners that have benefited by that, always have that preserved for their view of the lake, and that sort of offsets the fact where, granted there’s already a variance that can leave in place what’s there now, but that eight and a half feet, you add to that the 35 feet. MR. STONE-Do they have an easement to walk on the right of way? MR. LAPPER-Do they? MR. STONE-No, the people who own that 35 foot wide section? WENDY DE SILVA MRS. DE SILVA-Sure, they have access to their property through our. MR. STONE-Well, but you own the road in front of it, it says. MR. LAPPER-No. They have a deeded right of way across that road, and down the 35 feet. So the neighbors use that to access the lake. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I guess there are three properties that have that right, as far as we know. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, it used to be the rule over there, because I know my property on Assembly Point, we did own the road behind us, and over the years it became a road by use, excuse me, Mr. Salvador, but it did become a road by use, I think, and it does get plowed, and it’s not ours anymore. We’ve sort of given it up, but I was just curious. MR. LAPPER-It is in their title. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-What’s the maximum, optimum height of the existing carport? MR. DE SILVA-As it stands right now? MR. STONE-Up against the house. Well, it’s got to be, since it comes in under that eaves, it’s got to be 17 feet, I would think. MR. DE SILVA-Maybe not quite that high, but I would say at least 15 foot high, some place in that area. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. DE SILVA-Where it attaches to the house. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. URRICO-And the proposed garage would be 19.6? MR. DE SILVA-We were trying to pick up that number before with the plans that we had. That’s on the plans, yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s on the application. MR. STONE-On the main set it says 19.6. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. Thanks. MR. DE SILVA-It’s significantly below the level of the house, yes. MR. LAPPER-The peak of the house. MR. DE SILVA-The peak of the house. MR. STONE-Now that’s going to come into the other roof about halfway down the peak? MR. DE SILVA-That’s approximately correct, yes. In fact, maybe even a little lower than that. It just clears where the roof ends, the soffit. MR. STONE-Just about, yes. I meant, this way, east, west. MR. DE SILVA-Yes. The house is sort of built into a, it’s got a pretty steep slope. So the house is sort of built into a slope. So it’s not exactly representative that, you know, ground level would come (lost words). MR. LAPPER-Here’s the best picture that answers the question that you asked. MR. STONE-Yes. I was just trying to see, I can’t tell where it came in, like this, about halfway the width of the house. I ask this question only because I’m curious. At one time there was some talk about the marina trying to open the road. MR. LAPPER-Do you know anything about that? That’s before their time. MR. STONE-Before their time. I mean, bringing it all the way out to 9L. MR. DE SILVA-That would be a pretty tough thing to do, with the way the slope is. In fact, our property goes all the way up the slope, and the right of way, as it sits now, is not exactly all the way up where it should be. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. DE SILVA-Actually, they couldn’t do that, because we own the road. We own right up to the property. MR. STONE-I know that, that’s true, but there was, somebody was saying that the marina was trying to buy the road, at one point. MR. DE SILVA-I think that was prior to, our neighbor, as we are looking at the lake, to the right hand side, purchased what I understand to be a house that was in pretty much disrepair, invested a substantial amount of money, and I think at the time, and I might be, and this is just my assumption from my discussion with him, that they did want to buy that property, but this gentleman bought it and has, and he has done a wonderful job with the house next door. MR. STONE-Okay. Yes, it looked pretty nice, but there was some basis for my question, at least. That’s all. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-I’m just, you know, as usually, Counsel’s preamble has suggested the pre-approval. He’s good. MR. LAPPER-I never assume a pre-approval. MR. STONE-All right. Well, hearing no questions, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I have some questions. I don’t know whether I’m for or against the application, but I have the following questions. This 20 foot right of way, who holds title to that land? MRS. DE SILVA-We do. MR. SALVADOR-You hold title to it? MR. DE SILVA-Yes, sir. MR. SALVADOR-Is it burdened by the use of others, others have a use of that? MR. DE SILVA-Yes. There are two other families that currently utilize it. MR. SALVADOR-And only those two? MR. DE SILVA-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Are they to the south? MR. DE SILVA-They would be to the south. MR. STONE-One to the south and one to the west? MRS. DE SILVA-One to the west. MR. STONE-One next to you on the lake, and then one up the hill? MRS. DE SILVA-That’s right. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-So is it conceivable that this marina you speak of could gain the use of this road? MR. DE SILVA-No. MRS. DE SILVA-No. MR. SALVADOR-Why not? MR. DE SILVA-I’m not selling. MR. SALVADOR-Through an easement. Through a privilege of use, could they gain use of your 20 foot right of way? MR. DE SILVA-Well, I would think that they would have to do it with two people, because I have to give access to that to the two folks, the one to the west, but the one to the south, the easement continues through his. So they’d have to get two people to do it. I can’t answer that question. MR. SALVADOR-So it is conceivable? MR. STONE-Well, everything is conceivable. MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN DR. ME MERRIGAN-There are actually three lots that have the right. MR. STONE-Well, why don’t you come forward and just state your name, answer the question, that’s fine, since we’re fairly informal at this point in time. DR. ME MERRIGAN-I don’t know what the relevance of this question is, but just for answering it. MR. STONE-Who are you? DR. ME MERRIGAN-I’m Mary Ellen Merrigan, and I am the lot behind this project. I own the house up on the hill. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. STONE-On the hill, to the west. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Right, and to follow up on his question, there are actually three properties that have a deeded right to use the right of way that we’re speaking of, not two. It may appear to be two because one does not have a house on it, but it is owned by the marina, and that’s why I’m trying to respond to him now. MR. STONE-It’s owned by the marina? DR. ME MERRIGAN-Right. It’s owned by the marina, the house behind Sonny, I’m sorry, the lot behind Sonny, the lot behind your neighbor Sonny, and so he owns it. MR. SALVADOR-What I’m saying, the person who owns the house happens to be the marina, so they have the use of the (lost words). MR. STONE-No, no, not the house to the south. DR. ME MERRIGAN-They used to own it. They sold it about two years ago. The marina purchased the house between these folks and themselves, with the intention of using it for marina purposes. We petitioned the Town to enforce the zoning, and the marina gave up and sold it. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s what I’m remembering. DR. ME MERRIGAN-But they continue to own the lot behind it, which is one of the three lots that has rights. MR. STONE-Uses the dirt road. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Yes. They have no use for it since the lot is vacant. JAMES MERRIGAN DR. J. MERRIGAN-They let it go into disrepair. That was intentional. DR. ME MERRIGAN-That house. DR. J. MERRIGAN-Then they could move on to that property. MR. STONE-Okay. DR. J. MERRIGAN-It was a very strategic plan. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, John. MR. SALVADOR-Does the marina have any kind of a use easement over this 20 foot, at this present time? DR. ME MERRIGAN-They do by virtue of the fact that they own one of the back lots. It is a residentially zoned lot that is not part of the marina. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, but they can use this right of way? I mean, vehicles are licensed to use the roadways. DR. ME MERRIGAN-(Lost words) is that we have the right to use it to access our properties. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right. Second question, this 35 foot right of way here? DR. ME MERRIGAN-It’s been referred to as a right of way, and that’s incorrect. It’s a jointly owned property. MR. SALVADOR-Somebody pays taxes on this? DR. ME MERRIGAN-The marina pays one third, we pay one third, and (lost words). MR. STONE-Are we talking about the strip, next to the garage? MR. SALVADOR-The strip, yes. DR. J. MERRIGAN-Yes, it’s our lakefront property. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. STONE-It’s your lakefront property. DR. ME MERRIGAN-We own one third. MR. STONE-You own one third, okay. DR. ME MERRIGAN-It’s not a building lot, but it’s not a right of way either. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. SALVADOR-The marina is one of those owners? DR. ME MERRIGAN-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and you share in the taxes on this? DR. ME MERRIGAN-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Do you have a maintenance agreement for this? DR. ME MERRIGAN-No, we are the maintenance people. DR. J. MERRIGAN-The maintenance agreement is we do all the maintenance. MR. STONE-So are you for or against, Mr. Salvador? MR. SALVADOR-My questions have been answered. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Opposed? Okay. I wasn’t sure where you were coming down. DR. ME MERRIGAN-I have some pictures that I submitted with my letter but I made copies, so that you can just see for yourselves. DR. J. MERRIGAN-My name is James Merrigan, and there should also be some letters there that were submitted by others in opposition. MR. STONE-Well, we’ll get to the letters. DR. ME MERRIGAN-I’ll give you a few minutes to look at the pictures if you want, to help me illustrate the points that I wanted to make. MR. STONE-Ready? DR. ME MERRIGAN-Sure. MR. STONE-Well, no, go. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Okay. MR. STONE-We can listen and look. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Okay. One point I wanted to make with the pictures is that there are other options that are used in the neighborhood, and that there are houses that have no garage at all, both seasonal houses and year round homes. So having no garage is an option. The majority of houses on the road currently use the system of having a small building, or various size buildings, built behind the house, so that they’re not walling off the lake, and they park in the garage and walk to their houses. The second page has three illustrations of that type of situation. On Page Two, the middle one in particular, shows the use of landscaping to make up for a slope where there’s a lot that is higher than the house, and you can see by using this system, people don’t wall off the lake. They leave more lake visible for everybody in the neighborhood. Another option is the kind on Page Three where people build off the back of their building, and the last page, Page Four, is the view from the road in front of my home of the property in question tonight, as well as the bottom picture that has, the marina had allowed to fall into disrepair and then someone purchased it and used that system of putting the garage behind the house, again, leaving room on the side to have a better view of the lake for everybody around. I offer that in particular as a comparable example of the lot we were are looking at tonight. If anybody has any questions about the pictures, I’ll try to answer them. These are houses, I went up and down the road on the lakeside to try to show what the neighborhood has, and then besides the pictures is lists how many houses there are that use each type of garage solution. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. URRICO-Is there a main objection, the aesthetics of the? DR. ME MERRIGAN-No. I have several objections, and I think the pictures will illustrate them. So whenever you’re ready, I can. MR. STONE-No, go ahead. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Okay. The aesthetic is the one, is one objection. It’s not in harmony with the neighborhood. The second is the walling off of the lake by building almost from side to side on a lot. As I look at that picture over there, the drawing submitted by the applicant, it’s true that the siding that’s being proposed is really very attractive, and changes like that would upgrade the building, but having owned this property behind it for almost 30 years, when I look at that, it looks huge to me, as something that would be proposed for this lot that I’ve been looking at since 1972, ’73. It just looks huge, with that picture. DR. J. MERRIGAN-It’s a 60 foot wide house now, according to that diagram there. DR. ME MERRIGAN-There’s the issue of my property value. This is the only residence I own, and whatever percent I’m losing by losing my view is basically money that I’m giving up. Another concern is the water runoff. It is on a slope. It’s on a hillside, and it also happens to be the natural spot where the water comes down the road, and right now, the carport has a permeable surface underneath it. If this is built, it will no longer be permeable, and whatever water comes off the hillside and down the road will just more substantially collect on my property alongside the house, that continues down to the lake, and this is exactly why the last house on the road that we were speaking of before, that fell into disrepair, was basically moldy inside because the marina was permitted to blacktop some of the hillside, and it was after that that house began to have moisture problems. So, runoff is an issue that is real. I’m concerned about looking at the proposed living space above this garage, because in that picture, it has the kind of window that I would associate with a room, not a storage area, and in my experience, even if the applicant totally intends to use it for storage, it doesn’t guarantee that the next owner won’t decide that that makes a good room, then you have increased usage of the house and consequently increased runoff into the lake from the house. I don’t know why it’s proposed as a storage area right now. There’s no numbers there to help me understand the height of the room. I just see the window appears to be the kind of window you would put in a room. DR. J. MERRIGAN-If I might add there on that point, also, that there’s a full basement for storage in this house, and that that storage area is not necessary and creates a walling effect, not only on our view down to the lake, but as we talked about our lakefront property, and it is property, it is not an access. We have gardens on there, both vegetable and flower gardens. We have a hammock, numerous chairs, a picnic table and a dock. We are down there all the time. This creates yet another wall and blocks the sun by increasing that garage size. So we’re looking at a wall from the back and we’re looking at a wall from the side. DR. ME MERRIGAN-And I guess a big concern that I really do have, I’ve been to these meetings before, and I take a big interest in the neighborhood. Sometimes I speak in favor of a project, if I think it has a favorable effect on the neighborhood. Generally when it’s marina business, I am here opposing it, but as I look down the road, you see all these houses with either no garage or a little building behind the house. When these properties sell, the new owners may not be content to have that kind of a setup, and you give a variance to somebody, you’re opening the door for all these other houses to decide that they’d like to be able to pull right in, in that manner, to a garage and be connected to their house, and I think you’re setting up a situation where it would be hard to turn down other people. DR. J. MERRIGAN-As you indicated earlier on the first project, where Curt Dybas presented the dock, that person had come back to you three or four times. I would point out that the DeSilvas are fine neighbors and good people, and we certainly don’t mean to offend them here. However, the two properties in front of us have turned over six times in the last ten years, and that means that if you approve this, or part of it even, that someone will be back, and they’ll want to build it just a little bit higher, and they’ll come to you and say it’s a pre-existing condition, and I think it will grow, and, to me, it’s too large as it is now. It’s a beautiful house. We are very much impressed by the idea that they will enhance the property, but I would point out to you that the picture of the property just to their south was enhanced quite beautifully, and has just been sold for almost double what the person paid for, and they did not come to you for a variance, and they did not increase the size of the house at all, but it’s a beautiful house. DR. ME MERRIGAN-I guess the last point is that in the presentation neither the applicant nor their lawyer, as far as I could hear, indicated when the old permit was issued for the existing carport, with the idea having been that they could have built a garage but didn’t. I believe that was under the old zoning, which only required a five foot setback, which gave us the horror of Rockhurst, and I don’t see why we would want to feel obligated to comply with zoning that was evidently decided was not adequate and was replaced by the current zoning, and I’m sorry, one more point. All, there were four, now there are five, lots in this subdivision. When we got our deed for the subdivision, which includes the lot under discussion and our own, in our deed, it specifies a 15 foot setback and I guess I don’t really understand how that can be negated. I realize it’s probably not your responsibility, but it is in the deed, and I would assume it’s in the deed of all the properties in the subdivision. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) DR. J. MERRIGAN-It was certainly the intention of the subdivider as well. I have just one more point, and that would be this picture here, which is the Schreiber home, which received a variance not too long ago. I think that’s a good example of overbuilding on a small lot. When people purchase a lot, people purchase a home on Lake George in the Cleverdale area, for three, four, five or six hundred thousand dollars, and they buy an 80 or 85 or 89 foot lot, they know what they’re buying. That is a good example of overbuilding on a lot. The people in the neighborhood didn’t oppose that for some reason, and I hear nothing but complaints because it’s just walling off the lake. The other home that was granted a variance was the Guerra home. If you put those two places together and add a few more, you have almost a solid wall with only eight to ten foot setbacks, and we’d like to see the zoning enforced. We’d like to see this project go forward. It’s a beautiful project. On the other side you have a sunroom which is in compliance. That’s fine. We have no objection to that. It looks beautiful. That’s basically our points. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. DR. ME MERRIGAN-You’re welcome. MR. HIMES-One question, please, before you go. That lot with the garden on it, that 35 or 37 foot strip down, you own that? DR. J. MERRIGAN-Yes, we do. MR. HIMES-It’s not a common? DR. J. MERRIGAN-Three people own it, but we own it outright. It is not an easement. It is not a right of way. It’s lakefront property that is shared by the three people. We also have a dock which is allowed to have three boats on it. MR. HIMES-Okay. The other two owners, are they? DR. ME MERRIGAN-One is the marina. DR. J. MERRIGAN-Yes. DR. ME MERRIGAN-The subdivision, originally, was one front lot and three back lots, with the back lots sharing the lakefront property, and then within a very short time, they decided that they could get more profit if instead of one lakefront lot they made two somewhat narrower ones, and that’s what we have. We have the two, the lot in question tonight, and the one between them and the marina. So it’s a total of five, two lake front, three in the back. MR. HIMES-There’s you and the marina. DR. ME MERRIGAN-And another neighbor who lives down the road purchased, at the time that they conceded to change the lakefront from one to two, they conceded to change the remaining back lot to a non building lot, and it was purchased by the man who lived next to it, because for him it had a purpose. MR. HIMES-So we’ve heard from one owner, one of the three owners of that, in connection with what is happening here. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Right. MR. HIMES-But your proximity is a little different than theirs. You look right down at. DR. ME MERRIGAN-The marina uses theirs as basically a buffer between their commercial development and the neighborhood. MR. HIMES-Thank you. DR. J. MERRIGAN-And they don’t use the right of way. I’m sorry, they don’t use the lakefront. MR. ABBATE-Let me preface my comments that I appreciate your concerns, and my comments are not meant to be confrontational, but I would have given greater credibility if you had come before the Board with an engineering appraisal, in terms of water runoff. I would have felt a heck of a lot more secure if you had come in with some sort of an appraisal for perhaps a property devaluation because of what they intend to do, and the third item is, you indicate that there is an option, and that option is not to have a garage. I think it’s only fair to say that we live in a rather harsh environment, and I don’t believe that this Board should be in a position to endorse hardships. Thank you. DR. ME MERRIGAN-And can I respond to that? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. ABBATE-Sure. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Thank you. If you look at the pictures that you have in front of you, Page One, the top house. MR. ABBATE-That’s your house? DR. ME MERRIGAN-No. That’s the house of some people that came before you asking for a variance to do a carport. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Okay. DR. ME MERRIGAN-Not a garage, but just a carport, and they were turned down they would obstruct someone’s view. So there are three year round homes that endure having no garage, and three vacation homes that have no garage. I’m not saying no garage is the ideal, but you have turned down other people, even for a carport, and since we have no basement, our garage gets used for storage and we haven’t actually gotten a car in it in a couple of years, and so I can tell you from personal experience that it’s doable. It’s not the ideal. The ideal is probably one of the other alternatives that I’ve offered here, either a separate building or attached in the back. MR. ABBATE-If I were in your position, I would probably be saying the same thing you are, but in my position, I like to deal with facts. DR. J. MERRIGAN-Can I address that for just a second? MR. ABBATE-Sure. DR. J. MERRIGAN-There is an alternative on the garage. They can put the garage in another location behind the house or attach it to the house. The other thing is that we have had to appear here any number of times because of problems with the marina, which is a highly financed organization. We cannot afford to come here with the kind of engineering studies, over and over again. We can’t afford that expense. MR. ABBATE-I understand that. Thank you. MR. STONE-Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-Yes, sir, there is. We have a total of five letters, all opposed. The first one is from Mary Ellen Merrigan. MR. STONE-Is this what you said? DR. ME MERRIGAN-It’s not necessary to read it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-It says essentially what they have said, and it includes an attachment of the photographs we’ve looked at. MR. ABBATE-So there’s five opposed. MR. STONE-Well, he’s going to read the other ones, but she made this presentation. MR. ABBATE-All right. MR. MC NULTY-This is one. The next one is from Peter and Karen Bogert at 133 Seelye Road. Is saying “Please be advised we are opposed to the above project as planned. We would ask that the concerns of our neighbors directly across Seelye Road from this property be taken into careful consideration, as the building out to the side and up two floors from the existing house structure will surely obstruct the view of the lake from their property. Peter and Karen Bogert” And we have a letter from Linda McCollister, and they give an address of 103 Seelye Road. “We are writing this letter to register our opposition to the DeSilva application. As year-round residents on this street for over 25 years, we have seen many changes – Some Positive & Some Negative. The reason we have Zoning Restrictions is to limit overbuilding on lots that are small in size. This is what is happening in this situation because the lot size is ½ acre. It is walling off the lake by building from one side of the lot to the other side. Also, this building project will be out of character with other homes in the neighborhood. All owners who have a garage on Seelye Road are either detached or behind the existing home, etc. In addition, this proposed structure substantially blocks the lake view for people behind the DeSilva property. It also blocks the lake view for its many walkers who enjoy this lovely dead-end, lakeside, country road. In closing, when people buy property on Lake George, they know going in there will be 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) restrictions. As our Zoning Board, we hope you will honor the zoning rules so that our area does not become overbuilt. Thank you for your dedication to our Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Linda McCollister” A letter from William Wetherbee, it gives a box number. “This is written in reference to the zoning variance application of Richard and Wendy DeSilva of Seelye Road, Rockhurst, seeking relief from side-setback zoning provisions for the purpose of constructing an attached garage with living space above. Although not a resident of the immediate locality to which the proposal applies, I have been a year-round resident of the Cleverdale/Rockhurst area for over 25 years and have resided here on at least a seasonal basis for over six decades. During that period, land use and exploitation have increased dramatically and, in many cases, detrimentally. There are good and sufficient reasons for side-setback regulations, and this proposal underscores the importance of these safeguards. The projected two-story addition would prove intrusive to at least one of the applicants’ neighbors, obstructing an blocking their view to the east and concurrently having a negative effect upon property value. This is an especially significant factor in a location where aesthetics and natural surroundings are an uncommonly essential element of both life-style and real estate valuation. Moreover, there are other far less obtrusive alternatives which could and should be employed in accommodating a garage and additional living space for this residence. An abiding principle in support of zoning provisions is that, when application is made to modify or abridge those provisions, others should not experience significant negative impacts and/or be otherwise damaged if the proposal is approved. This proposal would clearly produce such an outcome. As a consequence, I would urge rejection of the variance application as currently proposed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, William B. Wetherbee” And this is a letter from DR. J. MERRIGAN, the fifth one, which I think, again, basically says what you’ve said. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Thank you. I feel sort of like the letters and the neighbors are talking about development in general and not about the application that we’re here to talk about. If this were the case where we had a house and were trying to put a garage, and there was nothing there, that would be one thing, but it’s clear from the site visit and from the photos that what’s there and what is legally there and what is allowed to stay is something that could be made a lot more attractive, and, in terms of the issues that were raised by the neighbors, the reason why you wouldn’t come in with an engineering report is because the garage is only 22 feet long, and the permeable area, and that’s just somebody that wants to oppose a development, with all due respect, the permeability is already there because you already have a roof. That’s not going to change, and it’s a very small, 22 foot long garage. It’s not a big deal, in terms of permeability. They also mentioned blocking the sun when they’re on their access parcel, and the same argument applies, that this is already there, to block the sun, and it’s only 22 feet. So in terms of that whole access parcel being down at the dock, I would argue, reasonably, this is not going to be a problem. In terms of their view, they noted in the photo that they gave you of the view, that that view was taken from the road, as it crosses on this property, on the DeSilva’s property, and their substantial view would be from their house, which would be much higher, and I don’t think that they’re looking through the carport. I think that they’re looking down across the access parcel, and we have a photo that shows that, and they noted positively that they liked all the good stuff that the DeSilva’s are proposing to improve the house, and it sounded like they were arguing to take the carport down, but that’s something that’s there, as of right, and all this considered we think, again, that this is a modest application, that we’re just trying to turn what’s there into something that’s more attractive, and that’ll improve their property value because they’re planning on spending significant money to increase the aesthetic value of this home, as the plans show, and they’re certainly not doing anything to try and hurt the neighbors. They’re just trying to clean up the property. The other issue is that the septic system is in the front area, in front of the house, where they’re suggesting that the garage could be located between the house and the road. That’s where the septic system is. The septic system should stay because it’s farthest from the lake. MR. STONE-I was unable to determine today, because of the snow, is the driveway, I know the road is dirt. What’s the driveway, is it gravel? MR. DE SILVA-It’s gravel, yes. MR. STONE-Which is therefore, by definition, non-permeable, impermeable, in Queensbury, and the septic system is under it. The leachfield is under the gravel? MR. DE SILVA-Directly in front of the house, yes. MR. STONE-There’s an impermeable surface on top of the leachfield. That’s interesting. It’s not supposed to be. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. LAPPER-They just bought it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-They didn’t do it. MR. STONE-The question here, and I address this both to you and to the Merrigans, is that a variance, and I’ve made this speech once before, is not a God given right. I mean, there is a Zoning Ordinance in place, an our basic rule is that it’s right until we say it’s wrong. So, the granting of a variance is something that we do because we have listened to the applicant and we’ve done the balancing test that we’re required to by law, the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community, and when we deny an application, what we are really doing is upholding the Zoning Ordinance. It’s not a, we’re not saying that the applicant is wrong, that they’re bad. We’re just saying we believe that the community would be harmed more than the applicant would benefit. This is why we do that. Having said that, any other questions, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-Yes, I have a few. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Roy. MR. URRICO-Okay. Again, we’re going back to the height of this. The height of the new garage, as depicted in these drawings, would come above the roofline that currently exists. Am I correct? MR. LAPPER-In this photo, this drawing, it’s just slightly. MR. URRICO-Higher? MR. LAPPER-Yes, above the edge. MR. URRICO-But it would be a consistent 19.6 feet across the front of that garage. MR. STONE-You did not give us an elevation. MR. LAPPER-This elevation? MR. STONE-No, from the Merrigans property, from the north looking south. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Is there? MR. LAPPER-This bottom one here. MR. STONE-No, that’s looking east is it not? MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. You’re talking about from the access parcel. MR. STONE-Yes. I don’t see that. Do you guys see anything, looking towards the east? Looking south, I mean. MR. URRICO-I see 19.6. It’s right on the first page. MR. ABBATE-19.6? MR. HIMES-What is the existing height? MR. STONE-See, I don’t understand this, then. This looks like this closer to the lake than the rest of the house. Are we sure this is? MR. LAPPER-The lake’s here. Chuck is the lake. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, you’re right. Okay. I did look at this, and then I said where it was it didn’t make sense. Okay. Go ahead, Roy, I’m sorry. MR. URRICO-And the front face of the garage is 16.5 and a half feet, am I reading that, or 16 feet 5 and a half inches? MR. LAPPER-Inside looks like 16.0, 16.8, and you’re asking for the width? MR. URRICO-It’s basically the same footprint that you’ve got now? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. DE SILVA-It’s the exact footprint. MR. URRICO-Okay. So the height. MR. LAPPER-Sixteen foot eight inches. MR. URRICO-Okay. Now, on the upstairs, the storage area. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we wanted to respond to that. MR. URRICO-Okay. Is there going to be a bathroom, is there going to be a door? MR. LAPPER-No. There’s no access to the second floor of the house. It only is accessible by stairs from the garage, and in fact there is a bathroom with a shower on the other side of that wall. MR. URRICO-In the main house? MR. LAPPER-Right. This is not, they’re not trying to build a. MR. DE SILVA-The bottom line in that is it would be impossible to connect the storage area to the rest of the house, is what it would be. MR. URRICO-But the garage is connected to the rest of the house? MR. DE SILVA-Yes, well, the garage, yes. MRS. DE SILVA-But there’s not a door into the house. MR. DE SILVA-The garage is connected to the house, but there’s no access to the house. MR. URRICO-You’d have to come outside and then? MR. DE SILVA-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Also the neighbors mentioned about the window and the only reason that window is there because it looks more attractive from the lake to have a window rather than to just have the clapboard. MR. DE SILVA-Aesthetically, it looks better with the window there. It’s going to be skip pealed, log siding on the side of the house. MRS. DE SILVA-So when they say it doesn’t conform to the rest, it’s going to be a log sided house. MR. LAPPER-Rather than a T111 house. MR. UNDERWOOD-What were your intentions regarding the trees in front of the carport now? Are you going to keep the trees? MR. DE SILVA-There’s no trees that are going to be, actually, the trees, I don’t know if you can see it, but the trees are further up. I mean, they’re pretty far away. Actually we’d like a lot more trees, but unfortunately there’s not a lot there. MR. ABBATE-You received five letters of disapproval? MR. MC NULTY-There was five letters, but two of them were from the Merrigans. MR. ABBATE-Okay. How many of those were year round homes, that objected? MR. STONE-There was at least one. MR. LAPPER-I know Mr. Wetherbee lives all the way up on the other side of Cleverdale. MR. ABBATE-See there are a total of six year round and six vacation and three seasonal, based upon the pictures that were submitted. Of the five objections, how many of those are year round homes? MR. MC NULTY-Some of them don’t indicate. MR. ABBATE-Because that would be a factor. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MRS. DE SILVA-Well, some of those people don’t even live by us. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s, I’m trying to justify all this. I’m trying to find out, in my own mind, to me, if you have a year round home, there is a greater emphasis, you have greater votes, so to speak, in my own mind, than if you only use it once for two weeks of the year. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Of these objections, how much weight is there? MR. DE SILVA-But if I could add something to that, too. MR. ABBATE-Sure. MR. DE SILVA-I mean, we’re up here every week. That is I’m fortunate enough to have an open schedule, so to speak, and we’re not two month out of the year residents. We do maintain a residence in North New Jersey. That’s where my business is, but we are up here. I mean, the problem now is, in speaking about storage, we’ve been coming up here for years, and this is something we’ve always aspired to do, as opposed to buying a home down on the Jersey shore, and we’ve fallen into the same category as everybody else, the boats and everything else. MR. ABBATE-But, you see, if five objections were from folks who lived year round, I would probably, in my own mind, give that greater weight than if the five objections were only up here a couple of weeks. Do you understand what I’m trying to say? I’m trying to use a balancing act here, of fairness. DR. J. MERRIGAN-I can answer your question, if you’d like me to. MR. STONE-Yes, go ahead. MR. ABBATE-By all means. Please, I want somebody to clear it up. DR. J. MERRIGAN-If you want to give me the names, I’ll tell you who’s who. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, two of them we know, because two of them are from you. DR. J. MERRIGAN-Right, yes, we’re year round. MR. MC NULTY-They’re year round, but it’s from these folks. Mr. Wetherbee indicates he’s also year round. As has been pointed out, he’s not an immediate neighbor. DR. J. MERRIGAN-He’s year round. MR. MC NULTY-And Linda McCollister indicates she’s year round. DR. J. MERRIGAN-Right, yes. MR. MC NULTY-And the last one which doesn’t indicate in the letter is Peter and Karen Bogert. DR. ME MERRIGAN-They come up every weekend. DR. J. MERRIGAN-They’re seasonal. MR. LAPPER-Since we’re inquiring, we might as well ask where they live in proximity to this property. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s important as well, Counsel. I agree. MR. STONE-133 is obviously close to 139. MR. MC NULTY-That’s the Bogert’s, 133. DR. ME MERRIGAN-They received a notice. They’re within 500 feet. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ABBATE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-Let’s see, Linda McCollister gives a post office box. No, she’s got an address here, too, 103 Seelye. DR. ME MERRIGAN-She lives next to that house that got the variance to put that (lost words). MR. MC NULTY-And William Wetherbee we’ve already established. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. STONE-He’s on Cleverdale. MR. MC NULTY-Is not an immediate neighbor. MR. LAPPER-I just don’t see this as very controversial, taking a shed roof carport and turning it into a garage. MR. STONE-I would choose to argue with that, Mr. Lapper, and you can rebut what I am about to say. As I look at the picture that the Merrigans provided, and I certainly thank them for their thoroughness, obviously, they have a very vested interest in it, but nevertheless I appreciate their thinking. If you look at this picture of the carport, one at the particular angle that it was taken, I almost don’t see the roofline. I don’t see the roof. I do see right through to the lake, and certainly with the snow on it, with the ice on it, makes it very easy to see, and I do know that the side is not solid. This elevation that I apologize that I didn’t see, I’m looking at what looks to be a very big wall. MR. LAPPER-Okay, but two points there. When they’re looking, they’re looking through at ground level from the road, on the DeSilva’s property. They’re not looking from their home, which is up on the hill, in terms of where the view is, and when you’re looking at the side, they’d only be looking at the side of the building if they were coming down the access parcel to get to their dock on the lake. That’s not an important view, either. MR. STONE-But nevertheless it is a view, and this is going to be higher. This roof is going way up, and it’s going to be, yes, there are going to be windows in it, but the windows are going to go into the interior of the house, and I’m going to block off. MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about this view here? MR. STONE-Yes, I’m talking about that view there. MR. LAPPER-If you’re looking at it from the side, you’d be looking at the roof of the house anyway. MR. STONE-Okay, but I’m looking here, this picture that’s provided and we’re going to go up a fair number of feet. MR. LAPPER-And I believe that they could side that and finish it as they have the building permit to do that. MR. STONE-But I can’t see through it, though. MR. LAPPER-No, they could complete the job and side it, and then you won’t be able to see through it. So all we’re really talking about is a storage area on top. MR. STONE-You’re saying they could. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MR. ABBATE-Would you clear that up for me now, as a matter of fact we just discussed this earlier. The picture that we have right here, okay, of your property, clearly shows that there is a slanted roof with an automobile underneath there. Can you, at the present time, enclose that without requesting a variance. MR. LAPPER-I believe that they could request, they could enclose that without a variance or a building permit, they can just side it, because they have a building permit, and they started to comply with it, but usually, if you start, you get vested rights by doing something. If you start a project, you’re allowed to finish the project. MR. ABBATE-And in view of the fact that the permit has already expired, it has no significance? MR. LAPPER-I believe that. MR. STONE-Bruce, do you want to make a comment? MR. FRANK-Well, I know Craig, the Zoning Administrator, had a long discussion with the contractor. If their intentions were just to side it, I’m not sure that was the issue we discussed, but I believe they’re going to put in a foundation. Now if they put in a foundation, obviously, that would change matters. If they were to just side it, I don’t remember that discussion ever coming up. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. DE SILVA-There’s a foundation there now. I think the question was was it a good foundation, but there is a foundation there now. MR. STONE-But siding it, does that include enclosing totally? MR. FRANK-I’m going to have to look into that. I can’t honestly say one way or the other. MR. STONE-I would think you’d have to get a permit. MR. LAPPER-I believe they can do that, they can side it, because they already have that permit. MR. STONE-Obviously, I think there’s some concern on the part of the Board. MR. ABBATE-Okay, then I have just a second point and I’ll keep quiet. Have you considered placing the garage on the rear of the building, here, coming off here? MR. DE SILVA-That’s the front of the building. MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay, all right, if you want to consider that the front, the rear portion with the automobile back here? MR. DE SILVA-That’s the front of the building and that is directly on top of the septic system. MRS. DE SILVA-And that’s our bathroom in front. MR. STONE-At the risk of , not embarrassing you, sir, but as a lake owner, we have a couple on this Board, that’s the back of the house. MR. DE SILVA-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. STONE-The front of the house is on the lake. MR. DE SILVA-Let me put it to you this way, that’s the way we enter the house. MR. STONE-We call ours the main doors. MR. ABBATE-The back of the house, right. MR. HIMES-Could I ask something, just to clarify it. You did say, and I think I heard, that you have no access from the carport now or when the garage is built to the house directly? MR. DE SILVA-That’s correct. In other words, to get into the garage, you’ll have to exit the house and go into the garage. MR. HIMES-Okay. Now are you going to use this to house an automobile? MR. DE SILVA-The garage? An automobile and/or a boat during the wintertime, the garage itself. MR. HIMES-All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, does anybody have an idea of what the original garage was supposed to have looked like? MR. DE SILVA-I’ve got sketches of it and everything. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was that a single story, or? MR. DE SILVA-Yes, I believe it was, to answer your question. You’ll have to excuse me. I brought everything that was remotely associated with this in case there was a question. MR. ABBATE-And that was approved? MR. DE SILVA-Yes, it was. MR. STONE-With a variance? MR. DE SILVA-No, at the time I don’t think you needed a variance, if I’m not mistaken. MR. STONE-When was it approved? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. LAPPER-1979. MR. STONE-Okay. Then the setback was much more lenient. MR. DE SILVA-This is what was originally approved. MR. ABBATE-A single story, correct? MR. DE SILVA-Yes. MR. STONE-It is nonconforming now. MR. DE SILVA-Yes, but the roofline is about the same. We would just be sort of like giving it more usability, more room up there, and they clarify it to have it, the view from the road, is what they call it, but we knew that the question of storage, as opposed to trying to sneak a room up there, would be a question, and to clarify that and put that solidly in your mind, that’s why there’s no access, and the way the house is situated, there can’t be access to the house. It just doesn’t line up, and if you wanted to do it through the upstairs bedroom, that’s right where the bathrooms are upstairs. So it would be just a major, major undertaking. You’d have to walk through a bathroom. MR. ABBATE-So when you’re suggesting, the garage is going to be a garage. MR. DE SILVA-The garage is going to be a garage. There’s no doubt about that. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. DE SILVA-Thank you. MR. HIMES-I guess one of the things that I, in connection with its use and the fact that it’s not an attached garage, you know, it’s attached by use, that you have to go outside the garage of the house and so on, one thing leading to another, as Counsel has said, and I would think this is so, that the structure as it exists now could be completed, sides on it, maybe a garage door or something in the front, and I would wonder somewhat, in contrast to what you were proposing, what the neighbors here tonight, we can’t ask the others, how they would feel about that, as opposed to what appears to be a nice looking thing, but what I feel, the roof is a little higher. It’s not sloped, I mean, you look at it from one standpoint, and it really doesn’t look as appealing as it could, and if it were finished, so to speak, sided in the back, would block some of your view, and would be a shed. Now, how would you, if there were to be some kind of a compromise? DR. ME MERRIGAN-Enclosed? MR. HIMES-As opposed to what’s there now. There’s something there, and it is going to stay there. MR. STONE-What are you asking? We can’t ask them unless we open the public hearing. What are you saying? And I may re-open the public hearing, but why don’t you ask the question. MR. HIMES-All right. What I’m saying is, I wonder whether or not the people who are objecting really would like to see that whole thing gone? The fact that it is going to stay, the shed, as is or probably if no variance was granted, it will be sided and maybe enclosed. Let’s put it that way, and given your concern for aesthetics and the values, how would you feel about that? Which is likely to happen, if no variance is granted, as opposed to the garage being built, what appears to be in a pleasing appearance, modest impact on what you might see because of the higher roof, it’s not being sloped. Given those alternatives, which are about the only ones I can see, other than digging up the septic tank and going through all that stuff, is there any possibility there of saying, well, I guess, you know, maybe the best thing here is to let them go ahead, or whether you’d say no, no, we’ll let this thing stand as is and let them go ahead with what they might be able to do without a variance? Okay. MR. STONE-Let me open the public hearing, just for the purpose clarification. I’m going to suggest, how would you feel, as people who have been quite, I would say outspoken, I don’t mean that negatively. You have spoken quite eloquently on the subject, if we didn’t grant a variance and the applicant found a way, and I’m not sure, I think we’d have to talk about it, found a way to totally enclose the shed that’s there now? PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MARY ELLEN MERRIGAN DR. ME MERRIGAN-I think that you really would have to go back to Craig Brown. MR. STONE-I understand. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) DR. ME MERRIGAN-I’ve had two conversations with him, and if I’m representing what he told me correctly, he said that they cannot do that, that that permit was in 1979, and that they didn’t use it at the time, and that enclosing it would require a variance. MR. STONE-Okay. DR. ME MERRIGAN-We had this discussion, and if it does require a variance, which is what I think Craig Brown was saying, I would be in favor of upholding the zoning laws, which were changed from 1979 because they were horrid in 1979, and I would be in favor. MR. STONE-But on the basis of setback, that’s the only thing, and it’s a nonconforming use. It would be a modification. So you would not be happy, that’s the point you’re saying. DR. ME MERRIGAN-I would still find it to be an unnecessary request. MR. STONE-Okay. DR. J. MERRIGAN-As a continuation of that, as it stands now, I see no reason to add that half a story. Regardless of what conclusion, I don’t see where they need that half a story that blocks us, for storage, when they have adequate storage in the basement, and it does, you know, I’ve sat here, I watched Mr. Lecy down the road promise, swear before the Board, that if they allowed him a little more dock space, he’d never have more than two boats there. Well, I’ve never seen less than four boats there. MR. STONE-Okay. That’s off the point, but it’s a valid point. DR. J. MERRIGAN-It is a valid point, because one thing leads to another, and I’m not saying that the DeSilvas would, but we’ll be back here in five years with another resident saying, well, we just want to raise the roof three feet, and we already picked out a spot to put the door, and you know that this happens all the time. MR. SALVADOR-Is there any aspect of this application that would require the septic system to be brought up to current standards? MR. STONE-There is nothing? MR. FRANK-They’re not adding living space, so there’s no need to update the septic. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Because our current Code does not allow an impervious surface over a leachfield. MR. STONE-Right. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. I mean, that is a serious problem. That should be addressed. That is noncompliance. That is not compliance with the Code, and that should be addressed by the Code Enforcement Officer. DR. ME MERRIGAN-What is the height of that room inside? MR. STONE-I don’t know. Do you have a height of the room inside? MR. URRICO-The current one or the new one? The new one is 19.6. So are you talking about the old one? DR. ME MERRIGAN-No. I’m wondering, again, properties change hands, and even if the DeSilvas don’t intend to make it a bedroom, if the next owner decides that it has enough height, and they just need to, even though the floors are at different levels, need to. MR. LAPPER-We’ll answer that. MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s close the public hearing again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HIMES-Could I go on with my? MR. STONE-Yes, please do. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. HIMES-It sounds like it’s heading this way a little bit, in trying to bring about some kind of a compromise, if possible, here, which will meet some of your needs, and which will satisfy some of your concerns, whether it’s not quite as high or whatever it might be, recognizing that some of the objections that you made are such that appearance and values, and so forth, are involved, and certainly what their doing I don’t think negatively impacts that entirely, or it might be, you know, where you stand, whether it’s going to impact it favorably or unfavorably. This is what I’m trying to do because I would think that this could happen. I think that, if you all could reach something that you could say, we could live with that, then I think, myself at least, on the Board here, would be very likely to grant a variance. MR. ABBATE-Let me follow up on that. Is there any type of construction that you would approve? DR. ME MERRIGAN-I would think the pictures that you have in front of you, that show separate buildings, I guess I don’t see why they need relief from the zoning, and as Craig Brown explained it to me, enclosing it would require a variance. MR. ABBATE-No, but answer my question, please. Is there any kind of construction that you folks would agree to? DR. ME MERRIGAN-Not if it violated the zoning. MR. ABBATE-So there’s no construction that you would agree to. So there’s no way we can compromise, then. MR. LAPPER-They would like us to take down the shed, the carport, and that’s not going to happen. MR. STONE-Well, we’re not there. MR. LAPPER-To answer what Norm just said, in talking to the DeSilvas, what we could offer is to prove their intentions are not to turn it into a bedroom, and to mitigate as much as possible, if they made that storage area six and a half feet, it wouldn’t meet Code for any kind of living space. I mean, they could still walk in it and store stuff, but it would prove that they’re not trying to sneak in a bedroom, and it would reduce the top probably a foot and a half, and they would be happy to do that, because they’re just looking for storage space. MR. ABBATE-There’s an offer of a compromise. MR. HIMES-Let me say, too, again, that if they came back and did require a variance, just to close it in, how do you know how that’s going to go? So that’s just a. MR. STONE-But the point is we don’t know the answer to whether or not you could do what you think you could do, if we denied or we did not grant a variance. I hate, well, let’s just go around the room and let’s see where we stand, before we, let’s start with Jim. Go ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we need to reflect upon several different things here. Number One is the width of this lot, all right, which is 90 feet, all right, which is pretty minimal. It’s not the tiniest one we’ve dealt with up here, but it’s still, nonetheless, pretty small, and I think that the Merrigans raised some valid points, looking at Schreiber’s when we added on, you know, we kind of collapsed it into this much smaller space. I think his lot is probably narrower than this. MR. LAPPER-I think considerably. MR. UNDERWOOD-At the same time, you know, this house was originally designed as a summer place, and we’re looking at the square footage of the footprint of the house, it’s 928 square feet, and you’ve got two stories and a full cellar. So you’re talking almost 3,000 square feet of living space, which is pretty substantial for a place up on the lake. I don’t think there’s any doubt that it’s a lot. The view compromise thing, you know, looking at the current pictures, you know, whether you look from the road or from the lake, you can see through this present carport that’s there, which I think is a valid point. Whether or not you would be allowed to close it in at some point, you know, you probably would have to go to variance because it doesn’t meet the existing setbacks, and I think that that’s something to keep in mind also. You have a substantial amount of room on the back of the house that probably could be considered for an addition, if you really did need that storage space, or a garage, it might mean a modification of the septic system, which probably, who knows if it’s operational. It’s pretty old at this point anyway. So I think, at this point in time, I would not be in favor of the application. I think that there’s room for compromise. I think that it should be considered, building off the back of this house, directly in line with what’s there already, because that would not compromise anyone. It would still allow you a garage. You could probably even have a two car garage on there, off the back, if you wanted to. So I think that you should go back to the drawing board. MR. STONE-Chuck? 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. MC NULTY-I, essentially, feel the same way, and I think what we have to consider here is not just the Merrigans’ view, but there are a lot of neighbors, I think they did point out, that walk that road. There were people walking it a couple of nights ago when I was up there, just about five, five-thirty, dark, but there were still people using the road. So there’s a lot of people that are going to be affected if the lot is closed in more by putting a garage in this spot, and has been pointed out, I think there are options available that would be compliant and might involve modifying the septic system, but that may just be what has to happen. I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’ll take it down the list of the criteria. The benefit to the applicant is obvious. They would be permitted to construct this garage with the storage area above it. The second criteria is whether there are feasible alternatives, and I think there are. I’m not sure what they are, I’m not an architect, but it seems to me that there might be some. The third being is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, and 59% is, in my mind, moderate, and I think if there were a house next door, it would be even more dramatic than it is now. Just because there’s nobody occupying that land doesn’t mean the setback should take less importance than it does now, because there’s no building there. So, and then the effects on the neighborhood or community, I hope you didn’t mind, I wrote on your drawing, but I tried to imagine what the roofline would look coming across here, and it’s pretty dramatic, pretty substantial. They’re going to lose a good portion of their view, and that’s just the Merrigans, and given the other neighbors as well, I think they have a point. I think they have a very valid point, and then the fifth one, is this difficulty self-created, and I think it is, and so, based on the weight of that criteria, I would be against it. I think there’s room for compromise. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. You all know my feeling in connection with the parties trying to reach some kind of a compromise here. Without that, I’d say that I was very surprised that the existing carport, the planned garage, there’s no access to the house. So in that connection, I would be thinking, well, it serves its purpose all right now, as far as functional. It’s got a cover over it, stuff runs off, maybe a little bit of snow blows in it once in a while, but that’s it. It doesn’t look too good. You’d like to improve it. The neighbors would like to see it improved, but it comes down to the point, well, we have no options, it’s got to stay the way it is, or perhaps an application for a different kind of a variance. So I would tend to say, without the compromise, I would not be in support of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, before we continue, can I clear up a few matters? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. FRANK-I spoke with the Zoning Administrator. First of all, if they wanted to enclose that structure, they would not need a variance to do so, and they might not even need a building permit to do so. That’s what the Zoning Administrator told me. I just got off the phone with him. The other issue is, with the septic where it is, our feasible alternative that Craig and I discussed, that I suggested, was to build the garage in a location on the left hand side, which would be compliant. We didn’t know there was a septic system there because the contractor never told us that, never would have given that as a feasible alternative, but even so, now that that’s brought to light, even if it’s under an (lost word) service, it has nothing to do with this application because what they are proposing is not livable space, and it was a pre-existing condition. So, as far as Craig is concerned, that’s not at issue also. So, I don’t know what I’ve missed so far, but those were two points that were brought up. Just to let you know, that’s what the Zoning Administrator told me. MR. STONE-Okay. Does that effect any of the people who spoke, well, why don’t you speak, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Bruce, that helps out. In view of the fact there doesn’t appear to be any compromise, it would appear that the applicants have the following options. One, they could enclose that garage and use that for storage, etc., etc., if they wish, or, two, they could retain that portion where the garage is right now and perhaps ask for a variance to extend the front or the back of the house, however you want to perceive it, that type of thing. I appreciate individual’s objections to perceived possible injuries, if you will. However, on the other hand, I believe that property owners still have property rights. I don’t suggest that these property rights should be abused to the detriment of neighbors, etc., etc., but I always stand back with awe when I hear parties saying there will be no compromise. We cannot compromise. That, perhaps, suggests something else. I am not going to take a position for or against this application, and merely suggest that you know what your options are. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Two or three things that I want to say. One, and this is for the Merrigans. If, in fact, and it’s, I can’t say it’s hearsay, because this is our Staff, but it is hearsay, legally, that Mr. Brown said that they could build. You have the right of challenging that decision, if you ask him to put it in writing, and that 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) would come to us. I mean, I just want to make sure that you know you have that right. If this is a decision made by the Zoning Administrator, it can be challenged. Correct? MR. FRANK-That is correct. MR. STONE-Okay. So I just want everybody to know that. The other thing is, what we’re really talking about, and I think we’ve lost, I’m saying the Board has lost, focus on this, and it’s not a criticism. What we’re talking about is a setback variance. What you do with a setback variance has nothing to do with us in a sense. If you want to put a garage there, if you want to put another part of the building there, that’s all well and good. We’re talking about 11 foot of relief. I believe that’s the number, 11.8 feet of relief on a 20 foot minimum. I think it’s too much. MR. LAPPER-But it’s already existing. That’s the big difference here. MR. STONE-But the point is, you are before us with a request for 11.8 feet of relief. That’s the only thing I’ve got here is 11.8 feet of relief. It’s too much for lake property as far as I’m concerned. MR. LAPPER-The result that’s going to come of this is to side what’s there now, which is not going to be anywhere near as attractive as what we’re proposing. I don’t think that’s in any of the neighbor’s interests to do that, and that’s what, I mean, that’s where you’re pushing us, and I just, I think in terms of the balancing test, the best interest of the neighborhood and the applicants is served by doing a much more attractive job here than just doing a simple job. MR. STONE-Well, I didn’t go through the rest of my point. The point is that that’s what we’re here to do. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-And yes the applicant, if we granted that, the applicant plans to build the requested, the desired garage, which is the plans that are before us. MR. LAPPER-And we’ve offered, in terms of compromise, to reduce the roof by a foot and a half as well. MR. STONE-Okay, but I’m still concerned with the roof thing. I think Roy mentioned if there were something there, I know there’s not something there, we wouldn’t probably hesitate to not grant that much relief. I mean, I appreciate the willingness to compromise, and I guess I would like to see that on a drawing, so that I know exactly where the building is going to come, personally. I mean, right now, unless anybody has changed his mind on the basis of what the Zoning Administrator said, we’ve got at least four votes that would not approve. MR. LAPPER-I guess I’m curious as to whether or not the Zoning Administrator’s is. MR. STONE-I’m going to ask, I’ve asked that, I mean, has anybody changed their position, based upon what Bruce reported? MR. ABBATE-No. MR. HIMES-No. MR. STONE-Okay. So we’re still, you’ve still got four votes, plus mine. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Then in that case I will ask that the Board table it and we’ll go back to the drawing board and we’ll come back next time. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I’m not saying that we’re going to move the garage, but we’ll try and come back with the best application we can. MR. STONE-That’s fine. Have you, has the applicant sat down with the Merrigans and the neighbors to discuss this at all? MR. DE SILVA-No. We didn’t know that there was such a. MR. STONE-Okay. May I ask that it might be a good thing to do. That’s all I’m suggesting. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2002 RICHARD AND WENDY DE SILVA, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) 139 Seelye Road, Cleverdale. For up to 62 days, in order for the applicant to prepare modifications that might meet some of the objections expressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals members. Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, we can’t go. We have to have an election. Mr. Salvador, go before the microphone. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-I’m John Salvador. On the first application, you were, everyone on the Board was concerned about the piecemeal approach to these approvals. This has a simple solution. If you treat these projects, under SEQRA, as not independent, the piecemeals as independent pieces, but you treat the addition as an addition to something that has already been approved, and you do a supplemental EIS where you address cumulative impacts, then you get the whole relationship, and as one project comes and two projects, you just keep adding them up, and you evaluate the cumulative impacts, and you don’t get yourselves in this box of the piecemeal. MR. ABBATE-You’re right, John. MR. SALVADOR-The last application here is simply a conversion. It’s a conversion of a summer camp to a year round home. That’s what we’re doing. Now, the first Zoning Ordinance that was developed by this Town took into consideration that this pressure was upon us. This is what was going to happen, and there was a provision in that Zoning Ordinance for the registration, the registration, of seasonal use cottages. They were supposed to be registered, and then, if you went to do a conversion, if you will, the procedure was to get a Special Use Permit. In other words, the use was changing. It was changing from seasonal use to year round use, and then we had a whole basket of issues that we had to address under that. So these folks come in here and they’re looking for an Area Variance, but in reality, the big problem is the use. The use is changing. MR. STONE-Well, okay. That’s beyond our scope, as you know. Well, in terms of amending the Ordinance, that’s the Town Board. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, we have all served on these committees. We’ve gone through this. We talk about it, and it always gets shuffled under the rug. It took me long enough to get to the fact that the marina, that is the Castaway, I guess, has an easement over this property to get to the lake, as well the road. Now, I’m glad, because, Mr. Stone, this comes back into another area you deal with, the Town’s Appraiser, in our assessment case, has utilized the sale of the Castaway Marina as a comparable in our Article Seven, and they are, the Appraiser is compelled to evaluate the fee simple interest of that property as compared to ours, and this easement was not included, and that’s part of the fee simple interest. MR. STONE-Okay. I suggest that you go see Mrs. Otte, or come to see us in May, John. MR. SALVADOR-It’s complicated, believe me. MR. HIMES-Why did things get pushed under the rug, as you mentioned? MR. ABBATE-Don’t get him going. We’ll be here an hour. MR. STONE-Don’t get him going, please. Gentlemen, we have to have an election for the officers for the Year 2002. I will entertain a motion for a nomination for Chairman. MR. ABBATE-I’d suggest that we maintain consistency, and retain the current officers that we have. MR. HIMES-I second that. MOTION TO RETAIN THE OFFICERS AS THEY EXIST TODAY FOR 2002, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 16 day of January, by the following vote: th MR. HIMES-Can you do that for the Vice Chairman, without him being here? MR. ABBATE-Yes. He can decline. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) MR. STONE-Actually, we appoint the Vice Chairman, I believe. Only the Town Board appoints the Chairman. So we can do it, and he can always say to us no. MR. ABBATE-All right, then I second the motion. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. We have minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES November 28, 2001: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 28, 2001 MEETING, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant December 13, 2001: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13, 2001, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant December 19, 2001: Page 33, at the bottom, Mr. McNulty says 900,000 square foot house, s/b 900 square foot house MOTION THAT THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2001 BE APPROVED WITH THE CORRECTION THAT ON PAGE 33 IT SAYS 900 SQUARE FOOT RATHER THAN 900,000 SQUARE FOOT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNally, Mr. Bryant MR. ABBATE-That’s it. MR. STONE-That’s it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 1/16/02) Lewis Stone, Chairman 39