Loading...
2002-06-13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 13, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROY URRICO PAUL HAYES ALLAN BRYANT CHARLES ABBATE NORMAN HIMES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. STONE-First order of business tonight is that we are going to consider the approval of the minutes for our Special Meeting of last week, the meeting of June 6. I believe the Board has gotten copies. Is there th anything, any additions or corrections? CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 6, 2002 MR. HIMES-Yes, Mr. Chairman. I’d more or less just like to have something confirmed. It’s on the fifth line, at the beginning of the meeting, and Craig’s letter, I think, was read into the record, and he uses the word there “peaked”, and I believe, in his letter as well as in the minutes here, the word is spelled, p-e-a-k-e-d, and I think it could be important, given the sensitivity of this particular application, that he probably meant p- i-q-u-e-d. MR. STONE-All right. I will direct Maria to question Craig on that, prior to release of the approved minutes. Thank you. Anybody else? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I have a couple of minor changes I’d like to make. On Page 8, in the section where it starts “Mr. McNulty”, about two-thirds of the way down that section, on the left hand edge, you’ll see the word “any” underlined. On that line, reading over any doubt that if we approve this application that it would, and I would like to insert “not” after “would” be, and remove “done afterwards”, and I think that expresses what I intended to say. Also, from that line, going up three lines, near the end of that line, it says should we approve it, question mark, and that question mark really should be a colon. Because what I was saying in that section is, as far as the appearance of impropriety, should we consider this application, not a question, but if we consider this application, and if we approve it’s what I meant. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Then I think we’ve solved that tonight, so change the question mark to a colon. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else? MR. ABBATE-No. I’m happy with Mr. McNulty clearing up the statement. That, then, allows me to do away with a 45 minute dissertation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-You’re all very fortunate. Okay with the question and the change, do I hear a motion to approve? MOTION TO APPROVE JUNE 6, 2002 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who move for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Okay. First on the agenda. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) NEW BUSINESS: SEQRA AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2002 TYPE I GREEN MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT GROUP CEDAR SENIOR LIVING FACILITY PROJECT PROPERTY OWNER: WOODBURY DEVELOPMENT GROUP AGENT: THE CHAZEN COMPANIES (STUART MESSINGER) LITTLE & O’CONNOR (MIKE O’CONNOR) LOCATION: BAY ROAD ZONE: PO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AND TO CONSENT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THIS PROJECT. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF LOT WITHOUT FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET AND A LOT FOR WHICH THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS NOT PROVIDED BY A PUBLIC STREET. CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2002 AND SPR 25-2002 TAX MAP NO. 296.07-1-15 AND 289.19-1-15 LOT SIZE: 19.39 ACRES AND 5 ACRES SECTION 179-4-90 MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DOES CONSENT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BE THE LEAD AGENT FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2002 THE SEQRA PORTION THEREOF, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Okay. Now, getting down to other business. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2002 TYPE II MARK & HEATHER MC LEOD PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JAMES W. MOONEY LOCATION: 91 ROCKHURST ROAD ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 91 SQ. FT. DECK AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-37 LOT SIZE: 0.22 ACRES SECTION 179-4-20 JAMES MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; HEATHER MC LEOD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2002, Mark & Heather McLeod, Meeting Date: June 13, 2002 “Project Location: 91 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 91 sq. ft. deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone § 179-4-030. 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 deck in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing the stairs from the top portion of the deck to the concrete pad, which would require minimal relief. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, relative to the ordinance (24%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the location of the dwelling on the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-309: 05/08/02; 540 sq. ft. boathouse. SP 14-2002: 04/16/02; 14’ x 40’ boathouse/sundeck. BP 2002-151: 03/14/02; dock. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has proposed to construct a 91 sq. ft. deck. However, the construction was already started, but halted when the applicant was informed of the encroachment on the 50-foot shoreline setback. Additionally, it appears the deck is approximately 106 sq. ft. rather than the 91 sq. ft. claimed by the applicant. Should the application be approved, it doesn’t appear the proposed deck would be out of character with the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-I think we’re supposed to have a Warren County form here. MR. STONE-I went last night for the first time ever. There were so many numbers being passed around, I don’t know whether that came up or not. MR. MC NULTY-The agenda, I think, indicated it was referred to Warren County Planning on 6/12. MR. STONE-They had a whole list of No County Impact. I assume there was No County Impact. Keep looking for it. MR. MC NULTY-I’ll keep looking for it. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-But before we start, I do have a point of personal privilege. I forgot to say this. I would like to wish Happy Birthday to one of our members of the Zoning Board. Mr. Chuck Abbate is some age today. Different than the age he was yesterday. Happy Birthday. MR. ABBATE-Gosh, Mr. Chairman, now I owe you. MR. HAYES-Double nickel. MR. STONE-Double nickel? MR. ABBATE-What’s double nickel mean, 55? How about 71. MR. STONE-He’s even older than I am. MR. ABBATE-Thanks, Jaime, I owe you now. MR. STONE-Well, we can all get on that bandwagon. I’m sorry. Okay. State who you are. Anything you want to add to this whole thing. MR. MOONEY-I’m James Mooney, agent for Mrs. McLeod. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. MC LEOD-I’m Heather McLeod. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MOONEY-You said in the minutes there by the Staff that it was 106 square feet. What it is part of the deck sits back on top of the foundation, the existing foundation of the house, and we measured from the foundation out, not in through that part of the deck. That’s why it came to 91 square feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that has nothing to do with this variance that we’re granting. MR. MOONEY-I know that. MR. STONE-Or not granting. MR. MOONEY-The McLeod’s didn’t realize, when they started building, that they needed a variance. I was doing the dock at the time. I wasn’t doing the work on the steps, and the Town happened to see the steps and the deck, and they called the McLeod’s and told them to halt work, and I’m just being the agent for them for that. Okay, but as I say, it’s not encroaching upon the neighbors. It’s further back than most of the decks in that area. In other words, you could look parallel to Rockhurst. It sits back, they’re all about 30, 40 feet from the lake. The house is not 50 feet from the lake. So, I mean, it’s pretty difficult in that area. So that’s really all I had to add, and the other thing is that they don’t have an exit off the front of the house at all, lake exit. They only have a rear exit to the house, and I think, you know, that was one of their reasons to put the exit off the front of the house for safety reasons, too. MR. STONE-Well, one of the suggestions that Staff made was that, instead of coming straight down toward the lake, go at an angle alongside the house. Is that what you’re talking about, the safety aspects? MR. MOONEY-No, that part of it, on one side of the house, they have propane tanks, off to the one side of the deck. On the other side of the deck, they have a window in their basement. The stairs would encroach upon the window. That’s why they put the steps off the front. MR. STONE-Unfortunately, you’re talking to a person who has a house on the lake who has the exact same situation, steps going down in front of lower windows. So, it’s a good argument, but you can’t talk to me about it. You can talk to these guys. That’s okay. MR. MOONEY-And the deck itself is only three feet wide. It’s kind of a narrow deck. It wouldn’t be as pleasant, put it that way. MR. STONE-Mrs. McLeod, talk to me a little bit about the shed down by the water. MRS. MC LEOD-That shed was there. It’s always been there, since we moved. MR. STONE-It’s always been on your neighbor’s property? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MRS. MC LEOD-Yes. I think that, the situation with the neighbor’s property is that the parents owned the parcel that we have now, and the son bought the parcel from them, the one next door to it. So I think back when that exchange was made, you know, the parents probably didn’t care what their son did. They moved things back and forth however they wanted to. So my neighbor, when we first moved, she told us that the shed was on her property, but she was like, you know, just so you know, but, she goes, I don’t care if it’s there. MR. STONE-She said the same to me today when I was up there. MRS. MC LEOD-Okay. Yes. MR. STONE-Any questions, gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-Besides the window issue, is there a problem with running the steps to the patio? MRS. MC LEOD-Really, that’s the main thing is that it would go right in front of the windows, and it would substantially, you know, deter from our patio, because it would really take up a lot of space on the patio. MR. BRYANT-Because based on the calculations, and you wouldn’t need any relief, based on the calculations on your drawing, because you would have the 55 feet, 50 feet from the lake, at that point, if you just turn the steps to the patio. MRS. MC LEOD-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And you wouldn’t even have to be here. MRS. MC LEOD-Yes, well, I’d rather be here and try to get them going down the front then, you know, not come and have them go down in front of the windows. MR. STONE-Well, as I look at this drawing, though, 50 feet takes it back to the house. Am I correct, Bruce, in looking at this drawing? Is that what your determination? I’m just looking at the drawing. I see a 50 foot and a 38 feet, and the 50 seems to go to the house side of the deck. MR. MOONEY-The 50 feet’s to the front of the deck, to the house. MR. STONE-To the house. That’s what I’m saying, yes. MR. MOONEY-It would be 47 feet. MR. STONE-So if the stairs went down to the left side of the deck in front of the house toward the pad, it would still be requiring some relief, but it would require minimal relief, and that’s always the thing that we’re concerned about. When we grant relief, we want to grant the minimum relief that will benefit the applicant, and at the same time protect the community in the highest degree. Anybody else have anything to say? MR. ABBATE-Just, Mr. and Mrs. McLeod, my congratulations, and Mrs. McLeod said it right, that you’d rather be here. I think you did the absolute right thing and it shows to me a lot of integrity. Now the question I have is this, and you may have explained it, but since it’s my birthday, I’m 71, you know, sometimes I forget. Is it a 91 square foot deck or is it, in fact 106 square feet? MRS. MC LEOD-Well, I don’t know, to be honest with you, because it’s not completed yet. The deck itself is, you know, I mean, part of it is the stairs, too. So I don’t know if you’re calculating just the deck, or the deck and the stairs. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me refer this to Bruce. Bruce, in your notes, you indicated that the deck, rather than 91 square feet, my words, as described by the applicant, is, in effect, approximately 106. MR. FRANK-According to the site plan, they’re showing the deck to be three feet deep. The deck is not three feet deep. It’s a little more than four feet deep. When you apply for a building permit, you apply for the full surface area of the deck, not what projects out past where the house is. So regardless of, I think the information is accurate what I have for the setback, but I also think it’s accurate for the square footage of the deck because I measured it myself. It’s 4.25 feet deep by the accurate dimensions given 11 feet 10 inches. So that’s what, I measured it very accurately. MRS. MC LEOD-That’s the size, that would be the, I think what you were talking about, yes. When you measured that, he measured not from the actual decking, but from where the deck covered up part of the foundation. That’s why there’s a discrepancy, but, yes, it’s the 106. MR. STONE-Okay, but that’s roughly 50 square feet. So you’re including the stairs to get to the rest of it? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. MOONEY-Everything, the stairs, the landing, the deck is, I came up with 91 square feet. MR. MC NULTY-They’re coming from there out. Bruce measured from there out. MR. STONE-Okay, but even if you count this, that’s four, you said, Bruce said it was four and a quarter by almost twelve, which is forty-eight by my, I mean, give or take fifty. MR. FRANK-I have the upper deck is 50.3 square feet, the stairs is 30 square feet, and the landing is 25.9 square feet. MR. STONE-All right. So you’re taking the area of the stairs and the area of the landing where it comes down. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-But that doesn’t really present a problem, does it, Mr. Chairman, as such? MR. STONE-No, not for what we’re trying to grant. MR. MOONEY-Excuse me. The landing itself, they can make that smaller if it makes it under 100 square feet. I mean, that’s not a big deal. MR. STONE-The area’s not really important. What we’re talking about is the relief necessary to build it the way you want to build it, at the closest point to the lake of the constructed material. MR. MOONEY-Right. I understand what you’re saying. The only other thing that I have to say is that the other people next door on each side have stairs and decks way out beyond this area, you know, perpendicular to the shoreline. MR. STONE-Well, that’s good, but that only affects, that only comes into play if somebody wants to be, if everybody is very close, but it’s still 50 feet or the greater of the average. We will get to that in a later discussion on another variation, another variance, but the only time the neighbors come into play is if they’re further back, then you’ve got to be further back, but it doesn’t help you get closer to the lake. I mean, it’s something, it’s an argument you can make, and it’s something that we may want to accept, but it’s not automatic. MR. MOONEY-No, I understand that. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Mooney, one other point, too, and the Chairman is absolutely right. To put you somewhat at ease, I think the Staff comments that the proposed deck would not be out of character with the neighborhood, should put you somewhat at ease. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. HIMES-One quick question, minor point. Is this, the stairs come down onto another small concrete pad? MR. MOONEY-It’s a wood landing. MR HIMES-A wood landing. MR. MOONEY-It’s a step down from there to the. MR. HIMES-I’m looking at the plans here where it says finished. Does that make any difference, Bruce, the patio, you know, concrete, and that doesn’t come into any of the considerations for setback, evidently? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. The patio’s not being considered. MR. HIMES-A wood landing as opposed to a surface. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-Wood land is construction, and that’s different than. MR. HIMES-Yes, but the surface, if it were a concrete pad, the surface of the deck, bring the setback a little closer to the house? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. FRANK-But again, the patio is not being considered, doesn’t have to meet the shoreline setback. MR. HIMES-Yes, but I meant the platform for the stairs. MR. FRANK-That’s part of the construction. That’s got to meet the shoreline setback. MR. HIMES-Even if it’s the concrete pad, instead of a? MR. FRANK-We’re only looking at the deck and the stairs, the part of the construction, the wood construction, not the concrete. MR. HIMES-Yes, but what I’m saying is that they’re planning on a wood landing at the bottom of the stairs which projects even further than the deck, and calls for a greater variance. If this landing at the bottom of the stairs was actually concrete, the surface level of the land, wouldn’t that, wouldn’t you pick up a foot or two from the relief needed, right? MR. FRANK-I’m only looking at what’s on this application. Did I miss something? MR. STONE-No. He’s saying, Bruce, that if the stairs came down to a concrete pad, level with the ground. MR. FRANK-Instead of what they have proposed? MR. STONE-Yes, that would not be considered construction. MR. FRANK-I believe so. MR. STONE-So you’re right, Norm, that you could pick up a couple of feet, whatever that was, but it’s still, right now they’re looking for 12 feet of relief, and that would make it 7 feet. It would still be considerably closer to the lake than 50 feet. MR. HIMES-Yes, but you want to determine what the actual amount of relief is, exactly. MR. STONE-Yes. We’re going to have to ask them what they’re going to do. That’s right. MR. HIMES-But it would be less than what has been requested. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Anything else? Any questions before I open the public hearing for the moment? All right. 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-We have one letter of correspondence. It’s from a John and Elaine Heckman. They live at 68 Rockhurst Road, and they say, “My wife and I live at number 68 Rockhurst Rd. a short distance from the McLeod’s, we think it is wonderful that they want to make improvements on their property. The previous owners has let the property get really run down. The construction of a deck will further improve the look of the property. Sincerely, John and Elaine Heckman” MR. STONE-I can add, in terms of public comment, I did talk to the two neighbors next door to the north. They indicated they have no problem. However, one must be aware that their house is closer to the lake, as you pointed out, Mr. Mooney, than the 50 feet allowed. It was done many years ago, but it’s certainly nonconforming at this point. Anything else? Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody has? MR. URRICO-Do we know what the dimensions of the concrete pad are? MR. MOONEY-The pad that’s existing there now? MR. URRICO-Right. MRS. MC LEOD-Do you have measurements on that? I don’t know what that is. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. MOONEY-That’s not part of this application. That’s already there. MR. URRICO-Yes. I just want to know what the dimensions are. MR. MOONEY-I don’t know. MRS. MC LEOD-I’ll bet, it’s probably 20 by 12. MR. MOONEY-Yes, about 20 by 12 is right. MRS. MC LEOD-Don’t you think? It goes, it’s 20 feet wide across the back and it comes out 12 feet. MR. URRICO-All right. When I was there, it seemed like the edge of that would be, is where the steps, the edge of the steps would be. MRS. MC LEOD-That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to get the steps to come down and land on the patio on one side, and then go the other direction on the other side, so that we can go down to that second level. The bottom deck, the lower section of that deck that isn’t completed yet, we just, we’re not really sure what we should do with it or what we can, but if we had to make them smaller we would, or we could just make the stairs go down. MR. STONE-Well, are you talking steps going two directions at the bottom? MRS. MC LEOD-Well, we want them to come down onto the patio, and maybe then toward our neighbor on the right so they’re one direction or the other direction. MR. STONE-But you’re saying, so you’re having. MRS. MC LEOD-Them split. MR. STONE-Having them split. Now, are they coming to a platform? MRS. MC LEOD-No, right down to the ground. MR. STONE-Right down to the ground. How are you going to get to the patio, for example? MRS. MC LEOD-With the steps there, you mean? MR. STONE-Yes. MRS. MC LEOD-Well, probably, I mean, what we have done there, as far as the landscaping and everything, it’s all sort of just put there without knowing what we were going to do with that back exit. So, we’re probably going to take the mulch out and put grass there so you could walk around it or something. I don’t know yet. It’s kind of a wait and see. MR. STONE-Well, it does have an effect, in terms of literally where the construction is going to end. You sound as if the project is a little bit up in the air. MRS. MC LEOD-I think it is a little bit up in the air, depending on what we’re allowed to do here, but if we do do steps off the other side, they won’t go further toward the lake. They might go down towards (lost word) little bit, or if they can’t, then we won’t have them. MR. STONE-Comment for me, and I haven’t heard anybody else say it, but comment for me why you wouldn’t like the stairs to go off the south end of the deck and right down in front of the house. MRS. MC LEOD-Why we wouldn’t? MR. STONE-I mean, to me that’s the minimum relief. Because that still requires relief, a couple of feet. MRS. MC LEOD-Yes. I can understand that. Having lived there, and used our patio and knowing how we have our furniture set up on our patio, and knowing that we have t.v. down in the basement and the kids are down there and we open the windows, to have the stairs go down there, just, to me, would probably not really work out well for us. I would much rather have them just come straight down. MR. STONE-That’s certainly your right. MRS. MC LEOD-Yes. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. MOONEY-And also, with the foundation the way it is, that deck is three feet. You say it’s four feet, but the stairs would be like two feet, okay. MR. STONE-Well, whatever width they are, it would decrease the amount of relief. MR. MOONEY-I understand. MR. STONE-And that’s at least what I’m trying to get at at the moment. MR. MOONEY-Correct me if I’m wrong, I think the Code is a three foot width stair. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MOONEY-So, I mean, she couldn’t even put a three foot stair in there, the way it is. MR. BRYANT-Why couldn’t you put three foot stairs, if the deck projects beyond the foundation three feet? MR. MOONEY-It’s barely three feet. It’s barely. It’s probably, I mean, it’s like a foot and a half into the foundation, and the whole thing is, you said four foot. So it’s like two and a half feet maybe. He’s right. The deck surface itself is probably four foot, okay, but when you take into account the foundation, it’s not that wide, or that deep. MR. STONE-Okay, but if you went, if you were forced, and I’m not saying you are going to be, but if you were forced to put the steps down, you could put the deck out a little bit, still requiring less relief than you’re asking. MR. MOONEY-Correct, but the deck’s already built, but that’s up to them to change, obviously. MR. STONE-We’ve done that, too. MR. MOONEY-I understand that. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start down at the end. Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I think the application is a reasonable one. It would be nice if we knew the exact relief that was needed, in the case that this does get approved. In short, I don’t see any detrimental effect at all upon the neighborhood, the community. The fact that the patio will probably, does extend out further than the steps are going to, especially if the concrete pad was used there, doesn’t encroach upon the lake to any great degree. I don’t think this is a problem and I would be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that this is a reasonable request. I sometimes like to place myself in the position of the applicant saying what would I do, and I’m not so sure I would make any other requests than what the applicant is making now. The fact that we have a letter or written piece of correspondence supporting this application, and the fact the Chairman spoke to several of your neighbors who also endorse this. MR. STONE-One. MR. ABBATE-Or one, I’m sorry, who also endorse this, I don’t perceive any problems with this application. Certainly, it would not be out of character with the neighborhood. That’s another plus, and the final plus is that you sought direction and to me that’s the bottom line, and I would support the application. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-Well, I think that the application is in character with the neighborhood. However, I would prefer to see the stairs go to the concrete pad and allow three foot of relief as opposed to 12 feet of relief, and so I wouldn’t support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of the application. I believe the weight of the test, beginning with the benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the deck. Feasible alternatives, going to the patio would seem to be a feasible alternative, and I will grant that, that’s a possibility, but when I get to the next three, the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, it’s minimal to moderate at best, but given the contour of the seawall there and where it juts in, even going to the concrete pad, which I understand is not usually considered part of the building. So therefore it doesn’t require relief, yet the stairs are kind of tucked 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) away, at the same proximity as the concrete pad would be, and when you compare this to the rest of it, and the pad is actually closer to the shoreline than the steps would be, and when you compare that to the neighbor’s property, the one to the left on the map here is actually closer to the shoreline than this deck would be, and then the one to the right on this map, the seawall actually juts out much further into the lake. So I see these stairs being tucked away, having minimal effects on the neighborhood, and while this may be, the self-creation may be attributable to the location of the dwelling on the parcel, I think the weight of the criteria falls in favor of the application as far as I’m concerned. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree in this particular case. Our balancing test on the ZBA largely boils down to benefit to the applicant versus any negative or detrimental impacts on the neighborhood. I can’t really see, as the other Board members have said, any real negative impacts on the neighborhood by the construction of, and the word “deck”, in this case, in my mind is almost a little bit innocuous, too, being that it’s kind of two landing areas connected by steps. So, I’m just not seeing something that amounts to an intensity of use increase that would impact the lake. So, with no real impact on the neighborhood, I’d have to consider the benefit to the applicant, and I think they’ve expressed the reason, which is strictly a personal preference, but that is a reason to construct the steps downward and then over to the deck, and I’m not so sure that from the lake, or looking at the camp from the lake, that the steps going down on an angle across the back of the house might not be a little bit of an architectural eyesore by comparison to something that’s linear from the lake, and I thought about that as I looked at it. So, on balance, I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’ve gone down through the items, too, and obviously there’s a benefit to the applicant. That’s a plus. Feasible alternatives, there are feasible alternatives. Therefore, I think that, in considering approval, is a minus. Substantial relief relative to the Ordinance, I kind of come up with a plus or minus on that. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I’ll agree, it’s going to have minimal effects on the neighborhood. Both neighbors have got similar things. Is it a self-created? The need for some kind of variance I think you can attribute to the location of the house pre-existing. However, the degree of variance being requested, I think, is attributable to the applicant. So I come out kind of on the fence on those evaluations. Then I’ve got two other thoughts that are going to bring me down on the negative side. One is just because the neighbors on each side have done something, it’s not necessarily justification to do something. If the neighbor on each side beats their wife, that doesn’t mean that your husband should be able to beat you. I think the other thing that I’m considering is we’ve just revised and reenacted our Zoning Ordinance. There’s a 50 foot setback set there for a reason. It was reaffirmed when the Zoning Ordinance was passed, and I think we should go for minimal effects, rather than what would be nice to have. So I would be willing to go for enough of a variance to allow the stairs to go down to the cement patio, parallel to the shoreline, but not for what’s proposed. MR. STONE-Thank you. Well, I come down on the side best expressed by Mr. McNulty. As I said beginning of the hearing, I have a home, very similar situation. We put stairs in that same way. It doesn’t say it’s the only way to do it, but we did that. In addition to that, I’m concerned, and I did go out on the lake this afternoon, specifically to look at the three pieces of property that are on the lake this afternoon, I went out in my boat, and I did look at them, and quite frankly, the stairs, as wide as they are, are very visible when you get in close on the lake, and one of the concerns that we’ve always had is treating the lake as part of the neighborhood. It’s not just the homes on either side. It is the lake. I’m also concerned that if we allow this to go where you want it, that’s going to be fairly visible, and then whatever you do with the concrete pad, now I know it’s not permanent, but obviously the concrete pad, you’ve got a very pretty piece of property, and if you put flower pots and you put furniture on that thing, and they’re all going to be within 50 feet of the lake, they’re not permanent, and I’m not suggesting that, but they do have a visual impact. So, when you take the whole thing, and I think Mr. McNulty best expressed the idea of the difficulty being self-created. Yes, the house is there and you would like to be able to go from your first floor, second floor, however you refer to it, the floor level on the street, down to this deck, down to the dock, I think there are other ways to do it. I mean, it does require some relief, but as I said as part of my discussion earlier, I think we’re supposed to grant minimal relief to benefit the applicant in a way that they want to be benefited. Having said that, I would call for a motion to approve, because by my count, there are four members who would vote to approve this. So I would like a motion to approve. MR. ABBATE-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2002 MARK & HEATHER MC LEOD, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes: 91 Rockhurst Rd. Mr. and Mrs. McLeod wish to construct a 91 square foot deck and they’re requesting relief of 12 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk requirement for the WR-1 zone, Section 179-4-030. I listened to what the three apparently dissenting members had to say, but I think what’s important here, and Jaime says it quite a bit, on balance. Looking at this application on balance, I believe there’s a benefit to the applicant, of course he would be permitted to 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) construct a deck in the preferred location, but I see nothing negative about this. Feasible alternatives, there may very well be feasible alternatives, but after all, it seems to me that a property owner has the right, within reason, to choose his own feasible alternatives. Three, is this relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance? 12 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (24%). The effects on the neighborhood, now this is an important issue. We do have a letter in the record, written correspondence, who does not object. Also, there is another applicant who resides next door to Mr. and Mrs. McLeod who do not object. So the effects on the neighborhood, there would be minimal effects on the neighborhood and in my opinion, what they are suggesting or proposing and request permission to do would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? Well, Mr. Chairman, I think most of the folks that come before the Board, the difficulty probably can be characterized as self-created, but many of our problems in the world are self- created anyway. Based upon this, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 41-2002. Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone MR. STONE-Go ahead, come in and get your variance. MRS. MC LEOD-Thank you. MR. STONE-Or your building permit, whatever you. MR. MOONEY-I have a question about that. MR. STONE-Talk to that gentlemen down there. MR. MOONEY-Under 100 square feet you don’t need a permit. MR. STONE-Well, you do for. MR. FRANK-I’m sorry, that’s 120 square feet now. The current Code is under 120 square feet. MR. MOONEY-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MC LEOD-Thanks a lot. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2002 TYPE II MARY K. GRAY PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: DICK GRAY LOCATION: 139 PILOT KNOB ROAD ZONE: WR-1A APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 3-BAY CARPORT WITH A 24 FT. BY 34 FT. ENCLOSED 3-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK, HEIGHT, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.48 ACRES SECTION 179-04-030 DICK GRAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-You’ve got permeability, Bruce? I didn’t notice that. MR. ABBATE-I missed that, Mr. Chairman. MR. URRICO-Permeability. MR. STONE-Yes, he says permeability. That’s in your Staff notes. Is that something we should have been considering. MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so. MR. STONE-Okay. I’m only looking at the agenda item. MR. STONE-I was surprised, too, when I read it, obviously. It says 15% not permeable. That’s certainly well within the requirement. MR. FRANK-Yes, I’m sure that’s a mistake. MR. STONE-You mean in the agenda? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. FRANK-The advertisement. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2002, Mary K. Gray, Meeting Date: June 13, 2002 “Project Location: 139 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace an existing three-bay carport with a 24-foot by 34-foot garage. The project as proposed is to be constructed in a like location to the existing facility. The property has two (2) front yards for the purposes of applying the zoning requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback (Pilot Knob Road) requirement for the covered canopy at the entryway. Front setback relief is also required for the construction of the garage. Front yard setback (Pulver Road) relief of 11.5 feet from the 30- foot requirement is required. Additionally, 2 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height restriction for a detached accessory structure per § 179-4-030 is also required. 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 are limited due to the site constraints. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 20 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the ordinance. 2 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement could be considered minimal relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-177: (pending approval of this application) 3-car detached garage. BP 2001-118: 03/22/01; remove and replace roof on carport (never issued). BP 2000-211: 04/02/00; 802 sq. ft. addition. BP 2000-108: 03/20/00; septic alteration. SP 9-94: 03/15/94; F-shaped dock. BP 93-627: 1993; 574 sq. ft. boathouse. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The setbacks are measured to the property line. As the applicant has indicated the separation distance to the Pulver Road drive surface is actually much greater than the requested 18.5 feet. The height relief as requested is minimal and should not have a negative impact to any adjoining property’s view of the lake. The Zoning Administrator has determined the garage as proposed is not “attached” for the purpose of the application of the height restriction. The ZBA is required to decide on the request and may not “waive” this requirement. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And apparently Warren County considered this. It was only considered yesterday, and we don’t have a. MR. STONE-Would you read this letter in? This is a letter to Mr. Gray. You’re Mr. Gray? MR. GRAY-I am, sir. MR. STONE-Letter written to you on April 4 by Craig Brown, the Zoning Administrator. th MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This letter says, “This letter will serve as a written response, as requested, to the concerns that you presented in your March 28, 2002 letter to Dave Hatin, and the additional information offered in your April 2, 2002 letter to me. I have reviewed both letters as well as the information you submitted for a building permit for the proposed garage and would offer the following information. The property in question lies within a Waterfront Residential, WR-1A zoning district within the Town of Queensbury. As such, any development or new construction occurring on the property is subject to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, (Town Code). When a building permit is necessary for such development, the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, (Building Code) applies as well. Your project, which proposes the demolition of an existing structure and the construction of a similar, slightly larger structure, is subject to both the Building Code and the Town Code. This letter will address only the Town Code requirements, as the Building Code requirements are applied and enforced by David Hatin, Director – Building and Codes. The WR-1A zoning district requires all new construction to meet a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet, as measured from the building line of the structure to the defined limits of the front yard. I have attached, for your reference, the definitions of Yard, front and Building line from the Town Code. The front yard setback from Pilot Knob Road is to be established by first determining the location of the road right of way and then measuring the required 30 feet from that line. Your project, as submitted does not meet the required 30-foot front yard setback with respect to the Pilot Knob Road portion of your property. Therefore, it is my determination that, should you wish to continue with your project as submitted, an Area Variance will be necessary. Similarly, your project, as submitted, does not meet the required 30-foot front yard setback with respect to the Pulver Road portion of your property. However, it is unclear as to the status of Pulver Road and the ownership of the lands between the driving surface of Pulver Road and your property line. Clarification of this matter will be necessary in order to determine whether the setback required from the Pulver Road portion of your property will be a side setback or a front setback. If you have any additional information with regards to these matters, please forward the same to me for review. The WR-1A zoning district allows principal structures and the additions thereto to be constructed with a maximum height of 28 feet. Accessory structures, however, are limited to a maximum height of 16 feet. While the proposed garage/carport structure appears to be physically connected to the main house structure, 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) it does not share a common wall with the main house nor do any finished living areas attach it to the main house. Therefore, it is my determination that your proposal shall be considered a detached accessory structure and shall be limited to a maximum height of 16 feet. I have made an inquiry with Richard Missita, Highway Superintendent, with regards to the status of Pulver Road and the lands between the driving surface and your property line. It may prove beneficial to you to inquire with your land surveyor with respect to this matter. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact this office.” MR. STONE-Just before I let Mr. Gray talk, I just want everybody to recognize, under the Relief Required in Staff notes, Number One is the twenty feet for the covered canopy. In other words, that’s the most offending structure on the Pilot Knob Road side. The next part, where it says front setback relief is also required for the construction of the garage because the front yard setback to Pulver Road requires a variance. So that’s why, the garage, if he didn’t put the covered walkway in, then the garage, from Pilot Knob Road, would require a variance. I don’t know exactly what that distance is, but the offending structure that we’re granting the most relief is the canopy, and then the garage requires it on the Pulver Road side. Is that correct, Mr. Frank, did I state that correctly? MR. FRANK-I believe you had a conversation with Chris Round this afternoon. Is that what he stated also? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. FRANK-Then I agree. MR. BRYANT-Are you saying, Mr. Chairman, that the garage, then, doesn’t need relief from Pilot Knob if the canopy is not there? MR. STONE-It probably, well, I don’t have those dimensions. MR. BRYANT-Well, they’re saying that the, it’s very hard to tell by these drawings. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-And they’re saying it’s 33 feet to the edge of the road, but from the right of way, I mean, how wide is the road, and 16 feet from the middle is that the determination? MR. FRANK-It’s a rough rule of thumb. I mean, it really depends on the road you’re on. MR. BRYANT-We’re talking about Pilot Knob. MR. FRANK-And I’m not really sure what the right of way of Pilot Knob is. MR. STONE-I mean, one of the problems with right of ways is that the road isn’t always in the middle of the right of way. We’ve had situations where people have built thinking that they had plenty of clearance, and the right of way of the road was skewed, off to one side of the right of way. So I don’t know about Pilot Knob either, but the point is, the relief that we have been told about is, have you told us how much relief we need to the canopy? I don’t even see that in the Staff notes. MR. BRYANT-That, basically, is my question. You eliminate the canopy, and do we have to deal with what type of relief do we have just for the garage? MR. STONE-Correct, but the application calls for the canopy. So we need to know that number, and I don’t see it in your Staff notes. MR. MC NULTY-Looking at the drawing that they provide, though, the Staff notes say we need 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot requirement. MR. STONE-I’m sorry, it does say 20 feet. MR. FRANK-These aren’t my Staff notes. These are drafted by the Director of Community Development, at his request, just to make that clear. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Let’s go, let Mr. Gray talk. Introduce yourself, sir, even though I might have said that. MR. GRAY-Dick Gray. My wife and I own property at 139 Pilot Knob Road, and again, we started out with this covered canopy conversation this evening, and this is news to me, this is, you know, as far as what’s going on. I had a covered canopy that was attached to my carport. I took a portion of it down during the construction of our home, and the garage, when we wanted to put a new roof on our garage. So I’m hearing for the first time this evening on this question of the covered canopy. We had a covered canopy, and then we’re putting back in the same place another covered canopy. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-Well, what I’m saying, all I’m saying, is that you want to build a covered canopy. That’s the new construction which is closest to the road, and it’s new construction. Once you take it down, it’s new construction. MR. GRAY-I understand that. MR. STONE-And that’s all we’re saying, it’s that number. If you didn’t want to put, and that’s not what Mr. Bryant was saying, if you didn’t want to put a covered canopy in, then we’d have to consider relief from the closest new construction, but right now that is the covered canopy, and if we granted you that, if we grant you that relief, then the garage doesn’t need any relief, because it’s part of that same project. Anything else you want to add? You did send us a letter with your application. Do you want to talk about that? I mean, is there anything in the note that I read, the letter I read, that we read from Craig Brown that you want to talk about? MR. GRAY-No. I think that pretty well summarizes the situation. That’s why we’re here this evening for the variances. We have a unique piece of property. I didn’t realize how unique it was until we attempted to put this garage in place of the existing garage/carport. To the south of our property is Pulver Road, and between my property line and Pulver Road, there is a Town right of way, and that right of way is for Pulver Road, but the Town did not put Pulver Road on that right of way. They put it south of the right of way. So the south portion of my existing carport/garage is 63 feet from Pulver Road and our new proposed garage is going back in the exact same footprint that the existing garage is, with the exception the existing garage is 24 by 30, and the new garage will be 24 by 34. We’re going no further closer to Pilot Knob Road, nor are we going any closer to Pulver Road. The additional four feet is bringing the house, or bringing the garage closer to the home. So, in essence, the variances that we’re asking for exist today, when we’re proposing to put a garage in the same location that the one exists, with the exception we want to actually make it a garage, rather than a carport, which is partially enclosed. MR. STONE-But, keep in mind that in Queensbury, once you tear something down, you’ve got to start all over again. There is no footprint rule. There is no grandfathered rule. If you take it down and it’s nonconforming then it must conform, or get a variance. MR. GRAY-I understand that, Mr. Chairman. That’s why we’re here this evening. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GRAY-Is for the variance. We understand that once we tear it down, it’s new construction and it’s subject to the variances and this is why we’re here. MR. STONE-Right. Do you want to talk at all about the height? MR. GRAY-The height requirement is 16 foot for a detached structure. What we have, and what we had before, was, in our opinion, a detached accessory structure. The Town Code, your new Code, the Zoning Code, states that porches and canopies, covered canopies, are considered part of the building, and I am quoting that not verbatim, and that’s part of the building, porches and covered canopies, the Code says it’s part of the building, and if the accessory structure is attached to that, then that’s part of the building. Part of my presentation this evening is a determinational letter from the commissioner of Building and Codes who states that, based on the sketch which is part of this presentation, they felt it was attached. I realize that the Building Code and the Zoning Code are different. What’s taking place, apparently, within the Zoning Code, and this is for future, I would think, is that the Town, in the new Zoning Code, has not defined the word “attached” versus “detached”, and they’ve left it open to interpretation. So I’m here for a variance on the presumption that I have a detached accessory structure, which is subject to 16 foot. I need 18 foot to construct the garage. I currently have a shed-type garage which is about 17 foot in height, and the gentlemen, you’ve been to the location, you know that my home is at a higher elevation of the building than the garage. So as you come down, the walkway to the garage, the garage slopes further to the south. So we need 18 foot to connect the garage and make it to where you can actually get three vehicles in it. If it’s sloping away, what you have is one bay closest to the home has an opening of about six foot, then it goes seven foot, then it probably goes like 8/8, if you can picture what’s going on. So in essence, what I’m asking is for a two foot of variance from the 16 to the 18, which would allow the pitch on the garage roof to be 8/12, which would come out to 17 foot 4 inches. I’m asking for two foot or eighteen, to be on the safe side, giving myself the six or eight extra inches, so that I, you know, depending on what the grade is. Did I explain that, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Yes. So you’re saying it’s only going to be 18 foot at one end, and then a slope to the ground? MR. GRAY-No. What I’m going to do is I’ll level it. MR. STONE-You will level it? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. GRAY-Absolutely. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, then if you leveled it, why do you need relief from 16? MR. GRAY-Well, for the simple reason because carrying it, because the house, in other words, if I have an extended porch now, which is attached to the home and it comes out eight or ten feet from the house and it’s pointed toward the garage and it’s at this elevation, and what I want to do is to, again, cover the walkway so, in order to tie the walkway, the covered canopy into the garage, I need the garage roof to be at a higher elevation, so that I can tie the covered canopy into it. MR. STONE-This is going to be a peaked roof, compared to the roof that you have? MR. GRAY-Absolutely. Yes. The house is a peaked roof. So what we’re done is some major alterations to the main building, about a year and a half or two years ago, and the garage I had targeted to put a peaked roof on it, versus a shed roof, which would match the main home, and, obviously, I’m into a situation where I made the mistake of taking my covered canopy and not leaving it there, because I never realized that I couldn’t, I was going to have a problem with zoning, putting my garage back in the same place. I mean, it came as a bolt of lightening to me, but again, I fully understand that once it’s down, it’s down. So, you know, obviously I’m not taking my carport down right now, until you fellows give me some idea of where we’re going, but, you know, again, what we’ve got here is, what we’ve done, for our neighborhood, we feel that we’ve definitely enhanced the beauty of our neighborhood. We have letters here that I assume we’ll read into the file from my neighbors who have complimented us on the work that we’ve done, and again, we’re looking for the Board to grant these variances so that we can put our garage up, and actually have a garage that’s enclosed. Right now, if you go by our home, and everything we own is like hanging our laundry out front. I mean, it’s just not the way to do it, you know, that is a main road. It’s not a high crime area, by any means, but I certainly, you know, I would like to enclose and lock that garage, and that’s the purpose of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen? MR. ABBATE-Mr. Gray, let’s make sure I’m right on this, please. You, in effect, are requesting four definite types of relief. One, you’re requesting 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback. Two, you’re requesting now front setback relief for the construction of the garage, and, three, front yard setback from Pulver Road relief of 11.5 feet from the 30 foot requirement, and four, additionally two feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height restriction for the detached accessory structure. Am I correct? MR. GRAY-That is correct. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I just want to make sure. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate, that’s what I was trying to say. I think it’s only three, because I don’t think, as long as the walkway is there, that’s the one, that’s the maximum relief we’re going to give. Am I correct there? Are we going to consider that one construction, Bruce? MR. FRANK-That’s what I was lead to believe. MR. STONE-Yes, I thought the whole Pilot Knob was hinged on the walkway. That’s the maximum relief that we’re going to grant. Therefore the garage would fit inside that relief. MR. ABBATE-See, that’s where there was a little confusion on my, about this. MR. STONE-That’s what I tried to, by saying the second one was started with the word front setback is also required, because remember, Pulver Road is a front yard also. In other words, it’s a corner lot, technically. MR. ABBATE-All right. Now the old was 24 by 30, correct? MR. GRAY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-And you’re requesting 24 by 34? MR. GRAY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Basically on the same footprint and the four additional feet would not be any closer, rather would be closer to the building? MR. GRAY-Correct. MR. ABBATE-Now, one other thing, and then I think I could take a sigh of relief here. Bruce, the ZBA is required to decide on the request and may not waive this requirement. Could you amplify that a second? I’m not so sure why that sentence is in there. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. FRANK-That’s a valid point. MR. HAYES-Because they’re not going to let us argue attached or detached here. MR. STONE-Right. MR. MC NULTY-The determination that it’s detached has been made by the Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-Has been made, and the timeframe for appealing has expired. Therefore, Mr. Gray could have appealed that, but he did not in a timely fashion. That’s why it’s not. MR. GRAY-When? I was not aware of that. MR. STONE-I understand you may not have been, but that’s what I was told. MR. GRAY-Mr. Chairman, if I could, for a moment, this is not the forum. I realize this is the ZBA, but what’s taking place here is that I’m hearing for the first time now that I could have appealed their decision, and they told me that my only appeal was to the ZBA on this. MR. STONE-Well, it would have come to us. That is one of the things we do. We handle, basically, three different things. We handle Use Variances, Area Variances, and appeals from decisions made by the Zoning Administrator, and that’s all the things that we do. So when they said you could appeal to the ZBA, they did not mean in this forum, at this meeting, when you were talking about your variance. It would be a separate application, and would be discussed totally separate from the variance. MR. ABBATE-But there has been an expiration date, Mr. Chairman? MR. STONE-Yes. I’m told it has expired. MR. ABBATE-Okay, because that’s where it’s confusing me. MR. GRAY-What was the date? MR. STONE-Thirty days? MR. FRANK-I believe they have 60 days from the date the determination was made. I don’t know when the determination was made. MR. GRAY-The letter is dated April 11. th MR. FRANK-April 11 of this year. th MR. STONE-And this is the 13. th MR. FRANK-And again, I wasn’t privy to that, because it’s something that you had with the Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-That’s what, actually, the Community Development Director told me today. That’s why I’m repeating that. MR. GRAY-Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, I’ve met with the Community Development Director many times, an at no time did he ever mention that to me, nor did Mr. Brown ever mention it to me. Now, I’m a full-time resident of the Town, just like we all are here, and, you know, this is a new experience for me, becoming involved with the Town of Queensbury and the Zoning. So, I’m here asking for, basically three variances, a front variance on Pilot Knob Road, a front variance on Pulver Road, even though I’m 60 some odd feet from it, and a height variance of two feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GRAY-The other things that are going on here, I don’t really believe that this is the forum for it this evening, but what’s taking place, again, this is a classic where at no time has the Town of Queensbury stepped forward to advise me. It’s almost an adversarial position. This is a classic where we’re talking one day here on something that I knew nothing about, and again, we’re asking for variances. MR. STONE-Let’s get back, you’re asking for three variances and we’re going to open the public hearing, and anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Correspondence? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. We have, I think, three, no, we have two pieces of correspondence. The first one’s from Robert A. Phillips and Donna Phillips. They say, “We are owners of the property immediately to the north of the property of Mary K. Gray. We have watched Mary and her husband, Dick, convert a house of poor quality into a home of exceptional style and workmanship. It has added value and beauty to the neighborhood. Their old carport, however, is an eyesore. Their plans to convert it to a three-car garage would bring it up to the quality of their home. We request that you give them the variance they requested to convert the carport to a garage. Yours truly, Robert A. Phillips Donna Phillips” And we have a letter from William Walker. He says, “I am the owner of the property located just north of the subject parcel. It has been my observation that Dick and Mary Gray have made substantial improvements to their property in both Queensbury and Fort Ann in recent years. Without exception, the work they have done has been of high quality and has improved the neighborhood significantly. I believe their proposed garage would continue this record of accomplishment, and I am in support of your granting of the requested variances. Sincerely, William Walker” MR. STONE-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Anything you want to say about what you heard in the public hearing? MR. GRAY-No. Again, I’m here before you this evening seeking variances. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. BRYANT-I want to clarify. What would be the relief required if the canopy relief was not granted for the garage? MR. FRANK-I don’t know. I didn’t review this application. I was told not to. So I haven’t looked at it. I’m sorry. MR. MC NULTY-It looks to me like it would be about 12 feet, because this drawing shows that the canopy sticks out in front of the garage by eight feet. MR. STONE-So instead of 20, it would be 12. Have you got that, Allan? MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I don’t know where he’s getting that from, how he’s making that determination. MR. STONE-Well, this is a drawing that they provided. It’s not an official survey. It’s one of the, I can’t tell you what (lost words). MR. MC NULTY-It’s showing eight feet from the front of the garage to the front edge of the canopy. Subtract that off the 20 feet, leaves you 12. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-Any other comments, gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-One more question. The distance between your existing carport and the house now? MR. GRAY-Would be 23 feet. MR. ABBATE-I see, then that’s where the other four feet come into consideration. MR. GRAY-Yes. In other words, we’re moving it closer, then it will be 19 feet. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. GRAY-If I could mention, I have a walkway that goes down, and this walkway has six by sixes on either side of it, and this was, and that walkway is still there, and of course that was the walkway that was covered by the canopy that I took down. So, I mean, at no time was my walkway not there, and there’s steps that go down from my walkway. MR. STONE-Let’s see where we come out before we. MR. GRAY-So, I mean, the walkway’s there. MR. STONE-Chuck, let’s start with you. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. ABBATE-Okay. After the initial confusion here, and I was somewhat confused because of the wording. I just wanted clarification on many things. I don’t object to Mr. Gray’s application. Again, I tried to put myself in your position. What would I do? Is what you’re doing unreasonable? Not to me it’s not unreasonable. I do correct myself. I said you were requesting four reliefs, but as the Chairman pointed out, it’s only three, and it’s spelled out quite a bit. I don’t think there’s any doubt in my mind, and I can’t find it right here. You mentioned something about aesthetically it would improve. I hope I catch you right. Aesthetically it would improve the area, and I agree with you. I think it would. There have been some very favorable comments in writing from one or two of neighbors, and I would have to grasp, at least in my opinion, at something for me not to support this application, and at the present time, I don’t think I could, Mr. Gray. I think I have to stand on principle and say, I would probably be doing the same thing that you’re doing and go along with approving your application. MR. STONE-Al? MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree somewhat with Mr. Abbate says. First off, on the height relief, I don’t remember at any time that I’ve ever voted in favor of height relief for any structure. So I would be opposed to that aspect of the relief. The side of the front relief for Pulver Road I have absolutely no problem with. The garage being in the current location of the carport would not be problematic. I would prefer that there not be a canopy, because that would require less relief. So, with the height relief in there, I would vote against the proposal. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also bothered by the height relief, in favor of the rest of the application as it stands. I feel the weight of the test falls in favor of the applicant in this case, but the height relief on the garage I would not be in favor of, as it stands right now. MR. STONE-But yes to the rest. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, as the Chairman pointed out, when you tear down a structure, you lose some rights there, certainly as far as going forward, and in certain circumstances, that’s an opportunity for the Board to possibly mitigate or soften a negative structure or a piece of relief in a community, but in this particular case, I think that doing so would be unfair to the applicant in my mind, because the structure that was there before, as described by the applicant, I guess we’re relying on that, but I wouldn’t have found offensive in this particular case. If that structure was still there, and he was asking for the relief that he’s asking for to perfect that canopy into the garage, I don’t think it would be a big stretch in my mind to grant two feet of relief on a height requirement. The garage itself is very significantly far away from the lake, as far as I can tell. The neighbors have pointed out that they would prefer to have an enclosed garage, and I, personally, think that carports are not the most attractive structures in our community, because of the cluttering and stuff that tends to happen underneath there, which is natural to avoid weather and such, but I think the fact that the applicant is seeking to perfect that portion of his property without impacting the lake, without asking for lake relief, which certainly in a CEA zoned property, that would be a big concern to me, he’s not asking for any relief, that in this particular case, I think to not grant the relief for the canopy would be unduly fair, would be unfair on the applicant in this particular case. So I’m okay with the application as it was made. I don’t think I’d go for more than two feet of relief, but I think two feet of relief is still a minimal amount of relief. I think that it’s good that we’ve avoided the argument of whether the garage is attached or detached. I think that that’s another day, but this particular case, I think on balance, I think I’m okay with the application, largely because this is not a new creation. This is a replacement, in my mind, of an existing structure, and certainly there’s four feet of expansion, but it’s a balancing test, and I think it’s permissible to weigh in the fact that there is a structure already there. There was a canopy there before, and I don’t think it’s egregious to the neighborhood for them to be replaced. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got pluses and minuses. I have no real problem with the relief to Pulver Road. There’s more than enough space there, and the carport, there’s a wall existing there now. I don’t have any problem with the expansion towards the house, which really is not a question before us because this is a tear down and build new situation. The height, I would need some justification for. If the height were necessary to match the roof slope to the house, I might be inclined to go for two feet height relief in this case, but the height relief, as has been explained, is mainly to accommodate the walkway, and it’s the walkway that I do hang up on. While there was a walkway there, it’s not there now. It strikes me that it’s going to be more imposing if it’s replaced. I guess in sum, I could go for approving the garage as proposed, at 12 feet relief to Pilot Knob Road, but I’m going to be opposed with the walkway there. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. It’s kind of interesting to have an application on the lake that doesn’t have anything to do with to do with the setback from the shoreline. In short, I’m in favor of the application. I 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) think the, you know, the existing carport is about 17 feet high. We’re going a little bit over that. He’s requested 18, but maybe somewhere in between. So we’re talking a matter of inches, maybe maximum a foot. The road frontage for the canopy, I think, you know, a canopy isn’t a bad idea anyway, but the fact that all the supporting work is already there, put in there, and the canopy was there previously, so with the exception of the garage coming three or feet closer to the house, which I don’t know, offhand, if it would have required any variance, if that’s all that was being done, except for the height, it’s just fixing things up and dressing things up a little bit and making them a little more functional and all the way around, I think that this is something that is very reasonable, and no negative impact anywhere that I can see. So to conclude, I’m in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-I’m impressed, I hope you are, with the thinking and the consideration given by my fellow Board members. I think they have all done a very good job of describing what they’re concerned about. The telling argument for me, in terms of the height, which is the thing that does hang us up more than anything else, is Mr. Hayes made the comment that one of the purposes of zoning variances, of the opportunity provided by zoning variances, is to bring property more into compliance. It gives us an opportunity, when someone comes before us, to say, okay, you had a property that wasn’t compliant. You want something. What’s the tit for tat, if you will. In this particular case, we have an oversized carport. It’s too high. You tell us it’s about 17 feet, something like that. You say the new one is going to be slightly higher. You’re asking for an additional foot of relief, in a sense. Yes, it’s two feet from, in terms of the Code, but in terms of what’s there, it really isn’t much of a difference, at least according to what you’re saying. MR. GRAY-It’s really going to be four inches. MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. I like that number even better. So when I consider the whole thing, when I consider the fact that the carport is basically at the same distance from the road as the house, it’s not going to stick out, at least according to your drawing. Would you agree with that, it’s about? MR. GRAY-Well, the house is the one that’s closest to the road. MR. STONE-That’s what I meant. I know that, that it’s there. So it’s going to be, it’s not going to jet away from the house. It’s not going to be any closer. So when I consider that, Pulver Road, of course, is basically a none issue. I mean, that’s a technical relief that we have to, we should, and in a sense have to grant. The other two, on balance, I think when you look at everything, I’m certainly in favor of this. I do apologize, and don’t ask me for whom I am apologizing, because I don’t know, but I do apologize for the fact that you at least indicate that you were not brought up to speed, in terms of all of your possibilities. Obviously, it’s not our job to do that for you, but I do apologize, if you think that you were not kept as informed as you might have been, but, having said that, as I look down my list, I think there is a preponderance of thought in approval of the three variances. So, Norm, would you? MR. HIMES-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2002 MARY K. GRAY, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 139 Pilot Knob Rd. Applicant proposes to replace an existing three bay carport with a 24 foot by 34 foot garage. The project as proposed is to be constructed in a like location to the existing facility. The property has two front yards, for the purpose of applying the zoning requirements. Relief required. The applicant requests 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback, Pilot Knob side, requirement for the covered canopy at the entryway. Front setback relief is also required for the construction of the garage. Front yard setback Pulver Road relief of 11.5 feet from the 30 foot requirement is required. Additionally, two feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height restriction for a detached accessory is required. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to do the construction as desired in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, well, we don’t feel there are any that are feasible. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Well, it must be kept in mind that most of the physical structures I’m referring to are already there, but technically it’s 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate. With that including, I guess, there’s some yet to be determined or question in connection with whether or not the Pulver Road setback is even applicable, and the two feet of relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement could be considered minimal. The effects on the neighborhood or community. It’s felt generally, by those of us who feel positively about this application, that it would be an improvement, very modest impact in connection with any change, in regard to the Code, from what is already there now. So I conclude with I recommend that we approve this application as submitted. We would like to have an as built survey done at the completion of the construction. Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. GRAY-Mr. Chairman, I have one closing comment, if I may. In my application, I did ask the Board for a determination here as to attached accessory structure, and I’m well within this 60 days. MR. HAYES-It’s a different application, though. MR. STONE-A different application. You can’t do it here. You’ve got your variance for your height. MR. GRAY-Well, and I thank you very much. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s what I would do. MR. GRAY-We’re all residents of the Town. Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2002 TYPE II JAMES J. GRANDE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 3222 ROUTE 9L ZONE: WR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 884 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY, 3-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND DWELLING UNIT ON PROPERTY, AS EXISTING GUEST CABIN WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND A NEW GUEST COTTAGE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE 3-CAR GARAGE (SECOND STORY) AND RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48 LOT SIZE: 3.27 ACRES SECTION 179-5-090; 179-4-010 JAMES GRANDE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2002, James J. Grande, Meeting Date: June 13, 2002 “Project Location: 3222 Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 884 sq. ft. two-story, 3-car garage, with a second floor comprised of a 370 sq. ft. second dwelling unit. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for a second dwelling unit § 179-4-010 (C6). Additionally, the applicant requests relief for a dwelling unit with a floor area less than 800 sq. ft. § 179-5-090. 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 include constructing a garage within the allowable 900 sq. ft. and 16-foot maximum height requirement. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: The addition of a second dwelling unit could be considered substantial relative to the ordinance. 430 sq. ft. less than the 800 sq. ft. minimum required for a single-family dwelling could be considered moderate relative to the ordinance (53.8%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate to substantial effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there are other feasible alternatives such as constructing a new garage within the maximum 900 sq. ft. of area and the maximum 16 feet of height allowed. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 27-2002: 04/17/02; construction of a 988 sq. ft. 3-car garage with 475 sq. ft. of recreation space above that does not include a kitchen (application withdrawn). Staff comments: Moderate to substantial impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant proposes to remove a preexisting nonconforming 400 sq. ft. guest cottage on the parcel. The applicant believes removing the structure justifies his request to construct the second dwelling unit. However, it is the policy of the Zoning Department to attempt to bring nonconforming conditions into conformity with the current Zoning Ordinance whenever possible. Relocating a nonconforming condition is not conducive with the Town policy, especially when a feasible alternative for the applicant to construct a garage within the allowable 900 sq. ft. and 16-foot maximum height requirement exists. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-And this is a case we do have an unsigned form from the Warren County Planning Board. They reviewed this on June 12. “Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct a 3-car garage th with a second story living area. Relief requests a variance for second dwelling unit on property as existing guest cabin will be demolished and a new guest cabin will be constructed over the 3-car garage. Site Location: 3222 Rt. 9L Tax Map Number(s): 239.18-1-48 Staff Notes: The applicant requests a variance for the construction of a 3-bay garage with a second guest cottage. The zone permits only one dwelling unit per parcel where the applicant proposes 2 dwelling units on the same parcel. The applicant’s plans indicate the existing guest cottage will be removed. The new building will be closer to the existing home and built in the same character. The County Board previously saw this application in April 2002 for a variance for construction of a 3-bay garage with recreational space above that did not meet side or height setback; the County Board recommended No County Impact with the condition that the second story not be used for living space. Staff recommends to concur with the local ordinance permitting one dwelling unit per lot. County Planning Board Recommendation: Concur with local Board Concur with local ordinance allowing only one resident per parcel in the waterfront zone.” I assume that that means that they’re recommending denial. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-No, they did not. I mean, I happened to be there last night for another reason. They did not recommend denial, and that is not, that does not require us, therefore, to have a super majority. Is that correct, Mr. Frank? The County did not deny it. They merely said they recommended that the Town stick to its ordinance of one dwelling on a lot. MR. FRANK-And what did you say after that? I’m sorry. MR. STONE-I’m saying it’s not a denial. They didn’t deny the application. They passed it with that stipulation, but it still means that we need four votes, not five. MR. FRANK-I agree. I concur. MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Grande, introduce yourself and tell us what you want to tell us. MR. GRANDE-My name is James Grande, and this is my primary residence. I was here before and we had quite a lengthy discussion, and we went sort of through the Board and people told me what they liked or disliked about my project. The major thing seemed to be, the last time, that we were over the 900 square feet footprint. We changed that, and that we were over the height requirement by nine feet. We’ve since redesigned the building. We made the upstairs room narrower by a foot and a half. We reduced the height of the sidewalls and sloped part of the ceiling, and we also changed the roof pitch to make it less, and we reduced that, I think by about three and a half feet, came to about 38% of reduction in height. MR. STONE-So you’re down to 21, something like that? MR. GRANDE-I think so. I don’t have that number. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRYANT-Why aren’t we seeking height relief for this? MR. STONE-That’s exactly the question I’m about to ask. Is that because you’re considering it first a second dwelling? MR. GRANDE-No. MR. STONE-Well, I’m asking Staff. MR. FRANK-Because it’s considered a second dwelling unit. MR. STONE-And that would supercede? MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-If we grant that, it could be 28 feet. MR. FRANK-That’s correct, the same as a primary dwelling. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-It’s not a secondary structure. MR. STONE-Okay. So we might suggest other modifications, too. Okay, but go ahead, sir. MR. GRANDE-All I’m trying to say is that when I was here before, I listened to what everybody told me and I left and I tried to redesign the project to make this an acceptable project. So it is, the new project is 21 foot 6. The other project, I think, was 25 feet. So then we decided we’d like to take the guest cabin, we had some conversation with the adjacent neighbor, and we decided to take the guest cabin and move it up over the garage. That would clean up the side yard. We could have a planted buffer there where the guest cabin was. His new house is very close to my property line, and this would make a much better situation I think. MR. STONE-But you want a full living unit, kitchen? MR. GRANDE-That’s what I, when I bought the camp in 1984, that’s what I bought, and I’d simply like to keep that. I mean, it’s not a rental unit. I have a deed restriction that says it can’t be a rental unit, and nobody would pay that kind of money from that house and rent a unit 12 feet from their back door. MR. STONE-We have an application which is still pending, I think, that is very similar to that. So don’t say they won’t. Anything is possible. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. GRANDE-Well, I have a deed restriction that says I can’t do it to start with. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. GRANDE-So it would become a legal matter if I did. MR. STONE-Not with the Town. The Town doesn’t get involved with deed restrictions. MR. GRANDE-Not with the Town, but I’m just telling you my neighbors can’t have any concerns over that. MR. STONE-What you want, just so that we’re all clear, Mr. Bryant asked the question. What you want is a second dwelling unit. By that I mean a place where people can sleep, do bathroom things, cook and wash dishes and keep food and everything that a kitchen entails? MR. GRANDE-That’s exactly what I have now, and that’s what I’d like to keep. MR. STONE-Okay. I just want you to know that, so that’s what you’re asking for, and therefore that frees up the height restriction, if we were to grant, because this becomes a second dwelling. That’s really what we’re talking about, a second dwelling who’s footprint is 884 square feet, that goes up 21 feet, and on top of that has a substandard, but nevertheless second dwelling, a substandard dwelling unit above. Is that correct, Mr. Frank, what I’m saying? MR. FRANK-It doesn’t meet the minimum 800 square foot requirement. MR. STONE-That’s substandard then, yes. I didn’t mean it wasn’t going to be nice. MR. FRANK-I just wanted to make that clear for everyone else. MR. GRANDE-Could I ask a question here? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. GRANDE-In this zone, when I read the zoning description, there’s an allowable 500 foot hunting/fishing cabin. Does that have, can that have a stove or a bathroom? MR. STONE-Five hundred feet. MR. GRANDE-Five hundred foot hunting/fishing cabin is allowable in this zone. MR. STONE-Yes, but that’s what it would be. MR. GRANDE-Yes, but. MR. STONE-Not a second, what you’re asking is a second living unit, one of which is your house, and one of which is this building. MR. GRANDE-Yes. MR. STONE-And they are considered, for purposes of zoning, as two separate dwellings. It’s like there were two of your houses on the same three acres. MR. GRANDE-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s what it means. Size is something we will talk about, but that’s what it means. I have a couple of questions. That means, if you were given this, those trees, that nice, I hate to use adjectives which describe, that clump of trees or grove of trees would go? MR. GRANDE-The cluster behind the house would be removed. That’s correct, and there would be a new planting where the guest cabin is, next to my closest neighbor. MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, anybody? MR. BRYANT-Yes. I do have a question. I just want to clarify in my mind. I went through the minutes, and your original proposal was a garage, and you were seeking height relief and square footage relief for the garage, because we were going to have a recreational area, and going through the minutes, specifically some of the items that I touched on, you know, we would accept something 900 square feet with a recreational above, maybe 20 feet high as opposed to that, and you’ve done a fabulous job of reducing the size of the overall 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) structure, but now you’re adding a kitchen. We’re talking about a new problem all together. I mean, did you, is this intentional? MR. GRANDE-Well, I thought, here, I was doing a good thing. I thought I was taking down. MR. BRYANT-Well, you did a great thing. You reduced the size of the garage. You reduced the height, and you did fabulous, and based on the overall discussion, but then you threw the curve in with the kitchen. MR. GRANDE-Well, I had an adjacent neighbor that came and complained about the second dwelling unit, and after the meeting, I had a lengthy discussion in the hall with the adjacent neighbor, and we came to an agreement that he would like the project better if we put the guest cabin up over the garage. That was our discussion that evening. MR. STONE-Okay. Is that neighbor here? MR. GRANDE-Yes. MR. STONE-I mean, we’ll hear from him I assume, Mr. Matthews? All right. MR. BRYANT-But that was all part of the discussion. It was also part of the discussion at the last meeting to remove the cabin and we were going to have the recreational area. We were going to reduce the size of the building, and all these things were going to take place, but now we’ve got a kitchen. MR. GRANDE-No, no. We were never going to remove the cabin for the recreational. MR. BRYANT-I’m reading in the minutes, and it says, I can point it out specifically. MR. GRANDE-That was never my intention at that point. I mean, only if we could move the cabin upstairs, up over the garage, was it going to be removed. That was never my intention. Never. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. ABBATE-While you’re looking for that, let me ask you this. If I’m not mistaken, your original proposal requested construction of a 988 square foot. Correct? MR. GRANDE-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Now, you’ve reduced that to 884, which is a reduction of 104 square feet, correct? MR. GRANDE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And then the second floor, you originally requested 370 square foot, excuse me, 475 square foot. MR. GRANDE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And you reduced that to 370? MR. GRANDE-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, obviously, there is a deficit of 430 square feet less than the 800 square foot minimum requirement for a single family dwelling. You would agree to that? MR. GRANDE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Why not make it to conform with the 800 square foot, and avoid all these problems? MR. GRANDE-Well, I’m only asking for, I thought that the height was a real problem, so when I put the unit upstairs, I cut the size back so I could cut the height down. MR. ABBATE-I understand, yes. MR. GRANDE-So, I mean, there would seem to be a lot of opposition about the height in the form of building. I mean, I’m thinking that the house is 32 feet high, and I’m trying to build a structure that’s relatively substantial to match the architecture of the house. I mean, we could build a 15 foot 6 inch high hip roof, 4/12 pitch garage, but would it be appropriate next to that house? I, personally, don’t think so, and we could also put, maybe put the guest cabin on the first floor, but I’m trying to, architecturally, build something that matches the architecture of the existing house, and that’s the direction I’ve been going in since the 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) beginning, and when I received opposition, I decided that the only way I could get the height down was to make it narrower, pitch the sidewalls, and reduce the pitch on the roof and try to make it something that would be more acceptable to you, to the Board. MR. STONE-Anybody else? MR. MC NULTY-I have one comment that does and doesn’t really apply to this application but I’d like to go on record. I am disturbed about the way the County Planning Board is reporting back their review of these things. Our Code says that if the County Planning Board denies or recommends denial or suggests a modification, we need a super majority. In effect, that is what they have done, but those are not the words they’ve used. They’re saying concur with the local ordinance. Now the local ordinance says one dwelling unit per lot, but they haven’t used the word deny, and I really wish they would either say we agree with the requested variance or we deny it. I think it leaves me in limbo. It leaves a weasel way of getting four votes instead of five, but I think it also is unfair to the applicant because it strikes me that this could be legally challenged in court later on by somebody that was opposed, and the applicant could thing that with a four vote he got approval to move ahead and find out six months or a year later that, no, he didn’t, and I think it’s something that ought to be addressed in future situations. MR. STONE-Thank you. Well, I had the opportunity last night for, I had a date with my wife to go to the Planning Board last night, because she has an application which, for an organization, as you guys know, and they’ll be coming up next week, but I did go to the Planning Board. I recommend it to you. Only so that you see what this Warren County Planning Board is, does, and how they act. I recommend it. I don’t commend it to you, I recommend it. So that you know, and Mr. McNulty makes a very - good - point. MR. ABBATE-And I agree with Mr. McNulty. I think, in effect, if I may use my own words, based upon what Mr. McNulty has said, I suggest that perhaps we have jagged procedures. MR. STONE-I’ll buy it. MR. ABBATE-Do you object, Mr. McNulty, to that phrase? Okay. MR. STONE-Thank you, and I really think you ought to see it. I agree with you, by the way. Actually, when I heard it last night, because I was there when it came up, and I turned to my wife and said, I don’t think that was a denial, and that’s what I reported just now. MR. ABBATE-So do we need four or five? MR. STONE-Four and a half. MR. ABBATE-Four and a half? All right. That’s fair enough. MR. STONE-No, we need four. As far as I know, technically, we need four. MR. ABBATE-Let’s see, if one, two of us recuse ourselves. MR. STONE-We’re not going there yet. We’re not going there yet. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing, because we do, I know Mr. Matthews does want to make a statement. Anybody? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Come forward, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-John Matthews, adjacent neighbor. MR. STONE-To the? MR. MATTHEWS-To the applicant. MR. STONE-No, but to the right? MR. MATTHEWS-To the east. MR. STONE-To the east. That’s what I would call it. MR. MATTHEWS-I really sincerely wish that Jim could build his garage, but I am very much opposed to the second dwelling aspect. It’s not a two family area, and having a second family situation there only leads to a precedent which will lead to other multiple dwelling situations down the road. There’s a lot of units along the 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) lakeshore very similar to mine and Jim’s, which have garages, which have barns, which any day could some day be a second dwelling. When I was growing up, I remember that cottage as being where the maid stayed for Steven Quaid who was the previous owner. It was never really a house. It was never a dwelling. It was a cottage where the maid stayed. I can’t remember anyone living there since then. However, people may have visited Jim and stayed there. I can’t say for sure. When Jim and I spoke about wouldn’t it be nice if the living quarters that are existing could be moved to the top floor, I really wasn’t thinking about this second dwelling situation at all. I was thinking about the fact that it would make him happy and the project could move on and we’d put an end to this, but having a parcel next to my parcel, that has a permanent variance, which will stay with the property as a second dwelling really bothers me, and I know that Jim will probably never rent it, but the property may not be in Jim’s hands or his family’s hands forever, and as a builder, as a resident in Lake George for the last 32 years, I’ve seen and I’ve worked on projects where garages have turned into dwelling units and people live in them year round. There’s several on Cleverdale I know of. That’s my worst fear. If there’s any possible way of making Jim happy so that he could have his garage and whatever is necessary upstairs, whether it be a rec room or whatnot, that’s the way I would like to see it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? MR. MATTHEWS-Do you have any questions of me? MR. STONE-No. I was going to congratulate you, but I don’t want to do it now, for thinking of the future, because so few of us seem to do that. Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We do have one piece of correspondence. It’s from Lionel and Deborah Barthold. They say, “We strongly oppose the requested variance. It would set a dangerous precedent. Our family has lived on Lake George, in the Town of Queensbury for over 20 years. We have seen the residential density grow to the point where the entire character of the lake is threatened. That threat should concern not only residents, but also the business community which, in the end, also depends on the natural setting we all enjoy. Single family zoning was put in place for a very sound reason. If the requested variance is granted it will set a precedent which every home-owner with a separated garage or barn can follow. Many lake side residents, including ourselves, have (or could build) separate structures. Are we all to double the residence count on our lots? The precedent would obviously lead to pressure for doubling the number of docks as well. It would almost certainly double the boat traffic. Please deny this request in the interest of preserving the character of Lake George. Lionel and Deborah Barthold” MR. STONE-Anything else? MR. MC NULTY-Nothing else. MR. STONE-Anybody else wish to speak? Have you got a letter that you want to? MR. GRANDE-Yes. This was sent to me by my adjacent neighbor on the west. MR. STONE-Okay. We’ll read that in. MR. MC NULTY-This is addressed to Mr. and Mrs. James L. Grande, and it’s signed by the McCormicks. “Thank you for letting us know that you are planning on a construction project on your property over the summer. It looks like a great project and we wish you the best of luck with it. If we can be of any assistance during the process, please let us know. I am sure that we will see each other over the summer. Sincerely, The McCormicks” MR. STONE-Mark that as an exhibit was received tonight. Anybody else? Any other correspondence? Then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any questions of the Board? MR. URRICO-Yes. The guest cabin, did it have a bathroom? Did it have a kitchen? MR. GRANDE-The guest cabin exists presently. When I bought this in 1984, the guest cabin was called Robin’s Nest, and “Robin” was the daughter of Mr. Quaid. So, to my knowledge, it was never the maid’s cottage. It was the cottage of the daughter of Mr. Quaid. It has a full kitchen, eat-in kitchen. It has a bathroom with a tub/shower combination, and it has a living room/bedroom combination. It’s like a studio apartment with a queen-sized pull out bed, and that’s the way it exists presently. MR. URRICO-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anything else? All right. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Allan. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First off, I think that the Zoning Ordinance is clear in this regard. The section states that in this type of zone a maximum of one single family dwelling may be constructed per lot, regardless of lot size. You came, originally, with a proposal that you trimmed down, you did a magnificent job of trimming it down, the size of the building, the height of the building, and then you added a kitchen, and I’m going through the minutes, and we talk about the recreation area. You didn’t want anybody to live there. You just wanted to play there, or whatever you were going to do there, and we talk about the cabin, and the fact that you would be removing the cabin, and primarily a number of members on the Board were very specific about what they would accept, I being one of them, saying I would accept a building that was around 900 square feet. I’d probably go to the 20 foot height, and you’ve come very close to that. The only problem is this second dwelling thing. Personally, I wouldn’t approve the application for a second dwelling. If you came and said this is the garage. This is the size. We’re going to do this. This is a recreation room, we have something to discuss, but at this point, I would be opposed to the application in this form. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with Allan wholeheartedly. When I looked at the notes, the primary suggestions we had were regarding the height, at least that’s what I came away with. Maybe a little bit on the size of the project, talked about adding a breezeway to the main house, which would alleviate the height problem, and now, I’m not really quite sure how we got to this point where the guest cabin got put on top of the garage and made into a second dwelling, but as you heard earlier, in a previous case, when construction starts, when we take something down and the construction starts again, it gives us an opportunity to take a look at the Zoning Ordinance and what we’re doing with it, and certainly putting a second dwelling there, at this point, when it clearly does not allow it, I think is counterproductive, and I would not be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, it certainly is a difficult question. I read through the minutes of the first hearing and I think that Mr. Bryant and Mr. Urrico are correct, from what I could read, in that they asked for some changes, and you’ve made some certainly. I mean, it’s demonstratable. I don’t think you have the support of this application, but I do want to say that I think the one thing that falls in your favor slightly is that this idea that we’re creating a second dwelling or allowing you to create a second dwelling is in reality, is a little bit of a fiction in that in reality there really is already a second dwelling there, and that that has a bath and a kitchen and a living room and a studio thing. There’s a second dwelling on this property, and we’re not creating a variance. There is really one there already, in a sense. I think that what has to be determined is what is the best compromise for the neighborhood or community, and I’m sensing from my other Board members that you haven’t got to that threshold yet. I’m not as much troubled by the fact that, this second dwelling issue, because I think there’s one there already now, on this particular property, but I don’t think that you’ve reached the threshold of compromise that’s going to have the Board or myself feel that this, on balance, is the best decision that we could make. Again, I’m not troubled by the fact that you’re going to have a living unit over this garage, per se. I know Mr. Matthews has come and opposed your application, but he’s come to this Board for variances for his property as well, and so I think there has to be some consideration to where we’re at and where we’re trying to go with our decisions, but I don’t think we’ve arrived there yet. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I have a big problem with this second dwelling unit, recognizing that you do have a second residence on the property now, and with it being a pre-existing condition, certainly you’re entitled to leave it there and keep it there, and voting against this does not remove that second dwelling unit. Nevertheless, I think as was indicated in Staff notes for one of the previous applications, and I’m inclined to agree with him, our trend it to try to bring nonconforming uses into conforming uses, and I just can’t see any justification for approving a second dwelling unit. If that were not there, I think as other Board members have indicated, I think now that you’ve got the garage size down to within the 900 square feet that’s allowed, I could consider a little bit of height relief if that’s what would be necessary for a recreation area above the garage or a storage area, but definitely not for a second dwelling unit, whether it’s 370 square feet or 800 square feet. So I’m opposed. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I feel there’s an existing dwelling there, from what I understand, that can be maintained, fixed up, so to speak, as long as it isn’t expanded or whatnot. So that would take some of the strain off the application in connection with the variance for the garage. I think that the garage that wouldn’t need any variances could be constructed. So I am not in favor of the application. I agree with what the others have said on the Board also. Thank you. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir. Thank you. I agree that there can be no denying that there is a second dwelling on the premises at this time. I went back to the notes that we had with our previous meeting, and I basically said, Mr. Grande, I don’t really have a problem with this, but I do have a question for you. When you 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) originally purchased the house, April 12 or 14 1984, there was a stipulation in your deed that indicated that thth there would only be one residence on the property. That was, I think, Paragraph Two of your contract, and you responded, and there were two residences at the time, and then I said, yes, but not more than one residence with auxiliary outbuilding for the accommodation of a single family. Now my question, basically, is this. In the event that this application is approved, would there be a possibility that there might be a violation of Paragraph Two? No, I don’t think so, you said, because I’m not asking to move the cabin guest cabin now, but, I mean, I’d love to move the guest cabin, and I’d only have the same as when I purchased it. I mean, it would be just like a little, modest kind of kitchen where if somebody was staying there they could make coffee or whatever. It’s not like they’re going to live there. I don’t want that kind of thing. Well, if that is an accurate statement, it’s not like they’re going to live there, then why do we need somewhat of an elaborate second dwelling, is my question, and I have a problem with this, not a problem with the second dwelling because it’s already there, but I have some problems I can’t resolve with the application, and at this time, Mr. Chairman, I think I’m going to wait and see what my other Board members have to say before I take a position. Thank you. MR. STONE-You’ve only heard from five of them. I’ll be number six. I’m looking at, all of us have looked at the notes, and I’m struck by my first statement that evening, because it was a good one at the time. It’s so nice to see that you have a conforming lot, three acres, with a house on it, and I made that statement because we so rarely see that with the lake, but then it comes out that you have a nonconforming second house on that lot, and obviously it’s nonconforming. It’s pre-existing, and we can’t do anything about that, but as Staff notes points out, and I think we’ve said it a couple of times this evening, it’s the policy of the Zoning Department to attempt to bring nonconforming conditions into conformity with the current Zoning Ordinance wherever possible. You have the fortunate situation to have a lot that is three acres on Lake George, and it’s a lovely lot. I was struck again today, as I drove down, you have done a beautiful job with this thing. You should be very pleased with what it looks like. I also went out on the lake this afternoon, as I stated earlier, looking at another one. I looked at yours, and I’m convinced that this garage back there will never be seen from the lake. I can’t even see what’s back there now, and I came in very close, and I was very meticulous in trying to see the thing, but the bottom line to this thing, and I think Mr. Matthews said it, I think others have said, this is a precedent that we, as a Board, in the Town of Queensbury, knowing the pressures on the lake, knowing the pressures to crowd more people around the lake, more boats, as was pointed out, it’s just one that I would not be comfortable with establishing, and I will concur, therefore, with the rest of my Board members that when you consider the whole thing and this is one where the detriment to the community just is too strong. The second dwelling is something that we, as a Zoning Board, at least I, as a member of the Zoning Board, and I gather from my fellow Board members that we, as a Board, cannot condone and cannot agree to. So I will ask for a motion to deny this application. MR. GRANDE-Before you vote, can I withdraw this application, so I can come back again? MR. STONE-Yes, you certainly may. MR. GRANDE-All right. That’s what I’d like to do. I’d like to withdraw. MR. STONE-All right. So done. MR. GRANDE-All right. Now, can I answer your question? MR. STONE-My question. MR. GRANDE-About the kitchen, and the kitchen in this application was just like I said before. I don’t plan that anybody is going to live here. I was told by the Staff person in the Zoning Department that if I wanted to move the guest cabin, this is the only route I could take. Now, my position hasn’t changed. This would be a very limited use thing. If my sister came, or say, for example, I wanted to come to the camp in December and the heat was at 60, and I just wanted to stay over night, I wouldn’t have to warm my camp to 70 degrees to stay there. So, I never proposed this to be another dwelling unit. I just wanted to keep my limited use guest cabin, but I was told the only way I could go about doing that was to make this application. So I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Grande, let me go on the record as saying that there’s no way I question your integrity. None whatsoever. I think much of this has to do, as stated in the Staff comments, it’s the policy of the Zoning Department to attempt to bring nonconforming conditions into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance whenever possible. I think that’s what it’s boiling down to, but there’s nothing in here that impugns, in my opinion, your integrity. So please don’t take it that way. MR. GRANDE-Thank you, and the reason, I was also questioned about the reason that I went in this direction is because after Mr. Matthews sat down next to me the last time, we went out in the hall and then out in the parking lot and had a lengthy discussion about this, and I was told that this was an agreeable solution to the problem, and when he sat down here, he said he initially agreed to that, and then when he got thinking about the second dwelling unit, he changed his mind, and that was the whole thing that pushed me in this direction is to satisfy Mr. Matthews, and it apparently didn’t work. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-Well, okay. I think you sensed, at least I sensed, a conforming garage, or even maybe slightly oversized from a footprint, I mean, I can’t speak for the Board, but would probably be a reasonable thing, particularly with the size of the house and being behind it, has no effect on the lake and certainly no effect on 9L, but in terms of a second, it’s the concept of the second dwelling, and the implications for that. I think Mr. Matthews put it quite well, when he talked about what can happen if everybody does it, and that’s where I came out, and I think that’s where the rest of the Board came out. So, having said that, I want to move on. MR. GRANDE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2002 TYPE II PATRICK SMITH PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 2 KNOLLS ROAD NORTH ZONE: RR-3A APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 32 FT. INGROUND SWIMMING POOL. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR PRIVATE SWIMMING POOLS. CROSS REF. BUILDING PERMIT NO. 2002-422 (INGROUND POOL) TAX MAP NO. 252.3-1-45 LOT SIZE: 0.66 ACRES SECTION 179-5-20 PATRICK SMITH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2002, Patrick Smith, Meeting Date: June 13, 2002 “Project Location: 2 Knolls Road North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 16-foot by 32-foot in-ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 12 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures regulations; § 179-5-020 C. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to install the desired pool in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house on the parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 12 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance (60%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the house on the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 94-596: 11/02/94; single-family dwelling with two-car attached garage. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The pool would not be out of character with the neighborhood being the applicant’s next-door neighbor on Knolls Road North has an in-ground pool. Additionally, a 30-foot wide wooded buffer area screens the area yard from the neighboring parcel to the south. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Smith, I presume? MR. SMITH-Yes. I’m Patrick Smith, owner of the property. MR. STONE-Anything you want to add to the application? MR. SMITH-No. Everything is there. The setback, I know, is fairly substantial. I don’t know what the spirit of the zoning is, but it’s really an unused area that it backs up to. It’s a strip of woods, like it states, about 30 feet deep. MR. STONE-But do you have any control over those woods at all? MR. SMITH-No, they belong to. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted that on the record. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. STONE-And is the person who owns that property, has he commented to you, he or she commented to you, or are we going to hear from them tonight? MR. SMITH-Not that I know of. I told him our intentions, and he, it’s David Martin, and he actually let me cut some trees along his wood line that were kind of hanging over my yard that I had anticipated might be a problem if the pool was installed. So, I don’t know. He hasn’t said anything towards me, really, either way. MR. STONE-I mean, I ask the question because one of the points in your favor, obviously, is the fact that there is a buffer there, and it’s a very nice buffer, but it’s not an association, as we sometimes hear an association owns it, sometimes you own it, type thing. MR. SMITH-Yes, it’s on property. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-All right. Anybody else have any questions? MR. HIMES-Yes, I do. On the map that was provided with the application, it shows the lot as being .68 of an acre. It looks bigger than that, but to the east of you, I guess it would be the east, off towards Ridge Road, where is your line there? MR. SMITH-I go right to the road. MR. HIMES-You go right out to the road there. Okay. Thank you. That’s all I had. MR. SMITH-Okay. The placement of the house on the lot, I just wanted to tell you quickly, it had to be set back. We put the septic system out front, and there’s quite a slope to the lot. So it made the septic system harder to put in, because they had to build up the lot to change the grade pretty significantly. So it made the house go back even farther than it might have been. MR. HIMES-What would, it looks like there’s quite a bit of space there on the side. What about that location for, right up to the driveway, in other words. From there to the east it looks like there might be something that could be fit in there that may not need a variance. MR. FRANK-You’re not allowed to have a pool in your side yard. Only in your rear yard. MR. STONE-Right. That’s a front yard. It’s a corner lot. MR. FRANK-He’s even restricted more because he has two front yards. MR. HIMES-Yes, there’s two. Okay. So there’d still be a variance one way or the other. MR. FRANK-You’re not allowed at all to have a pool other than in your rear yard, but because he fronts on two Town roads, he has two front yards. MR. STONE-Yes, technically, it’s got to be behind the structure. MR. HIMES-Yes, I mean, so it’s also supposed to be 30 feet away, or 20 feet. So, I mean, anything could be changed. All right. Thank you. That’s all I had. MR. STONE-Anybody else? MR. URRICO-Just one question. How did you decide on the size of the pool? MR. SMITH-On the size of it? Just a standard size. MR. URRICO-Had you considered something smaller? MR. SMITH-I considered it. I figured for what we really wanted, it seemed like 32. So I submitted the application that way. That’s kind of what we wanted to do. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? Hearing none, let’s talk about. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-First of all I’d like to compliment the applicant for coming before us through normal channels, and also not having anything delivered ahead of time and leaving it in your driveway. MR. STONE-You had to be here last week. MR. ABBATE-Why does that sound familiar? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. I considered all the test, and certainly the benefit to the applicant is in favor of him. The feasible alternatives, obviously, he doesn’t have many. The only place he can place this pool is right behind his house, and even if it were a smaller pool, he would still have a problem 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) with a setback relief. What mitigates the relief, as far as the Ordinance is concerned, is the wooded area and the slope of the land right behind him, which I think really gives him a barrier there, a natural barrier, that really is far more effective than the setback relief would be in this case, and for that reason I also think it would have minimal effects on the neighborhood or community, and, yes, it is self-created in a sense, but also because of the placement of the house, it makes it hard for him, the family to put one in, and I think a pool in this area would be certainly an upgrade to the house, and I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I think that’s well said, and I agree. There’s really not a lot to add. There’s a number of contributing circumstances, and the applicant has done his best to place the pool where he can have a pool. So, I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree. I’m a little concerned with the wooded buffer not being in control of an association or the applicant, because that means we don’t know for sure what’s going to happen to it in the future, but I’ll agree, with the wooded buffer there and the slope of the land certainly provides as much protection or more protection than the setback would to an adjacent neighbor, and clearly there’s reasons for putting the pool where it’s being requested. So, on balance, I think that it falls in favor of the applicant, and I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I really would have liked to have had the neighbor on the other side of the buffer, that you say he owns that land of trees and all, I’d really like to have been able to have him here or have him had written something in about it. Otherwise I think I would push for a smaller pool. However, he was notified of the hearing and all, so I guess his absence of lack or response, whether it’s plus or minus I don’t know. So I reluctantly would go along with the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Patrick Smith, this, in my opinion, poses no problem. I love the magic word, the applicant proposes construction, no material has been delivered, and I think that a 16 by 32 foot in-ground pool where you are suggesting it be placed is not unreasonable, and if it provides you and your family a lot of recreational fun, more power to you, and, Mr. Chairman, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant? MR. BRYANT-I agree, basically, with the other Board members. There are a number of pools in your neighborhood. I’m assuming they’re similar in size. I didn’t get out and measure them, but they look pretty big, and because of the configuration of the lot, I think that’s where it has to go. I’d support the application. MR. STONE-I concur. There’s, I write notes on my Staff notes when I go off to look at a property, and I asked the question about the buffer. You answered that question. You don’t know, but Mr. Martin’s not here. He was notified. I wrote down no real problem, and I see no real problem. I think this is a situation because of where you had to place the house, and because of the size of the lot behind you, I think it’s one we can say it’s a win/win situation. It doesn’t hurt, well, at least it doesn’t hurt the community, and it certainly benefits the applicant. So, having said that, I would like a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2002 PATRICK SMITH, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 2 Knolls Road North. The applicant proposes construction of a 16 foot by 32 foot in-ground swimming pool. He requests 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the accessory structures regulations, 179-5-020(C). The benefit to the applicant would be for them to install the desired pool in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to the placement of the house on the parcel. As far as the relief being substantial relative to the Ordinance, 12 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate relative to the Ordinance, but that is mitigated quite a bit by the slope of the land to the rear of the house, adjacent to the proposed pool, as well as the trees and natural vegetation would provide an unusual buffer in this instance that may actually be better than the setback would be. The effects on the neighborhood or community are minimal because of the placement of this pool, and some neighbors having a pool as well, and the difficulty may be considered attributed to the placement of the house. So the difficulty is self-created in a sense. Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) NOES: NONE MR. STONE-Go, get a permit to build your pool, or whatever you have to do. MR. SMITH-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2002 TYPE II ANNE C. MC MAHON PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD, CLEVERDALE ZONE: WR-1A, CEA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 12 FT. BY 24 FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.08-1-6 SECTION 179-4-20 ANNE MC MAHON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2002, Anne C. McMahon, Meeting Date: June 13, 2002 “Project Location: Russell Harris Road, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 12-foot by 24-foot deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 45 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and side setback relief for both sides (approximately 7 feet for the North side and 6 feet for the South side) from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. 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 deck in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include constructing a paver patio, which would not require a variance, but still would require site plan review. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 45 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial, relative to the ordinance (90%). 6 and 7 feet of relief for both sides from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirements when considered collectively may be interpreted as moderate, relative to the ordinance (30% and 35% respectively). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, being the next-door neighbors to the north have developed their site very similar to that proposed in this application. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty maybe interpreted as self-created; however, some of the difficulty may be attributed to the steep slope above the shoreline. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 29-2002: to be reviewed 06/20/02; construction of retaining walls and fill placement within 50 feet of shoreline. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 29-2002: to be reviewed 6/20/02; construction of retaining walls and fill placement within 50 feet of shoreline. BP 2000-486: 11/06/00; 1518 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. AV 68-1999: 07/28/99; side setback relief and road frontage requirement relief. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has proposed to build a deck five feet from the shoreline with crushed stone underneath to diffuse run-off. The applicant could construct a paver patio, which would not require a variance, but has stated this would necessitate the need for fill placement to create a level area. The proposed filling to create terraces supported by retaining walls further up the slope will require site plan review. The applicant has a strong desire to prevent future erosion of the steep slope knowing the area will be traversed frequently with planned future use. Additionally, the applicants proposal, should it be approved, would not be out of character with the neighborhood, being the adjacent property to the north has been developed very similar to that proposed in this application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Question, Bruce, that I’m just looking here, before I get to you, but I hope I don’t throw you a curve. A variance is good for one year, right? MR. FRANK-That’s correct, from the time it’s approved, correct. MR. STONE-Yes. I see that an Area Variance was granted in July ’99. The building permit was issued on 11/00. Was there a renewal of this variance? I don’t remember whether there was or not. Do any of you guys remember? Jaime’s thinking. MR. HAYES-I don’t. Did you come in for a renewal? I don’t remember you coming in for. MRS. MAHON-No, we didn’t come in for a renewal. MR. STONE-It’s just a question, you know, I see it. MR. HAYES-I don’t remember it. MRS. MC MAHON-I think that, I feel like we came to get one. We kind of had to be there right on time, but I don’t think we went over for some reason. I mean, I think it was applied for. I don’t remember the technicalities, but we were on time. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-What’s the date of the building permit, the application date or the date it’s granted? MR. HAYES-It’s got to be when it’s filed for. MR. FRANK-That’s the date that it was approved, the building permit. MR. STONE-Approved. Okay. MR. FRANK-That’s not the application date that’s on there. MR. STONE-Okay. So, would you just look into it anyway. All right, Mrs. McMahon, anything you want to add to this? MRS. MC MAHON-I have to apologize for that. I think we probably did make the application within the deadline, and nobody’s ever said anything about it. MR. STONE-I have this uncanny ability to look at things and see things that don’t look right. I apologize, but I do it. MRS. MC MAHON-I think we just probably applied by the deadline. I don’t know. I don’t remember. MR. STONE-Okay. What do you want to tell us about this variance? MRS. MC MAHON-Okay. I’m Anne McMahon, and I’m a property owner with my husband Joe who’s sitting over there. We would like to build a deck in this location. I know that we’ve been told that a patio would work and that we wouldn’t need a variance, but building something does need a variance. We thought that a deck would be more environmentally friendly towards the lake because of the runoff situation and the fill situation. Right now, on the bank by the water is some loose rocks and stones. It’s a dirt bank and there’s also some shrubbery there, mostly wild Honeysuckles. The root system is holding the bank nicely, and we wouldn’t tamper with that. If we were to put in the patio, we would have to add fill to make it level, and we thought that if we built a deck, we could make it level, you know, just take a few feet off of that grade. The deck would be constructed, of course, wood planks. The water would go through evenly. We would have crushed stone underneath that would absorb the runoff, and it would filter down into the lake nicely. We feel like if we put in fill, we’d make a steeper bank. We’d have to, you know, put more wall and stone stuff there. The water would perhaps runoff, you know, off of a flat surface that was nonporous and go into the lake perhaps, in not such a friendly way. So we thought a deck would really work better in this situation. I think it would be cute. I didn’t draw the railings on it, but we were going to put on log railings, like what was on the house, and I think it would be very attractive. So I don’t know if you’ve seen the area. MR. STONE-When you sought the first variance, which we talked at great length about, as I remember. MRS. MC MAHON-For the house. MR. STONE-For the house, but this is the same piece of property. Did you have any contemplation of this at that point? MRS. MC MAHON-We knew that at some time we would have to deal with the bank coming down from the house to the water, because it’s steep. I guess we really didn’t think how we were going to handle that, at that time, but now that we’ve walked up and down the hill, many, many times, and we think it might be good, you know, to have this flat area at the base of the hill. MR. STONE-Is your dock on your neighbor’s property? MRS. MC MAHON-The dock was built before. I don’t think it is. I don’t know. We’d have to draw the lines. I was at the Lake George Park Commission and she was drawing. MR. STONE-It kind of looks like it. MRS. MC MAHON-It does. MR. STONE-It isn’t? MRS. MC MAHON-The way that line goes out there, if you’re on the property, I don’t know if you were actually where the house is, it really doesn’t look like it’s angled as much as it is. I think it probably is at an angle. I didn’t draw this picture. This came right off the map when we bought the property. It looks a lot straighter than that. It probably is tilted. The corner line may very well go over, the line, if you extend it, may very well go over the dock, but I don’t know, all the docks in that area kind of go in that direction. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-I know you heard me say earlier, I went out in my boat, and I looked at yours, too, today. Very shallow water there. Any other questions, gentlemen? MR. BRYANT-Yes, I have a question. I’m going to ask Staff, I know what the answer is already. This is just one of these inconsistencies, and I mentioned a few earlier, relative to the patio thing. The fact that it’s paved, it’s paved material, and there’s nothing in Code relative to that. That’s a special application. It’s not like you’re building a driveway. It’s a special application, a patio, and there’s no Code relative to where you can place that. It’s inconceivable to me to be digging out five feet away from the lake to put a patio. MR. FRANK-That is subject to the site plan review, which they have applied for and they will appear before the Planning Board. It just doesn’t require a variance. It’s something that doesn’t need a building permit, and it’s something we don’t regulate. Is it a problem for the Code? You tell me. MR. BRYANT-Okay. The other comment, well, I think it’s a problem. It’s an inconsistency, but the other problem relates to the Staff note. Are these your notes? MR. FRANK-These are my notes. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I did look for the other deck, the other deck to the north, but go up and down in that area, that’s the only deck. I didn’t see any other deck like that. Did anybody else see any deck? MR. STONE-Well, there’s a terrace there, a very attractive terrace on the lot to the north. MRS. MC MAHON-There is a deck also. It does not have a railing on it so maybe you didn’t see it. MR. STONE-No there is. I did see it, come to fact, I did see it. MR. HIMES-There’s a gazebo or something there. MR. ABBATE-Yes, like a gazebo. MR. STONE-Well, the gazebo is yours. MRS. MC MAHON-No. MR. STONE-That’s theirs? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. FRANK-Mr. Bryant, was your comment that there’s no other decks you saw? MR. BRYANT-I didn’t see any others. MR. FRANK-Immediately to the north, the property immediately to the north. MR. BRYANT-Yes, that’s only one. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. BRYANT-There’s no other deck in that area. MR. FRANK-Besides the one immediately to the north? MR. BRYANT-Yes. MR. FRANK-I didn’t see any either. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. STONE-That’s all he said. MR. BRYANT-Yes, I realize that, but when you talk about being in the character of the area, you would assume that it’s more than one. I would assume that, you know, you see four or five decks, and everybody lives happily ever after, but to just find the one deck, I just found it odd. MR. HIMES-I just had one other thing. Twenty-four feet wide, what went into your thinking there? It’s kind of a little bit of a narrow lot. The deck is 24 feet long, so what went into your thinking? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MRS. MC MAHON-The dock itself is 24 feet, and so we thought the deck would be 24 feet, just like the dock is, and, you know, that would be random. If you would approve it at 20, that would be okay. I mean, 24 I just picked. We thought it would look nice next to the dock like that. MR. HIMES-So just from a visual standpoint. You don’t have usage planned that means it’s got to be so many feet? MRS. MC MAHON-No. It really doesn’t matter. We just thought it would look nice that way. The dock was already 24 feet, and the rest of the lay of the land is steep enough that you really can’t use it to sit on or to set a chair on. It’s basically unusable because it is steep. MR. ABBATE-Just to get it on the record, Mrs. McMahon, you have no intentions of putting in for a marina permit. MRS. MC MAHON-A marina permit? No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-I have a personal question. I have never seen the siding that you have. It’s very attractive. MRS. MC MAHON-Thank you. MR. STONE-With the partial bark. It’s very interesting. It looked like bark anyway. MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. It’s hand peeled, and I guess the people in the factory hate it when the get an order for that kind of a house because all those logs have to be peeled by hand. It’s pretty hard to do. MR. HIMES-Will this be a year round residence? MRS. MC MAHON-It is set up as a year round residence, but we’re only going to use it in the summer. Maybe occasionally stop in in the winter and see what’s going on, but we thought, just for resale value, that we would build it as a year round residence. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Do we have any other questions? Well, let me open the public hearing, for anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application. In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, unfortunately, in this circumstance, I don’t think I can support the application, largely, partially based on what Mr. Bryant alluded to. I think that the concept of building anything within five feet of the lake would be very alarming to me. I thought your camp was lovely, and I agree with the assessment of the siding as well. It’s something to be really admired, as far as a lakefront property, but from a precedent standpoint, for us to grant 45 relief on a 50 foot shoreline setback, that we’ve battled to protect at length, I might say, in many circumstances, to me is something that I just really couldn’t even contemplate. The fact that there’s additional relief on the sides as well, I think cumulatively substantially outweigh the benefit to you of having that patio by the lake. It would be difficult for me if other people started applying for similar structures, whether they be minimum, which they may well be, but if the rails or whatever, it’s still a structure. It’s still something that’s going to be built, and I think this application, as Staff has pointed out, if you want a patio and you want to try and have the pavers should be reviewed under the hot spotlight of the Planning Board, present company included, so they can handle that in a cumulative sense, looking at the overall parcel. I’m in opposition to this application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-This is a tough one, because my initial reaction was the same way. Forty-five feet of relief from the fifty foot shoreline setback, no way. There’s a nice porch on that. It gives you a good place to sit, but listening to the discussion tonight, the alternative, if they want something down there, is they can put in a patio. That’s going to require either a lot of cutting or fill. It essentially is paving the area, whether it’s separate blocks that are put in or whether it’s blacktop. It’s paving the area right next to the shoreline. So, 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) I’m balancing if the applicant is going to put something in, in that area, so that they’ve got a flat area to enjoy the lake, which is worse, a patio or a simple deck, and I think I’d have to come down on the side of the simple deck. I could agree to a simple deck with the minimum required railing and the stipulation that it never would be enclosed or screened in or any other construction put on it, that it would basically just be a wooden platform. So, on those conditions, I would be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes. I agree with both what Jaime said and what Chuck has said, and in connection with what Chuck has said, what Al said a little earlier, that I really do think, you know, like a Hobson’s choice here. The aspect of a division in the Code puts us in a position where we have to do things to take care of a problem in the Code, and that’s really not within our purview. I think that certainly to approve a 45 foot variance on the lake is very, very tough. I don’t know whether you could get some relief by doing something with your dock, to have more sitting area. I’m not recommending that, but perhaps you could get some relief there, but I have to tell you, I think I agree with what Jaime’s conclusions are, and I don’t think that I would be able to support this application, in spite of the fact that, for example, the neighbor to the north, everything looks nice, your ideas are very nice. What you want to do would be very pleasing, but we do have this situation of an obligation to be saying, well, here’s what the Code says, and you’re right on top of the water, in spite of the fact that you could put a slab of cement down there or something. So I have to go along with coming down negatively towards the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, again, I find myself in a dilemma because I still maintain that we have jagged procedures here within the Town of Queensbury which places, in some instances, in uncomfortable situations. It’s obvious to me that Mr. and Mrs. McMahon will do an awful lot, such as crushed stone, will do an awful lot to cover exposed soil. It will do an awful lot to preserve the environment, and I tend to find myself agreeing with both Jaime and Chuck on this. I don’t know. I’m being quite honest. I’m being very honest. If I were in your position, what would I do? Well, I would do exactly what you’re doing, but because of what I perceive as jagged procedures, and trying to come up with a balancing act, let me try it this way. Because of jagged procedures, I don’t believe that the applicant should be punished. Let me try it that way, and so that’s my dilemma, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Al? MR. BRYANT-For once I disagree with Mr. Abbate, because I don’t think the applicant is really punished. I think you’ve got a beautiful home, beautiful property a nice porch, a patio, landscaping is, I know, is taking shape and I think the deck that close to the lake is a little bit much, and I would be, as I said earlier, I’d be opposed to anything that close to the lake. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think there’s been some really good, thoughtful discussion on this, and I appreciate what you’re trying to do. I understand your thoughtfulness in trying to protect the lake by keeping erosion at a minimum, but I also agree that the deck, as currently conceived, is too close to the lake, and I cannot go along with it at this point, but I’d be willing to listen to some compromises. MR. STONE-I basically concur with the bulk of the Board. It’s, forgetting exactly what you’re going to do, the Zoning Board of Appeals granting relief for construction, five feet from the lake, construction that is under our aegis, for example, I just, I can’t justify it, in terms of all of the other applications that come before us. The other thing that I wrote down, when I was looking at the property, and I think you’ve done a, as has been stated, a very nice job, and I’m sure it’s going to be gorgeous, but it’s kind of like doing things piecemeal. We did have a great deal of discussion about the variances. It is a very narrow lot, and we talked long and hard, as I recall, when we did have the original variance application, and we came down, eventually, I don’t remember if there was a compromise, but we came down with granting the variance, but now you come back to us asking for more relief for the same property within, and the house isn’t even occupied yet, I guess. That bothers me. I mean, I have to state that very clearly that I don’t like things done piecemeal. I kind of wish that you had thought the whole thing out, whether it would have changed my way of thinking, probably not, but I would have been more comfortable with looking at the whole thing and saying, well, they want to build a house on a very narrow piece of property, but I don’t think they should be that close to the lake, and I still don’t think they should be that close to the lake. So I would vote to deny it. Now it’s your turn to do something. I would ask for a motion to deny this application. If we deny it, as I think we will, you have alternatives. I don’t want to go into too many of them, but you can come back to us with a significantly different application, or you can put in, as Staff says, you can put in pavers down there, and make something that will hopefully provide you something of being close to the lake. MR. HAYES-She’ll have to go to the Planning Board for that. MR. STONE-For the pavers, yes. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. HAYES-We want to make sure we get it right with John here. MR. STONE-John’s listening. I know that. MR. ABBATE-Wouldn’t it also be possible for these folks to perhaps withdraw the application? MR. STONE-Yes, they could do that. MR. MC NULTY-They could, but from what I hear, I think they’re still going to have to come back with a significantly different. Just making the deck smaller is not going to satisfy most of us. MRS. MC MAHON-What if we moved the deck back, say, 10 feet from the lake? That’s still not enough? MR. STONE-I don’t want to get into 10, 20, 30, because we could be here all night. Ten is not good for me. I don’t think it’s good for many of the Board. MR. HIMES-It would have to be very, very significantly different. MR. STONE-Yes. So, again, you can withdraw the application and come back to us with a different number. If we deny it, it has to very different. If you want to do the pavers as suggested, that you’ve still got to go get site plan approval. MRS. MC MAHON-I think we’re supposed to be on next Thursday for that plan approval. MR. STONE-Well, it wouldn’t bother them not to have you because they’re even more booked up than we are, I think. MRS. MC MAHON-I think maybe we should go there next week because we want to do something. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. MC MAHON-We don’t want to just not do anything. MR. FRANK-Whether you deny this application or they withdraw, they still can appear before the Planning Board. MR. STONE-Correct. MR. FRANK-And change their plan. I’ve already inquired about this. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-The majority of their review at the Planning Board is for the fill and the retaining walls on the slope. They could just add on to that application for pavers. MR. STONE-And that would be permissible under the Chairman’s rules? MR. FRANK-According to the Zoning Administrator, that would not be a problem. MR. STONE-Okay. John, let me ask, would Craig allow that? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-I can’t speak for Craig. MR. STONE-Okay. I won’t go there. Good comment. MRS. MC MAHON-On this here, I did say a patio or a deck, or a patio by the water, figuring I’d leave this open, if you said no to the deck, we’ll do a patio. MR. STONE-Okay. Then why don’t, you should, well, we can deny the application for what you wanted, or you can withdraw it and still go to them for some kind of patio. MRS. MC MAHON-Which way do you think is best for me to do? MR. STONE-Withdraw it would be the best thing to do. MRS. MC MAHON-Okay, and we could still go next Thursday for the rest of it? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-If that’s what you’re saying, then that’s what Staff says, yes. MRS. MC MAHON-Okay. MR. STONE-Then you’re withdrawing? MRS. MC MAHON-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. MC MAHON-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-You’re welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2002 TYPE II LARRY CLUTE PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: N/A LOCATION: 3 FELD AVENUE ZONE: UR-10 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN 884 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BUILDING PERMIT NO. 2001-043 TAX MAP NO. 309.7-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.10 ACRES SECTION 179-4-20 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2002, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: June 13, 2002 “Project Location: 3 Feld Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed an 864 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10.3 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the UR-10 Zone, § 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the structure in the present location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10.3 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (34.3%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-043: 03/22/02; 864 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. AV 33-2001: 05/16/01; 30 feet of relief from the 50-foot buffer zone requirement. UV 22-1992: 03/18/92; single-family residential usage in an LI-1A zone. AV 23-1992: 03/18/92; side setback relief and buffer zone requirement relief to construct a single-family residence. Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant applied for a building permit under the old Zoning Ordinance, and claims he misunderstood the front setback requirement. The front setback requirement in the UR-10 Zone under the old Zoning Ordinance was 30 feet or the average setback of the two adjoining principal buildings, whichever is greater. The applicant claims he thought the requirement was 30 feet or the average (not whichever is greater). Being only one residential dwelling was adjacent to the applicant’s property, he took the average of all the dwellings on Feld Avenue, which was approximately 10 feet. The applicant decided to set the dwelling back twice the average. Additionally, the dwelling is barely visible from the road for most of Feld Avenue at its current setback. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Clute. MR. CLUTE-How are we doing tonight? I’m Larry Clute. So continues my humbling experience, or education as a contractor in a local area. It genuinely was a misinterpretation. I’ve built in other local communities, the City of Glens Falls, for one. They have minimal setbacks, but really they’re more, they really much more see the lines of the houses right in line, and on Feld the difficulties are numerous in there. The housing is all at odd angles, very, very close to the road, and when they set it back at 30 foot, I initially came in for a variance just to even place the home in the first place and my guys called me right up, when they set the home as I had it described on the print and had me come down and it looked way out of whack. So at that point I said, well, geez, I’m going to fall back on the average, never even thinking the greater. I just said I’m going to fall back on the average. The 30 foot looked very much out of place, just looked really whacked, but then I looked at the average that was in there, I said 10 foot’s too close. Initially I was going to go with whatever else was. I was going to fall back on the Glens Falls rule which is to match up with everybody, and ten foot looked way too close. So that’s where I came up with the 20. I ran an average. MR. STONE-I understand you clocked the building from what we approved originally? MR. CLUTE-I rotated the building because wanted, it actually encroached, you approved me for more encroachment on the buffer. I rotated the building for less encroachment, I guess, on the buffer, and actually for the benefit of the future recipient, if, indeed, they ever want to attach a garage or an accessory property, 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) much more use of property rotating the building. It didn’t gain a lot. It only gained 12 foot. On the small lot I guess it is a lot, 12 foot. It gained an extra 12 foot. MR. STONE-The building is occupied? MR. CLUTE-It’s sold. Yes. It was kind of a pie in the face, I guess. When I went in for the CO, Craig pulls me off to the side, and like I said, I was caught way off guard. I wasn’t prepared for it at all. MR. STONE-He gave you a CO, even though you needed a variance? MR. CLUTE-I was in a huge situation, yes. These people, that day, were prepared to move into this building. So, I mean, I’m very appreciative, and so are they. They’re more appreciative. MR. BRYANT-You’re a builder by trade, you build houses normally? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely, yes. MR. BRYANT-So that’s the Clute Enterprises truck that we see? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. BRYANT-Is this the first house you’ve built in the Town of Queensbury? MR. CLUTE-No, I’ve built numerous homes in the Town of Queensbury. MR. BRYANT-A question for Staff, just out of curiosity, because I’m not really sure about the process. Mr. Clute came before us, he got a variance, he got a building permit, he built his house. What’s Staff’s involvement after he gets the building permit? Is he required to provide a survey at a particular time when they layout the basement, let’s say? MR. FRANK-An as-built survey is to be provided for all new construction. So we knew that they would be supplying an as-built survey. Again, we do not go out in the field to check on the placement of a foundation because that would require an additional hardship and expense on the applicant to provide another as-built survey for the foundation. The Town doesn’t require that, and another thing, I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, the old Zoning Ordinance had this UR-10 zone where they had the setback 30 feet or the average. That wasn’t typical of all the other residential zones. So, the applicant claims he didn’t understand, or misunderstood the zoning requirement, well, that wasn’t the norm for most residential zoning. It’s typically a front setback of a set distance, there’s hardly ever an average, under the old Ordinance, and in this case there was. MR. BRYANT-Okay. MR. FRANK-Did he ever build in the UR-10 zone before might be a good question. MR. BRYANT-No, I’m just curious about the process, because we’re getting more and more of these applications where there’s a problem. The foundation is poured incorrectly, and the house then requires additional, you know, setback variance or whatever, and this seems to be occurring more and more often, and the question is, shouldn’t there be some provision somewhere along the line where, not necessarily the Town, but maybe the builder, should provide some kind of documentation so that we don’t, when the house is all complete 100%, it’s got a CO and people have bought it that we’re, all of a sudden we’re here at the Zoning Board to discuss what are we going to do, because there are really no options. The option is, grant the variance. The house is built. What is he going to do, tear the house down? The reality is that there should have been some kind of checkpoint at some point so that this doesn’t occur. MR. FRANK-The Town could very well require the applicant to provide a survey of the foundation. Surveys aren’t cheap. Should we put that initial hardship on the Town, or on the applicant to provide another as-built survey before they can proceed? There’s no other way to confirm that a foundation is going to meet the setback besides providing a survey. MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s true. Surveys are not cheap, but it’s a lot cheaper than moving the house. MR. ABBATE-Let me add this. I’ll bet you that a survey is a lot less expensive than the applicant paying our fees. MR. FRANK-And if you do feel strongly about that, you should address the Town Board and they should change the requirements. MR. STONE-For the benefit of you gentlemen, I certainly agree with what you’re saying. We have raised the question on previous occasions, over the years, that an as-built foundation survey should be required, quite 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) frankly. I know it’s a cost, but, you know, if you arrange with the surveyor to get three, I would think there’s got to be a bargain with three. I don’t know, but anyway. I’m telling other guys how to run their business, but it is something we’ve looked at. Now, the other thing that you said, Al, a CO is normally not given until an as-built survey is handed in and it is determined that no variances are required, and not until that determination is made is a CO normally given. In this particular case, as Mr. Clute mentioned, the Zoning Administrator, because of the circumstances, the fact that the house was sold and they were going to move in. MR. HAYES-Did they give you a CO or a T-CO? MR. STONE-He gave him a CO. MR. CLUTE-Let me further explain this a little bit more. It’s very rare that I, as a builder, make an error, a setback error. I mean, I’m very careful, and when I told my men 20 foot, if you look on a survey, it’s at 20 foot. So it’s pretty rare that I have a setback issue, but on that particular day, I called up Craig Brown, right from the site. I called up Craig and I wanted an explanation, because Feld is very difficult. I mean, if there’s anything in compliance, I would be shocked. I mean, buildings are all askew. Distances are all (lost words). That day I called up Craig Brown and I said, what is the Code. He didn’t expand upon greater than. He said average. Right then and there, right when I poured that foundation, that day, I mean, I called him that day. He said it’s average. I sat down on the phone, we ran the average. We set it at 20 foot, and I’m not trying to bring, and Craig would back this up. I’m not trying to bring Craig into the picture as at fault here, but the communication took place that day, before I poured the foundation. It would be very, not that we don’t make mistakes, but it’s very rare. I try to avoid mistakes at all costs, and I spoke with Craig Brown before we poured the footings. MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand that, you know, I can appreciate that, but in the same token, you’re not a normal resident who’s putting a patio on or a deck. You’re a builder. MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MR. BRYANT-Okay, and I understand you communicated with Craig, but obviously there was a misinterpretation. MR. CLUTE-There was a misinterpretation, no question. MR. BRYANT-I’m not saying it was intentional, but I’m just saying that there should be some kind of checks and balances so it doesn’t occur. That’s all. MR. ABBATE-Yes, we go back to my statement, jagged procedures again. In your case, Mr. Clute, I think there might very well have been mitigating circumstances, because I don’t believe you want to subject yourself to this Board, if it were not. I think there probably were, indeed, mitigating circumstances. We all make mistakes, but Allan’s got a point, and I don’t believe that we’re going to focus in on Mr. Clute and say, okay, because this, that’s it, we’re going to hammer him, but I think Allan has made some good points, and I think the Town should address this issue, and I don’t have any problems with addressing your application, particularly because you already paid the $50 fee. So I feel very comfortable by stating how I feel. MR. STONE-Enough already. MR. ABBATE-Yes. So, anyway, that’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. I had a point I was going to make. What was the point I was going to make? MR. ABBATE-You know, Mr. Chairman, at your age that’s called an intellectual overload. MR. STONE-Yes, older than I. I didn’t think anybody was. Anyway, this was, I gather, a, I can’t say unique situation, but Craig did, as Mr. Clute says, this is what he tells me, I mean, he did issue the CO because I think he felt somewhat at fault by not insisting on the total understanding, not having Mr. Clute read back what he said to him, I guess. Now, if you build on the lake, remember, it’s 50 or greater. You’ve heard a lot about 50. It’s 50 or greater. Any other questions of Mr. Clute at the moment? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-Anybody else have anything to say on this subject? Mr. McNulty? MR. MC NULTY-All right. Well, looking at the criteria, obviously the benefit to the applicant is he saves a lot of money. He can leave the building where it is. Feasible alternatives, they’re limited but there are feasible alternatives. As I’ve said before, I live in a house that, 30 years ago, was moved 19 feet back because it was built too close to the road. I didn’t do it. The guy that I bought it from did it, but that is a possible alternative. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Third, minimal to moderate, not great. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I’ll agree, you know, I think that the house where it’s sitting now probably fits in better with the neighborhood than it would be if it were in conformance, and self-created, somewhat self-created. Obviously there were some mistakes and miscommunication. Sum total, I think the house where it’s located now is appropriate for the neighborhood. It’s a little different than if it were on the lake. If it were on the lake, I’d say there’s a reason for the setback and anything new should be there. In this case, I’m inclined to go the other way and say if it matches more closely with what’s there, it seems more reasonable and attractive to me. Having heard the reason why it happened and all that considered, I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, in short, am in favor of the application, too. Perhaps if it had been coming in requesting for this variance for one reason or another before it had been built, I probably would have gone along with it. You think, you go down there and the pavement doesn’t even go down as far as this structure, it changes over to dirt, and I think that what has been done is a considerable enhancement to the vacant thing that was there before, and certainly, you know, I just paced off the, you have to walk some distance to get to where you might estimate is the side of the road, if anyone can figure that out other than a surveyor. You’re quite a distance from the fire hydrant out there, too, and there’s some trees. So I think that there is no harm done here, and I’d be in favor of granting the variance. MR. STONE-Something that Norm said, is that Town road there, or did we give you relief from that? Somehow in the back of my mind there was relief granted. MR. CLUTE-I don’t know if there was relief granted specifying anything about the road. MR. STONE-Okay. I remember something. MR. HAYES-It was something, but I don’t know what it was. MR. STONE-Yes. I know the buffer was what the basic relief was. MR. CLUTE-That was the issue, right. Yes. MR. HAYES-I think it was the buffer. MR. STONE-That’s all it was. Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I truly believe that there are mitigating circumstances here, and I think all the parties involved have done the honorable thing. Mr. Clute has come before us and pleaded his case. I think the zoning officer has furnished the Certificate of Occupancy, and I think this is was all done honorably, and I think it was the right thing to do, and not to pursue this any further, Mr. Chairman, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Allan? MR. BRYANT-I think the next time when you build a house in the Town of Queensbury, get it in writing before you pour the foundation. Because ultimately you’re the responsible party. Regardless of what was said, it’s you. That being said, I looked at this application as if it were a fresh application and you didn’t build the house. In that situation, at the end of the block, and like Norm said, there’s not even any pavement there, but when you look at it now, it’s the best looking house on the block, and I have really no problem with the application, and I wouldn’t have a problem with the application if you hadn’t built the house. So, get it in writing. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement with everybody else, and I think any other neighborhood this would be a problem, but as far as the impact on the neighborhood or community, it’s actually a positive impact, even where it is setback. If anything, I think the other houses should be moved back, I think, to conform with it because they stand out. This house does not stand out. It’s far enough removed from the road where it’s obvious that some thought was given to putting it an appropriate distance from the road, and it’s nested. It’s a dead end. There’s a buffer behind it. I don’t see a problem. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think that, as has been pointed out, in this particular case, that I’m in favor of this anyway, but even if this had come to us in advance, I would have thought this was a logical placement of the house. As you described, I don’t think there’s any detriment to the neighborhood whatsoever. I certainly think, in this particular case, that there has to be some credence given to the idea of justifiable reliance. When you talk to a code officer, it doesn’t make it right, but certainly, you know, to rely on a communication that’s been verified in one fashion or another, to me, is very much a mitigating factor in my judgment, being that there’s effort being made to comply, and that is how I feel is the most strongest component when you’re in the building business, are you trying to comply, are you trying to meet the codes, in this particular case, and I have had some personal experience with the surveys and building houses and stuff, and that the surveys are very expensive, and to require a pre-built foundation survey, you know, could add anywhere to six to eight hundred dollars to every house’s cost, not even talking about the delays in construction because the survey guys don’t come out just when you call them. It’s three, four, sometimes five weeks now. So the house would have to stop being built for that entire period of time. It’s just, I guess what I’m pointing out is I think there’s got to be some tradeoffs between the economic viabilities of the protections, and I think we do have some protections for possible abuses, which could be out there, to the idea of these placements, being that there’s always the possibility that we’ll ask that the house be moved. We could have asked you to remove the house tonight, and I’m sure that it was at least a possibility in your mind. The Hoppers, in a few meetings before, when people have exceeded mandates, or the Johnsons next week, there’s a strong possibility that when people exceed the placement with the house that they may lose something when they do. So I think there is something, there is some protection for us, as a community and as a Board to mitigate this thing. So, getting back to the test, I don’t think there’s any real negative impacts on the neighborhood or community, and I think the relief is moderate, particularly when you compare it to the other setbacks in the neighborhood, or the average. So I would be in favor. MR. STONE-It’s all been said. I concur. Do I hear a motion to approve, gentlemen? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2002 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: 3 Feld Avenue. The applicant has constructed an 864 square foot single family dwelling. Specifically, the applicant requests 10.3 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirements of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the UR-10 zone, Section 179-4-030. The benefit to the applicant would be that he is permitted to maintain the house in the current location. Based on the fact that the house is already constructed, feasible alternatives, in this case, are fairly limited, I believe, not that that is controlling in the decision. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I believe, in this particular case, it is not. I believe that the existence of other similar setbacks in the neighborhood to the one that, actually set back less than the current house, mitigate the impact, visual impact on the neighborhood of this variance and the 10.3 feet of relief that’s requested. Effects on the neighborhood or community, I think the rest of the Board has accurately pointed out that there would be very little, if any, negative impacts on the neighborhood. It’s an attractive home. It’s a compliment, I think, in this particular case to the neighborhood, as Mr. Bryant pointed out. So the difficulty certainly is self-created. A mistake was made. It’s been acknowledged, but I think that the self-created nature of this application is a little bit mitigated by the fact that there was a communication with an enforcement officer, and that some of the effectiveness of the decision making process was lost there in this case. I think, on balance, I’m in favor of the application. I move for its approval. Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-There you go. MR. CLUTE-Thank you for your consideration. Sorry. MR. STONE-I’ve got at least two minutes. It says four, but I’ve got two. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 17, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2002, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/13/02) NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes April 24, 2002: Mr. McNulty s/b not present; Mr. Abbate s/b present MOTION TO APPROVE THE APRIL 24, 2002 MINUTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant: Duly adopted this 13 day of June, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty MR. STONE-I move we adjourn. MR. BRYANT-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 41