Loading...
2002-11-20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2002 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE ROY URRICO JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-2002 TYPE II KIMBERLY A. TAYLOR PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: 18 MOCKINGBIRD LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING 12’ X 20’ DECK AND INSTALLATION OF AN 18’ X 41’ IN- GROUND POOL AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES REGULATIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 93-153 TAX MAP NO. 315.6-2-49 LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES SECTION 179-5-020 [c] KIM TAYLOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 95-2002, Kimberly A. Taylor, Meeting Date: November 20, 2002 “Project Location: 18 Mockingbird Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of a 12-foot by 20-foot deck and construction of an 18-foot by 41-foot in-ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 14 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 267 of 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?: 14 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (70%). 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 93-153: issued 05/04/93, 24’ x 30’ attached garage. BP 92-748: issued 11/25/92, 1,071 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, as the rear yard faces a designated green area. Additionally, the two neighbors most greatly impacted by the proposal are in favor of the application, and other pool variances have been approved in the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Introduce yourselves, speak into the microphone and tell us anything you want us to know that was not read into the record. MS. TAYLOR-Kimberly Taylor. I am the applicant, and I think you covered everything by reading the record. MR. STONE-Looking at the property, you have a very strange lot on the corner. Let me just throw out a concern that I have, and maybe you can address it, maybe the Board can address it. I know there have been pools in the area, but sometimes there are lots that shouldn’t have pools on them, just because of the way they’re laid out. I mean, I know you didn’t think about it when you bought the lot, but I’ve got some concern. I mean, I’ll just be very, very blunt. The fact that this lot is so strange. I do have concern about some of the, just where it’s going to be laid out, and the forever wild is only 15 feet. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MS. TAYLOR-Right. I called C.T. Male. They’re the ones that did the surveying, and that’s what they told me. MR. STONE-Anybody have any other questions? Comments? MR. HIMES-Yes, please. In connection with the drawings, I wanted to ask, the pool, what is the distance from the house? It looks like it’s, on the drawing you’ve got here, six feet from the back line. MS. TAYLOR-Right. MR. HIMES-But I can’t tell. How much distance between the house and the pool? MS. TAYLOR-At the smallest end it’s approximately nine feet, nine or ten feet. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Are all the trees that are in the back of the property in the green area? MS. TAYLOR-Most of them. I had most of the trees removed when I put the house in. So most of the trees that are there are green space property. MR. STONE-So they would all stay? MS. TAYLOR-Pretty much. MR. STONE-What do you mean by “pretty much”? MS. TAYLOR-Because I don’t know if there’s maybe one or two that are off the property, I’m not real sure where the property line is. I plan on having it resurveyed if this gets approved, and at that point I’ll know, but if there’s any, there’s very few, because when I put the lot in, I asked them to remove all the trees that were on my property. MR. STONE-You built the house? MS. TAYLOR-We had a, it was done as a development. MR. STONE-I mean, but you’re the first owners? MS. TAYLOR-That’s correct. Yes. MR. STONE-Any other questions? MR. ABBATE-Bruce, this is really a question to you. Is there any impact, or would there be any impact, on the forever wild area if we approve the pool? MR. FRANK-What kind of impact are you talking about? MR. ABBATE-Any kind of impact. In other words, if there’s no impact on the forever wild area, well then that relieves any questions that I have concerning the application. That’s a question to you. See I don’t know. MR. FRANK-I don’t see how it would be impacted. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That answers my question. Thank you, Bruce. MR. URRICO-The only question I have is the property seems to extend further into the forever wild area than some of the other properties. Was that always the case? If you could bring up that map again, Bruce, the tax map. MS. TAYLOR-That small portion, right? MR. URRICO-Yes. MS. TAYLOR-I think that’s where it pretty much narrows down, but the pool is going to be mostly between the, in the wide area. Because the other part reflects more of my garage than my house. MR. STONE-But what you’re saying, Roy, is that because it jogs out it’s not 15 feet between their line and the other property line. Is that what you’re saying? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. URRICO-Well, the other property seems to have a little bit more space between the properties on Goldfinch Road than this one would. MR. FRANK-I don’t think the pool would be up against the 15 foot portion. There is a 15 foot portion, and I believe the pool will be approximately in here. MR. STONE-When you say, what is the 15 foot portion, from the back line on Goldfinch to the back line on Mockingbird? Is that 15, or is that more than 15? MR. FRANK-I think this little gap right here is the 15 foot gap, right here. I think this is wider than 15 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying there’s more space than the 15 that was stated? MS. TAYLOR-When I spoke to C.T. Male, I asked them what the minimum amount of green space was between me and my back, my neighbor, and he told me 15 feet. MR. URRICO-But that’s not where you’re putting the pool. You’re putting it in the wider area. MS. TAYLOR-I’m putting it where the wider end is, but that’s what he indicated. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Did you read, there were, speaking of the public hearing, there’s a couple of notes in the back. We’ll read those in at the end. MR. MC NULTY-Right, and we’ve got another letter in there, too. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? Opposed? Okay. Let’s read any correspondence, and there were two letters in the application. We ought to read those. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Let me find those. Okay. Two letters that came with the application. The first one is from Sean and Sue Duncan, and they’re at 17 Goldfinch Road, and they say, “I am in favor of Kimberly Taylor’s request for a variance for an in-ground pool. Kim resides at 18 Mockingbird Lane. Our property borders the green space between Kim’s back property line and ours. Respectfully submitted, Sean & Sue Duncan” And the other is from Steve Naylor. He’s at 16 Mockingbird Lane, and he says “I am in favor of Kimberly Taylor’s request for a variance for an in-ground pool. Kim resides at 18 Mockingbird Lane. My property borders Kim’s sideline property. Respectfully submitted, Steve Naylor” And then we have a letter from Harry Tegler at 50 Kettle’s Way, and he says “Five years ago we purchased our home in this area. Before we did so we read all the Zoning Laws and Deed Restrictions. We decided then that we would purchase our home. We did this with the expectation that our neighbors would do the same. Please uphold the zoning laws as written and DENY the variance. Thank you: Harry Tegler 50 Kettle’s Way Queensbury, NY 12804” And that’s it. MR. STONE-Kettle’s Way? MR. MC NULTY-50 Kettle’s Way. MR. STONE-Which is Kettle’s Way? MR. ABBATE-Is that his return address, Kettle’s Way? MR. MC NULTY-That’s what he lists. MR. ABBATE-It’s not even listed up on the map. How could he be impacted? MR. STONE-Well, that’s why I’m asking the question. I don’t know where it is. MR. ABBATE-Is is it in the Town of Queensbury? MR. FRANK-I’m not familiar with Kettle’s Way, but it’s not in this little subdivision, I can tell you that. MR. MC NULTY-It may be over in Hudson Pointe. I’m not sure. MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s certainly not a contiguous property. One of the letters is from the house just to the left of the yellow, on Mockingbird. Okay, and the other one is behind. Okay. Nothing else? Let me 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) close the public hearing at this particular point in time. Do we have any other questions? If not, let’s talk about it. Jim, let’s start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we’ve granted similar relief to what’s being requested here. These are SR- 20 lots again, and, you know, we get into this problem because we’ve created these smaller lots, you know, without any forethought that people might want swimming pools, but nonetheless, I think we’ve given quite a few other instances where we have created these pools in the back yard. So I’d be basically in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-While I’ve pointed out a lot of times some lots are, maybe never were intended to have pools on them, I can see the reason for wanting this pool. This is one of these neighborhoods where we have a somewhat unique situation with having the Homeowners Association green space between the rear lot lines, and I think where the applicant is proposing to put the pool is where the greatest distance is between her back lot line and the adjacent ones. As she points out, I can see the day that there’s at least one of the neighbors on the other side that does have a pool that looks like it might be fairly close to their back lot line. In summary I guess I don’t think, if the other neighbor’s line was adjacent with her lot line, I’d have a problem with this, but having the buffer space there that’s going to be forever wild, I think that solves the problem, the buffer between the pool and the neighbor, and I think this is a legitimate place to have an exception for a variance. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with what Chuck has said, and really have nothing further to add. I would be in favor of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Thank you. I wouldn’t have a problem with the application either. There is the standard of fairness, and the other thing I take a look at is how would a reasonable person view your request for an application, and in both instances, I see no unreasonableness on your request, and as a result, I would support your application. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I agree with my fellow Board members. Since the neighbors don’t find exception to it, I have no problem with it. I would vote yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with everybody else. I’d just like to take it through the test, and there’s five areas that we have to weigh this against, and as far as benefit to the applicant, I think feasible alternatives and effects on the neighborhood or community, and whether this difficulty is self-created is very easily in favor of the applicant. The only one that really can be discussed is whether the relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance, and I agree with everybody else on this. The broad section of green space really mitigates that six feet, and so I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, my first statement notwithstanding, after we’ve pointed out that the 15 is that minimum strip, and that the green area is wider than the 15 feet, then listening to everybody else, I see no problem why we shouldn’t grant this variance, and therefore, since Mr. Urrico gave a nice thing, we’ll let him do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 95-2002 KIMBERLY A. TAYLOR, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 18 Mockingbird Lane. The applicant proposes removal of a 12 foot by 20 foot deck, construction of an 18 foot by 41 foot in-ground swimming pool. The benefit to the applicant is that she would be permitted to install the desired pool in that preferred location. There aren’t many feasible alternatives due to the placement of the house on the parcel. The relief is six feet from the twenty foot minimum requirement. However, that is mitigated by the broad section of green space that separates the lot from the adjacent lot on the back side of the property. There’s minimal effects on the neighborhood, as brought out by two letters from her neighbors immediately affected by it, and the self-creation of this difficulty may be attributed to the placement of the house on the parcel. Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. MS. TAYLOR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2002 TYPE II MARK & DOROTA C. LEWIS PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-20 LOCATION: 4 ARBUTUS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF A MUD ROOM/ROOF COVERED PORCH AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE: NONE FOUND TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-44 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 DOROTA LEWIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 93-2002, Mark & Dorota C. Lewis, Meeting Date: November 20, 2002 “Project Location: 4 Arbutus Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the addition of a 280 sq. ft. mudroom/porch. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9.58 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement in the Planning Board approved subdivision Old Forge Park (at which time zoning was R-3). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred 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?: 9.58 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (31.9%). 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 dwelling on the parcel. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The applicant has submitted a petition signed by five neighbors in favor of the application. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Mrs. Lewis, anything else you want to add? MRS. LEWIS-No, not really, other than I’d just like you guys to consider that I do have a small child and that is one of the reasons why I really need to keep the cold out. All the dirt that comes in, since we don’t have a paved driveway, and in Queensbury there’s a lot of sand and mud and everything else. It’s just practically impossible to keep my living room clean for my son to crawl around in, and we also don’t have a coat closet in the living room. So that creates a whole lot of mess. So it’s just, it would just really help my living standards, if you’ve seen the pictures of the house, it’s a very run down looking home. We’re trying to improve on it. MR. STONE-One of the neighbors who signed the, I won’t call it a petition because you solicited it, whatever it is, is one of these your direct neighbor to the north? MRS. LEWIS-Yes. The neighbors that I had sign is my neighbors to the left of my house, my neighbors to the right of the house, in front of my house, front left, front right, and I think I got two more down the street, but I pretty much got everybody right around in the vicinity. I could have gotten more, but I was just, short time, and nobody seemed to be home. MR. STONE-Well, the reason I ask is that the neighbor to the north, just above there, you’re going to be considerably closer to the street than his house. MRS. LEWIS-Right. MR. STONE-And you’re really going to stick out. MRS. LEWIS-Right. MR. STONE-And I’m just a little concerned about it. MRS. LEWIS-I believe his name is John Black, and I think he’s the second neighbor to sign. MR. STONE-Well, you’re, what, you’re at 4? MRS. LEWIS-Arbutus. MR. STONE-So I suspect the one that’s at 6 is the one that’s that one. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MRS. LEWIS-No, there actually is no. MR. FRANK-Whitmore is the neighbor at Number Six. MR. STONE-Whitmore. That could be Whitmore. MRS. LEWIS-Whitmore is next door. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. LEWIS-Three Arbutus is right across from me. There’s no One and there’s no Two. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, we’re going to read this in, I think, just to get it on the record, during the public hearing when we get there. Did you ever consider putting this on the rear of the house? MRS. LEWIS-I have, but that would, right now my rear door is walking into the basement, pretty much, and you would have to go through the kitchen. Eventually I would also like to extend my living room, I’m sorry, my dining room, as right now we have a kitchen/dining area. So I really couldn’t do that. MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody wants to ask? MR. HIMES-Lew, I have a question, perhaps for Staff, the relief required paragraph, Bruce, you mentioned that this setback requirement in the Planning Board approved subdivision Old Forge Park (at which time the zoning was R-3). Usually, and I notice in two or three of the applications tonight, there’s somewhere in here an indication of what the present zone is. As far as R-3, we had RR-3 and 5 or something last time. What bearing does that have on the setbacks and so on and so forth, the fact that it was RR-3? Why is that in there? I don’t know what R-3? MR. FRANK-Because it’s a Planning Board approved subdivision that this parcel is in. So anyone living in that subdivision has to meet the setbacks that were current at the time that it was approved by the Planning Board, at the time it was R-3, and the setbacks that are listed on the Area Variance page, the site development data and setback requirements, that’s all accurate. That’s what was approved at the time. MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anything else? If not, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Would you read that letter there. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Yes. This letter, petition or whatever, says, “We would like to build an additional room and roof covered porch in the front of our house. The room would come out app. 11 feet to the front of the road, which would violate current zoning requirement of 30’ and decrease to 19’. The room would have two windows in the front and entrance to the house would be from the Porch, which would be open with the roof over it. The whole front side of the house would also be sided with vinyl siding. We believe that this would GREATLY increase the appearance of our house as well as its value. We ask for your support in granting us this variance to current zoning requirements. If you do not oppose, please show your support by signing below and placing your address. Thank you! Sincerely, Mark and Dorota Lewis” And it’s signed by five people. The first one’s, Staff’s given me a sheet here that they’ve checked with the GPS for the last names. So 395 Sherman Avenue, the last name is Walsh. The one at 3 Arbutus Drive is Barrett. 385 Sherman Avenue is Rainville. 6 Arbutus Drive is Whitmore, and 7 Arbutus Drive is Goodwin. MR. STONE-Any other correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions? Let’s talk about it. Chuck McNulty, let’s start with you. MR. MC NULTY-I’m not sure which way I’m going to go on this. I’m leaning towards the negative side. I can understand the reason for wanting this addition, but when I looked at the neighborhood today, it struck me that this is going to stick out more towards the road than any of the other homes in the area, and for me to agree to it, I think I would have to see some compelling reasons. I think it’s going to have somewhat of a detrimental effect on the appearance of the neighborhood, and tend to change the character of the 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) neighborhood a little bit, and for me, I don’t think the benefit to the applicant outweighs that at this point, but I’m going to listen to the other reasoning of the other Board members. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I’m sympathetic with what Chuck has said. However, there are a couple of other houses that are across the street and down the road just a little, one of which has a, in my opinion, a rather crudely covered porch over the front door, which I think is fairly large, with respect to what use is made of it. There’s just a little doorstep there. It comes out pretty close to the road, probably about the same distance as yours from the road I would think. MRS. LEWIS-Actually, if I just may add one thing, when I wrote this letter, I’m actually asking for only nine and a half feet. I didn’t know exactly how far away my (lost word) would set, so the zoning would only go down to 21 and a half feet, versus 30. MR. HIMES-Yes. So the thing being there are three across the street that I noticed, and what this one largest one is, I don’t think from the drawings I’ve seen of yours, is going to be anywhere as nice as yours, and I do, again, I look, with the exception of a few houses that are further set back and appear to have slightly bigger lots, most of the lots there are very narrow and deep, I guess, like 200 feet deep or something, and wind up like a straight edge. So I don’t see the break up of the monotony of the façade on that side of the street with what you’re suggesting to be something that’s detrimental to the neighborhood as I see it. It’s a modest little thing that’s going to stick out there, and architecturally appears from the drawings I see to look fairly decent to me, and I can appreciate, having lived in a very small house my entire life, the need. So I tend to be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I think that Mrs. Lewis did her homework. I also believe that her request is a reasonable request. I think her argument is sound. I think Chuck makes a good point. He’s looking for compelling reasons, and rightfully so, and I think perhaps, there are five compelling reasons, and the compelling reasons basically are your immediate neighbors. They don’t seem to object, and if 280 square feet will make you and your family happy and your neighbors don’t object, and there is no real adverse effect on the neighborhood, I would be in favor of your application. MRS. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I have to agree with Norm and Chuck. It wouldn’t seem to me that it would be a negative impact on the community, the aesthetics, and the fact that there are five neighbors who are in favor, I would be in favor of this variance. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I also agree. I think it’s a fairly reasonable request. I also was concerned about the uniformity, in terms of the neighborhood road frontage setback, and I drove around the neighborhood. I didn’t really notice any uniformity, and I don’t think this is going to stick out in any way. I mean, it may stick out somewhat, but there are other houses in the neighborhood that also have that. So I don’t see that breaking up any front line or look. I think I would be in favor of it, and also based on the neighbors that have supported the argument as well. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, would be in favor of it. My point that I was trying to make when I was trying to write this up was that, you know, you do need some kind of cover on your ingress and egress. You’re facing west into the prevailing winds, and, you know, if you have kids, I mean, I have kids, too, and they make a mess tromping in and out. It’s nice to have room, and to make anything smaller makes it like a closet. It’s enough room to turn around and take your boots off, but you may as well build something that’s usable. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Well, I, too, was conflicted, as Mr. McNulty was, when I looked at the property. I did have an occasion, as I was viewing the property, to see an acquaintance of mine who lives on your street, lives further down, not one of the ones you contacted, and was interesting to hear, obviously I didn’t ask him what he thought about it, but he offered, he said, anything that helps the neighborhood is good in his judgment. It’s an older neighborhood. He was telling me it’s about 27, 28, 29 years old, and obviously has undergone some changes, as time has gone on. I’m still concerned that it’s going to stick out, but I think as most of the Board members have stated, if your adjacent neighbors don’t seem to be unhappy with it, and it seems to be a fairly stable neighborhood from people that have lived there awhile. You’re the new kids on the block, from what I 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) understand, and if they don’t have a concern, then I guess I would go along and hope that when it does get built that it will blend in as well as it can do. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 93-2002 MARK & DOROTA C. LEWIS, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 4 Arbutus Drive. The applicant proposes the addition of a 280 square foot mud room/porch. The relief required, the applicant requests 9.58 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement in the Planning Board approved subdivision Old Forge Park, at which time the zoning was R-3. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location, which is on the front of the house towards the street. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited, due to the placement of the house on the parcel, and the fact that they’re fairly close to the sides as it is, and with your little driveway there’s not much you can do on one side of the house. So it seems an appropriate place to put it is in front. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? 9.58 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance, 31.9%. Effects on the neighborhood or community. Minimal effects on the neighborhood. I suppose there are some that might look at it, at least in the proposal stage, and say, well, it’s not too good, and a lot of others may say it’s just fine, but we feel here that it’s a rather unpretentious addition, which should fit in nicely, and it’s not going to create any problem for the neighborhood or the community, and so I move that we approve this application as submitted. Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. MRS. LEWIS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2002 TYPE II KELLY LADD PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: LARRY CLUTE ZONE: UR-10 LOCATION: 5 FELD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 864 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 02-836, BP 02-835, 2000-052 TAX MAP NO. 309.07-1-26 LOT SIZE: 0.23 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-2002, Kelly Ladd, Meeting Date: November 19, 2002 “Project Location: 5 Feld Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 864 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 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 construct the desired structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include placing the house in a compliant location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (33.3%) relative to the Ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal negative 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 2002-836: pending, 864 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. BP 2002-835: pending, demolition of existing structure. BP 2000-52: 02/18/00, 1568 sq. ft. modular single-family dwelling (voided 05/06/02). Staff comments: Minimal negative effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. The proposed dwelling will be located in a more compliant location than the existing dwelling, and the proposed front setback is approximately double the average for this section of Feld Avenue. Additionally, 10.3 feet of front setback relief was granted for 3 Feld Avenue in June of this year. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Mr. Clute, anything you want to add? MR. CLUTE-No, not really. I think the notes were pretty straightforward. They’d like to knock down the existing structure, which is definitely in nonconformance with the existing Code. The new proposed home isn’t either, but is in more compliance than what is existing. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you want to go back further? MR. CLUTE-It creates difficulties in putting that septic system in. The ground, if you’ve visited the site, actually rises to the rear. So I want to try and hold it forward, and you end up with some rear yard, or the applicant would end up with some rear yard as well. MR. ABBATE-I have a question, Mr. Clute, if you don’t mind, please, because sometimes I get confused when I read these things. Why would you submit a proposal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then negate your request on the same application by suggesting that there is a feasible alternative? And if there is a feasible alternative, what is it? MR. CLUTE-Well, the only feasible alternative is to deny it and leave the existing structure in place, so that the lady would continue to live where she is. She doesn’t need the new home. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but the question is, are there feasible alternatives to this variance, and you’ve put in the answer yes. MR. CLUTE-That would be the answer to your question. My answer to your question is the only feasible alternative. MR. ABBATE-Would be a denial? MR. CLUTE-Exactly, and leave the building in place. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-I think, I can’t speak for Mr. Abbate, I think he would have preferred you to say no, for the same reason. MR. CLUTE-To put the new structure in, no, there is no feasible alternative. MR. ABBATE-So do you want me to change your application? MR. CLUTE-Sure. MR. ABBATE-I just changed it. Okay. Now I understand. Thank you. MR. STONE-He’s a very honest gentleman before us, you see, and he says, well we could put it slightly different, but not really. Any other comments, questions? Are you in a one man effort to make Feld Avenue a? MR. CLUTE-So it seems to be the case, in this location. MR. STONE-Well, I congratulate you, actually. It can use help, I’m being kind. Okay. Let me, any other questions, any other statements? 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 MR. STONE-Anything else? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Norm, we’ll start with you. MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. In short, I think this is probably the best idea that could be put forth for this little lot, and the structure that’s there now doesn’t look like it’s going to fall down any day, but I wouldn’t want to be near it in a strong wind. So I think that replacing it with something that looks fairly appealing like the drawings you’ve submitted and as has been said, the little area, what you’ve done already with the other place that we talked about last year is a big improvement, and I think this is going to be the same. It’s a very short, dead end street. The aspect of this rather modest impact on the Code, I think, is of no great consequence, and I think overall this is a good development for the neighborhood and the community. Thank you. I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clute, I would agree, too. I think that your previous history concerning these construction projects that you have really does you justice, and quite frankly I think what you’re suggesting, what you are requesting, makes a lot of sense, and I think it contributes favorably to the Town of Queensbury, and I would support your application. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I agree with the other speakers. It seems to me it would be a much better place, and it will be aesthetically pleasing. I notice it’s only three feet from the line, the existing house. So I think, I would be in favor. It seems to be a good situation. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think there’s definite benefit to the applicant, as far as feasible alternatives. He could possibly place it in a more compliant location, but I’m not really sure that’s feasible, in terms of where the septic tank would have to go. I did look at the property and I do agree with that slope we’re talking about. As far as relief substantial relative to the Ordinance, ten feet in itself would be minimal to moderate, but considering this is an improvement over the current situation, and sort of puts it into conformity with three Feld Avenue, which we’ve already approved, I think that mitigates that situation, and as far as the effects on the neighborhood or community, rather than the minimal negative effects, I think it’s going to have a maximum positive effect on the neighborhood, and I think that’s a telling statement there. I think that weighs more in favor of the project than anything else, and yes the difficulty I think is self-created, but in this case I think the positives outweigh that one negative, and I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we should push for more suburban renewal down on this end of Town. I think that, you know, you’re doing a big service for the community by doing this, and I think that replacing substantially substandard housing is a positive for the neighborhood, and you do good work. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to be negative again. I’d like to explain why. One reason is because everybody else looks like they’re going to vote for it and it is an improvement, I’ll agree with them. It’s certainly going to improve the neighborhood, and I’m in support of that. At the same time, I’m bothered that the zoning is one thing and we’re allowing something else. This is the second time we’ve done this, and I don’t like to see this trend unless there’s really a good reason, because now that we’ve done it with this house, then the third house that comes along, well, there’s two others there that have this kind of a variance, and that adds more weight to the pressure of approving the third one, and about that point we’re rezoning which we’re not supposed to do. So more on principle than anything, I’m going to oppose, but at the same time, I’m glad there’s enough people here voting for it that you’re going to probably get what you need. MR. STONE-Well, I applaud Mr. McNulty for his statement of principle, and I think it’s a good one, however, we have a piece of property that exists. We have a piece of property that’s 10 feet from the right of way. We are going to build a new house, a new house, which is important. It’s not a modification. It’s going to be a new structure, which in itself is beneficial to the neighborhood. That new structure is going to be 20 feet from the roadway, even though the zoning calls for 30. I think Mr. Clute has explained, in answer to my question, why not go further back. I’m not an expert on locations of septic systems, but if he tells me that it’s probably going to be a problem if he goes any further back, I’m certainly inclined to believe that. So I think, all in all, it’s a project that’s worthy of doing. It’s a project that’s worthy of doing in the manner that’s been asked for, and I certainly would go along with it. So having said that, I need a motion to approve. MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Chairman, I’ll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2002 KELLY LADD, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 5 Feld Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of an 864 square foot single-family dwelling. The relief required, the applicant requests 10 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. Well, it’s been pretty well discussed this evening that the applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives, the applicant has indicated on the application that there are no feasible alternatives, in terms of placing the house in a more compliant location. Is this relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance? 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum setback requirements may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (33.3%), relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood. It’s my opinion, Mr. Chairman and Board members, that this construction would be a positive and have a positive effect, not only on the neighborhood, but on the area of the Town of 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) Queensbury as well. Is this difficulty self-created? Perhaps, but the difficulty may be attributed to the area itself and size of the lot, and in view of that, Mr. Chairman and Board members, I recommend that we approve Area Variance No. 88-2002. Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2002 TYPE II CAREY L. SYKES PROPERTY OWNER: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 35 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 12’ X 24’ SHED AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 30-34-89, SB 11-89, SB 6-74, 9-74, BP 92-087, BP 01-498, BP 02-797 TAX MAP NO. 289.08-1-57 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 CAREY SYKES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 89-2002, Carey L. Sykes, Meeting Date: November 19, 2002 “Project Location: 35 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 12’ x 24’ shed. Relief Required: Applicant requests 23 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Planning Board approved subdivision Lake Sunnyside Estates (at which time the zoning was R-4). 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 might include placing the shed in a compliant location northwest of the end of the driveway. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 23 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial (76.7%). 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 92-087: 03/24/92, 2530 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. BP 01-498: 07/06/01, 280 sq. ft. deck. BP 02-797: 09/20/02 288 sq. ft. shed. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action, as the proposed location for the shed would not be out of character with others in the neighborhood. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. STONE-Okay. Mr. Sykes, anything you want to add? Introduce yourself. MR. SYKES-Carey Sykes, Queensbury resident, 35 Sunnyside. The only other thing I would put in there, that wasn’t part of that is that at some point I hope to do the additional garage that would be at the end of the driveway. So, in terms of the one point that was raised, locating the shed forward would conflict with that, and so for the long term, being a resident, and planning to be so for quite some time, I’d like to keep that shed back so that, in the future with any other development, it doesn’t cause a problem. MR. STONE-Can you describe for me the various sheds on the back of the property, in proximity to this, who’s they are and how close they are to the lines and everything? MR. SYKES-Sure. You see the white truck there, just past it on the left is a tan shed. That’s actually the rear side of my western neighbor, Don, and that shed is probably about somewhere less than 10 feet from the back of the shed line, and then just past the white truck, you can see a gray shed that is Ron Stevens property, and that’s on the rear of his lot, somewhere around eight to ten feet from the rear, and obviously my proposed location is essentially in that same corner area, that essentially all three of those sheds would be in adjacent fashion. MR. STONE-In a little gathering, so to speak. MR. SYKES-Yes. MR. STONE-You’re going to be, you’re saying you’re going to be four foot from the back line, and your neighbor to the north is, you said how many, eight feet? MR. SYKES-They’re roughly, the one to the north is probably eight to ten feet. My neighbor to the west there is probably six or seven. That’s pretty close, and mine was, I think, seven feet from the rear. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-Bruce, we’re still talking, a 100 foot shed can be five foot from the line, right? MR. FRANK-120 square foot. MR. STONE-120. MR. FRANK-That’s for the new Ordinance. MR. STONE-It went to 120. Okay. I was trying to look it up. There’s a tree back there, too, isn’t there, on the, is that on your property? MR. SYKES-There’s a very small maple tree, purple maple on my side of my property. The trees on the, the other trees on Ron Stevens’ property are further back. They’re well on his property. I can’t make out if the arrow there is supposed to be on the tree, but. MR. STONE-That’s the one that was yellow, wasn’t it, the other day? Okay. MR. HIMES-Just a question for the applicant. The neighbor with the one shed who’s kind of sort of behind you, and then the one to the west, diagonally across in back of you appears to be something like a playground. Is that so? Is that a community, or I mean a Homeowners Association thing or what? MR. SYKES-Well, actually, what that is, it was a vacant lot until I believe this year. Three of our neighbors, I think, purchased that to keep it as sort of like a playground sort of a softball field that we use. MR. HIMES-Yes, because it looks like the back stop for a baseball or softball is right up also on the back corner right near where the sheds are placed. It’s not far from there. MR. SYKES-Right. MR. HIMES-So it’s not to be developed. Okay. I think I have my answer. Okay. Thank you. MR. SYKES-Okay. MR. STONE-Did you ever consider placing it in the northeast corner of the lot, where there seems to be, or is that where your septic system is? MR. SYKES-It’s not where the septic system is, but to the northeast you can see where I have a fence that we installed last year. That fence runs to toward the back of the property line and goes all the way over to the northeast side. So, essentially, because of where that fence is, it would be difficult to put it over there. I’d have to take the fence down to get it in. It would be inside the fence where I didn’t want it. Essentially, I wanted it outside of the fenced area for access. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Hearing none, 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 MR. STONE-Having no other questions, let’s talk about it. Chuck Abbate, let’s start with you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Can I assume that the specs that you have submitted on the building is an accurate portrayal of the building you want to place on your? MR. SYKES-Yes. It’s from custom sheds, which is one of the Amish. MR. ABBATE-Yes. It’s a very attractive building. There’s no question about it. I just wanted to make sure. Have you had any indications from your neighbors as to their position? MR. SYKES-I’ve talked to my local neighbors, the Stevens, and Don to my left, and they had no issue. I talked to Myhrbergs just across the street, and they asked why is there a variance meeting, and they were surprised to learn that, because of the 30 foot restriction, that you have to apply, and they had indicated that they were going to put in a shed and didn’t realize that you had to go through this process, and so they would be doing, too, but no one indicated negatively that. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. ABBATE-So all your neighbors have, indeed, received, notification of this? MR. SYKES-Yes. MR. ABBATE-And no one has an objections, as far as you know? MR. SYKES-No. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-So? MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problems with it, quite frankly. As a matter of fact, I’m going to save this. I’m giving serious consideration to having the same thing done on my property. So I may have to come before the Board. Who knows, but I kind of like this, and I will support the application. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I will support the application. I don’t see any drastic reasons not to. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I’m going to come down on the no side on this one. I see the benefit to the applicant, and I think the effects on the neighborhood or community will be minimal, only because the neighbors have already placed theirs close to the rear property line, but I think there are feasible alternatives. I think the relief is substantial, and I think it’s self-created. So I would be a no. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically in favor of it. I think creating that little cluster of sheds in the back is probably the best way to deal with it, and I think that, you know, everybody has a need for storage space, and I think it’s reasonable. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to agree with Roy on this, I think. The size of the shed bothers me. I can understand the argument, and I’ll agree it would look neat to have a shed back there clustered with the other ones that would be appropriate, but at least eyeball look at it, I think this is going to be about twice the size of those other sheds, which is why the other sheds probably did not need a variance and this one does, and while I can see a benefit to the applicant, I can’t see that benefit outweighing the detriment to the neighborhood of putting large sheds in those back corners. So I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I have some agreement with everything that’s been said, but I do feel, as Chuck has said, that, when I looked at this, that the 12 by 24 is a little big. It’s almost like a one car garage, in spite of the fact that it is a very attractive looking thing. I haven’t seen one like it, but I wonder if there is another model of this that might be a little bit smaller, that would come a little bit closer to what the Code would allow for a shed. Again, the clustering of them together with that growing pine tree there, and the play yard, I’m very close to saying, yes, but I do agree it’s going to kind of outshine the two little sheds that are there now, I think, in terms of its size, I believe. What do you think about that? MR. SYKES-I think, you know, as far as my concern or the neighbor’s concern there’s no feeling that this is going to dwarf other sheds and so that it’s a negative reflection or a standout, per se. As far as the sizing, there are certainly sizing options. One was to just go with 120 foot shed and not have to go through any sort of variance. In terms of my storage needs and what I wanted to be able to have, we felt that was the best size to suit our needs, and that, you know, based on the design of it and its construction that it would perfectly match the house, and therefore. MR. HIMES-Does this model come in other sizes? MR. SYKES-Yes. MR. HIMES-A smaller, let’s say 150 or even 200 square feet? See, you have 288 square feet. MR. SYKES-I would have to look up the dimensions, but, yes, there’s all kinds of different sizes from 120 to 300 and some square feet. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. HIMES-Well, I would agree with this if you could get it down to something like, let’s say 200 square feet. That’s pretty good size. MR. SYKES-I would consider that. The only thing I would throw out is I discussed this with, I think it’s Craig Brown, to submit this, and was late getting it in, and missed it by a day, and so I’ve been sitting here for two months trying to get things going, and so what we decided, in talking to him, is that, irrespective of the zoning approval, the shed, we could meet the 30 foot restriction, and so I wanted to get it in this winter. So in discussing it with him, we placed the order for it about five weeks ago, such that, if for whatever reason this wasn’t approved, the restriction on the variance has nothing to do with the size. The restriction on the variance was the setback. So essentially what we decided, after consultation with him, is we could put it on the property. It just wouldn’t be in the desired location, and that would be a problem. So, yes, I could get smaller, but. MR. HIMES-You’d indicated you were going to be building a garage soon, and given that, and the aspect that, as submitted, I think that I have a little hard time approving this. A little bit of a compromise on the size of it, and I think that I could because I do believe that these days you need storage facilities, but I think this is, again, considering the fact that you’re going to have a garage soon, it’s just a little more. MR. SYKES-If I could make a comment there. I said I wanted to reserve the ability to install a garage. There’s no plans to do that any time soon. The reason I went with the shed is because I wanted to build a garage which was like $20,000. I couldn’t afford that. So I said I’ll go with the shed. So the garage idea, I wanted to place the shed such that if I did build a garage, there’s no major conflict, but I don’t have any plans soon to build it or apply for a garage which would be its own zoning variance because of the location. MR. HIMES-All right. Well, I, again, with a compromise, I think I could favorably go with this, but as submitted, I’m afraid I’m not in favor of this application. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Before, I comment, I’m looking at the drawing, and I should have said it earlier, it appears that this proposed shed encroaches on your leach field. Is that true? MR. SYKES-I think, from the drawing, it does, from the best measurement that we can tell, as far as actual placement, it may be right at the edge here. The leach field drawing on this plot map that was provided, I can’t speak to the accuracy of it, in terms of, but in terms of the shed, it is strictly, would just be placed on blocks. So that if there was some issue there for whatever reason to put that on PVC and move it, to get there, if it was slightly over, would not be an issue. MR. STONE-Well, if you moved it, though, then you’d need more of a variance. MR. SYKES-No, only that, what I’m saying is if there’s an issue with the leach field that required some maintenance, and that corner was over it. MR. STONE-Well, it’s not just maintenance. I mean, when you cover a leach field, you are cutting down evaporation, and that’s how the leach field works. You have to get rid of the moisture in the leach field, and it goes more than one direction. It goes up and it goes down, and so it is a concern. Having said that, I have listened to everybody, and it’s interesting. A number of people have talked about the fact that you’re going to have three sheds in a little area. Surprising, that bothers me. I don’t like a cluster of sheds, because I think it’s going to represent a cluster of sheds which isn’t very attractive, and I know your neighbors have not, said to you they haven’t had any problems with it, but I sometimes get troubled when people who say they have no problem with it don’t come before us, because I know that I seek, at every opportunity, people who do want us to grant it, and it makes our job an awful lot easier. I also agree with Mr. Himes, in that this is a very large shed, and it’s going to dwarf the other two, at least one of them, the neighbor to the left. I would like to see a modification, and I am not comfortable voting for this as it currently exists. As I say, I’m troubled by the location on the leach field. I’m also troubled by the size. If we made a motion now, I would have to ask a motion to deny, because we have four votes who are willing to say no to the application as presented. We have three who are willing to approve it. I do want to comment on that. That doesn’t bother me that we have a four to three, because a variance is a balancing test, and having a four to three says that it’s a very close call, and we’re all balancing the information slightly differently, and that’s fine, but I would like to see you ask us to table it, so that you could bring in a slightly modified, I think Mr. Himes who could be a swing vote, said he would like to see it smaller. I would like to see it at least smaller. I’m not sure where I would come down putting it in the same location, but I certainly would like to see it smaller, because I think you’re going to have something that, when you get it all done, I don’t think any of you are going to be truly happy with, in terms of what this thing is going to look like. That’s my judgment. When I looked at the neighbor’s shed, I said, it doesn’t say constructed, which is something we hate to see. The applicant has built a shed. I thought maybe you had already built it and put it on the property. So I think they’re going to be very close. So, having said that, I would be inclined to vote no. So you have the option of having us vote no, and coming back and asking us to consider a significantly different application, in this case it could be significant, I think, in size or in location, or you could ask us to table it for 60 days, and come in with a modified proposal that would certainly please at least one of us who want to vote no. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. SYKES-Maybe you can help me, because this is the first time I’ve gone through one of these processes, but as I indicated to Norm, based on the review with Craig and trying to get things done for this year, and polling my neighbors before, we elected to go ahead and have this built because it takes six to eight weeks to have it built, with the mindset that if, for whatever reason, the location that we suggested would be frowned upon and disapproved, that we would be forced to put it up near the driveway, and in front of the leach field, which, according to the review with Craig, is, you’re perfectly fine in terms of building permit and size to put it there. There’s no variance requirements. So you can put it there. As far as me being able to change the size at this point, it’s been four to five weeks of the production stage. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. SYKES-So for me to change the size, essentially, would be to try to cancel the order and ask them to display it. MR. STONE-Well, then what we can do, we can deny the variance request. You certainly can place this shed in a compliant part of the property, and you don’t need a variance to do that. It won’t be where you’d like it. So since you have it on order, Norm, would you make a motion to deny. MR. HIMES-Yes. Certainly. MR. SYKES-Could I make one more comment? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. SYKES-I guess the only thing I would ask, for your consideration, like I said, I’ve never done this before. I’m new to this area. I’ve lived at this site for nine years, but if the shed could be placed as I’ve purchased and as the size I’ve purchased, but on the property in a location, it’s just a location that I don’t want, and I’m trying to serve all the laws and codes, I can have the shed, and put it on the property. So if you vote and it’s negative, because I’ve already bought it, obviously, I’m going to pay for it and have it delivered and put it at the end of the driveway. So irrespective of the vote, the shed would go there, so that I could use it, and I guess my point is, it would have to be in a location that obviously I don’t want, and then, you know, if I were to, at some point, want to do something with a garage, then it would be a factor. So I guess what I would ask is because I can have it without a variance, the location, and I’ve already purchased it, and it’s five weeks into production, I guess I would just ask you, you know, to strongly consider that, because either way it would be there, and all I’m asking is for the consideration of, could we put it in the location. MR. STONE-I can only offer that your argument is digging a deep hole for yourself, in my judgment. The fact that you built it, are having it built, is like you constructed it and you want a variance after the fact, and we don’t really like those. We’ve had a number of instances. So I don’t think your argument, at least it’s not swaying me at all. While I’m sympathetic, I understand that, but it’s not swaying me. I still think there are four of us who are willing to say, you may have the shed in a compliant location, but not in the location that you’re asking for. MR. URRICO-Doesn’t he have a third option to withdraw? Because there were two options you mentioned. MR. STONE-Well, he can withdraw the application, but if. We could do that. MR. FRANK-The applicant may not choose to have a denial, if he’s going to go for a variance some time in the future for his garage. MR. STONE-Yes, well, you could just withdraw the application. Thank you, Roy, and say you’re going to put it in a compliant location, and the Building Department will ensure that it is, and then you have no stigma on any future variance request. MR. SYKES-Okay, and just one other question. You had indicated, could it be put in a different location with the suggestion of what if it was placed in the northeast location, which means I would have to do some fence work and put it in that location, but it wouldn’t be in relation to the other two sheds, in that corner. I guess what I would ask is I don’t know if that could be considered, but the idea is, the preference is to have the shed toward the back of the property because forward is just sort of a stigma. MR. STONE-I think you have a number of alternatives, even more now that I think about it. One, you could withdraw the application. You could modify the application. You could say I’ll pull it back. I’m going to modify it. I’d like some relief, but I’d like it in a different part of the property. You could ask us for that, if you wanted to do so. I mean, if you’re committed to getting this shed and having it delivered to your property, which apparently you are, you could put it in a compliant location, or you can make another application, or a modified application, to place it somewhere else that doesn’t require the variance that you requested at this particular time. MR. SYKES-And is that process like reapply and? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-Bruce? Yes, or you could pull it and say you’re going to, you could ask us to table it and you could modify it. That’s one thing you could do, if you think you want to put it in another corner, but you still need relief. I mean, I don’t know where you want to put it, exactly. MR. SYKES-Where I want to put it is anywhere on the back of the property, seven feet off the line. The preference was not inside the fence because I’d have to take the fence down to put it inside. I mean, if it could be closer to that side. MR. STONE-Well, I mean I heard at least two different concerns, or maybe three. One was the size of the shed, in the place you wanted to put it. Obviously, if you put this in a compliant location, that goes away. You can make it any size you want that conforms to the Code, which obviously the 288 square foot shed would do, or you can attempt to place it in another part of the lot, the same size shed, and request whatever variance you need in terms of when you decide where you want to site it. I mean, I can go any clearer than that, really. MR. SYKES-And I probably didn’t say it very good before, but I guess what I’m trying to ask is if I had a certain size shed in a compliant location versus asking for the variance here, size isn’t a factor, in terms of in the first place, and it sounds like one of the major considerations here is the size. MR. STONE-Well, that was the consideration for Mr. Himes. Two or three of us were concerned by the number of the, just that it’s very close to the line, and you’re going to have three buildings, all very close to each other, two of which may not even be compliant, but we’re not going there because I don’t know that. I don’t have a survey that tells me that, but they may, in fact, not be compliant. Obviously, I feel, and I’m only speaking for myself now, I feel that I don’t want to put three sheds in an area that small. MR. HIMES-Mr. Chairman, I think he was asking, too, or referring to the size not being a problem, if he were to pick a location on his property which would make it compliant as far as setbacks are concerned, but I think Bruce could tell him that there are some dimensional standards, depending on, you know, the zone that you’re in and I think that may be one of the questions that you’re asking, Bruce. MR. FRANK-He could go with a 500 square foot shed, in a compliant location, without relief. MR. STONE-Right. MR. HIMES-So that’s the only limitation you’d have if you put it where you want it, I believe. I think that was one of his questions. MR. STONE-Well, it could be where he wants it compliant. I mean, that shed that he’s buying, there are places on the lot it can go without you coming before the Zoning Board, clearly. There are other places that the Zoning Board may find more willingness to grant some of the relief that you may need, and I can’t speak for where you want to put it, in terms of how much relief you might need. I’m trying not to be too specific because I don’t really know where you want to put it, except for that one location that you’ve applied for. MR. SYKES-I guess where I would want to put it is, you know, outside of a variance being approved, is I would be forced to put it at the end of the driveway. MR. STONE-That you can do without. MR. SYKES-Correct, and I realize that because that’s why I applied for this, but outside of that, in terms of a variance, I guess, I would ask the panel, can the shed be put in the rear of the property at any location that would be acceptable to the Board? MR. STONE-I would hesitate to try myself to say, yes or no, since you’re saying somewhere on the property. I mean, we grant relief very specific relief, four foot two inches, five foot seven inches, because that’s where somebody wants to put something. So, without you telling me exactly where you want to put it, and being able to tell me how much relief you need, I couldn’t make that decision. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I supported your application, I think the Chairman is right. The burden of responsibility to determine where you wish to place a particular object on your property falls squarely on your shoulders, the shoulders of the applicant. It’s not within the purview of this department, this panel to make suggestions to you in terms of dimensions. MR. SYKES-No, I understand that. What I’m trying to ask is, is there a location that if I chose it, that would be acceptable if the shed were toward the rear of the property? That’s what I’m trying to understand. MR. FRANK-If the applicant offers you an alternative, would you consider that, or no? MR. HIMES-Can I answer that? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-We certainly would consider it, but this is not an offer. MR. FRANK-I realize that, but if he was to make an offer and say, how about 10 feet from the line, would you consider that at this time, or no? I know where you’re going. He can’t ask you what relief you would grant. MR. ABBATE-Well, he can modify his application. If you were to say to us, this is hypothetical, if you were to say to us, look, you’re not happy where it’s at now. How about if I move it 10 feet in this direction? You have to ask the specific question to the Board, how about if I move this shed 10 feet, blah, blah, blah, then what would be the position of the Board, but you have to state that. MR. STONE-All right, Norm, you had something you wanted to say. MR. HIMES-Yes. I’d just like to say something to the applicant that might help him understand a little bit. When you’ve got something like this and there is a compliant location for the shed, that makes it tough for us. The argument from my standpoint is that there has to be some very good reasons not to put it in a compliant location, and convenience and so forth are all informational, but those of us that place different values on what you might feel is a great inconvenience that we might feel, well, the Code should prevail because you have a place to put it that does not require a variance. That’s what makes it a little difficult, at least from my standpoint here, in approving. It would have to be a pretty good argument for me to approve any variance on the lot, when you can place it some place, even though it’s not the place of your choice. That’s all I can say. Thank you. MR. STONE-So I would, I mean, I can offer you three or four suggestions in terms of what we can do now. If you pull the application, knowing that you can put it in a compliant location, then there is no prejudice on you in terms of a denial by this Board. You could come back to us, well, not next month because it’s already too late, but you could come back to us in January, and say, I would like you to consider this particular location, and here’s the relief I need, and you’d have to make that determination based on what you’ve heard here tonight, and you’ll certainly have the benefit of the transcript that you can maybe better understand our position. MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, it might be in your best interest to attempt to consult with some of the folks in the Town who have expertise in this area. Quite frankly, had I known that you had already purchased this shed, I would never have approved it. I’ll be very honest with you. MR. SYKES-The only reason I did that, like I say, this is all very new to me, is I consulted with the Town person. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Withdraw it, consult with people who have the expertise, and make a decision from there. MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, also if you want to offer the tabling motion, if he would like to go that route. He can always withdraw it later if you have some time to think about this, too. MR. STONE-Yes. We can just table it, and that’ll give you time to come in, talk about it, and the application will still be on the table. You can modify that application without cost, I assume. MR. FRANK-If he was to table it, it wouldn’t cost him anything, no. MR. STONE-Yes. Right. MR. SYKES-In terms of tabling it, and I can always talk to people, come up with some other proposed solution, and it would immediately come back for review at the next cycle? MR. STONE-It would come back at the January meeting because we’ve now gone to a schedule that we’re closed, although tabling motion could be brought up in December. MR. FRANK-Yes, you could table it until December. MR. STONE-Yes, we could table it to the December meeting. MR. FRANK-We have a really light agenda anyway. So I don’t think it would be a problem. MR. STONE-Yes. If you want us to do that, I will introduce one. MR. SYKES-And if I table it, does it have to be a December, if I’m not available, it’s just whenever? MR. STONE-No, we’ll do it for up to two months. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. SYKES-Okay. I would suggest, at this point, that it be tabled. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 89-2002 CAREY L. SYKES, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 35 Sunnyside Road. For a period of up to two months, so that the applicant can consider the comments made by the Zoning Board of Appeals at its meeting on November 20, 2002, and prepare a modified variance request. Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. SYKES-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2002 JOHN SALVADOR, JR. APPEAL FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S “POSITION” (DETERMINATION) THAT BECAUSE BOAT DOCK AND BOATHOUSES WERE REGISTERED IN 1981 AND 1982 PER 6NYCRR PART 646 (JULY 3, 1981) THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED AND THEREFORE LEGALLY PRE-EXISTING. TAX MAP NO.: NONE INDICATED PROPERTY LOCATION: LG SHORELINE FROM TOWN OF LG TO TOWN OF FORT ANN JOHN SALVADOR, JR., PRESENT MR. STONE-This is a request that was heard on October 23 and tabled at that time. Want don’t you read rd the tabling motion. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Notice of Appeal 3-2002, John Salvador, Meeting date: Wednesday, October 23, rd “MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 3-2002 JOHN SALVADOR, JR., Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: For up to 62 days, so that Mr. Salvador has an option to review the FOIL’d information that he requested and received, and that the Town wide discussion continue in whatever form it takes. Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2002, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE” MR. STONE-Mr. and Mrs. Salvador, I’m going to be fairly autocratic on this particular point because, to the best of my knowledge nothing has changed since the last time we tabled this thing. I will give you an opportunity to tell me why you think, in a very short time, why you think that a determination has been made. I can quote the Zoning Administrator, as of this afternoon, that he assured me that no determination regarding a special use permits has been made by him, which would lead me to believe there’s no reason to listen to an appeal at this point. I further understand that in December, on December 3, specifically, that rd there’s going to be a meeting with the Planning Board and other interested parties to discuss this whole aspect of special use permits as they pertain to the new zoning, as they are defined in the new zoning code, not just for docks/marinas, but the whole idea. You obviously feel that some kind of determination, or what was your quote, your “position”, some “position” has been taken by the Zoning Administrator. I really don’t think I want to discuss this thing at length, but I will allow you to give me five minutes in terms of why you think he has made, taken a position or made a determination. I don’t want to discuss that, the aspect of the particular determination. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The review of the special use permits before the Planning Board was an activity that went on for a number of meetings, and in the process, the Zoning Administrator, very cleverly, took a position regarding the grandfathering of structures which are key to these special use permits, and whether or not these structures are legally pre-existing, and can qualify for grandfathering, is the 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) crux of the whole special use permit. You cannot issue a special use permit for something that is not legally pre-existing. MR. STONE-But a building is not a use. MR. SALVADOR-The physical structure is nonconforming, it’s been illegally, my position, and I can show, has been illegally constructed, did not receive the proper permits, and as a result its use is illegal. MR. STONE-But no determination has been made about the use, at this time, until. MR. SALVADOR-It’s an interim determination that he made that the docks are grandfathered, and if they’re grandfathered, that paves the way, if they’re grandfathered, that means they’re legally pre-existing, and that paves the way for the issuance of a special use permit, which otherwise cannot be issued. MR. STONE-But as I understand a special use permit, it is and defines a special use that would not ordinarily be allowed there, and there are many tests that have to be determined, or that can be used to determine whether they use is a pre-existing use, and that, to me, is, at least in terms of the very narrow special use permits that we’re talking about, when it comes to Class A and Class B marinas, has not yet been determined. No special use permits, under the new Ordinance, have been issued for any Class A or Class B marinas, to the best of my knowledge. MR. SALVADOR-Okay, and whether or not the two being considered can issue will be determined as to whether or not what they’re being issued for are legally pre-existing. MR. STONE-And I submit that that’s a time when we can listen to an appeal about a determination that a special use permit should be granted. MR. SALVADOR-Not the use. There’s an interim determination on the part of the Zoning Administrator, which went before the Planning Board, okay. It was Staff notes before the Planning Board, and where he stated very cleverly, he took a position. He made a determination. He made a decision. He made an interpretation. That’s what he did, and all of those actions are appealable, and that’s why we’re here. MR. STONE-Well, I have been assured, and what I want to do is ask my Board, because they’re the people who have to listen the argument you’re going to make, in addition to myself, whether or not they feel, on the basis of the assurance by Mr. Brown that special use permits, no determination has been made. You’re talking about a slightly different thing, and I am not sure, well, let’s just talk about it, guys. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, before you do, may I make a statement? MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. SALVADOR-This is part of the presentation I intended to make tonight, so I’ll make it now. The question of whether or not this is a valid appeal was raised by your Chairman during the October 23 rd hearing. I do believe the question was addressed and the matter is now at rest. I thought it was at rest. However, to preclude the question of the validity of this appeal arising at any time hence, I would like to reiterate that, from the top down, every American citizen enjoys a right to a redress of grievance. U.S. Constitution, Article I of the Bill of Rights, First Amendment, among other enumerated rights, guarantees the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The New York State Constitution, Article I, Bill of Rights, Section 9 Paragraph 1 affords the people peaceably to assembly and petition the government or any department thereof, and finally Town Law, Article 16, Zoning and Planning, Section 267, mandates that the Town Board appoint a Zoning Board of Appeals, and that the Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals from and review any determination of an administrative official charged with enforcing an Ordinance adopted pursuant to Article 16. Further, that such appeal may be taken by any person aggrieved. In this case, I am that aggrieved person. I have a right of appeal. MR. STONE-And I certainly am not saying that you don’t have a right of appeal. I’m saying, we tabled it a month ago. MR. SALVADOR-At your convenience, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-No, not at my convenience at all, with the agreement of the Board. The Board voted to table this motion seven, zero, I believe. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and because I had just received, that evening, a FOIL request that I had asked for. I just got a copy of it because there were circumstances at the Department which precluded me getting it any earlier, and I agreed to accept it here at the meeting. Upon examination of that, later on, further reinforces my argument that the Zoning Administrator is wrong in his determination that these structures are grandfathered, i.e. legally pre-existing. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-Let me ask a question which is may be a dangerous question to which I do not know the answer, which is always dangerous when one does that. There’s an application here dated August 21, 2002, addressed to me by Mr. Salvador with an application for an appeal. This is the same one we had in October, and we said that we didn’t have enough. You haven’t presented anything new in terms of the appeal application, sir. Nothing, and that’s why I came in here prepared tonight to say, there’s nothing new in this particular thing. MR. SALVADOR-I have a presentation to make. You have to listen. MR. STONE-Sir, you didn’t present us a piece of paper to suggest that. You want to make your arguments. We have no preparation. This one is a, we have an appeal that you wrote in August. MR. SALVADOR-I filled out a form. MR. STONE-But you haven’t modified it. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t have to modify it. It doesn’t require any modification. MR. STONE-Well, then I don’t see anything that’s changed since the meeting. So I want to hear from my Board before we go any further. Jim, you started to say something. I don’t know where they’re coming from either. MR. UNDERWOOD-At the last meeting, I think there was one other Board member that I recall also that was in agreement with me that there’s some question as to the legality of those docks or their illegality, and I personally believe that the docks in question, the specific ones that have come before us before, may have been illegally used for rental purposes, and so I think that there’s some merit to what your argument is, and I would agree that, you know, at some point in time we need to hear what this is all about. I think the December 3 meeting that’s set up maybe is going to shed some more light on that as to the direction that rd needs to be taken up on the lake. I see the Waterkeeper is here tonight. I would assume he’s here with sincere interest in this. It’s something that needs to be pursued at some point, and I see no reason that we should assume that there’s any legality to anything that’s pre-existed. A lot of those things that pre-exist on the lake up there were illegally created at some point in the past, and at some point we have to come to grips with that. So why not do it. MR. STONE-Are you talking now? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, let him make his. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s the Board. I don’t want to be preemptive here. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. When I saw the first communication, I thought, well, this is going to be interesting, and then we had a little tease later in one or two of the near meetings, and I kept thinking, gee, I must have lost something here, part of the file. I mean, I don’t have anything here, except Mr. Salvador’s going to make an appeal, and there’s references in here that the Zoning Administrator had done, my words, research and all to lead him to make the determination or decision or whatever, position that he has, and that’s all, and I think the applicant is here ready to present his case, and I’m sure as always it will be complete and intelligent, but what about the other side? I mean, if there are two sides to this story, I’d like to see the information on, I don’t want to call it our side, but the Town’s side, hear what Mr. Salvador has to say, and hope that something, that through this Board, that where they don’t match up, that we bring them to match up, so we’ve got facts about the grandfathering, and all the licensing and this, that and the other that might or might not happen is something else, I think. So I feel that we need to, we’ve got to have some evidence here and so forth on both sides of the story, is the way I look at it, in order for me to comfortably vote on the matter. Am I making any sense at all? MR. STONE-So would you like to hear Mr. Salvador now or not? MR. HIMES-Well, I would leave that to your decision. I’m sure he’s got a fact filled case. I don’t know what the Zoning Department will have, or whether it would be better to do in the same sitting where each hears the other. MR. SALVADOR-Why not? MR. HIMES-Because that would seem to me to be the democratic way. MR. STONE-I would love to. I would love to. MR. SALVADOR-By the way, frequently I’ve called the office and asked Mr. Brown if he would be in attendance, both last meeting and this meeting. You’re absolutely right. The Zoning Administrator should be here to defend his position. Otherwise, I could get a default judgment. Right? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-I don’t want to defend him, but the reason he’s not here is he doesn’t think he made a determination, and it’s open to question. I understand that. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me take a crack at this thing here. One of the major problems that will exist forever and ever is when statements are made on the record or statements are recorded. In this particular instance, a statement was made using the word “grandfathered” and it followed up with “legally pre-existing”. Well, it’s conceivable, perceivable, that in grandfathering, you have grandfathered illegal docks that would not necessarily meet the requirements of legality today, so that when we talk about grandfathering legally pre- existing docks, it’s a contradiction, and I submit, and I’m not going to give my position right now, but I do submit that Mr. and Mrs. Salvador have a valid point. How could something, if this is your point, how could something be grandfathered which may be illegal, and I think I brought this up at the last meeting, and then call it legally pre-existing? It’s a contradiction. There’s no such thing. Now whether this is a statement by an official of the Town, I have no idea because I didn’t read it, but I think it would be in the best interest of all in attendance, and the best interest of the Town of Queensbury, if both parties, when a person in a position of responsibility makes a statement, and an individual, and the Salvadors are absolutely correct, hears the statement and they feel that there’s something wrong about this statement, that the statement may not be in the best interest of all those involved in the Town of Queensbury, that they have reason to raise a question. They have reason to, and they have a right to, raise their hand and say, listen, I would like to be heard, and I think Mr. and Mrs. Salvador have a right to be heard. I am troubled with the wording “grandfathered”, “legally pre-existing”, because I think these are incompatible terms, and I think both parties should be presented, should be here to present their position and based upon determination of both parties’ position, that is the parties of the Salvadors, the parties of the Zoning Administrator, then it’s up to this Board, under Article 16 Section 267, to hear and decide which way to go. Thank you. MR. STONE-And I think that’s a very cogent argument here, and I certainly don’t want to imply that I don’t want to discuss the issue. I really do. I feel very strongly, and I think, Mr. Salvador, you know that from other comments that I may have made. I certainly want to discuss it. It is a subject that has to be discussed, and I do believe, and I do agree with Mr. Abbate, that we should discuss it with both parties here. So that the statements that can be made, that are being made, everybody can hear at the same time, and that’s all I’m trying to do tonight, because as far as the information that we have, notwithstanding what you’re going to make a presentation, I have been told by the Zoning Administrator that nothing is new since last month, and that’s the only reason I was trying to say, let’s wait and do this, but do it the way Mr. Abbate says. I think it’s absolutely imperative that we do so. I mean I have some very severe questions, serious questions, about the legality of these Class A and Class B marinas, in terms of, have they done everything that is required of them to be a Class A or Class B marina. I mean, I even use the argument, have they filed tax returns showing the income they may have received from this grandfathered, if you’ll pardon the expression, Mr. Abbate, this grandfathered use that has been going on, and I think that is maybe one of the parameters that should be studied by this 12/3 meeting, when they get to it, but I would like to wait until we have that, because I think we’re in a very narrow issue about the buildings and I think we need all the information possible. MR. ABBATE-But it goes way beyond this. You see, where it goes now is into the area of economics. So it’s like a domino effect. Grandfathering, revenue, taxable base, economics, legally pre-existing. This is a very complicated issue. It’s not as simple as one might think. The issue, I suspect, may very well be larger than the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. SALVADOR-You don’t think I’d be involved in something that wasn’t complex, do you? MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. I would, quite frankly, be disappointed, Mr. Salvador, but anyway. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, if I could offer. We’re not here tonight seeking a determination yes or no in this regard, but we think that we can offer some information that might help. You could always table this and ask the Zoning Administrator for his position if you will, or more data. It is a very complex subject. It goes way back in time. MR. STONE-Not to 1775. MR. ABBATE-You’re not going there, I hope. MR. SALVADOR-Give me a chance, but seriously, it is very complex, and so let’s begin. MR. STONE-Anybody else have any comments? MR. ABBATE-One other question. This December 3 meeting, what is that all about? I think I missed on rd that. MR. STONE-It is a meeting of, John, you’ve been told there is a meeting to discuss special use permits and parameters or something? Why don’t you just take the mic, because I know you were told. You probably know more than I do. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Well, there is a meeting, and I think that the Zoning Board is going to be asked to be present there, and the marinas is going to be one of the topics, and it’s going to be in the Supervisor’s Conference Room. MR. STONE-That’s a great place to have 28,000 people. MR. FRANK-It’s a workshop. MR. STONE-Well, I’d go on record as saying, you can’t have it in that room. MR. FRANK-Well, you ought to make that proposal to the Town. MR. STONE-I am making that proposal. You cannot have it in that room. I mean, with the seven members of the Planning Board, the seven members of the Zoning Board, and anybody else, you’re already out the door. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s keep in mind that originally it was just a Planning Board workshop, and everyone agreed for that time period. MR. ABBATE-Maybe I should make a recommendation, maybe even by a motion, and move that we request that there be no further hearings on this matter until both parties, that is for the perceived aggrieved party and the Zoning Administrator can present oral arguments to this Board before we consider any further information. MR. SALVADOR-I object. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-He, as I said before, I have queried the Zoning Administrator that he would be present this evening, and it was not his intention to be here. MR. ABBATE-Well, then perhaps it may very well be that we approve your approval, your position. MR. SALVADOR-Fine, let’s go. MR. ABBATE-Let’s put it that way. MR. STONE-Well, on the other hand, we can he has to come to the meeting before us and defend or at least make a position. MR. ABBATE-To show where the Salvadors are incorrect or wrong in their perceiving. MR. STONE-That’s exactly what I was going to say. MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s what’s important. MR. STONE-That the arguments that you make, tell me where they’re wrong, which is then making a determination, and then we start again. MR. ABBATE-Because it’s all perception. This whole thing is perception. MR. STONE-Well, I’m sure it’s more than that. MR. ABBATE-Obviously it’s more than that, but we start out with the premise that the first step is perception, anyway, grandfathered, legally pre-existing, and all of that. MR. STONE-Well, I mean, if the Board, I’m not trying to short cut it. I don’t like holding tomorrow’s meeting today if we’re going to have to go through this thing, and I really think we ought to have, and we can determine the form of that meeting. I think we should have a dialogue, two presentations and a dialogue between the Zoning Administrator and the appellant, who claims to have standing and a position, and I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that. MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Stone, in all fairness to the Zoning Administrator, we’ve been in this community for 30 years. We’ve been up and down this ladder I can’t tell you how many times, permits. The Zoning Administrator’s been here, how long? He glibly made this determination that they were grandfathered 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) because he doesn’t have the background, and he doesn’t know where it’s coming from. So that was the thing to do. MR. STONE-I welcome the opportunity for this Board to make a determination in this particular appeal. I really do, but I want to do it when we’re all on the same page, when we have all the information available to us, from both sides at the same time. MR. SALVADOR-Then I would ask that you hear what we have to say tonight, table our appeal, until you can get the other side of the story. MR. STONE-How long is your, just out of curiosity? KATHLEEN SALVADOR MRS. SALVADOR-It’s about 75 pages. MR. SALVADOR-No, I can do this very simply. MR. STONE-Right. Go ahead. MR. HIMES-But then we still don’t, we’d have the minutes of this meeting to pick it up. Okay. MR. URRICO-I guess I just wanted to make sure that the determination hasn’t been made, and you’re going to be precluded from speaking at a future point. MR. SALVADOR-I don’t want to be want to be precluded from speaking at a future. MR. URRICO-That’s what you’re. MR. SALVADOR-I do not want to. I would offer the information we have tonight. You would be better informed, as you go into this December 3 session, this workshop session, that’s what I can offer. rd MR. URRICO-Well, I guess I would like to hear what the Zoning Administrator has to say, whether he intentionally or unintentionally made a determination, and rather than hear both sides piecemeal or at different times. MR. SALVADOR-Don’t make a determination tonight. MR. URRICO-It’s just a matter of hearing the information all at once, and right now we’re dealing with some words on a page, some hearsay, because I didn’t hear it myself, so I’d really like to hear it directly from the people involved. MR. STONE-The important thing that we also have to keep in mind, that nothing, no action has taken place as a result of this “position”, this determination. I’m putting quotes around it for the purpose of the transcript. I mean, nothing has been done. MR. SALVADOR-That’s not correct, Mr. Stone. His determination that these structures were legally pre- existing and therefore grandfathered, okay, grandfathering is a term that is used to give recognition to something that is, under the present Ordinance, not allowed, but however under the previous Ordinance was, providing it met all the conditions of the Ordinance, and therefore it was legally pre-existing. It’s allowed to stay today, as grandfathered. That’s what the terms are. MR. ABBATE-We can go one step further and request that the Zoning Administrator specifically determine what of these grandfathered docks or whatever, what are there, where are they. Give us the identification, and then determine whether they legally exist or not. So, but anyway, to make a long story short, this is a quasi-judicial Board, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we operate in a quasi-judicial manner, and by that I mean both parties must be present at the same time to present their argument. MR. STONE-Yes, that’s really what I would like to do, and I know you’re prepared, but I really wish, I really would like to not do this piecemeal. MR. SALVADOR-You’ve had ex-parte discussions with the Zoning Administrator. You told me tonight. I wasn’t present. MR. STONE-And I asked him a question, as is my want, as is my opportunity as the Chairman of the Board, to be sure that we’re doing. He didn’t make any, we didn’t do anything that was in the realm of ex-parte. I merely asked him a very specific question. Has anything changed since last month? That’s the question I asked. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. SALVADOR-And I do not agree. MR. STONE-That may very well be true, but that’s what the question I asked. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, I wasn’t there to present that. MR. STONE-But I would like, and I know you’re ready to talk, but I would like to ask you to be prepared to do this as Mr. Abbate says, at the same time. Norm? MR. HIMES-If the testimony is going to be as abundant as I understand, 75 pages. MRS. SALVADOR-I’m only teasing. I was only teasing. MR. HIMES-I mean, I’m just wondering about the possibility of a special meeting for this only. MR. STONE-Absolutely. MR. ABBATE-Absolutely. MR. HIMES-Rather than combining it with rest. MR. ABBATE-It would be, no question. MR. HIMES-Just a suggestion. MR. ABBATE-And I can assure you, if you keep bringing in documents, you’re going to intimidate everybody. MR. STONE-I would like to have a meeting devoted to this subject alone. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. STONE-And I would like to have it early in December, namely, I don’t have a calendar with me. MR. SALVADOR-Could we have it before the December 3 meeting? Could we have it early next week? rd MR. STONE-Not as far as I’m concerned, because I will be out of town. That’s why I want to have it as early in December as possible before I’m out of town again. I go out of town almost as much as you do. MR. ABBATE-See, you don’t get it. That’s why he asked. MR. STONE-May be. MR. SALVADOR-We are planning to be away the first two weeks in December. MR. ABBATE-Well, it’s a question of priority. What’s more important to you? MRS. SALVADOR-Don’t ask. Kathleen Salvador. I’m just wondering, Mr. Brown made the comment to you that nothing new has come up since the last meeting. Now at the last meeting nothing really came up, because, as John said, he just got that information that evening. With a short five minute discussion, we all decided to table it. So you do not know what he was prepared to say last month. Mr. Brown does not know. Mr. Brown does not know if anything, or how much we have added since then, and this was going to be the opportunity to put that forward. So that’s Mr. Brown’s saying. It isn’t Mr. Salvador or Mrs. Salvador saying. We know what we had last month, and we know what we today. MR. STONE-Okay, but it seems to be the feeling of the Board, and I don’t want to preempt them, that they would like to hear the arguments done at the same time. MRS. SALVADOR-That’s absolutely fine. MR. SALVADOR-That’s fine, and we’ve invited Mr. Brown on two occasions to be present. MR. STONE-Okay, and we will make the invitation. MR. SALVADOR-We would like very much to have this session with Mr. Brown before the December 3 rd meeting, and preferably before the end of next week when we’re planning to depart. I can only say that, if we could arrange it, we could do it. I won’t be here, because I will have departed at that particular point in time. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. When do you plan to leave? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-Monday. MR. SALVADOR-We’ve got three days, four, five days between now and then. MR. STONE-It has to be advertised, I think. MR. FRANK-That’s going to be the only constraint, if it’s going to be a legal meeting, the advertising. MR. SALVADOR-Isn’t it a continuation of this? MR. ABBATE-That’s an interesting point. I don’t know. MR. SALVADOR-In the Town of Lake George, Mr. Tessier takes a piece of paper out and tacks it up on a bulletin board two hours before a meeting. MR. STONE-Sir, that was about the worst thing you could say, because don’t compare us with the Town or the Village of Lake George. This is the Town of Queensbury. I’d much rather be compared to. MR. SALVADOR-Well, we are available. We think it would be beneficial to do this as soon as possible. MR. ABBATE-Agreed. MR. SALVADOR-And as I say, we will not be here, and we think it should be done. I would like very much to have participated in the December 3. rd MR. STONE-Well, maybe we can even move that meeting. I think this is very important, and you know that I do. I’m not trying to make light of it at all. I feel very strongly. I have some strong opinions, which I will not state at this particular point in time, but I do feel that this is a subject that has to be explored thoroughly. It has to be opened up to the Nth degree. I think we have to look at it. I know we’ve got two subject marinas on the table. I, personally, know of a lot more than operate subrosa under, who’ve never applied for a special use permit. So we know in the Town of Queensbury, and I personally took out the Zoning Administrator to look at shoreline property in the Town, because I thought he ought to see it from the water, the way a lot of us have the opportunity to do, and we only got halfway so far, and will have to wait until the spring, but there are a lot of instances, and I think the subject must be explored. I think as somebody noted, the Waterkeeper, the Lake George Waterkeeper in the back of the room, I know he’s deeply interested. I know there are other organizations that are deeply interested in the proliferation of boats on Lake George, the usage of docks, the number of docks on pieces of property, and I think it has to be looked at, and I think this is a wonderful venue, a wonderful opportunity to do so, and I applaud your appeal from that standpoint, but I think we have to do it as well as we can. Norm? MR. HIMES-Would it be possible to have the testimony or some part of it transcribed for us to look at before the meeting, so we could follow along? It’s a little hard to remember. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but then you can’t ask questions. MR. STONE-No, he’s asking could Mr. Salvador submit, and Mr. Brown submit in writing. MR. HIMES-At least an outline or something to give us something, be prepared, in some respect, for what’s going to go on, and what’s going to come after what. MR. SALVADOR-Why the special treatment? MR. ABBATE-Because we consider the Salvadors model citizens. MR. STONE-We consider this such an important subject that we would really like to pay as much attention as we can. MR. SALVADOR-In any presentation I make, I will leave you with exhibits, data. MR. HIMES-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Before our meeting, so we can start digesting this stuff. MR. HIMES-I’d like to have it before. MR. SALVADOR-During the presentation, I will leave you with the data you need. MR. HIMES-I know you will. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. SALVADOR-Any examples, anything I refer to. That’s no problem. MR. HIMES-I’d like to read it before, that’s all. MR. SALVADOR-In fact, I was prepared to do that tonight. MR. FRANK-Would you like to leave it tonight with the Board members, without presenting it? MR. SALVADOR-Without the explanation, it’s difficult to understand. So any suggestion as to when we can meet? MR. STONE-I don’t have my calendar. MR. FRANK-I’ve got a calendar here. What would you like? MR. ABBATE-Would tomorrow morning be okay with you? MR. STONE-Tomorrow night? MR. ABBATE-I don’t care. Fine. Tomorrow night’s fine with me. MR. SALVADOR-Tomorrow night’s fine with me. MR. FRANK-Monday is the Second of December. MR. STONE-I mean, no, tomorrow night is something that we could do, if somebody wants to do it, if we just want to get together. MR. ABBATE-It’s that important. MR. STONE-I agree it’s important. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got to do it before the Third. So, otherwise it’s a moot point. MR. STONE-Let’s do it tomorrow night. MR. FRANK-I’m all for it. You’ll have to discuss that with the Zoning Administrator. MR. STONE-Well, no you tell the Zoning Administrator we’re meeting tomorrow night and we want him there. MR. SALVADOR-You have the powers of subpoena. MR. STONE-I did. MR. ABBATE-He just stated it. MR. STONE-I just said that. MR. URRICO-We may not be able to get this room. MR. STONE-We’ll get a room. We’ll get a room downstairs in the Planning Office. Can all of you make it tomorrow night? MR. ABBATE-I’ll definitely be there. MR. STONE-You can’t. All right. Well, we’ve got six, Jaime, hopefully. I would like to do it tomorrow night. Let’s try and do it tomorrow night. MR. FRANK-I will put that request to him first thing in the morning. MR. STONE-Well, I’ll call him first thing in the morning. MR. ABBATE-Bruce, give us a call, I’ll be home, to make sure, okay, where it’s going to be and what time, the whole bit. Please. MR. STONE-I would think at seven, but I. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MRS. SALVADOR-Seven p.m. tomorrow? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. ABBATE-I don’t care. MR. SALVADOR-Seven’s fine. MR. FRANK-Again, I have no say. I mean, you want the Zoning Administrator to be here. Correct? MR. STONE-Well, no, I’m telling the Zoning Administrator that the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals demands his presence tomorrow night at seven o’clock for the purpose of discussing Mr. Salvador and Mrs. Salvador’s appeal of his position, as they state. MR. FRANK-That I can relay to him tomorrow morning. MR. STONE-Thank you. Adjourned until tomorrow night. MRS. SALVADOR-And Supervisor’s Conference Room or? MR. STONE-We don’t know. MR. FRANK-I don’t know what the schedule is for here. So if it’s available, I don’t see why we couldn’t have it here. MR. STONE-No Planning Board tomorrow night, is there? Okay. MRS. SALVADOR-We’ll just look for all your happy faces tomorrow night. MR. SALVADOR-And by the way, your honor, I was going to suggest that you buy the shed, okay. He can take the money and buy a smaller shed, and everybody can be happy. MR. ABBATE-I’m going to write that down. That’s great. I kind of like that. MR. STONE-Okay. Frivolity aside, thank you for your understanding. Mr. Boehm is off the agenda, the one I happen to have, just in case anybody was waiting, on another grandfathering thing. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2002 TYPE: UNLISTED AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC ZONE: HC- INT LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 36-UNIT TWO-STORY MOTEL BUILDING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 55-2002, AV 25-2002, SV 22-90, AV 86-89, AV 136-89, OPS 1-99, SV 16-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/13/02 TAX MAP NO. 302.05-1-51, 52.12, 52.13 LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE, 0.83 ACRE, 0.39 ACRE, 0.39 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SAM BHATTI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 85-2002, Aftab (Sam) Bhatti, Meeting Date: November 20, 2002 “Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 36-unit two-story motel building. Relief Required: Applicant requests 44 feet of relief from the 50- foot minimum front setback requirement, and 5% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR 30% of the requirements of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the HC-Int. 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 structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include placement of the structure in a more compliant location further back in the parcel. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 44 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relative to the Ordinance (88%). 5% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR of 30% may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the Ordinance (16.7%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the width of the 50-foot buffer between zones requirement, and the desire to hide some of the required parking behind the proposed building. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 55-2002: denied 08/21/02; construction of a 46-unit motel building and additions to the existing Econo Lodge Motel. AV 25-2002: 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) withdrawn in April 2002 and resubmitted as AV 55-2002 on 06/26/02. BP 90-009: 01/25/90; construct 21’ x 145’ motel. BP 90-010: 01/23/90; demolish 18’ x 120’ motel. SV 22-1990: 03/28/90; Imperial Motel. SP 66-89: 12/19/89; expansion from 31 to 48 motel rooms. AV 136-1989: 11/15/89; relief of permeability requirements. AV 86-1989: 07/26/89; density increase and side setback. Variance #1241: 04/22/87; to construct 12 additional units. Variance #1087: 06/18/86; setback relief for addition of swimming pool. Variance #1045: 12/18/85; setback relief for addition to motel. Variance #263: 10/27/72; relocate a motel in R-5 Zone, various setback and sign requirements. SV 85 & 86: 03/19/69; move of signage due to road widening. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. Even though the structure could be built in a compliant location setback furthering the parcel, the proposed location would allow for some of the additional required parking to be screened from the road by the building. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 13, 2002 Project Name: Bhatti, Aftab (Sam) Owner: Aftab (Sam) Bhatti ID Number: QBY-02-AV-85 County Project#: Nov02-26 Current Zoning: HC-Int Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 36-unit two-story motel building and seeks relief from the front setback and floor area ratio requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Site Location: 543 Aviation Road Tax Map Number(s): 302.05-1-51 302.05-1-52.12 302.05-1-52.13 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a two-story 36-unit motel. The Planning Board saw a similar application for a three-story motel with 48 units and alterations to the existing motel. The Planning Board had recommended no county impact. The original proposal required 7 variances where as the new proposal is only requesting two variances. The new motel is proposed to be 6’ +/- from the front property line where 50’ is required, the applicant proposes a floor area ratio of 35% where 30% is required (as indicated by the applicants plans) The information submitted by the applicant indicates the new building be part of the existing econolodge operation. The applicant has indicated that the revised application addresses neighbor’s concerns that were heard at the local zoning board. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Board recommends approval of the application.” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 11/15/02. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers and Sam Bhatti, the owner of the property. As most or all of you know, we were here several months ago to apply for a number of variances on this property to build a separate motel building. At that time we were proposing to maintain two lots, join two of the lots to form one large lot where the new motel building would be, and the Econo Lodge would sit on its existing lot. There were a number of other variances proposed at that time. We think we may have overwhelmed the Board with the number of variances proposed, although a number of them we think were minor in nature. In response to your comments and in response to the neighbors comments, the owner has decided to significantly modify the project. We’re now proposing two variances that we request from you tonight. One is for the floor area ratio relief, five percent. The other is for the front setback relief, and we feel there are mitigating circumstances for that front setback relief request. The remaining variances are not being requested since we are now combining the two main parcels on the lot. In fact, all three parcels will be combined into one lot. We are not proposing to move the sign, and we are not proposing to make any modifications to the existing Econo Lodge building. MR. STONE-You made that point last month, significant difference. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. STONE-That’s why we’re here tonight. MR. JARRETT-The mitigating factor that I’d like to bring up regarding the front setback variance is the deviation of Aviation Road away from the front line, the one traveled to the east, and due to former road alignment in that area, the lot frontage is much greater than would be depicted on this property map, and in fact the building front that we’re proposing is consistent with what is in the area and consistent with what the existing Econo Lodge is. It’s actually further back from Aviation Road than some of the other buildings. The other reason we’ve proposed the building in this location is because we want to try and get parking as much as possible in the rear of the building, present an attractive front to Aviation Road, and we feel that’s in the best interest of Queensbury and in accordance with the design guidelines that Queensbury is striving to achieve. I think there were some questions regarding the vegetative buffer. We’ve shown a vegetative buffer along the easterly and northerly portions of the property. It will be designed and planted to Town of Queensbury specifications, but more importantly it’ll be submitted to the Planning Board, if you approve this, and they will have critique over that buffer. On the easel we’ve highlighted the areas in red that we’ve modified. I think we mentioned this last month. We’ve reduced the size of the motel from 48 units to 36 units, and reduced it from three stories to two stories. To get 36 rooms in two floors we’ve expanded the footprint somewhat to the north, away from Aviation Road. We’ve highlighted the buffer because we want to make sure it’s clear that it will be constructed, will be planted to Queensbury’s standards, and we’ve highlighted the other variances that we’ve eliminated from this application. Trent, maybe you would flip the pages to show the Board the difference in building elevations, to show the reduction in height from three stories to two stories. The red line indicates the original proposal. The drawing now of the motel unit itself, 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) the façade, shows the two story façade that we’re proposing. That’s a side view. That’s a view toward the east. What he’s flipping over right now is the view, conceptually, from Aviation Road. You can see the roofline is significantly reduced. So we hope we’ve come back with a proposal that is much more amenable to the Board. We feel, and this may sound like a cliché, but we feel that it blends very well with the neighborhood and it is compatible with the uses in that area. We hope you agree. MR. STONE-Question. We heard recently that the Town of Queensbury bought the parcel to the east, the so called, whatever that, we all know what I’m talking about, and at the same time there was some talk that, road alignment, the intersection down on Route 9 that has been talked about for years, would that impact on that buffer zone on Aviation at all? Does anybody have any idea? MR. JARRETT-Interesting question. I, frankly, do not know. I’d like to say no. I think no, but I don’t know for sure. MR. STONE-I’m sure the Planning Board will ask that question, or at least maybe think about it. MR. JARRETT-They will now, I think. MR. FRANK-The buffer has got to be maintained on both sides of the parcel, by Code. So, are you stating the Town bought that parcel? MR. STONE-No, no. The Town owns the island or the State, I don’t know who owns it. It’s the Town. MR. JARRETT-I believe that’s Town, but I. MR. STONE-I’m talking about west of. MR. URRICO-You’re talking about the other side of the 4.63 acres or something like that. MR. STONE-I’m talking about that piece, where they’re asking for the relief is a buffer between Aviation and the motel, and, I mean, that’s what we’re talking about tonight. I just don’t know if that would ever go. MR. JARRETT-I believe if the road was planned in there, it would affect that residential property immediately to the east of us, and so if our buffer was affected, that residential property would be affected, and I think it would alter the whole scheme of (lost words) buffer anyway. MR. STONE-Yes, well, as I say, I just wanted it on the table. I mean, it’s just a thought. All right. Questions, gentlemen, anything? MR. URRICO-I have a question. Do you know what the distance is from the current front of the Econo Lodge, the existing one to Aviation Road? MR. JARRETT-I could probably measure that quickly for you. You mean from the existing building where the office is labeled to Aviation Road? MR. URRICO-Right. MR. STONE-It’s probably closer than this is going to be. Because of that buffer zone. MR. JARRETT-It is closer than what our building is proposed. I could probably tell you. MR. URRICO-As long as you’re checking on that, I want to compare that to the existing for the new project to Aviation Road. MR. FRANK-It scales to about 50 feet. Tom, do you agree with that, the closest point to the road bed? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. FRANK-I would say about 50 feet. MR. JARRETT-Maybe a hair more than 50, but approximately 50. MR. URRICO-That’s the old? MR. JARRETT-That’s the old, the existing building. MR. URRICO-The existing building, yes. MR. JARRETT-And the new one is from Aviation. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MR. STONE-It’s going to be more. MR. JARRETT-Yes, it’s quite a bit more. MR. FRANK-Seventy-five feet to the corner, possibly. MR. JARRETT-Yes, I would say a hair more than that, 77, 78. MR. STONE-The old house there to the right, that’s going down, right? MR. JARRETT-Correct. On drawing, if you look at Drawing C-2, it shows the existing house, actually C-1 shows it as well. Both plans show the existing building. As well that driveway that exists would be removed and the land restored. MR. STONE-Are we still determining, or are we all happy? MR. JARRETT-No, we have both measurements. We’re approximately a little over 50 and about 78, 77/78. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen, lady? Well, let me open the public hearing. I’m almost sure we’re not going to get anybody to talk, but I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Here’s a big project and not one person comes up to speak, which is kind of interesting. MR. JARRETT-If I might add one comment, Mr. Chairman. If you’ll recall the first time we were here, there was considerable attendance by the neighbors. It may speak to the redesign of the project that there’s no one here tonight. MR. STONE-Well said. MR. JARRETT-I hope it’s well said. MR. ABBATE-That’s called a balancing act. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s talk about it, if we have no more questions. Joyce, let’s start with you. MRS. HUNT-Do you want me to go through all these? MR. STONE-Do whatever you want. MRS. HUNT-Well, the benefit to the applicant would be that he would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. The feasible alternatives might include placement of the structure in a more compliant location further back on the parcel, but then that would, it would make the parking more visible. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Forty-four feet of relief from the fifty foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as moderate to substantial relief to the Ordinance (88%). Five percent in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR of 30% may be interpreted as minimal to moderate to the Ordinance, but the 44 feet of relief is from the property line and not from the line of Aviation Road. Effects on the neighborhood or community. Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action, and is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the width of the 50 foot buffer between zones requirement, and the desired to hide some of the proposed parking behind the proposed building, and I see great changes from the last time they were here, with the reduction of the height and I would be in favor of this. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think there are times, not in this particular case, but there are times when the initial application is so overwhelming and then the applicant is asked to revise their application and they come back, and by comparison it seems like they’ve made a lot of changes, and in reality the relief sought is still kind of excessive, but I don’t think that’s the case here. I think the applicant has really made an effort to pull back a little bit and bring it more in line with what we asked for and more in line with what the community asked 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) for, and the only area that I would have been concerned with is the 44 feet of relief from the front setback, but as you can see by the line of Aviation Road, I think this is well set back from the road bed, and even if the Town, at some point, decides to expand that road to put an extra turn lane in at Route 9 and Aviation Road, I still think where this property is going to be located will be affected less than the existing part of the Lodge. So I would be in favor of it. I think this is a good plan. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think an honest attempt’s been made to modify this from what the original one was. I think keeping it as a single motel as opposed to two separate motels makes more sense too, also. It’s probably going to help your bookkeeping, and at the same time, I didn’t really have any problems with the setbacks off of Aviation Road to begin with, even at the previous meeting, and I think that, you know, if that’s our major hang up here, the floor area ratio is pretty close. It’s not that dramatic a difference, and I think it’ll be a good fit for up there. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’ll acknowledge that there’s been a major change from the previous application to this, but as I think maybe Roy alluded to, I’m not going to evaluate this on the basis of how much the applicant has given, but rather on the merits of the application. My big concerns would be normally the front setback, and as has been pointed out, I think there’s still adequate setback, although it’s owned by the Town or the County or the State or somebody rather than by the applicant, and as has been stated, I think even if Aviation Road should be realigned some, I suspect the new building probably will not end up much closer to Aviation Road than what the existing motel is. So that doesn’t bother me. My other concerns would be the effect on the neighbors to the rear, and I think that’s pretty well buffered by what’s been proposed here, and the applicant really isn’t asking for relief from buffering anyway, but he has indicated that they are going to have an adequate buffer there. All total, it strikes me as being a very reasonable request, and I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with what Chuck has said, and one of the things, too, as far as how it appears on the front, I think given the way the road is configured there and the other structures in that general neighborhood, you know, and the fact that this is going to be new, at least for a while, I think it’ll be a pleasant looking thing, and the matter of the floor area ratio, it’s a little bit over, and a lot of times when we see that, then you also have, oftentimes have a closeness in permeability, but there isn’t any problem here with that. I mean, you’re way above what is required. So floor area ratio I don’t see as too much of a, as too significant in this instance. So, in the other respects, I agree with the rest of my Board members that support this, and I would also. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Yes. I think that the applicant and his associates have made an effort to work with the Town, in the best interest of the Town and the applicant, and I think there’s a significant difference than the original application, and we talk about the balancing act. I would like to put it in the record and maybe make it part of any kind of motion perhaps to approve that the buffer must meet Queensbury’s standards, even though it’s going before the Planning Board. Having said that, I would support the application. MR. STONE-Well, I do, too. I think as a couple of our members have alluded to, we’re not considering what there was before. We made that determination last month and it’s really not part of our discussion, but that’s okay. I won’t talk about it. I think we’ve got two things. We have a very simple, relatively simple, variance request. One requires a lot of feet, but it’s offset by the fact that there is a wonderful buffer between Aviation Road and the property line, and therefore the relief that is sought, the relief that I’m willing to grant, is not going to have a real effect, in terms of the visibility on Aviation Road and the sight lines. Of course that’s still up to the Planning Board to decide. I’m sure you know that better than we do, but certainly the relief that we’re being asked to grant, while large, is certainly acceptable in my mind because of the buffer out there. I’m also pleased that, in requesting this, that the applicant is taking down what could be considered an eyesore in this old house on the property, made even more visible now because of trees that have come down. So now we know exactly what is there, when before we only guessed at what was there, and I think it’s going to be very good that it’s going to go down. The floor area ratio is negligible in this particular case. I think, from our standpoint, the balancing test certainly comes down in favor of the applicant. I think it’s going to be a benefit to the community, even the local area, because of the land that Mr. Bhatti, the applicant has bought around this property. I think there’s going to be adequate protection for the neighborhood, which we all know has been impacted upon in a variety of ways, and I think this is probably not going to impact it very much, as evidenced by the fact that nobody was here to talk about it. So, I would agree with Mr. Jarrett that they must have done a good job in modifying this application. Now, whether they all come up at the Planning Board meeting, we’ll find that out, but having said that, I would need a motion to approve this variance, and Mr. Abbate, since you had something you wanted to add, why don’t you do it. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 85-2002 AFTAB (SAM) BHATTI, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 543 Aviation Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 36-unit motel building. The relief required. The applicant requests 44 feet of relief from the 50 foot minimum front setback requirements and 5% in addition to the required maximum allowable FAR Floor Area Ratio of 30% of the requirements of the Schedule of Area and Bulk Requirements for the HC-Int. zone Section 179-4-030. Benefit to the applicant. The applicant will be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred location. The feasible alternatives. Feasible alternatives might include placement of this structure in a more compliant location further back on the parcel. However, as the applicant and his associates have indicated, their proposal this evening makes a little more sense in terms of the balancing act. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Forty-four feet of relief from the fifty foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as substantial (88%), five percent in addition to the required maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio of 30% may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (16.7%). The forty-four foot is offset by an existing buffer and Aviation Road. Effects on the neighborhood or community? I think as evidenced this evening, that there will be positive effects on the neighborhood, and this, of course, I make a motion that we ensure that the applicant and his associates comply with this buffer area, and that the buffer area meets Queensbury standards, and I think in this case here it will have positive effects on the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self- created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed to the width of the 50 foot buffer between zones requirement and the desire to hide some of the required parking behind the proposed building, and Mr. Chairman and Board members, in view of the application and the information submitted this evening, by both the applicant and his associates, I move that we approve Area Variance 85-2002. Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-Good luck before the Planning Board. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. STONE-We’ve got a couple of sets of minutes. We’ve got one set of minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 18, 2002: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES FROM THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2002, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes October 16, 2002: NONE 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/02) MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2002, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 27 day of November, 2002, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 33