Loading...
2003-10-22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALAN BRYANT PAUL HAYES ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY NEW BUSINESS AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II DAVID & TANYA BRUNO OWNER: DAVID & TANYA BRUNO ZONING: RR-5A LOCATION: 119 GURNEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 700 SF GARAGE TO REPLACE THE 308 SF GARAGE THAT WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2003-775 (DEMOLITION OF GARAGE) TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-85 LOT SIZE: 2.89 AC. SECTION: 179-13-050A TANYA BRUNO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 82-2003, David & Tanya Bruno, Meeting Date: October 22, 2003 “Project Location: 119 Gurney Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 700 sf freestanding garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 25 feet of relief from the 50-foot front yard setback requirement. Additionally, the application indicates a proposed shoreline setback of 50 feet versus 75 foot requirement. The project plan does not depict the stream location nor the purported 50 foot shoreline setback. The relief sought is from the requirements of the Rural Residential (RR-5A) district requirements per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-775 issued 9/24/03 garage demolition Staff comments: While the proposed location significantly further from the front line, it appears as though there are ample areas available for compliant construction. A revised Site Development Data page was submitted on October 17, 2003. The revision specifically addresses the shoreline setback issue referenced above. See attached copy.” 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-No County. Mrs. Bruno, I assume. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I’m Tanya Bruno, 119 Gurney Lane. We had a fire last March which destroyed our garage. I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with that property. Gurney Lane is opposite of the Municipal Center, the Warren County Municipal Center, off of Route 9. If you go up the hill, the park will be on the right, and our property is to the left, directly across from the. MR. STONE-Let me just say for the record, it is the policy of this committee that each of us individually. MRS. BRUNO-Have stopped by? MR. STONE-Visited the property. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. STONE-And your dog barks very loudly. MRS. BRUNO-We have three, that’s why. I did bring another site plan. I assume you all still have our application. The stream is to the left. That’s the left portion of the pie shaped piece of property, and that’s really, I use that as the back line of the property, as well as the shoreline, and it’s about 195 feet from the back of where we’re looking at. MR. STONE-Craig, what was there that triggered that thought, that question of yours on Staff notes? MR. BROWN-The original site development page referenced a shoreline setback of. MRS. BRUNO-I believe what I had written down was the same amount of footage as the front line, from what the road would have been. I misinterpreted the shoreline. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s not on the table. MR. BROWN-No. The revised site development page addressed that. So it’s fine. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead. MRS. BRUNO-We’re in a five acre area, which I’m sure you’re familiar with. The original barn, or garage, sat sideways to the road. It was about five feet off of the right of way from the center line of the road. If we were to be compliant with the 50 foot setback, that would be the 25 feet, plus the 50 foot, which be approximately 75 feet from the centerline of the road, which, because of the layout of our property, it would bring it out into the woods. It’s a funny piece of property. We really don’t have a front yard, back yard, side yard. It’s all one yard. We wanted to try to preserve all of the trees that we’ve got, as well as not need to increase the square footage of driveway. When we remove the one little branch that we’ve got now, we’ll be able to put about the same amount back in, just to bring it up to the garage. We’ll be changing the direction, so that it’s facing the road a little bit more. We just thought that would be a little bit easier for passage, circulation. What we’re seeking is a variance of 25 feet. So we have the 25 foot right of way, then an additional 25 feet setback, and then that’s where we’d like to start, rather than another 25 feet, which like I said before is at the edge of the woods. There was some mention that we could perhaps put it next to the house up in what is the existing yard, perhaps the dogs were out there when you came by. I don’t know. We have an existing septic system that was put in probably incorrectly or it’s just very old. We have to have it pumped every year. The septic system goes right to the middle of the yard, with a leach field out a little bit 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) further. When we replace it, we’re going to bring it off the proper 10 feet and then the additional 20 feet, which would have your leach field be right out here, which is really the only other open area. It looks, from this drawing it looks like we could put it here, but the topography of that just drops down, considerably. So it’s really not an option. This, like I said, is the stream. This is where the, it really drops off, through there. Did I miss anything? MR. STONE-Craig, question. Mrs. Bruno refers to the 25 from the centerline. Is this a Town road? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. STONE-So it’s three rods wide? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-A rod and a half on either side, 25 feet. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. STONE-Okay, and that’s where their property line starts, and they’re supposed to be 50 feet back from the property line. We only refer to property lines when we’re granting variances. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. STONE-I just want to make sure that that’s clear. Is that it? Is there anything else you want to add? MRS. BRUNO-I believe so. MR. STONE-When I looked at it, I didn’t feel I could agree with your statement that you wrote, without destruction of wooded area. It seemed to me, I didn’t have a tape measure with me, but there was a lot of room if you just came in from the road about the same place where your concrete pad is, and went 50 feet. I didn’t see any trees that would come out. MRS. BRUNO-I’m not sure I quite follow. If you came in, the property line is about right there. If you came in about 50 feet, it starts right about, there’s an oak tree right about where the back corner was, and then from that oak tree back is where the wood line goes. MR. STONE-Okay, but you could go back to the oak tree. MRS. BRUNO-Right. The oak tree is right at the 50 foot mark. We’re looking to be right in front of that and the drawing, I actually brought a footprint of the building. The drawing would be about 28 feet deep. So that it kind of is about the same increment that you end up playing with. MR. ABBATE-You folks have, what is it, a 308 foot garage? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Or shed, whatever it was called. MRS. BRUNO-Fourteen by twenty-two right around there. MR. ABBATE-That burnt down. What did you store in that, out of curiosity? MRS. BRUNO-Actually, we stored bicycles, camping gear, tools, maple syrup-ing gear. Basically everything, things for the renovation of our house. We didn’t have a car in it at the time because we had had that collection of goodies. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MR. ABBATE-These are my observations. You are basically requesting 100% increase from 308 to 700 square feet. That would indicate to me, of course, you did not have your cars in the garage before. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. ABBATE-I understand that, and obviously a garage takes up a certain amount of square feet, but looking at your diagram here, one can almost perceive this as a miniature home. It appears that you have approximately 13 windows in this 700 square foot. Am I wrong on that? MRS. BRUNO-No, you’re probably right in terms of the number of windows. What I was aiming to do was to capture the character of the house, even though it is a much smaller size, footprint, and then of course go with, what everybody likes to do when they design something is go for your ideal, and put in what you would like. The small area off the side, which probably is what makes it look that much more like a house, has the good number of those windows, and that’s for the purpose of having just a small shop or small studio for my artwork and the children’s. MR. ABBATE-You do artwork? MRS. BRUNO-Yes, but it’s a pretty small space compared to. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I would be doing the same thing that youo’re doing, and I like your word. Originally you would like to go with your ideal. So that suggests to me that you would be willing to compromise to a smaller square footage of a garage, if 700 is your ideal. MRS. BRUNO-Well, when I said the ideal, I meant in terms of the style. We really would like to, because what I have here, the garage, it might be hard to see, I have the proper automobile clearance for a one car garage, as well as a work bench area and some storage area for the bicycles and then a small studio space off to the side. So it’s really, what we had before was extremely tight. MR. ABBATE-So this is a one car garage. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. STONE-So that’s a single door there? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Because that looks like a double door. I was under the impression, how many vehicles do you have? MRS. BRUNO-We have two. MR. ABBATE-But this is only going to be constructed, so it’s really not going to be constructed primarily to store a vehicle. It’s really going to be constructed basically because of your ability as an artist to perform some sort of work and gather all the sunlights as the result of about 13 plus windows there. Is that correct? Would that be a fair assessment? MRS. BRUNO-Well, I’m not quite sure of the analogy there. It’s a one car garage with a little extra room for workspace. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me try it this way. You have two automobiles, and you’re going to be placing one of your automobiles in this one car garage. MRS. BRUNO-Right, most likely mine. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MR. ABBATE-Right, so in effect the square area of the automobile will be taking up a very small percentage of square feet. The remaining square feet would be dedicated, based on the windows that I see here, to gather sunlight so you can perform your artistic work, primarily is going to be geared to meet your requirements as an artist, not as a storage for automobiles, because it’s only one automobile, singular. MRS. BRUNO-Right. That one particular room that I was referring to, in terms of the number of windows, is ten by fourteen feet. The rest of it is for the car. MR. ABBATE-And do you have upstairs? I see there’s windows upstairs as well. MRS. BRUNO-That is required by Code. That’s just a storage area, just stairs. It’s not even a full height. Your window is required by Code, in terms of ventilation. MR. ABBATE-Do you have a door going up there? MRS. BRUNO-A door? No, just the stairs going up. MR. STONE-What is the height of this building? MRS. BRUNO-Actually, eight foot, eight or nine foot interior wall with, I don’t have an overall, actually, with me, the section wasn’t complete. MR. ABBATE-I couldn’t find it either, Lew. I don’t know what the height is, unless somebody can help us out. MRS. BRUNO-Eighteen. MR. STONE-I wish you hadn’t said that. It’s 16, isn’t it? MR. BROWN-In a Waterfront zone. MR. STONE-So it’s not overly high, is what you’re saying, Craig? Okay. MR. ABBATE-Between 16 and 18? Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Can you show me, you referred to this oak tree. Could you either show me on there where this is in relationship to the other drawing? MRS. BRUNO-The best way to show you, really the only shot I had of the yard, I can pass this down. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. MRS. BRUNO-This is from here, looking down here. So you’re looking straight on. The oak tree is you see above the shadow right there, and this is where the. MR. STONE-Okay, but this could go this way. You could slide it that way, could it not be? This whole building could be slide this way? MRS. BRUNO-You would still have it within, that would still. MR. STONE-Well, here’s the 25. MRS. BRUNO-And an additional 25 back. So right there you’re saying? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MR. STONE-Well, it could go there. I’m not saying that, but it could go there, and it also could go this way slightly. Well, you’re saying the tree is right here? MRS. BRUNO-The tree is right here, and it starts heavily right in there. See all these trees right in here? That’s right (lost words). MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-This is without any foliage. That’s in March, and we couldn’t, the reason why we were kind of staying away from going in this direction is because of the stuff coming off the end of the house here. If you were to slide this this way. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else have any questions? I do want to comment, the material in the yard, did most of that come out of that garage? Because that area seems to be, I’ll be kind and say messy. MRS. BRUNO-Well, yes, it is a mess. Shortly after this happened, my husband had surgery on his knee. So we’re a little behind this year. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-You’ve probably noticed some of the things that have been left over, yes, but we’re still in the process of dealing with the insurance company. MR. STONE-And that shed you’re building, how big is that? MRS. BRUNO-That’s eight by ten, and that’s primarily just to store what is right now in my kitchen. I climb over the ladder to make dinner. MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-So, to get us through the winter, because we knew, regardless of what happened here tonight, that we would probably be weathering the winter with all of those things in the kitchen. MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody? MR. URRICO-How much room do you think you have to move that garage? How much more room can it be moved away from the road? We’re talking about perhaps lessening the distance. How much room do you think there is to spare? MRS. BRUNO-There is to spare, if we were not to touch any of the woods line? MR. URRICO-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Maybe five, ten feet, if we were to shift it over a little and back. MR. URRICO-Back or towards the center of the curbed driveway? MRS. BRUNO-You would have to do both. You would have to shift it both this way a bit and back, in order to not get into the property line, which that would be right up. MR. STONE-So there is some? MRS. BRUNO-A five foot give or take. MR. STONE-Well, our charge is minimum relief. I think that’s where Roy’s going. Okay. Everybody happy? I’ll open the public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) wishing to speak in favor of the application? In favor of? Anybody opposed to the application? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Hearing no further questions, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I guess I look at it from an overall standpoint. I’m not really bothered by it. I would like to see the garage perhaps moved a little bit. You’ve said there’s some room. I’d like to see that positioning maybe moved away from the road just a little bit more. Otherwise, I do not see an undesirable change to the neighborhood. There was a garage there before. I remember the garage. This is further away from the road than the previous garage. So I think that’s an improvement. Obviously the benefit to the applicant is that they would have a workable garage instead of a burned mess there. The Area Variance perhaps is substantial, but looking up and down the road, there are other structures that are fairly close to the road as well. So I don’t know that this would be a real hardship. I don’t think there’ll be an adverse effect on the physical or environmental characteristics, other than maybe perhaps moving it back a little bit so that it gets shielded just a slight bit more, and the difficulty I don’t think was self-created. Obviously nature, something took its course here, and I think I would be in favor of the application, but not as submitted. I would like to see some change made as to the amount of relief. MR. STONE-Thank you. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to be the negative person on this, I guess. I don’t know. The relief required bothers me, simply because there’s other places on the road that are equally close I don’t think justifies, by themselves at least, a variance for this case. As I’ve said before, the people that set up the zoning and set the setbacks knew what was there when they did it. So what they’re indicating is the goal that they’re striving for rather than what exists, and I think there are some other possibilities. I think where the place is proposed, it’s going to look almost like two houses on that piece of property, and I think it’s going to make it look more cluttered. I’d prefer to see it next to the house, either as an attached garage or close to it, like where the shed is. I understand that’s where they’re hoping to hold room for the septic, but there still, if you did that, still should be room to place a septic tank near the house, drainage field doesn’t have to be near the house. The drainage field could be run down to where the garage is being proposed. So I think there are some alternatives that would set the garage back where it’s supposed to be. So for those reasons, I’m going to be opposed. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. In looking at your proposal, I like the design that you have chosen. I think it reflects the historic nature of the road up through there, and, having been past your garage many times while it was still there, it was pretty unnoticeable. You don’t really notice it going to and from Gurney Lane and further up the hill. I think at the same time, you know, you are going to increase the setbacks from the original garage (lost words). I think that reflects your plans, you know, took that into account. I think you still could move that back maybe slightly more, split the difference between what you wanted and, you know, so you’re not getting into the root system of that big oak tree behind there, but maybe if you went back five more feet, that would make a difference, with people on that Board. Other than that, I guess I would accept what you’ve proposed. MR. STONE-Chuck? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. If I were the applicant, I would be doing exactly what you’re doing. I don’t have a problem with that. However, not being the applicant, I have a little problem here. I love your design. I think it’s fantastic. I think it would add a tremendous amount of artistic creation to the whole area. I really truly like it. Thirteen windows is a lot of windows, but nonetheless, I would support the application, provided there would be a little compromise on your part. Chuck McNulty said it basically right, but more specifically, you know, you’re really asking for 50 feet of relief from the front yard and about 70 plus or minus percent of relief from the shoreline. MR. STONE-No shoreline. MR. ABBATE-No shoreline, setback, you’re right, sorry about that, but I believe that we could probably come to some sort of mutual agreement if there was a little adjustment on your part. I would support the application, providing there was some support on your part to reduce some of the relief that’s required. MRS. BRUNO-Just to clarify, you had said 50 feet relief we were seeking? MR. ABBATE-You wanted 25 feet of relief from the 50 square foot. MR. STONE-Right. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and that’s 50%. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I just misunderstood. 50%. Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Are you ready, Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes, I think so. MR. STONE-Leo, for those of you, is a new alternate, and this is his first statement, from behind the table. MR. RIGBY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was out there today. I met your dogs, and it’s a nice place. The garage that was there before obviously is very close to the road. So this is an improvement, a vast improvement over what was there before. I like the design of the building. I think it improves the neighborhood. I, too, think that the setback, we should maximize the setback as best we can? Is 25 feet enough? I’d like to bring it a little bit further if we can. Anything that could be done to increase that setback would be an improvement, I believe. As far as the shoreline, is there any shoreline issue at all? MR. STONE-No. MR. RIGBY-There’s not? Okay, that’s fine. I think that the requested variance is substantial in that it is asking for 25 feet of relief. Again, if we can reduce that relief by some measure, that would be good. Whether the variance will have an adverse effect on the impact of the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, I don’t believe so, and I don’t think that the difficulty was self-created. So, I would support this, as long as we can ask for a little more setback. MR. STONE-Well, I think I agree with the bulk of the Board. I am not bothered by putting a garage in that immediate area. I am bothered by the 25 feet of relief, and I would like to see some, as at least four members of the Board have indicated, some movement by you, in terms of lessening the amount of relief we have to grant. As I said, our charge is minimal relief. We don’t want to take any trees out. That’s certainly not our intent, but there is, it appears to me to 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) be plenty of space where that, where we can increase the distance between the edge of the garage and the road, and what I’m hoping that you will agree to something. If you want to throw it out, we can consider where you might want to go. DAVID BRUNO MR. BRUNO-David Bruno, 119 Gurney Lane, Tanya’s husband. You’re right. There’s probably some room to increase that setback. I just want everyone to be aware of that, when Tanya spoke of, you know, between those 100 year old pines and that 100 year old oak tree, of 10 feet, if you go right up against them, you are, in essence, you’re going to kill them. So I agree that there’s room to work, but hopefully we can sort of split the difference so that those trees do survive. MR. STONE-Well, I don’t think any of us, we’re not a Board that advocates taking trees down. If you heard us at other times, you would know that we do our best to save them, but the thing is, on the property, and I think the concern of everybody, there are other compliant locations, not in that immediate area. So all we’re looking for is some cooperation. MR. BRUNO-And I’m agreeing with you. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BRUNO-I just don’t know what you have in mind. If you’re thinking 10 feet right up to the edge of the tree, or whatever that distance between the presence is. MR. STONE-It’s your application. It’s not, you give us a number, and we’ll consider it. MR. BRUNO-Well, like I say, if we have. MR. URRICO-I think Jim spoke about splitting the difference, and that seemed to be reasonable to me. MR. BRUNO-Yes, that seems to be reasonable to me, also. MR. STONE-Twelve and a half more feet? MR. BRUNO-I think it would be more like seven or eight. I don’t, I didn’t tape from those trees to the back of the proposed building. MR. STONE-Okay. So you would propose to add an additional eight feet to the setback? Therefore, you need 17 feet of relief, is what you’re asking for. MR. BRUNO-That sounds reasonable. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me re-poll the Board. Four of you said yes. Chuck, said no, and that’s a perfectly valid position, but, Roy, is that better for you? MR. URRICO-Seventeen feet would be better for me. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Sure, I don’t have a problem with that. MR. STONE-Leo? MR. RIGBY-Yes. That’s fine. MR. STONE-Jim? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re asking for 17 and a half feet of relief. Okay. Mr. Abbate, would you make a motion? MR. BRUNO-If we get out there with a tape measure, and it’s not 17 and a half, you know, if the difference isn’t. MR. STONE-Seventeen three inches. MR. BRUNO-Or sixteen and a half feet? MR. STONE-Yes, probably not. Well, sometimes in this case we would ask for an as-built survey, but we do need it, because this is new construction. Yes, we need it, you would need a survey, an as-built survey. MR. BRUNO-Which is what? MR. STONE-A surveyor telling us exactly where it is. MR. MC NULTY-Which goes back to your original question. Yes, if they grant you X number of feet, that’s what you’ve got to meet. You can’t infringe into it. MR. BRUNO-That was my question. MR. STONE-Yes, okay. MRS. BRUNO-You could always end up lower, though. I mean, if you granted 10 feet of relief and we end up only using 9 feet of relief. MR. STONE-Right. You can be further away, but don’t creep forward. So you’re saying it’s going to be. MR. BRUNO-I just wanted to clarify what we were going to be expected to do, once you sign whatever you. MR. STONE-It’s going to be 32 and a half feet from the road. MR. MC NULTY-Or from the property line. MR. STONE-From the property line. Excuse me. you’re right, from the property line. MR. BRUNO-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-And we don’t talk about the waterfront. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 82-2003 DAVID & TANYA BRUNO, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 119 Gurney Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 700 square foot freestanding garage. The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Bruno, are requesting 17 and a half feet of relief from the 50 foot front yard setback requirements. Benefit to the applicant, well, the benefit to the applicant is that it will serve a number of purposes. Number One, it would serve to store one of their vehicle in the garage, and, Number Two, the other benefit would be to aid Mrs. Bruno in her profession 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) or in her hobby as an artist. Feasible alternatives, I think by our compromise and the applicant’s compromise of 17 and a half feet of relief, I think that that met the feasible alternatives. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance. The applicant’s request, in my opinion, is nominal. Effects on the neighborhood, it is my belief, in spite of my questioning, I believe that that garage is pretty neat, and I think it will add to the neighborhood, quite frankly, in a most positive manner. Effects on the neighborhood, I don’t see that there appears to be any adverse effect or adverse impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the neighborhood, nor, in my opinion, does it appear to be any detriment to either the health, the safety, or the general welfare of the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? Well, when most folks come before the Board in most instances it is self-created. However, it’s not unreasonable to suggest and come before this Board that they have a garage to store one of the vehicles. On balance, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board members, I believe that I would move that we approve Area Variance No. 82-2003. It’s going to be the burden on the applicants to provide the Town an as-built survey. Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes MR. STONE-There you go. Thank you for your cooperation. Go ahead. Get your building permit. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 83-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC./EMPIRE VISION AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC., LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: NORTHWAY PLAZA, ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLACE A 36 SQ. FT. SIGN ON THE EXISTING MAIN PYLON SIGN. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM SIGN ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/8/03 CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 12-2002, AV 54-2002, PZ 1-2002, SV 59-2002 TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47, 46 LOT SIZE: 22.87 AC, 10.62 AC. SECTION: 140- 6B3d2a JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, before you spend your time reading the application, I’d like to request that this application be tabled until the first meeting of next month. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Would you like to know why? MR. STONE-I would like to know why. MR. LAPPER-I had perhaps misinterpreted a letter from the Town indicating that the relief was included in the relief previously granted for the Home Depot pylon sign, and so I and my client thought that we didn’t need to appear tonight, and when I came in and just mentioned that to Craig, he indicated that I was crazy and wrong, which I may be. MR. STONE-And so you have that on the record, Mr. Lapper says he’s crazy and wrong. MR. LAPPER-So I’m not prepared. I didn’t bring my stuff. I didn’t bring my client. MR. STONE-Okay. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 83-2003 NORTHWAY PLAZA ASSOC./EMPIRE VISION, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Northway Plaza, Route 9. Until the meeting in November, November 19. th Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes INFORMAL DISCUSSION ITEM: REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED/INGLEE = TYPE II APPLICANT: CARA BEAMES OWNER: JEFFREY INGLEE ZONING: RR-5A LOCATION: 104 TUTHILL ROAD REQUEST FOR THE ZBA TO RE-OPEN AND RE- HEAR AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2003, JEFF INGLEE, REGARDING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION IN WHICH MINIMUM LOT SIZE RELIEF WAS GRANTED. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 53-2003; SUB. NO. 14-2003 TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-19 LOT SIZE: 9.20 ACRES PER RPS RECORDS SECTION: 179-4-030 CARA BEAMES, PRESENT MR. STONE-Okay. Now we come to a situation that, I will make a statement before we start. We have been asked by a member of the public, a neighbor of a particular property up on Tuthill Road, to listen to a request that we re-open and re-hear Area Variance No. 53-2003. Unless we hear, I mean, I’ll say this up front, unless we hear compelling information, we will just listen. We will not say a word. We will take no action. It’s not required that we take any action at this particular point. As the public, the right to sue in court through an Article 78 has long since expired, we did not get involved with the subdivision. That is not our call. I’m trying to paraphrase some of the letters and some of the things you’re going to say. We created a substandard lot. Period. End of report. The Planning Board, and most of the arguments I read in the correspondence that I will not read into the record, you’re certainly free to read it or talk about it, the Planning Board is the people who are charged with approving a subdivision, site plan approval. All we said was that this piece of property, we were willing to create a substandard lot, actually two substandard lots, one of minimal difference, 197 feet average width versus the required 200, and I don’t think that’s on the agenda. I don’t think anybody is concerned about that, and a 3.45 acre lot, approximately, I’ve got it here, in a five acre zone. Now, having said that, we will entertain any comments that you make. We will listen. We will not comment. Unless something compelling comes up, we will merely thank you for your input and expect you to make the same argument to the Planning Board, which is still considering this particular subdivision. I would emphasize, as I said at the beginning of this meeting, as we do with all public hearings, that this is not a public hearing, but we will follow the same rule. You have five minutes to speak, please, and we will be timing, so that we don’t get into a long-winded discussion here. Having said that, have I said everything, Cathi, that I should say? MS. RADNER-You have, indeed. MR. STONE-Okay. I will now invite members of the public and neighbors of this particular property to come forward and tell us what you want us to hear. I should say that, Cara Beames is the person who actually made the request, and so I’ll recognize Ms. Beames to talk. MS. BEAMES-Do I understand, then, the other neighbors can get up and talk? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) MR. STONE-Yes, they can get up. Everybody can talk. We will listen, five minutes at a time, but it’s not a public hearing. You have asked to speak to us. We are willing to listen. MS. BEAMES-Okay, and I thank you, and first I do want to thank you. I disagree. I think this is not a Planning Board issue. I do think it’s a zoning issue, but again, I do thank you for listening to me. When I received your letter, you sent me an outline of the criteria of the Area Variance, and I wasn’t aware of the criteria on this. So I think I’m just going to read through this, and I’m going to follow it through the five steps on my argument why I don’t think, I’m hoping that you will see myself and what the neighbors feel shouldn’t be passed. For Number One, it states that it’s the undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Myself and 42 plus neighbors who signed the petition feel this subdivision would change the character, by it giving it a development atmosphere. Sticking two houses on eight acres of clear cut, no buffering land is way out of character with the existing homes. You may not like the landscaping of some of the surrounding homes, but we moved to this particular area because we like the wildlife that surrounds us, and we want to preserve it. We don’t want to cut it down or dig it up. As for Number Two, the applicant, to pursue a way to build two houses on only the eight plus acres, this is a no and yes. No for the fact that none of us are willing to sell him any land, and that should be a strong enough statement on itself on how strongly we feel. However, he does have property across the road in Luzerne that he could entertain to put this house, and we wouldn’t even be listening to, hearing about a 29% relief. As for Number Three, it pertains to substantial, important, and necessary. He already obtained some land that is needed for his children to build on. One of his children could be living near him now, but none of them do. So how important is it? After reading the minutes from the last time, not only am I a terrible speaker, but I also feel that you don’t quite understand what I was trying to get across about my concern of his intentions of building these homes. So I have copied an ad from his rental business that he does, and just so that you know where I’m coming from, I would like you to also know that he now rents out his house, when he has an overflow from the one I’m going to show you. I should do that first, and I’m sorry I didn’t make this clear the first time. I also think that I should mention, too, that, you know, after this last meeting, three weeks after you approved it, and he decided he was going to tear down, he told you that he was going to tear down that house after he built the other two, he replaced his whole roof. I mean, that’s not the actions of someone, a contractor, to me, I mean, you repair the roof, but you don’t replace it, and I think because of the resolution that was written up, it didn’t state that he had to tear that down. I mean, it looked like he could have three houses on the eight acres. I just wanted to make you aware of that. I don’t know if you had noticed that in your report. Number Four deals with the affect or the impact on the physical or the environment conditions. His landscaping may look good across the street, but I wouldn’t call it environmentally safe for maintaining the ecology of the mountain. Did you happen to notice the black tar that runs off that road. How environmentally safe is that? Even the slightest digging affects not only the existing wells, which have been a problem to our neighbors on Clendon Brook Road, I know Mr. Mariod mentioned that his neighbors had to dig new wells, and that he, his water flow has reduced substantially, but this also decreases wildlife survival, and I want to, I don’t know if you had noticed when you went up, actually it was down at the landing that he has three, the destruction of the land that is below that, because of his development that he plans to build, and I believe just because we can’t see it from the road, we shouldn’t ignore it. We need to do all we can to preserve the wildlife that exists in Queensbury. We need to enforce the zoning codes that we have and keep it to one dwelling to five acre lots. Giving him this variance may not be changing the zoning, but it sure is opening the door for destruction of maintaining the ecology of the mountain. Our area is unique. That is why we are zoned the way we are in that area. Number Five has to do with difficulty and self-created. Definitely yes. This goes hand in hand with Number Three. He has the land already to make his dreams come true, having his children live next to him. For whatever reason, they don’t. People and their ideas, wishes change in time. We have already seen this with the subdivision across the road. Last year it was his dream for them to build there, and now a year later, it’s having them build across the street. How many houses do you need for four people? When he first bought his house, the zoning was eight acres. Now it’s five. Can you guarantee me that granting this variance won’t set a precedent? We have neighbors who have just moved in this past year. They had to buy five plus acres in order to build their home, as we did before them. Please enforce the zoning 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) that is in place now. I wanted to mention that in notifying the neighbors, I know that you had said that you don’t need a sign, but as you can see by the petition, but I guess you’re not reading any of the letters or, I sent you a petition? I do have a copy of it, of all the neighbors that signed it, that granting a variance does concern and affects many neighbors, not just the ones within 500 feet of the property in question. Letters can’t be sent to everyone. However, a sign posted on the property would help inform neighbors of changes being made or granted in their neighborhood, and I just wanted to quickly show you, this is just going to give you a visual of how it does affect not only the people that are adjacent, which is probably like four of us, being where we are, Jeff is the yellow, and all the letters, and the petition, who signed the petition, are in pink. It’s all Clendon Brook Road, Tuthill Road, and Luzerne. There’s only few white places, some of them are empty lots, and the other three I honestly, I didn’t get to them. One of them, a person just moved there, an elderly couple, and I didn’t feel to burden them with this, but as you can see, we are all very strongly against this. Your decision doesn’t affect you, you, nobody here on this Board, but it does affect me, and it does affect all these neighbors. We are all against this variance. There is no reason to grant this variance just because Jeff applied for it. We are asking that you don’t give him this variance, and at the last meeting, you did entertain, you read the letters that were presented to you, from Jeff and from the neighbors, and I’d ask that you do read and put on record these letters, only because these neighbors were informed. I didn’t go around telling everybody. I really thought that a sign was supposed to be posted. I thought that they would know. This is out of my character to go door to door and make people aware, and I feel that it’s, in order for you to make the right decision, you’ve got to hear it from the people who live there, who live in the near vicinity, and if you would just reconsider that and your decision. Thank you. KATHY GOMES MRS. GOMES-Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. I’m a little confused because I got a call from Craig in the Town office today telling us that only Mrs. Beames would be allowed to speak. So there are other people who are not here because of that. So I don’t know where that confusion is coming from, but once again, we had inaccurate information about tonight’s meeting. I received that phone call at work, from both Sue and from Mr. Brown. So that was incorrect information that the neighbors were given. MS. RADNER-It’s not incorrect. It’s at the discretion of the Board to change their mind. (Lost words) right to be heard at all, but the Zoning Board of administration’s Chairperson has indicated that anybody who is here tonight who wishes to speak, he will allow five minutes to express their views. MRS. GOMES-Okay. Well, I was told very specifically that no one but Mrs. Beames would be allowed to speak tonight. So, I just want you to know that. The map that’s up here does show the information from the petition that was signed by the neighbors, and I would like to speak to some of the letters that you did receive. The area in Queensbury where Mr. Inglee’s property lies is, as you know, within the RR-5 zone, and it’s an area that has many unique features. I’ve repeatedly appeared before the Zoning and Planning Boards over the past seven years to ask that the integrity of the RR-5 and LC-10 zoning be preserved, not just regarding Mr. Inglee’s property, but several other area residents’ property as well. I’m not alone in this request, obviously based on the number of people who’ve signed the petition and the overwhelming amount of pink you see before you along our street and the surround streets. At the last meeting, Mr. Inglee did present some letters in support of his request. Only one of those letters was from a Tuthill Road resident and they have since reversed their position and signed the petition, and they’re colored in in pink. Another of Mr. Inglee’s letters was from Glenn Batease, who is a professional excavator in Mr. Inglee’s employ, and who stands to benefit financially from this variance and subdivision going through. That’s a point that has been brought to my attention when I have been at other Planning Board meetings. They regularly ask people who speak if they stand to benefit professionally or financially from the application being approved. That was not asked at the last Zoning Board, who the letters came from was not really closely examined. They were just read. The one from Mr. Batease, certainly he supports Mr. Inglee because Mr. Inglee is part of his income. There were other letters from 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) people, many of whom did not even live in the immediate area. There was one from a Michael Ringer, whose residence is on Holden Avenue, one block from the Glens Falls City line. No where’s near Tuthill Road, and there was a letter from Mr. Hoyas and Mr. Santucci, neither of whom even live in the Town of Queensbury. So, what I have to ask is when you do your balancing act, how you can reconcile the overwhelming opposition you see from the neighbors in the immediate area with the very limited support which came from people who do not live in the area. They can speak certainly to their friendship with Mr. Inglee, and to their support of him as a friend, but they cannot speak to the impact that this project would have on them directly, because it will not have a direct impact on them. It will have a direct impact on all of those people who are represented by pink on this map, and I don’t see how you can ignore that when you think about this project. Although discussed at length during the June 25 meeting, th Zoning Board meeting, there’s nothing in your motion from that meeting requiring the removal of the existing structure on the property. On its face, this would seem to allow Mr. Inglee to maintain the existing home, in addition to his proposal to construct two new homes on each of the new lots. That would result in three structures on 8.62 lots, or a density of one home per 2.87 acres. This even exceeds what Mr. Inglee asked for, and certainly is a huge relief from what the area zoning is. So if you do continue in granting this subdivision, this lot, whatever it is you call it. I know you don’t call it a subdivision, what I would ask is that you please clarify that it cannot be the existing house and two additional homes, but that the existing house needs to be removed before the new home can be built, and that is something, when we went before the Planning Board, they expressed great concern to us over, that that was not included in your motion, and that is why Mrs. Beames approached you initially to ask you to look at your motion and consider revising it, and I think that is a very important point. The other point on your balancing act is that the balancing act requires that you consider whether the difficulty is self- created, and in your own motion you stated that it was self-created, in your opinion, and I agree with that. I think the preponderance of evidence shows that it is self-created. Mr. Inglee owned other property. He chose to divide into three lots. He could have combined these properties and done something differently. In fact, initially he had submitted for a five lot subdivision using both pieces of property, the one on the west side of the road and the one on the east side of the road, and he later withdrew that. If he had not withdrawn that initial proposal, we might not be here now having to create these two nonconforming lots. Because it could have been done as one big project, and the overabundant acreage could have been divided differently, and perhaps all of the lots would have been conforming. So in that sense I think it is certainly self- created, as is his desire to have a rental property in a neighborhood that is largely residential, that is residential. I certainly agree with his desire to have his family with him. I applaud it. I find it admirable. He has currently enough lots to build a home for each member of his family. His desire is to have a rental property as well. That desire certainly is self-created, and it certainly could be satisfied through other means, in that he could have a rental property in a different location, preferably a location more suited to rental businesses. There’s not a need to have a rental property. It’s not a hardship on his family not to have a rental property. It’s his desire, and desire is something that is self-created. It could be satisfied through other means, which would not have an impact, a negative impact on this neighborhood, and which would take into consideration all of the pink on that map, the overwhelming feeling of those people most directly impacted, that this would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. STONE-May I just remind everybody that, as our legal counsel said, you are here because we are trying to be accommodating, but please, five minutes is five minutes. Let’s try to hold it at that. JOHN MERRY MR. MERRY-I’m sure I will be less than five. I have no notes with me. My name is John Merry. I live on the Clendon Brook Road. First of all, I’d like to say that Jeff did approach me, when he was looking to do this, and he told me about his children needing the land. My heart felt for him a bit, but I’m involved in other things, and I really wanted to stay out of this, and I was going to do that, until I found out that that wasn’t the truth, that where, in fact, everybody’s telling me, and from my understanding, Jeff already has enough land for his 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) children. I guess what bothers me the most is that you’ve got an entire community in the area of this project against this, and yet it’s something we want to do, and I’m just having a really hard time believing that this is in the best interest of the Town of Queensbury when all the residents in this five acre zone have no interest and keep dividing it up further, and further, and further, okay. I don’t understand it. It kind of defeats the whole point. Is this a rubber stamp type of an affair? I really am having a hard time with this, because it seems to me we’re here to look at the best interest of the people of the community, not in the best interest of a single individual, and that’s all I’ve got to say. Thank you. RUI GOMES MR. GOMES-My names is Rui Gomes, 91 Tuthill. Gentlemen, I was here last time. If you didn’t notice last time, I apology to Mr. President, because I did want to speak more in relation to this situation. We moved into our property seven years ago, and I had the option of buying the next door property, which belonged to Marilyn Smith, which I bought the current property I live on. I did not do that. I didn’t think there was a need to do that. I think 66 acres is enough. At the same time, when I moved up to Queensbury, we looked very carefully at the acreage, minimum acreage. That’s one thing, when you come from New Jersey, you are pretty much burned out with houses right next to you, people on top of you, traffic. So you pretty much want to get away from a situation that you no longer feel plausible. So we looked everywhere and we found the place that we are currently living in, which we are modifying little by little and bettering towards the community. I don’t understand why we are at the same time always here trying to explain our feelings in regards of something that is written down. I understand if Mr. Inglee only had eight acres or at 9.7 acres or 9.2 acres, a relief of a couple of percent, 29% to me is an absolute, you’ve given people 29% in different instances. You’ve given 30%. I understand. In a community of a minimum of five acres, right behind my property I have minimum eleven also, LC-11, also I bought the 11 acres right next to me, and one of the things is, when you buy a piece of property, there’s a contract. Gentlemen, I was a businessman and I am currently retired, but one thing I took very seriously is what I read and what was written in ink, not in pencil, but in ink, and that exists, the 11 acres that I bought right next to me, my property now, the extra 11 acres, gentlemen, it says one dwelling. It says one dwelling, gentlemen. It says one dwelling. I bought it. I bought it on that contract of one dwelling. I abide by the rules and regulations. This has been going on for over four years that I remember. I was the first one to receive a letter from the Town of Queensbury, that was erroneously unquotes, mistyped, that it says we’re going to subdivide the area in three acres, six acres, four acres, three acres, and I approached Mr. Inglee with this letter and he assured me there was absolutely a horrendous mistake about that. It isn’t a mistake. It is the original thought to begin with. I believe things should be mostly truthful, truthful. You have to be true to the situation. Today my property, to the left of my property is Mr. Inglee’s second property, which is another 50 acres, or 48 acres, whatever it is, and today, that road that you’ve seen, that’s crushed blacktop, whatever, less than 20 feet or 30 feet from my property, I have a gazebo. I have a gazebo that faces my house. That gazebo has rentals, talking at nighttime, having fun, and drinking. Listen, gentlemen, I’m 41 years old. I get upset because I moved into a situation that I thought was pretty good. Suddenly, the rentals are not one year, two years, three years. The rentals are weekly basis, daily basis, situations that you don’t know who is going to be there the next day. Does Mr. Inglee take their license plates? I don’t know that. Does Mr. Inglee know their backgrounds? I don’t know that. Does he have his checks, does he check people? Does he have any kind of situation that could protect me later on if something happens? No, absolutely not, not that I know of, but I’m not even looking into that. I’m looking at the minimum five acres. My thing is, I need, and I would request, that you would follow the minimum of five acres, because if you don’t, you will set a precedence in that block. You will set a precedence. You speak to some people that live very close to us, I don’t want to bring this up, but they were made to buy more acreage, the minimum. We’re talking about the Fuller Road people. They were made to buy acreage to meet the minimum. Why would Mr. Inglee be given something that somebody else had to acquire? The Gereaus down the block had a subdivision of many houses. They asked for minimum, more than three acres. They had a three acres, the subdivision, they did not let them do that. Today, they find that they did the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/03) right thing by having the minimum of five acres. They say the area looks better. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. MARY MINTON MRS. MINTON-Good evening. My name is Mary Minton. I live at 191 North Plank Road in Newburg, New York. I had acquired acreage up on Tuthill Road, 70 Tuthill Road. One of the main reasons that we moved up here, of course, is the area itself. Queensbury, the Glens Falls area is, you know, what we have enjoyed for a few years, and one of the other considerations was the zoning code. I just would like you to reconsider your decision of the, and maintain the five acre zoning. It just, you know, I think one of the missions of a Zoning Board is to protect not only the neighbors that are there, but also future neighbors, and it just seems to me that it might set a precedence, because how can you go ahead and give it to Mr. Inglee and not to some other neighbor who wants to break up their property to smaller, to three and a half acres. So I just would like you to try to reconsider this motion. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anybody else? I see nobody else. I will say thank you. MS. RADNER-You should indicate, for the record, that Mr. Inglee is here tonight. MR. STONE-I’m sorry? MS. RADNER-You should indicate, for the record, that Mr. Inglee is here tonight. MR. STONE-You just did. MS. RADNER-Thank you. MR. STONE-With counsel. Okay. As I say, thank you, and I shall, we have some minutes that we can consider. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 17, 2003: NONE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 MEETING OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 22 day of October, 2003, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby MR. STONE-Okay. Any other matters before I adjourn the meeting? The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 17