Loading...
2004-07-28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY PAUL HAYES ROY URRICO CHARLES ABBATE JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT JAMES UNDERWOOD CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBBIE WARREN, DOUG DE CESARE OWNER: DEBBIE WARREN, DOUG DE CESARE ZONING: 1987 ZONING SR-20 PHASE I QUEENSBURY FOREST LOCATION: 12 WALTON COURT, Q’BURY FOREST APPLICANT HAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTED A 360 SQ. FT. ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: 91-100 SFD LOT SIZE: 0.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.19-1-81 SECTION: 179-5-020(C2) DEBBIE WARREN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2004, Debbie Warren, Doug DeCesare, Meeting Date: July 28, 2004 “Project Location: 12 Walton Court Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has erected a 360 sq. ft. aboveground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 9 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement for accessory structures, per §179-5-020(C2). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 91-100: 03/21/91, single-family dwelling. Staff comments: The applicant claims the area where the pool is located is the only suitable area due to the location of the septic system and the slopes on the property. Approximately half of the pool encroaches on the rear setback area. The lot backs up to Niagara Mohawk power line property.” MR. STONE-Any County? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Come forward. Somebody speaking for this? Come to the microphone, state your name, and tell us anything more you want to tell us. MS. WARREN-That’s pretty much it. I’m Debbie Warren. I live at 12 Walton Court. We bought a pool last Fall, and put it away to put up in the Spring. I called the office here a couple of times to find out what I needed to do. There was never anything said to me about setbacks or building permits or anything. So come Springtime we went down and put it up in the flattest part of our yard. Most of our yard is quite downhill. The only flat spot that’s up by our house is right where our septic, you know, goes in and out, and if we moved it one side or the other, you’d be too close on either side of property lines on either end. So we’re requesting, the way the pool sits in the back, part of it is only two feet off the 20 foot setback, and the other part is nine feet off. It comes in as a curve. So it’s only part of that. We have part of the back is fenced in. Part of it is open, but it’s all bushed and treed, and it’s all Niagara Mohawk property lines back there. MR. STONE-Any questions for Ms. Warren? MR. ABBATE-I read your letter here, and you indicated that you made several phone calls to the Town, and it’s obvious, and this is not meant to reflect in a negative manner, but obviously, you’re not aware of the zoning laws in the Town of Queensbury, and a lot of folks are not. So it’s nothing that personal. Am I correct in assuming that the relief that you are requiring borders on, if you will, or encroaches, if you will, on the rear setback area that belongs to Niagara Mohawk power line property. So there’s no residential area back there. Is that correct? MS. WARREN-Yes, between us, and there’s another street behind us that they abut us. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Any other questions? Hearing none, I shall open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRAD WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name’s Brad Williams, and I live at 55 Hampton Court, which is behind where the pool is, and our land abuts the same Niagara Mohawk property. MR. STONE-You’re on the other side, east. MR. WILLIAMS-Absolutely. So it’s a direct shot. In part of what was said, in some exchanges was, I guess starting to cover what was going to be my first question, and that was, you know, whether or not the individuals had applied for a building permit to construct the pool, and said, you know, erect the pool beforehand, and, you know, I just wanted to, one could imply that the answer is no, but what is the response to that? MR. STONE-Bruce, any comment on that? Was there a building permit required, and was it asked about? MR. FRANK-One is required. I believe, after someone brought it to the Building and Code Department’s attention, the applicant applied for a building permit. After it was reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, he determined it needed some rear setback relief, and that’s why she’s before the Board now. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Okay. So, in other words, we don’t issue building permits when the determination has been made that a variance is required. So, technically, no building permit was issued. The process was started, or at least an inquiry was made, and that’s where we stand right now. MR. WILLIAMS-And so is what Ms. Warren has said the reason why is because she got misinformation by the Town? MR. STONE-That’s what she says. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay, for the record. MR. STONE-I can’t comment. That’s what she says. MR. MC NULTY-Or lack of information. MR. STONE-Or lack of information. I wouldn’t say mis, but certainly her information was not complete. I guess that’s about as accurate as I can be. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay, and then my only other, my other question, given the situation, we had some water table problems in Phase III of the development, which were, after quite a while, nicely remedied, but in reality we still are on a slope, and it’s kind of an angled slope. I know my aboveground pool, if something was to happen, is going to go right into my house, but I’m just kind of straight down shot. I just, if something was to happen, I mean, what is liability in terms of whether it’s, you know, is it with the Town? Is it with the individual and the pool? MR. STONE-If we, and I’m speaking off the top of my head, if a building permit is issued, then it would be a legal structure if we grant a variance. Liability would have to be determined by other than us. We’re not involved in civil action. I did hear comments today about your concerns. I mean, I did, was talking with Staff, and I have to admit, that’s the first time I’ve ever heard anybody worry about a pool leaking, an aboveground pool. I’m not saying they don’t. Staff was saying, yes, it happens occasionally, but very, very seldom. MR. WILLIAMS-It happened to my in-laws over on First Street in Glens Falls, and it washed all the way out to New Street. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. WILLIAMS-So, I mean, and we’re downhill. MR. STONE-Right. MR. WILLIAMS-You know, so I mean that’s part of the problem. I just wanted to make sure. I mean, I just want to establish if the process was done correctly and if, in part, it was because the Town misinformed them or not. MR. STONE-The process is being done correctly now. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. MR. STONE-We do, as a Board, and we will say it to Ms. Warren eventually, I guess we always do, we don’t like after the fact variances. They happen, though. People do, either through lack of an attempt to get information or misunderstanding of the information that was granted, sometimes build when they shouldn’t. We don’t like it, but we usually go, as you will hear, we will probably start talking about what would have happened if she had come before us without having built it, and that’s what usually, quite often, makes our determination, but we’re not there yet. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-But we hear your concern. MR. WILLIAMS-Right. Those are the only two concerns that I had. Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. URRICO-How far do you figure your pool, your house is from that pool? MR. WILLIAMS-Without actually measuring the distance, okay. MR. URRICO-I mean, you have the Niagara Mohawk right of way. MR. WILLIAMS-Right. I guess you have to also understand that we’re in a phase of a development that had an enormous water table where we were told everything was fine, like five to ten years ago, and we were all dealing with flooded basements. So, I mean, as much as people were telling us that things were designed the way they should be and that they were working properly, and how logically and feasibly something should happen, it still happened. MR. URRICO-I’m just trying to get an idea in my mind, though, how far are you to the Niagara Mohawk power lines? MR. WILLIAMS-Whatever the setback was that we needed for our pool. MR. HAYES-Twenty feet. MR. STONE-Twenty feet. MR. WILLIAMS-Is what we have. MR. URRICO-Okay, and the NiMo has how much more? MR. STONE-One hundred and thirty feet, yes. MR. HAYES-So basically there’s 130 or 140 feet of permeable surface between their pool and your pool, and more than that to your house? MR. WILLIAMS-Right. Okay, I mean, I just, you know, I’m just concerned. When something’s above you. MR. STONE-We appreciate your concern, and it’s certainly noted. MR. ABBATE-Yes, and also, I think the public should be made aware of the fact that our responsibility is to focus on the facts of every particular case, and we can’t deal with theoretical probabilities. If we were to take into consideration theoretical probabilities, we would never approve any variance. MR. WILLIAMS-Right. I just had the question. MR. ABBATE-Right, which is a good question. MR. STONE-And you’re on record. MR. WILLIAMS-And quite frankly, I have no comment either way, for or against, I just had two questions. MR. STONE-Good. Thank you. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. WILLIAMS-And you’ve answered them. Thanks. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Is there any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you want to make any comment about Mr. Williams’ statement? You don’t have to. MS. WARREN-No, I don’t have any problem with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Fine. That’s fine. Okay, guys, let’s talk about it. We’ll start with Chuck Abbate. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. As I said earlier, we’re charged with dealing with the facts of every case and Ms. Warren spelled it out rather well. She admitted the fact she made an attempt to find out what had to be done. While the applicant bears, theoretically, legally, the burden of responsibility to know all the laws, rules and regulations, sometimes that’s pretty farfetched, but it’s my opinion that Ms. Warren acted in good faith, and I don’t see any real damaging effect if we were to approve her request for the pool. The fact that the rear setback faces Niagara Mohawk power line property I believe falls in your favor. So, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any problems with it. MR. STONE-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree. I don’t have any problems. Even if this had come up before the pool was erected, I would consider nine feet a moderate relief, considering the Niagara Mohawk property. So I would be in favor of it. MR. RINGER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think in an ideal situation we probably would have asked you to try to get it into t the appropriate setback area, had you come to us to begin with, but when I measure the test, the benefit that you might get from the granting of this Area Variance, that’s one of the criteria that we measure, and I think that, using that, I would think that the benefit would outweigh the nine feet. I also think there is no affect on the character, on the neighborhood, and the health, safety and welfare of the community. There would have been feasible alternatives that would have been moving it back, possibly getting a smaller pool if we were coming. MS. WARREN-That’s the smallest one we could get. MR. URRICO-Is it? MS. WARREN-Because that’s the only thing that could fit there. It butts right up against a six foot, you know, then it’s a six foot high up to the house. It butts right up against the, like a drop. MR. URRICO-But that would have been something we might have suggested or asked you, had you come, and the relief, whether it’s substantial relative to the Ordinance, nine feet to twenty feet is substantial in a sense, but the NiMo barrier there does give you a little bit of extra room, and I think that’s going to weigh in your favor here, and I don’t think it’s going to have any physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood anyway. So I would be in favor of it. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. I just don’t see the negative impact on the neighborhood or anyone, for that matter, having this pool placed in a place that makes some sense from the topography of your land. Mr. Williams’ concerns aside, which are valid, but have some experience in this thing, with that much of permeable area between your pool and his house, it would take like a tidal wave to get down there and really have an impact. That’s assuming that your pool let go, which I hope it won’t, but anyway, I think the relief is mitigated also by the fact that you’re abutting the Niagara Mohawk common area. If you had a neighbor right behind you, that would be different. The splash zone would become a question, but in this particular case, there’s plenty of room for shielding and noise reduction and everything else. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with what’s been said. I think if this had come to us prior to the pool being built, we’d still be looking at the same situation of what could be done to minimize the setback, and probably not a great deal, other than going to a much smaller pool, and I think the Niagara Mohawk property is the saving factor. If there was another property directly behind this, then I would have a problem with it, but given the buffer we’ve got with Niagara Mohawk property, I think that both, it’s obviously a scenic buffer, and any kind of a small leak I think as has been indicated probably the permeable ground between you and whoever else is going to take care of that problem. So, absent a catastrophic failure of the pool, I don’t think there’s much danger of any problem for a neighbor. Given all that, and considering the benefit to the applicant, I’d certainly be in favor. MR. STONE-As an aside, before I state where I’m coming from, I want to apologize, for those of you in the room, that we only have six people tonight. Normally we have seven. We have two alternates. We have unfortunately three people who couldn’t make it tonight, one with health problems, and, this being the time of year that it is, they’re not available. So hopefully it will not have any adverse affect on our deliberations, but I just want to apologize for the Board, before I go any further. I certainly agree with the rest of my Board members. I don’t think there’s another place to put it. I think the fact that there is this buffer, and I’m told that it’s fairly sandy soil there, and I doubt the water would get more than part way across. The other thing, though, that Mr. Williams talks about, is something that I’ve commented on over the years. It’s not surprising that we’re pumping, that we have water in certain homes because we’re pumping the Hudson River into that whole area, and it’s got to go somewhere. It wants to get back to the river, but it’s going to take time to get there, but this is what we are faced with in that particular part of Town, but having said that, I think if you had come without having built it, there’s no doubt in my mind I would have said, go ahead. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I’d be happy to do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2004 DEBBIE WARREN, DOUG DE CESARE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 12 Walton Court. Ms. Warren has erected a 360 square foot, above ground swimming pool, and she is requesting nine feet of relief from the twenty foot minimum rear setback requirement for accessory structures, per Section 179-5-020(C2). When we make our decision, we take on balance into consideration, and it’s my opinion that the request is not an unreasonable request, and I base it on the following. Does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community if we were to grant such a variance? I don’t see any problem. If we make this determination, we also give consideration to whether or not there may be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. Based upon the facts presented to us this evening, I don’t believe that’s going to be the case. Also we take into consideration whether the benefit sought by Ms. Warren can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the variance. Well, perhaps if she had, both parties had come to us initially, there may have been some 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) modification, and we also take into consideration whether the Area Variance that she has requested is substantial. It is my position that her request is not substantial, and we take into consideration whether the proposed variance will have any type of an adverse effect, or even an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in that neighborhood or district or surrounding area, and it’s my opinion that it will not. Now the final one that always raises a number of questions is whether the difficulty is self-created, and in this particular case, it probably was self-created, but she has paid her dues by being forced to come before this Board, and so, on balance, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 55-2004. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. You’re going to need it the next couple of days. MS. WARREN-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2004 PHILIP J. HAAKENSON AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR OWNER: HERB & GERALDINE WASSEY ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 58 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 117 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK AND CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. (NOTE: SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NEEDED) CROSS REFERENCE: 96-681 SEPTIC ALT., 97-625 3-CAR DET. GARAGE & ADDITION LOT SIZE: 0.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.07-1-16 SECTION: 179-4-30, 179-13-010 (A1, E) MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; P. HAAKENSON, PRESENT MR. STONE-Before we start, I just want it on the record that I did have an ex parte conversation with Mr. Haakenson today when I viewed the property. We talked of nothing substantial about this application. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2004, Philip J. Haakenson, Meeting Date: July 28, 2004 “Project Location: 58 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 117 sq. ft. addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, relief is needed from the continuation section of the code, per §179-13-010(A1 and E). Even though the applicant has not requested any, it has been determined approximately 1.5 feet of relief is required from the 50- foot minimum shoreline setback requirement, per §179-4-070 and §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 97-625: 10/30/97, 864 sq. ft. detached garage. AV 47-1997: 09/24/97, side setback relief for an 864 sq. ft. detached garage. BP 96-681: 11/01/96, septic alteration. BP 90-015: 02/01/90, dock construction. Staff comments: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) The applicant has requested relief from the minimum side setback requirement. However, it has been determined shoreline setback relief is also required. On the site plan submitted, the applicant has labeled the shoreline setback to the northwest corner of the proposed construction as 50 feet. However, the distance scales to approximately 46 feet. On July 1, 2004, the distance was measured to be approximately 48.5 feet to the natural shoreline. Therefore, approximately 1.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement is also needed.” MR. STONE-No County? MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicants and with me is the agent of the applicants, Mr. Haakenson. I got involved in this application a little bit after it was put together, and to be honest with you, I didn’t think we needed any variances. I purposely had Van Dusen & Steves go out and measure, using the standards that they would use for front setback, and it turns out that we need .25 of one foot relief on the front setback on the corner of the small, nine by thirteen foot addition. MR. STONE-Is that three inches? MR. O'CONNOR-Three inches. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The side setback we do need some relief. We need 3.63 feet, and that’s less relief than was granted, or more of a setback than the portion that already extends out to the side. This lot is very close to having a width of 60 feet, which would mean that you would be able to have a 15 foot setback, and what we’re proposing is, on one corner of that 13 foot run, 16.2 feet and on the other 16.37. MR. STONE-And you’re saying if it was less than 60 feet? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Fifty to sixty, you have a fifty. MR. STONE-I meant less than 60. Sixty triggers the fifteen. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the way it’s written it’s 50 to 60. The actual width of this lot is 61.3. So we do need a variance. I don’t think we’d have any impact on any on anyone. If we were to try and relocate, shift it back three inches, but then when they side the house, it’s going to look more like an addition. I don’t think it has any impact to have it three inches more towards the lake than what you would otherwise have. If we put it on the other side of the house, we might be able to make the sideline setback, but it really don’t work with the traffic flow, interior of the house, and it also would then make us, require us probably to have a front setback, setback over there, because on that corner of the house there’s only 35.59 feet from the lake. This is on a kind of a little point. It’s a very modest addition that’s going on. The two adjoining properties are actually closer. The average of the two adjoining properties is 41.9 feet. So I think we’re stuck with the 50 foot measurement, the average of the two, or 50 feet. I’ve got a survey to submit. It was not completed until July 7 or July 6, which was long after the application was filed, but it thth shows what I’m speaking of, and I don’t know of any negative impacts. MR. STONE-Okay. Bruce, have you seen this new survey? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. FRANK-I haven’t, and I wouldn’t have made that comment if I had the legal survey showing they didn’t need the relief. I wouldn’t have made that comment about the need for shoreline setback relief if I had that information. MR. STONE-Well, he’s still saying it’s three inches. MR. FRANK-Well, I don’t think we would ask for three inches of relief. When it was over a foot, I was told, that’s the time to ask. MR. STONE-Well, I only hope, I mean, I just want you to agree that the numbers that Mr. O’Connor presented are what we have to grant, if we grant it. MR. FRANK-According to this survey, what he said was accurate. The setback, the closest portion of any part of the lake is 49.75 feet. MR. STONE-Okay, and the side setback? MR. FRANK-They have 16.37 and 16.2. MR. O'CONNOR-The required is 20. MR. STONE-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So if you took the closest place, it would be 3.63 feet of relief. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-So is that off the table, or is that still on the table, as the shoreline relief? MR. STONE-Well, they’re asking for three inches. MR. URRICO-Bruce said if it was three inches he wouldn’t even have. MR. STONE-Well, we’re here, and they’re asking for three inches, just to keep it buttoned up. That’s all. Any questions or comments? MR. O'CONNOR-And the other I guess is technically correct. In your narrative, as to nonconforming uses, structures and lots, it says that an existing structure which violates the area requirements of the Chapter may be enlarged or extended, so long as the enlargement or extension does not violate the area requirements of the Chapter. I don’t know if the area, I guess the setbacks are the area requirements. So we’re also asking for relief from that specific section, which Staff pointed out. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions? MR. ABBATE-I just want to make sure we get it on the record. The Staff has no issue with the application, in terms of their request? MR. FRANK-No. He’s got a legal survey here showing what relief he needs. MR. ABBATE-Yes, I just wanted it on the record. That’s fine. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any questions? Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence here, a message from Patricia Pietropaolo. She’s at 60 Reardon Road, and she says “We have no objection to the proposed construction and support the request for a side setback.” MR. STONE-And that’s the neighbor toward your house? MR. HAAKENSON-The closest to the project. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, that would be, yes, it would be to the west of the property. MR. STONE-Yes, or whatever direction it is there. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody has? Well, let’s talk about it. Joyce, let’s start with you. MRS. HUNT-Well, it seems that the proposed project is certainly a modest, it’s a modest addition, and it seems to me that the required relief is extremely minimum, 3.63 for the shoreline, for the side setback, is a very, very minimal relief. I really have no problem with this. I would be for it. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. It seems to me that the addition, obviously it’s going to be less of an encroachment than what already exists. So I don’t see the side setback as being an issue, and being that the correction has been made on the shoreline setback, I don’t see that as an issue as well. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I don’t see any negative impact on the neighborhood or the greater community in this particular case. I think the relief is minimal. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I think that when you sum everything up, it comes out in favor of the applicant. It strikes me that it is going to make it seem a little bit more crowded and a little more like a tunnel between those two houses, but with the neighbor not objecting, and, as has been pointed out, the shoreline setback is next to non-existent. So I think the benefit to the applicant certainly outweighs any site detriment that might fall on the other side. So I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. I look at the application and I don’t view it as being unreasonable. I think it’s a reasonable application. I also think that the applicant should be pleased that he’s represented by extremely competent Counsel. So, Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the application. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Okay. I basically agree. The only question I have, and, Bruce, you can help me. Would this require an as built survey, or is it something we can ask for? Would it be a minimal cost, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-It would be another $300. MR. STONE-It would be a full $300? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This is almost to the point of ridiculousness right now, when you consider that the applicant, the owner, neither of us, has to go through a variance, and then has to go through site plan, and then it has to have, actually, it was my idea to have the survey so that we knew what we were talking about and we wouldn’t get into issues. You’re talking probably about, minimally, $1500 expense already to build a 12,000 foot addition. MR. STONE-Yes. No, I was just curious what it might cost if they would go out and do a couple of things, but you’re saying to get out there would be the cost. MR. O'CONNOR-They’d have to put aside the time to go there. MR. STONE-Yes, so Mr. Haakenson will do very accurate measures when he gets done, and will put them on the survey, unofficially or whatever. MR. ABBATE-Can I make a comment, since Counsel’s opened the door. I would like to interject this. It seems to me that over the years that our rules and regulations in the Town have caused the residents in the Town of Queensbury unreasonable amounts of money, and I think it’s a result of the fact that, somewhere along the line, we haven’t grabbed this whole procedure by the horns. I say “we”, the Town included. It seems to me ridiculous that individuals have to come before this Board and spend, it would not be unreasonable for me to say thousands of dollars, for what I would consider sometimes a very minor variance. There’s something wrong along the way, and someone should take a close look at it, and that’s my comment. Thank you. MR. STONE-Anyway, having said that, I’m certainly in favor. I think it’s very minimal relief, and the only note that I wrote down on my sheet, when I looked at it, is what does the neighbor next door think, and they’ve told us what they think. So, having said that, I need a motion to approve. MR. URRICO-I’ll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2004 PHILIP J. HAAKENSON, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 58 Reardon Road. The applicant is proposes construction of a 117 square foot addition. In making this application, he’s requesting 3.8 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side setback requirement per 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Additionally, relief is needed from the Continuation section of the Code, per 179-13-010(A1 & E), and the applicant is also requesting shoreline setback in the amount of six inches, required from the fifty foot minimum shoreline setback per 179-4-070, and 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. In moving for the acceptance of this variance, I’m using the Area Variance criteria, and the Board is considering several criteria. Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The only means I could see feasible would be not putting it up, and that would certainly not benefit the applicant. So, I don’t think that would be a benefit. Undesirable change to the neighborhood character, I don’t see that happening. There is a minimum side encroachment less than is there now. There is some encroachment, but not as much as could have been the case. Is the request substantial? No, it’s not. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental affects, and, yes, the alleged difficulty is self-created, but I move that we approve this Area Variance. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. URRICO-And the applicant is also requesting shoreline setback in the amount of three inches? Is that right? No more than that. MR. STONE-Three inches. MR. HAAKENSON-If that’s a problem, we would move it back three inches. MR. URRICO-Okay. Let’s make it six inches, just to cover it. ‘ AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. HAAKENSON-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II AUSTIN J. MC CARROLL OWNER: AUSTIN J. MC CARROLL ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 25 SULLIVAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,701 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING TO BE ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING 810 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY GARAGE. ALSO, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT THE EXISTING DWELLING TO AN OVERSIZED 1,375 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (KITCHEN TO BE REMOVED). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR AN OVERSIZED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: 98-728 2- CAR DET. GARAGE LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.09-1-7 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-5-020(D) AUSTIN MC CARROLL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2004, Austin J. McCarroll, Meeting Date: July 28, 2004 “Project Location: 25 Sullivan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 2,701 sq. ft. single-family dwelling attached to the existing 810 sq. ft. garage. Additionally, the applicant proposes to convert the existing 1,325 sq. ft. dwelling into an oversized accessory structure by removing the kitchen. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum side setback requirement, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. Additionally, the applicant requires 825 sq. ft. of relief from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for an accessory structure, per §179-5- 020(D). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 98-728: 01/25/99, 810 sq. ft. 2-car detached garage. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family dwelling attached to the existing detached garage, and to convert the existing log cabin into an accessory structure by removing the kitchen. Even though the applicant has not requested any relief for the proposed accessory structure, 825 sq. ft. of relief is needed from the 500 sq. ft. maximum size requirement.” 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Sir, you’re on. MR. MC CARROLL-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, neighbors, friends, I hope. MR. STONE-One never knows. We give them the chance. MR. MC CARROLL-This all started, like you see in your record, way back in ’99 when we built the garage. At that time I didn’t plan on building a house. We live in Schenectady right now. We’re selling our house. It’s on the market. We’re going to move up here and hope to enjoy our remaining years on Glen Lake. That’s a little history. I started way back, I think, in February, got my survey. Went and got my designer. As you can see from the plans, we built the, designed the house as a modest three bedroom house. Something that when you get old, you can drive your car in, go into the kitchen with the groceries and go right there to your great room and other rooms, and the only people that would go upstairs would be the grandchildren when they come to see us, and go to the log cabin. You’d probably ask me why we didn’t build it on the log cabin. The log cabin’s old, but it’s very nice. It’s rustic, and it’s got a nice, what’s that word, aesthetic look to it, and everybody says, don’t touch that. So we want to keep the log cabin. My wife’s going to take one room, make a sewing room out of it, and we tried to include the design attached to it, but elevation problems, material problems, the log cabin’s very old. So the first design we did, not we, the designer did, included, attached to the log cabin. That didn’t work, so we went and designed it to the left of the garage as you’re facing the garage. We didn’t know about the 25 foot setback requirement. That, we thought, was 15. I don’t know if you changed it recently, but the designer was surprised. This is called lakefront property. MR. STONE-It’s in the WR-1A. It’s not lake front. MR. FRANK-It’s zoned Waterfront Residential. MR. MC CARROLL-I don’t know if you people went over there to look at it. I can’t see the lake front where I am. If you had that other picture up there, you could see there’s no one behind me. There’s no one on my left. What’s behind me is Route 149, is it. Way back there. So we’re at the stage now where we need relief from the setback from 25 down to 21 feet. I asked the designer, well, why can’t we just cut the four feet off. He says I was working with the 15 and I cut a lot. He says, I can’t do it anymore. Just go to the Board and ask for the relief. So that’s where I am here today. MR. STONE-Let me just ask a question of Staff, only because it occurred to me. If we’re going to do work on this existing house, Bruce, would it trigger setback? Because it’s nonconforming now. MR. MC CARROLL-Because of the 19 feet? MR. STONE-Yes, the 19 feet on the other side. MR. FRANK-For removing of the kitchen to make this an accessory structure? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. FRANK-According to the Zoning Administrator, no. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-Because it’s not changing the footprint of it. It’s all interior, the changes. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Okay. That’s why I asked the question. Thank you. MR. FRANK-And for the record, the relief he needs that I’ve stated I believe, just to be accurate, the original submittal on his site development data sheet, he had 1875 for the building footprint. When we reviewed this quickly for the descriptions, that’s what we put down. Then I spoke with the owner afterwards. He inadvertently put the 800 foot detached garage in with that total. So that’s why it appears to be more than what the Staff notes are stating. MR. STONE-Well, you’re saying Staff notes say 1375. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-That’s not the 1800 that you just said you had it. MR. FRANK-Well, then there’s the 250 square foot porch. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. FRANK-That’s what the 13, if you add the 1075 and the approximate 250, that’s where you get the 13 and change. MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you. You answered my one question, why didn’t you do it five years ago. That was the first question I had. Only concern that I have, and this is not a reflection on you, sir, is that you say you’re going to take the kitchen out and therefore it’ll become an auxiliary structure, and I don’t know how we keep tabs on that. That’s my problem. MR. MC CARROLL-Mr. Chairman, you don’t have to worry about that. If you ask my wife, there is no kitchen there now. There’s a sink, a stove that’s this big, two cabinets and if you said take the bathroom out, the bathroom, I can’t even hardly stand in the shower. So it’s small. MR. STONE-Okay. You’ve kind of answered the question. Chuck, have you got something? MR. ABBATE-Yes, this is probably a question for Staff. You indicate that Mr. McCarroll requires 825 square feet of relief from the 500 square foot maximum size requirement for an accessory structure. Is that a result, would that be a result of, if we approved his application, or does he require that right now? MR. FRANK-If you’re going to grant him the relief to build the structure that he wishes to build, the single family dwelling, it’s going to result in either two dwellings being on one property, or this other relief. You know you can’t have two dwellings on one property. MR. ABBATE-So, okay, so in effect, then, if we were to grant Mr. McCarroll his request, he would require over 100% of relief? MR. FRANK-Technically. MR. ABBATE-Well, 850 square feet of relief from the 500 minimum, 500 square feet, is over 100%. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Mr. McCarroll, talk to me. I have a problem with that. MR. MC CARROLL-Why is that? Where does the 500 come from? I’ve got an acre of land there, okay, and there’s space all over the place. MR. ABBATE-That’s a good question. Where does the 500 square feet come from? Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. FRANK-That’s the maximum size requirement for an accessory structure anywhere in the Town of Queensbury, not just for a Waterfront Residential property. MR. STONE-That’s what the Town has, in its wisdom, the Town Board, in adopting our Zoning Ordinance, says 500 is what an auxiliary building should be, or less. MR. ABBATE-Yes. See, we have no control over that. That’s what the Town has established. MR. MC CARROLL-Okay. What’s an auxiliary building definition? MR. FRANK-An accessory structure, any kind of accessory structure. MR. ABBATE-So, see, quite frankly, it’s my view that over 100, almost maybe 100 and maybe 25% of relief is a considerable amount of relief, but I’m willing to listen to what you have to say and what other Board members have to say. It just kind of gnaws at me that this is granting, if we were to approve it, is granting an excessive amount of relief, but that’s only me, and I’m only one member of the Board. MR. MC CARROLL-Did you get a chance to go up and look at the property? MR. ABBATE-I’ve looked at it. MR. MC CARROLL-The rule, I don’t know what the rule is for, but do you think I’m going to rent it out or is that what it prevents you from doing? MR. ABBATE-No, no. I’m just dealing with numbers. I said earlier, on another application, we deal strictly with facts. If someone came before us, anyone of these folks, and said, I need 825 square feet of relief from the 500 square foot minimum, I would lower my glasses, and automatically would ring a bell, and say, uh oh. MR. MC CARROLL-So what would you do, divide the property down the middle? MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s what we’re going to talk about. We’ve got a procedure. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, just for the record, since you’ve raised the question, let me read two definitions in, according to our Town Code. This is our bible, and this is what we have to permit deviations from. I mean, that’s what we do. An Accessory Structure is a “building or structure subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal building on the same lot and used for a purpose customarily incidental to those of the principal building.” An Accessory Use, which is part and parcel of this whole thing, is “a use customarily incidental and clearly subordinate to the main use or building and located on the same lot therewith.” That’s what you’re proposing. You want an accessory structure for storage or things like that. “In no case shall such accessory use dominate, in area, extent or purpose, the principal use or building.” In other words, you’re going to talk about a building that’s 2701 square feet. This is going to be 1300. It’s certainly not going to be bigger than, but it’s going to be approximately 50% of that. “Examples of customary residential accessory uses include storage sheds less than 500 square feet in size, garages less than 900 square feet in size, swimming pools, tennis courts, basketball courts, paddleball courts and other outdoor athletic courts, decks and patios and fences.” So that’s just, for the record, that’s what we’re talking about. What you’re going to have, of course, is two accessory buildings, one being the garage. Is that right, Bruce? MR. FRANK-No. It’s considered a garage. You’re allowed a 900 square foot garage. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. FRANK-And one accessory structure. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-But it’s under this definition of an Accessory Use, that a garage less than 900 square feet. MR. FRANK-An Accessory Use. If you look at that section of the Code, it clearly separates the two. MR. URRICO-Even though it’s attached? MR. FRANK-Regardless of if it’s attached or detached, it’s counted as a separate structure from the accessory structures. MR. STONE-No, I agree. MR. ABBATE-Well, maybe I viewed this wrong. So let me try again. MR. MC CARROLL-No, I don’t think so. MR. MC NULTY-Let me put my two cents in before you do. Because I had the same general reaction that, well, a couple of reactions. One, it struck me, okay, maybe the kitchen’s going to come out of there, but essentially what’s going to be left is two houses on one lot and it just struck me that it was going to be way too much for one lot. The other factor is how it is going to be used, and it’s not just how you’re going to use it. A variance goes with the land. So we’re not granting the variance that’s to you. It’s a variance to the land. So, someday in the future, you sell the place to somebody else, then the question still is, are they going to use that second building that now doesn’t have a kitchen in it to rent space out or something else, and we have to consider that. Typical zoning, we have to consider the worst case possible. So it gnaws at me, too. It seems like a big. MR. MC CARROLL-Can I say something here? MR. STONE-Well, Chuck, did you want to add to that? MR. ABBATE-Yes, because I want to make sure I’m fair, not only to the Town but fair to the applicant as well. Let me, this is how I perceive it, and if I’m wrong, please tell me. Mr. McCarroll, what you’re looking for is to construct a 2,701 square foot single family home. Correct? MR. MC CARROLL-Right. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s one, and then there’s also going to be an 810 square foot garage. Correct? MR. MC CARROLL-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay, that’s two, and then you also want to convert the existing 1,325 square foot dwelling to an oversized accessory structure, removing the kitchen. Okay. That’s three. See, this is my problem. The 1,325 square foot dwelling is larger than the number of homes that we have in the Town of Queensbury. Smaller in some cases, depending upon where you go. So I’m looking at a beautiful home of 2700 square feet, which is great, and then I’m looking at another, what I perceive as another home, 1300 square feet dwelling, and then I see an 810 square foot garage. So I’m saying to myself, you know, wow, this is an awful lot. That’s what I’m saying. MR. MC CARROLL-Well, let me explain a little bit. MR. ABBATE-Sure. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. MC CARROLL-Okay. This is what went through our head in the beginning. I said, what do we, when we went to build the house on the left side of the garage, I said, what do we do with the existing one, as far as do we attach it to the existing house? What if it was attached. Would you people be having this discussion now? Do I have to make an attachment to come around the back into the log cabin? Then it would be a 3,000 square foot home you’d be approving. MR. ABBATE-Well, you’d have a 4,000 square foot home, 27 and 13 is. MR. MC CARROLL-Would that be against the Code? MR. STONE-No. MR. ABBATE-No, it would not. MR. STONE-You can have, what have we got, for an acre we’ve got. MR. ABBATE-That would be 4,000 square foot. MR. STONE-It could be 9,000, the house. MR. MC CARROLL-Okay. So that was my first question, when I proposed it to the designer, who proposed it to the Staff. They said all you’ve got to do is take out the kitchen, and make a stone path to the log cabin. I said, okay, we’ll go that route. So, what do I have to do to the log cabin to attach it to the house, or the garage? MR. ABBATE-See, that was my thought. Now, if you were to take 2700, round figures. If you were to take the 2700 feet and the 1327 square feet that is the dwelling at the present time, you’d have a little over 4,000 square foot home. That’s a good size home, in anybody’s market, 4,000 square feet, plus the 810 square foot garage. That would be one thing, but if you were to come to us in pieces and say, gee, I’d like to have a 2700 square foot single family home, and I want to have the 810 square foot garage, but I also want a 1325 square foot dwelling as an oversized accessory structure, I’m saying, wow, it’s a perception, you know, that’s all I’m saying. That’s my perception. MR. MC NULTY-Yes. Correct me if I’m wrong, Bruce, but I think if he were to attach the log cabin to his new home, by whatever means, a covered walkway or whatever, to make it part of the new home, then he’d have to have relief for side setback on the other side, too, would he not? MR. FRANK-Well, as long as he meets the 25 foot side setback. MR. MC NULTY-But he’s not. He’s at 19 feet. MR. FRANK-He could go all the way over to the east side of that log structure. If he was to extend the addition on to that, he would need side setback relief. MR. URRICO-How would the floor area ratio work out? MR. STONE-You’ve got 9600. MR. FRANK-Ninety-five hundred square feet would be allowed for this. MR. STONE-Yes, 95, you’re nowhere close to that. MR. MC NULTY-Right. That part should be okay. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. MC CARROLL-You’re wrestling with the same questions I was with the designer, in February, March, April, and May, and we did touch base, informally, unfortunately, and we tried to say, well, how can we do this. MR. STONE-Well, just keep in mind, the Staff can tell you, as they did, that you’d need some relief. MR. MC CARROLL-Right. MR. STONE-It’s our jurisdiction to say whether or not we can grant that relief, when we consider the balancing test that we must go through of the benefit to you, the applicant, versus the detriment to the neighborhood and the community, and when we think of the community, we have to think of the whole, certainly the Sullivan Road area, the Glen Lake area, but also the rest of the Town, what’s it going to do if we grant accessory structure relief of 800 and some feet. We have to keep that in mind when we’re looking at these things, and that’s what we’re trying to do. What I would propose, if you don’t have any other questions, I would open the public hearing and see what happens and then we’ll come back. MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Sure. MR. STONE-All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRISTINE MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-My name is Christine Mozal. I am a neighbor within 500 feet of the applicant, and I was going to make this short, but after hearing all of your concerns, I have a problem with a couple of your concerns. I’m familiar with the property, and the back border of that property is forever wild, meaning it will never be developed. So I don’t think there’s any impact on the rear of the property. If you’re talking about an accessory structure, if he removes the bathroom, and he removes the kitchen, that qualifies as accessory. It’s existing. He’s not asking to build it. What a shame to tear that beautiful log cabin down, and he has plenty of room to put his new home there, which will include that 810 square foot garage. I don’t really see any impact on anybody. I think the neighbors are all in favor. Obviously, there’s nobody here yet. I don’t know if there’s any communication through letters, but I know the people personally. I can give a character reference, too. They’ll do things the right way. MR. STONE-I mean, that’s very nice, Mrs. Mozal, but it’s not germane to our decision. MRS. MOZAL-I understand. I just think you should consider that the accessory structure, if it is labeled as such. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we’re doing. That’s literally what we’re doing. MRS. MOZAL-He’s not asking to build one. It’s there already. MR. ABBATE-You see, this is my problem, and I don’t know about the rest of the Board members. If anyone in the audience came before us this evening and said, this is the size of our property, and I currently have 1325 square foot dwelling, but I want to keep that dwelling and I’m just going to pull out the sink, but I also want to build a 2700 square foot single family dwelling, and I also want to keep the 810 square foot garage, would I, in good conscience, say yes to all these people. In good conscience, I would say no. MRS. MOZAL-I think you need to look at your criteria or how you give these variances, and I think the relief would benefit the applicant. It’s not going to hurt anybody else. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Okay. MRS. MOZAL-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject? CASEY WILLIAMS MS. WILLIAMS-I absolutely agree. I’m Casey Williams, and I’m also a neighbor within 500 feet. Based on the layout of the structures on the land, like I understand where you’re coming from with the accessory thing, and not to go against you guys, but I can see where your gut instinct is obviously to say, like, this is a lot of square feet on this piece of property, but the footprint’s already there, as you said earlier, especially with the 19 foot setback. So it seems silly to be able to connect it with a hallway, or whatever, from the garage, and make it one structure, and approve it unquestioningly, but to remove the hallway, which in theory would be more square foot, and more housing and not accepted. So, the layout of the land and the building’s on it, I don’t think it’s a problem, but I understand where you’re coming from. So, I agree with Christine. MR. STONE-Thank you for both comments. MS. WILLIAMS-You’re welcome. MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak on the subject? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Well, let me close the public hearing for the moment. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Obviously nobody objected. So if you want to make any further statement, you may. If not, we’ll talk about it, unless you have any other questions. MR. URRICO-I just want to know how you intend to use the cabin, if you get approval. MR. MC CARROLL-I have six grandchildren, okay, and it’s kind of like overflow. I have my dream house up on a hill, and when the kids come, they can sleep down there. MR. URRICO-So you’re going to put them in a separate building. MR. MC CARROLL-Somebody will be watching them. MR. STONE-But you do intend to use it as living quarters? Except for the kitchen. MR. MC CARROLL-On a part-time basis, would you call that living quarters? When the grandkids come, when someone comes, yes. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. MC CARROLL-I said six. It’s six and a half now. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy, let’s talk about it, since you just asked the question. MR. URRICO-Well, my questions are the same as the two Chucks, and I think it’s a noble project that you have. I understand what you’re trying to do. It’s a great looking cabin. It’s a 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) nice piece of property, but we really have this situation here which we’re either going to have an oversized accessory structure, or we’re going to have two residences on that property. Minus a kitchen, and it really strikes me as being a little too much, or maybe a lot too much. Several people referred to the balancing test. Well, the balancing test is the benefit to you, versus the entire community, not just the neighborhood. The neighborhood may be fine, but we could be unleashing a whole set of variances coming down the pike, which Mr. Abbate has pointed out, and I think there are feasible alternatives here, and I think we need to investigate them before we make any formal decisions, and I think there’s some compromises here and there’s some ways to work this where this can be achieved, and I don’t know if I’m coming down in favor or against right now, but I think I’m closer to being against it, but I’d like to see something worked out here. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I agree. I certainly understand the applicant’s sincerity in what they’re attempting to do. Certainly providing a place for their grandchildren to come and enjoy it, a worthwhile undertaking, and I’d like to participate in any way that I can, but in this particular case, it still appears to me that, at the end of the day, we’re going to have two living quarters on the property. While I think the applicant most likely would comply with what he has set forth, I think that Chuck McNulty’s point that, at some point in the future that this property could belong to someone else and then that way, with a bathroom already there and a few kitchen cabinets removed, essentially they’re only a few kitchen cabinets away from being back to a living quarters, and I think that that, ultimately, could be a problem, and it could be a problem in the sense of a similar request in the future, as Mr. Urrico brought forward. People will small or moderate camps on relatively generous pieces of property, which I do agree with you, one acre is a good size piece of property, coming before us and saying they want to build a significant size house and then leave the cottages or the things and use them as an “accessory structure”, even though they still have bathrooms in them and these types of things, to me, could set a precedent that could be difficult to maintain, if not destructive, ultimately. We’ve dealt with these cases before, up on the lake in reverse, where people with large size houses have come in and tried to increase the size of their carriages houses, if you will, or their garages, and we have, more or less consistently, limited those applications extremely, and I think for a good reason, because, based on the Critical Environmental Area and other type of factors, there’s always going to be a desire to increase the intensity of use near lakes, in particular. That’s a natural desire. One I would have myself, but yet if we allow it to go on, or if we allow it to continue, the amount of intensity of use around these lakefront properties could become over-burdensome and ultimately, you know, not in the best interest of the Town or the greater community. So in this particular case, as nice as the cabin is, I would only be in favor of the accessory structure, to the extent that you’d be allowed anyway, the 500 square feet, which is a large size accessory structure. In terms of the four feet of relief on your house, I have no problem with that at all. I think it’s a beautiful structure, and it looks like any one around, myself included, would find that to be a marked improvement or, not improvement, but certainly nothing to be upset about. It looks pretty good to me. It looks like a very nice home. So as far as the four feet of relief for that, I’m totally in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Yes. This is a tough one, with the balancing criteria here, as Mr. Hayes said, I wouldn’t have any problem with the four foot side setback for the new structure. I have the same kind of problems, though, with the leaving the log cabin, and I can understand what’s been said about, it is too bad to say tear it down or do something different with it, but I think it comes down to that kind of choice, that it’s just going to be too much on the land. Thinking about the idea of connecting it to the main house, I’m not sure where that would go. It would trigger the requirement, then, that we would have to give you relief for four feet on one side and nineteen feet, or the relief that you’d need on the other side, six feet, I guess. So it would be a little tougher to do that if it was all one place, too. The other thing I was thinking about and looking at was if somebody came in asked to build something the size of the log cabin, after they had their regular home on the property, would I say yes or no, and in that case, I clearly 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) would say no, way too big, and that’s the way I’m backing into this, that as the other Board members have already indicated, it just, my general conclusion comes out that it’s too much for the property. So as it’s presently presented, I’d be opposed. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I agree with Mr. McNulty, but let me say this. I believe that Mr. and Mrs. McCarroll have honorable intentions, and I think you both are acting in good faith, and I suspect if I were in your position, I would be requesting the same thing. So I’m really no different than you are, but unfortunately I’m in a position where I have an obligation to the Town, and to the people of the Town, and I agree with Mr. McNulty. I think it’s a bit too much, and unless there were some drastic reconfiguration, I would have to not vote in favor of the application, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have no problem with the four feet of relief from the 25 foot minimum setback, but we are charged with granting the minimum variance necessary, and 825 feet of relief for a 500 square foot maximum size requirement for an accessory structure is too much for me. I would like to see some kind of compromise, closer to the 500 square feet. MR. STONE-I just want to be clear. Joyce, you’re saying like both Roy and Jaime, you’d like to see some modification on the part of the applicant? MRS. HUNT-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I certainly don’t disagree. I mean, I hear the comments made. I certainly appreciate the comments made by your neighbor across the street. However, our job is Town wide. We are not the Glen Lake Zoning Board of Appeals. We’re not the Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals. Were the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. This is a big request. I mean, I understand, like everybody else does, what you want to do, but we have to think of the future. We do know that the world, particularly around lakes, is changing drastically, even as we speak. We’re building more and more homes. We’re building bigger and bigger homes. So I feel like the rest of you, I think we need to hear from you some alternative, listening to what we said, to try to make this thing, and the easiest way to do that is, because I’m looking at the votes, and we could easily come close to denying it, and I don’t really want to do that, because I think we all have an honest conviction that there must be a way to allow you to get some of what you’d like to do, but what we’re hearing, what I’m hearing from the rest of the Board and myself, is just too much. So we can table it for a couple of months, up to a couple of months. You can read what we’ve said. You can ask questions now, if you want, and come back with some modification. MR. MC CARROLL-I’ll ask questions now. MR. STONE-Go ahead. MR. MC CARROLL-I don’t understand why the Board doesn’t, you keep talking about Town wide, etc. Why don’t you take on a case by case basis? MR. STONE-We do, but we still have to think about what it means. We have, in the Town of Queensbury, a requirement that accessory structures not be more than 500 square feet. MR. MC CARROLL-Right. So, if I’m approved, you think that you have to approve everybody else? MR. STONE-Not necessarily. We don’t create precedents, but we do have to be aware of what we do. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. MC CARROLL-That’s what confused me, and you say, I’m going to have two dwellings and two occupied. Ninety-nine percent of the time, the log cabin would be empty, except for the sewing room my wife’s going to be using. So, the grandchildren will be there, what, three or four days a year. I will be using the front porch. MR. STONE-Is this house heated? MR. MC CARROLL-Yes, it is heated. MR. STONE-It’s a year round home? MR. MC CARROLL-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s one of the concerns that we have. MR. MC CARROLL-I’m too old to rent it out. I don’t want to rent the place out. MR. STONE-Well, sir, we understand that. We’ve said that. We understand that the McCarroll’s are not necessarily going to do that, but it goes with the land. I mean, we’re all going to depart some day. I don’t want to even think about. MR. MC CARROLL-But, you’re statement, the only option is to tear it down. That’s what I hear from the Board. I don’t see any other options. MR. STONE-It depends on your definition of tear it down. Tear it down completely, no, I don’t think you heard us. MR. ABBATE-Let me say this, and it may sound harsh, but it’s the law. If there is a feasible alternative, and you decide not to take it, that’s a grounds for denial. MR. MC CARROLL-What are the feasible alternatives? MR. ABBATE-Feasible alternatives, I’ll give you one, would be to table this thing and come back and make the 2700 square foot single family home, don’t heat that second, you admit it on the record that’s going to be used as living quarters. It doesn’t matter if it’s going to be used one day or 365 days a year. It’s still living quarters. So it would be in your best interest, in my opinion, to withdraw your application and rethink this whole process and then come back to us. That’s what I would do if I were you. MR. MC CARROLL-Yes. I guess I can’t think of an option that would satisfy the Board. You’re saying leave the building there not heated and then it would be all right? MR. STONE-Well, certainly an option is to reduce it in size to 500 square feet. I’m not suggesting how you do that, but that’s one alternative. It’s feasible. It can be done. MR. MC CARROLL-It’s a log cabin. You take one log out, all the logs go. MR. ABBATE-Well, that’s why you should really take it off the table and go back home and get together with whoever you have to get together with and have these folks take a look at it objectively, because right now, you know, there’s an emotional approach to this thing, and sometimes when you have an emotional approach it’s not really very objective, and so it would be, my recommendation, in your best interest to take it off the table temporarily, but you do whatever you wish. MR. MC CARROLL-I’m trying to think of what I would come back, two months from now and say, well, here’s the great scheme. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Abbate, gave you two suggestions. One, we could table it, which is a two month process. Secondly, you could withdraw the application without prejudice and re- think it and re-apply and we’d start all over again. Is that correct, Mr. Frank? MR. HAYES-Well, we have the right to let him table it. MR. STONE-He can table it, but then there’s a limit on that, the time. MR. ABBATE-Yes, two months. MR. FRANK-He could conceivably ask for a tabling motion tonight, and withdraw tomorrow, or think for a month or so and decide what he wants to do. He can withdraw at any time. So I think the best option is to table. MR. STONE-Okay. I mean, I don’t disagree with that. So I would suggest that we table it, that you get a copy of the minutes, read them dispassionately, rather than the way you might have heard them. Hear what we think we said. I think what we said was that we are concerned by the size of the project, and by the possibility of misuse. Not by you. We’re not suggesting that, but the possibility of misuse. So that’s what we’re really saying. MR. FRANK-Well, I’ve heard a few suggestions, which aren’t accurate information. You couldn’t just make a covered walkway going from the garage to this structure and build your house. I think the Zoning Administrator has interpreted, and it may well be not an interpretation. It may be Code. You have to share a wall of a living space. So even if you were to add on to this, expand this, and then attach it to the detached garage, to the east side of the structure, you still would have to meet the setback requirements. You still would have to remove the kitchen out of there, because it would really, what some people call a mother-in-law apartment. That’s what it would amount to. So, technically, by Code, that’s what still would be needed, regardless if you expanded this log structure with what you desire to have. MR. MC CARROLL-What about splitting the property down the middle? MR. FRANK-You don’t have enough acreage to subdivide. It’s a one acre minimum. MR. STONE-It’s one acre zoning. MR. MC CARROLL-It was split. When we built the garage, we combined it. MR. ABBATE-It’s a WR-1, Waterfront One Acre. Minimum one acre. MR. HAYES-I can only speak for myself, but I think that somehow reducing the size of that, in a way that, if it is at all practical, and you shake your head, and I understand that. I guess what I’m telling you is I’m not sure that the people on the Board, myself included, if the size of this was closer to the 500 foot accessory structure, that there was some relief needed there, we do balance the interests, you’re basically asking for like 150% relief. MR. STONE-Yes. I think what we’re looking for is some action on your part responding to our concerns. That’s what we’re really, and I can’t tell you whether or not 1,000, 900, 1100, I don’t know, but certainly we’re all saying it’s too much. It’s too much opportunity for misuse, again, not by you. I’m not suggesting that you would even consider that, but I would propose that we table it for up to 62 days, and you can then talk with Staff, and certainly you can, I mean, I would be willing to talk with you, too, as the Chairman, with Staff, but we can all talk about what you might possibly do. MR. MC CARROLL-I hope you see where I’m coming from. MR. STONE-We see where you’re coming from. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. MC CARROLL-Inside that garage is a ’66 Chrysler, okay. It’s my father’s old car. I’m restoring it, and I’m thinking what you’re telling me to do to that log cabin is why don’t you just take two fingers off and the (lost words) off and then get the square footage down. That’s how I’m thinking you’re telling me. MR. STONE-Okay. We hear that, but I would consider, I would ask you to let us table it. MR. MC CARROLL-Okay, and then I can talk to you? MR. STONE-And then talk to Staff and I certainly would be willing to sit in if you want me to. MR. MC CARROLL-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2004 AUSTIN J. MC CARROLL, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: 25 Sullivan Road. For up to 62 days, so that the applicant has the opportunity to consider the comments made by the Board that express concern that the requested accessory structure is too large. The Board did, however, apparently agree that they had no problem with the four foot side setback relief for the new construction. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Sorry, sir. We’ll see you. MR. MC CARROLL-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II MARK REYNOLDS OWNER: MARK REYNOLDS ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 4 JAY ROAD EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 923 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR AUGUST 2004 PL. BOARD LOT SIZE: 0.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-9 SECTION: 179-4-30, 179-4-070, 179-13-010(A1, B & E) MARK REYNOLDS, PRESENT MR. STONE-I want to state, as I did earlier, that I found the gardener working on his lawn today. The gardener happened to be Mr. Reynolds who was stealing time from work, and we did have a small ex parte communication. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2004, Mark Reynolds, Meeting Date: July 28, 2004 “Project Location: 4 Jay Road East Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 923 sq. ft. open deck. Relief Required: Applicant requests 17 feet of relief from the 25-foot minimum side setback requirement and 22 feet of relief from the 60-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement (60 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) feet being the average setback of the dwellings on the two adjoining parcels according to the site plan submitted by the applicant, even though the applicant listed 58 feet as the required shoreline setback on the data sheet), per §179-4-070 and §179-4-030 for the WR-1A Zone. However, based on measurements taken in the field on July 19, 2004, the closest portion of the proposed deck will be approximately 27.5 feet from the shoreline, which would require 32.5 feet of relief from the 60-foot minimum shoreline setback requirement if in fact the setbacks for the dwellings on the two adjoining parcels are 30 and 90 feet (see attached marked-up plan). Additionally, the applicant requires relief from the continuation section of the code, per §179- 13-010(A1, B and E). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments: Being the average setback of the two adjacent dwellings is greater than 50 feet, the average setback of 60 feet is the requirement, if in fact the setbacks for the dwellings on the two adjoining parcels are 30 and 90 feet. The relief requested is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant, not a legal survey. There appears to be conflicting and false information on the site plan submitted. The north arrow appears to be oriented incorrectly (points to the west), and the setback to the north property line (east on the applicant’s plan) for the dwelling is 8 feet on the “site layout” plan and 7 feet on the “deck layout” plan, even though both scale correctly (the applicant has 8 feet listed on the data sheet). Additionally, the site plan has dimensions of 165’ x 200’ for the parcel, which conflict with the tax map dimensions of 165.27’ x 208’ x 144.41’ x 202’. Staff cannot accurately determine the amount of side setback relief needed without a legal survey. However, the shoreline setback for the existing dwelling can be approximately determined without a legal survey. On July 19, 2004, field measurements were taken from the three corners of the existing dwelling to the shoreline (see marked-up plan attached). The measurements taken indicate the dwelling is not parallel to the shoreline as depicted in the submitted site plan. The shoreline setback relief required appears to be approximately 32.5 feet based on a scaled shoreline setback of 27.5 feet, if the average setback of the dwellings on the adjoining parcels is 60 feet.” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Okay. Go ahead, sir. MR. REYNOLDS-Hi. My name is Mark Reynolds. The first comment that I want to make is that I’m not an engineer or an architect, okay. I took these measurements myself, in the field, by myself, submitted them to a draftsman who didn’t use a site survey, not realizing how detailed you needed to be to build a deck in the Town of Queensbury. When I read the comments from the building inspector, I was a little taken aback that the words conflicting and erroneous or words that kind of made me feel as though I was trying to pull something over the eyes of someone here at the Town Board. To date, I’ve spent a little over $300 to build what I thought was a fairly simple deck. Never going through this process, I’ve certainly learned a lot. It’s been humbling, to say the least. When I realized that we needed 14 sets of this drawing, I couldn’t believe it. I thought, man oh man, I’m building a deck. I’m glad I’m not building a dog house, I’d probably have to have an architect, but we’ve lived on Glen Lake since 1998, and we’ve kind of surveyed the lake by boat, and a lot of our neighbors, and I understand that these Zoning Ordinances were established some time after the homes were built on Glen Lake. We kind of took an average around the lake. Most people enjoy a deck, a view out to the water, and the average that we’ve kind of estimated, going by, is 20 foot or less. Before we undertook this project, we went to our neighbors and talked to them a little bit to make sure that, you know, they were on board with it and that, you know, we didn’t interfere with anybody in any way, and when I drew this little map and gave it to the draftsperson. He kind of drew the trees on one side, and we kind of wanted to show the neighbors on the right, if you were facing the property from the lake, and on the left, and the neighbor to the right is so far set back from our property that our house obstructs his view of the lake, if he were to look, I guess that would be 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) in a westerly direction. He has a deck similar to what we’re looking to build off the corner of his property. Not knowing Zoning Regulations or relief. I thought I was putting down the proper information. I met with Bruce, and maybe, being that I wasn’t savvy in this, I didn’t understand completely everything that Bruce was telling me. Not questioning, for one instance, that Bruce was telling me something different than what I’m saying now. We’re just not savvy folks when it comes to this type of stuff, but we feel that a certain relief should be required on the side setback. At some point, somebody allowed this home to be built, approximately seven or eight feet from the neighbor to, I guess that would be the neighbor to the east, okay. MR. STONE-Let’s call it east. MR. REYNOLDS-East, okay. I took into consideration the size of the deck and the potential runoff to the lake and I made sure that the sea wall, and a retaining wall was put on the plans. If you can take a look there, you can see that. There’s a fair amount of distance. The soil is very sandy. Any runoff would certainly leach through the soil, and if not be stopped at the first retaining wall, if not the second retaining wall. On one side of the walkway, down to the dock, it’s a grassy area, and the other side is part grass and part a concrete walkway. We looked at, you know, different options to build the deck on the side of the property, which would be to the west, and the little 15 foot piece of the property, but because of the drywell and one of the things we didn’t draw in is there’s a wall that’s made out of stone that seems to be a eroding a little bit. We were afraid to put it on that side because of that erosion. Looking at the size of the deck, we wanted atrium doors to face the lake. We wanted to be able to put a picnic table or an outside table, and a gas grill to cook on, and to have some sort of living space. I think that this project would conform to the building designs, and architectural designs of other properties on Glen Lake. I don’t think that the setback from the lake harms our neighbors in any fashion, on either the west or east side of our property, and I request relief from the shore setback and also the side setback. MR. STONE-Question of Staff. Bruce, just because I’m looking at this drawing. Are there two garages on this property? MR. FRANK-There is. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, I have to clear up a matter. I never met Mr. Reynolds until the day he turned in his application. He never had a pre-application conference with me. It must have been. MR. REYNOLDS-It must have been one of the other. MR. FRANK-And again, I realize that the Staff notes may sound to the effect where you were taken aback. I have to clarify the application for the Zoning Board. I wish I had had the opportunity to have the pre-application conference with you, because I would have pointed out this stuff well beforehand, just with the stuff that we have at our access, without even going to your site to visit it. Just for the record, you never did meet with me until the day you turned in your application. MR. STONE-I was going to comment. You used a couple of phrases, and just for the record, you said building inspector, and you may have. We work for the Zoning Department. Bruce is the Town of Queensbury Code Enforcement Officer. He reports to the Zoning Administrator, who reports to the Community Development Director. MR. REYNOLDS-That attests to me not being very savvy to who’s who. MR. STONE-Well, this is why we take every opportunity we can, when people come before us, or when they’re listening, if they have any thoughts, in the future, of doing something, we ask that they go to the Town Zoning Department and get all the help they can possibly want, and this is what we try to do. MR. REYNOLDS-Well, they were very helpful, and I’m saying that, perhaps the information that I was given, it was too much to absorb. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-One of the things, it is very difficult when you do what you said you do, go around the lake, and see what Glen Lake was, in many cases, 100 years ago, when none of the houses were more than summer camps. They were built wherever the builder wanted to put them. There were no rules, regulations. What the Town of Queensbury has tried to do in the last 16, 20 years, is to develop a Code for zoning, so that, in the future, we will be protecting our lakes, our environment, making it a level playing field for everybody. Very hard to impose after the fact. I mean, certainly, where I live and where you live, one acre zoning, we don’t really have many one acre lots. We’ve heard one just before us who’s probably one of the few one acre lots in our WR-1A zone, but that’s the goal. That’s what we’re trying to get in the future. MR. REYNOLDS-But here’s the problem. There are no lots left on Glen Lake. MR. STONE-I understand. MR. REYNOLDS-So people will tear down a cabin, and they’ll build a house, right there on that same footprint, and put a deck, five feet from the lake. MR. STONE-Not if they have to come to us. MR. REYNOLDS-Well, but they won’t have to come to you if they’re reconstructing a property in its existing footprint. MR. STONE-Yes, they will. MR. ABBATE-Yes, they will. MR. STONE-If it’s a large enough change, they will have to come to us. MR. ABBATE-I have a question. Have you submitted a legal survey to the Town? MR. REYNOLDS-No. MR. ABBATE-Then we can’t proceed with this application, can we, Bruce? Because without a legal survey, how can we determine what’s required, setbacks? MR. FRANK-Well, if the applicant agrees with my field measurements, I mean, you can go with that. MR. ABBATE-If he agrees with it. Okay. On the record, do you agree with his field measurements? MR. FRANK-If he doesn’t, he can prove me wrong. MR. REYNOLDS-That depends how you vote. MR. FRANK-A legal survey would clear up the matter. MR. REYNOLDS-I don’t think Bruce was going to be that far off in his measurements. He probably does this every day, and we’re not asking for a three inch relief here. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but for the record, though, Mr. Reynolds, do you agree with the measurements of the Code Enforcement Officer, for the record? MR. REYNOLDS-I agree. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-I do have a question, Bruce, of this drawing. What is the blue line? That is, is that really the edge of the water? You’ve superimposed that on his sea wall, or your draftsman’s sea wall. MR. FRANK-Yes, that’s an approximate, since it’s such a straight line, the sea wall, the two measurements I took were perpendicular from the corners to the sea wall, and so that’s what I was trying to show. That’s the water. That’s the edge of the sea wall. MR. STONE-But the sea wall goes on both sides of that blue line. You made the comment, in your notes, that the house is not parallel to the shoreline. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. STONE-You said it’s canted, one way or the other. I’m just trying to ascertain where it is. MR. REYNOLDS-I don’t think it’s canted by, if you look at the blue line, and you look at the retaining wall and you look at the sea wall, and you’ve got 12 foot distance there, you know, if you take half of that, then you’ve got a six foot distance. I don’t think that it changes that much, but still, you know, it just means we’re asking for less or more relief. MR. STONE-Well, that’s what we have to know, unfortunately. That’s what Mr. Abbate is trying to suggest. MR. ABBATE-That’s exactly what I was getting at. We have to be precise in terms of granting relief. MR. REYNOLDS-We’ve come a long way to get to this point, to find this out. MR. STONE-Yes, you heard us talk about three inches, and the only reason we talk about the three inches because that’s what the applicant said, when they did the survey, that’s where it came out to be, but we do need to know, when we grant relief, before the fact, exactly what we’re granting, and Mr. Abbate has a concern, and I guess I would share the concern. Anybody else have any questions, as we continue? Well, one of the concerns that I had, forgetting all the other numbers, even if the requirement was 50 feet, which would be normal if the other properties were at 50 feet, you’d still be asking for 22 and a half feet of relief, on 50 feet, which is approximately 45% relief. I find that a large number. I don’t know where the rest of the Board is, but I find it a large number, and in the (lost words) it’s even more then we’re dealing even a higher percentage, but, anybody else have any questions or comments? MR. ABBATE-Yes. Well, but I do agree with you 45%, and if you take a look at the 17 and 25 foot, that’s a 60% increase or approximately. So we’re talking 45 and 60% relief, if my figures are correct. So I share the same concerns that you do on that. MR. REYNOLDS-Gentlemen, if we looked at the houses on either side of the property, let’s not look at this house here, that’s 90 foot back because someone had decided, because of the grade of the property, to put it 90 foot back, if we were going with the second neighbor to the west, it’d be substantially different, or the second neighbor to the east, and then the second neighbor to the west, and then if we went to the point, we would find that they’re about four feet from the shoreline, on both sides of their property. MR. STONE-I mean, I understand you’re getting a little emotional. MR. REYNOLDS-I just started getting emotional. MR. STONE-This, as I said earlier, for a previous applicant, is our bible. This is what the Town of Queensbury wants it to be. This is how we define shore setback. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. REYNOLDS-Does that bible ever change? Do you ever change that bible? MR. STONE-Yes, this was changed a few years ago. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay. So it can change now, correct? There could be some statutes in there that are incorrect. MR. STONE-And we can change them. We can’t change the statutes, we can grant relief. MR. REYNOLDS-Right. MR. STONE-But, having said that, we have our own standards, in terms of how much relief individual Board members are willing to grant. MR. ABBATE-Yes. Let me make positive, so that, for his benefit, so he knows where I’m coming from. Let me make a positive statement. Without a legal survey, I’m not going to support the application. MR. REYNOLDS-Let me ask you this, sir. Would you support the application if there were a legal survey, and these numbers were correct? MR. ABBATE-Show me the legal survey first, and then I’ll grant you my answer. MR. STONE-Okay. We’re not going to get into that kind of debate. What I’m going to do right now, if there are no more statements or comments, I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-We do have a couple of pieces of correspondence. MR. STONE-Okay. Would you read them, please. MR. MC NULTY-They both are handwritten notes on the back of the public hearing notice that was mailed out. First one’s from Marilyn and Don Higley at 23 Jay Road. They say, “This deck relief is a necessity for the convenience and usage of the proposed deck. They live on the lake and this is the only side they can use to view it. It would be a hardship if they are not allowed to do this project. Marilyn and Don Higley 23 Jay Rd. L.G.” And the other one is from a Susan Rourke at 19 Jay Road, two doors away, she says, and she says “We have no objections to the Reynolds plans. We think it will enhance their property. Everyone living on the lake should have a deck to sit on and enjoy it! Thank you, Susan Rourke 19 Jay Rd. (2 doors away!)” That’s it. MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you wish to comment on what you’ve heard on those two letters? I mean, they’re both in your favor. I don’t expect you’d say much. Jaime, let’s start with you. Let’s just talk about it. MR. HAYES-Well, I certainly can understand the applicant’s desire to put a deck in. There are a lot of decks on Glen Lake. That’s an accurate statement. There’s no doubt in my mind about that, but in this particular case, based on the cumulative amount of relief that’s being requested by what you’re proposing, I think that it’s over the line, to some extent. I mean, would I approve some deck there, myself? I would be inclined to look at that. In this particular case, 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) though, the deck is over 900 square feet, and you’re encroaching kind of in all directions, and I just think that, on balance, it’s not going to float. I understand your argument about the averaging of the setbacks, because sometimes that’s a painful part of the Ordinance, in its application at times. You’re not the first person that’s found that to be a little bit troubling, but at this time, that is the Ordinance, and we’ve got to take it for what it’s worth. It was decided by elected officials, and that’s for them to decide. So, on balance, I’ll be against this application because I think it’s just too much relief, in too many different directions, and I think you’ve got to come up with an alternative that’s just less so, and then I think the balancing test that we can apply on an individual basis, case by case basis, there may be something out there that works for everyone, but again, I’m only speaking for myself. So, as this application stands, I would not be in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, Jaime’s basically summarized what I would say. It’s another one of these situations where I can understand where the applicant’s coming from, and I’d sure like to give him permission to do what he’s proposing, because it does seem like the only logical place on that house to put a deck or at least one that’s going to give him the greatest benefit, but, on the other hand, even if the setback requirement were the standard 50 feet, he’d still be needing almost half of that for at least one corner of the proposed deck. So I think I’d come down the same place. It’s too much the way it’s proposed. I’d like to see a modified proposal, because I would like to give him something, but I think it makes sense to put a deck on that end of the house, but not this much. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Jaime and Chuck both summed it up. You’re asking for two reliefs. One is up to 45% relief and the other is approximately 60% relief, and I think that’s a bit much. However, if I were in your situation, I would probably ask for the same thing, but unfortunately, I have an obligation, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that I would agree with Jaime and Chuck, in that the relief requested is a bit too much, and I could not support the application. MR. STONE-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. It’s a considerable amount of relief, and I feel for Mr. Reynolds. I wish it weren’t so, but I could not support this amount of relief. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Could I permitted to ask Mr. Reynolds a question I should have asked? MR. STONE-Certainly. MR. URRICO-Can you reduce the size of the deck? Have you considered that? MR. REYNOLDS-Sure. MR. URRICO-Have you considered that. Was it something that you thought about? How did you get this size, I guess? MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, you know, my frustration is time, is the, you know, the effort that I’ve gone through to put this together, to get it designed, you know, the 14 copies of this and got to be in by this date, and, you know, it was a pretty frustrating experience. I can reduce the size of the deck, if I need to. I need to know from you folks what you would accept. Now one of the side setbacks of the side property, you know, that’s where the house was built, back in 1973. So, if I were to have a deck on the front of the house, I would certainly need a relief from the side 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) setback. If I needed to make the deck, you know, closer to the house, versus closer to the water, as it is now, I could certainly do that. It wouldn’t give us much living space in the front. It would be enough to open the doors. We were thinking of having a hot tub or something in that corner of the deck. We kind of picked an arbitrary number, you know, what sounded good, and, you know, with some guidance from the variance board, we could certainly scale things back and, you know, try to get an approval this evening so that we don’t waste any more of the construction season trying to get this project done. MR. STONE-So where do you? MR. URRICO-Well, I think I’m going to go back to the balancing test, and say that the benefit to the applicant could be achieved by another feasible alternative, and he seems willing to talk about that feasible alternative. So I think that’s on the table. I don’t see this as creating an undesirable change in the neighborhood, because, as he’s pointed out, and from other applications that we’ve reviewed, this is not an uncommon practice on the lake. So I don’t think he’s changing the look of Glen Lake. I don’t think that the Zoning Code is going to be really hindered in any way if we grant this. I don’t see a change to the neighborhood. Is the relief substantial? Yes, on the numbers it is substantial. I’m not bothered by the side setback. This is a pre-existing house. The deck is meeting that side setback. We’ve granted relief on an earlier application with the same, almost the same kind of relief, not the same kind of relief, but the same kind of criteria that it is an existing structure. I am bothered by the shoreline setback, and I would like to see that come back. I’m not sure what the magic number is there, but I’d like to see it come back a little bit. MR. REYNOLDS-The deck to the water, I believe, currently, right now, is, I think it was 10 feet, 12 feet. MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a question of procedure here. We’re commencing the vote. MR. STONE-No, we haven’t. We’ve commenced talking, with our statement. We’re not voting. MR. URRICO-We’re still polling. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Still polling, yes. MR. REYNOLDS-Currently, right now, we’ve got it 12 feet from the house. If we were to scale that back to perhaps a 10 feet, would that be something that the Board would entertain? MR. URRICO-Let me finish my comments, and we can talk about. MR. STONE-Sure. MR. URRICO-We’ll talk about that in a minute. MR. REYNOLDS-Sure. MR. URRICO-And then as far as, I don’t see any physical or environmental effects, and the difficulty is self-created because he wants to put up a deck. I would say that, at this point, I would probably be against it, but only slightly. I think I could be swayed. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-And so I’m open to hear what we could come up with as a compromise. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Well, I basically agree with my fellow Board members. The problem, in trying to accede to your request for where would we be happy is we don’t know where we are. Going back to Mr. Abbate’s comments about a survey, I don’t know where your deck, your proposed deck is, in relationship to the lake. I’ve got your stylized drawing here. I’ve got some field measurements, which you said you’re willing to accept, but we don’t have the angle correct. I have trouble understanding exactly what it is this is going to look like, where it’s going to be, and while I would like, as most of the Board members said, to provide some relief, if you will, from the Code, I need to know what it is and where you are, and what I would suggest, having said that, listening to the Board, who were saying it’s too much at this point in time, I agree, but I think we need to really know how much too much is, where it is, and then I think we can more realistically and logically decide what relief to grant. Now, the way to do that is the easiest way for us, not for you, but the easiest way, I think is to table it, suggest a tabling, to get, I’m not necessarily saying it has to be a survey, but it’s got to be some actual measurements reflecting where the shoreline is, where your house is, and what you want to do. I, too, like most of the people, have no real problem with the side setback. That’s there. MR. REYNOLDS-The measurements that go from the sea wall, that’s a concrete wall. That’s a pretty easy measurement to get. The shoreline is difficult, but that concrete wall is not difficult. MR. STONE-Well, but I need to know where the concrete wall is in relationship to lake. We are charged with a setback from the lake front, not from a sea wall, but from the lake front, and we need to know where that is. MR. REYNOLDS-Well, the edge of the sea wall, the sea wall is only four inches. The edge of the sea wall to the property, he has measurements. MR. STONE-Okay, but we’re dealing with measurements that. MR. REYNOLDS-Did you take your measurements, Bruce, to the sea wall, in those two instances right here, where you’ve got 44 and 51, the two corners of the property? MR. FRANK-Those three measurements I took were horizontal distances, and I tied off, or anchored the end of the tape at the corners of the house. I walked to the sea wall, to make sure I was perpendicular, and I eyed it. So I’m within a few inches, if anything, again. So, I mean, I’ve got a background in survey. I think I did it accurately. MR. STONE-I’m not suggesting it’s not. MR. FRANK-Again, but I did measure a horizontal distance, not a slope distance, because the property does slope a little bit down to the water. So I believe I’m pretty accurate. MR. REYNOLDS-That would only mean a few inches. MR. ABBATE-Well, let me ask Staff a question. You said, quote, Staff cannot accurately determine the amount of side setback relief needed without a legal survey. Do you stand by that statement? MR. FRANK-Well, I don’t know where the side property line runs. MR. ABBATE-Yes, but do you stand by that statement? MR. FRANK-I have to. MR. ABBATE-Well, then thank you. Then it goes back to what I said initially, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-I’m not disagreeing. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. REYNOLDS-But the relief that we’re asking for is no more than where the property footprint is right now from the side setback. So it doesn’t matter if it’s six foot, five foot, three foot. It is what it is, and we’re not bringing the deck beyond the edge of the property. MR. STONE-Well, you’re not bringing it to the side setback, and that’s, that number, we can say it would be absolutely a running extension of the side of the house. That doesn’t bother me. I don’t think it bothers most of the Board, but we do have to know where the house is, visa vie the lake, and where this deck is going to be, visa vie the house and the lake. MR. REYNOLDS-Right. MR. STONE-And I don’t know what that is, and I don’t think I can make a compromise. MR. REYNOLDS-But Bruce’s measurements are going to be within inches. We’re not talking feet. We’re talking inches here. There’s a concrete wall that he measured to. MR. STONE-All right. Well, grant you the inches, but most of us have said what you want is too much. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay. MR. STONE-And I can’t tell you. MR. REYNOLDS-You told me, if we can determine that where Bruce measured, okay, is within inches, and if the variance board can accept those measurements within inches, okay, we’re not talking about a major difference there, then we’ve got the basis to start talking about how far out from the deck, or from the house we can actually build this deck. MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Bruce. What’s the purpose of a legal survey? MR. FRANK-To accurately determine the measurements for the relief that you’re looking for to grant, obviously. MR. ABBATE-Why is that important? MR. FRANK-Why is it important? I think it’s pretty obvious. MR. ABBATE-I want to know why that’s important. MR. FRANK-I’m not really sure what answer you’re looking for, other than you need to know exactly what relief you’re granting and to accurately determine it, a legal survey’s the only accurate way. MR. REYNOLDS-You’re not granting any more relief than where the building sits now. MR. ABBATE-I am not going to support this application without a legal survey. MR. STONE-No, we put numbers on our relief. We would say, there are instances where we would say we’re granting 10 feet 6 inches of relief. That’s what we do. I mean, you might think it’s nitpicking, but that’s what we do. MR. REYNOLDS-I didn’t say that. You did. MR. STONE-I can see Mr. Lapper in the back here who comes before us knowing very well that we have done that on many occasions with him. It is something that we do. We have to know, and I’m suggesting that I need to know what you’re willing to accept. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. REYNOLDS-If I take this $300 and if I turned it into $1500, and I brought a representative here who was savvy to this process, perhaps it would go through, but my deck would cost that much more. MR. STONE-Sir, all we’re saying is that, regardless of the actual numbers right now, the numbers that have been flying around the room are too big, as far as the Board is concerned, and if anybody disagrees with me, speak up. MR. REYNOLDS-Which I understand, and I’m saying, while we’re here, and if we can establish the basis of where that wall is, and that the measurements from the lake, because the house setback is, it is what it is, whether it’s five feet, three feet. If we need to submit a legal survey, so that you have those exact numbers, so when you record your yes vote on this variance, we can do that, but what you’re asking me to do is go another month. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. REYNOLDS-Do you think that’s fair? I mean, I can sit here and I will talk all night long, because I think that that’s right. MR. STONE-The question is, how wide is your deck right now? I don’t even know wide the deck is. MR. REYNOLDS-You have plans, sir. MR. ABBATE-The question is your application is incomplete, administratively incomplete. MR. REYNOLDS-Excuse me. I submitted 14 copies and was approved to come to this variance meeting. MR. ABBATE-Let me put it this way, I’m not going to support the application. MR. REYNOLDS-Fourteen copies. MR. STONE-Sir, we’re getting out of hand. I know it’s an emotional issue. MR. REYNOLDS-It’s not an emotional issue. MR. STONE-Yes, it is. You certainly sound like it is. MR. REYNOLDS-I’m not emotional yet. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. Right now you have a proposed deck of 12 feet wide. MR. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. STONE-Can you live with three? MR. REYNOLDS-No. MR. STONE-Can you live with four? MR. REYNOLDS-No. MR. STONE-Okay. What can you live with? MR. REYNOLDS-I was thinking somewhere between eight and ten. MR. STONE-Well, I would suggest. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. REYNOLDS-That’s a 40% reduction. MR. STONE-Yes, but it’s still a 30% variance, but if you’re willing to say that, if you look at this plan, that I have before me, Drawing C-1, by Computer Drafting Services, showing a proposed deck which is 12 feet wide from the house. I assume that’s what I’m looking at. MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, towards the lake. MR. STONE-From the closest part of the house to the lake. MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-So that’s 12 feet, and you’re saying you’d like to make that 10 feet. I mean, I can poll the Board if they would like 10 feet. MR. REYNOLDS-Okay. MR. STONE-I’m not going to do it for every measurement, but if that’s the number you would like to have. MR. REYNOLDS-We’ll do two attempts. How’s that? MR. STONE-That’s enough bargaining. We’ll do one. MR. HAYES-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to go on the record, on this matter. Ultimately, I’m in favor of Mr. Reynolds getting a deck. MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you. MR. HAYES-I understand his frustration with the application process. I mean, we’ve all been through it a number of times, but right now I feel like we’re being muscled into this polling process. MR. ABBATE-I agree 100%. MR. STONE-You’re right. I agree. MR. ABBATE-Because if we don’t require a survey from him, we shouldn’t require a survey from anybody else. MR. HAYES-And even the survey issue is a separate issue. MR. REYNOLDS-Mr. O’Connor submitted a survey from Van Dusen & Steves, I believe it was, and he wasn’t requested to do so, but he did that. MR. STONE-That’s correct. MR. REYNOLDS-To verify the numbers, because there were some discrepancies. MR. STONE-Okay. What I’m going to do, I’m going to exercise my prerogative as Chairman and I’m listening to at least two members who I’ve heard and watched and I’m going to make a motion to table this, so that you can listen to what we’ve said, read the transcript, and come back with a proposal that in your judgment you think we’ll accept. MR. REYNOLDS-And then if you deny it, then I have to come back for another couple of feet, and another couple of feet, and here we are four months later. Why don’t we get it done now. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-Because the Board doesn’t like to be put in this situation. MR. REYNOLDS-Nor does the taxpayer, sir, I can assure you of that. Okay. MR. STONE-Well, that’s good. I can appreciate that. MR. REYNOLDS-I don’t like to be inconvenienced any more than you folks do, and nobody’s trying to bully anybody here. MR. STONE-But you’re the person who is asking for something, some relief from our Town Code. We sit here. We try to do our job. We are not going to be bullied. I think you’ve heard that from a couple of the people. MR. REYNOLDS-Nobody’s trying to bully anybody. You opened the discussion about what will you accept. MR. STONE-I did, and I was, yes, because you’re saying. MR. REYNOLDS-What will you accept. MR. STONE-And you can tell me what you would accept. If you want to say you’ll accept it. MR. REYNOLDS-But that’s what you’re asking me to do, by coming back and submitting another proposal, and another proposal and another one. Then you’ll finally accept. MR. URRICO-Sir, we could put it to a vote, and then you would be denied. MR. STONE-We would deny it. MR. REYNOLDS-If that’s what you want to do, that’s fine. MR. ABBATE-Let’s settle this by putting it to a vote. MR. REYNOLDS-If you want to exercise, you do that. MR. STONE-We will do that. MR. REYNOLDS-Fine, you can show me that you guys are in charge and the taxpayers aren’t. That’s what you want to do. MR. STONE-Sir, we are volunteers. We are residents of the Town of Queensbury, and I can assure you, sir, that I can get as emotional, if not more than you. I have given many years to this Board, to the Town, and I really enjoy it, but I don’t enjoy being bullied, and I enjoy doing my job in give and take, and I haven’t heard give and take. I need a motion to deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2004 MARK REYNOLDS, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 4 Jay Road East. The applicant proposes construction of a 923 square foot open deck. On examining the criteria for an Area Variance, I find that the applicant can achieve the desire to have a deck through a feasible alternative, a less intrusive deck, a deck that seeks less relief. Will an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or properties be created by this action? I believe that allowing decks to exceed the side and shoreline setbacks by amounts equating to these amounts could, in fact, have an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Is the relief requested substantial? I think that that is self-evident, in the sense that there’s two major pieces of relief being requested by the applicant. Will the request have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental areas? I believe that it won’t. I believe there are other decks on Glen Lake, and I think that that is not a problem in this particular circumstance, and is the 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) difficulty self-created, I believe that it is. I believe the applicant desires a deck, desires a large deck in this particular case, and that that relief was reflected in his application. Examining those criteria, I believe that the test clearly falls in against the applicant at this level of relief, and I move for its denial. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th MR. REYNOLDS-And you guys were telling me I was getting. MR. STONE-Sir. MR. REYNOLDS-I don’t have to stop talking, sir. MR. STONE-Yes, you do. MR. REYNOLDS-I’m a taxpayer in this Town, okay. I do not have to stop talking. MR. STONE-We will deny right over you. MR. REYNOLDS-Then do it. Do what you want to do. All of a sudden, you were ready to negotiate. Then you said you’re not going to negotiate. MR. STONE-Because my Board doesn’t want to. MR. REYNOLDS-Bull, you don’t want to. Okay. So you’ve got my money. We’ve spent the money. You were ready to negotiate, but you want me to come back for another month. MR. STONE-Would you continue the motion, please. MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you. I appreciate it, gentlemen. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Thank you, gentlemen. I apologize for putting you in that situation. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II CWI BUS GARAGE AGENT: JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER: COMMUNITY WORK & INDEP. ZONING: MU LOCATION: 489 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY PARKING ACCESS DRIVES. IN ADDITION, PARKING SPACES ARE PROPOSED ON THE ADJOINING NMPC PARCEL UNDER A LICENSING AGREEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY AND DRIVE AISLES WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: 2003-985 C/O, 90-381 COM’ BLDG., 95-582 C/O WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 7/14/04 LOT SIZE: 1.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 304.13-1-3 SECTION: 179-4- 30, 179-4-040(B) JON LAPPER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Would you please explain “nmpc”? MR. LAPPER-Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. MR. STONE-Thank you. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2004, CWI Bus Garage, Meeting Date: July 28, 2004 “Project Location: 489 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to pave the existing site to better manage storm water runoff. Additionally, the applicant proposes to improve site access and internal traffic flow. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8% of relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement, per §179-4-030 for the MU zone. Additionally, the applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 24-foot minimum drive-aisle width, per §179-4-040(B) of the Parking and Loading regulations. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 90-381: 06/18/90, construction of a commercial building. BP 2003-985: 01/28/03, 8’ x 20’ office trailer. BP 95-582: 10/11/95, Certificate of Occupancy for CWI Workshop. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to pave the site and upgrade the storm water management infrastructure. Even though the applicant is requesting 8% of relief from the 30% minimum permeability requirement, the existing site permeability is 23% (net change of 1%). Additionally, the applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 24-foot minimum drive-aisle width requirement, which will allow for the preservation of three large trees, and will result in less paving and need for additional permeability relief. The applicant claims the 20-foot wide drive aisles will be sufficient due to the proposed one-way traffic and angled parking.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form July 14, 2004 Project Name: CWI Bus Garage Owner: Community Work & Indep. ID Number: QBY- AV-04-59 County Project#: Jul04-AV-59 Current Zoning: MU Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to modify parking areas and access drives. In addition, parking spaces are proposed on the adjoining NMPC parcel under a licensing agreement. Relief requested from permeability and drive aisles width requirements. Site Location: 489 Dix Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 304.13-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes altering an existing area and an adjacent nimo parcel for additional parking for CWI. Relief is requested for permeability – where the applicant proposes 22% and 30% is required. The existing site is currently 23% permeable. Relief is also requested for the drive aisle width – where the applicant proposes 20’ and 24’ is required. The information submitted on with the variance requested will assist in improving the stormwater management on site. The application is also being reviewed for site plan. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 07/19/04. MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper, just before you start, I assume all of you are here for this application. We seldom have this many people in the room as we get to the last application. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Three of them are representatives of CWI, including the President, who are here to answer any questions. MR. STONE-I figured that. MR. ABBATE-I have a quick question. Have you submitted a legal survey? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we have. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Go ahead, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with project engineer Tom Jarrett. I was going to ask Chuck to read in Tom’s letter that accompanied the application, which is three pages long, but I think between the Staff comments and our application, it really covers it. There’s just one discrepancy that I want to point out. MR. STONE-Mr. Jarrett had a discrepancy? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I know it’s rare. It is rare. The permeability that we’re here to talk about is 22%, and what Chuck read was 21% . The 21% would be if we maintained the 24 foot aisles widths. So we changed that to ask for the variance, and that’s why it’s only one percent change. MR. STONE-Okay, and the reason that it’s so low is because it was crushed gravel? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. STONE-And is packed down, for Queensbury? MR. LAPPER-Right. Exactly. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I guess to start off with a little bit of history here, I presume that the Board is familiar with the purposes of CWI, that it’s been a charitable corporation, not for profit corporation, in the community for a long time. Their mission is involved, but it includes using bus transportation to pick up the people that they serviced from their homes and bring them to their various facilities where they have job training and actual employment. People with disabilities, and this is the bus garage that they use for all of their transportation needs. They pick people up, you know, a wide range, a wide area of Warren/Washington and Saratoga Counties. The site started out as a commercial heavy equipment sales and repair facility, and it was purchased by CWI in 1995. At that point, and actually prior to the closing, they obtained some variances and site plan approval from the Town to make improvements to the property, but they’d never actually completed much of that work. They didn’t, at that point, have the resources to devote to the project, and now they’re ready to make an investment in the property, but at the same time, there’ve been some serious site issues, mostly having to do with a real bad stormwater situation where the property floods and turns to ice at various times of the year. So when they retained Tom to come in and look at the site, on an overall basis, to talk about relieving the stormwater problems, we realized that that involved getting a licensing agreement from NiMo to use the land next door and to do a comprehensive project, and at the same time we’re mindful that there is one residence in close proximity in back, and part of what we’ve done, in terms of design decisions, and that’s also why we’re talking about the 24 foot aisles width reduced to 20 feet, is to retain the trees and actually supplement them in the rear of the site, where it abuts the residence that’s nearest to the property, but in general, this is a stormwater and landscaping project that is really going to clean up a site that is in need of cleaning up. The way the site functions, in addition to servicing the buses that they use, the bus drivers come to the site, leave their cars here during the day, drive the buses, and come back at night, drop off the buses, and pick up their cars. CWI owns and operates a number of vehicles, and the site certainly sees a lot of activity during the day. Right now there’s virtually no landscaping. It’s just crushed stone, as the Chairman said. So part of the goal here, in presenting this to you and then to the Planning Board for site plan, is to come up with something that’s going to be much more aesthetically attractive than what’s there now, keeping in mind, of course, that it is a bus garage. At this point, I guess, just to orient you, it’s a pretty straightforward site plan, but I’d like to ask Tom to just walk you through it and just show you the changes that we’re talking about. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. JARRETT-There’s a number of improvements that are proposed for the site. First and foremost is the closure of the curb cut on Dix Avenue. We feel this is a major benefit to not only the community, to traffic on Dix Avenue, but also to site traffic flow. We then redesigned the internal flow of traffic to enter off Quarry Crossing Road, nearest Dix Avenue, and that would be an enter only curb cut. Circulate counterclockwise through the parking area and exit, again, on Quarry Crossing. All the entrances and exits would be on Quarry Crossing, which we feel is a safer mechanism and would improve internal traffic flow. We’ve improved the stormwater management, as Jon has said. We’re proposing a number of additional drywells that would be supported by subsurface plastic chambers, Storm Techs, by trade name, and this will largely infiltrate the stormwater that is entering the site. We will maintain the existing overflow to a storm drainage system on Quarry Crossing Road that flows now southward into the canal. Whereas right now it’s a primary stormwater outlet, it’ll become more or less an emergency outlet. The traffic flow on the southern portion of the site near the exit, we’re proposing it to support that with angled parking and a narrower aisles width so we can maintain three large trees there, and we’re actually improving the buffer in that area, as Jon alluded to. The landscaping plan on the entire site is improved, is planned to improve the aesthetics of the entire site, but we especially want to maintain that buffer separating the nearest neighbor. All the landscaping proposed and all the trees that we’re trying to maintain are on CWI property. The proposal minimizes the amount of impervious area that is required for this function. We’re actually reducing the overall impervious area required for this site. There was a significant amount of gravel on the NiMo right of way that we’re reducing as part of this application. It doesn’t show up in the net figures of 23% to 22%, but overall, if you count the NiMo property, we’re increasing the amount of permeability in the neighborhood. The paving should reduce the dust in the area, especially on dry days, which we don’t seem to have many of this year, and lastly we’re proposing an oil/water separator on the stormwater infiltration system nearest the above ground tank, as an additional safeguard, for environmental protection. MR. LAPPER-Just to talk about the aisle width variance that we’re asking for. The twenty-four foot aisle width is something that makes a lot of sense, at a retail commercial parking lot, Hanneford, the Mall, where people are backing out, but more importantly where you have customers, the general public, coming to the site. This is not a site that services the general public. The employees of CWI will be familiar with the facility and how it works, but at the same time, the most important thing is when you have one way traffic and it’s striped with arrows, the 24 foot aisles width is designed for two way traffic when necessary. So we would maintain that the 20 feet that we’re proposing will have no impact whatsoever because it’s mitigated by the angled parking and the one way design, and at the same design, in order to make the site work, the most important issue is to get the entrance off of Dix Ave., just because that’s a high speed, busy road, and the Town Code, the design guidelines, call for using side roads when possible. What this does is it allows the trees that are, some nice trees that, even though they’re on the CWI property, I’m sure they’re something that the neighbors appreciate because the neighbor’s house is just a few feet, as you can see from the survey, just a few feet from the property line. So, keeping those trees on the CWI property and augmenting them with the trees that are proposed, which include spruce trees, maple trees, blue spruce, Alberta Spruce, that’s certainly where the most significant plantings are proposed, and by allowing CWI to reduce the aisle width, it allows that area to stay green, and I think Tom really covered it, in terms of the permeability. We’re at 23% now. The site can stay that way until the end of time, but what we’re proposing, if you look at the whole thing together, and how it would be viewed in the neighborhood, by taking out the gravel that’s there, cleaning this up, what we’ve specified on the site plan is grading and planting grass, in addition to all of the shrubs and trees. It’s really going to be maintained as a nice looking site. Right now it’s just admittedly kind of a mess with just the gravel and the lack of vegetation. So we think that this is positive for the neighborhood and positive for the neighbors. Thank you. MR. STONE-Any questions? MR. URRICO-I have two questions. Does CWI use full sized buses like a school bus? MR. LAPPER-It’s a combination. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. URRICO-A combination. MR. LAPPER-Some are full-sized and some are smaller. MR. JARRETT-Parking for six full-sized buses, if you’ll note on the southern portion of the site. MR. URRICO-Okay, and the other question I have, you mentioned the NiMo, the permeability regarding the NiMo parcel. That’s not counted here because it’s not CWI property. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. URRICO-But it’s improving the overall combination of CWI plus the NiMo contribution, licensing agreement. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Because the NiMo property has been used in conjunction with this site for many years, and improved with the gravel. MR. STONE-Okay. Were you gentlemen here at the beginning of the evening? MR. LAPPER-No, I wasn’t. MR. JARRETT-I was. MR. STONE-What happens when the swimming pool breaks? This is NiMo property we’re going to. I think, well, I can only speak for myself. I went there yesterday, and I know why you want to do what you do. I mean, I knew where the holes were, because the water was up to here, but I didn’t know where, how deep they were. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Usually that doesn’t happen in July. MR. JARRETT-It’s pronounced this year, that’s for sure. MR. ABBATE-Well, I think we got five inches of rain. MR. STONE-All right. Well, let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONALD BEEBE MR. BEEBE-I’m Donald Beebe, and I live right next door to them. What I’m concerned about is, the 25 foot buffer, does that say it? MR. STONE-The buffer along the horizontal one? MR. BEEBE-Yes. MR. STONE-As I understand it, yes, and they’re nodding their heads behind you, that that will stay. That’s where the trees are that they’re trying very hard to save. That’s why they’re asking for a narrow lane, and you’re adding to them. MR. ABBATE-Is that where the arrow’s at? Is that what he’s referring to? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. BEEBE-Yes, okay. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. STONE-So they’re going to buffer you even more than you are now. MR. BEEBE-All right. Now, the 15 foot buffer along the side of the garage. MR. STONE-Right. That’s going to be there. MR. BEEBE-That’s going to stay there, too? MR. STONE-That’s going to stay there, too, yes. That whole thing, that green is basically what’s there now, and it’s actually added to, gentlemen? Yes, okay, well, we’ll get them to say that on the record, but what it appears, they’re agreeing that that is even wider than the current buffer right now. MR. BEEBE-Okay. Now, for the buses parked out in front, are they going to be moved to the back? MR. STONE-Raise the question, and we’ll get an answer when they come, I don’t know. We’ll ask the applicant. You raised the question, where are the buses going to be parked. MR. BEEBE-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. They’ll answer it when we’re done with the public hearing. MR. BEEBE-Okay. MR. HAYES-If we had the guy from CWI telling us where they’re parked, that would be helpful. MR. STONE-Yes. They can tell us that. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? TIM LETTUS MR. LETTUS-My name’s Tim Lettus. I live on 507 Dix Avenue, across the road. My concern is with buses, too, where they’re parked, and the water drainage. I flood out terrible, and I know they do, and they say they’re going to run it down Quarry Crossing. That system can’t handle what it’s doing now. MR. STONE-Well, Mr. Jarrett tried to explain that, and he can do some more when he gets back up here. MR. LETTUS-The water’s, I flood out terrible. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. HAYES-I think Mr. Jarrett said that actually the infiltration, the amount of water that’s going to be kept and disposed of on site is going to increase, that actually the amount that’s sent to the Quarry Crossing system is going to be reduced. MR. STONE-That’ll be an emergency release down that system. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. LETTUS-Okay. That’s from the runoff from the road, but there’s water that comes south from say the airport, County Line Road it comes south and it crosses Dix Avenue. MR. STONE-Okay. They’re responsible only for the water on their property. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. LETTUS-Yes. What I’m, that’s going to go in there to. MR. STONE-I understand. Well, we’ll ask Mr. Jarrett if he’s put that into his calculations. Thank you. MR. LETTUS-Okay. MR. STONE-Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-Then I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Do you gentlemen have a couple of answers for us, I hope. MR. LAPPER-As we stated in our initial presentation, we’re certainly aware of the neighbor’s issues. There’s been discussions with the neighbors, and this is an attempt to address the buffer issue and the stormwater issue, of course. MR. STONE-If you want to take the mic up and explain that, that would be helpful. MR. JARRETT-Addressing first the parking issue. I think we’re okay. We can zoom in if someone wishes it, but right now if I’m correct, Kevin, a lot of bus parking occurs right in this area? KEVIN ELMS MR. ELMS-I’m Kevin Elms. I’m Facilities Manager. What I think Don was talking about, and I hope I’m correct, Don, is the buses that have been parking along the side right there, okay. That’s going to actually be the exit. So there’ll be no parking along that line, and it’s going to be, the buses will be parked in, I believe there was buses parked across that section there and then. MR. JARRETT-This is calling for mini buses park here now. MR. STONE-This is along Dix Avenue, parallel to Dix Avenue, up close? MR. JARRETT-Correct, and it is a lower elevation Dix, and we’re planning landscaping here to shield the lights from Dix. We’re planning bus parking here. In fact, these larger spaces are for the full size buses. Again, we’re planning landscaping here that doesn’t exist right now. This is going to be auto parking only. So I think that addresses the parking concern. Now this buffer, these two buffers here are going to be maintained, in fact, we’re adding landscaping. We’re adding trees through here. These are all added trees, as well as shrubbery, and all the existing trees are staying. MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re talking about the southerly, most easterly part of the property? MR. JARRETT-I think that’s correct. MR. STONE-I just want the record to have something, when we type it up. That’s all. MR. JARRETT-If we increase this aisles width to meet Town standard, the aisle width would go to the south further and we’d have to remove these three large existing trees, and that’s one of the reasons we’re asking for this relief. Addressing the drainage issue, our system of drainage, these systems of drywells and infiltrators here are intended to address the current flooding on 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) the site. We have drainage patterns that come through this area, and drainage patterns that come through this area, and they pond on the site as you’ve probably seen during rainstorms. We’re infiltrating and then only overflowing here to Quarry Crossing, as an emergency, after these systems have surcharged. Right now everything goes this way and goes to Quarry Crossing. The problems that have been evident so far are freezing of this line during the wintertime. In fact, Kevin has had many headaches trying to keep that thawed, and secondly, this system, in Dix Avenue going down Quarry Crossing, was flooding badly this last fall. I think that’s what you’re referring to. The Town came out, Town of Queensbury came out and cleaned that out and it functions much better now. I don’t think there’s been any significant. Did it flood again Friday night? Okay. That water is from the north side of Dix Avenue. It’s not being caused by our site. We should be helping to alleviate that situation. MR. STONE-Okay. You are going to take some of the water that comes off of Dix? MR. JARRETT-There’s no question that we’ll be reducing the amount of water entering the Quarry Crossing system. Especially we’ll be delaying our water. It will be later than the other water. So it will be definitely improving that situation. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Were there any other issues we had to address? MR. STONE-Those were the two. MR. JARRETT-Okay. MR. STONE-Okay. Any further questions on the part of the Board? Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Chuck? MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, can I interject something for a second? MR. STONE-Sure. MR. FRANK-So the public knows, this application still has to go before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. So if you have other questions or concerns, you’ll have other opportunity to discuss the matter. They’re just looking for the relief they need to go on to the Site Plan review process. Just so you know, this is not the end of the review. MR. STONE-Yes. They will thoroughly look into all of the things that we’re talking about, which are not really in our purview, but we’re concerned about the permeability, not where it goes and how it’s handled, and we’re concerned about the width of the aisles, and that’s what we’re concerned about. Go ahead, Chuck. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. In general, to make it brief, it looks as though this is going to be an improvement. It obviously is going to be at least a partial solution to a problem that currently exists on the site. So there’s going to be benefit to the applicant and benefit, presumably, to some of the surrounding neighbors as well. So I think, in the balancing test, it’s going to come out definitely in favor of the applicant. I can’t really see negative sides to it. So I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. The other Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Well, I’m absolutely delighted that the neighbors came out this evening to express your concerns, and you have every right to do that, and I was happy to see that. I think that both Counsel and the other gentleman explained the project well. I think it’s going to be an improvement. I was delighted to see, on the record, that they stated that the buffer zone will be increased in some areas. MR. LAPPER-Actually, it will be augmented with trees, but it’ll be the same size. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MR. ABBATE-It’ll be at least the same size, and you addressed the issue the neighbors were concerned with quite well. The amount of relief, Mr. Chairman, is only eight percent in one area, which is not a humongous amount. It’s not an unreasonable amount, and, on balance, again, I believe that I can support this application, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. The site is currently used as a bus garage, and the only thing I can see is that the changes are going to make it even better than it is, and it will be a benefit to the neighborhood, with the water, and with the road cuts, curb cuts on Quarry rather than Dix. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think Mr. Lapper and Mr. Jarrett and CWI should be commended on putting together, I think a first rate plan on correcting a problem and solving a solution. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree. As far as the permeability, I think what’s being proposed here is taking a 1904 system and making it a 2004 system, and I think that everybody’s going to benefit from that, including the neighbors, and I think that’s a positive. Initially, the only thing I was examining was the 20 foot travel aisles there, and I think that, as Mr. Lapper has pointed out, that this is not going to have the usual cars pulling in and out and doors opening up, and the type of stuff that necessitates the 24 foot travel aisles. This site will be for dropping off their cars and picking up buses, and if that four feet allows the buffer to be retained, improved, I’ll grant it. I think that’s actually a good idea. I’m certainly in favor. MR. STONE-Well, I certainly wouldn’t disagree with my fellow Board members. The other thing that, in speaking of what Jaime just talked about, these are professional drivers who are coming in in their cars and driving buses. So we have to hope, and assume, that CWI hires capable drivers. I’m getting an affirmative. So certainly there’s no concern, and I do think that when all gets said and done, assuming the Planning Board is in agreement with what we’re saying, that the neighbors will be pleased. I recognize their concerns. Obviously, this is all an improvement, in terms of what exists now, and that’s the most important thing. So, I certainly would be in favor of it, and having said that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2004 CWI BUS GARAGE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 489 Dix Avenue. CWI Bus Garage proposes to pave the existing site to better manage stormwater runoff. Additionally, the applicant proposes to improve site access and internal traffic flow. Relief required. Applicant requests eight percent of relief from the thirty percent minimum permeability requirements per Section 179-4-030 for the MU zone. Additionally, the applicant requests four feet of relief from the twenty-four foot minimum drive aisle width per Section 179-4-040(B) of the Parking and Loading Regulations. To take into consideration why this should be approved, Mr. Chairman, we go to the balancing act, and the balancing requires, does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community? It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that the benefit to the applicant is going to improve the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community, and I was pleased that we had this evening several members of the community testify and give forth their concerns which were adequately addressed by the Counsel for CWI Bus Garage. We also take a look at whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, and/or a detriment to the nearby properties, whether that will be created. In my opinion there will be no detriment or undesirable change to the community. Also, the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) than an Area Variance. I think not. I think the application, as submitted this evening, is a practical one. Is the requested Area Variance substantial? Not in my opinion. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I think it will improve the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood and the district. Whether the difficulty is self- created? Well, that’s always a subject of contention. Perhaps we say it would be, but I don’t see any self-inflicted wounds. So I’m going to say that if it was self-created, it was worthwhile. Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. CORRECTION OF MINUTES May 12, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 12, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE May 19, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE May 26, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE June 2, 2004: NONE 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 7/28/04) MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 2, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE June 16, 2004: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2004, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE MR. STONE-The meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 47