Loading...
2008.11.19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2008 INDEX Sign Variance No. 74-2008 NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Chili’s 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Sign Variance No. 75-2008 NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Walgreens 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Sign Variance No. 76-2008 NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) Chili’s & 1. Walgreens Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC (Northway Plaza) 2. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 68-2008 Robin Inwald 3. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Use Variance No. 79-2008 Northern Broadcasting Co, Inc. [TV 8] 6. Tax Map No. 314.00-1-3 Area Variance No. 69-2008 Angio Dynamics 7. Tax Map No. 290.-1-7, 8; 297.8-1-10 Area Variance No. 70-2008 Christine Mozal 8. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27 Area Variance No. 71-2008 Donald L. Brass 22. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-27 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 19, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN GEORGE DRELLOS BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI th MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the November 19 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures once again for anybody who is perhaps new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the applicant by name and number. The Secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes and the Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will then ask questions of the applicant. Then we will open the public hearing. The public hearing is intended to help us gather information and understand the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision. It does not make the decision for the Board members, and there will be a five minute limit on all speakers. I just want to add, this evening, if you do come up to speak into the microphone regarding any of these projects, please identify yourself for the record so we get that on tape. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if, after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I suggest that because we have a five minute limit, that we not interrupt a speaker with questions while they’re speaking, rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and the public hearing will be closed or left open, depending upon the situation, and finally, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 74-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) CHILI’S RESTAURANT AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A CHILI’S RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN ORDINANCE FOR 3 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN; SIGN SIZES ARE 23.1 SQ. FT.; 30 SQ. FT., 5.3 SQ. FT., AND 38.1 SQ. FT. RESPECTIVELY. CROSS REF.: SITE PLAN REVIEW 48-08; AV 77-2008; SV 75-2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18- 1-47 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 SIGN VARIANCE NO. 75-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) WALGREENS AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A WALGREENS PHARMACY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN ORDINANCE FOR 1 ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN; SIGN SIZES FOR THE TWO SIGNS ARE 129.85 SQ. FT. CROSS REF.: SITE PLAN REVIEW 48-08; AV 77- 2008; SV 74-2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 SIGN VARIANCE NO. 76-2008 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) CHILI’S AND WALGREENS AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 44.95 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN NEAR THE SOUTHERLY ENTRANCE TO THE PLAZA ON QUAKER ROAD. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF.: SPR 48-08; AV 77-2008; SV 74-2008; SV 75-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18- 1-47 SECTION: CHAPTER 140 AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) AGENT(S): J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A WALGREENS AND CHILI’S RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF REQUSTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SPR 48-08; SV 74-2008; SV 75- 2008; SV 76-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 12, 2008 LOT SIZE: 31.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-8-070 MR. UNDERWOOD-First this evening we have some Old Business that we’re going to go through, but for anybody that’s here this evening for the bulk of our items this evening, in the latter half of the meeting we’re going to be dealing with the project at the Northway Plaza, and that was Chili’s Restaurant and Walgreens. We had three separate items there, and we did receive a letter this evening from, at the eleventh hour. It’s addressed to me, and it says, “I’m very sorry on behalf of the applicant to have to request to table the pending variance applications which are scheduled to be heard at next Tuesday’s meeting. As recently as Wednesday, the two tenants, Walgreens and Chili’s have been re-negotiating site design changes related to the exact locations of their proposed buildings on the Northway Plaza site. As a result of these changes it did not make sense to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals this past Wednesday to request variances which would likely to inapplicable due to revised building locations. Although the Applicant therefore has no choice but to table next Wednesday’s presentation, it remains urgent for this project to proceed so that this partially vacant commercial plaza can be re- developed and re-tenanted. For that reason, I respectfully request that the ZBA’s tabling nd motion permit a submission deadline for the slightly revised plans by December 2 and that the hearing be rescheduled for your second meeting in December. I do not anticipate that the revised plans will require much additional analysis by Planning Staff. On behalf of the Applicant I sincerely apologize for the last minute notice. We did not anticipate that the tenants would require last minute changes. Very truly yours, BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. Jonathan Lapper, Esq.” Is there anybody here from them? I don’t believe they were even going to come in. So I think what I’ll do is table them to the first meeting in December, and we’ll try to work out that. I’ll probably come in and, you want to set that up tomorrow or something? MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 74-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) CHILI’S RESTAURANT, SIGN VARIANCE NO. 75-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) WALGREENS, SIGN VARIANCE NO. 76-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA) CHILI’S RESTAURANT & WALGREENS, AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2008 NPA II, LLC (NORTHWAY PLAZA),, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Tabled to the first meeting in December. th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. OBORNE-Excuse me, sir, was that tabling all four applications? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. URRICO-Do we have to do it four times? MR. OBORNE-You’d probably have to do it four times, but if they were all on the same. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think that, you know, we can keep them on, since they’re all on the same wavelength and they sort of all are part of a whole thing. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBIN INWALD AGENT(S): PARADOX DESIGNS OWNER(S): ROBIN INWALD ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: HARRIS BAY, OFF GUNN LANE, CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 863 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND 400 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: SPR 38-2008; BP 6589 YR. 1980 DET. GARAGE; BP 6732 YR. 1980 ENCL. PORCH; BP 6987 YR. 1981 DOCKS; BP 89-059 YR. 1989 ALTERATION DOCK; BP 92-378 INT. ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 8, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17- 1-16 SECTION: 179-4-030 CHARLIE JOHNSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-The Board discussed the matter at length, and, as part of our requirements, we forwarded this on to the Planning Board, and we asked the Planning Board for their recommendation as to whether the project was something that they could live with, and in essence they did recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals, for Area Variance No. 68-2008 for Robin Inwald, the motion reads as follows: “MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE ZONING BOARD THAT THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY ROBIN INWALD BE GRANTED CONSIDERING THAT STORMWATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUES CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING SITE PLAN REVIEW, and that was Introduced by Thomas Seguljic, and it was a unanimous decision affirming that project. So, I don’t know, did Board members have any other concerns on that one? MR. DRELLOS-I think they already answered them before. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think I left the public hearing open, and I don’t know if anybody is here from the public regarding the project. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have anything you wanted to add? MR. JOHNSON-I was just going to ask you if the Board wanted a quick re-cap? If not. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, I think in essence, I pulled my plans and I left them sitting on my desk because they were in a separate pile, but maybe you just want to explain one more time what it was. I think it was just a. MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read the Staff Notes in again? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, why don’t you do that. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2008, Robin Inwald, Meeting Date: November 19, 2008 “Project Location: Harris Bay, off Gunn Lane, Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes construction of an 863 square foot residential addition and 400 square foot screened porch. Relief Required: Applicant requests 13.5 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement per 179-4-030. Further, relief is required for the greater than 50% expansion of a non-conforming structure per 179-13-010(A) (2). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location such as further north than what is proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.5 feet or 67.5 percent of relief may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 72 percent expansion of an existing non-conforming structure may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor change to the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties may be anticipated as a result of this proposal. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SPR Expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA-Pending. P92-378 Interior Alterations Approved 6/26/92 P89-058 Dock Alterations Approved 3/2/89 P6987 Docks Approved 7/13/81 P6737 Enclosed Porch Approved 12/29/80 P6589 Detached Garage w/ Living Quarters Approved 9/17/80 Staff comments: Note: Per the Zoning Board of Appeals tabling resolution dated October 22, 2008, this application was sent to the Planning Board for a recommendation for the full project. The Planning Board recommendation dated October 28, 2008 is as follows: The variance requested by Robin Inwald be granted considering that the stormwater and wastewater issues can be addressed during site plan review. See Attached. The applicant will upgrade the septic and leach field as part of this project. The current wastewater system is not evident on the survey. Upon clarification of the location of the existing wastewater system, the applicant may be required to decommission said system. SEQR Status: Type II-No action required” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, anybody have any questions? Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Well, there was one thing in the motion to table, what we put it, the suggestion was made to reduce the size of the setback that you could perhaps make it a little narrower, make the house a little narrower, and bring it back, straight back along the line of the house to the garage, rather than. MR. JOHNSON-The garage is placed roughly four feet from alignment from the house. So we picked that garage wall, which is closer to the property line than the house wall, and we did that only to create a sort of economical or easy to create or easy to lay out interior floor plan. We don’t have a lot of extra room to work with. It’s just kind of a smallish footprint to try and enlarge this building with. We’re trying to squish it between the garage and the house to keep it as invisible as possible from the lake. So rather than take that four feet and project it into the yard, where it would be visible from the lake, we opted to push it closer, creating more of a variance request, more relief necessary, but we felt it was less of an impact visually, and that’s why we chose that option. I’ve got a picture, if you’d like to see that side yard. You can see there’s a sort of brushy tree line there that helps camouflage this as well from the direct adjoining neighbor. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. GARRAND-I’ve got a couple of questions. This is going to be a five bedroom home? MR. JOHNSON-Yes. That counts that one bedroom over, that existing bedroom the garage. MR. GARRAND-Yes. Now, the new septic system, where’s that going to be located? MR. JOHNSON-That’s located actually behind the tree line, beyond, behind the existing garage now. The property owner owns both parcels, the one we’re currently talking about and the one behind. We’re doing an interior lot line adjustment, giving more land to this parcel to accommodate a brand new septic system. MR. GARRAND-So it’s going to be more than .54 acres? MR. JOHNSON-The total? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. JOHNSON-Site. The two combined. MR. GARRAND-Because on the application it’s currently listed as, I believe, .54 acres total parcel size. MR. JOHNSON-The addition is roughly 60 by 85, what’s that 4800? I think, correct. I just listed the existing lot now, not the combined. MRS. JENKIN-So that is in addition to that amount? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. GARRAND-And the old septic will be decommissioned? MR. JOHNSON-Correct. MR. GARRAND-Taken out. All right. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no other questions from Board members, I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public want to speak on the project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any other correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, whatever we had was read in at the last meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, do you want me to poll you, or does everybody pretty much understand what the situation is here? Does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2008 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: Harris Bay, off Gunn Lane, Cleverdale. The applicant proposes construction of an 863 square foot residential addition, and 400 square foot screened porch. The applicant requests 13.5 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot setback requirement per Section 179-4-030. Further, relief is required for the greater than 50% expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-13-010A(2). Whether this benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I think the applicant has explained for many reasons that this is the best place for it as far as visibility from the lake, and because of the small area of the yard. Whether an undesirable change in the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) neighborhood character or to nearby properties will be caused. It will be a minor change. I don’t think that would impact nearby properties. Whether the request is substantial. It might be considered moderate to severe because the applicant’s requesting 72% expansion of an existing nonconforming structure, which might be considered severe. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? I don’t think so. They would be minor, if anything, and the alleged difficulty is self-created only in the fact that the Inwalds want to improve their home and their property. th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. JOHNSON-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure thing. All right. Under New Business, this evening, we have Area Variance No. 70-2008, that’s Christine Mozal. The owners of the property are Christine and Richard Mozal, and their Agent is Michael J. O’Connor. The project location is 99 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 3.42 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1 acre and 2.42 acres. Relief is requested from the density, the lot size, the road frontage requirements, and the ZBA is to request a Planning Board recommendation per Section 277 of Town Law, and that’s subdivision regulation of a lot. Roy, do you want to read that in? MR. URRICO-Yes. MIKE O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I’m Mike O’Connor and I represent the applicant, but before we go forward with this, you have a couple of things that are on your agenda for Administrative Items only, and you’ve got people in the audience that are here to see if there’s any questions. Any chance you might do those before you continue? I have an interest in the Northern Broadcasting application. MR. UNDERWOOD-So do you want us to do those Administrative things? MR. O'CONNOR-If they’re not going to take any time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Board members, do you want to do that, pre-empt ourselves? All right. We have some administrative items, and I apologize if I forgot to do these at the beginning, but, that’s the way it goes. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008, NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC. [TV 8] ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO CONSENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR SEQR PURPOSES MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody received that information in their packet this month. You were told to hang on to it because that’s going to happen in December, I believe, and again, that’s the project to replace the new digital antennae, co-locate that with one up on top of West Mountain Ski area, I believe is what it is. MR. OBORNE-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-And there’s going to be a small concrete building, I think, that goes along with it to house all their electronics. MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because of the magnitude of that project, that’s why it triggers the SEQRA review by Planning Board. I mean, it would make sense, I think, because of the height on it. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. OBORNE-Well, I believe it’s an Unlisted Action. So the Planning Board is seeking Lead Agency Status for it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll make the recommendation. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD FOR SEQRA PURPOSES REGARDING USE VARIANCE NO. 79-2008 NORTHERN BROADCASTING CO., INC. (TV 8), Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2008, ANGIO DYNAMICS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO CONSENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR SEQR PURPOSES. MR. UNDERWOOD-This should be familiar to everybody because we’ve previously approved that project. The new information that was submitted to us, in essence I think what’s happening is the major corporate building that was going to be constructed on the south side of the road there is now going to flip flop and be built over on the north side, opposite where the previously constructed new buildings have been done, and that was the distribution center and manufacturing facility. So, we’re going to do the same thing with this one. I’m not sure if there’s going to be any big issues on that project. MR. OBORNE-There’s some wetlands. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, we do have wet territory over there, so that may be the hang up. The Planning Board’s probably going to have to investigate that, but for the same reason, I think what we’ll do is we’ll defer to the Planning Board before they come back to us, and I don’t think they need any variances from us on that, do they, except for that, the same one we gave for that. MR. OBORNE-They may need a permeability variance. I’m not sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. Previously I think the only thing that we granted to them was for their up on top of the building they were over height, and they had that screening up on top there to hide the view of their mechanicals up on top of the building. So what we’ll do is my recommendation will be to give Lead Agency Status to the Planning Board for that project. MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTS LEAD AGENCY STATUS TO THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2008 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE DISCUSSION OF DECEMBER 2008 ZBA MEETING DATES (ACCOMMODATE HOLIDAY SCHEDULES) MR. UNDERWOOD-And the last item on there was the discussion, and we had a general discussion prior to the meeting amongst Board members as to what date was going to be the best in December because we were scheduled for Christmas Eve, and we figured no one wanted to come on Christmas Eve for a meeting, and so I think that th we all set upon the 30 of December as the second meeting date. MR. OBORNE-Contingent upon availability of the room. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Okay. So, I don’t know, we don’t need to really decide anything on that, I guess. MR. OBORNE-No, not until next week. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re all set. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED CHRISTINE MOZAL AGENT(S): M.J. O’CONNOR, ESQ. LITTLE AND O’CONNOR OWNER(S): CHRISTINE AND RICHARD MOZAL ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: 99 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.42 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1 ACRE AND 2.42 ACRES. RELIEF FROM DENSITY, LOT SIZE, AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS REQUESTED. ZBA TO REQUEST A PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION PER SECTION 277 OF TOWN LAW. CROSS REF.: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2008; AV 77-1998; SPR 34-91; BP 98-592 2-STORY DETACHED GARAGE; BP 91-470 DOCK; BP 88-554 ALT. TO EXISTING DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 3.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-090; 179-50-8(4) MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. URRICO-I’m going to start out by reading in Mr. O’Connor’s letter to the Board members. Is that okay, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. URRICO-“Dear Board Members: Please be advised that we represent Christine Mozal in connection with her Area Variance application. Enclosed, in connection with same, please find the following: 1) Fifteen (15) copies of Area Variance Application, with Short Environmental Assessment Form as part thereof. 2) Fifteen (15) copies of “Before” Map, which shows the entire parcel of Mozal in yellow. 3) Fifteen (15) copies of “After” Map which shows the two lots that she wishes to create, with the house lot being shown in red/black and the garage lot being shown in yellow. 4) Fifteen (15) copies of signed Survey Map, showing proposed two lots. 5) Fifteen (15) copies of two deeds for subject premises. 6) Our firm draft payable to the Town of Queensbury in the amount of $50.00 for Variance Application. The Mozal’s purchased what we have referred to as the House Lot in two separate parcels, prior to 1985. The overall size of those two parcels was 0.337 Acres and had an approximate depth of 120 ft. In 1997, they purchased a 3 Acre parcel, which ran along the back of the House Lot, and to the east of the House Lot, with frontage on the east end of the parcel. In 1997, the Mozal’s had two legitimate independent building lots. In 1998, pursuant to Area Variance Application No. 77-1998, Mozal was given permission to build an oversized garage on the Garage Lot, with the footprint of the garage being 1,080 sq. ft., as opposed to 900 sq. ft., and the height of the garage being 26 ft., as opposed to 16 ft. The Mozal’s agreed to combine the two parcels, so there was not a variance for an accessory structure without a principal structure. At this point in time, the Mozal’s wish to downsize, but still maintain a home on the lake. The only way that they are able to do so is to separate the House Lot from the Garage Lot and offer the Garage Lot for sale. In addition to the requested Area Variances, this will require subdivision approval from the Planning Board and any addition to the existing garage structure as a pre-existing non-conforming structure will require site plan approval. To minimize the request for variances, the configuration of the House Lot has been change so that it, Lot 1, in fact will contain 1 Acre of land. The result is that Lot 2, the Garage Lot, will contain only 2.42 Acres of land, as opposed to the required 3 Acres. In addition to that, the Garage Lot, as well as the House Lot, will not have frontage on a Town Road, but has a deeded right-of-way, which is shown in the enclosed deeds. It is anticipated that any approval would be conditioned upon a requirement of site plan approval, prior to any Certificate of Occupancy, for Lot 2, as a residence. It is anticipated that someone would convert the garage to a single-family residence. It is a two-story structure with 1,080 sq. ft. on each floor and when it was constructed, windows were installed that would be appropriate for residential use. When this is converted to a residence, the 1998 Variance no longer will be necessary for size or height. Site plan approval, in addition to the subdivision approval, would guarantee that an adequate septic system could be installed on Lot 2, the Garage Lot. At present, the House Lot, as well as the residence on the Marshall and the Onderdonk parcels, the two that adjoin the House Lot, are served by water from the lake. The septic system for the House Lot is directly behind the house, with a manhole being in the area shown as Fitzgerald Road for pumping of the septic tank and with the absorption bed being to the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) south side of Fitzgerald Road. There is no septic system on Lot 2 at this time. As is indicated above, same will need to be approved as part of the subdivision approval and subsequent site plan approval. In fact, the applicant has no objection to the Zoning Board conditioning its approval upon subdivision approval by the Planning Board. That keeps it simple and assures the Zoning Board that it is not creating a lot that later becomes a problem. The Garage Lot will be served by lake water and there is enough separation distance in the lake to install a septic system. Probably, the only difference before and after completion of this application is that there will be a second dock that is constructed on the lake to serve the Garage Lot, and there will be one other family on the lake. The existing garage structure will not be changed, in so far as it faces the lake or as it appears from the lake. If you look at the location map, you will see that the proposed lots are in keeping with those in the immediate neighborhood and certainly with those around most of the lake. Yours Very Truly, LITTLE & O’CONNOR ATTORNEYS, P.C. By: Michael J. O’Connor” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-2008, Christine Mozal, Meeting Date: November 19, 2008 “Project Location: 99 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.42 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1 acre and 2.42 acres respectively. Relief Required: Relief required from density, lot size, and road frontage requirements. Concerning density, the applicant requests 0.58 acres of relief for subdividing 3.42 acres into 2 lots. Concerning lot size, the applicant requests 0.58 acres of relief for lot 2 and concerning road frontage, the applicant is requesting 40 feet of relief from the road frontage requirement for both lots. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There appears to be a significant sized parcel to the east. Has the applicant considered purchasing additional property in order to create conforming lot sizes? 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Assuming all 3.42 acres are buildable lands, the request for density relief of 0.58 acres or 14.5 percent from the 4 acres required for this subdivision per §183-1B may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 0.58 acres or 19.3 percent from the 3 acre zoning per §179-4-030 for Lot 2 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 40 feet or 100 percent of relief from the 40 foot public street road frontage requirement per 179-4-090 for Lot 2 may be considered severe. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP98-592 Two story detached garage 1998 BP91-470 Dock 8-13-91 SPR88-554 Additional Dock 6-18-91 BP34-91 Dock alterations 9-12-88 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) Staff comments: Note: The information requested by the ZBA has not been submitted at the time of this writing. The contour information, if provided prior to the meeting date, will be handed out by staff. Attached is the complete Area Variance 77-1998 minutes dated October 28, 1998 and the ZBA Resolution dated November 18, 2008 concerning this application. As no topographic information has been submitted, the Zoning Administrator cannot make a determination as to the amount of density relief that may be required as no unbuildable areas are shown on the survey. Per §A183-22, the survey must show ‘any unbuildable areas of the lot, such as wetlands, rock outcrops, slopes over 25 percent and bodies of water’. Staff believes there may be slopes of 25 percent or greater on Lot 2 and as such will need to have that information to make a determination as to the extent of density relief needed. Further, this proposal may trigger the need for approval for the expansion of a non- conforming structure as the existing garage will need to be converted into living space. Clarification as to the extent of the applicant’s plans concerning the garage on Lot 2 will need to be forth coming. The Zoning Board of Appeals will need to request a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this application per NYS Town Law 277 SEQR Status: Unlisted-The Zoning Board of Appeals must make a SEQR determination concerning this application.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-I think, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, and with me at the table is Christine Mozal who is the owner of the property that is before you tonight. I think my letter pretty much said basically what we’re trying to do. In 1995, there were two legitimate lots here. One was a three acre lot, and one was a .42 acre lot. The .42 acre lot had been acquired in 1985 or before, in different parcels. They built the garage in 1998, and didn’t wish to install a septic system with it, but they made the garage actually big enough that you could actually convert it into a house sometime down the road. The garage is 1,050 feet footprint and it has two stories on it. We had a height variance and we had a size variance. At that time, the setback from the lake was 75 feet, or was 50 feet, and we were within the setbacks and everything else. Since then the setback has been changed on that parcel to 75 feet. So that is a nonconforming building, which does mean that you will automatically have Site Plan Review if anybody tries to expand that building. We don’t anticipate that they will try to expand that building. We think that the building is big enough, right now, for somebody to make a real decent home out of it, but if they did, you’re protected in that event, because it would have to come back, or it would have to go to the Planning Board for that expansion. We tried to give you maps that showed you what we have now and what we will have afterwards. There are three requested variances. The one that was probably the most minor was the lack of frontage on a Town road. There are probably 15 homes along that road that all have no frontage. In fact, my home is right around the corner, and there are four homes there that have no frontage on a Town road. Fitzgerald Road ends, if you’ve been up to look at the site, as part of your site visits, ends right at the foot of the big hill. It doesn’t even include the sweep to the left which goes up onto Pioneer Point, and that’s Rose, we’ve always called that Rose Lane. I’m not sure what the sign is up there now, that goes over toward Christine’s house, but they’ve always been private roads. Most of Glen Lake, on different sides, are private roads. So I don’t think that is a big issue. We tried to make this as simple as possible by changing the 1985 configuration or the 1997 configuration by making the lake lot one acre, or the house lot one acre, and putting all the shortage on the other lot. We could have split them and made it less of a consequence, but I don’t think it makes any real difference. We did not provide any topographical information because we don’t propose any construction. We leave that to whoever purchases this garage lot, if you will, that they will come in and do what they have to do. We do anticipate that we will have to show engineering for a septic system before the Planning Board in order to complete the subdivision application. We, right now, have a subdivision application in there for Sketch Plan approval, and then we’ll go through the Preliminary and then we’ll go through the Final approval with them. That’s basically it. Somebody did question whether or not we could eliminate one variance by obtaining 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) some vacant land that’s to the east of us. That’s the land that’s owned by the Nolan family or the Barton Nolan family. You will recall, some of you will recall, they have a garage that’s built not too far off our line. We came in, and I think we got a variance for them for something on that garage as well. Jane Barton Nolan is aware of the application, did not seem to be inclined to try and change their holdings. It’s, actually what we’re ending up with here is probably a lot much larger than most lots on the lake. I don’t know, truthfully, of many lots that are three acres on the lake. Probably Mr. Underwood’s is one of the few that approaches that. Almost everything up there is 50 foot, 60 foot frontage, and a depth of about 200 feet. So that’s basically it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions at this time? I’ve got a couple of questions, and that is, you know, the characterization of, you know, I realize you’re on that zone where it switches, you know, the original lots were kind of all one acre up to where your home is there and the people next door there, Onderdonk’s, I guess, and it’s three acre zoning in the back, I think based upon the steep slopes that are there. I think everybody who’s been down to the site recognizes that’s why it changes to three acre zoning down through Barton’s and Nolan Camp Road, if you go further to the east along that stretch there. I would imagine, we weren’t privy to when the zoning came into being, but I would imagine that’s why it switches to three acre zoning. Would that be your guess? MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s a fair guess. I think that occurred, I don’t know, 2000, 2001 with the change, because it went from one acre to three acre. I’m not 100% sure when that did change. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that was done in anticipation of nobody building up on the steep hill, hillside in the back. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think they wanted to protect the ridge. The garage that’s built there is on a plateau that seems to have carried across that whole piece of property there. MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s kind of a bench that goes around the bend into Nolan’s, too. MR. O'CONNOR-There was a road there that used to be able to go through. Now you’d have to jog around the garage a little bit. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you were going to put septic in there, would it have to go behind? I mean, obviously you couldn’t do it out towards the lake any closer, right? MR. O'CONNOR-No, it can’t go closer to the, the garage itself, front corner, is 50 feet, about 50 feet from the lake, so it would have to go up behind the garage, and there is a level spot up there. So, it probably will have to be pumped up there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because this has got to go to the Planning Board, I mean, I don’t think we’re going to act on this, as far as, you know, I mean, we can gain a sense of where the Board is at regarding the project, but I think that we’re probably going to send this to the Planning Board first of all. We weren’t really provided a copy of the minutes, and we didn’t get them until this evening, to read the thoughts of the, you know, when they created the additional property on the lot, you know, when the original project came in and the garage was constructed back in ’98 I guess it was, and I don’t know if anybody’s had enough time to really digest that information. MRS. JENKIN-We did get a copy of the motion that they made. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-And the justification for giving that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but I thought it would be valuable so we had an understanding of why it was an oversized garage, you know, without a principal structure was allowed, because this isn’t something that we normally get, and it’s sort of one of those odd cases that occasionally crops up. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, again, that was done to minimize the variances that we were requesting. We could have asked for a variance and had it continue to be a standalone lot, but then we’d have to get a variance for building an accessory structure without a principal structure, and you always try to minimize your request. So we combined it and avoided that issue. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. URRICO-What would change by sending it to the Planning Board? I mean, if they approve it and come to us, and if it’s conditioned upon their approval, it would eliminate one step. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Well, I think they’re probably going to look at the sequencing of events as to how it came into being, obviously. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s not in those minutes, though, Mr. Underwood. I think you’re looking at the minutes of the variance. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, we’re looking at the actual minutes, because we didn’t even get them until this evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but those are. MRS. JENKIN-Right, but we didn’t get the complete minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re missing one page, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Those are minutes, I think, to the variance. MR. URRICO-The ZBA meeting 10/28/98. MR. O'CONNOR-That I was involved with. This lot was created before I became involved in it. I think it was created in 1997. There was a subdivision that was approved by the Planning Board. MR. URRICO-Your name’s on here. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but that’s for the variance. I was involved for the construction of the garage. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think Mozals already owned that property before and had the garage under construction and an issue arose as to the height of the garage, and that’s when I became involved in it. So I think there’s a meeting before that of the Planning Board that may indicate when that lot was created. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any indication of that, Keith? Because we didn’t really get a complete history of the project. MR. OBORNE-I can glean it from the cross referencing, Chairman, and there seems to have been a building permit in ’89, that would be for the single family dwelling, okay, and then there’s a building permit in 1980 for an enclosed porch. So I guess there was a house prior to that. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the main house lot. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, there’s really nothing here that leads you to believe when it was, to be honest with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because, you know, we never had any indication of, you know, whether the Planning Board had actually, you know, signed off on the garage. Do you know what I mean? It looks to me like you just went to the Zoning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that’s fair. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. That’s essentially what it was? MR. O'CONNOR-Because I think. MR. OBORNE-Were those two pre-existing lots at one point? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, yes they were prior. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. OBORNE-So there would be no need to go to the Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a map by Wayne Raymond that was done September 18, 1998, and I’m reading this quickly, but that’s where the three lot, or the three acre lot was first shown. I don’t, I’ll tell you right now, I don’t know whether or not you had to go to the Planning Board to create two lots. I think you had to. MR. OBORNE-You would, but that’s what I was asking, if those were pre-existing lots. MR. O'CONNOR-That was a pre-existing lot. MR. OBORNE-There were two pre-existing lots? I think that’s my question. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, there were, truthfully, there was a pre-existing three acre lot, and the Mozal house sits on, I think, two separate lots itself that were created on the lake, because they purchased their lake frontage where their house is from two different people. At one time or another, all those lots along there were 50 foot lots. Some people ended up with more than one lot, and ended up with 100 feet of frontage or whatever. MR. UNDERWOOD-So was the Marshall lot, was that house up before your house was up? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know that. Mr. Marshall’s here. Was that up before the Mozal house was up? MR. MARSHALL-My house was pre-existing both. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think maybe what we’ll do is this. Because we’re getting a little confused here as to what’s going on. My understanding then, and you can give us the affirmative on this if I’m correct, then. You purchased the house lot and some other land at that time, put the house up. At some point in the future you acquired this other property from Bartons, Nolan Barton’s next door? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-And then those lots were combined together, and at that point in time, we’re talking ’97 or ’98, ’98 was when the garage project was, you know, started. I remember Dan Barber building it at that time, because I was living on the lake by then, and so that’s where you got into the first situation of a variance by the Board. That’s the minutes that were provided to us this evening, even though we’re missing one page of them for some reason. I’m not sure why. So, in essence, what we’re looking at doing here then is taking the combined lots and separating them and going back to what you were prior to the purchase of the Barton property. Is that, in essence, what you’re doing? MR. O'CONNOR-Going back to land configurations before, we’re separating the three acres, principally, that we bought from the Bartons. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re saving a little bit to make the lake lot conform. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I understand that. Okay. MR. GARRAND-Counselor, you submitted an application for a waiver for stormwater management and topographical map with regard to the area, three acre parcel. Was that, maybe this question I should direct to Staff, was that, were they given a waiver? MR. OBORNE-Well, that waiver would be directed to the Planning Board for the subdivision of land. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So the Planning Board would, okay, so at this point they haven’t given them a waiver, then? MR. OBORNE-Right, and then you’re planning on having this application sent to the Planning Board tonight, and eventually it’ll get back to the Planning Board. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, in your opinion, I mean, just going forward here, when it goes to the Planning Board, they’re going to decide as to whether or not it’s applicable to have a subdivision of this property. In essence we’re deferring to them? MR. OBORNE-Yes, and you might want to make the recommendation, they’re asking for recommendation, ask specifically what you want a recommendation of. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Like you’re asking me their opinion. Yes. I think they’re absolutely going to look at the applicability of this subdivision. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. MRS. JENKIN-I have, I guess, one further comment to make. Because we’re asked for relief required from density, lot size and road frontage requirements, wouldn’t it be helpful for us to have a topographical map? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I assume everybody had an opportunity to go down to the site and look at it, and I think that, you know, not all these issues are ones that we’re going to be like flipping out about, but the road frontage requirement, I mean, I think we’ve dealt with that on numerous occasions before in these situations, and I think everybody realized the practicality of the situation here. It’s the end of the road. It’s a pre-existing condition. There’s really no way to improve what you have there, you know, but I know with Planning Board, I mean, the issue’s come up before, and we’ve come up with the issue before of access because of fire trucks and things like that. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-And, you know, that’s not something we’re going to make a determination on, but the Planning Board’s. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s the same as exists there now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, right. I mean, nothing’s going to change from what it already is. MR. O'CONNOR-No. You approve it, you’ve got the two structures there. You don’t approve it, you’ve got the two structures there. It’s no different. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in essence I think what we’re looking at here is the creation. MRS. JENKIN-And it’s being asked to change to a home rather than a garage. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-That’s a fairly major consideration. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that’s the change that was, the change that occurred from the prior approval by the Zoning Board was that at that time, it was presented as storage space and a garage, but you had also stipulated, I think, in yours that in the future you might want to change it into living space. I mean, there was nothing hidden there. MR. O'CONNOR-It was built that way with the height and with the windows and everything else. MRS. JENKIN-But it wasn’t mentioned in the motion to accept, that original variance. There was nothing in it saying that in the future it might become a home. MR. O'CONNOR-It was in discussions, that’s all. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, but it’s not part of the motion. The motion said it was for a garage. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we don’t claim any pre-existing right based upon those, upon that presentation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys? I think maybe what we’ll do is open up the public hearing and see if there’s anybody here from the public that wishes to 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) comment on the matter. If you want to come up, you’ve got to speak into the mic and identify yourself, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON MARSHALL MR. MARSHALL-I’m Don Marshall, and I have a camp in there, which was pre-existing, and I’m just concerned. I thought I should voice my concerns. My main concern is that, the camp, of course, I’ve had it for 40 years now. So it was before a lot of laws have changed since then, and the septic system is on the east side of the house, and if and when that property is sold, or if someone, I guess Mr. O’Connor said they weren’t going to build on the property, but still my septic, my camp, the septic system is on the east side, and I’m sure that some of the liquid from that moves on over to the next property, and I’m sure that’s going to be, could be a problem, and that’s my main concern. I didn’t build it. It’s been there ever since, and we only use it in the summers, but we do have a, still, a disputed property line on the other side, on Christine’s side of the house, that’s never been resolved. I think that’s something that we could resolve, because again, surveys weren’t done, and the camp was built. Actually that, the way that looks, it looks more like you think, but it actually is angled way over so that it’s more like a parallelogram rather than a rectangle, from the lake. I think it looks clearer on the map there. So, I guess that’s my main concern, that I guess I would be affected if it was sold, as far as the septic system goes. MRS. JENKIN-Your septic system is right behind your house and it’s a regular leach field is it? MR. MARSHALL-It’s right on the side of the house, basically. It’s just a 500 gallon concrete tank. George Hamlin built it 45 years ago, and I bought it shortly after he built it, and I didn’t know much about, I just thought it was a pretty spot, but I didn’t want to voice my concerns that I would be probably affected by this. I’m not here to say it shouldn’t go through or should go through. MR. CLEMENTS-How do you think you would be affected? MR. MARSHALL-Well, again, ideally, at some point in time, I really should probably put in a better septic system. God knows where it would go, whether it would have to go up, now I think the one that’s behind Christine’s house now is up, basically in the road. If I could put one up in the road, but mine’s closer to the lake, actually, now. MRS. JENKIN-But as far as you’re concerned, with your home there, if there’s another home there with other people, other people driving in, parking there, how would that affect you? MR. MARSHALL-It would, obviously. There’s not a lot of room there. I basically turn around right in front of the garage that, but I can turn around on my property if I have to, but it’s a right of way. MRS. JENKIN-Where do you park, on the road? MR. MARSHALL-Right on the, basically on the edge of the road, yes. There’s not a lot of space there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARSHALL-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do we have any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I haven’t seen anything in here. I’ll continue looking. MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead if you want. MR. O'CONNOR-I think, and Mr. Marshall can correct me or not. I think the neighbors have tried to get along. There is a problem that the northwest corner of his camp actually protrudes onto the Mozal property. We had it surveyed a number of years ago, and I think he recently had it surveyed, too, but it’s something that’s existed and nobody 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) had stood on the curb and yelled at each other about it. I’m not sure what he meant by his septic comes onto our parcel. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think he’s talking about the fact that it’s on the east side of the house, I know it’s right down on the water, right on the side of the camp. So it’s not behind like yours is up on the hill further, and I think he was just concerned about possible problems from his tank affecting, I know you were going to draw water from the lake, like your house does, too, if this parcel is split off where the garage is. You’re not going to meet any kind of separation for, I mean, I’m not sure if you’re going to meet separation for septic, if you put your septic leach field in where you would put it. About the only place you could really put it, it looks to me, would be either in front of the garage on the driveway or behind the garage where. MR. O'CONNOR-I think they’ve looked at it, and Tom Hutchins and Matt Steves are going to go out and look at it. They think, Matt Steves thinks that there’s a place to the south side of the garage, up on the, we’ll probably put a pump in, if there’s a bathroom in the first floor of the garage, and we’ll probably have to pump up to that level, and put it behind the garage, and that’ll give us the separation distances that we need to get. It won’t be in front of the garage. I mean, you wouldn’t make your lake separation distance. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would anticipate, looking at the plans, if you’re going to convert to living space upstairs there, that you really wouldn’t be able to add on, you know, because you’re not going to be able to add on the back towards Nolan Barton’s there, unless you purchase more property to meet the setbacks. You can’t go towards the lake because you’re already 25 feet deficient, right? So you’re going to need a variance for that, for any kind of. MR. O’CONNOR-If they were to build on, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but for conversion purposes are you going to need a variance from us on that also, to convert upstairs, if someone purchases it and wants to turn it into living space upstairs? MR. O'CONNOR-I think that would be part of the Site Plan approval that we get, converting, I think if you’re converting seasonal to year round, you’d do it by Site Plan, I presume, that would be applicable for converting a garage to. We understand we’re going to have to go to Site Plan. We have no objection to you actually conditioning your action upon us going to Site Plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-On your deed it says there’s a 12 foot right of way through there, and you basically acknowledge that fact, too. I don’t anticipate that anybody would ever want to use that right of way coming from Barton’s property. MR. O'CONNOR-They want to keep it open. MR. UNDERWOOD-They do. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We talked to them about extinguishing it, and they said, no, they like to be able to walk, Mr. Underwood and I know all the neighbors. They walk from that place over to their place, which is right next to my house, and their kids do, and the brothers and sisters of Jane Barton are up here, Jane Barton Nolan. When her brothers and sisters have their children up here, they come back and forth between the two places. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I recall when we did their garage, when we granted the variance for that, they kind of built it in the right of way, did they not? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they did. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And everybody has this same 12 foot right of way, which is the road, if you’ve gone up and looked at it, that goes all the way from the foot of Fitzgerald Road over across the front of the lake. I think it would be important, though, to get some type of feeling if we can, not necessarily pre-judge it, but we’ve pretty much laid the cards on the table, so that when we go to the Planning Board, they have some feeling also that they’re dealing in the dark as to what your thoughts are, your concerns are. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, any other questions at this time? Okay. Then let’s have a little discussion amongst ourselves, then. Do we want to deal with this, or do we want to send this to the Planning Board first? I mean, it’s up to you guys what you want to do, or if you’re comfortable with it as is, or uncomfortable and you really want a thorough analysis done on their part. We can do the SEQRA review, but I’m thinking in this sense we should be cautious and let them do it. Because I think that if they anticipate that there’s going to be a year round dwelling on site there, they’re going to have to deal with the issues of the septic, the water supply and things like that, and, you know, at this time, I don’t know if we should do it or get their opinions, first of all, regarding it, but as Keith said, we’ve got to ask specific questions of the Planning Board. So is there anything, specifically, you want to know? MR. DRELLOS-I’ve got a feeling the Planning Board’s going to be asking the questions, more than us. I mean, as far as specifics go, you know what I’m saying. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. DRELLOS-I mean, they’re going to ask septics. They’re going to ask all that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, the issues, as I see it, that they will probably have to confront will be that you’re asking for, you know, the lot where the current house is existing, as proposed here, is a conforming lot, because it’s over one acre, all right. I don’t think that’s a problem. The anticipated lot as proposed with the garage that might be converted to, you know, living space in the future if someone purchases that property, is nonconforming because it doesn’t meet the three acre minimum for that project. There’s two sides of the coin. It’s a pre-existing building. They’re not adding on to the building. They’re not proposing to add on to the building, but there are issues with the septic and the water supply system that’s going to feed into it, that the Planning Board’s going to have to deal with, and whether or not the subdivision is something they think is reasonable or not. That’s their purview, not ours. So for us, just to review again, they’re asking for relief from the density, from the lot size and the road frontage requirements, and for myself, I’m not going to speak for you guys, if we looked at road frontage, I mean, it’s at the end of the road. I don’t think there’s any anticipation on our part that they could improve the road coming in there to any great degree without impacting the steep banks that are up on the south side there. MRS. JENKIN-It’s true they can’t change it, but the thing is with the road, the existing road as it is now, there’s very, very little space for parking, as I mentioned before. There are neighbors. It’s almost, it’s very difficult even to turn around there, and if there’s a, I think the road frontage is an issue, if that’s something that we need to deal with. I think that we definitely need to look at that carefully. We have looked at density before on other properties when there has been, they’ve asked for subdivisions and the amount of buildable land. I think that we need to consider that, and that’s why I mentioned the topographical map, to see how much of this three acres is actually buildable and if it’s buildable in that area, where the garage is now, if it’s buildable as a home. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-I think that there are issues here. MR. CLEMENTS-I have a concern about not having all of the minutes here, and we’re th missing every other page, and out of the October 28 ’98 variance. There are some things in there that concern me, but I don’t have all of them, so I would like to see all of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys, anything? MR. URRICO-I think, all things being considered, I think we need as much information as we can, although I admit, I’m leaning with you on this one. I don’t see the road frontage as being an issue. It’s been there before. It was there before these parcels were put together and it’s going to be there if they’re separated. It’s an issue that part of the Town, many parts of the Town, we have to deal with. So the only concern is the breaking apart of the parcels and whether they’re adequate. So I wouldn’t mind having a topographical map. I wouldn’t mind having the full minutes to the meeting, since that pre-dates me, too. So I can’t go from memory on it, but I don’t consider those major issues. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. O'CONNOR-Can I ask? I don’t understand the requirement of the topographical map in the sense we’re specifically saying that we are not proposing any new construction. So we’re not looking for additional land or area that we can build on. MR. URRICO-But we’re going to have to give specific density relief on some, on this here. MR. O'CONNOR-As exists. I would be more concerned, from your side of the table, if somebody were trying to create more flat land there, because we’ve had that in the past, and it takes years for that to heal, because you then end up with the bank sliding down, and when these lots were first built in the early 80’s, there was constant slides that would come down, even on to the 12 foot road that everybody uses going in there. Now that’s kind of repaired itself, and if you take a ride up there, you’re going to see that some of the trees have now grown into the side of the bank. You could make more flat land, but if you make more flat land, you’re going to dig deep into that bank, and that’s the, I think that’s probably more environmentally unfriendly than what we’re proposing, even if you conditioned it that there not be any expansion of the existing building. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Well, I would anticipate that the Planning Board would make that a stipulation on their part that there wouldn’t be anymore bank cutting into the bank. I remember when you built the garage, when Dan Barber was there, when they were doing the footings and the whole thing came down and power lines came down and the works. So it’s not something that anybody would, sane person would probably attempt again, after dealing with that the first time, but I think what we’re going to do is this. Let’s have everybody get on the same page here, and let’s all go back to the Staff Notes and go to Staff comments, because Staff comments, I think, pointedly give us direction here, and I think this is where we’re going to go, and I’m going to read these into the record one more time. My recommendation is going to be that we give the Planning Board Lead Agency Status here on the SEQRA for this project, and the reason we’re going to do that is, is that although we recognize that you have also explained to us that there’s not going to be any changes on this property, there needs to be some binding language from the Planning Board, I think, regarding the future of that lot. If you’re going to split this lot off, if we are, indeed, going to consider doing that, then I think that there will be no improvements other than the creation of living space above the garage as it presently exists. I think that’s reasonable at that point in time. I would not anticipate that someone would purchase that property with eyes wide open, thinking that they were going to build a camp there along with a garage, because there really isn’t any place you could do it really legally based upon the setbacks with the three acre zoning at 75 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-I anticipate that some of that first floor would also be living space. That’s a large garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-However it gets broken up. I mean, you’ve got thee bays there. So obviously it makes sense you could do something. MR. OBORNE-If I can get a clarification on the SEQRA aspect of this. The Planning Board is not requesting Lead Agency Status for this. This is not a coordinated review. MR. UNDERWOOD-But it’s an Unlisted action. MR. OBORNE-It is an Unlisted action. Typically Type I’s would require, well, they require, regardless, coordinated review. Unlisted, in this case, does not require coordinated review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-But the Town Law does state that you must seek a recommendation for this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. In anticipation of seeking the recommendation from the Planning Board, then I think we’re going to ask that they assume Lead status, as far as the SEQRA review, because I think it makes more sense, with their expertise, that they be the ones that, you know, write the language so it’s set in stone, as to what you can and cannot do in the future with that property, and I think we do that with the knowledge of what exists, pre-existing on site. MR. OBORNE-You certainly can offer coordinated review, and I’m sure they’ll take it, but make sure that when you make that recommendation you put that in to the condition of it. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Please. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. MR. GARRAND-And clarification of density. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. So let’s go down through, then. I’m going to make a, you know, I’m going to make that recommendation to the Planning Board now, so if I forget anything, you guys can interject. As no topographic information has been submitted, the Zoning Administrator cannot make a determination as to the amount of density relief that may be required as no unbuildable areas are shown on the survey. Per §A183-22, the survey must show any unbuildable areas of the lot, such as wetlands, rock outcrops, slopes over 25 percent and bodies of water. Staff believes there may be slopes of 25 percent or greater on Lot 2, which is the lot in question, and as such will need to have that information to make a determination as to the extent of density relief needed, and by determining that, then we can grant the exact amount of relief necessary as per zoning. MR. OBORNE-For density, correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding we’ve asked the Planning Board to waive that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I’m not asking them to waive it. I think that they should, just to make sure that it’s done correctly, and just so everybody understands going forward, I know you guys aren’t going to do anything with it, other than sell it, but I don’t want the person who purchases that property to purchase the property thinking that they can, you know, add on dramatically or something like that. I want the Planning Board to set the parameters as to what’s going to be done. MR. O'CONNOR-But the topographical mapping doesn’t add to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but it does in our instance, because we’ve dealt with subdivisions before where we have steep slopes or wetlands, and you have to subtract that out so you get a better understanding of the actual amount of buildable land, and we’re talking about the flat area there. We all realize it’s a small area, but it’s already been done, and I just don’t want to get into a situation where someone comes in and says, well, I cut back the hill a little further I’ll have a little more, you know. MR. O'CONNOR-But isn’t that covered by conditions of approval, that even this Board can put on its approval? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t want to do that in this instance, all right. I think the Planning Board can handle that. It should be a no-brainer for them. The second part is this. Further, this proposal may trigger the need for approval for the expansion of a non- conforming structure as the existing garage will need to be converted into living space. Clarification as to the extent of the applicant’s plans concerning the garage on Lot 2 will need to be forth coming. I don’t think that we should not anticipate that it’s going to become living space. Obviously someone’s going to purchase it, and they’re going to want to have a summer place on the lake. So, as presented, either the whole thing could become living space, or part of it could be kept as a garage, you know, it would be an either/or proposition, but done with the foreknowledge that the Planning Board’s going to say, you’re probably not going to be able to build a garage on that property in anticipation of, you know, if you convert that whole thing into a home. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s required that it becomes a primary structure in order for this land to be subdivided. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and I would think that the Planning Board usually would never grant a waiver for an accessory structure without a primary structure there first. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and lastly, the Zoning Board of Appeals will need to request a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this application, that’s essentially what we’re wrapping up here in this. Anybody have any other concerns they want to add or questions? The Planning Board should, I think, anticipate where the septic should go, 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) where the source for potable water and drinking purposes is going to come from as part of their review process. MR. OBORNE-Okay, and that’ll be part of the condition of your? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-Okay. It’ll be tabled, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and then when they get back to us, then we’ll go through, and I think for us at that point, you know, if they don’t anticipate any problems with it, then I’m not, I’m guessing that the Board’s probably going to be more comfortable with their analysis. th MR. CLEMENTS-Will they be reviewing the Zoning Board minutes of October 28 of ’98? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would add, also, I would like a copy of those minutes complete, provided to the Planning Board, the ones that we received this evening, but we were missing Page 32, and before our next meeting, if you could give us Page 32. You don’t have to reproduce the whole thing again, but . MR. OBORNE-I do want to remind the Board, and I do apologize for not having that. These are available online for your viewing pleasure. I have no problem making these copies, but as you can see there’s a human error involved in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, not a problem, and I think that we’ll table you guys until, when do you want to come back? Do you anticipate the Planning Board wouldn’t do this until January? MR. OBORNE-No, they’re in front of the Planning Board next week, and then it’s back on your docket the following day. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Good. MR. O'CONNOR-We won’t get the topographical done by then. We won’t. I mean, a topographical’s probably going to cost three, four thousand dollars for a three acre parcel. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think that what I would like to see, then, is I don’t want a complete topographic, but what I want is I want you to show the areas that are buildable on the property, okay. You don’t have to show the steep slopes. MR. O'CONNOR-I can get a layered map, a USGS map which shows anything which has slopes over, what is it, 15%, Keith? Any sloping over 25%, I’m sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think a 15 minute series map the Planning Board would be able to figure it out off of that. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we could get a map that shows over 25%. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’ll be fine. MR. O'CONNOR-Which admittedly is going to be, you know, a good portion of that lot, if you’ve been up and looked at it. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s almost all bank. MR. O'CONNOR-You look down over to the lake it’s all bank, you look up it’s all bank. I think at the top there’s a little trail up there. MR. UNDERWOOD-A little flat. MR. O'CONNOR-No, way up at the top. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, as far as the condition for the topographic, is it okay, if the condition is that it is a USGS Quad Map? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and, you know, I mean, I think they’ll gain a, they’re all going to do a Site Plan, they’re all going to do a site visit as part of this, and I don’t believe our minutes are going to be necessary. I think they’re going to probably pick up on from what we’ve asked them what they need to do at that point in time. So we’ll put you guys on, and you guys are coming back the second meeting, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Of this month. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure, and we’ll try to get that through for you at that point. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. Keith, I probably can get that up here probably Friday. MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don’t think I’ll get it tomorrow. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, because they’re coming back, do we need a motion, then? MR. OBORNE-You need a motion to table, absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll make a motion that we table you to our next meeting. So you’ll be back a week from today. MR. O'CONNOR-We’re already on that agenda. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you’re already on the agenda. So we don’t really need to add them, and we’ll leave the public hearing open. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2008 CHRISTINE MOZAL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by As no topographic information has been submitted, the Zoning Administrator cannot make a determination as to the amount of density relief that may be required as no unbuildable areas are shown on the survey. Per §A183-22, the survey must show any unbuildable areas of the lot, such as wetlands, rock outcrops, slopes over 25 percent and bodies of water. Staff believes there may be slopes of 25 percent or greater on Lot 2, which is the lot in question, and as such will need to have that information to make a determination as to the extent of density relief needed. Further, this proposal may trigger the need for approval for the expansion of a non-conforming structure as the existing garage will need to be converted into living space. Clarification as to the extent of the applicant’s plans concerning the garage on Lot 2 will need to be forth coming. The Zoning Board of Appeals will need to request a recommendation from the Planning Board concerning this application per NYS Town Law 277. Tabled to November 26, 2008 meeting. th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, I hate to bother you, but that last motion, it would really help me if you could, there was a lot of discussion in between and if you could table it and just mention the conditions so I know exactly what the conditions are. If you could re-do the motion, I’m sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I don’t think I’m going to re-do the motion at this point, but I think that you can basically take everything that I said in the latter part there, that I was trying to wrap it up there and there were sort of three distinct parts to it, and Keith can probably give you a little help with that. MR. OBORNE-Yes. One would be the topo. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It essentially was reading Staff Notes, your Staff Note comments is what I was directing those questions from. MR. OBORNE-The ZBA recommends a recommendation from the Planning Board. I don’t know what to do for you. We can glean it tomorrow. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DONALD L. BRASS AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S): DONALD L. BRASS ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 9 MARY LANE (OFF IVY LOOP AND GLEN LAKE RD.) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,050 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE WITH 900 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REF.: NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-27 SECTION: 179-4-030 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-I think what I’ll do is I’ll read the cover letter in which explains the project. “Dear Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals: We are applying for variances to rebuild and expand our garage that was destroyed by a neighbors falling tree in a storm this past June. In 2005, we had put a new roof on the garage and in 2006 it was painted. We looked at rebuilding the garage after it was destroyed by the falling tree but the floor joices were rotted and much of the supporting structure that remained was also in very poor condition. As a result, we have decided to take this opportunity to build a three stall garage to house our 2 cars and small pontoon boat and add a second story guest quarters to be used by us when our children come to visit a few times each summer. This would mean being able to leave the existing camp intact. It might also possibly allow us to keep our sanity when our two married daughters, their husbands and our two and one year old granddaughters come to visit. We purchased the two parcels of land with a 900+ sq. ft. camp and an old 2-stall extended garage in 2004. The camp hadn’t been updated since the 1970’s and much of it was original 1940’s vintage. The only truly attractive and unique feature of the camp was the slate roof and solid construction which compelled us to preserve the camp and work toward improving it rather than tearing it down and trying to rebuild a more user-friendly, larger home. The camp now has refinished hardwood floors, newly repaired and replaced windows and doors, a rebuilt deck, an updated kitchen with new cabinets and appliances and insulation in the walls and ceiling. Unfortunately it is still the same 2 small bedrooms, 1 very small bathroom, limited closet space, and no dining room which makes spending any period of time together as a growing family very challenging. We are committed to preserving the land we own and improving the look of the property from the lake and adjoining properties. We have planted new trees in front of the house, near the waterfront. We have brought in topsoil, built lawn areas, built flowerbeds and removed gravel areas and poorly designed retaining walls. There was a rock pile being used as a seawall but it was falling into the lake constantly. We called the DEC in Warrensburg and the Town of Queensbury to find out how we should proceed in repairing/restoring it. Based on their advice, we had the rock wall taken apart, weed mat put in and had it rebuilt by professionals. It no longer falls into the lake every time a boat goes by that creates a substantial wake. Our property had a dirt road used by us and our neighbor to the east. The dirt road was eroded and poorly maintained. It continued to wash away with any good rain and created a large, muddy swamp in our yard that could span 10 feet or more and take days to dry up. We consulted with the Warren County Soil & Water Conservation District in 2006 for advice on the options to improve the road. In 2007 we fixed the grade of the road, put in rock drainage areas and rock borders and finished the grade with gravel. The runoff water is now diverted to the back part of our property and the road is holding up nicely and is a safer, more passable structure. We also are the recipients of run-off created by our neighbors to the west when they paved their driveway. The run-off flows to our yard and added to the water problem. To mitigate this we have installed a row of rocks along the area of the property where the water runs to help to stem the flow of water onto our yard and create for a better distribution area for the water flow. The proposed garage/guest quarters building will be unobtrusive from the lake and neighboring properties. The footprint of the proposed building has been indicated by stakes and we invite anyone interested in viewing the project area to come by and take a look. We are moving the structure further from the property line than the current building. We are also planning to make it architecturally interesting and use cedar and natural colors that will blend better with the environment. The added garage space will enable us to unobtrusively store our small boat trailer out of sight during the summer when our neighbors are most likely to use their property and it will also keep our cars from being damaged by all the falling acorns and branches that are a daily occurrence here. The project will leave the trees in place and best utilize the existing cleared area on the property while preserving the investment in land improvements we have made around the camp. The size and location of the project was created with careful consideration of the contour of the land, the current position of power, phone and cable lines, existing road access and an interest in preserving as much vegetation as possible. We are very particular about the work we do and the projects and 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) professionals we commission. This project will enhance the look and value of the property and will be done to the highest standards of construction. We hope that you find in favor of our project. Sincerely, Don and Kate Brass 9 Mary Lane Lake George, NY 12845” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2008, Donald L. Brass, Meeting Date: November 26, 2008 “Project Location: 9 Mary Lane (off Ivy Loop and Glen Lake Rd.) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,050 square foot residence with a 900 square foot garage near Glen Lake. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16.14 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement and 25 feet of relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement per §179-4-023. Additionally, the applicant requests 1.21 feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum height requirements per §179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to moderate changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. The neighbors to the west and southwest would be most affected by this area variance request as encroachment on the side and rear setback requirement would be the result. Further, this proposal, if approved, may initiate further requests for setback variances in the future. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could build in a more compliant location or reduce the size of the project. There appears to be ample room to the east and near the right of way. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 16.14 feet or 65 percent of relief from the 25 foot setback requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 25 feet or 100 percent relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement may be considered severe to extreme relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 1.21 feet or 4.3 percent relief from the maximum building height requirement may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Vacant land Staff comments: The project is proposed to be 154 feet from Glen Lake. The applicants own the seasonal cottage directly south of the proposed house. The proposed house would be situated on an existing non-conforming 0.71 acre parcel. The elevation plans call for a 16ft x 9 ft second story balcony. If this was eliminated, the resulting rear setback request for relief would be reduced to 16 feet or 64 percent relative to the ordinance. Further, the height of the house could be reduced by 1.21 feet in order to become compliant. Type II-No further action required” SEQR Status: 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Hutchins, Mrs. Brass. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening. KATHERINE BRASS MRS. BRASS-Hi. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to fill us in? It’s pretty self-explanatory. MR. HUTCHINS-Certainly. For the record, I’m Tom Hutchins and Katherine Brass is with me. I think her cover letter was quite descriptive about what we’re proposing here, and on your plan, I have shown the location of the current garage, and I hope you did have the opportunity to get there to the site, because, at least in my humble opinion, when you’re standing there on the site, this location makes a whole lot of sense and any other location doesn’t make very much sense at all, but the Brasses have come to the decision that they wish to, instead of simply repair this garage, they wish to improve it and add 1,000 square feet of living space above the garage with 900 square feet of garage below. The location was selected for a couple of reasons. The primary reason being that’s where the drive currently is. That’s where the disturbance currently is. The existing garage is there. There’s parking area adjacent to the existing garage. There will be a few trees that will be lost as part of this, but it will be very few, and I have located some of the significant trees around the location of this. With regard to specific variances we’re requesting, first off, the property line setback to the westerly parcel, the current garage is 2.2 feet from that parcel line. We’re proposing the replacement structure at 8.8 feet from that line. This is one that, at first look, it looks like it would be relatively simple to slide this proposed building to the east a few feet to improve on that setback. However, we are dealing with some significant National Grid infrastructure in this area. If you saw there, there’s a new pole that is shown on here. It’s off the southeast corner of the proposed building. That pole is new. The pole was also lost when the garage was damaged, and Mr. Brass was somewhat successful in his negotiations with National Grid to relocate that slightly. It was closer to the existing garage than it currently is. They wouldn’t go as far as he would like them to have gone with the pole, but they did relocate it. However, if you look to the, I say to the rear. It’s to the north of the proposed garage, there’s another pole back there. That’s a guy pole. There are guy wires from the pole in front back to that, and any relocation of this building, any further to the east, would require a significant work on relocation of that. With regard to the requested relief to the south property line, the Brasses do own two separate parcels, and what we’re proposing on the larger parcel will be a primary structure. Other than that, they would be willing to have merged the parcels, if they could still have the second primary structure, which they would be unable to do if they merged the parcels, and separate parcels, but, one way or another we’d be looking for an Area Variance. So, that’s the logic behind not merging them. We’re asking to build the building itself nine feet from that property line. There is a proposed second story cantilever balcony that would be out, that would essentially be at the property line. So we’re asking for 100% relief from that one. The other relief we’re requesting relates to building height. The proposed garage, floor to ridge, is 28 feet. The variance request comes about because the existing grade to the rear, that’s toward Glen Lake Road from where the garage will be sited, I believe is 1.2 feet lower than existing grade at the entry side of the garage. Some time ago, when we were interpreting the Zoning Code a little differently, we wouldn’t, I don’t believe we would have to be requesting this. Now we are, and that’s fine. Our point would be, it’s a matter of the change in existing grade. When we’re done grading, finished grade to ridge will be 28 feet, and we think that one is a particularly minor request, as interpreting from existing grade to top of ridge, it’s going to be difficult to hold 28 feet on any site. You’ll note, we’ve shown the ability to install a septic system, new well, compliant septic system. I’ve also sized the absorption such that it could handle, at some event, the load from the existing camp. There would be a little, likely some administrative action required in order to make that happen, but technically it’s sized to do that, and with that, I don’t have anything. Do you have anything to add? MRS. BRASS-No. I guess I just would like to answer any questions that anyone has. This is a great opportunity for us to preserve what in this area is still an original camp, and, prior to the tree falling to hit our garage, barn, whatever we call this thing, we talked about what we could possibly, we have one closet, and a very small bathroom. So we were looking at the strategies that we could possibly do on the existing property, but almost anything you did to it required you to peel off the slate roof, and we’re kind of attached to the slate roof. It’s kind of like, it’s one redeeming quality, if you will. So we’re kind of attached to the roof, which made, you know, our conversations, well, could I put, you know, a closet in the dining room. Well, I don’t even have a dining room, so to 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) speak, to it makes it pretty tough. So, it was fortuitous in some strange ways that, you know, one of our neighbors’ trees took out our barn and the NiMo pole, because by taking out the NiMo pole, they actually moved it for us about 10 feet to the east, which made for an opportunity when we finally do do something for the barn, garage, to do something maybe more useful than what we had, which was a very old structure with some issues. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume, at this point, that there wouldn’t be a year round livable situation with the camp out in the front there now. I mean, is it seasonal use only? MRS. BRASS-We only use it in the summer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MRS. BRASS-The person we bought it from lived there year round, which we thought was kind of a stretch. It’s really designed, I think, as a two or three season camp. When we got there, a lot of the walls had no insulation. We found 1942 newspaper for insulation in the kitchen. So, we’ve kind of viewed that as a clue, but again, you know, it doesn’t mean people don’t do odd things. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, are we going to get into a situation like we did with this last one where we create two buildings on a property and somebody wishes to subdivide at some point in the future? MR. OBORNE-I don’t think so. I mean, they’re two separate and distinct properties. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. BRASS-I guess the only other thing I’d like to add is, you know, we own the right of way, which actually starts on this bigger parcel, cuts over a little triangle piece to our neighbor to the east, and then opens on to, again, this same parcel. So, it would be, in my mind as a purchaser, very unattractive to buy just the waterfront piece, knowing that you have almost no to the land that isn’t part of the right of way on someone else’s property. So the attractive part of these parcels when I bought them was that you got both of them, and you had, I mean, if you had an issue with your neighbor to the east, there’s so much land, you could moved the right of way very easily. They’re attached to that road. It’s the only access point they have to their property. So it makes sense to leave it where it is, and then we upgraded it to a gravel drive, and so I think, for our purposes, it’s not horribly attractive to separate the parcels. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there, did you get any kind of feedback from your neighbors as to their concerns? MRS. BRASS-Well, we have, some of our neighbors are here. MR. UNDERWOOD-I assumed that’s who it was. MRS. BRASS-But the Dansbury’s and Gerry both live to the west of us, and we have a letter also from our neighbors to the east, the ladies who live in the ones that would be landlocked otherwise, and they’ve all agreed that this would be a structure that they would be okay with. We did get a dissenting opinion from the gentleman who lives four houses down who can’t actually see our property, and owns an embankment piece where there is a driveway for the other two neighbors, and he is actually the same guy whose tree fell on our barn. So that was kind of odd, but he’s the only person that’s had a dissenting opinion, and I’m not sure he’s actually looked at our property in probably 30 years. So he thinks there’s still a one car garage some place, and this barn that was hit was built in 1950 something. MR. URRICO-Jim, I know we’re not ready to get to that portion of it, but you said there was another letter, besides a dissenting letter. I don’t have a copy of it. MRS. BRASS-I have three good letters. MR. HUTCHINS-There are two attached to last two pages of the application. MRS. JENKIN-What about the Donohues? Are the Donohues the ones that are? MRS. BRASS-Yes, they’re the dissenting opinions. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. HUTCHINS-They have the Donohue letter. That was submitted. MRS. JENKIN-That’s the dissenting. Okay. MRS. BRASS-Yes. The Donohue letter pretty much. MR. URRICO-Okay. I see it. MR. HUTCHINS-But their house isn’t on this parcel. This is a vacant parcel they own. Their house is down. MRS. BRASS-They own property three houses down, and then a back piece along Glen Lake Road that a piece of is our furthest west property line, which is embankment, two driveways away from his home. So that would be the dissenting opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. What I’ll do is, when I open up the public hearing we’ll make sure those get read in, but at this time, do Board members have any questions or concerns? MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one. Could you expand a little bit on what you said about the septic system and the existing camp? Did you say that you were? MR. HUTCHINS-This is a one bedroom structure that we’re proposing to build. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ve sized the absorption field for whatever benefit it may be for a three bedroom size. In the event we have an issue with this system in the future, the capacity is there to handle septic from both buildings. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Where is the existing septic now? MRS. BRASS-It’s behind the camp, between the road and the camp. MR. HUTCHINS-Behind the camp. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Right in here. All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you guys using lake water, or have you got a well down there? MRS. BRASS-We have a well. MR. DRELLOS-You said there was a second story cantilever? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s on the front. MR. DRELLOS-It’s on the front of the deck. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It’s on the front as you look at this. It’s the rear setback. There is an elevation on the last one. MR. GARRAND-You know even if you combined both lots, it would still be a substandard lot for one home. It’s a small piece of property. Even combined, it’s a substandard lot, and you’re proposing two homes on a substandard lot. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it’s an existing nonconforming lot. MR. GARRAND-All right, because what we’re going to end up with here is a .91 acre lot with two separate homes on them, you know, that at some point I would guess might be subdivided or sold off. MR. HUTCHINS-No. We’re not proposing to merge. We’re proposing to keep them as separate lots. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. GARRAND-Yes, but still we’d have two very nonconforming lots. We’re increasing, considerably, the congestion in this area and the nonconformity in this area with this proposal. MRS. BRASS-There isn’t actually a residence in residence there for six months out of the year in any of the four homes around this area. So it’s a pretty empty population. MR. GARRAND-Yes, it’s tough to get to in the wintertime, too. MRS. BRASS-It’s right off Glen Lake Road. MR. GARRAND-Yes, it’s tough, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right on the corner. MRS. BRASS-Ivy Loop, it’s right off Ivy Loop. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. JENKIN-The septic, this is just an aside, but the septic as you’re planning it will be on the higher part of the property near the road, and then it dips down into a lower area. Are you concerned about drainage into that low area at all from the septic, and then it would drain down into the garage? MR. HUTCHINS-No. You mean drainage back towards the garage? No, I wouldn’t be concerned with that. The septic is, this is, basically we picked this area for septic for the soils criteria, and to minimize how many trees we’d have to take down, and, no, I’m not concerned about that location for an absorption field at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s 100 foot setback on the well. MR. HUTCHINS-Plus we have to hold 100 foot to each well. We’ve got a neighboring well and we’ve got our well. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, that’s important. MR. HUTCHINS-But, no, I’m very comfortable with that location for the septic. MRS. JENKIN-And then, would you explain, again, about the height? You’re going to actually, when you, if you plan to build this, you’ll be actually lowering the, you’re going to dig out a little bit to start to build the garage so it’s lower than the existing land? MR. HUTCHINS-No. We’re going to hold the grade in the drive area, essentially. I mean, essentially we’re going to hold the grade on the front side of the garage, the garage entry side, okay, and the garage floor to ridge is 28 feet. Okay, which will be matched to the grade at the entry side of the garage. So you can drive a car into the garage. The problem is existing grade behind the building, it slopes down where that parking area is, and then there’s a little ditch back there. That little ditch will be filled in, okay, to have our finished grade to 28 feet to the ridge of the garage. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So the existing grade at the front is the 28 feet, but at the back it’s the foot and a half. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Because I notice that it’s a cathedral ceiling, and I just wondered, in order to make it compliant, could you just make a little bit less slope to the roof, and then, a foot and a half is almost nothing. MRS. BRASS-Well, when we finish the grade at the end it will be 28 feet. In other words, the back end that’s sloping now, that would cause your garage floor to slope downhill will be flat. So when we bring the grade up, it will actually still be 28 feet. MRS. JENKIN-We’ve had many discussions about height. MR. HUTCHINS-I know. This has been an issue that, it’s a tough issue. MR. URRICO-The thing is, you combine with the other two. It’s not a minor issue. You refer to it as a minor issue, but when you’re talking about three variances, it’s no longer 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) minor, and we need to grant you minimum relief, not maximum relief. So we need you to show some compromise here, and you don’t seem to be doing that. So we need, can this be made smaller? MRS. BRASS-Shorter? MR. URRICO-Shorter, smaller. We need some indication that you’re willing to work with us on this. I’m not seeing that right now. MRS. BRASS-If we bring the grade up so that it is 28 feet and it’s not dropping in the back, does that work, or do you need something else? MR. URRICO-It’s from the lowest point to the highest point. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, but a finished grade we can do that. Pre-construction we can’t do that, because there’s a low area where we propose to build the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is your ceiling height upstairs going to be like 10 feet? Are you going to have like cathedral ceiling all the way up? MR. HUTCHINS-It’s an open ceiling. When they came to us with the plans, this was, the floor to ridge was 29 and a half feet. Okay, and my first suggestion to them was to get it lower. I’m going to leave this up to Kate a little bit, but my opinion, technically we could squeeze a foot and a half out of that, or 1.2 feet. MRS. JENKIN-The problem is, too, it’s not just your building and your request. It’s other people in other areas that have consistently come in for building heights and it’s been a big issue because sometimes they’re building these huge homes, and then they say, well, to finished grade it’s going to be only this high, but in actuality, it really isn’t, because it’s not the natural grade, and this is why, in order to be really cooperative and everything, if it’s possible to do it a little lower, it would be to your benefit, and definitely ours. Because it makes it easier for us. MRS. BRASS-Sure, absolutely. Yes, I mean, as long as, yes, I think as long as we can find some way, what we did is we had the cathedral ceiling so that it gave the appearance of a bigger space inside upstairs. Can we find a way to do that? I’m sure the architect can find a way to do that, if that’s the, you know, the thing that needs to be done. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know when I did my house up on the other end of Glen Lake, I mean, my garage, I just had like four foot knee walls and then eight twelve pitch roof going up from that, but I mean, I think what we’re trying to control here, and what the Board members are concerned with is that you don’t end up with what in essence is a second dwelling on, you know, what appears to be a, if you combine it, would be two places on two lots, but I mean, it is separate. It’s a bit of a gimme when people get living space above a garage. It’s a separate dwelling from what you’ve got there on site, and I think we’re trying to balance, you know, what your preservation of the camp down there, too, but at the same time, you know, down the road, we don’t know what’s going to happen. I mean, somebody could buy both lots from you, down the road, and tear the camp down and build a great big house, you know, as big as they could build on that lot down by the lake. MRS. BRASS-It won’t be real big. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, exactly. I mean, there’s limiting factors on that, too. Okay. Do you have any questions right now, or do you want me to open the public hearing? MR. DRELLOS-Open it up. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing, then. Anybody from the public wishing to speak raise your hand or come forward? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-No takers? All right. Why don’t we read those letters in. If you have that other letter that you had. MR. URRICO-I have a letter from Dansbury, from Bodette. Okay. This is dated October th 8. “Dear Mary: The big storm we experienced in June resulted in a tree falling on our 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) barn. The damage to the barn was extensive with the back end of the barn caving in. We are planning to rebuild the barn but would like to make it larger to accommodate the storage of our 2 cars and our small pontoon boat and given the small size of our home, an additional living space over the garage area. We are attaching a copy of the survey area and a rendering of the structure we propose to build. We are proposing to move the new building several feet further from our westerly property line where the existing barn currently sits. Even though the building will now be further from the property line on the west we will still need to acquire a variance for the set back on the west. The building will also be wider than the existing barn and will be about 19 feet from the northerly corner point of your property for which a variance will also be required. And lastly, due to the drop off of the property in the back we also need to acquire a height variance of 18 inches. We would like your support for this project and would appreciate a returned, signed copy of this letter that we can submit to the zoning board with our application before October 15. Should you have any questions or would like to discuss our plans, please give us a call. Thank you for your consideration, Don and Kate Brass Indication of Support for Project: Mary Fitch” And she wrote on the letter, “Sorry this is late. I have been working at three jobs to keep afloat, including every other weekend. We stopped up at the lake yesterday, but missed you. Best of luck on your new project. Hope to be in touch soon. Take care. Best regards, Mary.” That’s one. Then the other two letters, the same body of text, and this one is signed Mike and Holly Dansbury, and I’m assuming that’s a positive, and Gerry Bodette is the third letter, with the same body of text in the letter, and this is another one from Francis Donohue. And it says “Received your fax yesterday. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Joyce and I are in our later years and have turned all our financial and estate matters over to the evaluations and decisions of our children: Ted (attorney), Michael and Pattie (Construction and Real Estate) and Meg (Accountant). When we received the prior data concerning your property and my property on Glen Lake, the matter was turned over to them. We noticed in the letter you first sent, dated October 8, 2008, requesting we, as adjacent property owners, sign your enclosed form and return it to you refers to a “BARN”. We are confused as we have been at the lake since 1972, knew the Cooks, the prior owners of the property you are referring to, and never were aware of a “BARN” existing on that property. However, there was and is a small one car garage, approximately 300 square feet in size, that has existed on that property all that time, 36 years. Is this the building you are referring to as a “BARN”? When we first discussed this matter, I understood you to say that your garage building had been damaged by a falling tree and you needed to send a Proposed Plan to the Town of Queensbury reporting for permission to repair it. You advised that as we were the owner of the adjoining parcel of land that you were seeking for us to sign the statement you had prepared approving your Proposed Plan. There was included, with your prepared statement to be signed, a letter sized paper which appeared to have a drawing and figures on it which were too miniscule to read. I assumed this was a copy of your Proposed Plan to repair the damaged garage. In response to my request you sent me a larger and more readable copy of your Proposed Plan and another related paper. These readable papers were turned over to our kids to evaluate and advise us. Their conclusion is and was that the new readable Proposed Plan reveals that your intention is not for us to agree to the repair of the existing 300 square foot damaged garage building, but agree to your Proposed Plan which is for the construction of a new 2100 square foot Detached Multi Use Structure, consisting of a three car garage for parking and storage (1050 sq. ft.) on the ground floor, and Living Area (1050 sq. ft.) on the upper floor with a deck (144 sq. ft.) To any thinking mind, this is not a replacement of a damaged 300 sq. ft. garage building but the building of a new 2100 sq. ft. Detached Multi Use Structure for residential purposes. It is apparent that you and/or your Engineer/Architect has misrepresented the title of the Proposed Plan as “GARAGE REPLACEMENT PLAN” wherein fact, is it for the construction of a Detached Multi Use building for residential purpose. You have included with your Proposed plan, an agreement statement which you want us to sign to, agreeing to and giving our consent to the provisions of the Proposed Plan. Per my children’s evaluation of the matter of concern, they advised that you are asking for us to agree to an exclusion, variation and exception of the Town of Queensbury building and zoning codes and rules especially as it relates to its set back requirements. The Plan purports your intention to build a new Multi Use structure, that is a 35 foot by 30 foot structure consisting of a 3 car garage, a 1000 sq. ft. plus living area, and also a 16 ft. by 9 ft. deck. Their professional opinion is that your proposed “Garage Replacement Plan” of a 320 s.f. garage with a new 2100 s.f. Multi Use building is not a replacement but construction of a new residential structure. According to the data you furnished, your property consists of approximately 1 acre of land which should be more than sufficient, if qualified, to build the proposed residential structure on and be well in compliance within the Set back requirements, without asking us to agree to a variance. At this time, based on the furnished, we are not in agreement with the attached Proposed Building Plan being requested by Donald Bass. Further, we are certainly not in agreement to the Proposed 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) exclusion, variation and/or exception of the Town of Queensbury building and zoning codes especially as they exist to the required Set Back requirements. The large structure being proposed to be built will be located on the low terrain sections of our lots. As noted by my son, The topography map disclosing the elevations and water shed, drainage, freeze, along with the proposed drainage and leach systems, give one to pause. The topography map and other data furnished indicates that the construction of the proposed building on the proposed location, will have a bad impact on our and the surrounding neighbor properties as it will add much to the water and drainage problems that already exist. It can and will have a bad effect on the surrounding areas and the septic fields and drinking water wells. Upon the advice of our adult children, our advisors, we will not agree to the requested variances, exceptions and/or exclusions, until a study can be made to determine any impact it can/could have on our property. We will be at the Lake next July, if you want to discuss this matter more fully. Feel free to call if you have any further input or questions. Frank Donohue” And that’s it as far as letters, I think. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to respond to that last one? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. I could just clarify a couple of things, and perhaps Kate wants to respond as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are they four houses away, you said? MRS. BRASS-They physically can’t see our home, or the garage from their property, other than an embankment they own, which they’ve removed height from with bulldozers and push over onto our property line, and it was Mr. Donohue’s tree who actually took out our barn. So I think I’d like to clarify that first. Go ahead, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t think, this reads like we’ve misrepresented anything, and I don’t believe we have. The existing garage is 520 square feet, and in our application, our application was for a residential primary structure. It wasn’t for a replacement, and that’s all I really wanted to clarify, and we’re not misrepresenting anything. MRS. BRASS-No, I think, you know, there’s a couple of things here that are of interest. First, we’ve never had a discussion with the Donohues. They called to say they couldn’t read the map that we provided to all of our other neighbors who could read it, and so we sent them these large copies that everybody else has, so that they could see better, but we’ve never had a conversation, other than I can’t read a map, could you send me one. So there’s been no real discussion. I think the footprint representation that he’s got, in terms of an actual footprint, is misleading. I mean, I’m not trying to build a 2100 square foot footprint. Yes, it will be two stories, but, again, it’s below the height of his embankment. So I’m not sure I understand the topogprahy issues that he’s raising, since I’m on the low part of where he puts his embankment when he moves it, comes my way. The damage that created this whole opportunity was created by trees that are on his la d that land on my barn, which created the opportunity in the first place. So I’m somewhat confused/mystified by their response, especially since every neighbor who can actually see this structure is okay with this structure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, any questions? MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one. As I went up there and looked at the garage as it stands right now, as you’re looking at the front of it, to the right is kind of gravel. There’s gravel over there and then kind of a border around that. Would the footprint of new structure be about the size of where the garage is and that gravel? MRS. BRASS-It would be to the garage and a little less than all of that gravel to that right side. MR. HUTCHINS-There were three stakes there, okay. It said building corner, building corner, building corner. The fourth corner is inside the footprint of the existing garage, but where you saw, the gravel area, and there’s a big stone trench there. MR. CLEMENTS-Right. MR. HUTCHINS-That is just about the easterly limit of the proposed building. MRS. BRASS-And that’s with the garage being shifted, so that it actually doesn’t, it would move it so that it is more straight on toward the lake, so that when we evacuate 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) our home, and live over the garage, we get the same benefits that we have when we relinquish our home to our children. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. That’s fine. I was just looking kind of for the footprint. MR. HUTCHINS-The footprint would be entirely on disturbed area, as we’re proposing it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you got a question? If you’re going to come up, I think what I’ll have you do is, somebody from the public wanted to comment a little bit further, so we’ll allow them some time. Just make sure you tell us who you are so we get it on the record. Thanks. DANIEL ELLSWORTH MR. ELLSWORTH-My name is Daniel Ellsworth. I live on Glen Lake Road, a few houses east. At first I wasn’t going to say anything, but as Mr. Donohue lives four or five houses down, you know, I’m in the other direction, so maybe it is relevant. To me, this makes perfect sense. I know the Brasses, and, you know, I’ve done stuff there and looked at the site, and what they’re going to do is, you know, going to be minor disturbance and one gentleman raised an issue of access in the wintertime. To be honest, sir, I’ve had a tractor trailer back down in there, of my own, you know what I mean, an 18 wheeler. So as far as access to this site, there’s no question about any type of winter access, summer, spring, fall, any problems whatsoever. As far as the gentleman that wrote the letter of disconsent, you know, that man would disconsent to anything on earth, and believe me when I tell you, I know him personally. No matter what you do, you wouldn’t make him happy. So, what he has to say isn’t, you know, it’s not here nor there. The rest of the neighbors in the area are all for this, and the people even down the road, and it’s only going to beautify Glen Lake Road. We jog by it every day. So I’ve got to live with it the same as the rest of the neighbors, and I know these people and what they’re going to do is going to be topnotch. It’s going to very minor disturbance, because they’re as green as green gets, you know, as far as just nature and the things that has to be done, and I just wanted to add that. I don’t know anybody that should be opposed and anyone other than that one gentleman, and my opinion is that his opinion is of no value. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any other concerns or questions at this time? MR. DRELLOS-So you are going to lower it down the foot and a half, is that, for the height and everything? We’re going to eliminate that? MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to lop off that? MR. HUTCHINS-If we can get there on the other items, I think we’re willing to do that, is that correct? MRS. BRASS-Yes, we’ll figure out how to flatten it out, I mean, we may have to change the roofline, but as long as nobody’s all excited about. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, you’ve got those dormers up there. MR. HUTCHINS-We’ll have to tweak the roof slope. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, it’s just, change the pitch, you ought to be able to cover it that way. So, in going back through, let’s just review it. It’s 154 feet from Glen Lake. I’m going to poll the Board, but, you know, why don’t we do this, anything more you guys want to add at this point? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t believe so. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’ve heard enough. MRS. BRASS-I think we’ve said it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I’ll poll the Board and start with you, Brian. Why don’t we do it this way. Let’s recognize it’s 154 feet from Glen Lake. So that’s pretty substantial. The septic field is located way far back further than just about anybody on the lake that you can find. There is a seasonal cottage directly south of this proposed house, and it’s situated on a nonconforming lot, and as Rich had pointed out, the one sticking point that 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) was brought up by Board members was, you’re going to have two dwellings on what is essentially a nonconforming lot, but it is two separate parcels. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Right. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. The elevations call for that 16 by 9 foot second story balcony, and so the relief for that balcony, all right, and Staff’s contention was that if it was eliminated, the resulting rear setback relief would be reduced to 16 feet or 64% relative to the Ordinance. Now, is that relief from their own lot? Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So that’s not relief from a neighbor’s lot that would be affecting any neighbor. So, I mean, keep in your minds, is that major or minor. Okay. So we’ve dealt with that instance before also, and as far as the height goes, they were requesting 1.21 feet in order to become compliant. You’re going to change the roof angles and work that out so instead of being 28 feet now, we’re talking 26., 26 feet 11 inches. Is that what we were looking at? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, ten. MR. UNDERWOOD-Twenty-six foot ten. MRS. JENKIN-Twenty-six and a half. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we’ll reduce it to, by 1.2 feet, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ll make sure it’s within those parameters so you don’t have to come back and deal with the wrath of the Board. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, and the net out of that, the finished grade will be, the finished height will be 26 and change in lieu of 28. It’s just a matter of interpreting it from existing grade. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, there’s also a side setback issue, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s off that sideline. Recognizing that the current garage, this is going to be setback further. I mean, it could be brought into compliance. Correct? But, I mean, I think that what they’re trying to do is balance off the trees and doing the minimal amount of weed whacking down there to accommodate the new structure and put the footings in and things like that. MRS. BRASS-And there’s the limiting factor of National Grid. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and the power lines, the expense of having to move the power lines, too. So, okay. Brian, why don’t we go through you, first, then. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I think you put it very well. I certainly would be in favor of this, since they have consented to the height restriction, so that we wouldn’t have to put that in the variance. I think it’s a very modest structure. I’m happy with the septic system back there, being able to take care of possibly the one from the camp at a later date if needed. So I’d definitely be in favor of this proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-Taken individually, a lot of these requests for relief aren’t significant whatsoever. Down the line, there’s nothing to say that these parcels wouldn’t belong to the same person, and thereby that 100% relief for that deck would carry over with the parcel. Cumulatively, I think the requests are significant, and I’d be against this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, considering the new structure will be further from the property line, and that the height restriction has been eliminated, the variance for it has been eliminated, and the rear setback is really the balcony that’s causing the problem, and you own both pieces of property. So I would have no problem. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think the only concern I really had was the height. I understand the possibility down the road, but if we ever cross that bridge, then that would automatically trigger another variance. I would hope if the line was eliminated, they would have to get 100% relief on that second primary residence at that time, so I think we’d face that bridge at that point. So, as it stands right now, with the height reduced, I’d be in favor of the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think that you’ve made considerable improvements to the property, and the road, and the crushed stone parking is good, rather than asphalt which runs off, and you’ve made a lot of considerations which are positive ones. I think the house is, it’s a good project. It’s a good project because you’re not changing the old home, which is nice because it’s part of the property and it’s an old camp, and I believe in maintaining old things. I think it’s a good project, and as long as you’re willing to lower the roof, which I felt was fairly important, I would be in favor of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-I would tend to agree. I am glad to see it in the same spot. It makes it nice that you’re not destroying any of the other vegetation and the trees. The relief from the second story, back upstairs, it is your own property. That’s something you’ll have to live with yourself. So I don’t see a problem there, and as far as the septic, at some point down the road you’d have to probably put one in there for the camp anyway, and that’s probably where it would go. So it just makes sense to enlarge it, to accommodate that. I would be in favor of this project, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and, I, too, will go long with the project. I think Rich’s concerns are something that we need to be concerned with, because we get a lot of people who come in and, you know, want to just do everything and then just split it up and take the money and run and things like that. I don’t see that in this instance here. What I would suggest is this, though, and I would add this to whoever does the resolution, and that is that if you do anticipate any improvements in the camp down on the waterfront, in the future, that any improvements as far as, you know, jacking it up or adding on or anything like that down the road would automatically trigger hooking up to that system there, and, in fact, you know, while you’re out there digging away, it might make sense to put the pipe in the ground and hook it up now. I mean, it’s not going to, I mean, on Glen Lake, I think everybody’s always concerned with making sure everybody does a better job than what was there previously on the properties, and I know there’s no magic wand you can wave over people’s head to get them to do that, but at the same time, to run a lateral over there would not be a major undertaking on your part, and I think as far as improving the situation on the lake, it’s probably a good thing. So I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that. I mean, I can’t make you do it, but I’m just going to make the suggestion that, you know, you go ahead and do it on your own. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Could I, you said there was a problem doing it, you would have to get permission. Did you? MR. HUTCHINS-I said technically it’s sized to do it. I’m not exactly sure the ramifications of the Town’s wastewater ordinance with part of the septic system being on one parcel and part being on the other. Technically it’s sized to do it, and we would do whatever, even if it meant variance from the Town Code to be able to do that, and I think logically it makes sense. Technically it makes sense, and we would get there, but I didn’t say they’ll automatically allow us to do that. I’m just not sure. MRS. JENKIN-Right, because of the two properties, right. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MRS. JENKIN-Absolutely, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So does somebody want to do the resolution, then, on this one? 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) MR. CLEMENTS-Sure, I’ll do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2008 DONALD L. BRASS, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 9 Mary Lane. The applicant proposes the construction of a 1,050 square foot residence with a 900 square foot garage near Glen Lake. The relief required is applicant requests 16.14 feet of relief from the 25 foot setback requirement and 25 feet of relief from the 25 foot rear setback requirement as per Section 179-4-023. The request for height has been eliminated. In making the determination, whether there’s an undesirable change? Minor to moderate changes to nearby properties are anticipated. Number Two, can the benefit to the applicant be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance? Construction of this structure is technically feasible without requested setback variance. However, any other location would require extensive clearing, grading, and utility re-locations. It would not serve the owner’s needs as well. Whether the requested variance is substantial. The request for the 16.14 feet, or 65% from the 25 foot setback may be considered moderate to severe, relative to the Ordinance. Further, the request for 25 feet, or 100% of the 25 foot rear setback requirement may be considered severe to extreme relative to the Ordinance. However, the applicant owns both pieces of property. So that setback would be from their other piece of property. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, but the existing garage was heavily damaged by a storm and the proposed replacement structure includes a small living area. Motion to approve. th Duly adopted this 19 day of November, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. I guess I’ll end the meeting, unless there’s anybody from the public here to speak. Yes, why don’t you come forward, please. HOWARD CARR MR. CARR-Yes, sir. Has the application been withdrawn on the next four applications? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. What they did was they, I’ll read you the letter if you want. I announced it at the beginning of the meeting. MR. CARR-I’m sorry, I just got here a couple of minutes ago. MR. UNDERWOOD-In essence they sent us a letter and said I’m very sorry on behalf of the applicants we have to request to table the pending variance applications which were scheduled. As recently as today, the two tenants, Walgreens and Chili’s have been re- negotiating site design changes related to the exact locations of their proposed buildings on the Northway Plaza site. As a result of these changes it did not make sense to appear before the Board to request variances which would likely to inapplicable due to revised building locations, and it goes on a little more, but we received a second set, you know, after the first set, and I think they were happier maybe with the first set they sent us. So we’re waiting to hear back. It’ll be December, probably, that they come back. MR. CARR-Just for the Board’s edification, my name’s Howard Carr. I’m President of the Howard Group, managing agent for the Queensbury Plaza. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. CARR-And we just want to go on record on behalf of saying that we don’t think that any variances of any type, size or nature should be granted to either of these two applicants. There is no establishment of a hardship as the result of their location, and that any time that any of our tenants have come before the Board for this township, every 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/19/08) one of them has been denied. So to retain a level playing field, we would specifically request that you support the Ordinance as it relates to the signage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because we didn’t hear it tonight, we’re just going to keep eyes wide open and, you know, I don’t know if it’s appropriate for you to be speaking at this time, but, you know, we’re approaching it from. MR. CARR-I’ll be back. MR. UNDERWOOD-We assume you’ll be back at some point, and we’ll listen to you fully at that time. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-But because we didn’t entertain anything, we didn’t have anything on the record tonight regarding the project, we’ll keep your opinions in abeyance until we see the big picture and what they’re proposing. MR. CARR-Okay. Thank you. Just keep us informed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. We will. MR. OBORNE-If I may, if you care to, you could certainly send something in to the Planning Office at the Town of Queensbury. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board will get this before us now. They’re scheduled, but are they going to yank from them, too? MR. OBORNE-Right now you’re first. They have to get through you before they go to the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So it’ll be back to us, you know, probably the first meeting in December, I would assume they’ll be back. th MR. OBORNE-Which was the 17, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. th MR. CARR-December 17? Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. That’s it for tonight, guys. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 35