Loading...
2009.11.25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2009 INDEX Area Variance No. 64-2009 George Mayorquin 1. Tax Map No. 278.-1-2 Area Variance No. 65-2009 Sharlene Morehouse 5. Tax Map No. 308.8-2-11 Area Variance No. 63-2009 Laurie Gates 8. Tax Map No. 316.17-1-33 Area Variance No. 62-2009 John V. Currie 13. Tax Map No. 278.-2-17.2 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 11/25/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, CHAIRMAN JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE DRELLOS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the November 25, 2009 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 that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and 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 ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. 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’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the 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 in 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 then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II GEORGE MAYORQUIN OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 1527 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF FRONT & BACK PORCHES AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT, SIDE & REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE RR ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 06-236, BP 06-171 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-1-2 SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010 GEORGE MAYORQUIN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2009, George Mayorquin, Meeting Date: November 25, 2009 “Project Location: 1527 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of front and back porches. Relief Required: Applicant requests 57 feet of front setback and 50 feet of east side setback relief for a proposed front porch. Further, the applicant requests 73 feet of rear and 40 feet of east 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) side setback for a proposed rear porch. Finally relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. 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 impacts 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. With the existing house a non-conforming structure in regards to setbacks, any addition of porches would require an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 57 feet or 57% front setback relief from the 100 foot requirement and 50 feet or 67% side setback relief from the 75 foot requirement per §179-3-040 for the proposed front porch may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 73 feet or 73% rear setback relief from the 100 foot requirement and 40 feet or 53% side setback relief from the 75 foot requirement per §179-3-040 for the proposed rear porch may be considered moderate to 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 impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. Lot limitation may have contributed to the need for an area variance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 06-171 1857 sq. ft. SFD Approved 4/28/08 BP 06-236 Demolition of existing SFD Approved 5/2/07 Staff comments: According to the applicant’s narrative, the porches were not built at the time that the house was built. The setbacks associated with this zone have been updated and have become more restrictive with the approval of the new code in May, 2009. Regardless of which code was in effect, the applicant would still be required to seek an area variance for both proposed porches. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review needed” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 10, 2009 Project Name: Mayorquin, George Owner: George Mayorquin ID Number: QBY-09-AV-64 County Project#: Nov09-19 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of front and back porches and requests relief from the front, side & rear setback requirements of the RR zone. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 1527 State Route 149 Tax Map Number(s): 278.-1-2 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes construction of front and back porches. Relief is requested for the following: front setback where 100 ft. is required and 48.1 ft. is proposed; rear setback where 100 ft. is required and 27.2 ft. is proposed; and expansion of a pre-existing non conforming structure. The applicant has indicated that a change in setback requirements occurred during the construction of the house requiring a variance to be requested. The plans show the location of the house and the proposed porches along with elevation drawings. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted accordance to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) Recommendation: No County Impact” County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact Signed by Susan C. Wilson, November 11, 2009. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Mayorquin, do you want to tell us anything else about it? I would assume, I think some of us have been on the Board and recall when the road was re-done over there on 149, and your house goes back to about 2006, I believe, when you started construction on it. MR. MAYORQUIN-Well, that’s when the initial construction started, and the little house was still standing next to it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Still there, yes. MR. MAYORQUIN-And inadvertently, one of the posts, or one of the pins or something had been moved inadvertently, and the contractor who I had hired set the house in the wrong spot, that’s what the bottom line, I take full responsibility and it didn’t actually come into effect until once I, the Town of Queensbury asked me to get the survey done, which I did, which we discovered that the house was not situated in the right way, and then by putting in the porches I would have been in violation, but the house is a very nice house, but like I said, it doesn’t look finished, and I think it’ll make the neighborhood look nice. I mean, people go down that road all the time, and it’s the entrance to Queensbury. That’s the way I look at it. People look at it and say, well, it’s a nice Town. That’s what drew me to the neighborhood when I came here on vacation was the surrounding areas, and right now it just doesn’t look, I mean, it doesn’t look finished. I want to get it done. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, what was our Code designation? Was that five acre up there before? MR. OBORNE-It was three acres. MR. UNDERWOOD-It was always three acre along there. MR. OBORNE-The setbacks were 50/30/30. Now they’re 100, what. MR. UNDERWOOD-They increased them, they doubled them from what they were? MR. OBORNE-Yes, basically, more than doubled them on the sides, I believe. MR. UNDERWOOD-And a lot of that’s because that east side of the property line there has got, walks in toward the road there on the back end on the corner there. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, that’s a lot of it there, whereas if they had come out straight, they still would have been deficient anyway. MR. OBORNE-Yes, they still would have needed one, it just wouldn’t have been. MR. MAYORQUIN-As severe. MR. OBORNE-As severe, exactly. It looks a lot worse than it is. MR. UNDERWOOD-One of the comments I was going to make is, you know, I remember the old place that was on its last legs that was there, you know, before you re-built and everything like that, so it’s a grand improvement over what you had there to begin with, but I would have to agree with you that it needs a porch on it to finish it off. MR. MAYORQUIN-And it’s not going to be an obstructive porch. It’s a very minimal porch. It’s a place for people to take their shoes off and maybe have a cup of coffee out in the back, and it’s going to be in the same theme, made out of logs, cedar logs, it’s going to look nice. It’s going to look very nice. MRS. HUNT-Could you tell us the dimensions of the porches? MR. MAYORQUIN-I think it’s on the print there. I think it’s six by fifteen is the front one and I think the back one is six by thirty-three or thirty, something to that effect. They’re not very, they’re very minimal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Six is enough to get a chair in there, barely. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) MR. MAYORQUIN-Exactly. MR. OBORNE-The Code requirement’s three. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Anybody have any questions, you guys, at this time? It’s pretty straightforward. Okay. I think what I’ll do, then, is open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. This one, to me, why don’t I just go through you guys anyway, but, keep in mind, this was a pre-existing lot that pre-dated, you know, the road got wider, you know, there’s a lot of different issues here. Most of the relief is, you know, no matter what side of the building it is, it needs relief, in essence, but it’s a small lot, it was a re-do. I don’t, particularly, myself, want to sway you guys, but I don’t think it’s any big deal, but it’s up to you, whatever you think. Ron, what do you say? MR. KUHL-No, I’d go along with your thought process. I mean, it’s a nice looking structure and it needs completeness, and I mean, there’s nobody behind it. I would have no problem with it. I really wouldn’t. I think it’s finishing what he started, really. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I would agree with Ron also. I think it would look much better finished off. I think that there are some conditions there to change, you know, like you said. I guess I did have one question. Are you planning on a garage for this at all? MR. MAYORQUIN-No, sir. The lot wasn’t big enough for the garage, and I have a house in New Jersey, I have no garage. So to me it doesn’t really bother me. It seems like a big thing here, but, you know, I’m used to shoveling snow off of windshields and stuff. So it’s not really a big thing. MR. CLEMENTS-So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think any rationale person going over the balancing test would give it the best three out of five. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem. I think it really does need a porch to finish it off in the front and they seem to be minimal porches. So I have no problem with it. MR. MAYORQUIN-And they are minimal. They are minimal porches. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I, like you, remember the original house there and whatever went there would have to go through this process. There would have to be a variance process, and I think this is a good way to finish off this building. I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we would have denied this had you come in first thing to do it, either. I mean, to me it’s reflective of, it fits on the lot and it’s going to look better with it finished off, and when it’s noisy out front you can go out back. MR. MAYORQUIN-Exactly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Vice versa. On a quiet day you can still sit out, and get the south sun facing that way. MR. MAYORQUIN-To me, I know for you guys that’s a busy road, but for me, where I come from, that’s not busy at all. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Does somebody want to take this one? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-Mr. Chairman, you need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2009 GEORGE MAYORQUIN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 1527 State Route 149. The applicant proposes construction of front and back porches. The applicant requests 57 feet of front setback and 50 feet of east side setback relief for a proposed front porch. Further, the applicant requests 73 feet of rear and 40 feet of east side setback for a proposed rear porch. Finally relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. In making this determination, we shall consider the following criteria. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method feasible to the applicant to pursue. The house is now a non- conforming structure and it really needs the porches to finish, and I don’t think there is any other feasible alternative. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. There will be minor impacts to the nearby properties, and actually it’s going to improve the appearance of the house. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Well, 57 feet or 57% of front setback relief from the 100 foot requirement, or 50 feet or 67% side setback relief from the 75 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040 for the proposed front porch may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. Further, request for 73 feet or 73% rear setback relief from the 100 foot requirement and 40 feet or 53% side setback relief from the 75 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040 for the proposed rear porch may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. I don’t think there’ll be any real effects, physical, environmental or otherwise, in the neighborhood, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Well, the lot size and configuration sort of limits things, and so I would move that we approve Area Variance No. 64-2009. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. Do you want to keep your surveys? MRS. HUNT-You might as well. MR. MAYORQUIN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-In case you want to add on later. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SHARLENE MOREHOUSE AGENT(S): WILLIAM MOREHOUSE OWNER(S): CLUTE ENTERPRISES ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 501 SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DECREASE ONE PARCEL BY 593.25 +/- SQUARE FEET AND INCREASE ADJACENT PARCEL TO THE EAST BY EQUIVALENT AMOUNT. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 04-240; BP 09-329 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.51 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-2-11 SECTION: 179-3-040 WILLIAM MOREHOUSE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 65-2009, Sharlene Morehouse, Meeting Date: November 25, 2009 “Project Location: 501 and 497 Sherman Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to decrease one parcel by 593.25 +/- square feet and increase adjacent parcel to the east by the equivalent amount. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirements of the MDR zone for the conveying property. 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 impacts 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. The non- conforming nature of the lots and the nature of the proposal appear to dictate the need for an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The reduction of 592.25 square feet or a total lot size reduction of 2.8% from an original lot size of 21,214 square feet for the Clute parcel may be considered minor. 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 no impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood 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.): BP 08-313 456 sq. ft. addition Approved 10/08 AV 53-08 Front yard setback, greater than 50% expansion Approved 9/17/08 BP 04-240 576 sq. ft. 2 car detached garage Approved 5/04 Staff comments: According to the applicant, the proposed conveyance of land is due to the location of the fence associated with the lot to the east (Morehouse). The rationalization appears to be that it would be easier to convey land than it would be to move the fence. The conveyance of 593 square feet results in an increase in non-conformity for the Clute property and a decrease in non-conformity for the Morehouse property. With the Morehouse property being the smaller of the two, there appears to be a reasonable benefit in regards to property sizes. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review required” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 10, 2009 Project Name: Morehouse, Sharlene Owner: Clute Enterprises ID Number: QBY-09- AV-65 County Project#: Nov09-21 Current Zoning: MDR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to decrease one parcel by 593.25 +/- square feet and increase adjacent parcel to the east by equivalent amount. Applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirements of the MDR zone. Site Location: 501 Sherman Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 308.8-2-11 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to decrease one parcel by 593.25 +/- square feet and increase the 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) adjacent parcel to the east by the equivalent amount. Relief is requested for the following: minimum lot size where 2 acres is required for lots not connected to Town water and sewer where one lot will be reduced to 20,620.75 sq. ft. and the second lot will be increased to 8,482.95 sq. ft. noting neither lot will meet the required lot size. The information submitted shows the amount of land to be conveyed. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Susan C. Wilson, Warren County Planning Board 11/10/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Morehouse. I think everybody’s pretty aware of what’s going on here on this one here. It’s like either more house or less house, depending on. MR. MOREHOUSE-I went through this once before putting my second story on, and it came out real nice. There’s not much property there, as you can see, in a few swipes my grass is gone. So before the house was there, it was just a big berm full of bushes and the old trailer. So we had a fence there and it was kind of, I kept this side real neat. So now Larry did that, which is no problem, like I said, we discussed it, and I just want to keep the fence straight, otherwise it’s 12 feet on an angle across the yard, and there’s not much there then. MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody, I think, is always baffled by the way they laid these lines out. MR. MOREHOUSE-I mean, you look at, everything around me is just crooked. That’s why I said, it’s crazy, but, I mean, it’s not much, it’s just that little bit, at least I can keep my fence straight, you know, and mow the lawn straight instead of on an angle. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions at this time? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board on this one. I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t have a problem with this. It seems pretty cut and dried to me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I don’t see any major environmental impacts that are going to come about by conveyance of a little over 500 square feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, it’s straightforward. I have no objections. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I have no objections either. I think it meets the criteria easily. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t think anybody’s going to even be aware of it. As you drive down these streets, everybody assumes everything comes out square, you know. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) MR. MOREHOUSE-Yes. If you were looking at it straight, he had a different shot before, up in the front post. If you look at it straight, I mean, you could see where the post is set now, it goes right straight down the fence, but otherwise it goes way across my lawn, I mean, 12 feet’s 12 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I will agree with everybody else, and, do you want me to take this one? Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2009 SHARLENE MOREHOUSE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 501 Sherman Avenue. The applicant is proposing to decrease one parcel by 593.25 square feet and increase the adjacent parcel to the east, Mr. Clute’s property, by that equivalent amount. They’re requesting relief from the minimum lot size requirements of the Mixed Residential zone. I think everybody recognizes that the lot size is going to change imperceptibly here by doing this, and the real benefit to the applicant is going to be by having the fence squared off to squared off property line as opposed to that angled in one, which would look kind of odd like you weren’t paying attention when you put your fence in or something, but as far as whether the benefit can be achieved by other means, I guess we could, you know, leave it as is, but it doesn’t make sense at this point in time. It’s more in conforming by changing the property line to square it off to the frontage. Whether an undesirable change to the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will be produced. I don’t believe so. I think if we built the fence the other way it would look even more oddball. Whether the request is substantial. The 500 plus square feet of relief is pretty minimal, as far as I’m concerned, and the gain to the other side of the property isn’t any great gain that’s going to offset any change here to this one, and whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. I don’t believe it’ll have any at all, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. I think it’s created by the initial shape of the lot there, with the property line walking in at that odd angle. So, by straightening it out, it’ll make more sense. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to keep these surveys? MR. MOREHOUSE-Actually, I have something here. I guess we’re all set, unless you. MR. OBORNE-We’re going to need four copies submitted to the Town. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keep them anyway, you might need them. MR. MOREHOUSE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II LAURIE GATES AGENT(S): TOM ALBRECHT, HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S): SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 75 PALMER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 676 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 09-392, AV 48-04; BP 04-272, 99-564, 99-387, 99-386, 91-385 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.34 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.17-1-33 SECTION: 179-3-040, 179-13-010 TOM ALBRECHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2009, Laurie Gates, Meeting Date: November 25, 2009 “Project Description: 75 Palmer Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 676 square foot, 24 foot tall second story residential addition on a 0.35 acre lot near the Hudson River in South Queensbury. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) Relief Required: Applicant requests 19.3 feet of front setback relief and 8.3 feet of rear setback relief from the minimum setback requirements of the WR zone per §179-3-040. Further, the applicant is seeking relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per §179-13- 010. 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 impacts 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. As this is a second story expansion on a pre-existing non-conforming structure, little recourse other than an area variance is feasible. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 19.3 feet or 63% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 8.3 feet or 28% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate 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 could be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 09-392 676 sq. ft. residential addition PENDING BP 99-564 2 Bedroom & septic alteration Approved 6/28/04 AV 48-04 130 sq. ft. addition; front yard relief Approved 6/23/04 BP 99-387 80 sq. addition; 576 sq. ft. garage Approved 1999 Staff comments: The applicant requested and received a waiver from the Zoning Board Chair from the requirements of an updated survey. Town records appear to demonstrate that the property immediately adjacent to the river on the west side of Palmer Drive is owned by the applicant. Clarification may need to be forth coming as the Floor Area Ratio calculation would be incorrect. Note: The FAR calculation in terms of a percentage would be lower or of greater benefit as a result if this property is in fact owned by the applicant. SEQR Status: Type II” Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 10, 2009 Project Name: Gates, Laurie Owner: Laurie Gates ID Number: QBY-09-AV-63 County Project#: Nov09-17 Current Zoning: WR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 676 sq. ft. residential addition and requests relief from the side setback requirements of the WR zone. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 75 Palmer Drive Tax Map Number(s): 316.17-1-33 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to nd construct a 676 sq. ft. 2 story residential addition. Relief is requested for the following: front setback on Palmer Dr. 30 ft. is required and 15 ft. is proposed; front setback for Big Bay Road 30 ft is required and 10 ft is proposed; and to alter a pre-existing nonconforming structure. The information submitted indicates the addition will be over a 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) portion of the existing house and alter the size of the existing 3-bedrooms. The plans show the existing home and the proposed addition with elevations. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Susan C. Wilson, Warren County Planning Board 11/10/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Albrecht? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. Welcome. I’m glad I’m not the only one bringing you folks out on Thanksgiving eve. Yes. We’re proposing a 26 foot by 26 foot second story addition on a nonconforming structure, residential structure. We are creating a large master bedroom upstairs, and eliminating a bedroom. We’re taking two bedrooms on the first floor and making one bedroom out of them. So in a sense we’re not adding any bedrooms to the structure. It is a three bedroom home and it will continue to stay a three bedroom home. The relief has been stated as to what we’re looking for. I welcome any comments or thoughts. MR. URRICO-What about the comments by Staff regarding the property next door? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on the other side of the road on the river side. MR. URRICO-Well, the Staff comments, they said that the clarification on the. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not two separate parcels, it would be one, is it one, Keith? MR. OBORNE-That’s what I’m getting, but your survey only shows, it doesn’t show it, and it’s not a negative, it’s positive. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, right. MR. UNDERWOOD-It lowers your FAR down. MR. OBORNE-It’s just the numbers, it’s just the application drawing, and you know how we feel about applications being wrong. MR. ALBRECHT-I think it’s a small strip of land on the other side of the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-And your septic’s pretty far back in the back yard there. So it’s not like it’s right out front on the water that we’d be concerned with that. MR. ALBRECHT-And that’s fairly new as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. ALBRECHT-I mean, do you have the date on when that was installed? MR. KUHL-6/28/04. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. So, that’s pretty new for a septic. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pretty much brand new, yes. I don’t remember this one when it got re-built. This was a brand new home, or was it just re-configured from an older camp? MR. ALBRECHT-No. It was a small little cottage on the water that has had several additions. I’ve been in here at two other applications for an addition towards the water that was approved, and then the garage was another. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that some of us were sitting the last time you came in here. I remembered it from before when I got down there. Okay. I’ll open up to you guys. Do you guys have any questions about the project? It’s pretty straightforward. It’s another one of those add on over the top. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I had a question. I had two, actually. In 2004, you added a two bedroom and another septic, you put in a different septic system? MR. ALBRECHT-A new septic system was installed, yes. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) MR. CLEMENTS-And how large was that? I mean, what was that rated for, two bedroom? Three bedroom? MR. UNDERWOOD-Three. MR. CLEMENTS-Three? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s listed as three. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay, and the other thing is on this map right here, the one I’m looking at, it shows the addition here, kind of written over the top. It looks like, could you go back to that first picture you had up there? Right there. You’re putting an addition on, it looks like maybe from, let’s say from the chimney back? MR. ALBRECHT-On the right hand side, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Is that going to go over the edge of where that building is right now, or is it just going to go right straight up? MR. ALBRECHT-That’ll go straight up. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. That’s why I’m asking, because right here it looks like, this is the existing structure and it looks like these are going to be built out further in the back. That’s not the case? It’s just going to be built up? MR. ALBRECHT-That’s an old map. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. ALBRECHT-I’m not sure where this was generated from. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, well, that’s why I’m asking the question. It’s not going to be built out more in the back. MR. ALBRECHT-This is the new survey map that we comprised. MR. CLEMENTS-Right. This one right here. Yes. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Right. Okay. Well, that was my question. I just wanted to know. You’re not going out any further in the back. You’re just going through the top of that structure right there. MR. ALBRECHT-It’s going exactly on top of the structure. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich, do you have any? MR. GARRAND-No, no questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close it up. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-I don’t necessarily see, from this application, at least I can’t find any evidence that they’re going to increase any nonconformity, with the exception of 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. It’s listed as basically Waterfront Residential on the Hudson River. It’s a small lot. There isn’t a lot they can do for more space. So I don’t see any other feasible alternative for the applicant. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Rich. I don’t see any problem. The house is nonconforming and it’s just going to go up. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, with the three bedroom, going to three bedroom, I have no problem with it. The septic can handle it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I don’t have any problem with it either, as long as you answered my two questions satisfactorily. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, it appears that this is pretty much going to remain the same except for the second story. I don’t see a problem here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s going to give you more opportunity to spread things out instead of being crammed in. It’s a pretty small place to begin with, even with the additions that had previously been granted, with relief, I would assume. MR. ALBRECHT-The bedrooms are quite small, three of them that are in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and because it’s going to stay at three bedroom, it’s got a relatively almost brand new septic system set well back from the river. I don’t think there’s any problems with stormwater or anything either. It’s a flat site. You don’t really have water running off anywhere with the fast perc you have down in that kind of soils. So I don’t have a problem with this one, either. So does somebody want to take this one? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2009 LAURIE GATES, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 75 Palmer Drive. The applicant proposes a 676 square foot, 24 foot tall second story residential addition on a .35 acre lot near the Hudson River in Queensbury, in a Waterfront Residential zone. On the balancing test, whether benefits to the applicant can be achieved by other means feasible. Given the constraints of this lot and the district it’s in, as far as expanding the size of this house, the only place they can go is up. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties. There was no public input stating that it would change the neighborhood or the character of the neighborhood in any undesirable way. So I’ll answer that no. Is this request substantial? No, it’s a vertical expansion of currently nonconforming structure. I would deem it at best moderate to minimal. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the area? I do not believe it’ll have any adverse impact on the neighborhood, and is this difficulty self-created? It’s a customer’s request to expand this structure so I would deem it as self-created. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 63-2009. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) MR. ALBRECHT-Have a great holiday. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to hang on to those surveys in case they want to do anything in the future? MR. ALBRECHT-They’re all biodegradable. MR. OBORNE-You’ll need to submit four copies. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, they’re already submitted. We’re good. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I haven’t seen them on my desk. MR. ALBRECHT-Well, we had to come here first. MR. OBORNE-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN V. CURRIE OWNER(S): JOHN & LARA CURRIE ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1133 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 36 FT. BY 30 FT. (1,080 SQ. FT.) SECOND GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE RR ZONE AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONE GARAGE IS PERMITTED PER DWELLING. CROSS REF.: AD SUB 3-04; BP 05-500 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 3.56 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-2-17.2 SECTION: 179-5-030, 179-3-040 JOHN CURRIE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2009, John V. Currie, Meeting Date: November 25, 2009 “Project Location: 1133 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a detached 36’ x 30’ (1,080 sq. ft.) second garage on a 3.56 acre parcel in the RR-3A zone on west side of Bay Road. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of rear setback relief and 15 feet of north side setback relief per §179-3-040 of the RR-3A zone. Further, the applicant requests relief from the requirement that only one garage is permitted per dwelling as per §179-5-020D. 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 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. Due to the undulating nature of the lot and the location of the existing driveway, limited options appear to be available to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 40 feet or 40% relief from the 100 foot rear setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 15 feet or 20% relief from the 75 foot side setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for an additional garage or 100% relief from the one garage per dwelling requirement per §179-5-020D 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 impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Admin. Subdiv. 3-04 BP 05-500 3,101 sq. ft. SFD Approved 6/30/06 Staff comments: The applicant states that the second garage will be used for the storage of a boat, tractor and a myriad of accessory equipment. The proposed garage/barn will have a drive through capability that the applicant currently does not have. The owner states that the proposed barn will be utilized by equipment that is current on and off site. The house has what appears to be an existing 625 square foot two stall attached garage. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 10, 2009 Project Name: Currie, John Owner: John & Lara Currie ID Number: QBY-09-AV-62 County Project#: Nov09-16 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 36 ft. by 30 ft. (1,080 sq. ft.) second garage and seeks relief from the side and rear setback requirements in the RR zone as well as the requirement that one garage is permitted per dwelling. Site Location: 1133 Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 278.-2-17.2 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of a 36 ft. by 30 ft. (1,080 sq. ft.) second garage. Relief is requested for the following: side yard setback where 75 ft. is required and 60 ft. is proposed; rear yard setback where 100 ft. is required and 60 ft. is proposed; to build a second garage where only one is permitted. The information submitted shows the nd proposed garage and existing structures on the property. The applicant explains the 2 garage will allow for additional storage of items that are off-site now including a snow blower, mower, bucket loader, boat, etc. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Susan C. Wilson, Warren County Planning Board 11/10/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Currie. MR. CURRIE-Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. As mentioned in the application, we also own the property across the road at 1118 Bay Road, Millbrook Farm, and I have stored my equipment in those buildings, my lawn equipment, my boats, my vehicles and so on. We currently have it for sale, and we’re getting in a position where we’re going to have to do something to sell the property. We’ve had it for sale for two years. We built the new house, which is the one where I want to build a garage behind it. Also as mentioned, when we built that house, the setbacks were much less severe than they are today in that area, in that RR-3A area. The building that I’m proposing to build will virtually be out of sight from Bay Road. It’s behind the house. In the back of the property, as you can see, there’s a horse pasture. To the south side there’s a horse pasture. To the north side, there’s a horse barn that’s virtually right on my line, that’s that white roof that you see there, and that’s all horse pasture in that area. The area where I’m proposing to build the garage is right about in there. It will not be visible even from the neighbors’ houses most of the year because of the hedgerows and so on that we have there. I’m proposing to build an attractive building that would fit in with the equestrian area. This is a, I’m going to use vinyl siding, similar to what we have on the house, decorated to look like a horse barn, even though it won’t be used for keeping horses in the barn, just so it’ll have the look of the neighborhood, maintain that look, and that, as mentioned, my driveway is almost 700 feet long. So the building would be virtually not visible from the road. I have a Kaboda tractor that has a five foot snow blower and a five foot mower, and a bucket loader, and this is all equipment that I need to get inside storage for. In addition to that we have two cars and a pick up truck, and so I need, needless to say I need that storage area, and I also have a boat. So, this is the, I don’t believe it’ll, if anything it’ll have a positive impact on the looks of the neighborhood 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) because it’ll get my equipment in the barn or in the garage, and as you can see here, everything’s right outside now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Obviously your present garage isn’t adequate for your needs. MR. CURRIE-It’s a two car garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MR. CURRIE-Yes, and my wife and I both keep our cars in the garage there, but like I say, we have hand lawnmowers. We have all kinds of garden tools and things that we use for maintenance of the yard and just have no place to store them right now, other than across the road. The reason that I want to build it behind the house is so that if, we have a big lot in front of the house, but if you visited the site, you know that from the top of the hill where we live, you can see the green mountains of Vermont. It looks beautiful there. I don’t want to put a structure in front of that, and have it down on the Bay Road where I have to walk down the hill to get to it, but anyway, as I say, I think that the addition of this building will improve the looks of the property, and definitely increase the value of the property, and I’m certainly, this house is only three years old. So I’m not going to build anything that would be not aesthetically pleasing up there. So, thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions at this time? MR. KUHL-When you go on Bay Road, you can’t, you couldn’t see it. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s about 625 feet back, I calculated, from the road. Any other questions from you guys? All right. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll poll you guys on this one. It is going to be an extra garage, in the sense that we normally don’t do this, but the only comment I would make on it would be that, you know, if you live in a Rural Residential area, if you’re going to put up a second that appears to be like a rural barn in essence, and that’s what he’s proposing to do here, I don’t, frankly, think it’s any big stretch to do that. When you’re set that far back from the road, there are other barns even closer to the property line. The one next door is even closer than this is going to be to his property line, and, you know, it is an extraordinary request, but obviously it seems like there’s a need for it, with all the stuff, and with the sale of the property on the other side of the road, I don’t know, I guess we could rationalize that it’s not that far out there as far as a request. I’ll poll you guys anyway. Brian, do you want to start? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I agree with the Chairman. I think that, you know, this is large enough to support that. I really think it would be more like a barn than a garage, and it looks very nice. I think that we also okayed a similar project over on the corner of Ridge and Chestnut Ridge for somebody that wanted to build a barn in there, and it looks like you have, you know, quite a few acres here. You don’t have any neighbors that are opposed to it. So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I didn’t get a chance to drive out and see this today. So I’m really not sure what sort of an impact it would have on the neighborhood without actually physically seeing it. I don’t know if this’ll produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood at all, given the distance it’s going to be from the road. I’m not sure if anybody’s even going to see it. I have no valid arguments against this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I was concerned about how you were going to finish the outside, but you have shown me that you are going to make it conform to the house, and really, technically, it’s a second garage, but you’re other, your two car garage is attached to the house, so it’s not a freestanding building. I have no problem. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I also like, I agree with everybody, but I also like the fact that you’re blending in with the horse barns, and, good for you, you’re spending extra dollars where you don’t have to, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. URRICO-Yes. Normally I would be concerned about a second garage, but this is almost four acres. You’re doing all you can to make it unobtrusive, and I think you’ve done a good job with that. So I wouldn’t have a problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The other comment I would make is that, you know, the current garage is, you can’t even see where the entrance to it is from the road. It’s way back behind the house already as it is. So, you know, if the attitude of the house was facing towards the road, people might be a little more concerned with that, but it’s sort of hidden from site anyway. So I’d go along with it, too. So, does somebody want to take this one? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I’ll do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2009 JOHN V. CURRIE, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1133 Bay Road. The applicant proposes a detached 36 by 36 (1,080 sq. ft.) second garage on a 3.56 acre parcel in an RR-3A zone on the west side of Bay Road. The relief required is the applicant requests 40 feet of rear setback relief and 15 feet of north side setback relief per 179-3-040 of the RR-3A zone. Further, the applicant requests relief from the requirement that only one garage is permitted per dwelling as per 179-5-020D. In making the determination we should consider: 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 impacts may be anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant pursue, other than an area variance. Due to the undulating nature of the lot and the location of the existing driveway, limited options appear to be available. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 40 feet or 40% of relief from the 100 foot setback required per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 15 feet or 20% relief from the 75 foot side setback requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the Ordinance. Finally, the request for an additional garage or 100% relief from the one garage per dwelling requirement per 179-5-020D may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. However, this is on a three and a half acre lot and it’s back away from the road so that it can’t be seen. So we may not look at that as severe. 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 or environmental conditions may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. The difficulty may be considered self-created, and I move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. Do you want your surveys in case you ever want to do anything else, you won’t have to go get more. MR. CURRIE-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’ve got to approve some minutes here, guys, and then we’ll be out of here. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 16, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 25th day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Drellos September 23, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23. 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl ABSENT: Mr. Drellos October 21, 2009 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 25 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess we’re adjourned, unless anybody has anything else they want to bring up. The only thing I was going to ask is, is everybody coming back next year, as far as they know? Do we know who’s got to get re-nomed or anything? MR. KUHL-Yes. I do and George does. MR. UNDERWOOD-Your terms are up? MR. KUHL-Yes. The one that I came into is up this year. MRS. HUNT-I think mine is up, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So Zanghi’s the only one that we’re still looking for a replacement at some point, we’re hoping to hear that somebody wants to jump in the game with us here. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Well, they have to put an advertisement, obviously, and then the Town Board will interview and recommend and approve and there’ll be an alternate. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/25/09) MRS. HUNT-Keith, I have three different sheets that tell me my term expires 2009, 2010, 2011. MR. OBORNE-Well, aren’t you lucky. I will research that. I know that they, everybody needs to be staggered. So I know that they re-did that recently, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-We re-did it last year. So I don’t know who was the odd man out this year. MR. CLEMENTS-Didn’t they do all the Boards? MR. UNDERWOOD-They had too because they kind of let it get all out of whack and it was like four people. MR. GARRAND-I was supposed to be 2012. MR. OBORNE-What are you now? MR. GARRAND-I just had mine renewed last year, this year. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 18