Loading...
2010.10.27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2010 INDEX Area Variance No. 34-2010 Paul Poirier 1. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-46 Area Variance No. 9-2010 Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson 2. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-23 Area Variance No. 55-2010 Sherry A. Fleming 19. Tax Map No. 308.8-2-66 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 10/27/2010) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT JOAN JENKIN RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS RICHARD GARRAND LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to call the October 27, 2010 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 that 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 is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues at hand, and 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, and 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 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 then will 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. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO BE FURTHER TABLED. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II PAUL POIRIER AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S): PAUL POIRER ZONING: WR LOCATION: RIVERSIDE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION RANGING IN SIZE FROM 2.0 TO 8.13 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SB 1-2010, SB 6-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 LOT SIZE: 18.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-46 SECTION: 179-3- 040; 179-4-050 MR. UNDERWOOD-First up on the agenda this evening, we have a request for a tabling, and so I’m going to make a motion that we table. We’ll table this for up to 60 days. We have not had any response from him in regards to the previous tabling motions, and, as Keith has mentioned, if there’s no forthcoming information 60 days from now, then a letter will go out to Mr. Poirier, informing him that we would probably deny this without prejudice and allow him to come back and some point in the future, if he assumes he wants to entertain doing the project again. th MR. OBORNE-Would the 15 of December work for the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2010 PAUL POIRIER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Riverside Drive. Tabled to the 15 of December. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON ZONING: WR LOCATION: 96 HALL ROAD – GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING +/- 1,198 SQ. FT. SUMMER HOME AND REBUILD TO A +/- 2,110 SQ. FT. YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2007- 275 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 14-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.29 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-23 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-4-050; 179-13-010 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2010, Steven L. and Christine M. Johnson, Meeting Date: October 27, 2010 “Project Location: 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing +/- 1198 sq. ft. summer home and build a +/- 2,110 sq. ft. year round residence. Relief Required: Applicant requests 22.0 feet of shoreline relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement and 11.5 feet of sideline setback relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3- 040 of town code. Additionally, the applicant requests relief from road frontage requirements as per §179-3-040 of town code. 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 most structures in the neighborhood are non-conforming in nature. 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. A feasible alternative could be to construct the dwelling in a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 22 feet or 44% shoreline relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback for the proposed Single Family Dwelling may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 11.5 feet or 57.5% of south side setback relief for the Single Family Dwelling may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 150 feet or 100% relief from the 150 foot road frontage requirement 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 to moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the project proximity to the shoreline and the existing slopes may result in environmental degradation. However, stormwater and erosion and sedimentation controls have been designed and submitted that may mitigate any potential environmental concerns. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 14-10 SFD Pending BP 2010-426 Garage Issued 9/9/2010 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) BP 07-275 Septic Alteration Issued 5/14/2007 Staff comments: The shoreline building setback is incorrectly noted on plot plan. Per §179-2-010 SHORELINE BUILDING SETBACKS - Setbacks are calculated by using the shortest distance, measured horizontally, between any point of a principle building or accessory structure in excess of 100 square feet in size (except docks and boathouses) and the shoreline of any lake, pond, river, wetland and stream. This will need to be updated on the site plan. The applicant has eliminated the need for a variance concerning the garage. The proposed garage has been placed in a compliant location and is currently under construction. Entry way depicted on plot plan not denoted on elevation drawings. Please clarify. Planning Board recommendation previously attached. SEQR Status: Type II – No further review required.” MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Keith, what do we actually have for the distance of the setback on the waterfront? MR. OBORNE-From the shoreline? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, what’s your calculation? MR. OBORNE-At this point what we measured and scaled off was 28 feet. So you need 22 feet of relief. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter on behalf of the applicant Steven & Christine Johnson. As you’re aware, we’re asking for around seven variances. However, I know that the Board has reviewed the application a number of times. The first four variances, lot area, lot width, road frontage, waterfront. The first four variances are relative to the existing lot. It’s a non-compliant existing lot. So those elements there’s not much we can do about. We’re really here relative to the setbacks which were discussed at length at the June meeting, and that’s the shoreline setback and the setback that’s located on the southern side. As you’re aware, the Johnsons have owned this camp for over 30 years, and they’re, at this time, ready to make it really their home, so that they can stay there year round, and make it four season. However, unfortunately, the stone foundation doesn’t make it adequate to be built upon. At the June meeting, the Johnsons had already taken off the garage setback off the table, and have already started construction of the garage in a compliant location. Since that June meeting, the Johnsons, myself, Mr. Wilkinson, have really sat down and sharpened our pencils and tried to figure out what the goals are that the Johnsons have relative to this project, understanding the comments that were made by the Board at the last meeting, understanding the comments that were made by the neighbors, to try and see if we can at least demonstrate good faith to come forward with another proposal, which we’re here to do this evening. In June, we were suggesting on the north side, 6.9 feet of relief. We’ve increased that, for the submission that you have before you, to 8.5 feet. As you’re aware, existing is 4.2 feet. In June, the shoreline setback, which is now looked at differently, but was 38.4 feet, and now we’re proposing 40, and this is what shoreline setback is looked at from right in front of the house. As Keith just explained, unfortunately the shoreline jogs. So if you look at it from the shortest point, we’re proposing 28 feet, which is now about 14.7. The Johnsons are essentially trying to rebuild this house to make it as less non-compliant as they feel they can do. The Johnsons are constructing a home that’s modest in size, or proposing a home that’s modest in size, two bedrooms, that will be a second story, but as was discussed at the last meeting, the second story will be behind the 50 foot shoreline setback, and they did purposely with the design so as to not impede anybody’s view. Their whole purpose of placing the house in the location that they’re providing is to keep it in the pocket that they feel exists there now. There’s a certain privacy, natural element to the way the land naturally slopes, and they’re trying to keep that protection with the house that they’re proposing now. I’ve been before this Board a number of times, and we talk about natural buffers, maintenance of the land, integrity of the slopes, and that’s really some of the goals that the Johnsons have as well. One of the things that was discussed at length at the last meeting was excavating, excavating, excavating, moving the house back, and we don’t feel, in this sense, that excavating and destroying that slope in the rear is really the answer, and we think that it really should be considered as an important factor, and that we’re trying to do what’s best and what we believe, for the slope, or for the site as a whole. One of the concerns, too, was whether or not there was any other movement that the Johnsons can do relative to the location 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) of the house, and that was discussed at length at the last meeting as well. Today we talked about it further, to see what more we can do to help lessen the non-compliance on the side of the Krugers, and one of the elements that the Johnsons really wanted to keep with this property is the rock walls that exist. I know we stated that in our submission, that the Johnsons feel they’re historic, which the specific rock wall that I’m talking about is the one that’s actually perpendicular to the shoreline. It runs on the northern side of the property, but we are willing to move that house even further to north to provide for, we’re willing to propose a 13.5 foot setback on that southern side that the Krugers enjoy, to get it as close to that rock wall as possible, but to be able to maintain it. We feel that the rock wall not only has the historic value, but has the functionality as well, that it’s been maintaining that slope, and keeping it where it is, as well as protecting the root systems of the mature trees that exist on that northern side, which acts, obviously, as a buffer that the Johnsons enjoy as well as the Della Cameras, on that northern side, and we feel that that would provide a positive aspect to the project. To move the project, property further back, we just feel, is not in the best interest of everyone involved. It’s not beneficial because it’ll ruin the natural slope that exists there now, not to mention the fact that the septic system, or septic tank is there, and it’s not clear that there’s a compliant location in the immediate vicinity, which I’ll let Clark discuss if you have any questions on that, but when you look at the balancing test, we feel that the Johnsons are requesting these variances. Granting them would not provide a detriment to the community when looking at all the factors involved. They’re allowing the privacy of the natural buffer to continue to exist in this pocket that they want to construct the house in. They’re maintaining the slopes that exist there now. They’re allowing to try and keep the integrity of the root systems of those trees by maintaining the rock wall, and obviously they’re decreasing the non-conformity of the site as it exists today. We feel that the character of the area is not going to be impeded because although there are some houses that are in compliance with the shoreline setbacks, not all immediate adjacent houses are. I think the Della Camera’s house is similarly situated to what the Johnsons is now, and we’re actually proposing to move the house back even further. The benefit obviously would be that we’re going to be adding a stormwater system with the new construction of this house, and obviously increasing, or decreasing the non-conformities that exist. We don’t feel that this project will reduce the values of the immediately adjacent homes, as we discussed at prior meetings, because of the design of the house that we’re proposing. We’re trying to protect everyone’s property values in proposing this, and we’re really trying to show good faith in compromising with coming up with this new proposal. I’ll hand out to you the new proposal with the 13 and a half foot setback right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one question. On the rear of the proposed structure, you’ve got that six foot jog that goes back toward the septic tank back there. What’s the purpose of that room back there? MS. BITTER-Mr. Johnson, do you want to tell him what that is? STEVE JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-I believe that’s a utility room. MR. KUHL-It would be possible to take that utility room off and move it back six more feet, wouldn’t it? MS. BITTER-I asked the same question. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-It’s not possible because the boxed out area that’s in the slope which is a cribbed area where the existing pump station is, there’s a circle right behind there. That is the actual tank, and I’ve moved the structure to within approximately five feet of that location of that tank. If I get any closer to that, if you ever have to replace that structure, or possibly even during construction of this house, you might jeopardize the integrity of that structure, and the ability to install or replace what’s there. MR. KUHL-And what tank is that? MR. WILKINSON-That is the tank that’s used to, there’s a septic tank, and then right after it a pump station to pump up to the sewer system up on top of the hill, the infiltration trenches. MR. KUHL-Which could always be moved. MR. WILKINSON-It could all be moved, but the question and the probability of, the only way it can move is straight back, and the reason is, and that jeopardizes the integrity of the hill that we were talking about. The reason is because the septic tank itself has to maintain a 50 foot 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) setback from any well. So, you know, we have to make sure we have the adjoining wells located, which I have the approximate location, and I can’t move that tank to the south of the house because it would be too close to the adjoining well on the south. I can’t move it to the north of the house because it would be too close to our existing well. So there is no other place to move that tank. So it would have to go back into the hill more. MR. KUHL-But the tank itself is a sealed unit, but the Regs do not let you put that tank within 50 feet? MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. MR. KUHL-Then where is your well? MR. WILKINSON-To the north, right by the 21 inch oak, it’s the pump house. MR. KUHL-Well, I’m talking about moving it back towards the garage. MR. WILKINSON-That would mean you’d have to take out and excavate the hill. MR. KUHL-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Aren’t you planning to do some excavating anyway and put the rock wall in to the south of the tank? MR. WILKINSON-There’s two proposed walls that are approximately three to four feet in height, max, and there would be minimum excavation of the hill to be able to install those. MR. UNDERWOOD-And are you completely taking down the old building? What are you doing with the old building? MR. WILKINSON-The old house? Yes. Completely gone. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. JENKIN-How did you increase the side setback relief? Did you turn the house? MR. WILKINSON-I twisted it a little bit to become parallel with the south line, and then I also slid it closer to the rock wall at the top. I’ve got three foot of separation between the edge of the rock wall and the face of the house, enough to get a lawnmower through it. MR. OBORNE-And it also looks like the foyer was removed? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The vestibule. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-And from the floor plan, this, you said the utility room in the back, that goes off the master bedroom? MR. WILKINSON-On the upstairs, I think. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-I’m not sure which. I haven’t seen the floor plans. I only saw the footprint. MRS. JENKIN-No, this is the first floor plan. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-The master bedroom is downstairs. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So this is a utility room that’s off the master bedroom. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you just swap it out, put the master bedroom upstairs? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. WILKINSON-Because the Johnsons want the first floor to be their living space, because they’re getting older, and the way the existing camp is is a single story structure as well and they’re very well used to that. MR. KUHL-What would prevent you from moving the stone wall back six and a half feet? MR. WILKINSON-Which stone wall? MR. KUHL-The one on the north side of the house, just move it back six and a half feet, and then move off, then you have 20 feet over on the side. You don’t need that variance. MS. BITTER-Well, then you’re getting closer to the root systems of those trees. MR. WILKINSON-Of the two large trees on top of it. MR. KUHL-Two large trees. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, there’s a pine and there’s an oak. The pine’s a 30 something inch. It’s huge. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions, or shall I open the public hearing? I’m going to open the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOE WHITE, ESQ. MR. WHITE-Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill White. I’m an attorney here locally, and I’ve been asked to represent Mr. and Mrs. Kruger with regard to their objections to this project. I’d just as soon have Mr. Kruger speak, for a couple of reasons. Number One, he’s not shy, as probably the Board is aware, and, Number Two, he’s much more familiar with this project than I am, but I would like to address just a couple of brief points before Mr. Kruger I’m sure wants to have a little bit of the stage. I could be wrong about my review of the floor plan, but it looks as if, and maybe Stefanie can correct me, even from the back here, but it looks to me that the utility room is actually a walk-in closet, and I don’t know, Stefanie, if I’m reading this wrong. Is that a walk-in closet or is that a utility room? I think it’s a, so it seems to be a little bit of a difference in terms of what’s being represented to the Board here, and I don’t know how functional it would be to move that, but, nonetheless, that seems to be different than what’s being presented. The other thing that I really wanted to say to the Board is, I know Stefanie’s doing her job. She’s been retained to represent the applicants here, but all the appropriate buzz words have been used, functionality, history, the root systems. Again, with all deference to Stefanie, I’m not sure that she knows where the root systems to these trees go or where they don’t go. They could go in one direction versus another direction, and the basic objection here, as I think the Board is aware from Mr. Kruger’s prior appearances, is that while the applicants say that they want to maintain privacy, and they don’t want to intrude or impede upon anyone’s view, this project appears to substantial impede the Kruger’s view, and it has a detrimental impact upon the adjoining properties, and there’s absolutely no real reason why a machine couldn’t get in there and excavate some of that slope, which is to the, if I’ve got my dimensions correct, to the east of the proposed home, would take probably less than an hour, and to talk about maintaining that slope, it’s our understanding that that nature, that so called natural slope was created less than three years ago, because that’s when they put in some of the stones and perhaps this pump, but it’s not a natural slope that’s been there for hundreds of thousands of years. That was altered a few years ago, and it wouldn’t take much to simply move this entire project back to the east, 10 or 15 feet, to bring it in compliance with the shoreline setback. Again, Mr. Kruger can speak for himself. I don’t think he has a substantial, or at least that great of an objection to the side setback, but his objection is that there is a true detriment to his property by keeping this proposed project as close to the shoreline as is anticipated. Other than that, again, I understand Stefanie’s, her job here, but to simply use these buzz words to make this project seem more appropriately feasible and conform to the law, while it might sound good, the references to functionality, root system history are not really truly applicable. With that I think Mr. Kruger would like to be heard briefly. DON KRUGER MR. KRUGER-Hi. I’m Don Kruger and I am the southern neighbor, and again, as I’ve said before, I’d love to have my neighbors enjoy their nice, new home, but my wife and I have a home that sits 65 feet back from this, and we have one next door to that that sits 50 feet back from the lake, which the Town required us to do. When I put that foundation in, I had Matt Steves there three times to make sure that I didn’t encroach on the 50 feet, because Mr. Hatin 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) made it very clear to me that I could not encroach on the 50 feet. Now Dr. O’Connor has built a new house and the Slacks have built a new house, and all of us have hit the 50 foot mark. The Johnsons have plenty of property. Besides the 150 foot lot they have here, the lot they have their septic system, their field on, my line meets theirs. It’s 123 feet deep. They have almost 300 feet of property. I can’t understand why we’re splitting hairs and trying to put them on the lake and impede my view and my wife’s enjoyment of the lake. Right now we have a cottage that’s 65 feet back. If we decide to tear that old cottage down, which is over 100 years old, we want to move it forward to the 50 feet. That’s as far forward as I want to go, because I don’t want to block my neighbor to the south of my view. I don’t think that’s being a good neighbor. I have no problem with meeting that Code, the 50 feet. I want the Johnsons to meet the 50 foot Code. As far as the septic tank goes, I volunteered to move it for them. How much better I can be about it, I don’t know. If he’d like to move the historic wall, I’ll gladly go over there and help him re-build the stone wall. Now they claim to have experts. I don’t claim to be an expert, but I have been a mason for 50 years. To me it’s just an old deteriorated old wall. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That wall that we’re looking at, they had a slide of it back there, the back of the house where the septic system is. That wall was created three years ago, and it’s just a bunch of Glen Lake’s rocks piled up against the wall like we all do. There’s no skill to it. It’s not like they hired the world’s best landscaper to fit the rocks. They just piled his guy that he had do the septic system that was his first job that he ever did, he just piled the rocks up and he just piled them up. So why can’t we move that thing back a few feet and pile the rocks back up again? I asked the Board, there’s five criterion, and so far I haven’t seen whether Johnsons have met any of those five criterion, asked for a variance. I don’t even understand why we’re not, why we’re here. It’s a 75 foot wide lot with a 28 foot wide house. There’s room enough for the side yards. There’s room enough for the setbacks. There’s room enough for everything on that. I ask you to do your job and please deny this. MR. WHITE-Chairman, just one other point that I didn’t make, and I took a note. I think Stefanie, in her presentation, made reference to jeopardizing the integrity of the hill, and again, I’ve talked more than enough about the hill, and I think we’re all aware of what we’re dealing with here, but, again, there should be some basis in fact for making representations in front of the Board, and unless an engineer can come in and say why, and demonstrate to the Board why that hill, that the integrity of that hill is jeopardized by moving this thing back a few feet. I ask that it be discounted because I’m not sure it’s true. With what they did a few years ago, it’s just hard to believe, from looking at those pictures, that moving this whole project back a few feet is truly going to, quote unquote, jeopardize the integrity of the hill. Other than that, obviously on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kruger, I certain join in, at their request, and with Mr. Kruger’s submission to the court that the variances be denied, at least as presented with this particular application. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do you want to come up, please. CHRIS DELLA CAMERA MR. DELLA CAMERA-My name is Chris Della Camera. This is my wife Red, and we’re the northerly neighbors, and I just want to ask a question, two questions. One is, did you receive our letter and photographs that we brought in? Okay. If you look at those photographs, our concern is the limited width access into the construction site through our right of way. We have a fence there and I particularly, at the base of the, head of my driveway, I altered the grade, because when it rained, the water would pour down the driveway, almost right into my door. So I raised that grade up so that it has a positive pitch to the catch basin. I want to make sure that that stays intact, and I’m really concerned about the fence. I put a new fence in, and if you look at those pictures and just see the concrete truck, or the dump truck, they barely fit down, and I’m wondering if it’s a possibility to cut in an access road, so that they can go in a different way. That’s my question. Is that the newest set of photographs. MR. UNDERWOOD-The color ones with the dump truck picture on it. MR. DELLA CAMERA-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’ll give them time to take a peek at them because we haven’t looked at them. MR. DELLA CAMERA-Okay. I wanted to make sure because we did send in another set of pictures. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, can I ask him a question? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. MR. KUHL-Is the fence, is that on your property line, or is that three feet in or? MR. DELLA CAMERA-The right of way is my property. It’s just a way of egress for them to get through. MR. KUHL-Okay. The right of way is your property. MR. DELLA CAMERA-Yes. I own, if you’re looking at that, at the head of the truck, I own to the left. I also own to the left. You see the corner of a boat there. MR. KUHL-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-So that’s all your property, even the access road. MR. DELLA CAMERA-Yes. From the road it goes back about 20 feet. MR. GARRAND-And you plow all that? MR. DELLA CAMERA-No. RED DELLA CAMERA MRS. DELLA CAMERA-We’re not here in the winter. MR. DELLA CAMERA-The Town does not plow it. We’ve been here until January, and I have a snow blower, and I just blow so I can get out of my driveway, which will bring up another question is, how will they maintain that from a snow clearing? I mean, it’s not my problem, but where’s the snow go? MR. CLEMENTS-So as of right now, there’s no plowing on that right of way? MR. DELLA CAMERA-No. MR. CLEMENTS-No. MRS. JENKIN-You said that you would, wondering if there could be a different access cut to the property. Where are you suggesting that? MR. DELLA CAMERA-On their property. MRS. JENKIN-Up at the back? MR. DELLA CAMERA-Well, yes, just before you get to my property, they own, they not only own on the macadam road, they own on the dirt road, and I was looking there, and it looks like there’s a perfect spot to cut in a driveway. MR. OBORNE-This is the property with the camp, and this is also their property. MRS. JENKIN-But there’s a hill there, isn’t there? MR. DELLA CAMERA-Yes, but there is a way, as you’re going out of my house, as soon as you get to their property, there is a straight shot right in there, and there’s a small hill. I understand from the macadam side there’s a big hill, but there’s a way to cut a driveway in there. MRS. JENKIN-When was the right of way, the right of way was in place before the Johnsons bought the house? MR. DELLA CAMERA-It was in place when I bought. So I don’t know what year. I actually had wanted to buy the property that they own. I didn’t know they own it, and I wanted to cut my own driveway in and avoid coming through the other right of ways, but that property is theirs. I know, just from my own standpoint, if I had that much property, I’d want my own driveway. MR. CLEMENTS-Keith, can you go back to that map overlay there. MR. OBORNE-The map overlay? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, that shows the. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Has everybody had an opportunity to look at the pictures? Anything else you want to add? MR. DELLA CAMERA-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any other correspondence besides that? MR. URRICO-Well, we have two correspondence both from the people that spoke tonight. Should I read them in anyway? It’s probably not necessary because I think we all, they’ve been able to make their point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Something that you want to add? PETER J. BROWN MR. BROWN-Gentlemen, we were discussing the right of way, okay, and I’ve done some work on this property, okay, just researching deeds and things like that, and the right of way actually goes through the Johnsons’ property, okay, to the Kruger’s property, and that exists, it has existed, by deed, since the mid-20’s, or late 20’s. I can’t remember if it was ’26 or ’27, ’28, and it’s existed on all those properties through there in the back. Now the Johnsons have since purchased or acquired, I don’t know how they obtained it, but the property up, just to the, looking at the map, just to the west of Hall Road, and there’s about 215 feet. I think I measured it off the Town maps, with a scale, which isn’t very accurate. It’s not a survey, but it’s at least 215 feet of road front there, okay, and anyway you can go across, right where the “HA” is, or the “HALL”, if you went right straight down that property line, it’s relatively to take and put a road in there. In fact, if you look down at the bottom of your, down at the bottom there where Osprey View is, that shows where the Kruger property is, and the Osprey View Road has a very similar hill, which was cut out, and I believe the power lines were changed at that time, or lowered, but they really need to be raised down at the other section, you can almost touch them, and the reason why the power lines are put over away from the right of way, is where the right of way exists, Number One, the right of way was not specified. It was put in a convenient place, probably a horse trailer or an old car road through there, and the telephone, it was all field in those days. It had all been logged off. There was nothing left of the place. The saw mills had all gone, and when they sold the property off, they were anticipating the dam. They had a wooden dam. They replaced it with a concrete dam around 1930, and that’s where the waterfront came, the existing waterfront, okay. Before it was just a stream, and it was all swamp and marshy area, pretty much, as I’ve been told. I haven’t seen pictures of it. I’ve seen it on maps, but I haven’t seen pictures of it, and so it’s very easy to get a road in there. So I don’t think that’s even a question to. I would think they’d want it, Number One. It’s certainly a lot easier than driving down that narrow road all the time, and it gives you room to turnaround, give them access for an ambulance and a fire truck, which you really couldn’t even get a fire truck through there now, because they are wider than a concrete truck, and an ambulance of course really would have difficulty turning around down there. Of course they usually have two people on it, so therefore they can get out and direct it, but, and then to go down those old concrete stairs would be an art, especially if they had to carry a gurney. So it’s certainly a very difficult property to take and access. The other things I wanted to speak about. MRS. JENKIN-A question about that right of way. You said it’s through Johnsons to Krugers. Are Krugers still using it? MR. BROWN-No, but it’s a deeded right of way. MRS. JENKIN-It’s deeded, but they use Osprey View Road? MR. BROWN-They use Osprey View Road, but they could still walk on it. It’s still a right of way. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Is it a walking right of way or for vehicular traffic? MR. BROWN-It doesn’t say, but years ago, of course, up until the 50’s you could walk all the way around Glen Lake, to those of us who can remember it, and they had paths all the way through, but everybody, there’s quite a history on it. Okay. One of the things that was stated, they were talking about the back slope, okay, and you could see up on the screen there where the slope is typical of Glen Lake. It’s all big bones and sand, not much sand, mostly big bones, and they basically stand pretty much on themselves. In terms of soil mechanics or whatever you 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) want to call it, anyway, to propose a slope on that type of soil is probably well over 60 degrees from the base, okay, outward, and it doesn’t take much to do what they did in the, I don’t know if you can pull that picture back up on there, but you can see they’re actually backfilling, and when we get to this one, I’m just going to show you that we have basically, there is part of the wall. This was excavated at some point, I don’t know when that was, but you can see that’s basically the natural slope of the stone right there, and that stone is not placed by hand. That was placed probably with a backhoe or some other mechanical device, because I just looked at the size of one of the rocks there, and I doubt that I or anybody else helping me on the Board could move that together, especially from the lower elevation up. Now maybe you could roll it down, but I wouldn’t want to be the guy standing in front of it. You look over to the side, you can see the vertical bank where it was excavated over there, okay, and that’s probably about three feet high at that point. So that’s, you know, it’s pretty stable material up there. So to talk about retaining the stability of a two foot high wall is almost like, you know, you’re talking less, some of that stone wall is less in height than the desks we’re sitting at, which are probably two and a half feet. Okay. You look at one of the part of the wall that they’re talking about retaining, that is railroad ties. Okay. Now I don’t know what kind of value railroad ties have, but it certainly doesn’t, I don’t think the national historical society would vouch much for that one. You come around to this corner over here and that’s where the stone wall is placed. Part of that is set in mortar, and part of it is free. Some of the stuff on the top is free. The stairs that come down are absolutely dangerous. Any insurance guy would probably warn you. I’m not in the insurance business, but I have clients that have been warned to have their stairs re-done and what they want is some consistent, just like New York State Building Code, in fact, any building code, is they want them consistent, in other words a certain rise and a certain run, and they vary from indoors to outdoor standards, okay, and they don’t even come close to that, plus they’re cracked. If you look at some of the pictures, they’re very well deteriorated and they’re going to be almost impossible to build, unless you go in there with a backhoe, and if you go in there with a backhoe to pull them out and to put a proper set of stairs in there, you’re going to lose part of the way anyway on both sides, I would predict, okay, and I don’t know how you’re going to do it otherwise, and I’ve built a few walls on Glen Lake, both with mortar and both freestanding, not an awful lot, but as you can see my shape, I haven’t done it in years. Then you come down further and it gets very, very shallow. At some point I measured it’s two feet, and then you go to a fireplace, okay, which is a mixture of concrete and block, it has a concrete liner, and it’s got stone, did I say block? I meant stone, fieldstone that came out of the bank, okay, and then there’s another portion of the stone wall, okay, which is basically a rock garden, in other words, the original ground was there, and they placed stones around it for some reason, and it projects off, as you can see on your plans probably, to the north, okay. So that portion of the wall is that way. Okay. Going on to the pump, I heard that the pump could not be placed inside the building. That is what they normally consider to be a grinder pump, okay, and a grinder pump is no different than the type of pump that you would put underneath your toilet in the basement to pump the effluent up to your septic system if you have to pump it out, okay. It’s really, handles sewage, but it also handles dishwashing soap and materials from the washing machine and whatever else you choose to take and use water for in your house that has to be disposed of, okay. So there is no reason, it’s designed to actually put in a building. I know several commercial properties that have them. They’re actually placed underneath staircases and they are sealed, and they are vented to the outdoors, just like a toilet would be, just like a toilet with a pump below it ,and it’s very common. So the idea that you can’t put that inside the building is totally false. I would not recommend it in my house. I’d recommend it be put to a little addition on the back of the house with and exterior door and have it a true utility room. I mean, you know, it does have to be serviced, and you open something like that up it’s like opening up a toilet or a sewer line, okay, it’s going to smell, and so that’s a false, totally false. Okay. Now there’s several other statements in there that really aren’t worth arguing about, but you can see how easy it was by there to excavate it ,and you can move back, Don has already, I heard him volunteer to take and move the septic tank, you know, himself and relocate it, and he can arrange for the equipment or whatever else. So I don’t even see that as a point, and as far as the slope things go, I don’t believe it’s any concern at all. You can do pretty much what you want on that slope and it’s not going to come down. Is there anything else you wanted me to talk about, Don? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Are you all set? MR. WHITE-Mr. Chairman, just one observation from looking at the map that we have here, and I don’t want to say I criticize, but I question the representations before the Board if they’re not based on fact. So I don’t want to make a representation here that I don’t have any knowledge about, but I just want to comment and maybe sort of raise a question that perhaps maybe the applicant can address. I don’t know the right of way history here, and I don’t know, because I’m not in any way an expert with variances and zoning and construction, but from looking at the plans, there seems to be, toward the easterly portion of this property, a reference to a depression for stormwater infiltration, and I don’t know what impact, if any, perhaps Stefanie can address the Board, if anybody’s interested in it, what impact that has, if there is a valid, existing right of way for Mr. Kruger’s property. If you can’t put that infiltration, depression in there, does 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) that impact, in any way, the entire application, but it would seem to me that if you’ve got a right of way that is in existence by, through a deed, then Mr. Kruger can use that if he wants. If he wants to drive his vehicle back and forth from the north, I don’t know if you can put in these other issues, this other staging and storage area, the depression, so it’s just something I wanted to raise to the Board. I don’t know what impact, if any, it has on the entire application. Other than that, I think we’re all set, Mr. Chairman. MR. BROWN-While we’re talking about that, as you can see on the map, first of all, the map is incomplete in a lot of ways. There’s certain standards that surveyors use. I’m not one. I wish Matt was here tonight, but anyway, when they do a lakefront property, they do certain things. Okay. It’s pretty much noted as that. This particular survey was taken from the field notes and from electronic notes, okay, which is customary today, and it was sent to Mr. Wilkinson, who took and, Paragon Engineering, I should say, took some of those notes and put it on this thing. It’s kind of like he did this as a preliminary plan so they could play around with it, as time went on, which they’ve had to do, obviously, and so it’s really incomplete, and the first thing that’s incomplete, and it says it right in the form that you people sent to the people when they’re getting the application, it’s a part of the direction for the application, and one of the main items there is that, I’ve got it written right here, incomplete applications will not be considered, and you have to have a licensed, it’s got to be stamped, sealed, signed and dated, I believe, by a licensed professional, which would include a licensed surveyor or an engineer or an architect, okay, or any combination thereof, and it is not, that is not done. That’s the first thing that’s not done. So technically this application shouldn’t even be in front of the Board now to start with. Okay, unless you have a waiver. MS. BITTER-I know it’s gone on for a long time, but I know he doesn’t have the complete submission that was made, but (lost word) survey was made initially. MR. BROWN-Was this presented to the Board? MS. BITTER-It was presented to the Board. MR. BROWN-Well, we never got a copy. Is this an extra copy? Okay. So it was surveyed, but the information was never relayed onto this. I did not see it, so we’ll take that and dump that issue. The second thing is, they put the infiltration system, which you can see on the latest 11 by 17 plan, that they put the infiltration system onto the adjoining lot that they own, okay. Normally, and I haven’t looked up the Code, but normally they insist that that property be merged, I’m sure you people have come across that before. This was not done, even though this was done in 2007 and I know in 2007 it was a part of the process with the Town of Queensbury, okay, and it was never done which changes the whole scope of several of these issues in here, because road frontage now becomes a factor, okay, the amount of land and the amount of building they’re putting on the land because they would have been merged, okay, instead of being a tenth of a, whatever it was, an acre or whatever shorter, half an acre short, tenth or a quarter of an acre, whatever it was, it way exceeds it now, okay, for the permeability factors, okay, and those things are not done, even though it was surveyed, and I don’t think it shows that property. It might show that property on that survey map, I’m not aware of it, but technically that should have been merged back in 2007, and that would be normally the first step that the Board would insist upon at this point. You have the infiltration system right there. Why aren’t they merged? And it changes a lot of different things. It changes, Number One, the depth of the lot, a lot of things are really, and it makes it compliant in several ways, it eliminates a couple of hardships, or a couple of variances I guess you properly would call them. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Brown, if you could state your full name for the record. MR. BROWN-Yes, Peter J. Brown. MR. OBORNE-Thank you. MR. BROWN-And I’m a Queensbury resident. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Thank you, again. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sure we’ll give you some time to respond to some of the points that were made here. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, is there anyone else? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there anybody else wishing to speak? Okay. I don’t think we’re going to bother reading those letters because I think they’re pretty self-explanatory. One question I would have for you is this. I know you’ve already undertaken the construction on the garage there, but you’re going to have to demolish the building and take it down, and you’re going to have to go down there and put footings in and things like that. How are you going to access down where the camp is without having to make a ramp down the bank or something anyway? I assume you’re going to have to, unless you’re going to pump concrete from way up high or something. MR. WILKINSON-Where the existing wall is to the north side there’s an area that’s used to access down to the lake, and that’s another thing we’re trying to maintain, too, as well, is access down that slope down to the lake, down to the area that we’re going to be constructing, and that would be the construction. It’s on my. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it comes around in front of the fireplace and that side? MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. MR. WILKINSON-We’ve got room next to the trees, on either side of the trees, probably to the north side of the trees, to come down that side of the property, and around the bottom and do all the construction work. That’s one of the reasons why, on my Site Plan, there’s a stabilized construction entrance at that location, because they have to go over that, and we’re access to keep the mud off the roads. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Take as much time as you guys want. That’s fine. MS. BITTER-Okay. The first question that was raised was relative to the utility room. It is noted as the walk-in closet, which I think we started to talk about, relative to the elevation and floor plans that you have, but what Clark was discussing, during the initial presentation, was that, even if that’s removed, the area that’s impinging it to be moved further back is actually what’s considered to be the northeast corner, which is where the entryway is noted on the first floor plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is your sewer pump going to be underneath that walk-in closet? MR. WILKINSON-No, it’s five feet to the north of it. So even if that comes off, even if we take that off or move it around to the side, it doesn’t have any impact, because the remainder of the house is five feet from the tank as well. You’ve still got it right there. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve still got to maintain that same distance anyway, right? MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MS. BITTER-And I don’t necessarily have the credentials relative to being a tree expert or a tree specialist, but I think the closer you come to those mature trees, the closer you come to hurting the integrity of those root systems, and I’m just being cause, but not identifying any expertise in that area. Relative to impeding the view, what we’ve noted before is the house, as it exists, is obviously closer to the shoreline. It is at least a one story house as it exists today. We’re pushing it back even further relative to the first floor, and not constructing the second floor until the 50 foot setback, and I understand there’s a view shed that everybody likes to enjoy, but I question whether or not we’re entitled to 180 degree views, which I know we always struggle with at all of these meetings. The natural slope, which everyone discussed, I’m not an engineer, nor, do I believe, are the individuals that spoke, but I know Clark is, and I stood at the top of that right of way, and when I looked down, the only part of that house that I could really see was the top of the roof. I couldn’t see the actual walls. It was protected by that slope, I think, in that sense, a slope definitely does exist, relative to what’s natural there. Moving the septic tank, and Mr. Kruger was gracious enough to bring that up at the initial conversations, but in speaking to the engineer, he stated, as discussed earlier, you know, that that slope would obviously be impacted completely, if moving that is something that we need to consider, and jeopardizing the hill, Clark, as the engineer, feels that that’s definitely something that would be done. To Della Camera’s concerns, there’s a deeded roadway, right of way, that exists, and as Mr. Della Camera admitted, he constructed a fence along that roadway, which does it impede with their access? It definitely might. If a cement truck can’t pass that way, probably an emergency vehicle can’t, either, and I think that’s a concern in the sense that he’s impeding with a right of way that’s deeded to this property and the property that we’re speaking of. They’re separate 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) properties, as is noted on the tax map, and relative to changing the access to different routes, he’s afforded this deeded right of way, which is what he’s proposing to enjoy relative to the construction of this property. It is a difficult property. I know Mr. Brown stated that, and that’s what we’re trying to work with, what exists there today and trying to maintain the naturalness that exists there today. I’ll let Clark actually talk about the grinder pump and the pump, septic tank that was talked about, but Mr. White presented the question about the stormwater depression and the fact that Mr. Kruger still enjoys a deeded right of way across that, which he raises a good point, and, yes, that should be modified to be alongside the garage, which Clark can identify, so that there isn’t any impact if the Krugers choose to utilize that in the future, but the way I understand it, it’s wooded throughout there, and obviously modifications would have to be done, but if Mr. Kruger has that as a right of way, you’re right, that’s something he should be able to have, and not have it impeded, and we already mentioned that Nacy surveyed the property and it was presented as part of the application, and if the two properties are separate, a septic easement would afford the people the right, Mr. Johnson that is, to have that septic system on the other property, which is also an accepted means of doing that, as opposed to merging those two lots. MR. CLEMENTS-I had a question about that. Did you say if he got an easement, or he already has an easement? MS. BITTER-Well, right now he owns both properties. So he could obviously document that, but there’s not a reason. It hasn’t been transferred, but he can obviously do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is your current pump house well, is that a shallow well or a drilled well, or what is it? Just a hand dug well? MR. JOHNSON-It’s a shallow well. The well house goes down four to six feet from the grade, and the pump and the well are at the bottom of that. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you’re on an Eljen system on the new septic up there? No, just a standard, regular in the ground septic? MR. WILKINSON-From what I understand, it was designed, the design was done by Tom Hutchins. MR. UNDERWOOD-And are you less, you’re about 100 feet between? Is that what you’ve got to meet, the minimum? Between the well and the septic? MR. JOHNSON-And the septic. That was all approved before. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the minimum, right. Okay. I just wondered, if you have good water and a shallow well, there’s no need to go to the trouble of digging a peat well, with a drilling rig in there, ripping up the yard more. MR. KUHL-Well, does that suggest that this grinder pump could be put anywhere? Because it’s your system out on the second piece of property, that is where your field is, and that has to be 100 feet away from the well, correct? MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. KUHL-So it’s got nothing to do with the grinder pump. MR. WILKINSON-It has to do with the septic tank, and that’s what I wanted to address. Mr. Brown stated that you could install a grinder pump in the house somewhere. Yes, that can be done. As a design engineer, I would never install a grinder pump inside of the house because of the maintenance issues, because of the back up issues, because of the things that occur. So I, personally, would never do that. On top of that, I would never run straight sewage into a grinder pump and then pump it somewhere to go through a settling tank, which is what the septic tank is. I would put the pump after the septic tank, which is what was installed on this particular property. The reason for that is because if you pump, if you grind up your solids that come into your sewage, it becomes a slurry, and it takes twice as long to settle out that slurry, once it does a slurry, than it does with normal septic waste before that. MR. KUHL-I could send you to an address in Clifton Park that I owned for ten years that had a 150 gallon grinder pump in the basement and it worked very well. MR. WILKINSON-They do work very well. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. KUHL-Maybe that’s what VanPatten did in their waterworks in those days. I didn’t know. I just bought the house and the thing was there. MR. WILKINSON-Saratoga County Sewer now requires them to be outside. MR. KUHL-Okay. So, bottom line, I mean, it could be moved anywhere. MR. WILKINSON-It can be moved anywhere. The difficulty is, is that from the house, it needs to run into a septic tank before it goes to the pump, or, if it doesn’t, and you’re running it directly to a pump station, which can be placed closer to a well than a septic tank, which, I don’t understand why, but that’s the rules, then when you pump it up, you now have to install new septic tanks up before the field, and those septic tanks have to be probably twice the volume of the current septic tank to be able to handle the slurry at that point in time because you’re grinding the solids and making a slurry out of the septic. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you on gravity feed now? MR. WILKINSON-It gravities through the septic tank and then into the pump pit, which pumps up to the leach field. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I know if you go along that side of Glen Lake, because I’m on the east side of Glen Lake, too, just about everybody has to grind and pump uphill to get up to a reasonable place. MR. WILKINSON-And again, you can do that. Your septic tanks have to be designed for a larger volume because it’s a slurry going in there, and not standard septic coming out of the house. When you have larger solids, instead of ground up ones, they tend to settle faster. MR. GARRAND-What do you think of Mr. Kruger’s generous offer? Are you considering it? MR. WILKINSON-That’s up to Mr. Johnson. MR. JOHNSON-I can’t say that I’ve really fully considered the idea, but it is something that could be thought about. MR. WILKINSON-I have a question, as an engineer. Does that mean just the pump station, just the tank, both of those, all of the excavation for the hill that needs to be done, too? Again, you’re starting to add up costs, and I’m not sure what the neighbor, Mr. Kruger, means by that, whether it’s just one particular thing or not. Certainly, if everything is taken care of to move that back, and he’s offering it, why I would recommend to my client to highly consider it, but it’s got to be inclusive of everything that has to do with the hill, including the excavation, including moving back the tank, and you’re talking, you know, we’re at 20, we need 22 feet of relief. That’s about a 20 foot depth that we have to go. You have to move that gazebo, and now we’re starting to get closer to the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you guys want to add at this point? I think what I’m going to do is, I would like some opinion from each Board member in regards to what’s been proposed with this new plan this evening. I think we have to keep in mind what we had asked at previous sessions when we reviewed this project before, and also keep in mind the continued commentary of the neighbors who are most affected by the project. I don’t know if you want me to go first or you guys want to all go individually? MRS. JENKIN-I had one more question about the right of way. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. JENKIN-Because it was suggested that maybe the fence encroached on the right of way, building it. How wide is the right of way? MS. BITTER-It’s an old deed that describes it as being. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. It doesn’t say in the deed. MS. BITTER-It describes it as being roadway, I believe. MRS. JENKIN-It’s 17,000 feet. MS. BITTER-Right. So it’s a matter of what the interpretation would be, but obviously it’s either for the neighbors to interpret that or unfortunately for the court system to interpret that, as what’s 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) considered a reasonable means of access. So it’s an unfortunate if it has to get to that point, and hopefully it won’t, but they’re afforded that. MRS. JENKIN-But the thing is it says 9.9 feet on the plan here. MR. WILKINSON-That’s what exists today. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, but if it’s supposed to go through the Kruger’s property, then it would go right through the garage? MR. WILKINSON-No. MS. BITTER-It would go across the staging area. MR. CLEMENTS-The staging area. MR. WILKINSON-That’s why we set the garage where we did, to be able to maintain that. MRS. JENKIN-The staging area. Where’s that? MR. CLEMENTS-Right here. The garage is here. They moved it over here. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. I see. Okay. Thank you. So, all right. It’s just the, that’s good. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want me to break this down, or do you guys just want to start individually? MRS. JENKIN-You can start if you want. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I thought I would do it just to get things, just to get the ball rolling here, so we can get through this tonight, hopefully. I certainly don’t want to be in a position where we tell people that they can’t build something on their property, and I think everybody recognizes that the Board feels that you should be able to build a permanent dwelling here on the site here, and I think it’s important for us to consider the comments that Board members have made in previous submittals that you’ve made, including what you’ve made here tonight in the latest rendition here, and I would just say this. As far as the access to the site goes, everybody recognizes that when you do new construction, it involves a lot of noise, workers coming and going, trucks moving in and out and things like that, even Mr. Kruger having built his new home over there on the other, two lots over, I think recognizes that part of it, and I think that, you know, that’s something that can be done in a manner where you don’t start working at six o’clock in the morning and wake people up from their slumbers and things like that. That’s something that can be worked out. As far as the access coming in in the back there, we recognize that it’s a very narrow right of way and there’s not a whole lot we can do to change that, and I don’t know, in the past, I don’t ever remember this scenario of us telling somebody they had to put in a brand new access road to access while they were doing construction or to access their property. I think that’s a little onerous on, that would be a little onerous on the part of us to do that at this time. As far as the property goes, your basis for most of your request, I think, is due to the historic wall on the north side there. I don’t really find that the back side is a compelling argument that you’ve made. I think that, you know, if you look at that whole side of Glen Lake, that’s a terminal moraine over there. It’s water settled rock. It’s not going to move, unless you have a huge slope like down by Zack’s or something like that where you really undercut or like Christine Mozal did when she did her house and the whole bank caved in. You’re not in that position here because you’re talking a relatively short distance. It’s not any big deal to have to excavate it out or move it. You’re not even going to know it. It’s not going to impact the way, because it’s a relatively flat surface, all the way from the back, all the way out to the lake frontage on there. At the same time, there’s nothing that we’re going to save here, as far as the dwelling goes. This is all brand new construction. You’re going to have to put footings in. You’re going to have to put the slab in that you’re going to set it on and things like that. So, as far as I’m concerned, you could put this anywhere on the lot. The only thing I would agree with you on is the point that you don’t want to affect the big trees to the north side there. I think that’s key that we don’t disturb those. The septic is in already. The garage is going to be in. I don’t know how you’re going to drive a cement truck over your leach field, septic field, or whether that’s, that’s the SCE area up there. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, that’s the stabilized construction entrance. It’s designed for trucks. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean, I assume that’s going to handle the weight and the load. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. WILKINSON-It’s designed specifically for truck traffic. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So that’s not really going to become an issue, either, but as far as what’s being considered, I think that, you know, you could move this thing back, because what we’re trying to achieve is basically parity with the neighbors, and, you know, when I get a survey and it doesn’t show the attitude of the neighbor’s houses on there, that kind of prejudices me to the point where, you know, you could have at least included a reasonable small facsimile of either house on either side, so we had a better idea of where we were siting this house in comparison to the other ones. Of course everybody’s been down there and seen it, so they’ve got that squared away at this point in time, but I still think you could do some excavation here. I would highly recommend that when you hog out the old house, and you hog out the bank, you could actually raise the grade out there a little bit, and, to me, it would make sense to do that. I’m going to guess that when you start doing your footings, you’re going to be into water issues, because you’re right about the level of the lake and you’re well below the lake when you’re down in the lower edge of your footings, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t want to argue the point. That’s just my opinion on it anyway, but I think that the house could be moved into a more compliant position, and I think that could move more centrally. It could move over towards the wall, and the wall could go. You could rebuild the wall. It would remind you of the old wall, and there’s really no historic benefit to the wall. I mean, I think we’re confusing the issue, and that is, in a Critical Environmental Area, we ought to be building compliant in regards to the water, and the frontage and things like that. I’m not necessarily set in stone that you’ve got to come 50 feet back, but if you went 10 feet back further from where you were, I’d be happy, and I don’t think that’s a big burden to place on you or anything either. I think, as far as the excavation, you’re going to have to dig it up, rip it up anyway. So it’s not going to matter. You can do it in a reasonable manner as you’re doing it, and it’s not going to tear up the place too badly, and I think it’s going to make the neighbors happier to have it done in that respect also. So I’ll let you guys continue with it. MR. URRICO-Well, I basically agree with what you said, and what I want to add to that is that I think it’s incumbent upon this Board, in my opinion, to consider the test as we always do, and also remember that we’re charged with providing the minimum variance necessary, not maximum or moderate, and on the, each of the criteria, you know, there is something that can be said, whether there’s a change to the character of the neighborhood, it depends on what side of the fence you’re on, I guess. It’s a minor one if you’re on one side of the fence, but it could be major on the other side of the fence, and I think when we’re dealing with lakefront property, we’re dealing with more than just the applicant and the neighbors. We’re dealing with the entire lakefront. In this Town, we’re dealing with more than one lakefront. So, 50 foot setbacks are serious things to consider, and if we’re cutting into that at all, we have to be real careful about why we’re doing it, and whether there are alternatives that are feasible, and that’s where we come to the second one. There are feasible alternatives here, as has been stated. They may not like the alternatives, but they’re feasible. Twenty-two feet is still twenty-two feet. That’s a lot to grant, for a variance of any type, but specifically when we’re dealing with lakefront. I think we have to be very careful here, and granting something like that might change the character of the lake. It might change the character of the Code, and so that’s where I stand on that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with both of you. I do think that there’s a feasible alternative. The fact that there’s enough property to put the home in a compliant location I think is important, and I think that the 22 feet of shoreline relief is excessive, and even the side setback, it could be moved over and be compliant. So I would have to agree with the two of you. I would not be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well, I think one of the big things is when a neighbor comes in and offers, you know, a big financial incentive to move a house a little bit farther away from the lake, not only benefits him, it benefits the neighbor to the north. As it is, the applicant’s come before us and they’ve made some pretty significant changes to the proposal. All of which I really like. At this point I’m pretty much a toss up on it. I think it’s a pretty good proposal as it sits, but also with a neighbor coming in with the offer to move everything back at his own expensive I think becomes a feasible alternative. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Everything said has been said. The only thing I don’t understand is because the applicant owns the other property, why not bring the construction equipment across his own property, and that way they’d ensure not to ruin any of their neighbors and that would be respect for the neighbors, but as we’re now talking about a new to new, once you tear it down, there’s no 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) reason why it couldn’t be compliant all the way around. You have plenty of room, and that’s, you know, I think it should be compliant. I think it should be compliant on the south side and I think it should be compliant on the water side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think that all the Board members have brought up the important factors here. There are feasible alternatives. The variance is substantial. The feasible alternatives are many. Once the house goes down, then you have a lot of area that you can work with. I think that raising the grade, I think we spoke about this at the last meeting, would be actually a benefit to the homeowner because it is such flat property now that raising the house up a little bit would be a definite advantage for you. So I feel that the whole thing can be made compliant, as the Board members said, and I think that I would go with the rest of the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think the main point here is the 50 foot setback from the lake. I think that seeing what Mr. Kruger has offered, I think that there are lot of issues here. Mr. Kruger even said that he wasn’t as concerned with the side setback to his property as he is with the setback on the lake, which I thought was another offer. I think that probably with all the issues that are here, including merged property which may be an issue also, and maybe taking Mr. Kruger’s offer to move back the septic and finding out what that is, my suggestion would be tabling this and working the issues with the neighbors and submitting another application with a 50 foot setback from the lake, and I think that even if you had other variances that were needed here, I think that they would probably be minor compared to this 50 foot setback on the lake. So I wouldn’t be in favor of going along with this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what I’m going to do is set some parameters for what, we’re going to hold off on making any decision here this evening, and put it in your court, but I’m going to say this, and these are the reasons, I think the reasons have been well made here so far. The argument of going back is out, as far as disturbing the wall and stuff like that, we don’t buy that at all. As far as preserving the wall on the north side there, I think that argument is out, too. That wall can go. So, I mean, if you can move it over closer to those trees, I’m not going to, you know, cringe if you need a little bit of side setback on the Kruger side. I don’t think that’s any big deal, but I think as far as the setting back the house from the position it’s proposed in now, I would like to see it moved back so you’re more compliant, and if you need five feet of relief from the 50 foot or something, I’m not going to cry about that, and I don’t think any other Board members will, either, but I think it’s going to be a compromise on your part. You’re not going to get to make the same arguments again, as far as I’m concerned. I think it’s just time to bit the bullet and sit down and draw a plan up that’s going to work, and if you need any variances, I guess you’ll have to be back before us. We’ll put you on hold until that time. Otherwise, make it compliant and you won’t need to come see us again. MS. BITTER-Okay. So your parameters are what you just stated. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d like you to move it over as close to those trees as you can. I think you can move it at least seven or, I would guess you could almost get nine or ten feet over there, further to the north, towards those trees, and the wall, say goodbye to it, and as far as the back goes, let’s move this thing back at least, I mean, I don’t know what your feelings are, if you want it the full 50 foot back, as Board members, or something substantial from what. I think 10 feet back further would be something I could live with. I don’t think that’s, I think that’s reasonable, too. MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kruger said something about the side setback on the house. I know that you’ve said pushing it further to the north against that, or closer to that masonry retaining wall. I don’t know if I would, you know, I mean, my feeling is that if Mr. Kruger would let a variance for that side, you know, where it is, I don’t think that that would be a problem. It also keeps it away from the trees and those kinds of things. I think the main thing is moving it back. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Why don’t you get together with him, since he’s the affected party, and Mr. Brown, too, can put in his two cents on this, and why don’t you guys sit down together and work out something that’s going to be, that you can all live with, all right, because I don’t think anybody should totally get their way one way or the other, but do something that’s going to be a compromise in the middle. MS. BITTER-And just so the Board knows, we did try to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MS. BITTER-We didn’t come here with a new plan just out of nowhere. MR. UNDERWOOD-To a degree, that’s been done, and as far as the access goes, I mean, it is what it is. I don’t think, you know, as far as I’m concerned, I didn’t hear much as far as the access. I mean, we recognize it’s 9.9 feet, that’s what it is, and you’re going to have to be careful, if your, if something happens on the access point, but maybe that’s something that you could even think about whether the likelihood of if you’re going to be living there full time, year round, it might be a shorter distance to plow, coming in, straight in on your back property lot there, too, so, you know, sit down and think about it. I mean, it’s not something that you can always say one thing’s going to be perfect, but, if there’s an alternative that can work, then think about doing it. So I think what I’ll do is a tabling motion on this, or do you want to just wait until you re-supply us with something new? MS. BITTER-Right. I’d rather do that, but the one question is, if you’d talked about putting fill there because you’re concerned about the water level, you know, that could result in a height variance as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t believe so, because, you know, we’re looking at, in my sense, when I looked at the property, I don’t believe that where it sits now is the natural grade. I think you look at the lots next door, and you can see that it was hogged out and dumped out into the lake to give you that extra little bit of property on the waterfront out in front there. MR. CLEMENTS-What is the height right now? MR. WILKINSON-I can add two feet of height to the existing grade, which is what I’ve proposed , and we meet by about six inches. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. MS. BITTER-So we might need to talk to Craig about that. MRS. JENKIN-The thing is, though, it’s absolutely true, that the house sits down in a hole. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a hole in the ground. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, but I believe it’s really an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator as to what is measured. MR. OBORNE-If I could speak to that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-If you, you’re height is measured from cut grade or natural grade, not fill grade. So what has to be demonstrated is what is the natural grade, because it’s cut right back. MR. CLEMENTS-We’ve had a problem with that before, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-My interpretation of the natural grade would be somewhere between the top of that bank and where you’re at now, you know, anywhere in the middle is fine. MR. WILKINSON-So we could sit and try to rule that one out, based on interpretation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t think we’re going to go there, and I don’t think it would be proper for us, too, I mean, I think based upon what you look at the side lots on either side, what the heights of those are. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, because we are in that hole. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. So, I’m not worried about that. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, I appreciate that. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess I’ll make a tabling motion, and we’ll wait to hear, until you re- submit, and I’ll give you up to 60 days, and if you need longer, then we can give you more time, too. th MR. OBORNE-The 15 of December again? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) th MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the 15 of December we’ll put you on for, and hopefully you’ll be back by then. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010 STEVEN L. AND CHRISTINE M. JOHNSON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th 96 Hall Road – Glen Lake. Tabled for up to 60 days, to the 15 of December. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II SHERRY A. FLEMING OWNER(S): SHERRY A. FLEMING ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 8 HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE OLD 924 SQ. FT. MOBILE HOME AND REPLACE WITH NEWER 820 SQ. FT. SMALLER MOBILE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 96-422 MOBILE HOME WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-2-66 SECTION: 179-3-040 SHERRY FLEMING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2010, Sherry A. Fleming, Meeting Date: October 27, 2010 “Project Location: 8 Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove old 924 sq. ft. manufactured home and replace with newer 820 sq. ft. smaller manufactured home. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from both north and south side yard setback requirements of the MDR zone as per §179-3-040. 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 the proposal calls for a smaller manufactured home. 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. Lot limitations and the nature of the proposal preclude any feasible method other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10.5 feet or 42% north side setback relief and 11.5 or 46% south side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may both 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/or environmental condition in the neighborhood are anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be attributed to the substandard nature of the lot. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 96-422 980 sq. ft. Mobile Home Approved 9/9/96 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) Staff comments: Measurements for north side setback relief as well as north side setback relief are taken from the proposed decks to the respective property line. 100 square foot shed to be move to a compliant location in the rear of the property. Type II – No further review required. SEQR Status: MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add? I think everybody recognizes what you’re trying to achieve here. MS. FLEMING-If you don’t have any further questions, I do think it will improve the look of the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and how old is the one that’s on there now? It’s been there for quite a while. MS. FLEMING-Yes. It needs a new roof. It needs a lot of work. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the new one going to be on a cement slab? MS. FLEMING-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s what I figured you’d be doing, yes. MS. FLEMING-It’s going to have a cement slab, and it’s going to have the tie downs. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’ve still got a crawl space under there? MS. FLEMING-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. KUHL-Are you re-using the old deck? MS. FLEMING-It’s fairly new, but I plan to put a newer one on, or even, I don’t know. The old deck needs some replacement, like around the, like the banister, the top of the banister where it’s worn. I could do that, or put a new one on. MR. KUHL-But you’re planning on using the old one? MS. FLEMING-I’d like to. I’d like to, to save money. MR. KUHL-That’s fine. MS. FLEMING-It’s in pretty good shape. As you can see the rails that come down, they’re worn, I’m thinking I could replace the worn out boards. MR. KUHL-That’ll save you money to re-use it. MS. FLEMING-Yes. I would like to save some money, and I think it’ll really make a big difference moving the shed to the back yard. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from Board members? MRS. JENKIN-No, it looks like a good project. It definitely is a nice looking home. MS. FLEMING-I think so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-There’s one public comment. A phone conversation between Sue Hemingway nd and Barbara Eggleston on Friday, October 22. Barbara Eggleston resides at 12 Howard Street, which is the parcel next door to Sherry Fleming, and Barbara Eggleston is objecting to the variance request for the proposed side yard setback. No reason is given. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Question. So this is going to be in exactly the same place as the one that’s currently existing, just it’s shrunk? MR. OBORNE-It’s smaller. Exactly. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, as far as any argument that you could make against the setbacks, I mean, I guess you could, no matter which way you move it you’re going to have side setback because of the narrowness of the lot. MR. OBORNE-You can’t build a compliant structure on this lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the benefit of, one of the benefits is going to be because you’re going to have that shed in the back yard now, instead of the front yard. That’s going to look a lot nicer, too. MS. FLEMING-And I think the siding is going to be a lot better. It’s going to look more like the other buildings in the neighborhood. Granted it’s a manufactured home, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-And everybody recognizes the benefit of upgrading and doing a new one. I mean, it’s, the neighborhood is sort of always in a flux, when people can afford it. I don’t think we’ve ever denied anybody yet. MS. FLEMING-Well, I certainly can’t afford to build a stick built. MR. URRICO-Keith, I’m just curious. That neighbor is at 12, and this one is 8 Howard Street. Does the neighbor have a double lot? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MS. FLEMING-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, she’s got this lot here. MR. UNDERWOOD-And where’s that dwelling there? MR. OBORNE-And the dwelling that Ms. Fleming wants is right here where the cursor is, obviously. So this is a double lot, which is typical for that neighborhood. Just to identify, it’s Barbara Jane Eggleston, 12 Howard Street. MRS. JENKIN-So the house is on the far side where the trees are, that’s where the house is? MS. FLEMING-Eggleston’s house? MR. OBORNE-It’s straddling the line. MRS. JENKIN-Right, that’s the house there. MR. UNDERWOOD-So those double lots, they can’t be subdivided again or you couldn’t split it in two? MR. OBORNE-Unless the Zoning Board of Appeals would allow that subdivision. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I mean, there’s not any real argument as far as the negativity of what’s already there versus saying, no, you can’t have anything there. I don’t think we’d do that. MS. FLEMING-I hope not. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so. Okay. I’m going to poll the Board members, then. I’m going to start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. The setbacks are better than they were with the older building. I think that it’s a good project, and I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I agree. I think that any time that you can improve your neighborhood, I think that that’s a big plus for the neighborhood. I think that there’s no way that you can put anything on that lot without some kind of a setback. So I would definitely approve this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree. It’s a good improvement. It’s something that more people should do, and I’m in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think it would be a positive change to the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think there’d be minor impacts to the nearby properties, and the lot limitations are what’s causing the problem, and since your new place is going to be essentially the same, it’s centered. I think it’s a good project. I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. It’s an improvement for the applicant and I think it’s an improvement for the neighborhood. So it’s a double win. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would congratulate you on building your new home or bringing in the new one, because you’re certainly going to benefit from it, and I think the whole neighborhood’s going to benefit from what you’re doing. So I don’t think there’s any problem. Does somebody want to take this one? MRS. JENKIN-I can take it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2010 SHERRY A. FLEMING, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 8 Howard Street. The applicant proposes to remove an old, 924 square foot manufactured home and replace it with a newer, 820 square foot smaller manufactured home. The relief required is the applicant requests relief from both north and south side yard setback requirements for the MDR zone per Section 179-3-040. The criteria for considering the Area Variance: The Board shall 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. Replacing an older home with a newer home is definitely a positive change for the neighborhood. 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 limitations of the lot, there are no feasible alternatives. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10.5 feet on the north side setback relief and 11.5 feet on the south side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirements for the MDR zone as per 179-3- 040 is really because of the lot size and the neighborhood the request is considered minimal. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. There will be a positive impact on both physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created? In order to improve their property and bring in a new home, it may be considered self- created. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 55-2010. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2010) MR. UNDERWOOD-Good luck with it. Do you want copies of your survey back? MS. FLEMING-I need the big ones, if I can have the large ones. I need it for my building permit. MR. OBORNE-You’ll need them for, you’ll have to submit them to me. You can drop them off tomorrow if you want. We can move that along real quick. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ll be in by Christmas, right? MS. FLEMING-Yes. Hopefully. MR. UNDERWOOD-Hopefully sooner. MS. FLEMING-Well, I’ve already ordered it. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess we’re done. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 23