Loading...
2011.03.16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2011 INDEX Sign Variance No. 6-2011 Adirondack Tire 1. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-24 Area Variance No. 12-2011 Cloyd Kerchner 2. Tax Map No. 290.00-1-47 Sign Variance No. 13-2011 North Country Imports 6. Tax Map No. 303.10-1-12 Area Variance No. 14-2011 Kelly Carte 12. Tax Map No. 301.9-1-17.1 Area Variance No. 15-2011 Joseph Bardin 27. Tax Map No. 316.13-1-11 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 03/16/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RICHARD GARRAND LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Good evening. My name is Steve Jackoski, Chairman of the th Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. I’d like to call this evening’s, March 16’s meeting to order. First, I would just like to suggest that there are agendas printed out on the back table if you don’t have one and would like to have one. Secondly, I’d like to just briefly how things work here at the Zoning Board of Appeals. I will call each agenda item to order. I will provide a very brief description of the project and then request that the Secretary himself, Roy, read into the record the application. We will then request that the applicant join us here at the table, and present any additional information that they would like to present. We will open up the discussion with the Board members, followed by opening up the public hearing. We request that you limit your comments to three to five minutes, if that’s okay. Followed by the comments we will close the public hearing if that’s appropriate. We will have some further discussion by the Board members concerning the public hearing. We will then poll the Board members as applicable and provide a motion or a resolution. So tonight we have some housekeeping to th begin with. First of which is the approval of the meeting minutes for January 19. We will start th with the meeting minutes of January 19. Do I have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2011, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Jackoski th MR. JACKOSKI-The next item will be to approve the minutes for the January 26 meeting. Do I have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2011, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Clements NEW BUSINESS: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 6-2011 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED ADIRONDACK TIRE AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) CRIST REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING CI LOCATION 1025 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES 2 FREESTANDING SIGNS ON ONE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT SIGNS BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH IT WILL BE ADVERTISING AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF AV 66-2010; SP 14-2011; SP 15-2011; SUBD. 15-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 2.82 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-24 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MR. JACKOSKI-And I believe we’ve had a request to withdraw the application. MR. OBORNE-That is correct, Mr. Chairman. There was really no indication as to why that happened, but I’m not going to argue the point. MR. JACKOSKI-And we don’t need to take any action? MR. OBORNE-No, you don’t, just to acknowledge the withdrawal, which you have. MR. JACKOSKI-And we so acknowledge the withdrawal. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2011 SEQRA TYPE II CLOYD KERCHNER OWNER(S) CLOYD KERCHNER ZONING MDR LOCATION 279 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 384 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY ONE GARAGE IS ALLOWED ON A GIVEN PARCEL. CROSS REF. BP 2009-334 STORAGE SHED W/GARAGE DOOR; BP 2004-698 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 46.95 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-47 SECTION 179-5- 020A CLOYD KERCHNER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2011, Cloyd Kerchner, Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 “Project Location: 279 Chestnut Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 384 sq. ft. detached garage on a parcel that currently has a +/- 950 square foot attached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Relief requested from requirement that only one garage is permited per dwelling as per §179-5-020D of the zoning 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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. Feasible alternatives appear limited short of removing the garage door. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional garage or 100% relief as 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 or adverse effects are anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) BP 2009-334: garage PENDING BP 2004-698: 3,428 sq. ft. single family dwelling 3/16/06 Staff comments: 1.The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not a subjective review. 2.The location of the second garage is located approximately 270 linear feet from the east property line and 450 linear feet from the front property line; location relative to other property lines are in excess of 450 linear feet. 3.The applicant has stated that the second garage is intended for his tractor and tools and will not be used to house personal vehicles. 4.Although the aggregate size of both the detached and attached garage does not exceed 2,200 square feet, there appears to be an inconsistency concerning the size of the detached garage. The application states 264 square feet, supporting documentation states 312 square feet and building permit states 384 square feet. Please clarify. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Dr. Kerchner, do you have anything to add? DR. KERCHNER-No, I don’t think so, but I guess yes, and that is, as far as an undesirable to the character of the neighborhood, this land, when I purchased it back in mid 1980’s, after a minimum amount of clean up, I qualified for a tree farm, and I added over 300 trees to that area. In addition, the shed is at the end of an 800 foot driveway, and furthermore, no trees had to be removed for this particular dwelling. It does not have a solid foundation. It’s on gravel. It was prefabricated and brought in, and erected over a two day period of time. I have received no concerns from my neighbors. None of them can actually see where the dwelling is. Essentially what happened was that this was farmland. It hadn’t been used for decades. There was dead dying vegetation and so forth. We started out doing things by hand, and then by power tools, a chipper and a grass hog, and it just wasn’t adequate enough to deal with the situation. I have over close to 500 acres in that area, and I needed a place, I needed to have equipment that was adequate for me to maintain what I had accomplished over the last four years. In addition, I’ve added a number of stone walls that I think has enhanced the area. I think that deals with that th first item. Also the Warren County Zoning Board, on March 9 of this year, stated that there was no adverse impact, as a consequence of this dwelling, or I should say this shed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Could you help us in understanding the discrepancies on the building permits and the applications that was brought up in Staff Notes? How many square feet is the building? DR. KERCHNER-The building is 336. MR. KUHL-Is this the picture of it? DR. KERCHNER-Yes, 336 square feet. MR. KUHL-14 by 26? DR. KERCHNER-That’s correct. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s 264 square feet. MR. KUHL-264. DR. KERCHNER-Okay. MR. KUHL-Okay. DR. KERCHNER-If that’s what it works out. I’ve got three different numbers. MR. KUHL-And we’re talking about the red dwelling at the end of the driveway, when you look off of Chestnut Ridge? DR. KERCHNER-Yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. KUHL-Okay. DR. KERCHNER-That’s correct. We didn’t have to take down any trees. We didn’t have to dig deep, as I said. We don’t have a fixed cement base or anything like that. It’s just suspended on the gravel. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further discussion from the Board members? MR. KUHL-Yes. Could I ask a question of Keith? If this front door was five foot wide, would it then not be classified as a garage, it would be a shed? MR. KOSKINAS-Six feet it could be. MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure, to be honest with you. I think what it comes down to is can a vehicle fit into it, and a five foot wide door, that would be a pretty tight fit. MR. KUHL-I mean, this issue, is it a garage or is it a shed. Does he store his lawnmower in it or does he park a car? MR. OBORNE-Right. If it can fit a car, it’s considered a garage. MR. KOSKINAS-I understood from Craig that if they, I went through a similar exercise. If the door is seven feet, that’s considered a car door. If it’s six feet, it’s something other than that, and people would put up new garages and taking their one car garage and reduce the door size to six, they only have one garage now. MR. JACKOSKI-But the application in front of us is this particular building with this garage door configuration. MR. KUHL-Okay, which is classified as a garage. MR. OBORNE-It’s been determined by the Zoning Administrator. MR. KUHL-And he’s already got a garage on his house and this is the second garage. MR. OBORNE-Second garage, right. MR. URRICO-Now I have a question also as to the size of the property. You said you have 500 acres there, and we have, on our documentation it says almost 50 acres. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, yes. A little more than 50 acres. I’m sorry. Yes, that’s correct. MR. URRICO-Okay. Still, that’s a sizeable piece of property. MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-So your intent, this is going to be for your tractor and brush hog? DR. KERCHNER-Yes, I have a John Deere, and of course it has the components and so forth. So we store those in there as well when it isn’t the same season. We have a bucket loader attachment. We have a brush hog and so forth. MRS. HUNT-We have granted variances like this before with people with large pieces of property where they’ve put up a shed with a door so that they get their big equipment in, and we’ve given them a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. DR. KERCHNER-The size of the door unfortunately came with that, the kit, that dwelling. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s one of those prefab ones like Gardentime sells. DR. KERCHNER-Exactly. We got it from Gardentime, and the reason we went ahead was because it was on sale, and also the, we got a pretty good deal on the John Deere, and so we kind of went ahead and did it, under the circumstances, and my understanding was, and I’m not arguing the issue, but my understanding was that, at least from Gardentime, that they didn’t feel that this was a garage at all. It was a shed, and at the western end of Sanford Ridge, Chestnut 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) Ridge, there’s a similar garage, about two or three times the size of that, that was put up, constructed about three, about seven years ago. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other discussions from our Board members? Having heard none, I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience tonight who would like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-And, Keith or Roy, do we have any public comment? MR. URRICO-There is one letter, and it says “As neighbors of Dr. Kerchner we received a letter in the mail concerning the need for a variance for a garage that Dr. Kerchner has constructed on his property. The building so named is a small 16’ x 14’ architecturally-designed building that was constructed as a shed to store lawn equipment, brush-hogging machine, and a large tractor used for the extensive landscaping projects he has undertaken on his property. The double doors were installed to give access for his large tractor and other equipment. The shed is not used as a garage, does not appear large enough to be construed as a garage, and is used solely for storage. The storage shed meets all five criteria that must be considered for granting a variance. A building permit was issued in 2009 for the construction of the storage shed with a garage door. Dr. Kerchner has constructed an esthetically-pleasing shed that adds interest and character to his property. We fully support Dr. Kerchner and ask that the Zoning Board of Appeals vote to approve this variance. Thank you, Tom and Joan Jenkin 269 Chestnut Ridge Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Having no additional public comment, I believe we will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I’d like to poll the Board, and we don’t we start down at Brian’s end. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I can see where there would be a mix up here, Dr. Kerchner. As a matter of fact, if you go down to Gardentime and you see all the things that are out there, there are all kinds of sizes. I know that this isn’t put on a foundation. It’s put on stone. So, and as far as your neighbors, they seem to be, the one letter that we had seemed to be in favor of it. I don’t think it will be an undesirable change. Achieved by another method I think would be difficult. I don’t think that the variance is substantial. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. The fact that the door is wide gives it a garage classification. We allow one out building or shed, and you don’t have any other sheds on your property as I could see. So I’d have no problem with it, in its current use. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I agree. I think Dr. Kerchner’s done a great job down there. He’s enhanced the neighborhood, and the property lots along Chestnut Ridge are rather large. This one accommodates this structure I think without any difficulty, but this Board has granted and approved additional buildings that really are standing garages along Chestnut Ridge, and there’s many instances of it. So this is, I think, a minor request. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the statue really was done so people on smaller lots didn’t end up with double garages and things like that where it was all crowded in like it is in some of the older neighborhoods in Town, and in this instance here when you’ve got such a huge parcel, there’s a need for storage for your tractor. We’ve granted these numerous other times. I think Nelson Miller, we gave him an extra garage over there for his tractor, over on his, he’s got a lot of forest land over on his side of the other side of Town. So I don’t have any problem with this at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow members said. As Jim said, we’ve done this before with large pieces of property where they wanted a shed with a garage door opening to get large equipment in. I have no problem with this. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think the fact that we’re debating whether this is a garage or shed makes it minimal from my standpoint and also the fact this is 47 acres makes it even more minimal, and we’re asked to grant minimum relief. This is pretty much minimal to my extent. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and my only comment is that, and I’m in favor of it as well is that our motion make sure to clarify the size of the building. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would say, just to add to that, that maybe a condition that the building permit be updated to reflect the correct size, because the application does reflect the correct size. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Keith, that wouldn’t incur an additional fee, would it? MR. OBORNE-No, not at all. MR. JACKOSKI-So, to reiterate, this was a Type II SEQRA, so no further action was required . Does anyone care to make a motion on this variance request? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2011 CLOYD KERCHNER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: 279 Chestnut Ridge Road. The applicant has constructed a 14 by 26 foot or 364 square foot detached garage on a parcel currently that has a plus or minus 950 square foot attached garage. Relief requested from requirement that only one garage is permitted per dwelling as per Section 179-5-020D of the Zoning Code. In making this determination, the Board shall consider whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. Considering the size of the property and the need for large equipment, I don’t think there was any other feasible means. There will not be any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. This is a large piece of property, and it’s far in from all of the property lines. While the request might be considered substantial because he’s asking for a second garage, it really is a storage shed for equipment. It will have no adverse physical or environmental effects, and it could be said to be self-created only in the fact that Dr. Kerchner wants to have a place to keep his large equipment. We also said that the building permit should reflect that it’s a 14 by 26 foot garage or 364 square feet, and I move that we approve Area Variance No. 12-2011. th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Dr. Kerchner, thank you. You’re all set. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want any of your survey copies back to keep them? DR. KERCHNER-Thanks, I have one. I think that’s probably adequate. MR. OBORNE-No, you’re going to need to submit four copies for final signoff. You’ll get a letter in the mail. So you may want to go ahead and grab at least four of them. So you don’t have to make copies. DR. KERCHNER-Okay. Sure. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 13-2011 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS AGENT(S) LEE HORNING OWNER(S) NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS ZONING CI LOCATION 616 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS OF 16 SQ. FT. AND 35 SQ. FT. ON THE NORTH FAÇADE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS PER BUILDING. CROSS REF. SP 18-2011; BP 99-349 INT. ALT.; BP 2003-105 SIGN; BP 2010-094 SIGN; BP 5736 SIGN YR. 1979 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 4.55 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.10-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER 140 LEE HORNING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 13-2011, North Country Imports, Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 “Project Location: 616 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of two additional wall signs of 35 sq. ft. and 16 sq. ft. on the north facing facade. The 35 square foot sign to read “SUBARU” and the 16 square foot sign to be Subaru Logo. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: ? Two additional wallsigns – Applicant request two additional wall signs (35 square feet and 15 square feet) above the one allowed per business as per §140-6B(3)(C). Criteria for considering a Sign 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. 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 business currently pre-existing non-conforming regarding sign, any request for additional signage would require an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for two additional wall signs or 200% relief from one wall sign per business requirement as per §140-6 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 and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficultly may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 18-2011: New façade for car dealership Pending BP 2010-094: 54.4 sq ft freestanding sign to read "SUBARU" with oval logo Approved 4/2/2010 BP 2003-105: 66 SQ FT WALL SIGN Approved 4/3/03 BP 99-349: 487 sq. ft. commercial interior alteration Approved 6/28/99 BP 96-2053: 40 sq. ft. wall sign Approved 7/23/96 BP 96-2042: 49.5 sq. ft. freestanding sign Approved 7/1/96 SV 38-1994: Saab and Saab emblem signs Approved 7/20/94 Staff comments: The applicant has two existing wall signs; one SAAB sign approximately sized at 40 square feet and one SAAB logo sign sized approximately at 20 square feet; these are pre-existing approved signs. There is an additional or third wall sign at 40 square feet in size located on the East elevation that reads North Country Imports, this sign to be removed and not replaced. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted/Short form submitted” MR. HORNING-My name is Lee Horning, agent for North Country Imports. KEN LUNDRUM MR. LUNDRUM-Hi. Ken Lundrum, President of North Country Imports. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. HORNING-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have anything else you’d like to add to the record? MR. HORNING-Well, North Country Imports has two franchises, one a Saab and one Subaru. Subaru is kind of pushing to put their insignia on this new construction, and their name Subaru on the façade. It keeps with the appearance of their dealerships. Also we have an existing dealership. MR. LUNDRUM-I brought this. This is what our real project is going to look like. So I’m sure you’ve seen the building, seen pictures of it, and we’ve asked Lee to do the rest of this work so that the building goes from old gray brown tint to the more modern look with the different chains. To skip forward to, and stop me if I’m getting in the way here. MR. HORNING-Okay. MR. LUNDRUM-The Subaru, in their own silliness considered this as one sign, and I said, you know, I think we all understand that Queensbury calls that two signs, but we do have permits for both signs that are on the building, the SAAB sign. What’s written there doesn’t seem to be exactly correct, but we have a permit for the SAAB sign. We have a permit for the North Country Import sign. They’re two separate signs. We have pictures of the SAAB sign if you want to see it. What I would like to do, or propose to do, was to move the SAAB sign from where it currently is, way down there, where North Country Imports is, and if you would permit us to allow Subaru’s little tongue in cheek thing that this is one sign to put this up, make them happy with their image facility, that’s my two cents. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the status of SAAB? Are they going to remain or are they still up in the air as to whether they’re going to continue? MR. LUNDRUM-Let me give you a history. I put myself through college working on SAAB’s. There are some people around who really love the product. They have reformulated the company, got it back as a real company. They’re building new cars. They’re shipping new cars. My son Jared and a couple of other people would really like to see it come back. We are the only SAAB dealer from northern, from Canadian border to Newberg at this point, to Utica, to Rutland. I don’t know that they’re going to be a big success, but it’s been an important part of my life and we’d like to continue. We’d like to take care of the customers. So we have to have a sign up. Subaru has done very well in the last four, five years. So that makes them get aggressive. I mean, I’ve talked to Howard Lebowitz at the Toyota store. You can see what Della had to do in the last couple of months. These car companies that see a little success get real aggressive. We just had the two Subaru reps in today talking about floor tile, and the one that Lee and I had chosen has a little bit too much grey fleck in it, and they denied it. So they’re pretty arrogant. MR. UNDERWOOD-In the past we’ve dealt with Della’s down the road because they had to have their franchise logos and everything stacked up. They have multiple ones from GM and also with Garvey down the road, with KIA and Volkswagen, you know, so I think everybody understands that when you’ve got multiple dealerships, you’ve got to keep them all happy. MR. LUNDRUM-Well, one smart comment I heard today was, well what if you told the Board that you would lose the franchise if you didn’t get the sign? And I said, you don’t think anybody believes that, do you? So why would you even say that? So you know what we’re dealing with, and whatever you folks think is reasonable, as I talk to you, I’m in favor of the Sign Ordinance. I mean, it’s been in effect since the day I started business in 1976. I agree with the way it keeps the Town looking better, and quite frankly it saved me a lot of money. Because SAAB came through 20 years ago and they wanted a pole sign and a building sign and Subaru wanted a pole sign and a building sign, and we said, no, we have fair representation in this Town. We look pretty fair. So whatever you folks decide will be fine with me, but I think that the idea of taking down the North Country Import sign, which is dated, and moving the SAAB sign down there to keep them happy, while they decide whether they’re going to come back to life or not, Subaru would just as soon that we gave SAAB up, took the sign down. That’s what they would really like. MR. KUHL-But this drawing that you’ve presented us is where you want to put the SAAB sign? This one? Is that the final? MR. LUNDRUM-They’re not right. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-SAAB would go way off to the right. MR. KUHL-Why don’t you show us where, you know, what you’re asking us to approve. MR. JACKOSKI-The size won’t change, but the location will, correct? MR. LUNDRUM-I took a couple of pictures of the actual building to give you an idea. The SAAB sign is currently here, about halfway down, and this is the North Country Import sign. MR. KUHL-Right. Okay. MR. LUNDRUM-So it would go. MR. KUHL-You’re going to move it over. You’re going to move this to here. MR. CLEMENTS-You’d move the SAAB sign over here? MR. LUNDRUM-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-And the North Country Imports sign. MR. KUHL-Goes away. MR. KOSKINAS-Goes away. MR. LUNDRUM-I hate to do that, but, you know, like I said, I understand what you guys are trying to do with the signs, but this sign is dated, it’s time to change it anyway, and I think that if you look at this picture, the idea of them, the idea that they’ve come up with with their signature tower. Honda’s got the squiggles and Volkswagen’s got the arch, you know, this is all part of their company logo, and like I said, when Consumer Reports rates them as one of the top three car companies, they get pretty aggressive. MR. KUHL-But going back to that picture, in that picture you’re going to want SAAB on the right hand side of the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Way down. MR. LUNDRUM-Originally, when this building was built in ’81, we had the word Subaru down there, then, you know, you go through phases and changes. We originally had a Sign Variance for a pole sign, a SAAB sign, the North Country Imports sign, and whatever, but that was back in ’81, and then as time went on, you know, you tightened the laws up, which I understand that. MR. URRICO-The SAAB sign that you’re going to using are the same ones that you have there now, or are you getting new SAAB signs? MR. LUNDRUM-Did you see this picture? MR. URRICO-Yes, but are those the same signs you’re going to be using, or are they new ones? MR. LUNDRUM-Today, yes. You know how this works. As soon as you say, yes, they’ll come out with a new sign package. Then I’ll be back up here. MR. URRICO-Is it possible to ask them what their sign is coming? MR. LUNDRUM-No. When they broke back away from General Motors, they took 35 people, and that’s the national headquarters. So they’re in the infancy. They are going to have a new logo. I would just come back at that time and show you what they offer, and you tell me what we’re going to do then. MR. URRICO-So the net result is right now you have one Subaru sign, a North Country Imports sign, a SAAB logo and a SAAB sign, and you’re going to replace. MR. LUNDRUM-The Subaru sign’s on (lost word). MR. URRICO-Right, but now you’re going to replace it with, you’re going to take the North Country Imports sign out there. You’re going to keep the SAAB logo and sign and you’re going to add a Subaru logo and a sign. So the net result is pretty much a wash. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. LUNDRUM-Yes, and the other thing is that we’re a long ways off the road. I mean, it isn’t like it’s in your face, and with our new pole sign that we put up last summer, we moved it back (lost words) 25 feet off the property line. MR. OBORNE-Twenty-five feet for. MR. LUNDRUM-We’re almost invisible when you come down the road now, because that sign’s a lot smaller and it’s a lot further back. MR. KOSKINAS-Have you been to their plant? MR. LUNDRUM-Whose? MR. KOSKINAS-SAAB’s. MR. LUNDRUM-Yes, well, you know, it’s inspiring, and you’d really like to see that company come back. I don’t know if you followed this at all, but General Motors didn’t do very well with it. I mean, they did terrible with it, and this entrepreneur out of Holland has bought the car company, for $75 million, the entire car company, the production line, all the parts, everything, and he said, you know, as a guy who buys companies, he got a great deal, but now that they’ve owned it for just about a year, and they’re in the process of, you know, new models, you know, new things, but they’ve said they don’t have big brother behind them. They have a small budget and they have a plan and they’re sticking to it and we’re a real small part of their small plan, but it’s pretty hard to give up on customers that you’ve cultivated for 30 years. Even though Subaru’s got big pressure on having just be a single point Subaru dealer, it’s pretty hard to walk away from somebody, and so we’ve really resisted it. It’s cost us, but we’ve resisted it. We’d really like to see them come back, even if it’s, you know, like a boutique business where you only do, we only sold six cars last year, but we serviced a lot of them. So who knows where it’s going. MR. UNDERWOOD-And everybody knows Subaru is really Fuji heavy industry, so that’s not something you want to have on the side of the building. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other discussion at this point? Okay. I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any public comment? MR. URRICO-None that I can find. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Seeing no one and having no public comment, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-This is an Unlisted SEQRA. Would anyone like to make a motion concerning the review of the Short Form SEQRA application? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want me to do it? I would just summarize and say that having reviewed the Short Form, we realize this is a Sign Variance, and it is a substantial request because it’s adding two extra signs where only two are allowed on the building already, right? There’s two legal ones that would be the SAAB one with the SAAB logo. So in this case here it’ll be the Subaru logo plus the stars, which is the constellation Pleiades. Most people don’t know that, but that’s what it is, and so, having reviewed the form, we recognize that it is excess signage, but due to the fact that there are multiple dealers vending cars on site here, that they’re both necessary to continue sales. So I would vote that it’s a positive dec. MR. JACKOSKI-Negative dec. MR. UNDERWOOD-Negative dec, sorry. HAVING REVIEWED THE SHORT FORM, WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS EXCESS SIGNAGE, BUT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEALERS VENDING CARS ON SITE HERE THAT THEY’RE BOTH NECESSARY TO CONTINUE SALES, SO I WOULD SAY T HAT IT’S A NEGATIVE DEC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next is some more discussion. Would we like to poll the Board concerning this application? Why don’t we start with Roy. MR. URRICO-As Jim said earlier, we’ve seen a lot of these dealers that have multiple affiliations having to deal with requests from those affiliations for a specific signage and specific requirements from an aesthetics standpoint or their aesthetic standpoint, I guess, but I think in this case there’s also some mitigation involved in that you’ve made the best of a bad situation I think and added, you’ve added taking out the North Country Import sign, and so we’re really adding, from what I can see, one small logo sign, and I don’t think that’s a big deal. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. The dealership is way back from the main road, and the signs you’re adding are 51 square feet and you’re removing 40 square feet. So it’s practically a wash. I’d be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the request. I think the statements everybody’s made support us approving this appeal. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I agree, and I think it’s a nice looking project. I think it’s going to look good. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. No, I agree with my previous Board members. It’s a good project. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I agree with my Board members also. The net change is zero here. So I’d be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So would anyone care to make a motion at this point? MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-John, thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 13-2011 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 616 Quaker Road. Granting relief from the requirements of Section 140-6B(3)(c) allowing two additional wall signs, 35 square feet and 15 square feet respectively. In making the determination, we find that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. That the pre- existing, nonconforming sign and additional signage, while requiring a variance, there doesn’t seem to be an alternative to satisfy the requirements of the applicant. The request for 200% relief may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. However, alternatives are extremely limited. Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated, and the difficulty may be considered self-created. I move for approval. th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. LUNDRUM-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Have a good night. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2011 SEQRA TYPE II KELLY CARTE OWNER(S) KELLY CARTE ZONING MDR LOCATION 659 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LOT LINE CHANGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AS THE PROPOSED LOT CONFIGURATION DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) ZONE. CROSS REF. BP 95-299; ADD W/2-CAR GAR.; BP 93-601 DECK; BP 92-325 ABOVE POOL; BP 91-702 DEMO OF HOUSE; BP 91-700 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 4.45 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.9-1-17.1 SECTION 179-3-040 KELLY CARTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2011, Kelly Carte, Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 “Project Location: 659 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary lot line change. Specifically, the applicant proposes to create a one acre parcel fronting on West Mountain Road from an existing 4.45 acre lot and add 1.13 acres to remaining lot that is currently an access to a 53.88 acre parcel to the west. The applicant further proposes to combine the two (2) western parcels to form an overall landlocked parcel of 88.96 acres. Existing parcels total four (4) and the proposed parcels total four (4). Relief Required: The proposal will require area variances for proposed Lot 1 and are as follows: 1.Lot width- Applicant requests 62 feet of lot width relief from the 200 foot requirement per §179-3-040. 2.Road frontage - Applicant requests 62 feet of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement per §179-3-040. The proposal will require area variances for proposed Lot 2 and are as follows: 1.Lot size – Applicant requests 1.0 acre of lot size relief from the 2 acre requirement as per §179-3-040. 2.Lot width – Applicant requests 59.25 feet of lot width relief from the 200 foot requirement per §179-3-040. 3.Road frontage - Applicant requests 59.25 feet of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement 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 the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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. Feasible alternatives would be to propose a shared access that is not 48 feet wide. This would eliminate the road frontage and lot size variances requested for both lots. Staff recommends a 20 foot access. Note: The intent of the code is to promote safe vehicular egress and ingress onto roads, in this case a Local Arterial Road; please see §179-19-010 for further clarification on intent. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. For Lot 1: The request for 62 feet or 31% relief from the 200 foot lot width requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 62 feet or 31% of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. For Lot 2: The request for 1.0 acre or 50% relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size requirement for the MDR zone may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 59.75 feet or 30% relief from the 200 foot lot width requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 59.75 feet or 30% relief from the 200 foot road frontage requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) 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 or adverse effects may be anticipated as a result of the size of the access proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 95-299: addition w/ 2-car garage 11/3/95 BP 93-601: deck 11/10/93 BP 92-325: pool 6/15/92 BP 91-702: demo of house 10/30/91 BP 91-700: single family dwelling 3/6/92 Staff comments: 1.The proposal essentially has two separate driveways that do not promote safe access onto West Mountain Road. See Criteria comment # 2 above. 2.Existing conditions to include all structures and driveway location should be placed on survey for clarification purposes. Currently, an existing single family dwelling is located on proposed Lot 1. 3.The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not a subjective review. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Good evening, Mr. Carte. MR. CARTE-Good evening, Board members. Kelly Carte. Let me begin by going back a little bit. I bought this property 12 years ago. The zoning at that point in time was one acre along here, and I had intended on, after a year or two in there, I decided to do this project like this, and I had some plans drawn up, but in talking to the Staff at the time, it was told to me that I would have to go through a subdivision process to subdivide this lot, because the previous owner of the house had previously had a two lot subdivision. This 50 foot strip that is shown on the north side of the property is access to rear acreage, and they had had a subdivision with a permitted house and driveway, using that access at that time. So I didn’t really pursue the matter because, you know, I would have had to go through the Planning Board and then zoning, whatever. It just wasn’t uppermost on my mind at the time here, but, in talking with Craig, well, less than a year ago, six, eight months ago, something like that, on another matter, I brought this up again, and after looking at the map that I then had drawn and he hadn’t seen it before when we were discussing the thing, he determined that it did not, in fact, need to have subdivision because what I was planning on doing was not going to increase the number of lots that I own. I have four lots now and I’m going to have four lots when this is done, which made it more palatable to me, I guess. So I decided to go ahead with it, but then he told me that you had changed, the Town had changed the zoning in that area to MDR, which is two acres instead of one acre, and that I would have to get, the variance, you know, the zoning variance here for doing this, even though I didn’t have to have a subdivision one. So that’s what the history is on it here. That’s why I have come before you for this situation. I look at this a little differently than what the Staff has. Keith, I believe, is the one that, you know, he’s been the one working with me, and I believe he did this, and I understand where he’s coming from, and I’ve read the Codes, and understand how they’re written. However, I think they can be interpreted in a couple of different ways, and I’d like to go through these relief statements here and just interpret them my way, and then see if you agree with me. Number One, it says the proposal will require area variances for Lot One, which is the existing lot that has my house on it, and, by the way, just to jump ahead a bit, I did not have the surveyor put my house on there, because it’s 700 and some odd feet back from the road. It’s nowhere near this lot. It really has nothing to do with it, and I’ve already spent $1,000 to the surveyor for doing this. I didn’t want to have to have him traipsing around and measuring off, because he won’t put it on there unless he has the exact location of where it is. So it’s way back beyond the cemetery that’s there and in fact you would have to look hard, in the wintertime, to be able to see a house up front or my house from the location of this house here. So, that’s why it’s not on there. Lot width. It says that applicant requests 62 feet of lot width relief from the 200 foot requirement. If you calculate this lot, my lot after having taken this one acre out of here, I would guess the way to calculate the lot width on something like that is an average width. If you have what they call flag lots, where you have a long, skinny, like the other one is here with a 50 foot strip, and then widening out to something 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) larger in the back, you can’t count the width of the lot as being the width of the strip. It’s what the majority of it is, and my calculations are that the average lot width for what I would have left after this is taken out is 225 feet. The lot is 280 feet, I think, wide in the back, and I forgot what it was, I have a survey map, original survey map that when this thing was done, when the previous owners had this house done, and in calculating the area of the front and the area of the back, and taking an average of them, the average is 225 feet for lot width. So I would question any variance for that, under that specifics here. MR. CLEMENTS-Can I ask you a question there? You’re talking about Lot Two? MR. CARTE-No, I’m talking about Lot One. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I’ve got you. MR. CARTE-When you take Lot Two out of the other, the bigger one, you have a 225 foot average lot width left on the other, on Lot One. Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTE-The road frontage, and in both cases, now this applies to both of them, the requested relief of 62 feet of road frontage. The Code says that MDR requires 100 feet of road frontage, unless it’s on an arterial road, which West Mountain Road is, and then it’s 200 feet, unless you use shared driveway. So I’m assuming that if you are going to use a shared driveway, you no longer need 200 feet of road frontage. You can have 100 feet of road frontage, and if that’s the case, then there isn’t, you don’t need relief from 200 feet of road frontage, because the shared driveway gives you that relief. Both of these lots will be more than 100 foot road frontage, when and if this is done, by virtue of the shared driveway. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you’ve got a 193 feet is what it is. That’s what it looks like now. MR. CARTE-No, it was more than that. There’s 200 and. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got 160 and 41 it looks like. MR. OBORNE-There’s over 260 feet, linear feet along the frontage, currently existing. MR. CARTE-Well, Keith, yes, I have 278. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but this is, I’m just scaling it. MR. CARTE-I was going to say, 278 on the survey that was done when this original house was built, okay. So the proposed lot is135 feet. The balance of whatever that is, 140 something feet, would be the width of the road frontage of the other lot that would be left. So I would contend that you don’t really need relief in either of those for lot width. In the same situation for, well, for road frontage on either one, and then the same situation for lot width on Lot Two. MR. KOSKINAS-Mr. Carte, before you go to Lot Two, can you come back to the shared driveway? I’m looking at this drawing, 97042 E, and the driveways look like they share a cut. MR. CARTE-Well, they do. MR. KOSKINAS-That’s not what it shows. MR. CARTE-And that would, I haven’t gotten to that yet, John, but the thing is I assume that the Ordinance is written for egress and ingress off of the road with a curb cut. I mean, I can’t believe that the Town really cares whether people drive down the same driveway or not. It’s whether they enter the road at the same point, so that you don’t have a series of cars entering the road 100 feet apart or whatever. I have accomplished that with this drawing, with the way this is laid out, and let me ask, have any of the Board members been to see this thing there? Okay. It makes it easier if you’ve seen it, and I also took a photograph there, whatever, and it, the comment that Keith made about it being 48 foot wide at the end of the driveway, it’s not actually 48. I measured it. I mean, I went out there, after I got his thing here, I went out and scaled it, measured it. It’s 41 feet, and it’s exactly what it was when I bought the house 12 years ago. I mean, I haven’t made it narrower or wider or anything. This is what it was and has been, and in doing it the way that I’ve done it here, both parties will use that same 41 feet to enter and exit off of the road, and I can’t believe that that would be a problem, considering, I mean, for two houses to use that one 41 foot access when 360 feet up the road is Mountain Hollow, which is 13 townhouses using a 48 foot wide common, it’s a private driveway. It’s not a Town road. So it’s no different than my driveway, other than the fact that it’s wider. So, I think I’ve accomplished 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) the purpose without having to use a common driveway, and the reason that I don’t want to do that is because I want the property line to follow the line of these pine trees here. These pine trees are, you know, 100 years old, and they define the edge of driveway, and they will define the edge of this lot, and I didn’t want, if you had to put the property line over into the driveway, that would leave the person who buys this house with sole discretion as to whether they cut these trees down or not, and the way that I’ve done it, making the property line through the middle of the trees, both people have to agree whether they cut the trees down or not, and obviously I want the trees to stay there. So, even in the future, you know, the people that are affected by, or would be affected by that action are, have to agree to it before it could be done. The other thing that I also wanted to point out to you was that, in my reading of the Code, it says, MDR says two acre minimum lot size unless you have Town water and Town sewer, and then you can have one acre. Well, obviously there’s no Town sewer in that area. There is Town water, and everybody there is hooked up to Town water. I’m assuming that the reason that the lot sizes were changed from one acre to two acres is to prevent or discourage septic systems from interfering with people’s well water, or water supply. However, if everybody has Town water, then the septic systems are not going to interfere, no matter where they’re placed. I have half of the requirement for one acre. I have Town water. I don’t have Town sewer, but the Town sewer is, if you’re looking at the logic in it, is really not necessary when everybody has, you know, all the neighboring properties here have Town water. So, the location of the septic system is not really that critical. So, as I said, I just have a different way of looking at how much relief is necessary and where it’s necessary. I think you understand what I want to do here. The 50 foot strip that goes to the back, these people that did this first when they built the house were going to build on this lot on the back. The back is 50 something acres, and they were going to build back there, and they decided to remodel the house that they’re now living in, but when they, after they decided not to do that, they put the driveway, they changed the driveway so that it goes over onto that 50 foot strip. So I’ve always looked at it as, this is not going to work because if I ever wanted to sell this piece of property or whatever, you can’t have half of your driveway on somebody else’s parcel. So I intended to give up this 50 foot strip and combine it with what’s left after this one acre is taken out, and oddly enough the 50 by 900 and something feet is an acre. So, I still have four and a half acres with the house, which pleases the bank. They wouldn’t let me subdivide off an acre here because they have obviously an interest in it. I am giving up the curb cut that goes with that 50 foot strip, because that’s an accepted lot now. So presumably, you know, I could have a driveway and a curb cut right there, which would be 50 feet or 80 feet or something from my existing one, and I’m giving that up so that there is, you know, less congestion I guess you’d say, or less safety issues with the number of driveways on West Mountain Road in that location, and I think I’ve accomplished the statement, or the thing of having both people exit in one location. So there isn’t any more safety issues. MR. CLEMENTS-The other driveway you were talking about, is that the one you have on this map that says permitted? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. It’s not there, you’re saying. MR. CARTE-It’s not there. MR. CLEMENTS-It would be permitted. MR. CARTE-It would be permitted, yes, there’s a permitted the lot and everything, you know, has been a separate lot. MR. OBORNE-You have the road frontage on West Mountain in order to. MR. CARTE-Correct. Yes, well, one of the things. MR. CLEMENTS-You still have to have a variance for that. MR. OBORNE-Not for that. Are you talking about the northern area that he’s giving up? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That’s compliant as far as road frontage goes. So he could cut a line in there, or a road in there if he wished to access that back property. MR. CARTE-This works, one of the things that’s on here, and I forgot to, the 58 acres or whatever’s left, that this 50 foot strip goes with, I’m going to combine by deed with another parcel that I have that is landlocked forest land. I bought a piece from George Stec, the forest ranger there, when he sold his land up on the thing, and it was, it’s 38, 35 acres, something like 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) that, and it’s a landlocked parcel, and I’m going to combine this 58 acres that will be now landlocked when I give up this strip, with that and just have a larger piece, and in fact, it’s not, to me it’s not landlocked because I own the land between it and West Mountain, or in Fuller Road. So I can access it from Fuller Road and intend to do it that way. It’s just that I’d rather leave it on, as a landlocked parcel here because the Assessor is a little more kind to me when I have it as a landlocked forest land. MR. KOSKINAS-Can I ask you a question, just for my own edification? First I need to ask you, Keith. In this Staff comments, well, in the Staff Notes Item Two, where it says that, where you’re commenting that if they had a shared drive 48 foot wide, or with 20 foot access, rather, that you would eliminate the road frontage and lot size variances for both lots. You mean lot width. MR. OBORNE-Not lot size, you’re correct. MR. KOSKINAS-It would be lot width. MR. OBORNE-Let me read this through. Correct. MR. KOSKINAS-So it should be lot width. MR. OBORNE-It should be lot width and road frontage. MR. KOSKINAS-And, Mr. Carte, if I understood you correctly, the principal reason you think that’s a bad idea is the pine trees? MR. CARTE-Well, yes, well, it’s not necessarily a bad idea. It’s just, I can’t accomplish that without giving up the reason for the pine trees, yes, with the pine trees, and I don’t necessarily see why the actual driveway or having the lot line down the middle of a driveway is of any benefit. The intention of the thing is to have the cars go in and out of a curb cut at the same location. So whether they have, they come down one driveway like this, or two driveways like that, as long as they. MR. KOSKINAS-Believe me, I do admire your take on zoning. I think that your arguments are compelling and it’s interesting to have a citizen say, well, this is how I see the zoning, but really we’ve got the Town Board and the Zoning Administrator who sees. I ask you for this reason, that this Board ends up, even when we’re swayed by these compelling arguments that you make, our charter is to grant the minimum variance that will still get your project done. It doesn’t matter if we like you or we want to do you a favor. Our charter is to grant the minimum variance that’ll get the job done, and since you’re going to own both of these lots, you know, you could grant yourself back an easement to your pine trees if you wanted, but I’m just looking for, just for my own understanding, your reticence to accept the suggestion that would eliminate three variances, that takes us off the hook for three of the four. MR. CARTE-Well, I don’t necessarily understand why the argument, let me read it again. Feasible alternatives would be proposed shared access that is not 48 feet wide. Well, it’s 41 feet, and that’s what it was. I mean, I’m not making it 41 feet wide. It’s always been 41 feet wide. MR. KOSKINAS-But here’s the property line you’re going to establish. MR. CARTE-Right. MR. KOSKINAS-This is a line you’re going to put on that map. You’re going to own both of these lots when you’re done. MR. CARTE-Briefly. I’m going to, I mean, the idea is to sell one, that’s the thing, but, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-I understand that, but you’ll have control of them for some period of time. When you move that line, you simplify this Board’s challenge and maybe you could look, and I’m just asking you what do you have against this suggestion? Did you digest it and just say it stinks? MR. CARTE-I did. I mean, there’s several things that come in. Number One is the trees, and to me that’s, I don’t know, I think that’s an admirable thing to leave these 100 year old trees that are there, if at all possible. Number Two, the fact that existing driveway is not parallel to the property line here. It goes off at an angle. So if you were to draw a line down the middle of it, the lot would look a lot different. Lot Two would look a lot different if you did that, because instead of being parallel, I mean, both sides being parallel the way they are, it’s going to be trapezoid. It would have to go off the driveway and then much wider across the back end and 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) narrower. I don’t, I understand what you’re saying. I just question whether it’s there for a reason. I mean, I don’t know what the reason would be to say that two people have to drive down the same driveway instead of two people have to enter and exit the arterial road in the same location, using the same curb cut, if there were curbs there, in effect. MR. OBORNE-If I can answer, I mean, the reason is safety, and the other reason is road frontage. You’re subdividing a piece of property right now. You’re effectively making two separate driveways coming out at one access. That’s the issue, and again it’s the Code. Why the Code is? I don’t know. The Code is what it is. It says that if you do not share that access, you have to have double the lot width. Why that is is for safety and is to mitigate the lack of road frontage along an arterial. It’s specific to arterials. MR. CARTE-I understand, Keith, and the thing is that what I’m looking at, when you said you have to share that access, and that’s exactly what you would be doing is sharing the access. The thing is how far down the driveway do you have to drive in order for it to be, to comply with the Code? In other words, somebody’s going to build a house, let’s say 100 feet back from or 75 feet back from West Mountain Road, they’re going to build their house, and they’re going to have their driveway. They’re going to drive out of a driveway in their house, and they’re going to drive over to this shared driveway and then down, and I’m going to drive down my driveway to this point where the two of them, presumably they have to come together somewhere, and then go down there. Why do you have to traverse 7500, 150 feet into common driveway? Isn’t it sufficient to have both cars leave the road or come into the road at the same place? MR. OBORNE-Our position from a traffic mitigation point of view, no. You have many things going on here. You have, in many cases there are sight line issues, but in this case that’s not an issue whatsoever. You do have a road right across the way where this is here. Usually you want to have those like right next to each other or right across from each other, but that’s a separate issue and that’s really not what’s coming up, but it is all about controlling ingress and egress on what would be considered substandard lots. That’s really what it comes down to. MR. CARTE-Well, yes, I guess. I mean, I, again, the question is, is a one acre lot substandard when it’s permitted in that zone, if you had Town water, Town sewer, or if you use a shared driveway. If you use a shared driveway it’s not substandard anymore. MR. OBORNE-You’re given an out, basically. MR. CARTE-Okay. Well, I’ve made my pitch, and I think if anyone does not understand where I’m coming from. MR. CLEMENTS-What you’re really talking about here is two separate driveways with a shared exit, would that be correct? MR. CARTE-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay, and I’ve got a couple of questions on this, because as it shows on your, on the subdivision map here and also on this one that you drew on, you have both of those driveways, one driveway is crossing one piece of property and the other driveway is crossing over the other piece of property. I mean, you’ve got, I’m wondering what you’re going to do about, are there easements there? I mean, that makes it very confusing in there. MR. CARTE-Well, you have to do it, you’d have to have an easement anyway, even if you were doing it the way Keith was saying that the Code calls for, which is a property line down the middle, each piece of property would have to have an easement for 15 feet or something of the other person’s thing in order to be able to drive down that driveway. The way I’m doing it, you only have to have an easement for about 20 feet of driveway there because that’s all that’s common to these two pieces of property is the corner marker being in the middle of the entryway, you know, and, again, as I said, it’s not like I purposely made this thing bigger to accommodate this other driveway. This is the size that it was when I bought it. The pavement is there and everything, and if 13 units can egress, you know, back and forth through 48 feet, why can’t two? MRS. HUNT-I have to say, I agree with your argument, Mr. Carte. You’re not changing the curb cuts at all. Maybe one family going in and out. MR. CARTE-I’m not even going to move my mailbox. The mailbox is, put another one right beside it there, and it’s going to be, you know. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MRS. HUNT-I don’t have any problem with that, and I think, as you’ve said, if there were sewer there, if the Town had sewer, you’d probably hook up to the sewer. So I have no problem with this at all. MR. OBORNE-You still would need relief for access, even if they had sewer. MRS. HUNT-Yes, but I think it’s admirable that you want to keep those trees. I think we have to do everything we can to keep whatever natural growth we have. So I would be in favor, definitely. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Carte, can you tell me on the survey, 97042E, and I realize it’s actually not a survey, it’s a paper survey, I have a couple of questions. The two trees closest to West Mountain Road that are depicted on that, are they the pine trees in the picture? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and can you tell me what the access is to the lands of the McEachron cemetery? MR. CARTE-There is none. Only my driveway or whatever. It’s landlocked. There’s an easement on my deed that says, you know, you have an easement for access or whatever. I don’t remember the exact wording of it, to get to the cemetery, but there isn’t, there used to be a road that ran right by the cemetery, where it shows on there, it says old gravel bed or whatever. That was before they rebuilt the house and whatever that was, that was the driveway to house ended up on the other side of the house, but, you know, we’ve lived there for 12 years and have never, the only people that ever come to the cemetery are the VFW to put flags, and one young lady that came, I don’t know, seven eight years ago or something, she was researching genealogy or something and, you know, had heard about it and came to see who was there. It’s not, you know, I take care of it, keep it cleaned up and stuff like that, but the last person that was there was buried in 1894. So it’s not like. MR. JACKOSKI-But access to it technically has not been cut off. There still is a right of access there. MR. CARTE-No. That access is still down, you know, you can walk down the old road bed down there or whatever, you know, and that thing makes the buffer between the houses. I mean, I wouldn’t do this. If I thought any of this was going to devalue the house that I’m in, I wouldn’t do it, but the back end of this lot would, there’s 95 feet of cemetery which is wooded. The front of the cemetery that fronts where I can see from my house, the first 10 or 15 feet is cleared, and I kind of keep that clear, but the rest of it is wooded. So, in the summertime, you would not even be able to see this house from my house, or vice versa. In the wintertime, when the, you know, when the vegetation is less, you might be able to see through the woods or something like that, but it’s not, and I, you know, I mow this property up here two three times during the summer, and it really looks like it doesn’t belong with the property, it doesn’t do me any good, and with the line of the pine trees and stuff there, it looks like it’s a separate lot, you know. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you help me understand again the mechanism that will protect the trees. MR. CARTE-Well, the fact that the property line goes down the middle of them means you can’t cut them down unless both people are in agreement, because each parcel owns half the trees. So the two people that would, that own these two parcels would have to agree to do that. I mean, you can’t cut something down that belongs to your neighbor. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m not sure if there is case law, but there may be case law that talks about the majority of the trees. So I’m just suggesting it’s not germane here. MR. CARTE-I understand. They’re pretty straight, and the line would be pretty much down the middle of them, so, yes, I don’t know how you would determine that, but. MR. JACKOSKI-And you believe you could not gain access to these two lots using this shared driveway? MR. CARTE-Well, I don’t, it wouldn’t be preferable at all. I mean, I don’t, I suppose you could. The thing is you’d have to realign the driveway, because it can’t go off at an angle like that and have the lot be what it is now, I mean, you know, a normal, symmetrical kind of a thing, and I don’t know, you know, I’m making the lot bigger and bigger, giving up more and more frontage of the other opening, because the only way you can do it is, instead of having lot, the lot line going down the middle of the trees, it’s got to be another 15 or 20 feet over into the middle of the 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) driveway that’s there. So, you know, making one bigger, one smaller. I can’t say that it can’t be done. It’s just. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s just going to become more dimensionally conforming, but, I mean, it really doesn’t really achieve the totality of what the Code says either. MR. JACKOSKI-But my concern is the intent of the Code with the 100 feet of lot width, and the access point. MR. KOSKINAS-And granting the fewest number of variances as possible. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I will say, just for clarification, and if that is on that 179-19 that I was talking about, I mean, it does say that egress is limited to and provided by a single common driveway centered on the common property line, that’s the key word is centered. So it has to be an equal easement in order for you to have the 100 foot road frontage. That’s just the way it’s written. MR. CARTE-I understand fully. I just don’t see the logic in having to say you have to drive down 50 feet down this common driveway before you drive off onto the driveway that goes over to your house, you have to drive off, you know, 600 feet on this common driveway or whatever before you drive off. MR. OBORNE-We’ve discussed this. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, this won’t go to Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-And there’s no reason to send it to Planning Board, or any mechanism to send it to Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-I don’t, there is a mechanism, but I don’t necessarily feel it’s necessary, but that is my take on it, and obviously I do not want to influence the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-And we’ve done these previously. Remember that one we did in Twicwood there up on the hill, that was multiple lots up there. It was like three or four looking down on the golf course, on the Country Club golf course, you know, and those ones are the same thing, it’s a single drive that goes into all of them. MR. JACKOSKI-And it’s shared. MR. OBORNE-A lot of the intention is flag lots, is not to have them, too. That’s another aspect, too, and this isn’t that issue. MR. CARTE-Yes, no, I understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean, realistically speaking, the permitted one that you have there probably is never going to come to fruition, right? Because you don’t need it with Fuller Road access for all those other parcels up above. MR. CARTE-No, that’s why I’m willing to give it up, is because I have access from the other way, and I would hope that would be a consideration, in that, you know, there’s another curb cut that by any rights should be there. I mean, it’s, you know, the thing is permitted. You don’t have a copy, I don’t believe, of the survey, but I have a copy here of the survey that was done when this other lot was laid out, and it’s, was a permitted thing and there’s a sketch there of where the house would be, and everything else. So if I could think of a reasonable way of doing it, you know, I could sell it, let’s put it this way, but I don’t want to. MR. UNDERWOOD-The net effect is there’s going to be one more house there with a shared driveway on West Mountain Road, you know, and I think that’s what you have to keep in perspective. The upper lot, the other thing just goes away. So it’s, it is what it is, other than it’s supposed to be two acres and it’s a one acre. MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. He could does this with one variance. He can do what he wants to do with a single variance. MR. JACKOSKI-And I tend to agree with John. I mean, it could be done. MR. OBORNE-I would like to remind the Board that there’s a public hearing associated with this. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we should do that. MR. JACKOSKI-So, if you don’t mind, Mr. Carte, we’ll try to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address the Board on this matter? Sir, if you could join us here at the table if you wouldn’t mind, and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDREW DEL SIGNORE MR. DEL SIGNORE-Andrew Delsignore. I live at 349 West Mountain Road. I really don’t care what Mr. Carte does with his property, to be honest with you. It’s his property. It’s whatever he wants to do. My question is with the Lot Two, with the proposed house. Number One, is that definitely where the house would go, and if that’s the case, is the building set back from the property line adjacent to my property, is that within the Code? If that is, I don’t care. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I certainly think if it weren’t within Code, the Zoning Administrator would make that determination, and then they’d have to come back for other variances. MR. OBORNE-Yes. As it is presented on the map that you have there, too, it is within Code. It shows the building envelope. Twenty-five feet is the side setback relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re the house on the corner, then? MR. DEL SIGNORE-Yes. MR. OBORNE-I can’t speak for Kelly. That is just a representative, showing you that’s where it’s going. MR. CARTE-Yes. I just drew it on there. If I was there, obviously, most people would set the house back much further than that from the road. MR. JACKOSKI-Because it’s West Mountain Road. MR. DEL SIGNORE-So, as far as, you know, just speaking from a neighbor’s point of view, I don’t, I really don’t care what he does. I wish him the best of luck with it. MR. CARTE-Thank you. MR. DEL SIGNORE-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, are there any comments received? MR. URRICO-Yes. There is one letter. It says, “I am unable to attend the zoning meeting this evening but wanted to voice my concern of the proposed land variance request from Kelly Carte. I would be opposed at this time until the water issue concerns are resolve with the Mountain Hollow project and on Applehouse Lane. I have spent too many years trying to get our water issues resolved without adding to it. Please table it.” And it’s signed Tim Olesky, 13 Applehouse Lane. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other comments, Roy? MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. This gentleman wanted to speak. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. EDWARD MACARI MR. MACARI-I just wanted to know where the, if you could show me where the homes are going to be put. I just see a square there. MR. JACKOSKI-Please identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MACARI-I live on Applehouse. I’m behind his home. I’m on 20 Applehouse. MR. KUHL-And your name? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. MACARI-Edward Macari. It’s just, a lot of front, and it would have one house on, somewhere. MR. CARTE-There’s the driveway, going back to my house. MR. MACARI-Where is Applehouse? MR. CARTE-Applehouse is over here. Your house is like back here. MR. MACARI-So where would the homes be built? MR. CARTE-Just one, just right here. MR. MACARI-I thought you were going to build two? MR. CARTE-No, no. One of them’s, this one is my house. MR. MACARI-I heard there was going to be two. Just one? And where’s it going to be, right behind the Raymonds or something? MR. CARTE-Well, this is Raymonds. This one is this gentleman over here. It would be somewhere on this lot. MR. MACARI-I thought there were two lots you were doing? MR. CARTE-No, just one. Just this lot, just this one. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, certainly feel free to address the Board, but it is an opportunity for you to address the Board, and we could certainly talk to the applicant to raise your concerns. MR. MACARI-The concern here was with what Mr. Olesky wrote. We’ve been having all kinds of water problems on Applehouse, and we’re just worrying, as residents there, you know, we don’t have sewers, and we do get some catch basins that they recently put in, and everybody’s worried because there’s a lot of underground water there, and a lot of water flows off the mountain, and a lot of people get damage over there that’s on their property like my driveway, I can’t fix it until we resolve water problems, and I think a couple of other neighbors have the same problem. I don’t flood yet, but there’s a lot of houses that do flood there, and, you know, when you’re looking at a house, I mean, when you look at a block, you hope there’s enough catch basins there to catch water, and I don’t know if that has anything to do with building in this vicinity, but we were hoping that we wouldn’t have water issues. MR. URRICO-Are there any water issues emanating from this property now? MR. CARTE-No, this has nothing. I have water issues, and all of it is coming from the mountain and across behind my house and between his house and the neighbors and then going down into Applehouse Lane and whatever. It’s nowhere near, this is a billiard table, flat, sand lot up on the road, and there is no water anywhere near this property. I mean, there’d be no runoff, no nothing. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, and the issue is it’s coming across and cascading, you know, through your property, so to speak, to Applehouse Lane, right? MR. CARTE-Yes. The water, I mean, I can show you where, this is my house right here, and the water comes down from the mountain on my property and comes around here, and it also some of it comes off of Applehouse, I mean, Mountain Hollow here and comes down and joins this, and then it runs between these two houses across here, there’s catch basins. This house is right here, and (lost word) brother-in-law’s house is, then it comes between theirs. Phil Olesky lives right here. He has just flooded. MR. OBORNE-He’s in a low spot. MR. CARTE-Yes, his is a low spot. There’s a culvert there and whatever, but he gets, his basement gets flooded, and so does mine, and I have to run three or four sump pumps in the spring, but there’s no, I mean, this is downhill from up here on the road. This is flat land and (lost word). MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. MACARI-I think you answered my question. What Mr. Carte was telling me is the home would be kind of right off the road. I thought we were talking about two homes being built there. MR. JACKOSKI-There’s one new home. MR. MACARI-Can he build another home after that, or just one? And it’s a couple of hundred feet in from the road or something like that? MR. CARTE-The lot is 350 something feet, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s going to come in the drive he’s got there now, and he’s going to be right there. That’s West Mountain. MR. JACKOSKI-In front of the cemetery. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s the corner lot. That’s the second one in on your road. MR. MACARI-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. KUHL-I have a question. Mr. Carte, do I understand it properly that the easement to the access to the 53 acres is going away? MR. CARTE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Because your driveway is going over that, you’re giving that up? Is that what’s going on, or what? MR. CARTE-I’m giving up that easement, that driveway, that curb cut, whatever you want to call it, that is permitted there, and taking that 50 foot strip of land and adding it by deed to the land that is with my house. MR. KUHL-So that’s going to be part of Lot One? MR. CARTE-Correct. MR. KUHL-That 50 feet’s going to be part of Lot One? MR. CARTE-Yes. My house is, the mortgage is on the house and four and a half acres. If I divide one acre off for this lot up front, now it’s three and a half acres. I take the one acre that this strip of land is and add it back on, we’re back to four and a half acres. The bank is happy. MR. KUHL-Well, how do we know that, in five years you don’t come to Town with your old easement and say I’m going to use this? MR. CARTE-I’m going to change the deeds. MR. KUHL-Okay. So it goes away is what you’re saying? MR. CARTE-Yes. Exactly. MR. KUHL-It really goes away. MR. CARTE-and if I tried to do anything more, it would require subdivision because it would be another lot, you know, right now it’s four lots and four lots, because I’m combining two into one. MR. KUHL-What’s your five year plan and ten year plan with these properties? MR. CARTE-Sell the one that I’m subdividing off. In five or ten years I probably will be gone from the one that I’m living in there. I own land over around the corner from this on Fuller Road, and I intend on building another house over there at some point in the future, but I don’t know exactly when. I mean, but that’s. MR. KUHL-What’s that, on the 45.99 acre lot? Lot Three? MR. CARTE-Yes. Well, I don’t know what numbers they are. Yes. Correct. MR. KUHL-And what’s going to happen with this piece? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. CARTE-This piece is going to be combined with this piece. MR. KUHL-Right. Then this is landlocked now. MR. CARTE-This is landlocked. The other one would be landlocked, except for the fact that it’s not really landlocked. It’s on a separate deed. The access would be from over here. MR. KUHL-Your access is going to be from Fuller. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, would you like to address the Board as well? Would you come to the table and identify yourself, please. JOHN CANNON MR. CANNON-My name is John Cannon and I live at 24 Applehouse Lane. Eddy is my neighbor, and Kelly is the neighbor who lives behind me. My concern is that I showed this notice today to several of the residents on Applehouse Lane, and they were all surprised to see, to hear that Kelly was going to build houses there, because reading this project description, it looked like they’re just making a change to the lot boundary. So someone had concerns, and they only found out today that, you know, it involves more than this revealed to us, and some of our concerns, we had ongoing problems with water runoff, and people, this time of year, having their basements flooded, and we don’t have a permanent solution to that. We have a temporary solution, but I think we need to wait maybe another two months to see what develops this year, because this year was an unusual weather event, and we could tell whether our temporary solution works, but we’ve been working with the Town. They just put in a new basin, a sewer basin, and we don’t know if that’s going to work or not, and before they start new construction, many of the residents concern is, why don’t we take care of the existing problem. I think Tim also, Tim Olesky sent a letter or an e-mail with the same concern. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to see where it’s going to go, the house on the lot? MR. CANNON-I think it’s going to go. MR. OBORNE-Right where the hand is here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right on West Mountain Road, right by the corner. MR. CARTE-It’s just one house. I’m not going to build it, but it’s going to be one house up on West Mountain Road. It has nothing to do with the water problems that we’re having. MR. CANNON-I don’t know that, and residents don’t know that either. Everybody along the line gets flooded this time of year. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that, and I think that, just so that you understand, Mr. Carte does own four lots, and there is only one house currently. MR. CANNON-One house. MR. JACKOSKI-So it’s not at all suggesting that he’s, you know, building a bunch of houses. He’s taking one of his lots that he already owns, modifying the lot lines, and potentially building a home. MR. CANNON-Well, the residents really didn’t realize what this represented, and they were concerned that they’re not going to have a chance to state their concerns, should they have any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to come up and see this? So here’s his access that he currently comes in on, that’s going to be right on the road, right on West Mountain. So you guys are all up here, off your street. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would you like to address any other concerns? You’re okay? Mr. Carte, if you could come back to the table. I think at this point, are there any other questions from the Board members? MR. KUHL-Just from what you’re trying to do, when do you believe you’ll sell, put the lot up for sale? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. CARTE-This spring. I mean, is there? MR. KUHL-No, but just for the people that are having the water problems with their fix, because I don’t think you’re going to offer any more problems to their problems. MR. CARTE-Well, no, the water problems are because the water comes off the mountain and runs behind my house, and that’s the low spot, and it runs across Applehouse Lane, between their houses, which this is not even, like apples and oranges here. MR. KUHL-But my question is, you’re not cutting this apart and building a house for a family member. You’re looking to sell this lot, and have somebody else do something with it, if they do it? MR. CARTE-Right. Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. So, I mean, even if you were granted this, just for the neighbors, you may not even sell that lot? MR. CARTE-Well, no, I probably wouldn’t even list it until after the snow is gone and everything, so people can walk it, but it’s not like this lot has any effect whatsoever on the water, you know, I mean, I fully agree with them. The water situation should have been addressed a long time ago, but this has nothing to do with this. This is apples and oranges. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is everyone in the audience okay so far? Okay. I’d like to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Why don’t we poll the Board members, and we’ll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you look at this with eyes wide open, we have an existing drive that’s going to have a slight change because if we add this lot as proposed, and that’s Lot Number Two, you’re going to probably have one more house that exists on West Mountain Road, and I think the intent of the, on the arterial roads in Town, I think it’s important that we not have a bunch of curb cuts, you know, with driveway after driveway after driveway redundantly down the road there, and by sharing this one here, I don’t think anyone is going to notice one more or two more cars per day, ingress egress onto that busy road as we know it is at certain times of the day, and everybody realizes that. Who’s going to buy that property, they’re going to get what they get. As far as the water problems, I think we all realize the long term water problems and that there has to be some kind of solution that has to be done, but that’s the Town that has to do that at some point, and that’s going to take some engineering way up on the mountain. It’s not going to be down where you guys are because you’ve got to intercept it a long time before it gets down, all the way to the bottom of the hill if you really want to deal with it realistically, and I don’t think that this is going to exacerbate that problem by putting that house out there on West Mountain Road. If we’re going to give up the permitted drive, and that’s going to take place in the deed, that makes that one go away. So the net is that we’re not really going to have any change on West Mountain Road. The driveway’s already there where you go in and out to Kelly’s property from the back there, and I think his property’s going to be preserved pretty much close to what the acreage is now, when he adds that piece in, by subtracting that off, that initial access that goes back to the parcels in the back, and any of those parcels further back, everybody would recognize that those are going to be accessed off Fuller Road if they ever get developed in the future, and probably before they get developed. It’s not going to happen any time soon. As long as you own the property, you want to keep them as is. MR. CARTE-It’s never going to get developed as long as I own it, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Exactly, going back to even before all the other stuff got built up to the north there. So, I don’t really see this as a problem. It’s a lot of variances in effect, but the net change in the neighborhood is not going to be negative, and it’s not going to affect driving on that road or anything like that, which would be our primary concern. So I would approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Why don’t we go to John. MR. KOSKINAS-I’m not insensitive to Mr. Carte’s compelling arguments, nor do I discount Mr. Underwood’s comments, but I’ll say that when you balance want versus need, and the State’s mandate on this Board to grant the minimum amount of relief that still gets the job done, and then you want to be good neighbors and accommodate the wishes of the citizens here, we still end up with precedence, and will have a less cordial, less compelling, less patient and polite argument from other argument who will show this Board holding up these four variances when 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) one would have done the job, and saying I want the same thing. So I agonize a little, but I understand what you want to do with your project, and I’m not against your project at all. So if this Board generally is in agreement with you, I’ll go along. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. When I first looked at this and rode by it, I was against it, from the standpoint of the cuts, and I couldn’t see why you couldn’t take a shared driveway with a 20 foot cut and just make an easement into the lot, but the fact that you’re giving up an easement to a 50 plus acre, if you develop it you could have 20, you know, 18 or 20 homes on there, and each one generates a couple of cars. So I think the net for everybody is there’ll be less egress and access to West Mountain Road. So you turned me over. You turned me around. So I’d be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. I think there’s a plus factor in the fact that one curb cut on West Mountain Road will be eliminated by this. Only adding one house to the area when we have some developments on either side, and I think that, I can’t get over the fact that Lot Number Two would not need a variance. One acre would be acceptable if there were sewers in the area. I mean, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense. So I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Thank you. This is a really unique situation, and I want to say that in the beginning, because from what John has said, I agree with that. Somebody’s going to come in later and say this is what they’ve done, and you gave more variance than you needed to give. I agree with that. With that said, with the balancing act, and what’s going to, whether it’s going to be an undesirable change, I don’t think that it is for the neighborhood. The other three areas here I think are, would be okay, although I think that the minimum variance part is, I’m considering that, but I would agree with the rest of the Board that I would approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with almost everything everybody has said, except I see it as an opportunity to not put in another curb cut. To me, that’s the overriding issue, that eliminating a possible curb cut on West Mountain Road to me is a big deal, and I think the fact that Mr. Carte has, he has put forth the permitted driveway as a tradeoff for keeping the status quo, basically what we’re doing here is keeping what was there before and making it more useful and thereby eliminating the need to put another driveway out onto West Mountain Road to me is a better option, and this is a unique situation. I would be in favor of the presentation. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. My opinion on this is that I’m not sure that we still couldn’t eliminate the additional curb cut with the 20 foot shared access. So I’m not sure that we’ve really gained anything by not requiring the shared access. I am definitely in favor, and of concern that we are setting significant precedent with the amount of relief that we are granting here. So, given all of the variance requests, and if we were to make a motion to grant all of the variance requests, I would have to not be in favor. MR. CARTE-Could I make one more comment? I mean, I understand what you’re saying, and I guess, from my perspective, and the way that I read this and the way that I was trying to present it to you, is that it doesn’t, even though there’s like five things, relief requested here, some of them are not necessarily necessary. In other words, if you give relief for the shared driveway, the way that I’ve got it, then a lot of the rest of them go away. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately, Kelly, we’ve kind of moved on to polling the Board. MR. CARTE-Okay. I just wanted to ease the mind of some of the members here that are thinking that there’s allowed things, when, in one way of looking at it, there’s only really one thing. The shared driveway makes a lot of the other ones go away, and the one that says that lot width for my, the lot that my house is on is not substandard. It’s 225 feet, average, several of them go away. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. We understand. So I do have some concerns for the Board. If we do make a motion, there’s a lot to this particular motion, especially with deed restrictions and some of the stuff that has been discussed this evening. So I don’t know if the Board would prefer to take a few minutes to try to draft a motion? MR. OBORNE-What deed restrictions are you thinking of? That’s not relief they’re asking for. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-You’re comfortable? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2011 KELLY CARTE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: West Mountain Road. The applicant is proposing a boundary lot line change. Specifically, the applicant proposes to create a one acre parcel fronting on West Mountain Road from an existing 4.45 acre lot and add 1.13 acres to the remaining lot that is currently an access to a 53.88 acre parcel to the west. The applicant further proposes to combine the two western parcels to form an overall landlocked parcel of 88.96 acres. The existing parcels total four, and the proposed parcels total four. Under the relief required, the proposal will require Area Variances for the Proposed Lot One and are as follows: The lot width: The applicant is requesting 62 feet of lot width relief from the 200 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040, and under road frontage, the applicant is requesting 62 feet of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040. The proposal will require area variances for proposed Lot Two and are as follows: Number One, lot size: The applicant requests one acre of lot size relief from the two acre requirement as per Section 179-3-040. Two, under lot width: The applicant requests 59.25 feet of lot width relief from the 200 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040, and under road frontage, the applicant requests 59.25 feet of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement per Section 179-3-040. In considering the criteria for granting this variance, I think the overall feelings of the Board were that, in creating Lot One, that the access to both Lot One and Lot Two would be over a shared driveway with one curb cut. There would be the elimination by deed restriction of the original easement that was granted to the north, and that will be accomplished by changing the deed. All access to the upper parcels, and that would be the original 53.88, the 36.21 and the 45.99, as well as the new parcel purchased from George Stec up along Clendon Brook, and that’s 35.26 acres, all future access to those parcels would not take place from West Mountain Road and would take place from access from Fuller Road if created in the future, if that property gets subdivided. The Board recognizes the longstanding water problems on this lot, but does not feel that the creation of one more house out near the frontage on West Mountain Road would exacerbate that problem for the neighbors, since all those water problems eminent from further up on the hillside above Kelly Carte’s home and everybody else’s home in that direct neighborhood there. Whether the benefit could be achieved by some other method, feasible alternatives would be to have a shared access that would probably come in on that original easement, but that’s not the request that Mr. Carte has put before us, and we feel his explanation as to why he wanted this request to be honored is adequate, and whether the area variance is substantial. It is substantial, but it is also insubstantial because the net change is that there will be no change because there’s going to be the shared driveway that already exists on West Mountain Road. The addition of one other house that will use that shared driveway access point is not deemed to be excessive and we do feel that is the only change. The cumulative effect of the changes to the lots are that Lot Two will remain essentially about the same size as what it is, and we recognize that this substandard lot that’s one acre, where two acres are required, is substantial, but not out of character with many of the smaller lots that exist in the immediate neighborhood, and we do not feel that there will be any real impact or change as a result of what these requests are. So I would move for its approval. th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, before there’s a second to that. I have a question. I didn’t know if you wanted to add something to it. One of the questions that I had was the crossover in the two driveways, and I wondered if you want to require a survey to show the easements between the two parcels where those driveways come together. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think that’ll be accurately reflected when you do the subdivision. This is not considered a subdivision as Craig has said. So when the lot is considered and it’s put up for sale, it will be done accurately, and we’ll also recognize that that property line will intercept down the centerline of those white pine trees there, which will be kept in perpetuity and not altered or changed by either property owner unless they both agree on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, I don’t know how you can put that into a variance approval. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I mean, he requested it to be that way. So, I mean, I think we can. It’s been requested of the Board and it’s been explained that that’s his wishes. So I don’t see any reason why we can’t. Unless you guys disagree with that, but I think we’re trying to 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) preserve what’s there, and for the most part, this is going to preserve what exists, and it’s not going to alter it to any great degree. MR. CLEMENTS-I don’t think that we can require that, either. I mean, I think it’s beyond the scope of this Board. MR. OBORNE-You’re only here for the specific relief. Anything else is superfluous. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian, you had a concern about mapping the driveways, but is that in the motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we need to do that. So, I mean, that’ll be up to him. He’s going to have to live with the driveway, since he uses it. MR. CLEMENTS-Maybe I have a question for Keith, then. Is Mr. Carte going to have to come back to you to show the, to show a survey that would show that, when this lot gets sold? MR. OBORNE-What has been presented to you will be stamped and signed by a licensed surveyor. I believe it already is. You’re giving him everything on a silver platter. The only thing that Craig has to do is sign it. That’s it. MR. JACKOSKI-And could they put the driveway in a different location for Lot Number Two? MR. OBORNE-No. No, it has to go where it is. MR. UNDERWOOD-It is where it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I’m just making sure everyone understands. Okay. So do we have any additional discussion points? MR. CLEMENTS-You answered my question. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-But you’re through. MR. CARTE-Okay. Thank you. I will give copies of the deeds with these easements for the beginning of the driveway to be put in the file, if you would like. MR. OBORNE-That’s for the County. That’s not for us. MR. CARTE-Really? Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2011 SEQRA TYPE II JOSEPH BARDIN OWNER(S) JOSEPH BARDIN ZONING WR LOCATION 31 BARDIN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 600 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2006-067 INT. ALT.; BP 2003-062 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 316.13-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040 JOSEPH BARDIN, PRESENT MR. URRICO-They provided us with a project narrative. So I’m going to read that in as well. “Joseph & Katie Bardin residing at 31 Bardin Dr. in Queensbury would like to build an addition to our home. The proposed addition would extend the existing house length by eight feet to the North and then also extend off the back twenty eight feet by wide by fourteen feet long, off the back in the Westerly direction. This addition will expand the two existing bedrooms that are located at that end of the house this expansion will also extend the main bathroom. This addition includes a full basement which will not be living space, only storage. The existing overhead power connects to the North end of the house. It will be removed and the proposed new power route will be buried from the utility pole to the North East corner of the proposed new foundation.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2011, Joseph Bardin, Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 “Project Location: 31 Bardin Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) construction of a 600 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 1,664 square foot single family dwelling on a 0.63 acre parcel. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: ? North Side Setback Relief – Applicant requests 1.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the WR 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 the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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. Feasible alternatives appear limited as the request is for the expansion of bedrooms and existing location of bedrooms to be expanded are to the north. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 1.4 feet or 7% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for the WR zone may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood are anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2006-067: 552 sq. ft. interior alteration 4/1/08 BP 2003-962: septic alt. 11/20/03 Staff comments: With the parcel adjacent to the Hudson River, the Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to direct the applicant to install erosion controls running north to south and west of the project location. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Okay. Would you like to add anything to the record? MR. BARDIN-Well, not much to say really. It’s pretty cut and dried here. The corner, very corner of the property is not 20 feet, which it’s now 20 feet. I need 18 inches. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have any comments or questions from the Board members? MR. KUHL-You’re expanding existing rooms, or are you adding rooms? MR. BARDIN-No, expanding the existing. I have final drawings right here if anybody would like to look at them. MR. KUHL-You’re just making the rooms you have inside bigger? MR. BARDIN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, hearing no additional comment, I will open the public hearing. Seeing no one here this evening to address the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-And, Roy, have we received any written comment? MR. URRICO-No letters, no. MR. JACKOSKI-And I trust you’ve had discussions with your neighbor to the? MR. BARDIN-My brother. MR. JACKOSKI-And is he in agreement? MR. BARDIN-He is. MR. JACKOSKI-And he’s okay with this. MR. BARDIN-I’m sure he is. He’s building a brand new, very large home in that spot. That home is not there anymore right there. He demo’d that house, beautiful home, and my wife wants to keep up with the Jones, if you know what I mean. So. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, do we have any questions we’d like to ask? The application is fairly straight forward. It is a Type II SEQRA so there’s no additional SEQRA requirements as Roy mentioned. MR. KUHL-Are you planning on doing any kind of, putting gutters on this, downspouts and gutters, or how do you control the water off the roof? MR. BARDIN-The back end will most likely be guttered. Actually the peak runs towards the river on the drawings. So, yes, the south edge of this will have a gutter, because it’s actually coming towards a deck, and then that peak comes into a valley. So, yes, this edge, the north edge will also be guttered, and if you’re worried about erosion control, you know, we’ve got about 72 feet, just about, to the river bank here. MR. KUHL-But you’re going to do a full foundation on this? MR. BARDIN-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. BARDIN-Absolutely. No sense doing an addition if you’re not going to do a full basement on an extension of the house. MR. KUHL-Well, where’s the four car garage? MR. BARDIN-That’s going on the other side. My wife said not this year. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I’m not sure if I closed the public hearing, but I did now. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-That’s it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, John. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2011 JOSEPH BARDIN, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 31 Bardin Drive. The applicant is proposing construction of a residential addition to an existing 1660 square foot single family dwelling. We are granting 1.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot north side setback requirement per Section 179-3-040. In making the determination the Board finds that, One, minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Two, feasible alternatives appear limited as the request is for the expansion of bedrooms and existing location of bedrooms to be expanded are to the north. Three, the request for seven percent relief from the side setback requirement is considered minor relative to the Ordinance. Four, minor impacts on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood are anticipated. Five, the difficulty may be considered self-created. Further, in granting this variance, we direct the applicant to install 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) erosion controls running north to south and west of the project location during construction. So I move for approval. th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: MR. URRICO-Are we directing him to add erosion controls, or suggesting? MR. JACKOSKI-I was just going to say. MR. OBORNE-You’re directing because it’s a reasonable request I think. MR. JACKOSKI-And let me just make sure that’s erosion controls during construction. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think that’s the intent. MR. BARDIN-Yes. Geotech stakes. MR. OBORNE-Joe and I have had this conversation. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but just for, I didn’t want to go through erosion control for the whole project. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. BARDIN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Fellow Board members, while Jim’s getting his coat on, just a couple of real quick things that I’ve been contemplating. I’m wondering if we could take an opportunity as a group to get together and do some kind of a workshop. I think that I would like to explore some of the reasonings behind why we do do things the way we do do them, and, for example, I watched the audience, and even some Board members eye glaze over, such as mine, when poor Roy has to read the entire record into the record. I’m wondering if there’s an opportunity to minimize that effort. At the same time, I’m hoping, and I struggle with this because I don’t know how this Board operates, but I’m wondering if we could get Roy to assist us or re-direct us, during the proceedings, to track and monitor things that do come up that need to be brought into the motions, just to have a second set of eyes assuring that we didn’t miss something. Because it’s so easy to miss minor things, and I’m not saying this at all what needs to be done. I’m looking to, as a group, talk about how we do things and why we do things. Even things as the table set up here. I mean, we’re a nice, long, very authoritative looking Board, and is there a way to reconfigure ourselves a little bit so we can actually see each other or, you know, there’s just little things that we could just talk about as a group. I’m not saying we have to have a workshop to talk about these things, but I think some of the other things you’ll see this evening. I didn’t poll the Board on the Bardin matter, and do we really want to be that definitive that we must always poll the Board. So just little things that I wonder if we could have an opportunity to talk about. We don’t have to, but I’m throwing it out on the table. MR. URRICO-Sounds like a good idea. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, sometimes I’d like to find ways to streamline the motions, and the process. MR. URRICO-Every case I have to read the criteria in twice. I would like to read it once, at the beginning of the night, and not have to, could I refer to it after that? MR. OBORNE-It’s already part of the record, because it’s in here. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-To be honest with you, and then, yes, I mean, you do read it in twice. MR. KOSKINAS-When do these things first get into an official record for the Town? It’s got a variance number. It’s been assigned a variance number. Is it already a public record? MR. OBORNE-That is public record. Exactly. As soon as the agenda is finalized. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-Well, why not just refer, Roy, to public record, variance number XXX? MR. UNDERWOOD-But you don’t want to keep that, a lot of the people who come to things have not had access to it. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just maybe at the last minute they decide it, so unless you lay it out what’s on the line, they’re not going to know, and I think, you know, we assume, because we all know it, we get it ahead of time, but I think, you know, for the benefit of especially controversial projects, unless we say it, it ain’t going to happen. People can say, well, you never discussed that matter. MR. OBORNE-Well, keep in mind, they do get notice. That’s part of the public record, but you’re right. MR. JACKOSKI-But I think this is a great opportunity for us, as a Board, I mean, this is already late this evening. I would like to explore this some more. I’d also like to explore this whole narrative that I have to go through at the beginning of these meetings, because many times people don’t even come in at the beginning of the meeting. They’re timing it themselves, so they don’t even hear that narrative. So I’d propose maybe putting the process on paper in the back and reminding folks that it is back there if they care to refer to it, but I don’t know if we have to keep reading that into the record every night, and by all means, if there’s rational discussion about why it’s important, I’m certainly very open to keeping process as is, but I think, Roy, you know, I’d like to see maybe alleviate some of what you have to do every night, just my personal preference. MRS. HUNT-We’ve always done it this way. MR. JACKOSKI-But maybe, do we have to do it this way. MRS. HUNT-I mean, it has evolved, we have changed. We never used to read in at the beginning, did we? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, we always did. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, there’s an opportunity to say yes or no going forward. How about that? MR. URRICO-I just assumed there was a legal reason. So I guess that’s the question that needs to be addressed. Is there a legal reason why we do it that way? MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, if you’re going to inform the general public, then you better tell them what you’re going to do before, because, you know, you just can’t, besides I think it refreshes everybody else’s mind while we’re doing it. If we forget something, one of us is going to remember, hey, you forgot this or, Staff’s going to remind us that we forgot to do something like SEQRA or I gave it a pos dec instead of a negative dec. MR. KOSKINAS-Well, Steve makes a good point, though. If we eliminated all this red from text rhetoric, we could do both meetings, business in one meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think it’s just, I would prefer, I would like to have a workshop, and certainly if you don’t feel it’s necessary, then okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we did years ago, too, was didn’t we go, because I remember going up to Lake George and sitting in at a Zoning Board meeting, just to get a different perspective how a different community does it their way, and I came back and I said, I’m glad I’m doing it here because we’re doing it right, and we’re maybe more thorough than we need to be, but I don’t think anybody ever leaves here with a question mark as to what we were doing. I mean, there’s not like mystery involved with it, but I think, you know, like when I go to Planning Board meetings, Planning Board meetings seem a little bit canned to me, in other words, there’s not a whole lot of discussion. There’s not a whole lot of, you know, even discussion amongst members in a lot of cases, and I think that that’s not good for the public because if you want to make a decision that everybody benefits from, you should involve everybody, you know, fully. MR. OBORNE-Would you like me to research some times? MR. UNDERWOOD-Some month when we’ve got a dead month, when we’ve only got one meeting. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-Yes, you’re done now. I mean, we could get something going in the next 10 to 20 days. MR. UNDERWOOD-But we’ve got to advertise it, too. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. That only requires five days. So, you know, direct me what you want me to do. I could go ahead and maybe get some times for the Supervisor’s Conference Room that are open and send out e-mails to you guys and, you know, get at least a majority of responses back as to when you want to do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s coming up? MR. OBORNE-For the Zoning Board? There’s a few things, but. MR. JACKOSKI-So could the fourth Wednesday in April work for everyone? th MR. KUHL-No, I’ll be away. I’ll be away. I’ll be back May15th. I leave on the 26 of this month. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any reason we couldn’t do it next Wednesday? MR. OBORNE-That’s a quick turnaround for notice. MR. JACKOSKI-Notice. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, we don’t have to send notices out. It just has to be advertised in the newspaper. MR. UNDERWOOD-Let’s just do it. Let’s do it next week. MR. OBORNE-I could check the availability. Let’s pick a date and then direct me to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have, could you research for us the dates of like when Glens Falls meets? Because I think it would be interesting to go to some of the other communities and just see what they’re doing, you know, like, I don’t know, like Saratoga probably is way different than we are, I imagine. Because they’ve got a lot going on down there. MR. OBORNE-Yes. They’re agendas are not usually as full. This Town has a lot of, those towns don’t run two meetings. MR. UNDERWOOD-I found it intriguing like when we were at that conference, when all of us were at that conference in Saratoga, that Pennachio said I never go in and ask for any variances at all, on any of my projects, and I found that intriguing I said because, you know, here in Queensbury, everybody comes in and asks for variances, you know, sometimes with a list as long as your arm, and you’re thinking maybe that’s where we’ve gone wrong because we’re always granting variances, but there should be some means of either having Staff or somebody trouble shoot it and say, look you can get rid of this one, this one, and this one by doing this. I don’t know if you can suggest that, but. MR. KOSKINAS-Is the conference room open in the evenings? MR. OBORNE-Sometimes it depends. I have to check for availability. Next Wednesday doesn’t work for me, and I’ll tell you why. I have a Planning Board meeting in Moreau on Monday. I have a Planning Board meeting here on Tuesday and Thursday. So that’s a little bit intensive for me. MR. KOSKINAS-If you’re not there, we can’t have our meeting? MR. JACKOSKI-I would prefer to have Keith there. MR. OBORNE-You’d want Staff, because I’ll be developing the notes from that. MR. JACKOSKI-And we don’t know Rick’s availability, too, but I think it’s important that we find a time where we all can truly be at the meeting. It may take another month to do it, but. thth MR. OBORNE-The 30 works for me. The 28 works for me. The following week, the last week in March totally works for me. th MR. JACKOSKI-I’m out of town the 30. Well, would you mind sending around some dates on the conference room, and we’ll see if we can try to coordinate something? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2011) MR. OBORNE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So now I’d like to have a motion to adjourn the meeting. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Do I have a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Call the vote, please. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 16, 2011, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone, I appreciate it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 33