Loading...
2011.04.20 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 45-2010 Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 7-2011 Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 16-2011 Patrick Geruso 2. Tax Map No. 302.20-1-37.2 Area Variance No. 17-2011 Edward & Philomena Vanputte 10. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-18 Sign Variance No. 18-2011 GAM of the Adirondacks, LLC 14. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-12 Area Variance No. 19-2011 Robert Green 21. Tax Map No. 301.20-1-27 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD GARRAND, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL MR. GARRAND-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for April 20, 2011. First off let me give you a quick review of our procedures in general. For each case I’ll call the applicant by name and number. The secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes as well as the Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable. The applicant then will be invited to the table and be asked to provide any information that they may wish to add to their application. The Board then will ask questions of the applicant. Following that we’ll open up the public hearing. I’d like to caution the public, the public hearing is not a vote. It’s a way to gather information about concerns, real or perceived, and it’s a way to gather information, incite in general, about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board members make a wise, informed decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. As always, we’ll have a five minute limit on each speaker, so that basically tells us everything they want us to know in that five minutes. A speaker may speak again, if after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes they have new information to present. Following that, we’ll read correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment, and Board members will then discuss the variance with the applicant. Following that the Board members will be polled to explain their positions on the application, and then we’ll close the public hearing, unless there’s a reason to leave it open, if it looks like the application will be tabled to another meeting. Finally we’ll have a motion to approve, disapprove or table and vote. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD 38 GUNN LANE – TABLING REQUEST TO 4/27/11 AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2011, ROBIN INWALD 38 GUNN LANE – TABLING REQUEST TO 4/27/11 MR. GARRAND-Is counsel here for Inwald Enterprises? MR. OBORNE-No, they won’t be here. That’s the reason why they’re asking for this tabling request to next Wednesday for both of those applications. MR. GARRAND-Board members, how do you feel about tabling this? Does somebody want to make a motion to table AV 7-2011 and AV 45-2010? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 & AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2011 ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 38 Gunn Lane. Until next Wednesday’s Zoning Board meeting, April 27. th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl NEW BUSINESS: 1 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2011 SEQRA TYPE II PATRICK GERUSO OWNER(S) PATRICK GERUSO ZONING MDR LOCATION 34 HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2- LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 0.60 ACRE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, ROAD FRONTAGE, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED. CROSS REF. SUB NO. 4-2011 PRELIM. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-37.2 SECTION 179-3-040 TERENCE LORD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2011, Patrick Geruso, Meeting Date: April 20, 2011 Project Location: 32 Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-lot residential subdivision of a 0.60 acre parcel. Relief requested from lot size, lot width, road frontage, setback requirements. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances for the MDR zone as per §179-4-030 and are as follows: Lot 1: 1.Lot size – request for 1.70 acres or 85% of lot size relief from the 2 acre requirement. 2.Lot Width – request for 25.5 feet or 25.5% of lot width relief from the 100 foot lot requirement. 3.Road Frontage – request for 25 feet or 25% of road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement. 4.Side setback relief – request for 20 feet or 80% of side setback relief from the 25 foot requirement for the existing garage. Lot 2: 1.Lot size – request for 1.70 acres or 85% of lot size relief from the 2 acre requirement. 2.Lot Width – request for 25.5 feet or 25.5% of lot width relief from the 100 foot lot requirement. 3.Road Frontage – request for 25 feet or 25% of road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement. 4.Side setback relief – request for 1.7 feet or 7% north side setback and 5.0 feet or 20% south side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed 26 ft. by 40 ft. dwelling. 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. Substandard lots may not be considered desirable; however, the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. 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. Concerning Lot 1, existing conditions and the nature of the proposal appear to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. Concerning Lot 2, the potential to place the proposed dwelling further to the east may reduce or eliminate the need for north side setback relief. Further, reconfiguration of proposed dwelling could be accomplished to accommodate the proposed building envelope for Lot 2. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The area variances in totality may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. See Relief required above for specific requests. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and/or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 2 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SUB 4-11 Pending Staff comments: 1.Proposed Lot 2 existing garage to be removed. 2.Planning Board recommendation handout distributed. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met last night and they made a motion recommending on their behalf to the Zoning Board of Appeals that this particular area is within the Mobile Home Overlay District. However there is a concern on behalf of the neighbors that a mobile home will negatively affect neighborhood character. The neighbors also expressed concerns regarding density, and this was adopted, and it was six ayes and one no on this motion. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Geruso. MR. LORD-Actually Terence Lord sitting in for Patrick Geruso. The paperwork evidently was sent to the City, and I represented him last night at the Planning Board meeting as well. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Tell us what you’d like to do here. MR. LORD-Essentially, I assume you guys have seen the plans. Essentially, knowing that this, I’ll reiterate what I said to the Planning Board last night, that even though this is in a Mobile Home Overlay District, that the strict intent, and whether that needs to be in writing as well, from your point of view is acceptable to Mr. Geruso that his desire is to have a single family home on his property, and this, the lot sizes and frontage are equivalent to two lots. I preface this as well. I live at 34 Howard Street, and this is part and parcel to that property. The two lots that Larry th has built up the street that were, there’s a lot line adjustment made last August 25, and those lots are of similar size and setbacks for 46 and whatever the lot would be to the south of that. I’m not sure, that’s 42. So it’s essentially the same lot size, same road frontage. No different intent than just to build a single family home in that area. Setbacks are based on the building on the plan, slightly less than the 25 foot side setbacks as well, in addition to what has been read from the notes, and in essence that is the request. MR. UNDERWOOD-Has there previously been anything on that, the lot to this side to the right as you’re facing the property? I just wondered if there’d been a trailer on there previously or something because you had the garage. MR. LORD-Yes. No, not that I’m aware of. I’ve spoken to some people who have family and who’s family had previously owned, originally owned this property, and not aware that there was a trailer on this property. There seemed to be no utilities that we’re aware of that go into that area, but there are, you know, some of the ancillary buildings to 34 Howard Street, the secondary garage that would be on this parcel for 32 Howard Street is the one that was mentioned for removal, and the smaller single car garage, which is noted as a shed on this plan, still stands, and obviously the plot to the south, there is a mobile home on that plot. MR. GARRAND-Board members, any questions for the applicant? MR. CLEMENTS-I have just one. On this map right here, it says that it’s not to scale, but it shows the site on here. It may be not to scale, but does this show relatively how large the lot is compared to the other lots? MR. LORD-I would have to say, relatively speaking, I’m not sure where that plan has come from, but it resembles the GIS maps that the Town has, and essentially the current lot is 150 foot road frontage. So that’s essentially equivalent to the other lots in size. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-Can I ask you, sir, what’s going to become of the garage that’s going to be removed? Are you going to destroy it and throw it away or move it? MR. LORD-I would say moving, having been in the construction business for 25 years, is probably not a good option. Pat does have people that are willing to salvage that, piece it out and take it with them, but, as with any building that is to be dismantled or demolished, would 3 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) require a hazardous material testing. So that would obviously take place. I’m on the Board for the New Hope Community Church. So, just being back in New York, I’m aware that, you know, my brother-in-law’s aware that testing would need to take place if that were just strictly demolished. MR. KOSKINAS-So currently that’s your garage at 34, but you’re not going to have one, is that it? MR. LORD-Well, the single car garage that’s labeled as a shed here is all that would, you know, be as a garage, but we don’t use it as that at this point anyway. MR. KOSKINAS-So there’s no intention to add a garage to 34 or include a garage at 32 if you build a house there? MR. LORD-Thirty-two, I don’t know. I would say, honestly, only a garage if it fits within the confines of the setbacks that are able, and also not to leave room for a comeback down the road where he’d have to ask for additional variances for a garage. I would say it would best suit everyone if it were approached as a one shot deal, basically, to have a house and a garage, if that were the case, to fit within the confines. MR. KOSKINAS-We’re already missing the setbacks. MR. LORD-Yes. Well, I’m just saying within the proposed of the house that’s laid out to this point. I think, from what I understand, Pat has a general idea of what’s here for right now, but I, after seeing what Larry has nicely done up the street, with his new two story, they were able to fit in a garage plus the house with setbacks in the area of 15 to 16 feet, side setbacks, and the same 30, 31 foot front setback. So it would be equivalent to that nature. I mean, the side setbacks here are shown slightly larger than that, but in fitting with what’s been accomplished in the neighborhood thus far. I just speak on relevance to that effect. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members have any questions? At this time I’d like to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on behalf of the neighborhood? Feel free to step up to the mic, Mr. Clute. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-Hi. My name is Larry Clute. I’ve been a resident of this neighborhood since 1987. I’m also primarily the general contractor of this neighborhood, so to speak. Over that timeframe, we’ve gone through growing pains. We’ve brought it where we’ve brought it. Once this was made aware, the variance application, I got a few phone calls suggesting, asking if I would represent the neighborhood. The two main issues, one of them was already addressed, is the mobile home. They were very concerned about an additional lot being approved in a Mobile Home Overlay, hence the opportunity for a possible mobile home, but that was answered by the applicant that that’s not the case. The other one was the density. Over the last few years on Howard Street, we’ve actually been trying to reduce the density. When I say we, not just myself, the neighbors themselves. They’re very cooperative, and they call me for suggestions and such. To try and decrease density, essentially what Queensbury’s trying to do with their new zoning law, rather than increase density, decrease density, and so what we’ve done, I’ve actually purchased lots on Howard Street, not many but some. Howard Street’s problematic in that they’re all very small lots, and so they’re difficult to develop. I’m very aware of that as well, but I do agree. I think the lots need to be larger. These 50 foot lots are extremely small, and so what we’ve done, over the past, Clute Enterprises specifically, the two lots north of the applicant, it shows it still on the map as if it’s two fifty footers. That’s no longer the case. That’s one 100 footer. They got combined. There’s a lot further south that I picked up three lots and I broke that into two lots. So when I had the opportunity to buy lots, I tried to increase density. The applicant was referring to a lot line adjustment that we did just north of his parcel, and I was the agent for the landowners, Karen and Rob Green. They already had these lots, they owned them, investment, and one of them happened to be a fifty footer. So to make them the most conforming that we could, two 75’s, but the key thing, difference between the two, is there were two lots already. Had to do, tried to do the best we could with what we had. This is an application for an additional nonconforming lot, and, like I said, I’ve gotten phone calls. The two main concerns is the mobile home. That has been washed. The other concern is the density. I guess I tend to agree. I’m trying to see Howard Street more conform with the balance of the neighborhood, which, typically, is half acre. The zoning now, not that I agree with Queensbury, but the zoning now is two acre zoning. It’s a little extreme, but, for the neighborhood in general, as you can see, most of them are half acre lots. Howard Street is your most dense out of all that 4 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) large mobile home overlay, and over time, like I said, we’ve worked, if I can get on up, do you mind if I take this mic? MR. GARRAND-Go ahead. MR. CLUTE-I’m sorry. Over time, as I say, here’s the applicant’s lot. Just above it, those two 50 footers were eliminated. One 100 footer. Just above those is Rob and Karen’s lots. It was a 100 footer and a 50 footer. Couldn’t really afford to lose the value that they had in their properties, so the only next best option is to take them and split them, which we did. The parcel above that one yet was mine. That’s 150 footer. Could have very well come in front of the Board, tried to split it. I did not. Left it alone. I think the larger lots on Howard Street tend to help the lesser lots on Howard Street. It just opens it up. You’ll pass a few high density lots or more dense lots. You see the more open lots. So it gives the illusion of more size, not necessarily dimensional, but gives you a feel of more open space. The applicant’s lot’s terrific. I met him today, and I’m sure he’ll do well with the property, approved or disapproved. They’ve done very well by the building, and if they do the new project, I’m sure he’ll do well by that, but the concern is, is breaking that lot in half. He’s got a beautiful lot and it tends to help the feel of the neighborhood. It tends overcome the smaller lots, just by having some larger lots, and even the larger lots are completely nonconforming. They don’t even reach the half acre mark. I had brought in two letters, signed by the residences, I don’t know if they’re here, but if they can be read in, and they’re pretty to the point. They’re pretty much saying exactly what I’m saying, and I’m representing essentially what I’m being asked to represent. Hopefully that’s been helpful. I appreciate it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? BARBARA EGGLESTON MRS. EGGLESTON-Barbara Eggleston, 12 Howard Street. My family’s owned that residence up there for many, many years. I’ve seen the neighborhood, in its worst conditions when I was a child growing up. It was called Bennettville. I’ve seen the improvements of the houses and the cleaning up, even with mobile homes in there, but what I don’t see is having lots that are so small you don’t have neighborhoods. It’s like being in a suburban area. If, it’s like having your neighbor right here. I see so much of that going up now. You have a lot here and then you have a house here and a house here and a house here, and a house here, and there’s no space in between. I just met this gentleman today. It’s the first time I’ve ever spoken to him. I don’t know him whatsoever. I just think that, I know, speaking to a lot of neighbors, myself, I’ve been around many years, and I just think that I would prefer larger lots. You actually should have a larger lot. You have a four year old. You’re going to need room to run, but, yes, no, I just think that, you know, as far as the mobile home things, I know the mobile homes have been in there for many, many years, that, Leo Street, Pasco Avenue, all mobile homes, every one of them. A mobile home’s not a bad thing. I lived in one myself for several years. It’s just, it looks good down there now, and it’s looking better with his development down around the corner, Larry’s, you know, we’re going to have a lot more traffic on the road, which is not a good thing, but there is two ways in and out of there now, and that’s all I have to say. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MRS. EGGLESTON-You’re welcome. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. MR. CLUTE-I apologize, Larry Clute again. The Mobile Home Overlay, I was telling the applicant, and I’ve passed it on to a few other residences, I’ve talked to Tim Brewer, who is going to submit to the Town Board, it has nothing really to do with this hearing. I’m just passing on the information. He’s going to take an application in front of the Board to try and remove the Mobile Home Overlay, being that there is an awful lot of concern. If everybody’s so concerned about them coming on in, make the attempt to try and remove them. So I just wanted to let you know that. Thank you again. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-Excuse me. Could you come up and take a look at this map right here. MR. CLUTE-I can. 5 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. CLEMENTS-You said that there were two lots to the north that were put together. Would that be these two right here? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. CLEMENTS-So that’s one lot? MR. CLUTE-That’s a 100 foot lot now, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-And another one, you said, down here? MR. CLUTE-I’m having a hard time relating, so I apologize. Bear with me here. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s okay. MR. CLUTE-This is the applicant’s site, just north of him, yes, these two have been combined to equal 100. Something’s odd here. This map doesn’t, you’ve got an additional lot on this map that doesn’t make sense. This one right here doesn’t make sense. It shouldn’t be on here. These two lots, Rob and Karen Green asked me to come in and represent them, this was a 50. This was a 100. MR. CLEMENTS-That’s the one, I remember when you did it. MR. CLUTE-Yes. There was really no other choice. It’s still very dense, but there was no other choice, but I don’t think that lot exists, that’s on this map. That seems to be a mistake. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. CLUTE-And then up in here, the three lots, there they are right there. I don’t know, this must be an old map. These three lots right here were combined and split in half. So they no longer exist either. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. That’s good to know, too. Okay. MR. CLUTE-Was that helpful? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. Yes. MR. GARRAND-Would anybody else like to speak? Would you like to come back up to the mic, sir? MR. LORD-Yes, sir. Would you mind if I took the mic and went up to the screen as well? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. MR. LORD-I just wanted to address Barb’s and Larry’s comments regarding density. I know these two lots, he’s referring to Jeff and Karen’s lot, the 100 foot lot of Jeff and Shannon Dorvee, next door, the current lot that we’re looking at, and could I ask a favor? Could you scroll down the screen to see the, closer to Sherman Avenue? I don’t recognize that, do you? MR. OBORNE-That’s down by the river. MR. LORD-Sorry. MR. OBORNE-That’s all right. I screwed up. MR. LORD-Okay, yes, and I believe, Larry, were these your, these two lots right here and right here, were those the three that you had combined previously? MR. CLUTE-The three individual lots. MR. LORD-The Cullignans and Susie’s place? MR. CLUTE-Dwayne, yes. MR. LORD-Okay, and they’re 75 foot lots now? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, I don’t know off the top of my head. That was my first venture into Howard Street. So I’m not absolutely sure. 6 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. LORD-Okay, yes, and just after talking to the neighbors and talking to Larry, we’re all, we live in the neighborhood. So, just, I wanted to dispel any adversarial issues that may arise, but, just, you know, it was concern as a neighborhood. I mean, I grew up in Queensbury, and like Barb had mentioned with my four year old, you know, the neighborhood is important, and so are the neighbors who make up the neighborhood, but what I found in my research was, the new house that I believe is right in this lot here, what I saw is that there’s about a 50/50 split on Howard Street from Sherman Avenue up to where it starts to turn in to Geneva, as far as a parcel size. About 50% are at 3.0, 3.1 or under, and the remainder, which would be more on the north, yes, the north end of Howard Street, have more of a 100 foot frontage, and are more .3, .31, .32 and up, averaging about .35 acres or so, some of the larger lots on the end, and in standing in for my brother, I was not prepared so much, I just tried to do the research and not waste anyone’s time. I did the best that I could, but what I did find is that the density somewhat diminishes, or I mean, I’m sorry, yes, it does diminish and the size increases as you go up the street, and we noticed that as well, as part of the plan to open up the neighborhood rather than leave an open field where it would be kind of hard to expand on the house that’s over on the far north side of the property at 34 Howard Street, and regarding the density, some of the newer, three of the newer homes down in this end of the area are at, the one on the corner, I think, is .19 acres, and these other two are about roughly .2 or a quarter acre, so somewhere in that area. So we didn’t see it as varying too much from the make up of the neighborhood and where the neighborhood is going, from Larry’s work has been going on there, and I did get a chance, at last moment, late this afternoon, before coming to the meeting, speaking to a few, well, about six or seven people on the street who had signed the petition, that were not, hadn’t seen plans, and this is not a criticism of yours, Larry. It’s just the nature of the situation, hadn’t seen the plans, weren’t really understanding, and having read the article in the Post Star this morning, thinking, asking how many homes are going to be built there, and obviously there’s, at best, room for one, and in clarifying that, as to what our plan was for our lot, there was no dissention at all, no disagreement as to what might go there. Their concern was the majority of these people, and I give Larry a great amount of credit for this, because these are starter homes, and starting into a new neighborhood, and being in the same business that Larry is, understanding that this is not only an investment in your home and your neighborhood, but in your future as well, and so the people said that as long as we’re looking at another single home, another family that’s in line with what Mr. Clute has done, we don’t have any objection to that. We just were not understanding subdivision, how many, and what actually was going there, considering that this area, back to Geneva over to, past Leo, is all part of the Mobile Home Overlay District that exists from, I think, back from when Fran Walters was in office, if I recall. So, in a nutshell, we’re just feel like we’re in step with what was described as the opening up of the neighborhood as you progress down to the north end of Howard Street onto Geneva where the new property is, and it’s just part of that transition into a brand new neighborhood that didn’t exist on Geneva Drive before, and having contacted neighbors, I just wanted to add that as well. I told them I wouldn’t use names. I didn’t want to, but it’s just more of wanting to meet my neighbors, in addition to not wanting to cause any dissention or any disagreement in the neighborhood, because as I grew up, that’s not what a neighborhood’s about. It’s more about the people that live on there, and after talking to Barb and Larry and some other people on the street, that back in the day, people did things, some of the people on the street have lived here, like Barb and Larry said, for a long time, and I grew up and have been away from the area for about 20 years or so, and came back for family, and this is where I want to plant my family and be a part of this neighborhood, just like these people have been for their lives, and just contribute to what’s been here and what’s already here, and that’s, in a nutshell, that’s where the standpoint is from, and I believe I represent Mr. Geruso applicably in his stand. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-At this time, I’ll have Mr. Urrico read in some correspondence. MR. URRICO-Okay. There were two letters, both addressed to the Queensbury Zoning Board, and they’re from residents, against further density on Howard Street in Queensbury. This one says, “Queensbury, as a whole, has adopted a new zoning ordinance in an attempt to reduce density; we as a neighborhood of Queensbury have been attempting to accomplish the same thing. Over a very long period of time, we have had success. Although there are still many dense lots, we feel that given additional time this neighborhood will continue to evolve. We feel that as a neighborhood the approval of an additional nonconforming lot is in contradiction with the direction Howard St. is heading. With understanding to all involved we respectfully request this application be denied. Thank you for your consideration.” And there are 27 names signing this petition. And there is a second one that says, “We applaud and appreciate the improvements to and re-development of our neighborhood. During the last few years a number of things have been accomplished and a new sense of pride has also been established. We understand that most, if not all, of our lots are nonconforming, some more than others. Lot line adjustments or boundary line agreements have been filed to enlarge and/or improve the smaller lots in our neighborhood. We agree with this practice, being that these substandard lots pre- existed the zoning law. That being said, we don’t agree with the subdivision proposed by the 7 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) applicant, Patrick Geruso, and the subsequent creation of a new substandard lot. As for the proposal in question, we believe the existing structures combined with the new structure will be extremely clustered. (the lot as it exists makes sense, the new structure would look forced) Although we understand all of the lots are substandard, the improvements that have taken place to date have consistency or a certain continuity (the placement or layout of the homes). This project has a different effect, which we don’t agree with. As we’ve stated previously, the improvements to date have been a breath of fresh air, including the work done by the applicant on his property. Unfortunately, we can’t support the subdivision. We respectfully request this application be denied. Thank you for your consideration.” And there are another 27 names attached to this one. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. At this time, if there’s no other input, I’ll close the public hearing, and I’ll poll the Board members. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-Mr. Koskinas. MR. KOSKINAS-My experience, while somewhat limited on this Board, has shown that this Board looks to accommodate projects in this area, even when the degree of variances requested have been substantial, and I’m very much a proponent of the upgrades that have been going on there, Mr. Clute’s work and the neighbors in general, but I’ll say that history is less compelling, is an argument in granting a variance, and your comments for the future are, we have a community plan, and that should be the overarching guidance for zoning. The Town Board’s zoning, in theory, should follow the plan, and the Zoning Board of Appeals, in theory, should grant variances when there’s a balance against the benefit to you and the rest of the community. In this case, I’d have to say that granting a variance to an already nonconforming lot, so the density is increased, is contrary to what I’ve seen done there and something I wouldn’t approve. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Mr. Clements? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d like to listen to some other comments from the other Board members. Thanks. MR. URRICO-I agree with John, and I think we can look at the neighborhood and say we have substandard lots that are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, but rather than looking to where we’ve come from, we’re looking towards where we want to be, and if we approve this lot, we’d be saying that it’s okay to have substandard lots in this neighborhood again. We’d be moving backwards and that would become the defacto standard again, and I think we want to move towards the new direction where the lots are expanding a little bit, where there’s more air, there’s more width involved in the lots. I think that’s the direction we want to be going in, and so I do think that this would be a change in a neighborhood that’s changing. I think, had it been, you know, maybe several years ago where everybody was building the same substandard lot in that neighborhood, we may not have an argument, but I think we’re seeing a change, and plus this is going to require a ton of relief as well. So I think the relief is another issue, that it’s going to be substantial, and I think the benefit can be achieved by other methods, and that’s not to subdivide. That’s a feasible alternative. So I would be against it as well. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I guess I’m looking at it a little bit differently. I think the two acre requirement in this area is just pie in the sky because even the larger homes around the corner are, what did somebody say, half acre. So I think that the two acre requirement, and that’s the main contention, main bone of contention with the variances, and I don’t think that’s really applicable, because two acres is not what you’re ever going to have in that area, and the lot width is only a 25% relief required, and some of the other requirements are less than that. So I do feel it would be in keeping with the neighborhood. I think it could certainly, that size lot could take two homes, small homes, and I would be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m sort of torn here, but at the same time, I kind of went down through and looked at what you were asking for as far as relief goes, and I think everybody understands the subtle change that’s occurred in the neighborhood through the years, and it’s to the benefit of all the neighbors to have developed those lots and combined lots to get lots that are more reasonable in size and width. At the same time, though, I think we have to be fair to the applicant, and, you know, if every lot were going to develop as all the other ones had, if they all came together from smaller parcels into larger parcels, we’d all be perfectly pleased because 8 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) that’s the way it’s been, but I don’t always feel that we always have to exactly follow that plan everywhere and at all times. If you look at the amount of relief, the side setback relief, as Joyce said, it’s 20 feet of relief from 25 foot on the one lot that already exists. That lot’s not going to change. The only lot that we really should be focused on, I feel, is the new lot that we’re going to create here, and if we look at that lot, side setback relief is 1.7 feet or seven percent on the north side, and five feet or 20% on the south side. I don’t think that’s very much relief, and we’ve granted relief for that amount numerous times on those ones that we’ve created out of the smaller pieces up of the pie up there. As far as the road frontage, everybody recognizes that none of the parcels on the whole street, you know, make the road frontage requirement because they’re all narrow lots up there, but because these lots are going to be .30 acres, I think that averages out to be about average for the street. There’s some that are smaller. There’s some that are slightly bigger. There’s not a whole lot of range there, but they all tend to be about .30 in size, and as far as the width of the lot, they’re 75 feet wide, all right, and I think that’s what we’re going to end up with, in both cases, on both of these parcels here. So you’ve got a junky old garage that probably somebody has lived in in the past, using it as a dwelling in the past, and I’m sure if that lot’s been there for that long, that garage is going to come down and you’re going to have a net gain of one new dwelling on the street, and I really don’t, frankly, see that that’s a negative for the neighborhood. Sure it would be nice if you kept a bigger lot there, and you guys are perfectly correct in saying that, you know, that’s what we’re trying to achieve is bigger lots, but I don’t see why one lot on the street has to be that much bigger than all of the other ones or if it’s going to tip the domino or tip the whole idea over as far as what we’re trying to do in changing that neighborhood down there. So I’m going to support the relief as requested. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Clements. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. In listening to the Board members here, I’m kind of conflicted here, too. Looking at what’s been done on that street, with lots put together and three put into two, I think that’s good. However, I also looked at the lot line adjustment, which is one of the ones that we did, where they had two substandard lots and they split that one, and those are 75 feet across also. On the other hand, probably the lots, because of what’s been going on over there, have appreciated, so the lot would be, a larger lot would be worth more now. However, you know, looking at all the criteria and considering what’s best for the neighborhood and what’s best for the owner here, I think I’m going to fall with the owner, because I think that they’ve made an effort to say that they’re not going to put a mobile home in there, that they want to put a house, and it is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. So I’d be for this variance. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Let’s see here, with that being said, I’ll add my two cents to this. I’m looking at the balancing test. I don’t see how benefits can be achieved by other means. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? That’s relative. I suppose the neighbors could see an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Is it substantial? Most definitely the amount of relief is substantial. I’m not sure about whether will this have an adverse physical effect on the environment in this neighborhood. That I don’t know. I can’t say one way or another whether it’s going to have an adverse physical effect on the environment in that neighborhood. I don’t see this one lot creating any major environmental difficulty. Is this difficulty self-created? I’d say most definitely it’s self-created. Going over the balancing test goes against my better judgment on this. I want to see larger lots in this neighborhood. I think it increases property values, but my own personal opinion doesn’t count here. We have to go by the five criterion here. Personally I would be on the no end of this, if it was my decision, what I’d want to see out of the neighborhood, but the balancing test is three out of five, in your favor. So I’d have to fall with the other Board members who agreed with you on this. Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I’ll do it. Under the relief required, shall I read it all in again or is it just as we have on the record? MR. OBORNE-I think that would work. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2011 PATRICK GERUSO, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 32 Howard Street. The applicant is proposing a two lot residential subdivision of a .60 acre parcel and relief is requested from the lot size, lot width, road frontage and setback requirements. I think that in making the determination, the Board has carefully considered what the effects will be on the character of the neighborhood or detriment to other nearby properties, and even though we’re going to be creating two substandard sized lots, they do average out to be .30 acres in size, which is about the average size lot on the street. There are smaller ones also. We recognize the nature of the neighborhood and also the fact that we have created a situation where we have been, in the past, combining smaller lots to create larger lots, and this 9 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) goes contrary to that, but at the same time, because it’s going to create lots that are essentially the size of that neighborhood, and also recognize that the house that pre-exists on that lot, and the smaller of the garages, but I guess we’ll call it a shed, is going to remain as is, that the property owner will be removing the garage on the south side of the parcel, and erecting a home. It won’t be a mobile home, even though this falls within the Mobile Home Overlay District. Whereas the benefit could be sought by other means, the lot could remain as it is, we don’t really feel, after looking through the balancing test, that this is going to totally trip the neighborhood and make it fall back in the direction that we came from, as far as improving things, and all the area variances in totality are severe relative to the Ordinance, but we also recognize that, for some reason the two acre zoning that exists down there now really doesn’t have any merit in the real world because nobody has two acres or even close to half of that, and whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or the rest of the neighborhood, we don’t really feel it will, and the alleged difficulty is self-created, but it will improve, in our eyes, the neighborhood. th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand NOES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. LORD-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2011 SEQRA TYPE II EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE AGENT(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 23 JAY ROAD WEST APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,130 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT, PERMEABILITY, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED. CROSS REF SUB NO. 4-2011 PRELIM WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.10 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-18 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2011, Edward & Philomena Vanputte, Meeting Date: April 20, 2011 Project Location: 23 Jay Road West Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,130 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on a 0.10 acre parcel adjacent to Glen Lake. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as per §179-4-030 and are as follows: 1.Front setback – Request for 23 feet 7 inches of front setback relief from the 30 foot requirement. 2.Shoreline – Request for 26 feet 6 inches of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement. 3.Height – Request for 2.5 feet of height relief from the 28 foot maximum requirement. 4.Permeability – Request for 12.84% or 580.5 sq. ft. of additional permeability relief from the 75%. allowable permeability for this parcel for a proposed permeability total of 62.16%. 5.Floor Area Ratio – Request for 2.99% or 135.2 sq. ft. of additional FAR relief from the 22% allowable FAR for this parcel for a total FAR of 24.99%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this variance request. 10 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) 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. Reducing the size of the seasonal dwelling may reduce or eliminate the need for height, permeability and floor area ratio relief. Concerning property line setbacks, lot limitations preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 23 feet 7 inches or 78% of front setback relief from the 30 foot requirement may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 26 feet 6 inches or 53% of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 2.5 feet or 9% of height relief from the 28 foot maximum requirement may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Moreover, the request for 580.5 sq. ft. or 12.84% of additional permeability relief from the 25% or 1130.5 sq. ft. allowable permeability for this parcel may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 2.99% or 135.2 sq. ft. of additional FAR relief from the 22% or 994.8 sq. ft. allowable FAR for this parcel may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Note: Comments concerning whether an area variance is substantial is solely based on empirical calculations and is not based on a subjective analysis. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Shoreline development has the potential for impacts on environmental conditions; however the proposal calls for erosion and sediment control, storm-water management and effluent holding tanks. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty could be considered self created; however, lot limitations appear to contribute to the need for variances. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 26-2011 Pending Staff comments: Rip Rap along shoreline should be avoided; shoreline plantings should be considered in lieu of hard surfacing. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” MR. URRICO-And last night the Planning Board looked at this, and according to the resolution prepared by them, they found they had not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved unanimously. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. For the purpose of the record, please state who you are. MR. JARRETT-Good evening, Tom Jarrett, of Jarrett Engineers and Patrick VanPutte. As the narrative relates to you, we’re dealing with a very small lot, it’s a tenth of an acre. The VanPutte family has owned this for a number of years, and the existing house, the pre-existing house burned down several years ago. So we’re here tonight, and at the Planning Board last night, to try to find a balance between zoning and the protection of Glen Lake and what the family can use as a family retreat for years to come. The allowable zoning, since this lot is so small, is a house less than 1,000 square feet. We are proposing a house that’s actually smaller than what was there before. We’re proposing something less than 800 square feet in footprint. Total Floor Area Ratio is 1130 feet. So we have a loft inside to get us that extra living space. So, we think it’s, on balance, protects Glen Lake and protects the neighborhood and give the family what they need for their purposes. To keep this short and sweet, I think what we’ve achieved really meets the test that you need to weigh, and I think, being presumptuous, I think on balance the criteria that you weigh, you’ll find that the arguments weigh in favor of granting the variances. I can go in to any of the individual variances if you desire. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to be on a holding tank? MR. JARRETT-Yes. That was approved by the Town Board last fall. MR. UNDERWOOD-And what’s your source of drinking water going to be? Is there a well on site? 11 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. JARRETT-There’s an existing well on the property. The site plan documents submitted to the Planning Board show a well protection detail. We’re going to seal that well against surface water intrusion. MR. GARRAND-Board members, questions for the applicant? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. In looking that today, you can see where the footprint was of the house before. Are you saying that this is going to be smaller than that footprint? MR. JARRETT-The new house is slightly smaller in footprint than the old house. MR. CLEMENTS-But it’s going to be higher? MR. JARRETT-A little higher, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to bring in fill and fill in what you dug out already? MR. JARRETT-Slightly. We have to get above flood elevation. The lake is at 398, as you probably well know, and the flood elevation is at 404. Our living space has to be at 406 or higher. MR. KOSKINAS-The old house, what size was it? MR. JARRETT-Square foot or footprint? MR. KOSKINAS-No. The square footage. MR. JARRETT-Total square footage? It was single story, and it was a little larger in footprint. I’ll have to look for that number. I don’t remember. MR. KOSKINAS-Did it have, was it full insulated? Had a central heat system? PATRICK VANPUTTE MR. VANPUTTE-It had heat, yes. Central heat, was it fully insulated? The house was built in 1928. MR. KOSKINAS-Was it a seasonal home? MR. VANPUTTE-It was a seasonal home. MR. KOSKINAS-And this one’s going to be? MR. VANPUTTE-A three season home. MR. JARRETT-It’s used seasonally. We have to build it to building code, but it’s used seasonally, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-There’s a requirement in the zoning when you convert from seasonal to residential, it lists some specific requirements. I think it’s in -040, in the same general paragraph that you’re in, that limits the increase in size by 30%. Are you within that? MR. JARRETT-I believe we are very close. I’d have to run the numbers. I’d have to dig out the number of the existing house. MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, I’d suggest you check. MR. UNDERWOOD-As I recall, the old place was wider and longer than what you’re proposing here? MR. JARRETT-Right, and closer to the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GARRAND-It was a single story like bungalow type of house, from what I can remember of it years ago. MR. VANPUTTE-Yes, that’s correct. 12 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-Is that the old house? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the old one. MR. JARRETT-That’s the roof of the old house. MR. KOSKINAS-It was a tight spot. When I turned my truck around there I said, gee, maybe I don’t want to be in this hole. MR. VANPUTTE-It’s safer going to the end and doing a little turnaround there. MR. GARRAND-How many bedrooms are proposed? MR. JARRETT-Three. MR. VANPUTTE-It’s three. One in the loft, two on the main floor. MR. GARRAND-Nobody’s going to be here in the winter, to pump? MR. VANPUTTE-If it is used in the winter, it’s going to be a weekend getaway to go skiing type of thing. That’s it. No one’s going to be living there year round. MR. GARRAND-Other Board members, questions? MR. JARRETT-I don’t know if silence is good or bad in this case. MR. GARRAND-No other questions, I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Hearing none, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I’ll poll the Board members. Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-It’s always difficult when we deal with a fire or natural catastrophe that requires re-building, and I’m looking at the application. I see a lot of effort went into making this as near the old footprint as possible, keeping the new building rather modest. It seems like there was a lot of thought and effort went into this, and I think they’ve achieved a little bit of both. They’ve made it something that’s, that’ll be a nice replacement for what you had before, brought it up to date, made it compatible with the area, and I don’t see a problem with this. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. This is certainly a modest sized home. There’s no other benefit. It couldn’t be achieved by any other means by the applicant. I mean, you’ve lost a home and you have to replace it. I think there’ll be a positive change in the neighborhood character and to nearby properties. I don’t think it’s a substantial request. Actually the footprint is smaller, you say, than the old home, and it’s further from the lake. I think it will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and I don’t think it was self-created because you lost your home to a fire. So I would be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would be in agreement. The house that was there was a minimalist home and this one is, too. It’s not like you’re asking to triple, double the size of what you had before, and it’s about as small as reasonable to assume that you could put, you know, I’m sure everybody wishes it was further from the lake, but it’s set back a reasonable distance from the lake it in its new form. All the vegetation, I think Mr. Jarrett’s usually pretty careful to get a good end result before he comes before the Boards with projects like this. The fact that you’re not going to have to deal with septic on site is a plus. It’s a headache for you when you do have to pump out, but that comes with the territory. This Board reviewed the house next door, and I think some of you guys weren’t here at that time, but when we reviewed the house next door, they wanted to do a substantial change to that one, and because they were out on the point, they weren’t looking at doing a holding tank or anything, and we were totally against that project because we really didn’t think it was going to be interest of the lake and the water shed on Glen Lake to do that, and I live on Glen Lake further down the Lake. I kind of wondered when you 13 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) were going to come in because it sat there empty for so long, but at the same time, I think this is an improvement. I think it’s going to be a plus for the neighborhood. It’s not going to be any detriment. It improves the situation from what it once was. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-I don’t see that you have a choice. To do much else, I think, within the constraints of that lot, you’re doing what you can, but from a personal point of view, I’ve watched this Board wring people out with projects that are so much more kind to that lake than this one, but I don’t see that you can do anything else. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Clements? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I have to agree with the rest of the Board. I’d be in favor of it, too. I don’ think you’re asking for too much. You’re not going to put any year round home there. You will have a holding tank which will help with the septic around the lake. It’s smaller than the original footprint. I don’t think the height is going to bother anybody because the people that are behind you are looking out the other way towards the lake. So, looking at a balancing test, I would be in favor of this variance. MR. GARRAND-I was looking for some undesirable change in the neighborhood, and offhand I’ve been trying to find one. Going through the balancing test, I can’t, in good conscience, fail this on the balancing. While I’d like to see a smaller home there, I don’t see how the benefit can be achieved with a smaller home here. I understand the topography of that neighborhood, and it is pretty rough. Building anything there is pretty rough with the topography given over there, as evidenced by the contour lines on the map. I’d have to agree with my other Board members. Would somebody like to make a motion? MR. URRICO-Before you go ahead, there was one comment made on one of the public hearing notices. We have no objection. Richard and Susan Rourke. 19 Jay Road. I just wanted to read that in. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Somebody with a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll take the motion. Relief required, can I just say what was already introduced, Mr. Chairman? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2011 EDWARD & PHILOMENA VANPUTTE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 23 Jay Road West. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,130 square foot single family dwelling on a 0.10 acre parcel adjacent to Glen Lake. Relief required has already been mentioned, and in making the determination, the Board shall consider whether the benefit could be achieved by any other feasible means to the applicant, and I don’t think so. The home was destroyed by fire, and had to be replaced. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. Whether the request is substantial, actually the footprint of this new building is smaller than the old building that was burned down, and it is further from the lake. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood, and it really was not self-created since the old home was destroyed by fire. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 17-2011. th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. VANPUTTE-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 18-2011 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS, LLC AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 1048 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT 14 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) PROPOSES A 49.8 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WITHIN FRONTLINE SETBACK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FREESTANDING SIGN SIZE AND FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SV 62-2010; SV 5-2006; BP 2010-458; BP 2010-428; BP 2009-477; BP 2009- 575; BP 2009-484 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 13, 2011 LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER 130, 140-6-3d JOHN WRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 18-2011, GAM of the Adirondacks, Meeting Date: April 20, 2011 “Project Location: 1048 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 49.8 sq. ft. freestanding sign within frontline setback. Relief Required: Relief requested as follows: 1.Sign size – Request for 4.8 sq. feet of size relief from the maximum 45 sq. ft. size requirement as per §140-6B(2)[a]. 2.Setback – Request for 11.2 feet of setback relief from the 15 foot setback requirement for signs of this size as per §140-6B(3)(d). 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. Removing the sign from its current location and placing in a compliant location, 15 feet from the property line may be feasible. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 4.8 sq. ft. or 11% relief from the 45 sq. ft. maximum requirement as per §140-6 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. The request for 11.2 feet or 74% relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement for signs of this size 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 difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SV 62-2010: SV 5-2006: Country Home at Suttons 45.31 sq. ft. sign 1/25/06 BP 2010-458: Hudson River Trading Co. BP 2010-428: Northwestern Mutual Conor, F. P Boyd BP 2009-477: Adk. Auto & Video Commercial alteration BP 2009-575: Adk. Auto & Video 30 sq. ft. sign BP 2009-484: Adk. Auto & Video 42 sq. ft. sign Staff comments: The current location of the sign was approved on January 26, 2006 (S.V. 5-2006). The applicant is proposing to add a tenant’s panel, increasing the overall size of the sign, necessitating this sign variance. Please see Zoning Administrator determination dated September 15, 2010. An as-built survey of the property has revealed an error in the calculation of the front setback requirements, necessitating this variance application. This application to be reviewed under the requirements of the new sign code adopted on December 1, 2010. 15 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) SEQR Status: Type – Unlisted” MR. URRICO-The Warren County Planning Board has denied this application. They recommend denial with the comment that moving the sign any closer than previously approved would have a County impact for traffic safety along the Route 9 Corridor affecting sight distances when egressing the site. So that means we need a supermajority to approve this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask Keith a question? When we approved this before, what we approved, this is where they built it, correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes. This sign hasn’t moved at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-It hasn’t moved, changed, nothing has changed. MR. OBORNE-Right. What was represented last time was a false calculation. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the measured from the curb or something instead of not measuring from the TCO or? MR. OBORNE-Right. So now it’s, by the applicant. MR. WRIGHT-No, no, no, that’s in correct, sir. Holly Wheeler, who’s our sign person, did the calculations, and we accepted those because that’s what I paid her for, and they were wrong. MR. OBORNE-She’s still the applicant, but with that, the sign hasn’t moved. MR. UNDERWOOD-So did Bruce go out and measure it and then figure it out? MR. OBORNE-No, they performed an as built survey, I believe, and they found that the line was different. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean, I think the last time when we did this we were looking at the fact that if we moved it back any further, it was going to be in the middle of the travel lane between the businesses along the side there. I think everybody was pretty much dialed in that that was, it had to go where it had to go. MRS. HUNT-I know someone on the Warren County Planning Board, and they assumed it was being moved closer. They didn’t realize it was going to stay in the same place. So that’s why they voted that way. So this is staying the same as it always was. MR. WRIGHT-Exactly. We made a mistake on the measurement. MRS. HUNT-Just the measurement has changed. MR. OBORNE-If I could add one other comment. You’re definitely not Stefanie Bitter. I just want to make that clear. MR. WRIGHT-Yes. Right. For the record, John Wright. MR. OBORNE-And when we’re all done here, we’re going to have to have you sign the form to have him as your agent. That’s all. MR. WRIGHT-Very good. I’m obviously with Bartlett, Pontiff. Stefanie had the audacity to go to Florida this week, and so here I am. The nerve, right, but as the Board members have discussed, this is the same exact sign that was proposed and approved by this Board back in January. Nothing has changed. It was just an inadvertent error in the measurement. So all of the reasons that this Board had for approving the variances back in January are still equally applicable, and so we’d ask you to once again approve this application. MR. KOSKINAS-This is the third time you’ve been here. It’s like dejavu for me. MR. GARRAND-Holly was here before. MR. KOSKINAS-The first time it just said that this sign was on the wall. This Board unanimously, when polled, voiced the denial for the variance, and so the issue was tabled, and it was tabled for a month, and that’s when you came back, and when it was initially, had a 16 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) unanimous negative vote, there was a concern from a business person across the street who thought, when they had to put up their sign, they went to the time and trouble to have a conforming sign, and that was one of the reasons I was against it, I remained against it during your last visit. So this sign now is less conforming because of the new Sign Ordinance. Is that right? MR. WRIGHT-I’m not sure. MR. KOSKINAS-The signs have actually gotten smaller since December. MR. OBORNE-Yes. The initial application, the initial application was under the old Sign Ordinance, and now the new one is under the new Sign Ordinance. MR. KOSKINAS-So the degree of variance you’re requesting has become more severe than it was in the past, both in distance and size of your sign. That’s accurate, correct? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. WRIGHT-To that point, I did read the minutes from January, and, you know, this is the commercial corridor, and all of the signs along that corridor generally in that same place, and I think that’s one of the reasons this Board supported the application the last time, that given the fact that the existing sign is where it is, it really would harm the aesthetics of this corridor to have another sign pushed back further towards the building and kind of break it up and actually make it look sort of odd. So really the location of that sign is really the logical location to add a sign where, you know, a sign could be placed elsewhere on the property without a variance that really wouldn’t look right. MR. URRICO-Well, one could argue that a big sign close to the road wouldn’t look right, either. So that argument sort of negates itself, I think. MR. WRIGHT-Well, in terms of size, the variance, even per Staff Notes, is relatively minor. It’s only 49 instead of 45, or 49.8 instead of 45. So I think the size that we’re talking about. MR. URRICO-Five feet’s a big difference. MR. WRIGHT-It really is, and per the Staff Notes, we submit it’s minor. MR. KOSKINAS-You have to remember, though, that when you’re looking at the Sign Ordinance, it’s size of sign is relative to distance from the street. So as you did, when you argue for a conforming size sign, that’s nearer the street than is allowed, I made a little table once, just for my own edification, I took the maximum size of a sign allowed by zoning, at the maximum distance, and brought it towards the street to the smallest, and had it, so I had sign sizes in inches by feet, and it looks like a funny curve, but the fact is, and I’m not arguing, just so we’re clear on the facts, this is a sign larger, now, than the zoning allows, much closer than the zoning allows. So the degree of variance for both size and distance are greater. Just so I’m clear on that. MR. WRIGHT-Certainly both the size and the distance are greater than the zoning allows or we wouldn’t be here asking for the variances. MRS. HUNT-To be clear, this is exactly what we approved in January. MR. WRIGHT-Precisely. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Just for the purpose of the record, has the size of the proposed sign changed since this Board approved a previous application? MR. WRIGHT-It has not. MRS. HUNT-No. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-I just want to make sure that the Board knows that the Code has changed. It’s not the exact same thing going on here. I do want to add, and I’m not being an advocate for the applicant, they did remove the sandwich signs. 17 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) JOHN MILLER MR. MILLER-It took me a while. I had to threaten to throw my tenant out to get them to remove them. They were not mine. MR. OBORNE-Right. I just wanted to make that clear that the Board knows that. So it was a condition of approval at the last Sign Variance. MR. MILLER-And (lost words) has been parking their trucks in back like I asked them to. They’re not on the street. Again, they’re a tenant. I don’t own the business. MR. CLEMENTS-Not to prolong this anymore, but as I’m looking at that sign, and as I drove up there today and looked at it, in looking at this right here, when you add this down here and these three down here, you’re not going to be able to see them with what’s there now. Are you going to raise that sign higher, or are you going to take things out of there, what’s going to happen? MR. MILLER-Take some bushes out. MR. WRIGHT-And that was discussed at the January meeting. There’s going to be some trimming that’s necessary. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. MILLER-When snow comes, some of my tenants will be buried in snow. MR. GARRAND-You’re not going to see any of them anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s like that monument sign on the Mobil that was buried all winter. You couldn’t tell. You didn’t want to know what the price of fuel was. MR. GARRAND-Anything else you’d like to add? MR. WRIGHT-We have nothing, unless there’s more questions from the Board. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members have any questions, comments, concerns? MR. URRICO-Well, I don’t want to be argumentative, but those Adirondack trucks are still parked by the road most times I pass there. I’m just saying, for what it’s worth. MR. GARRAND-I was there 45 minutes this morning, I didn’t see them there. MR. MILLER-They park the trailers out back. They’re behind the building. MR. GARRAND-Yes, they do come back during the day, and they park in front during the day when they come and go. MR. URRICO-I use that road almost every day, maybe three or four times a day. MR. MILLER-The trailers, in the wintertime, because of the snow back there, they have to be towards the front, but in the summertime they. MR. URRICO-This is not with snow on the ground. This is like just today. MR. GARRAND-I was in McDonough’s office watching it today. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CONNOR BOYD MR. BOYD-My name is Connor Boyd, resident of Queensbury, also the person who’s ultimately affected most by the sign. I know, you know, sometimes obviously with zoning, a lot of it’s about numbers, but obviously the human element is important. I moved my business from Glens Falls to Queensbury because I serve the Queensbury population more than I do Glens Falls. I wanted to be in that Suttons area where we have a lot of lunches and the Sweet Basils and things, and I’ve been there since July, and we understand there’s got to be a process for getting things approved, and I had done some homework ahead of time and in my conversations prior, I was under the impression that we could get it. Now getting into it deeper and learning more about the Codes and things, we realize the need to come in front and make sure that we did 18 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) things right, and what I would say is that, you know, I want to be in this community for years to come, and that sign is absolutely essential for me to have that for people to know who I am and where I’m located, and the flow of the traffic that goes through there, my office overlooks that area. People do, you know, it flows through nice, whether they’re coming to see me or whether they’re going to Suttons. A lot of people, because it’s kind of hard, especially if you’re not familiar, to know exactly where you enter into that parking lot, and I think moving a sign back, especially in the wintertime, with the snow removal and our need to be able to park there, would really cut up the flow of that, and, you know, there is a sign there at this point and I think adding that on there, I do think my sign is a, you know, it’s not a pink neon sign. I think it’s an understated sign. It’s just really meant to serve the purpose of letting people know where we are and I really ask for your consideration and thinking of the business as well that goes with it and my desire to be here for years to come and just let my clients where I am and who I am. So, I’d appreciate that consideration. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wish to comment? Not hearing any, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico, any? MR. URRICO-Yes. This is addressed to me. “Dear Mr. Urrico: Thank you for the opportunity to once again address the Board regarding Sign Variance No. 18-2011. Please note that I would have preferred to be at this meeting in person, as I was last fall. I will be, however, out of the area. I own The Wood Carte, located just north of the property in question. My thoughts on this sign variance remain the same. And I hope the Board sees fit to stand by its original lines of reasoning, which made perfect sense. We welcome new business to our “neighborhood”. It’s good for everyone. And I don’t mind a little friendly competition from businesses like Hudson River Trading Company. However, I do hope to be competing on a level playing field. If granted, this variance would provide an unfair advantage for these businesses by way of making their signage larger and more visible than those of us who “play by the rules”. Additionally, although I’m not an expert in this area, a larger sign closer to Route 9 may create traffic safety/visibility issues. Most importantly, I genuinely see no reason why relief is being sought. As I look at the area in question, I fail to see the hardship. The new sign can easily be located at the required setback, having only slight, if any, impact on parking. And, in my opinion, the relief sought for sign sizes should not be granted. The number of tenants occupying any given building should have no bearing on whether or not an over-sized sign is allowed to be erected. Thanks again for allowing my input on this matter. Respectfully, Christopher C. Carte The Wood Carte 1063 Rt. 9 Queensbury, NY” I think that’s it. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. At this time I’d like to poll the Board members and see what their opinion is on this application. To you, sir. MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I have no problem with this variance. I didn’t have one to begin with, and I’ve looked at it several times now, in the position that it’s in, not knowing about, you know, the distance problem there, and I still don’t have any problem with it. So I’d be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. KOSKINAS-I’m confident you’re going to get your variance. So in the interest of the next person that comes here, I remain opposed to this. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the applicants have acted in good faith. The Board acted on their request the last time in previously approving the setbacks as we thought they were. Nothing’s really changed, as far as I’m concerned, other than the fact that we’ve, you know, made a determination that the setbacks were improperly presented to us. I think there’s probably a slight possibility, had we had these original measurements, we might have sat on the fence and we might not have approved this, as John has suggested, too, but at the same time, I don’t think we should hold these people over the fire and say, well, no, I’m sorry you can’t do this, you know. We did approve this, and I think that both of us acted responsibly in doing that. It’s not a perfect solution here, but, nonetheless, that sign is where it can go. I mean, I don’t really see a more practical place to put it. Yes, the Code has changed since, and so it’s slightly over size. Nothing is changing. The sign is what it is, and it’s going to remain what it is. It’s not going to increase in size, and I think maybe Mr. Carte’s better, he may have thought they were asking for a larger sign than we already have out front there, but that’s not the case. So I would be in favor of it. 19 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I think it’s a shame that the applicant had to go to the time and expense to come back because of a mistake in the setback distance, and I would be in favor of this as I was the last time. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-Yes. I kind of agree. I think, I understand where Mr. Carte is coming from and what a lot of the businesses over there are facing, because everything is close to the road, but they’re all lined up. You can look down that road and they’re all about the same location, and there have been issues all along. We approved this based on the facts at the time. The facts have changed, but the sign hasn’t. So I would be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-I would agree with the other Board members. This is one of those situations where moving the sign back I think is rather impractical, given the driving aisle, concerns with snow and everything for that building. I mean, I could see if the building met the setbacks for the Travel Corridor, you could move the sign back into a more compliant position, but the building, you’re not going to move the building just to make the sign compliant. So I agree with the other Board members. Could somebody make a motion, please? MR. CLEMENTS-I have a question, first. Did you say something about a supermajority because of the County? MR. OBORNE-You need five. MR. CLEMENTS-We need five. Okay. MR. OBORNE-You’ve got it. MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 18-2011 GAM OF THE ADIRONDACKS, LLC, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: 1048 State Route 9. Applicant proposes a 49.8 square foot freestanding sign with front line setback. The relief requested is the sign size request for 4.8 square feet of size relief from the maximum 45 square feet sign size requirement as per Section 140-6B(2)(a). Setback request for 11.2 feet of setback relief from the 15 foot setback requirement for signs of this size as per again 140-6B(3)(d). In making the determination, the Board shall consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties will be created by granting of this Sign Variance. Minor impacts may be anticipated. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a Sign Variance. Removing the sign from its current location and placing it in a compliant location 15 feet from the property line may be feasible, but it doesn’t look practical. Three, whether the requested Sign Variance is substantial. The request for 4.8 square feet or 11% relief from the 45 square foot maximum required as per Section 140-6 may be considered minor relative to the Ordinance. The request for 11.2 feet or 74% relief from the maximum setback requirements for signs of this size as per 140-6 may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts are anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. It may be considered self-created, however, the sign has been there for several years. th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. GARRAND-We’ll go through SEQRA. HAVING PREVIOUSLY DONE SEQRA AND HAVING CONSIDERED AND THOROUGHLY ANALYZED THE RELEVANT AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROJECT HAS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS THE SAME IS SET FORTH IN SECTION 617- 20 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) 11 OF THE OFFICIAL COMPILATION OF CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THE ACTION ABOUT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THIS BOARD WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-So you’re going for a SEQRA Negative Declaration? MR. GARRAND-SEQRA Negative Dec. MR. OBORNE-Fabulous. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. OBORNE-I will state, just for the record, that don’t worry about signing it. Bartlett Pontiff is here, and you’re find. MR. WRIGHT-Very good. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2011 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT GREEN AGENT(S) LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S) ROBERT GREEN ZONING MDR LOCATION 45 HOWARD STREET APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 180 SQ. FT. DECK IN SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2010-042 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2011, Robert Green, Meeting Date: April 20, 2011 “Project Location: 45 Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 180 sq. ft. deck in side yard and is seeking side setback relief after the fact. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance as follows: ? Side setback relief – Applicant requests 7.7 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated by the grating of this area variance. 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. Short of removing 7.7 feet of the existing deck that encroaches into the south side setback, feasible alternatives would be to relocate the deck to the rear portion of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 7.7 feet 31% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and/or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 21 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2010-042 Single Family Dwelling Approved 2/25/10 Staff comments: 1.The applicant requested and received a waiver from survey requirements, see attached. 2.The side door associated with the deck appears to not have been part of any building permit. The Zoning Board may wish to direct the applicant to contact the Department of Building and Codes regarding any potential issues concerning this access point. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” MR. CLUTE-Larry Clute. I’m here with Karen Green. I built their home, and as a standard, I don’t put decks on the home, but during the construction we do put ledgers on to accommodate, knowing that you’re going to have to cut the siding. So we get the ledger on for them, knowing that the homeowners are going to do decks, more than likely, after the fact. I know I didn’t tell them anything about how close their setback was. I just, their construction process happened. We do it as a standard. We put the ledger board on. They made an assumption that they could just, brand new house, should be able to continue right on and put their deck on, without coming in and getting a permit. Once notified to come in and get the permit, it instigated this here. They did encroach on the side yard setback. MR. GARRAND-Who’s idea was it for the door coming out the side of the house? MR. CLUTE-The door is on the plans. There’s not a house I build without a slider. So I don’t know what confusion there is, but there’s not a house I build without a slider. MR. GARRAND-The Staff Notes indicate that. MR. CLUTE-I heard the Staff Notes, but I’m telling you there’s not a house I build without a slider, and so I’m quite sure the building. MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry. I looked at the building plans and I didn’t see it, but, I’m not a professional. I had John O’Brien look at it. He didn’t see it, either. MR. CLUTE-Yes. When we leave it, we do, I call it a jail rail, because technically by New York State Code you have to have. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you can’t walk out. MR. CLUTE-So it might be part of that. I mean, so, in other words, when I leave it, when I’m issued the CO, it’s not an accessible door, because there wasn’t a, by New York State, you have to build a deck. They tell you it’s only a three by three requirement, but it still has to be built as a deck. I’ve always found that Code to be kind of ridiculous. So I choose the jail rail option. So that might be what they’re referring to. So it’s not an accessible door when I’m issued CO. When I walk away, there’s what I call a jail rail on there. Homeowners remove those jail rails, and then they build a deck. MR. OBORNE-If the Board’s satisfied with that explanation, that’s fine. We don’t have to go to Building and Codes. I’m not too concerned about it. I just wanted to bring it up and make sure that there was an explanation for it, to be honest with you, or, conversely, you might want to direct them to go to Building and Codes. MR. CLUTE-Yes, I wasn’t aware of that on the thing, to be honest with you, otherwise I’d have brought a set of plans, but I can’t think of any home that I build without a slider, to be honest with you. MR. GARRAND-Who owns the lot next door, the affected party? MR. CLUTE-I do. MR. GARRAND-I’ve noticed that that lot’s been pretty much clear cut. MR. CLUTE-Yes. 22 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. GARRAND-What kind of setbacks, what direction is that house going to be facing? MR. CLUTE-If you’re familiar with it, the way that road curves. MR. GARRAND-Yes. It’s a corner lot. MR. CLUTE-Yes, but unlike a 90 degree corner, it’s got that rolling curve, so I’m going to face the home at that curve, and side load the garage. I’ll still come in off of Howard Street, but the home itself will roll with the curve, be angled, almost at a 45 degree. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because you’ve got a deck like this, one thing you don’t want is, you know, somebody sitting, sunning themselves on a deck and having the neighbors looking out their window and having to see it or, you know, you just don’t want. MR. CLUTE-No, I understand, and I understand the argument, but I’ll be honest with you, there’s not many neighborhoods in Queensbury where you’re not sitting on your rear deck looking at your rear neighbor, unless you’ve got fencing or trees up, because they’re that small. Most of Queensbury’s done in half acre lots, and we will be taking that into consideration. Obviously I have to. I have to sell that home. So I don’t want to create a negative impact on a home that I’m going to build, and Karen and Rob are well aware of it as well. This is a common design that I do. I mean, I change it up a little bit, but I call it the sideways ranch. I have a different facial to another sideways ranch. MR. GARRAND-I’ve seen it in Hudson Falls. MR. CLUTE-Exactly, and so it’s a very common plan that I do, but again, every one of them come with that slider, and if they make use of it by putting up a deck, that’s what you end up with. If, on a conventional ranch, had they put up a deck, they may not have been looking at the new house I’m building, but they’d be looking at their neighbors directly, right, because these lots are tight. So no matter what orientation, I guess, of the deck, they’d still end up with that inconvenience, I guess. MR. GARRAND-Are there going to be any trees on the property line at all in the future? MR. CLUTE-I would like to think so. I’ll tell you, I’m very happy with the elevation drop. So are Karen and Rob, so it the neighborhood. I’m highly impressed with that lot. I’m very happy with that lot. We’ve brought the home down and we’ve brought the lot down four foot, dramatic change. I mean, now Howard really does join Geneva. They were kind of separated by a mountain, so to speak, and when I brought that down, I think it helped a lot, but again, I’m a big fan of the trees, and I hate clear cutting lots, but that lot, just by the nature of the work I had to perform, created what it created. So, yes, I would like to see some trees in there, yes. MR. GARRAND-Board members, questions, comments? MR. CLEMENTS-What was the length of time from when you finished the house to the deck going on? MR. CLUTE-Almost immediately. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. CLUTE-And again, I’m going to take responsibility here. I should have told them. This MDR Code is so restrictive, we’re tight on these lots, but with the MDR shift, the actual required dimensions are even that more restrictive, and so I should have made Karen and Rob aware of how tight their setbacks actually were. I mean, we complied when we constructed the building, but you assume, I know you do, as a homeowner that, hey, I’ve got space, and they really didn’t. I didn’t make that clear how restrictive these MDR setbacks are, and that 25 foot really hurts on these narrow lots. I should be more informative. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members have any questions, comments? At this point I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico, any correspondence? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. 23 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. GARRAND-No correspondence. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-And poll the Board members. Mr. Clements? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I’d be in favor. I don’t think that it’s going to be a detriment the neighborhood. It’s a nice looking deck. So I’d be in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that we would always prefer that people come in ahead of time and check anyway, but, you know, half the world just thinks they can do what they want anyway, and this isn’t anything that’s really going to affect the neighborhood negatively or your lot next door, even when it’s built, based upon what your narrative has been. So I would be in favor of it. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. I don’t have any problem with it. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-Normally we would give that speech where we say if you had come here with clean hands, you know, we would never have allowed this to happen, but we understand mistakes happen. I’m satisfied with your explanation. So I’d be in favor at this point.’ MR. CLUTE-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-At this time, I’ll entertain a motion. MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2011 ROBERT GREEN, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 45 Howard Street. Granting 7.7 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone as per 179-4-030. Findings with respect to the balancing test are, One, minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated by the granting of this Area Variance. Two, relocating the deck is not feasible at this time. Three, the request for 7.7 feet or 31% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement may be considered moderate. Four, minor impacts on the physical and/or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated, and, Five, the difficulty is most certainly self-created. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. CLUTE-Thank you very much. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Is there any business to attend to, minutes that have to be approved? MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we all square for next week? Everything’s staying on that’s going to be on next week? We’ve got no change. MR. OBORNE-I have, just for the Board’s knowledge, I have updated zoning maps for all of you here. Before you leave, go ahead and grab them, and this is updated as of March of 2011. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s coming down the pike, anything happening? MR. GARRAND-What minutes do we have? thrd MS. HEMINGWAY-February 16 and February 23. MR. GARRAND-Yes. I didn’t get them. I didn’t get the list of who was there. MS. HEMINGWAY-We’ll get that for you. 24 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2011) MR. OBORNE-We can do them next week. That’s fine. MR. GARRAND-What about new Codebooks? MR. OBORNE-Code Publishers have not come through at this point. There’ll be, hopefully, coming through here soon. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because what I’ve got now is a pile of papers. MR. OBORNE-I think you got my e-mail from before. We’re not going to collate them for you. I don’t know how you want to do it. That’s really the issue there. MR. GARRAND-It’s bad enough that I had them in the living room and I kicked them all over. MR. UNDERWOOD-It was just nice when we used to have this. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Well, what you’re going to get, you’re going to get Code Publishers. So you’re going to get a book with a number on it. So everybody across the Board will be update with the new Codebook, and you’ll have a dedicated Codebook, and at meetings when you have updates, we’ll be bringing you packages, and then it’s up to you to update your Codebook. st We’re actually coming in to the 21 Century. th MR. UNDERWOOD-Is anybody going to that thing on the 5, any of you guys? MR. OBORNE-Washington County? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, the one that the Water Keeper’s doing, this one? MR. OBORNE-I’m not. th MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the 5 of May, that’s a Thursday. th MR. GARRAND-At this point, I’d like to conclude the meeting for the April 20 Zoning Board of Appeals. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Garrand, Acting Chairman 25