Loading...
2011.06.29 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 29, 2011 INDEX Agenda Items: Area Variance No. 28-2011 Chip Esper Page 1 Area Variance No. 20-2011 Susan Clermont Page 5 Area Variance No. 36-2011 Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt Page 18 Area Variance No. 34-2011 Scott & Deborah Kingsley Page 26 Area Variance No. 38-2011 Margaret Nelson / Barry Lukoff Page 29 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. 1 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 29, 2011 7 PM Members Present: Steven Jackoski, Chairman Richard Garrand, Jr. Vice Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary Ronald Kuhl John Koskinas, Alternate Brian Clements Joyce Hunt Community Development Office Staff Present: Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner Sue Hemingway, Stenographer Mr. Jackoski: Good evening, I’d like call this evening’s Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, my name is Steve Jackoski. This evening, for those of you who are not familiar with our process; on the back table we do have an agenda and some basic guidelines on how this process works. We will be calling each applicant to the table to present their application and we’ll start with old business. The first is Chip Esper and Patricia A. Kelly, 67 Peachtree Lane, Sherman Pines, Phase 2, Area Variance No. 28-2011, and I’ll turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposing construction of a 512 sq. ft. inground swimming pool within the 20 foot rear yard setback for private swimming pools. And in doing so the applicant is asking for an area variances relief for the rear setback; 10 feet from the 20 foot setback requirement to the edge of the pool as per Section 179-5-020C. As with all area variances there is a criteria according to Chapter 267 of Town Law that the Zoning Board follows in making a determination. One is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of this area variance. Staff notes say that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the parcel backs up to common area. 2), whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to existing conditions to include location of leach field and additions. 3) Whether the requested area variance is substantial? The request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the 20 foot rear setback requirement as per Section 179-5-020C; there’s a note here that the determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Staff says that minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. And, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? Staff says the difficulty may be considered self-created. However, the ongoing construction of a residential addition may contribute to the difficulty. Staff comments are; clarification on access to the pool area may need to be offered as there is minimal area for heavy equipment to maneuver. And this is a Type II SEQRA so no further action is required. Mr. Jackoski: Good evening, welcome. Ms. Kelly: Good evening, thank you. Mr. Jackoski: If you could identify yourself for the record. Ms. Kelly: I’m Patricia Kelly Esper and I’m the homeowner of the home which doesn’t look like that anymore. Mr. Jackoski: And Roy, of course, read in the application so if you have anything else that you’d like to add. Mrs. Esper: Thank you. Well, there is access for the heavy equipment. In fact, the heavy equipment is still pulling around the back and it actually comes up on the left side of the house as you’re facing it and comes around the back to get in. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, do any other Board members, at this time have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Urrico: The rear setback is for, is up to the common area? Is that – Mrs. Esper: Correct. Mr. Urrico: Thank you. Mrs. Esper: It actually doesn’t go directly back to the common area. It’s just that we need the feet; I mean the pool’s borders are not going to sit on it. 2 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Urrico: Right, but that’s what the setback is up against. Mrs. Esper: Yes. It’s actually against that field, that we actually created and improved the leach field, took all the trees out and, so that’s the common area. Mr. Urrico: You mean the leach field was in the common area? Mrs. Esper: It’s in the back, yeah. Mr. Kuhl: That’s a leach field for your septic system? Mrs. Esper: Yes. Mr. Kuhl: Is it, is the tank outlined on the drawing? How far from the pool will that tank be? Mrs. Esper: I can’t remember but I believe it is 8 to 10 feet. Mr. Kuhl: And then it goes out, goes out from there into a distribution box? And, is that a new field you put in? Mrs. Esper: That’s why it’s in the common area; it’s actually owned by the Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Kuhl: Oh, so each one of the homes in that community go in to that. Mrs. Esper: Yes, well not every home. Every home has a common area and most of the leach fields are in the common area, yes. Mr. Kuhl: Oh, really! Mrs. Esper: Yep. Mr. Kuhl: I didn’t know that. Mrs. Esper: It was the way it was designed. We’ve had no trouble with it. Mr. Kuhl: So the disturbance of the ground and all of the digging and everything will not affect that tank at all? Mrs. Esper: No. Mr. Kuhl: Not going to cause any? Mrs. Esper: No, we had Mr. Baker; came and checked it out very carefully. And, the guy that’s doing our excavation can put something within 2 inches of this. Mr. Kuhl: And who might Mr. Baker be? Mrs. Esper: Mr. Baker is the pool person. Mr. Kuhl: Oh, I didn’t know that. Mrs. Esper: In South Glens Falls. Mr. Kuhl: And he guarantees? Mrs. Esper: Yep. He’s done a number of pools in that area and I think most of them have required a setback just because the lots are that narrow. So, he said they went through the process with other people with that as well. Mr. Kuhl: Thank you. Mrs. Esper: You’re welcome. 3 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mrs. Hunt: Yeah, we’ve had this before. Mrs. Esper: Yeah. Mrs. Hunt: Several times. Mrs. Esper: Yeah, we, one of our neighbors said that they had to do it and they had to actually ask for more footage than we did for their pool. Mrs. Hunt: Actually you have a larger plot than most of them, don’t you? Mrs. Esper: It’s an interesting - ; it’s like this, kind of – our neighbors would be very happy if you would approve the pool. They would like their own gate. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions? Everyone needs - ; pretty straight forward. Mr. Kuhl: Yeah. Mr. Jackoski: I don’t think there’s a reason to poll the Board at this time. I do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address the Board on this particular application? Roy, are there any public comments? Mr. Urrico: There are no public comments. Mr. Jackoski: Seeing no one in the audience and having no public comments, I will close the public hearing. Would anyone like to make a motion? Mrs. Hunt: I’ll make a motion. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Joyce Ms. Hunt: Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 28-2011, Chip Esper, 67 Peachtree Lane Introduced by Mrs. Hunt, seconded by Mr. Clements: The applicant proposes construction of a 512 sq. ft. inground swimming pool within the 20 foot rear yard setback for private swimming pools. The parcel will require area variances as follows: Rear setback relief – 10 feet of rear setback relief from the 20 foot setback requirement to the edge of the pool as per §179-5-020C. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated because this parcel backs up to the common area and we have given variances to several other homeowners in similar positions. Feasible alternatives are really limited due to the existing conditions and location of leach field and additions. The request for 10 feet or 50% relief as per §179-5-020C is substantial but it is common property that they are backing up on. There will be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and the difficulty may be considered self-created only in the fact that they want an in ground swimming pool. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Mrs. Kelly: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Mr. Jackoski: The next item we have on our agenda under old business is applicant Susan Clermont at 28 Assembly Point Road. It is Area Variance Number 20-2011 and Roy, if you could, and while this application has been in front of us several times in the past; maybe just briefly summarize the content. Mr. Urrico: The applicant has constructed approximately a 200 square foot deck over an existing patio and is proposing reconfiguration / downsizing of the existing 120 foot non-conforming dock to 48 square feet. The relief requested from side setback for both the dock and the deck as well as shoreline relief for the deck. And, Site Plan review is required for the hardsurfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline. 4 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: This application has been in front of us in the past. If you wouldn’t mind, just stating your names for the record and just briefly giving us an update as to where and how the applicant has changed since the last time. Ms. Clermont: Okay, my name is Sue Clermont, so I’m the applicant, and I apologize that I haven’t been able to get here before this. But, you know, certainly looking to, if I could, and not to go backwards, but since I haven’t had a chance, you know, is it okay, and I apologize if I’m out of line, just making a comment. Mr. Jackoski: No, you certainly can make comments. I do think the Board has kind of given guidance in the past and we have, this is our third or fourth meeting on this topic, I’m not sure which, so, but feel free. Ms. Clermont: Yes, no I think the proposal in front of you right now is taking that 10 foot dock or deck and moving it to 8 foot, that’s all and losing the 2 feet of that. And, just, you know the question, being that it’s the first time I’m here, it just seemed like it was a disproportionate amount of concern for, you know, a stone fence over me who only has 10 feet, 2 feet to me is 20 percent. And, I absolutely recognize that. There is an existing patio and yes I could get all 10 feet by using the patio but it really isn’t safe, you know, my goal is to get my 85 year old mother to be able to view the lake, so therefore, I’m looking to do the deck which is by far a safer measure, you know, so, but I did submit going with the losing the 2 feet verses say a foot or something of that nature. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, are there any additional comments or questions currently by the Board members? I do believe, by the way, that we left the public hearing open at the last meeting. See at this moment no additional comments or questions for the Board I am going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience at this time who would like to address the Board concerning this application? I do see some; if you could give up the table. If again, if you wouldn’t mind just to, remind you if you could, state your name for the record into the microphone and use the microphone at all times. Mr. Brown: Name’s Gary Brown 45 Assembly Point Road, Lake George, NY. I have several things that I would to present the Board. I know that this is the third or fourth time but I just got the meeting minutes last Friday afternoon. And, there was some comments and a letter that I believe you have from Jean Randles to the south of Sue Clermont’s property also. I’m opposed to the application that Sue Clermont has in regards to her dock. I have section 274.1 from the office of general services, section 32 of the navigational law provides that no person shall erect, replace a dock, wharf, pier, jetty platform or other structure built on floats, columns, open timbers, piles, similar works, supports in the navigational waters in the State of New York which interferes with the direct access of the person without such persons written permission. This part shall apply to all administrative procedures brought to the section of the 32 of the navigation law. I have a copy of that in here also, if I’m allowed to give this to the Board. I just feel that if this dock is coming out and being replaced, put it into her navigational water or in to her repairing water rights. Mr. Jackoski: We have heard that argument in the past, we understand that. That is your request. Mr. Brown: Right. I mean, this dock for 40 years would have been used for a swimming platform and now, we’re trying to do something else with it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Is there anything else you want to add at this time? Mr. Brown: Nothing that I want to add. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brown: May I submit this, I mean, put in the file? Mr. Jackoski: Yes, of course. Mr. Brown: I spoke to an attorney but he was booked for this evening, couldn’t make this meeting and he asked me to submit this to the Board. Mr. Jackoski: I have no problem accepting that, just please understand, this Board has not had an opportunity to read through that, and that’s part of the reason we get information ahead of time when it’s necessary. So, by 5 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 th all means, we’ll certainly accept, I certainly, Roy, has been handed written correspondence of June 29; I’m not sure I can read the last name of the person, Nancy Mr. Brown: FARRY, she’s the, she is actually the property owner at 45 Assembly Point Road. She is present. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. So, maybe - unintelligible and this Randles letter we have; have we gotten a letter from th the Randles family dated May 24? Mr. Urrico: It just handed that one. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you th Mr. Urrico: This is before the last meeting, right; the 25 th Mr. Jackoski: The 25, I believe. I don’t think that we had received it before the last meeting. Mr. Oborne: If it’s in there, it’s fine. Mr. Jackoski: At this time, is there anyone else who would like to address the Board? Feel free to come up. If you could, would you mind stating your name for the record. Mr. Randles: Sure, Jeff Randles, my mother has a property at 42 Old Assembly Point Road. And, so, I didn’t make the May meeting and I just want to be clear, so everybody did have the letter from my mother dated May th 24. Mr. Jackoski: I believe it was read into the record, yes. Mr. Randles: Okay, thanks, okay great. So, I’m not aware of anything new since the last time we were all together. But I was just doing a little – my main concern is with the dock. And, I was just doing a little research, in, you know looking at, if the proposal is to put a 2 or 3 foot dock out there so they can park a boat in-between Clermont property and our property. You know, I just went online and I was looking at 15 foot boats, 18 foot boats and I know from the last meeting minutes, you know, she wants a decent sized boat that can handle Lake George verses Saratoga Lake. So an 18 foot, Cross and Whaler, has an 8 foot beam. An 18 foot Four Winds has a 7 1/2 foot beam. Seventeen foot Crestliner Fishing Boat has a 7 ½ foot beam. If you put 7 ½ foot beam plus a 2 foot dock plus you add the post, you know, you’ve got the 4 inch posts or the bumpers , whatever, there’s absolutely no way that boat is not going to be into our waters. And, I don’t care if the boat is, you know, 6 inches over our property line but it’s just that the proximity of our dock to the property line and the proximity of both of the docks; there’s basically going to be no space left. It’s going to be their boat right up against our dock even if this boat would fit in there. And, so that’s our concern, is that suddenly, now we’ve got a boat there and we can’t do anything with that side of the dock anymore. You know, we’ve got a ladder over there for swimming, we climb out of the water there, we go fishing, we’ll now there’s a boat there; it’s just taking away the use of that side of our dock. And, you know, it seems like that’s why we’re here. That’s why we have setbacks; it’s so one property owner doesn’t interfere with another’s property owner’s use of their land. So, our issue is not with them being able to use their dock, it’s just that their use of their dock is now taking away the enjoyment of our use of our dock whether it’s launching a boat, going swimming, going fishing. There’s going to be a boat, you know, no matter how you look at it. It’s going to be right there. So, it’s taking away our use of that property. Mr. Jackoski: Okay Mr. Randles: So that’s all, I want to make sure that that was clear to everybody. It just seems that giving a 100 percent variance to the setback is extreme and severe and it’s just taking away the use of our property. Mr. Koskinas: For my own clarification, your dock is essentially on the property line as well. Mr. Randles: Correct. Mr. Koskinas: So when you’re using that dock, how do you use it? Do do you go in to their; into Ms. Clermont’s? Mr. Randles: So historically – 6 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Koskinas: Do you put a boat there? Mr. Randles: We use to keep a row boat with a motor, a 12 foot row boat and we kept it docked there for 20 years. We’d pull it out when we weren’t at the lake, but when we were at the lake it was always there. Or if we had guest that would come; the guest would park over there because, they’d park there and we’d do our recreation or swimming on the other side of the dock. It’s a U-shaped dock. Mr. Koskinas: When I visited the site, you have quite a bit of space on the other side of your dock already, don’t you? Mr. Randles: We do. Mr. Koskinas: Commenting from your other neighbor, also, got quite a bit of space over there. It’s a challenge for this Board; you want to do what’s right, you want to do what’s reasonable, but fair enjoyment should be a right of every property owner and every investor on that lake. It seems like you’re saying you want to enjoy that property line. Mr. Randles: As we have in the past Mr. Koskinas: Well, the zoning must have changed because your dock is right on the line. Mr. Randles: That, I don’t know, that dock was put in there in the early 60’s before we owned it, but I mean the other thing is, as an investor they should know what they were getting in to. They knew the property they were buying and you have a 10 foot piece of property; you know you’re going to be limited. It shouldn’t be a surprise. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions at this time? Ms. Clermont: Do you Ms. Clermont could put a mooring out there for a boat? Mr. Jackoski: No Mr. Randles: I think that, so if she put a mooring out there; I think it would be, I think it would interfere with the navigation towards our dock and with only having a, you know, what kind of boat, if you have 10 foot wide piece and you’ve got a 15 foot boat and you’re going to have some sway with the rope. It’s going to be in front of – Mr. Jackoski: If I understand, and I’m sure Mr. Salvador knows better than I do, but I believe you have to have 20 feet for the boat to swing, so, I think the minimum; with a 10 foot boat would be a 50 foot lot. So it sounds to me like it’s almost impossible. Mr. Randles: Our neighbors had a mooring and it had to be removed last summer. And, they have a much bigger piece of property. Mr. Jackoski: I can either, maybe I can ask the Clermont’s this; but your family has been there a lot longer. So, how rough is that area of the lake? And, the reason I ask that is, certainly we all know when you dock a boat on Lake George, you certainly have to give it some breathing, so to speak, for the wave action. Mr. Randles: Yes Mr. Jackoski: And what you’re suggesting is, even with a 7 ½ beam, with bumpers, with posts, and you can’t tie the boat right up tight to the dock. Mr. Randles: Exactly. Mr. Jackoski: So it’s going to go over the line no matter what you do. Mr. Randles: Right and we’re in one of the widest parts of the lake. It’s about 2 miles wide; it certainly does get rough. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. 7 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Kuhl: The one thing I find interesting Mr. Randle is you talk of experience of putting a row boat there for 20 years. And, you were over the property line and you enjoyed it. You know, Mr. Randles: Right. Mr. Kuhl: And, it’s kind of like, if she would put a fence up, that property owner, Ms. Clermont would put a fence up; you wouldn’t be able to use that side of the dock. Correct? Mr. Randles: Correct. Mr. Kuhl: So, I mean, now she’s looking to do something and I’m not all in favor of her dock being over the property line, that theoretical property line going in. But now she wants to use what she’s purchased and it’s going to cause you to only have a foot, right? – to the property line, so you’re not going to be able to put your row boat there and in that foot, your theoretically not going to be able to jump off, onto her, right? – land. Mr. Randles: I understand that, but I think it’s also, I really, I really don’t believe that you could put a dock there and a boat there, and, the boat not being in our theoretical. Mr. Kuhl: I hear you, I hear you. Mr. Randles: And, even – like he was just referring to, it can be a rough part of the lake, so coming in, what are the odds of hitting our dock. Mr. Kuhl: Well, I hear you, but you bring up a point that you’ve enjoyed it for 20 years and now it just seems like – like Ms. Clermont is trying to enjoy it and you seem to be against that. Mr. Randles: No, I’m not against that. I’m against losing our ability to use that side of the dock. Yes, but not even for you – I don’t park the row boat there anymore, I pull it up. But it seems like we should be able to swim to our ladder and get out of the water. Mr. Kuhl: Yeah Mr. Randles: I mean, we, there is a foot of space there Mr. Kuhl: I hear you, I hear you. Mr. Jackoski: How many years have you utilized that ladder? Mr. Randles: Since we bought the place; it’s been there since 68. Mr. Jackoski: Alright. Any other questions – is there anyone else here in the audience this evening who would like to address the Board concerning this application? Mr. Salvador. I know you know the process, so I won’t say anything. If you could, state your name for the record, please. Mr. Salvador: My name is John Salvador, I’m a resident in North Queensbury, Dunham Bay and I also maintain a number of waterfront structures on the lake and I’d like to correct a statement that was made in your last meeting, Mr. Rehm said something about no one owns the bed of the lake. That’s not true. We own 2 acres of underwater land. Everyone would like to forget about it, but it’s on the tax map, it’s on the Zoning Map and we pay taxes on it; school taxes included. In any case, I think the big point that’s being missed here is that you have a substandard lot in a Waterfront Residential zone on which there is not principal use and our code does not allow an accessory use unless you have a principal use first. Principal use in a Waterfront Residential zone is a single-family residential dwelling. Now, I dare say if we walk in the shoes of the grantor of this small lot, we have to appreciate it was intended for something other than a boat dock; primarily swimming and fishing; access to the lake. Swimming and fishing are activities that are not regulated. You can swim anywhere in the lake you want to. You have a fishing license, you can fish anywhere in the lake you want to. But a boat dock, that’s a regulated activity and it’s an accessory use according to our code and not allowed unless you have a principal use first. And, I don’t think that anyone ever thought that you could erect a principal use on this small lot. That wasn’t the intent and so I see that there is a use variance required; this is a change in use from an unregulated use to a regulated use. There’s talk about crib docks and since the beginning of time rock filled docks required a permit; stake docks did not. Stake docks didn’t require a permit; 8 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 they were considered temporary structures and they didn’t require a permit until June 3, 1988 from the Lake George Park Commission. But the DEC never regulated stake docks. So, again I point out that this is going from an unregulated use to a regulated use and that would require a use variance. And, also, the point that it’s – you need a principal structure on the lot before you can have accessory structure. Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Mr. Salvador. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who would like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing none, Roy would you like to read in to the record the June 29, 2011 letter we received? Mr. Urrico: I am writing once again to state my opposition to Ms. Clermont’s application. The existing proposed dock will be in my riperian water right. The encroachment is shown in the survey map and the surveyor’s markings on her dock. There’s never been a boat dock on the southerly side of the dock and in 2002 the previous owners were notified by Mr. White at the Lake George Park Commission that no vessels shall be berthed on the north side. This dock has always been used for swimming only. The requested variance will have adverse effect, not only on me but my neighbors; their use and enjoyment of their property also. In light of the above reasons, request the variance application be denied. Respectfully very truly yours Nancy Farry. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Is there any other correspondence in the file? I suspect not, Roy? Mr. Urrico: No. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. We still have the public hearing open. If you wouldn’t mind joining the table and maybe addressing some of the points that were brought up during public comment period, that would be great. Mr. Rehm: My name is Mark Rehm. Mr. Salvador I do recognize that you do own a portion of the water and underneath the water; a unique area, but I do recognize that and agree with that. I just want to go to the point because Mr. Salvador does bring up a good point of stepping in the shoes of the grantor. Now, this property, you have to remember is tied with a property that does have a principal use and that’s Ms. Clermont’s home. And that’s her fulltime residence. On top of that, the deed in the chain of title from William Luke to John Grachmal and Jessica Grachmal which was June 20 of 1960 included in here the parties of the second part and I’ll go on, on the shores of Dunham’s Bay and that no – let me read the whole thing in full. The parties of the second part grantees herein covenant agreed by the acceptance of this conveyance that no structure shall be erected on the lands hereby conveyed except a dock on the shore of Dunham’s Bay in that, and so it’s certainly specifies that it did contemplate a dock. What you do with the dock, I don’t know, but my opinion is – you have a dock to put something on it. And, so I think in the historic record, going back to 1960 and previous, the – it was contemplated that a dock would be put there and that it would be used in some way shape or form. Mr. Jackoski: Can you read me that language again. Mr. Rehm: Sure, the parties of the second part meaning the people taking the title, the grantees herein, covenant agree by the acceptance of this conveyance that no structure shall be erected on the lands hereby conveyed except a dock on the shore of Dunham’s Bay and that no – and then it just goes on to say - a limit on this – the roof or super structure of any description shall be built to the same, over the same to a height of more than 10 feet above the dock floor. Mr. Jackoski: So there is a deed restriction to not even having a deck there. Mr. Rehm: No, it doesn’t restrict a structure. Mr. Jackoski: It says no structure except for a dock. Mr. Rehm: Except a dock. Mr. Jackoski: It doesn’t say except a dock and a deck? Mr. Rehm: But if you go into it and a covenant hasn’t been, if it hasn’t been challenged in two years since it’s been there – there’s. 9 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: But there hasn’t been a deck there; that’s my issue, there hasn’t been a deck there in two years since that covenant was issued. The deck has just been built recently. I’m just listening to what the attorney is presenting to this Board, that’s all. Mr. Bean: There’s been a patio structure there. Mr. Jackoski: And unfortunately, that’s been in there for the two years so I can’t, - but this is a new structure! You’re bring this to our attention and we’re – Mr. Rehm: You have the deed. Mr. Jackoski: I understand. Okay, - Mr. Rehm: But it allows for a roof or superstructure of any kind – Mr. Jackoski: Over the dock. Mr. Rehm: Attached to the – it doesn’t say, specify where – but it does allow for it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, is there anything else you’d like to add to the application? Ms. Clermont: I’m, like, totally confused, I mean, when I bought the property, Lake George Park Commission had already approved that reconfiguration of the dock for a boat, obviously. You know, the Randall’s which is shocking to me that, okay, so for 20 years you have the really good life; it wasn’t your property and you got to put a boat in there and that’s really cool but you only have like 6 inches on that side, which, you know what, to this day, if I don’t have a boat in there and they want to launch a boat in there, I don’t care, I mean, that’s fine with me, but when I went to Lake George Park Commission they said Sue, if the Randall’s put a boat in there, you can call us at any time and we’ll come and we’ll have it removed because that’s not their water. So, I’m like, okay. But yet he wants to use my side, but I can’t use the other side which would make everything so much easier, you know, for me to have a boat because – but it’s not as though I didn’t do my due diligence, and it’s not as though, I forget how to say this: caveat emptor, but certainly when I went and I talked to the Lake George Park Commission, they have absolutely no issue with me putting that in. Now whether it’s a boat, I mean, I can certainly put three jet skis in there without any problem and it’s not going to be moving around because what you’re forgetting about – the location of that lake, which I’ve been on since I was 13 years old, took me 46 years to finally buy my little 10 feet, because my dad’s not a doctor or something. But, that’s all I could get is this 10 feet. But his dock’s here and the other dock’s here, so it’s really protect, it’s a really good spot for some kind of boat. Yeah, I’m really just trying to, you know, as I said, use my great piece of property, I have nothing but respect for this lake and you know certainly looking to enjoy it and have a boat on there, you know, and have it be safe, because the stone structure that was there was all busted and concrete and just going to be problematic and nightmarish. Mr. Koskinas: I’d like to ask you a question. Ms. Clermont: Yes. Mr. Koskinas: I recognize that, Ms. Clermont you haven’t been here previously. Ms. Clermont: I’ve been sick. Mr. Koskinas: I didn’t sit on this Board when it was here last but sat over there and listened and I’d like to know if it’s the permit from the Park Commission that places this dock back in this spot. I mean, why did you not place the dock adjacent to your neighbors dock and have all the room in the world to put a boat in there? Ms. Clermont: You mean on the other side? Mr. Koskinas: Yeah, I mean you can – Ms. Clermont: Oh – I called them and they didn’t – they said no. Mr. Bean: Park Commission – Lake George 10 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Ms. Clermont: Yeah, I called the Lake George Park Commission – Mr. Bean: Lake George Park Commission, they said absolutely not – Ms. Clermont: Yeah, I did call – Mr. Bean: unintelligable…move the dock to the Randles side of the property; they said absolutely not because it was going to be close to Randall’s dock. It would be only a foot or what have you – Ms. Clermont and Mr. Bean: 6 inches away. Mr. Bean: Whether they have and they wouldn’t allow the two docks – Mr. Koskinas: So the placement of the dock is where you see it in your submission is based on Lake George Park Commission. Ms. Clermont: Yeah, Oh absolutely. Mr. Bean: That’s the way they approved it. Mr. Jackoski: Ms. Clermont, when I had first looked at the application, I had asked if it could be entertained that you skinny-up the dock at the very – farthest point away from the shore to allow it to stay within your assumed rights within – in front of your property to keep it parallel with the projected property line so that you could still gain access, you can still moor, you can still berth with a narrower footprint, so to speak of a dock that would allow you to not have these neighboring issues of your dock being over somebody else’s water, banging up against somebody else’s dock. I mean, let’s face it, I think if you’ve been on the Lake as long as you say – Ms. Clermont: Yeah - Oh yeah! Mr. Jackoski: You understand that – when that lake gets rough, it’s not easy to pull into a 10 foot berth, and you’re actually looking for an 8 foot berth! Ms. Clermont: Right. Mr. Jackoski: So we all know how difficult that can be and that it is a challenge. And I believe your representative said no that you weren’t willing to do that. Would you even consider that? Ms. Clermont: Well, no, I mean that, it was, I think it was pier dock at one time and then they put in the crib dock and I apologize if I use the terminology wrong, but at that time, whoever put it in, for whatever reason, and I can’t imagine Mr. Randall, or not Randall, but Mr. Brown didn’t freak out about that going in. I mean, it’s where it is – is where it is and you know, going to the Lake George Park Commission prior to even buying the piece, you know, they were allowing it to be narrowed-up to be able to – to put a boat in there. Mr. Bean: Frankly, to be honest with you, it gets a little more space to get the boat in even though it’s a little askew at the end of the dock, couple feet over on the Brown’s water line. If it is placed where it is, where it’s been for all times, it hasn’t affected anybody’s now and it goes back in that same spot, where it is, it’s gonna get it a little wider water way to bring the boat in. Okay, if you bring it over here, you get narrow and then it becomes more problematic to get an 8 foot beam boat in there. If it’s where it is, it gets a little more – unintelligible …Now, we understand that where it is now, it goes into Mr. Brown’s, Mr. whatever who owns the property water rights. Out at the end of the dock it just goes over 2 feet, okay – at about, what - almost 30 feet out. But that’s the way the Park Commission granted the dock permit. They came out, they had a meeting – Mr. Jackoski: We understand that . Mr. Bean: …unintelligible Mr. Jackoski: We understand, that – unintelligible – 11 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Bean: If you leave it askew, it’s gonna stay askew no matter what!, okay, it’s not gonna move! If you don’t approve the thing the dock is staying there, okay. It’s not gonna – I’m just gonna fix for her the way that it is now! It’s still askew. Mr. Jackoski: Okay Mr. Bean: What – I’m just saying for use for a boat – it helps being askew. We didn’t put it askew, but it’s been askew for umpteen years and nobody’s worried about it now only because she wants to put a boat in there, is everybody up in arms about it. Mr. Jackoski: And, sir – I hear you say that nobody’s been worried about it in the past until but yet we’ve seen all this correspondence in the record regarding the Harding family who were previous owners and there was – there were issues with it then also. So, it’s not – I don’t – I understand what you’re saying, I understand your passions towards the project. Do you have any more you want to add to the? Mr. Bean: He thinks that he can put his boat in the water; that really confuses me. Mr. Randles thinks he’s got a right to put his row boat with a motor on it, tin boat, in that water. Why can’t she have a boat in there? Ms. Clermont: I have no water. Mr. Bean: It doesn’t make sense to me to – it makes absolute no sense to me – if he thinks he’s got water right to it; and it’s okay for him – he doesn’t even own the land! Mr. Jackoski: Sir, I – we understand. We understand. We understand the point; we’re trying to find a resolution, a solution. We’ve gone through this; this is the fourth time I believe. We understand the comments. The Randles family has suggested they have adverse possession rights to using that side of the dock, the same as you have adverse possession rights to have your dock over in the Brown’s water. We understand where the parties are. It is very difficult for this Board; we are trying to find a resolution. Mr. Rehm: And, I think, you know, to put it best, we’re trying to take a situation which is not ideal and do the best we can given the circumstances. And that’s why we’re here looking for relief. And we’re taking a nonconforming use, you know, if it was today, and something new was going in, and – you know – and we’re trying to make it less nonconforming and do the best we can given the situation. You know, you’ve got the Park Commission, you’ve got all kinds of regulations over this, and we’re just doing the best we can to allow for Ms. Clermont to enjoy this property as much as everybody else enjoys the lake. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Staff, could I please – would you be willing to try to clarify Mr. Salvador’s point regarding principal use and these particular structures? Mr. Oborne: There has not been any determination made by the Zoning Administrator that would preclude this application from being part of any agenda. Mr. Jackoski: The Zoning Administrator could – Mr. Oborne: Excuse Me? Mr. Jackoski: But, the Zoning Administrator, in the future, may have to address that issue. Mr. Oborne: If directed by the Board. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. So, I’m going to leave the public hearing open until we poll the Board. Just get some people’s comments on this application and why don’t I start with you Joyce. Mrs. Hunt: I don’t know, it’s very - a conundrum. I think it’s too bad that the Park Commission gave permission for this and then, we’re saying no you can’t do it. I really don’t know what, I don’t know what to say, really. I find it very - Mr. Oborne: Well, just for clarification, if I may, you know this is the body that would approve any variances, obviously. Lake George Park Commission has their own; I mean that’s under their own land use plan. So, it really does start with you. 12 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Koskinas: I’ll comment Mr. Jackoski: Okay – Mr. Koskinas Mr. Koskinas: In my view, the Lake George Park Commission has approved the upgrade of this existing dock. I view the deck portion of the project is essential and integral to making a dock; now did you call it deck? Call it a dock? Call it a dock entry way – it’s no different than the land bridges that attach boathouses or seawalls that support docks. And, off the deck there’s no dock. The Lake George Park Commission has approved the upgrade of this dock and that’s my focus. The adjoining, how effective a dock will be there? Or how effective someone can park a boat there is beyond my interest, if you want to know. The adjoining properties are substantial enough, in my view, at the waterfront, to suffer very little in allowing someone else’s investment on this lake to have some modicum of enjoyment of her own and protect her investment. And, having said that, I would be in favor of granting the variances requested. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, Roy! Mr. Urrico: I think it’s well said John. I’m in total agreement with what you just said. I think just to add a little bit to it, I think the Lake George Park Commission did have some say in this and they’re saying, -really, has brought us to where we are right now. So, I don’t think we can just – we are the body that looks at the variances but the true test for me was the Lake George Park Commission and how they authorized the modification of this preexisting nonconforming dock. Had they not, then, we wouldn’t be in the position as we are. But I think, our task was to provide some direction and to ask for minimal relief as possible while not making the applicant suffer more than they had in the past. And, I think we’ve done that and I think the applicant’s done that. And, I think I’ll be favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Brian! Mr. Clements: I just had a couple of questions first, what is – there was – we’re talking about the deck now, not the dock. And, I think that in the last packet that I got, you had said that you would move that over 2 feet away from the stone wall, is that correct? Ms. Clermont: Yes Mr. Clements: Okay. The other thing I wanted to make a comment about was – was your comment about infringement, and being able to call the Lake George Park Commission if there was a boat in there and infringing on your water rights, if you will. Ms. Clermont: They said that to me. Mr. Clements: Likewise, if your boat goes into the Randles waters, they may also – so I just want to make sure that we all understand that! Ms. Clermont: Yep! Mr. Clements: That being said, I think that you’re correct; you’ve done your due diligences here. I think that you want to enjoy your property. You’re trying to stay in your own waters and that’s why the dock has been altered the way it has. I think you answered Mr. Brown’s objection at one of the previous meetings of moving the deck away from the stone wall. The permits were applied and were granted from the Lake George Park Commission. The dock has been in existence in use for many years, so I would be in favor of this application. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Ron! Mr. Kuhl: Because of the Lake George Park Commission, it kind of stops me from being against it, that, when we have a nonconforming thing that could be corrected, I always like to try to do that. But being as how you’re not doing any work out on the dock and you’re just doing the crib back, and you’ve changed that 2 foot, I’d be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, Rick. Mr. Garrand: I think Mr. Clements summed it up nicely. 13 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. I still struggle with the fact that there is an alternative, in my opinion, that could be achieved and that we still have concerns by the neighboring properties and so I would be against it. I guess at this point, I’ll close the public hearing and request a motion from someone. Mr. Koskinas: I’ll make a motion. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you Mr. Koskinas. Mr. Koskinas: Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 20-2011, Susan Clermont, 28 Assembly Point Road, granting the following relief: by Mr. Koskinas, seconded by Mr. Clements: For the Deck portion of project ? 10 feet from the 12 feet north side setback requirement, 12 feet from the 12 foot south side setback requirement. ? 50 feet from the 50 foot shoreline setback. For the Dock portion of project ? 12 feet from the 12 foot north side setback requirement. ? 9.6 feet from the 12 foot south side setback requirement. Finding that no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment properties would be created, that the applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving an area variance, and that the variances quantify these requested are deemed to be substantial but without accommodation afforded by the above relief, the parcel would be of limited value to the owner. The variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to be self-created. Again, I move for approval. Duly adopted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas NOES: Mr. Jackoski Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. The next item under new business this evening is the Starratt property, Dawn Starratt, agent Hutchins Engineering, location 157 Glen Lake Road, Area Variance Number 36-2011. Roy, if you would. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposing a subdivision of about 14.67 acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from about 2.16 acres to about 5.10 acres. The parcels are going to require variances lot width; a 110 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement; lot size; a request for 0.84 acres of relief from the 3 acre requirement. Also, lot 2 is going to require a lot width and road frontage; request for 95 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement and road frontage for 203.36 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement. Lot 3 is requesting; needs 130 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement and 228 feet of relief from the road front 400 foot requirement. Lot 4 is going to need 400 feet of relief from the 400 foot requirement (road frontage); and five is a density request for 2.65 acres from the 12 acre usable or buildable acres required as per Section 183-26 for the total subdivision. And once again, the staff looked at the criteria and thinks that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood that can be anticipated. Feasible alternatives would be to reduce the subdivision from 4 lots to 3 lots, eliminating the need for multiple variances. Concerning Lot 1, the request for 110 feet or 27% relief from the 400 foot lot width requirement for the RR-3A zone may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. The request for 0.84 acres or 28% relief from the 3 acre lot size minimum may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. Concerning Lot 2, the request for 95 feet or 24% relief from the 400 foot lot width requirement may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. The request for 203 feet or 51% relief from the 400 foot road frontage requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Concerning Lot 3, the request for 130 feet or 32% relief from the 400 foot lot width requirement may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 228 feet or 57% of relief from the 400 foot road frontage requirement may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. And concerning Lot 4, the request for 400 feet or 100% relief from the 400 foot road frontage requirement may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Density relief for the project in totality requires 2.65 acres or 22% relief from the 12 acre usable or buildable acres required as per Section 183-26 and must be approved by this board. And minor to moderate impacts may be realized due to steep slopes. However, the project calls for stormwater and erosion and sediment controls. And the difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff also says that the 14 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 applicant has increased the access road slope from 10% to 12%. And as a result, cut slopes associated with the proposed road have been markedly reduced from the sketch plan proposal. The benefits and disadvantages of this action will need to be weighed by the Planning Board. I’ll read that in – in a second. It’s a Type II SEQRA; no further action required. And then the Planning Board made a recommendation on behalf of – there was recommendation on behalf of the Planning Board for the Zoning Board of Appeals for this Area Variance and it was introduced by Mr. Traver, who moved for its adoption and they basically said; based on its limited review they have not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted June 21 and approved unanimously. Mr. Jackoski: Okay Roy, thank you and just for the record and the interest of full disclosure, some of the applicant’s current agents I have used in the past and may use in the future. So I don’t think there’s a conflict but just so everyone knows that. Roy summarized it pretty well. We have a color graphic in front of us. Do you want to add anything at this point because we certainly know you have to go to the Planning Board after this? Mr. Hutchins: Yeah, we could briefly describe things, my name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering; with me are Dawn and Greg Starratt. And the Starratt’s own the 14 acre parcel. For the point of location, if you haven’t been there, it is just to the west of where the bike path crosses Glen Lake Road. There is a sign on the property. The parcel right now is somewhat geographically subdivided into two separate areas. There’s a very small land bridge across the back, there is one house on the parcel presently which is the far westerly parcel, it’s kind of dark color on mine. The house has been there for some time. The Starratts’ actually presently live directly across the road from that parcel. What their intension is is to construct a house for themselves on what is shown as lot 4 which is the far rear lot from Glen Lake Road. And their intension is to reserve the other two front lots in the event their children would like to have a place to live and be next to Mom. They’re not; it’s not the intent – Mrs. Starratt: - another 10 years ..- Mr. Hutchins: It’s not the intent to sell lots, but it’s the intent to retain a couple of lots in the event their children would like them. So, really, this, a project that separates lot 1 from the remainder of the parcel which is really separated somewhat, already, the house in between or under separate ownership. So, really what we’re looking at is isolating lot number 1 and then creating 3 new lots on the east really end of the parcel. The three lots would be served by a shared driveway, not necessarily a road. Some people interchange the terms road and driveway. It’s intended to be a shared driveway. It is a little bit vertically challenging. It will be a 10 to 12 percent driveway, likely about 12 percent at the steepest portion. Once you get through a short relatively steep section, the other part of the parcel is reasonably flat, it’s wooded, it is - there’s three great building sites. And, we have been to the Planning Board both for Sketch Plan and for referral to this Board. We have prepared a stormwater plan, we’ve received some engineering comments, we are in the process of addressing said engineering comments, and we’re here tonight to seek your support for the variances we’ve requested. The variances we’ve requested primarily have to do with lot width and road frontage and just as a point in the three acre zone; this is a three acre zone with a 400 foot lot width and road frontage requirement. If you have three acre lot that is 400 ft. wide; it’s only 327 feet deep, so by the fact that it’s- three acre lot and needs 400 feet of frontage; I guess my point is 400 feet of frontage is difficult to do on a three acre lot. So that’s the basis of our primary variance request. We are able to meet all the building setbacks, all the three acre zone and they are higher than typical smaller zone setbacks; we are able to meet them with all of our buildings. Most of the houses will not be visible from the road. The one farthest east, perhaps if you’re really looking for it, you might be able to get a glimpse of it in non-foliage time in the event that one of the kids ever built the house but they will not be visible from the road. You will see a driveway. The soils are great, septic systems are going to work fine. With that I’ll turn it over to the Board, unless you guys want to add anything? Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: I’ll introduce myself, there’s a lot of you I don’t know, I’m Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt and this has been in my family 80 years, this property. It was my grandfathers, it was uncles, it was my mothers, and now it’s passed to me and I want to pass it to my children. So, I’m trying to do the right thing now so that it doesn’t change from 3 acres to 5 acres to 10 acres. And, I’m almost 44 years old, so I’m looking for their future and they are 6 and 4. I’m trying to make it a family compound. I’m trying to do the right thing, what my mom wanted. She died at 61 and I’m trying to pass it down. So, I’m requesting for to help me do this. And, mainly it’s going to be one house right now. It’s me and my husband and we’re all the way back. Now, I do border John McCormack and they’re all 1-acre lots. So, I don’t think I’m asking for too much. I just want to divide it, you know, but your request; it’s 3 acres and I will do that. So, and I’m not against anybody. I love all my neighbors; I’d gladly help any one of them. 15 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Do you have any boats? Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: I did have a boat on Lake George in the past and I am from Lake George. I am a social worker so I tend to do what I can for all my neighbors. Hopefully, it will all be good. And, by the way, the other two neighbors, one of them is my aunt. And, I own 13 acres on the other side, so, I do own quite a bit of land. That’s it, that’s all I wanted to say and I’m hoping for my children to stay in the area. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, do any Board members currently have any questions regarding this application? Mr. Kuhl: Ah yeah, Dawn – when is Don going to build you the house? Mrs.: Hlavaty-Starratt: When is Don going to build? Mr. Kuhl: When is Don going to building Dawn the house? Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: This is Greg, my husband. Mr. Kuhl: Oh, Greg, I’m sorry, I thought they said Dawn and Don. Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: And my husband is a plumber. So as soon as I get – Mr. Kuhl: I know, I see his truck all the time. If you get this approval is the young man going to put pick and shovel in the ground or is this going to be 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? Mr. Starratt: Ah – she’s pushing. Mr. Kuhl: Going away from jesting, I’m asking you a serious question? Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: I would like to within the next year - - because of interest rates. I’m kind of in a hurry because we have wonderful interest rates. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, so given approval that house on lot 4 would be constructed. Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: Absolutely. Mr. Jackoski: Brian! Mr. Clements: Just one question. What would happen if - to the road if the lots were sold. Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: That – we have no intention – Mr. Hutchins: The drive – that, there will be an agreement between the three lots for road maintenance. Initially it will be with themselves but there will be an agreement across the three lots; mutual maintenance of the road. Mr. Clements: So if it was sold; a lot was sold or two lots were sold, the ... (untelligible – coughing …) Mr. Hutchins: That would be tied to that lot – yes. Mr. Clements: Okay. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Mr. Garrand: Staff pointed out that feasible alternative is reducing the number of lots here from possibly 4 to 3 in this subdivision. Would you consider that? Because it would eliminate a lot of the variances as staff pointed out. Mr. Hutchins: It would. It would eliminate some of the variances, although it would not solve their problem, what-so-ever. They’re trying to get three lots for themselves and one for each child; that’s the basis. 16 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: There’s already a house on it. It’s been there since 1920. So it’s been there a long time. It was my grandfather’s house with five children. It’s already still there, so in order for my children to have pieces of the property, I need to subdivide it into four. Mr. Kuhl: Is the proposed driveway at existing? I mean I think I saw it when I went by the property. Mr. Hutchins: It’s roughed in – Mr. Kuhl: -- like a logging road? Okay. Mr. Hutchins: It’s roughed in and it’s not graded to grade. It’ll have to be cut; the lower portion you see will have to be cut and some of it re-graded so that we can bring it down to 12 percent. Right now, it’s 16. Mr. Kuhl: It did look that way, yeah. Mr. Hutchins: 16, 15 to 17 in the steeper section, although it’s a very short steep section, but that’ll have to be graded out. And, we can grade it out to 12; there is some earth work involved but it’s reasonable. Mr. Starratt: I drove up it all winter. I mean, I was getting wood out and stuff. To me it’s not a huge big deal or anything like that but we definitely want to get it leveled and straight and take care of any water issues that might occur. Everything’s going to be draining onsite too, so – It’s, - I really got, the soil just allows everything – Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: There are certainly a lot of roads that are much worse. Mrs. Hunt: Will this have to go back to the Planning Board? Mr. Hutchins: This will have to go back to the Planning Board for subdivision. And, they’re going to want to talk an awful lot about the driveway. Mrs. Hunt: The driveway – Mr. Hutchins: And, frankly – from our very first meeting with the Planning Board, there is, their comments were, they weren’t all that concerned about our variances we were requesting. In fact that’s in the minutes of the sketch plan, that they didn’t see issues with the variances we were requesting and the issue was going to be the access and whether we have to 2 lots or 3 lots, we’re going to have the same driveway. Because that’s the only place there that works to put it. Mr. Starratt: It sort of meanders through the – it takes the natural topography of the land and so we’re not trying to – we want to keep it nice and natural. I don’t want to do anything or sort of --- unintelligible -- …. Mr. Jackoski: Would you explain the rationale behind not giving more land to lot 1, given that land bridge you referred to it behind the Hay property; couldn’t you make that a bigger parcel easily? How many acres are actually behind that parcel? Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: I’m going to say the reason behind that is because – one, my aunt lives there and that was something that I wanted to make sure, that she had that 3 acre lot. That was subdivided - .untelligible – Mr. Hutchins: The bridge was a land bridge there; it’s got to go one way or the other or you could split it in the middle. Mr. Jackoski: Is it possible to take some of that and apply it to lot 1 so that lot 1 became a 3 acre parcel? Mr. Hutchins: Can you give me a minute? We could take some of it and apply it to lot 1; could we get it to 3 acres; perhaps. Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: Well, one part of that was too, an existing logging road is on that and it’s a path. Mr. Starratt: It goes from that property over to the others, so that’s why her mother left it that way – 17 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: Because it’s beautiful and my kids can walk it and be in the woods and so, to me, it’s important have - on that big piece. Mr. Clements: To have it on lot 4. Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: Huh? Mr. Clements: To have it with lot 4, you mean? Mr. Jackoski: Isn’t that close to three-quarters of an acre? Mr. Hutchins: We need 700; that’s roughly 50 feet wide, we need 730 feet by 50 feet wide to get lot 1 up to three acres which is -- the land bridge is 600 feet long, so even if they had the whole land bridge, lot 1 still wouldn’t show 3 acres. Mr. Jackoski: Would you like to add anything else? Are there any other board questions at this time? Okay, seeing no other questions; is there anyone here who would like to address the Board? I’ll open the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience, is there any public comment, Roy? – this evening? Mr. Urrico: I do not see any public comments of any kind. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Before I close the public hearing I’d like to poll the Board. We’ll start with Brian. Mr. Clements: Sure. I think they’ve looked at this for a while. I don’t think it’s going to infringe on anybody else’s rights’ I’d be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Ron! Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, when I first looked at it, I was concerned with the slope of the road. But if you say you’re gonna make – gonna bring it down to 12 percent. And, the other point is that – that you’re not – you say you’re not subdividing it so that Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones on lot 2 and lot 3 and you’ll be on, you know, on lot 4. If, - you know, - if your belief is that your children will want to live that close to you and you want them there, I mean, that’s --- Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: I live next to my mom! Mr. Kuhl: That’s common….! Okay, Mr. Starratt: We want to live as far off the road as possible without neighbors and things…untelligible…in the woods, so… Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: …unintelligible..and I have a 4 and 6 yr. old and you can attest, with the Glen Lake Association, I wrote numerous letters about – it’s very unsafe, I worry about the – Mr. Kuhl: I understand that, and I - Ms. Hlavaty-Starratt: I’m trying to get my children off the road. Mr. Kuhl: I think you’ll acknowledge that and I’d be in favor of it. Mr. Jacksoki: Rick! Mr. Garrand: Certainly - looking at the topography of this property; it’s just about 15 acres and only given the slopes, only – what – 9 acres is developable now. I believe the Town Code is there to help preserve open space by making this 4 lots. I think we’re just overdeveloping it by one lot. I mean it’s a RR-3A area and I think we should have three more lots there instead of four. So I would be opposed. Mr. Jacksoki: Okay, Mr. Koskinas! 18 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Koskinas: The comments of my fellow board members, not withstanding, I don’t have a problem with the density; I think it’s really beautiful real-estate, by the way. And, I think it’s a well-conceived plan. I’d be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Joyce! Mrs. Hunt: Yeah, I have to agree with John and those – I don’t have any problem with it. I’d be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Roy! Mr. Urrico: Yeah, I don’t see any undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think the applicant has answered, to me, satisfactorily whether they can reduce it to 4 lots or 3, I think they’re plan is a more conceived plan; that John said. The variances seem substantial but I think when you take a look at it, part of the 100 percent relief is because there is no road frontage and that’s something that granted in the past to lots that are sort of buried other lots and I don’t see a problem with that. The access road, the driveway, whatever you want to call it, would be fine. I don’t see a change, any environmental hazards. You may receive some from the bike path which has become more of a snowmobile path. And I don’t think the difficulty’s self-created. Mr. Jackoski: I’m in favor of it too. I’m going to close the public hearing. Would anyone like to make a motion? Mr. Clements: I will. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Brian. Mr. Clements: Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 36-2011, Dawn Hlavaty-Starratt, location 157 Glen Lake Road, by Mr. Clements, seconded by Mr. Kuhl, Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.67 +/- acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 2.16 +/- acres to 5.10 +/- acres. The relief requested is for: 1.Lot 1 a)Lot width – Request for 110 feet of relief. b)Lot size – Request for 0.84 acres of relief. 2.Lot 2 a)Lot width – Request for 95 feet of relief. b)Road frontage – Request for 203.36 feet of relief. 3.Lot 3 a)Lot width – Request for 130 feet of relief. b)Road frontage – Request for 228 feet of relief. 4.Lot 4 a)Road frontage – Request for 400 feet of relief. 5.Density 1.Request for 2.65 acres from the 12 acre usable or buildable acres required as per §183-26 for total subdivision. In making the determination whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance; minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; feasible alternatives would be to reduce the subdivision from 4 lots down to 3 lots, which we decided would not be in the best interest of the applicant. Number three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. Concerning Lot 1, the request for 110 feet or 27% relief from the 400 foot lot width requirement for the RR-3A zone may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. Lot 2, the request may be considered moderate. For lot 3, the request may be considered moderate to severe. For lot 4, the request may be considered moderate to severe. The density relief for the project in totality requires 2.65 acres or 22% of relief. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to moderate impacts may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move to approved Area Variance No. 36-2011. th Duly adopted this 29 day of June 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Kuhl NOES: Mr. Garrand 19 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Jacksoki: The next item on the agenda under new business is Scott and Deborah Kingsley, 4 Hillman Road, Area Variance Number 34-2011 and I’ll turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: Applicant is proposing construction of a 1,120 sq. ft. 23.2 foot tall detached garage on a 2.11 acre parcel in Cleverdale. The parcel will require height relief of 7.2 feet from a maximum height restriction of 16 feet for a detached garage. And size request is for 20 square feet from the 1,100 square foot maximum for garages on parcels less than 5 acres. Staff says that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood, that feasible alternatives appear limited due to the location of the driveway and topography on site. The request for 7.2 feet or 45% additional height relief from the 16 foot maximum allowed for the WR zone as per Section 179- 3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 20 feet with a 1.8 percent relief from the 1,100 square foot maximum allowable garage size per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the Code. Staff also says that there will be little adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and that the difficulty may be self-created. Staff also says that the applicant proposes stormwater mitigation and erosion and sediment controls as a result of the proposed creation of more than 1,000 square feet of impermeable area; Stormwater Management Permit required. The parcel does not have shoreline frontage and the closest point from the project site to the shoreline is 730 linear feet in distance. This is a Type II SEQRA; no further action required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Good evening, before you address the Board I just want to, in the interest of full disclosure, again, I have an ownership interest in the Takundewide Property which is across the street from this current property. And, I don’t think it creates any conflict. Welcome. Mr. Kingsley: Scott Kingsley, I reside there with my wife at 4 Hillman Road in Queensbury. Before I start, my neighbor….unintelligible… (handing out papers to members). Mr. Jacksoki: It’s fairly self-explanatory do you want to add anything now, or? Mr. Kingsley: No, he’s really the one – if you look at that aerial photo of the owner, …untelligible…possibly be impacted by the garage as far as I can see with the concern to visual obstruction rights. Mr. Jackoski: Do any Board members currently have any questions on this project? Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, what’s going upstairs? Mr. Kingsley: It’s just storage space. The house we live in is basically a cape-cod design. Second floor of the house is bedrooms, bathroom, and playroom for our kids. Basement is a walkout basement. So we have very little storage as the house exists. So that’s basically storage. If my wife was here right now she could tell you her house is filled with a lot of things and not a lot of living space. Mr. Kuhl: It’s not as if you’re going to use this structure to work a business out of? Mr. Kingsley: No, I have a 9,000 square foot construction facility on County Line Road in Queensbury. I manufacture cabinets, stairs, railings, and things. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions at this time? Having no current questions of the Board members, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address the Board at this time? Seeing no one, Roy is there any comment? Mr. Urrico: There’s one letter. To whom it may concern: this is in regards to the detached garage that is being put up by Scott and Debbie Kingsley located at 4 Hillman Road in Queensbury. As we are the neighbors directly across the road, we are not opposed to the plans that are in place by Mr. Kingsley. They are great neighbors and will do superb job. Again, we are in favor of the new construction. And it’s signed Ed and Linda Gillis, 140 Cleverdale Road. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Mr. Kuhl: The other thing I didn’t ask you Scott, are you going to be taking down any trees? Mr. Kingsley: No. It’s mainly small brush and undergrowth. Mr. Kuhl: It’s going to fit in that area next to the house? 20 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Kingsley: Yes. Mr. Kuhl: Okay. Mr. Kingsley: A few larger trees you see in the back, I want to leave for blocking traffic from the road. Mr. Garrand: Why didn’t you want to build it closer to the house so that you don’t have as far to walk in the winter time? Mr. Kingsley: Well, we would have liked to place it closer to the house but it would have been – there’s not a photo there – in an area that was harder to build the garage. Better to retain water on the property where I placed it. We’ve got less runoff and it can be directed towards the rear of the property and away from the road. My wife, - we did entertain that and look at the possibilities or rather difficulties of proposing it anywhere else on the property if you’ve been there and looked at the topography of the land or where the driveway’s situated. Mr. Jackoski: Could it be brought to a 1,100 square feet Scott? Mr. Kingsley: Yeah, it could be. ..unintelligible…. speaking to them and found out I was over by 20 feet, not realizing I had to come for a variance for the height, I left it as it was because the plans were drawn. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions? Before I close the public hearing maybe I can quickly poll the Board. We’ll start with Roy. Mr. Urrico: I’m okay with the project. Mr. Jackoski: Joyce? Mrs. Hunt: Yeah, I am too. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Koskinas? Mr. Koskinas: Yes, I’m fine with it and I appreciate the request for the 20 feet to keep the architectural integrity of that building, looks nice. Mr. Jackoski: Rick? Mr. Garrand: I’m thinking it will look nice if it stays in character with what the house is. Mr. Kingsley: Right, that’s why the height – it’s got the same roof pitch as the house. Mr. Garrand: Yeah Mr. Kingsley: Purpose of the dormer is my wife’s choice – she wanted it to look better, matches the house better – using the same siding color, same trim color. It will be similar in design. Mr. Garrand: Also, I noticed with the deed, there’s a lot of covenants in the deed that don’t allow you to do a lot of other stuff, I mean – given the – where it’s situated – everything fit right in. So, you paid attention to that. Mr. Kingsley: Well, I tried to. Mr. Jackoski: Ron. Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, I have no problem with it. I think it’s good. I like the fact that he’s leaving up – the trees. Mr. Jackoski: Brian. Mr. Clements: Yes, I’d be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, I’m going to close the public hearing. Would anyone like to make a motion regarding this matter? 21 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mrs. Hunt: I’ll make it. Mrs. Hunt: Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 34-2011, Scott D. and Deborah B. Kingsley, 4 Hillman Road, by Mrs. Hunt., seconded by Mr. Koskinas: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,120 sq. ft. 23.2 foot tall detached garage on a 2.11 acre parcel on Cleverdale. Relief required, the parcel will require area variances for height; releif of 7.2 feet of – height relief from maximum height restriction of 16 feet for a detached garage. The relief requested for size is 20 square feet from the 1,100 square foot maximum for garages on parcels less than 5 acres. There will be minor impacts to the neighborhood; feasible alternatives are limited due to the location of the driveway and topography of the site. The request for 7.2 feet or 45% additional height relief from the 16 foot maximum allowed for the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate but the applicant wishes to keep the architectural consistency. On the request for 20 square feet or 1.8 percent relief from the 1,100 sq. ft. maximum allowable garage size per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor. Will an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood be anticipated as a result of this proposed variance; the difficulty may be considered self-created. I proposed we approved Area Variance No. 34-2011, Mr. Jackoski: I do want to request clarification from the applicant in a letter; it notes here that you wanted 9.5 feet of relief from the maximum detached garage height of 16 ft., not the 7.2 feet? So that is clear to everyone as to what we are granting as far as height is considered. Mr. Jackoski: I have a motion and a second, do I have any discussion? I do want to request clarification from the applicant in a letter that notes here that you wanted 9.5 feet of relief from the maximum detached garage height of 16 ft., not the 7. …unitelligibel… Mr. Kingsley: That was from existing grade. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, that’s for everyone as to what we’re granting as far as relief is concerned. Mrs. Hunt: So the 7.2 feet is incorrect Mr. Jackoski: No, it is correct. I just want to make sure there is no conflict with the numbers. Mr. Kingsley: At least I was instructed; it was supposed to be measured from existing grade. Mr. Oborne: Existing grade, or cut grade. Mr. Kinglsey: Right. Mr. Jackoski: So we do have a motion, we do have a second, we do not have any additional discussion, call the vote please; Duly adopted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: The next item on our agenda for new business is Barry Lukoff project, agent is Richard Galarneau, 63 Tuthill Road, Area Variance Number 38-2011. Roy – Mr. Urrico: The applicant proposes construction of a residential addition to include a 716 sq. ft. garage and a 560 sq. ft. second floor workshop. The parcel will require side setback relief for 6.9 feet from the 75 foot side setback requirement for the RR-3A zone. Staff says that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. That feasible alternatives appear limited due to the slopes, driveway location and existing garage. The request for 6.9 feet or 9.2% relief from the 75 foot side setback requirement for the RR-3A zone as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Minor impacts to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff says that the parcel has an existing s 676 square foot garage; total proposed garage area with expansion is 1,393 square feet; short of the 2,200 maximum allowed for parcels greater than 5 acres as per Section 179-5-010. The applicant proposes to keep the northern existing garage access as part of the project. And this is a Type II SEQRA - no further action is required. 22 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Good evening, welcome. Ms. Nelson & Mr. Lukoff: Good evening, I’m Margaret Nelson, I’m Barry Lukoff. Mr. Jackoski: Welcome Mrs. Nelson: I just wanted to add that our intention is to leave one of the two garage doors so we can access the – what we consider our existing garage and use that as storage. We don’t intend to really use it, actively use that as a garage. At this point we’re really looking for the storage. And the second floor is the very – as the request states – is for my husband’s woodworking shop. He’s an amateur woodworker, so that will be out of the house. We looked at other alternatives, building a detached garage and other things and because of the slope and the nature of the lot; those were more problematic than this solution. And, this is actually, just taking blacktop and turning it into a driveway so there’s no vegetation or trees that need to be removed. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions from the Board members at this time? Mr. Garrand: I think I’m missing a page of this application – page 158 of the deed. Mr. Kuhl: Margaret – where’s the existing garage? Mrs. Nelson: It’s a colonial house and the garage is actually in the basement of the house. Mr. Kuhl: I didn’t get a copy, so I didn’t go out and pay a visit, okay so you’re extending out from the existing garage? Mrs. Nelson: Another two story addition and upper story will be a separate workshop from the house. It’s a little stairway and the …unintelligible…. Mr. Kuhl: And, upstairs is the workshop. Mrs. Nelson: Yeah. Mr. Jackoski: Do you know if you have the second page of your deed with you. Mrs. Nelson: I’m sure I don’t. Mr. Jackoski: You just may want staff to put in to the motion that it is subject to any deed restrictions or covenants that may identify the ….unintelligible…. Mr. Oborne: That’s right, yeah, if you were to graciously approve this project as a condition of approval, you can state that the applicant submit a full deed and I’ll review it and make sure that it does not have any deed restrictions. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Are there any other questions or concerns at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled. I’d like to open up the public comment portion of this meeting. Seeing that there’s absolutely no one in the audience; Roy, do we have any correspondence? Mr. Urrico: No correspondence on this project. Mr. Jackoski: At his time, I will close the public hearing. Does the Board feel that we need to poll the Board? Or? Would you like a resolution? Mr. Koskinas you’ve been good at resolutions today, how about …unintelligible… Mr. Koskinas: Motion to Approve Area Variance No. 38-2011, Margaret Nelson and Barry Lukoff, Introduced by Mr. Koskinas, seconded by Mr. Garrand: Granting construction of a second garage with the following relief: 6.9 feet of relief from the 75 foot side setback requirement finding that no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood will be a detriment to nearby properties would be created; that the applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving an area variance; that the variance is not deemed to be substantial; that the variance would have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to be self-created. This motion for approval is contingent on staff and the department receiving a complete copy of the applicants deed; with that I move for approval. The intent in the motion would be for the staff to review the deed for any covenants or restrictions. Duly adopted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 by the following vote: 23 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: June 29, 2011 AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Any additional business to be brought before the Board at this time? Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? Mr. Kuhl: I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE ZBA MEETING OF JUNE 29 2011, Introduced by Mr. Kuhl, seconded by Mrs. Hunt: Duly adopted on Wednesday, June 29, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: We are adjourned, thank you. Meeting Adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 24