Loading...
06-29-2016 06/29/20 16) ) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 29, 2016 INDEX Area Variance PZ-0161-2016 John Dennett 1. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-23 Area Variance PZ-0150-2016 Jeff Greenwood for McKinney's Automotive 6. Tax Map No. 309.9-1-80 Area Variance PZ-0152-2016 Jeffrey & Kari Benway 8. Tax Map No. 301.18-1-68 Area Variance PZ-0151-2016 Joel Monroe 12. Tax Map No. 265.00-1-6 Area Variance PZ-0162-2016 Matthew J. & Kristy L. Brennan 15. Tax Map No. 278.19-1-4 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING 06/29/2016) JUNE 29, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE HARRISON FREER JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone. Welcome. I'll call tonight's meeting to order for the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Our agendas are on the back table. Our process and procedures are back there as well for public hearings. We have an agenda on the back table. It's a very easy process. We'll call each applicant to the small table here. We'll have Roy read each application into the record. We'll ask the applicant if they would like to add anything to what's been read into the record. Generally we'll then ask questions as Board members. We will then open a public hearing when a public hearing has been advertised, and for this evening every one of these applications has a public hearing advertised. We will do SEQR when SEQR's appropriate to do, and we will then poll the Board, see what the Board would like to do. That may involve doing a resolution or working with the applicants to try to move the application forward in another manner. So having said all of that mumbo jumbo, we have no Old Business to do this evening, which is just great. We're going to go right to New Business. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0161-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN DENNETT OWNER(S) JOHN DENNETT ZONING WR LOCATION 20 JAY ROAD WEST GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 240 SQ. FT. +/- SINGLE STAKE DOCK AND CONSTRUCT A 498 SQ. FT. U-SHAPED DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ALLOWABLE PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS. THE TOWN REGULATION ON THIS MATTER STATES THAT THE DOCK MUST MEET A 20-FOOT SETBACK FROM AN EXTENSION OF THE PROPERTY LINE IN THE LAKE. CROSS REF BP 90-765 RES. ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.88 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-23 SECTION 179-5-060 JASON TOMMEL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0161-2016, John Dennett, Meeting Date: June 29, 2016 "Project Location: 20 Jay Road West Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a 240 sq. ft. +/- single stake dock and construct a 498 sq. ft. U- shaped dock. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief request from minimum allowable property line setbacks. The Town regulation on this matter states that the dock must meet a 20-foot setback from an extension of the property line into the lake. Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone, WR The applicant proposes the new u shaped dock will be located 1 ft. from the south projection and 14 ft. from the north projection where a 20 ft. setback is required. 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. The applicant is replacing a stake dock with a u shaped dock. 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 06/29/2016) may be limited due to the configuration of the parcel along the shoreline where the projected 20 ft. crosses at 12 ft. from the shore. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 19 ft. on the south and 6 ft. on the north side. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has provided plans that show the location of the existing and proposed dock with the setback projections required. The plans also show the dock elevation and crib locations. The applicant has indicated the dock would be similar to neighboring docks. The plans show the neighboring u-shaped dock." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. A very straightforward application. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. TOMMEL-My name is Jason Tommel. I'm with Van Dusen & Steves Land Surveyors. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Jason, I assume you just want Board members to ask you questions? MR. TOMMEL-It seems like that might be the easiest thing to do. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time on this application? MR. HENKEL-Yes, what's the reason for the six foot finger instead of the two 4 foot fingers. MR. TOMMEL-I don't know directly but my presumption is that they wanted more room between there because it's a recreational area to the north. That's where both the neighbor and the applicant can swim and use the water, and I believe that they're going to be installing a ladder so it's going to be of dual use with the crib to the boat and coming out of the water to the north. MR. HENKEL-So I guess that's the reason they're not going to angle it either. You could angle it and it would get, you would ask for less relief on the south side. MR. TOMMEL-You could angle it. Right now it's centered and perpendicular. So aesthetically and functionally it fits within the surrounding character of the neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-Yes. See the other one is angled next to them, though. MR. JACKOSKI-And what's the need for the U-shaped versus just a continuation of the single pier? MR. TOMMEL-The explanation that we got from the applicant is that right now, as I said, the north end is used for recreation. There's a lot of swimming. That's where he brings his power boat, and what he's trying to do is create a functional buffer between the swimming area and where he docks his boats, that he's not bringing the power boat directly at the folks when they're in the water and to leave a little bit better area for recreation on the north. MR. JACKOSKI-So couldn't they just don't that with a wider single pier dock instead? MR. TOMMEL-They don't feel so, but I don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 3 06/29/2016) ) MR. URRICO-Yes, there are several letters. "We are writing regarding Section 179-14-040, the application by John Dennett requesting a variance from the Town regulation that states a dock must meet a 20-foot setback from an extension of the property line into the lake. We own the adjoining property to Mr. Dennett and we are extremely opposed to the Zoning Board grant Mr. Dennett a variance. We have consulted with a realtor and an attorney and have been advised that if Mr. Dennett is allowed to move his dock closer to our property it will negatively impact the value of our property as well as our right to enjoy our own property. Mr. Dennett docks his pontoon boat on the side of his dock that adjoins our property and a speedboat on the other side. Since receiving the letter regarding this variance on Monday June 20, 2016, and looking at the documents, we have learned that the existing dock is already too close to our property, and it appears that the back of Mr. Dennett's boat may already cross our property line, which is not right in itself and already an infringement on our property. If he is granted a variance to move his dock closer to us it would in effect be taking over our property. On page 4 of the "Compliance with Zoning Ordinance" document, question one asks "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"? Mr. Dennett answered "No — Consistent with other docks on adjoining properties". Mr. Dennett's answer to this question is not true. First, a variance would be a tremendous detriment to our property, both in regards to our use and enjoyment of our property and the property value, and second his proposed dock would not be consistent with docks on adjoining properties. We own the adjoining property and we have a single dock, like Mr. Dennett's current dock. We would also like to put in a u-shaped dock, but we realize that we don't have enough room. We only have 50 feet of water frontage. There is very little space between Mr. Dennett's pontoon boat and our boat now. As much as we try to be neighborly, we do not feel it is right for Mr. Dennett to try to infringe on our rights as property owners and to limit our own use of our rightful property. Because Paul is away on a business trip in Florida, and Deidre is working in the Boston area, we may not be able to make the meeting on June 29th. Deidre is currently trying to adjust her work schedule to allow her to attend. Please let us know if there is anything else we can do or any additional information that we can provide to inform your decision. Thank you for your consideration of our objection. Sincerely, Deidre M. Shea Paul J. Shea" There's another copy of the same letter in here, and then there are four letters. "I am writing in support of John Dennett at 20 W. Jay Road, building a new dock. I understand the dock will be placed 3 feet to the left of where it currently stands. This will not impede on my property line and therefore I am completely fine with it being built. Sincerely, Carolyn Kellogg, 14 Jay Road West, and there's a similar letter and it's signed by Lisa Rusher, and I can't make out the first name. Jim? MR. JACKOSKI-Pushor. MR. URRICO-29 Jay Road West, and another letter similar from 19 Jay Road West, and I'm not sure of that name either. MR. HENKEL-You mean similar in support wise? MR. URRICO-Yes, and then 26 Jay Road West. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? DEIDRE SHEA MRS. SHEA-I'm Deidre Shea. MR. JACKOSKI-Hi, Deidre. So we've already read your comments into the record. Is there anything else you want to add to that? You don't have to go back through and identify your situation. MRS. SHEA-No, I'm not going to go back over the whole thing. I do have a comment about, I know one person who did send in a letter or signed something was unaware how it would impact us when they were asked to sign the letter. I do have a couple of pictures. Can I just show you these? MR. JACKOSKI-At the night of the meeting we try not to. It's not part of the public record, but let me just look at them real quick and we can make a determination. MRS. SHEA-Well, you can see from there how it does impact us. 4 06/29/2016) ) MR. JACKOSKI-I know the lake. I know your property and I've seen the property. Yes. I think this is a relevant photograph given the pontoon boat. I'll just pass that one to everyone. Can we keep that for the record? MRS. SHEA-Yes, absolutely, and, you know, so it's pretty clear there the way the new dock angles even closer now to our property. It's just, they're already over, and we would love to have a U-shaped dock, but it's not feasible, and I don't want to be a bad neighbor, but I just feel like we have very little of our property. MR. JACKOSKI-And you do understand that while we project the lines forward out into the water, technically that's not your land. It's not your property. Just so you know. MRS. SHEA-Right. If they move that out and their boat comes in that much closer, I don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. Anyone else who'd like to address the Board on this application, and thank you. I'll leave the public hearing open at this time. At this time I'm going to simply poll the Board and ask them what their thoughts are. Does anybody want to go first? Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I think I understand the need for a new dock there. I don't have a problem with that, but I think there's room to adjust it to make everybody happy on both sides there. Obviously you don't have a problem with Kellogg's, but I think there's room to, so I'm not in favor of the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else? MR. NOONAN-I'll go. Yes, I think there's also room to make a change, considering it hasn't been built yet, and the other deck, dock is still there. It has not been removed yet. Considering the public comment, I think they have the opportunity to move it a little bit, if, you know, just, they're asking for quite a bit of relief on that one line. So I would not be in favor at this point in time. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I live on Glen Lake and I think everybody who lives over there recognizes that over on the point over here especially everybody's really chock-a-block tight up on each other with their property lines and their houses and their docks, and I think that any further encroachment as proposed with this, with the southern extension of the dock getting closer to the property line doesn't really make sense. I think you have to keep in mind the fact that things are as they are. that's acceptable. Everybody has to live with what they have, but to expect that you're going to get more after that seems way over the top. MR. JACKOSKI-That's a no. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, 1, too, don't support this. I don't even the U-shaped versus the traditional there, given the comments that we heard and the rules in terms of the Zoning Ordinance. So I don't support it as presented either. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 took a look at it. I think that the dock could be replaced. I noticed that the other docks, particularly to the west, are all U-shaped, and that seems to be the trend for newer docks. I understand that everything's tight there, but I guess I would support the project, just to get a replacement dock in there. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think there's going to be some impact to the neighborhood and also I think that a moderation of the proposal will go a long way to make this more feasible. So I would be in favor of it if it was changed to a more moderate proposal. I'm not in favor of it right now. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's a no, but. MR. URRICO-Yes. 06/29/2016) ) MR. JACKOSKI-So you've heard some of the comments from the Board. There's several things you can request. You can ask us to take a vote. You can ask for us to table your application. You can withdraw your application, but we can't tell you what to do. MR. TOMMEL-May I ask a question regarding the U-shaped versus the stake. We're one of the few properties in the area, there's only a handful of properties that meet the 66 foot minimum threshold that permits a U-shaped dock. From what I'm hearing from the Board, would a simple rotation or no greater projection of the dock on the south end than exists now be something that you would entertain if the applicant, my client, would be willing to rotate the dock and perhaps, you know, look at the six foot width on the end? I don't know what accommodation they'd be willing to do, but I'd just like a little bit of direction on bringing it back to him. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the attitude of the current dock that you have there is acceptable. You could do something to the north side, you know, with the other one, extending it in the same direction, but I think what you want to do is keep in mind that's going to encroach into your swimming area. So it's a compromise situation for the proponent of the situation, too, you know, so they've got to decide what they want. MR. JACKOSKI-So would they be willing to agree to not docking any boats on the east/south side of the dock? MR. TOMMEL-That I don't know. MR. FREER-So what you want to do now is put in a pontoon boat to the north where they're swimming? MR. JACKOSKI-Or you have one boat. MR. TOMMEL-That I don't know. MR. NOONAN-And my comment as well would be, you know, looking at it, the reason maybe this isn't the real reason, but the reason it's not a six foot on both sides is because if you did a six foot where it's current four foot proposed, that would be one foot over the line, if it was six foot. So there certainly was an awareness of that line. Going forward with this project, I think to keep the similar orientation, angle it like you say, not going any closer to the property on the south, I would be more in favor of that project as well. MR. TOMMEL-I certainly don't want you to vote. MR. HENKEL-Unless you do four foot on both sides would be good and angle it, if you could do four foot on it. you could cut it down a little bit more, four foot on both sides and angle it more to the north. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, I just, you know, my concern, and you didn't hear my opinion on this thing. I try not to give an opinion unless I have to break a tie, but my thought on this is if we're going to allow a development of this dock complex where it's going to allow that property owner to park a boat over into their neighbor's waters, I think that's a wrong thing to do. I'm not going to be in favor of finding a boat parked on the side. If it's only for a jet ski over in there and they can keep it within their triangle, as Jim knows I lived on a bay in Glen Lake for a long time. So know exactly what the complications are of all trying to get together with the boats going in and out and crossing over somebody else's water. So that's my opinion. MR. TOMMEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So it seems to me that the applicant has requested a tabling of this application until the next available date which would be in August with a July submission. MRS. MOORE-1 guess I'll ask the applicant. Do you think you'll be able to adjust plans and have that ready by the July 15th deadline? That would be an August meeting. MR. TOMMEL-August meeting, July 15th deadline? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TOMMEL-Yes, we should be able to work it out. If not, we'll let you know, but I believe we will be able to do that. 6 06/29/2016) ) MR. JACKOSKI-I would think so, too. So, go ahead, Mike. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John Dennett. Applicant proposes to remove a 240 sq. ft. +/- single stake dock and construct a 498 sq. ft. U-shaped dock. Relief request from minimum allowable property line setbacks. The Town regulation on this matter states that the dock must meet a 20- foot setback from an extension of the property line into the lake. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE PZ -0161-2016 JOHN DENNETT, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Until the August meetings with a submission of material by July 15tH Duly adopted this 29th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. TOMMEL-Thank you all very much. Have a great night. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0150-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JEFF GREENWOOD FOR MC KINNEY'S AUTOMOTIVE AGENT(S) JEFF GREENWOOD OWNER(S) MC KINNEY'S WEST END LLC ZONING NR LOCATION 79 CONNECTICUT AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE A 24 FT. BY 31 FT. ROOF AND RAISE IT 3 FT. TO MATCH ADJOINING SERVICE BAY. THE EXISTING BAY IS 10 FT. 9 IN. AND WILL BE RAISED TO MATCH ADJOINING BAY TO 13 FT. 9 IN. FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING AUTO- LIFT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF CC-254-2016; BP 2012-064 SIGN; BP 2011-608 C/O AND OTHER PERMIT FILES WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-1-80 SECTION 179-3-040 JEFF GREENWOOD, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0150-2016, Jeff Greenwood for McKinney's Automotive, Meeting Date: June 29, 2016 "Project Location: 70 Connecticut Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace a 24 ft. by 31 ft. roof and raise it 3 ft. to match adjoining service bay. The existing bay is 10 ft. 9 in. and will be raised to match adjoining bay to 13 ft. 9 in. for replacement of an existing auto-lift. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, — Neighborhood Residential-NR The new roof is to be constructed to be consistent with the existing structure that is 9.8 ft. from the front property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. 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. The roof addition is proposed to match the adjoining garage. 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 may be limited due to the location of the existing building. 7 06/29/2016) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 10.2 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The plans show the new roof line height to match the existing adjoining garage space. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to replace a 24 by 31 sq. ft. roof over an existing garage where the existing roof is 10 ft. 9 in. The plans show the new roof to be 13 ft. 9 in and will match the adjoining service bay roofline. The plans show the existing building with the new roof will maintain the existing setback of 9 ft. 8 in." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. GREENWOOD-Yes. Jeff Greenwood. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Jeff, I assume it's a straightforward application. You just want Board members to ask questions, right? MR. GREENWOOD-That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members on this application? Having no questions from Board members. Is there any public comment? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no public comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this Board on this application? I'll poll the Board. I think this'll be a quick one. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't really have a problem with it. Having driven by it numerous times it makes more sense to tie the roof in to make it all one single system, logically, when you're re- doing a roof, and it will make everything else look better, too. So, go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm fine with the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support it. Those bays are actually unusable without having the roof. You can't work on cars. So, yes, definitely, it's a great idea. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-This satisfies the test requirements. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing. Can I have a motion, please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8 06/29/2016) ) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeff Greenwood for McKinney's Automotive. Applicant proposes to replace a 24 ft. by 31 ft. roof and raise it 3 ft. to match adjoining service bay. The existing bay is 10 ft. 9 in. and will be raised to match adjoining bay to 13 ft. 9 in. for replacement of an existing auto-lift. Relief requested for setbacks. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 29, 2016; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We believe that the replacement of the roof will actually improve the appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives are not reasonable because of the size of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Essentially it's just taking advantage of an existing building. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0150-2016 JEFF GREENWOOD FOR MCKINNEY'S AUTOMOTIVE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 29th day of June 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Sorry you had to sit through all this. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0152-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JEFFREY & KARI BENWAY OWNER(S) JEFFREY & KARI BENWAY ZONING SR-20 AT TIME OF SB APPROVAL CURRENT: MDR LOCATION 13 FAWN LANE SHERMAN PINES, PHASE 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT. BY 28 FT. IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL WITH A PATIO SURROUNDING THE POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR POOL LOCATION. CROSS REF BOTH-237-2016 POOL; BP 2009-088 RES. ALT.; BP 2000-055 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.18-1-68 SECTION 179-5- 020 JEFFREY & KARI BENWAY, PRESENT STAFFINPUT 9 06/29/2016) Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0152-2016, Jeffrey & Kari Benway, Meeting Date: June 29, 2016 "Project Location: 13 Fawn Lane — Sherman Pines, Phase 3 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 14 ft. by 28 ft. in-ground swimming pool with a patio surrounding the pool. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from the minimum rear yard setback requirements for pool location. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -pools, — Moderate Density Residential MDR—SR 20 The applicant proposes a 14 ft. x 28 ft. pool in the rear yard - 2.5 ft. from the west side to the property line and 2 ft. from the east side to the property line where 10 ft. is required. 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. Neighboring properties have pools. 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 may be limited due to the location of the existing home and the proposed location of the pool. Alternative may include reduction of the pool size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 7.5 ft. on the west side and 8 ft. on the east side. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The plans show the location of the pool and the existing house. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to put a 14X28 sq. ft. in-ground pool in the rear yard where the setback is less than 10 ft. The applicant has indicated the rear of the property abuts Homeowners association land." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a straightforward application again this evening. We have all the prints. Is there anything you want to add at this time or should we just ask questions? MR. BENWAY-Ask questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board members have questions on this application? MR. HENKEL-Doesn't your exit line that goes to your septic, isn't that going to be where the pool is going to be? MR. BENWAY-No. It goes out and then it goes around. So we'll be on the inside of it. MRS. BENWAY-So the septic line is where the proposed pool, it says 32 by 16, we're doing 14 by 28. MR. BENWAY-Yes, we cut it down. MRS. BENWAY-The septic is to the right of that, and the line goes straight. There's, I think, a copy of it in there. °10 06/29/2016) ) MR. HENKEL-Yes, the copy here looks a lot different. MR. JACKOSKI-It looks like it could go over more to the left. MR. BENWAY-It does go to the left. MR. HENKEL-Because this is the way we have it right here. We've got, it's like about, almost about where you're showing that. MR. JACKOSKI-Regardless, if you go to build it and you have to move your septic system. We're going to give you relief for that back line. MRS. BENWAY-Right. MR. HENKEL-I mean, you've got to have an exit for your septic anyway, because obviously you can't close that off or anything. MR. BENWAY-Right. MRS. BENWAY-No, we're not planning on touching the septic, because where it is, we know where it is. MR. BENWAY-Yes, we followed it out and then this goes out to where the leach field is behind our neighbor's house. MR. HENKEL-There's no way of moving that pool over more towards the east? MR. BENWAY-No, because then we would be almost sitting right on top of our tank. Yes, if we moved over that way we'd be closer to our neighbor to the right of us, if you're looking at our house, and the pool now the way it runs out, it goes straight out and then goes to the left, the pool would be on the inside of the wide itself. If we move it over to the right, we would run out of room over to the right. MRS. MOORE-On homeowners association land. Is that what you're saying? MR. HENKEL-No, I meant he could go, to the east would be this way, the other way is the east. That's west where you are, where the arrow is now. East would be the other direction. MRS. BENWAY-Right. East is where the septic tank is. MR. HENKEL-I thought you guys had accommodations? Aren't you hooked up with the adjoining? MR. BENWAY-Yes. We have our own tank and then it goes over to a leach field over this way. So if I went this way, it would almost be. MR. HENKEL-Okay, because that wasn't on the plot plan. That's why I was wondering. Okay. That's legit then. The way it was showing on this looked like it was. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. MC CABE-I should disclose that on my visit to the property I ran into the applicant. We discussed that there was a variance, but we didn't discuss the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any other questions from Board members? MR. BENWAY-The only thing I would say is obviously we do live in an association and we had to get approval from our neighbors for the board in order to even come this far. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. 06/29/20 16) ) MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board members. I'll start with Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I think it's the minimum. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem. I think the request is minimum. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support the project. It's legitimate and will be good. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 support the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have no problems with it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey & Kari Benway. Applicant proposes construction of a 14 ft. by 28 ft. in-ground swimming pool with a patio surrounding the pool. Relief requested from the minimum rear yard setback requirements for pool location. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 29, 2016; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties and in fact we think the pool will enhance the look of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because of the size of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty of course is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) 06/29/2016) c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0152-2016, JEFFREY & KARI BENWAY, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 29th day of June 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-There you go. MR. BENWAY-Thank you. MRS. BENWAY-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Enjoy. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0151-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JOEL MONROE OWNER(S) ROBERT ELLSWORTH ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 55 ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,627 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT OCCURS IN THE RR-3A ZONE ON A 0.99 ACRE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-6 SECTION 179-3-040 JOEL MONROE, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0151-2016, Joel Monroe, Meeting Date: June 29, 2016 "Project Location: 55 Ellsworth Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,627 sq. ft. single-family home and associated site work. Project occurs in the RR-3A zone on a 0.99 acre parcel. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, Rural Residential Three Acre RR-3A The proposed home is to be located 65.1 ft. from the north setback and 59.7 ft. south setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. The rear setback is proposed to be 68.1 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required. 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. Currently a vacant parcel. 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 may be limited due to the existing lot size of 0.833 acre per the survey in the RR3A zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the north setback is 9.9 ft. on the south setback is 15.3 ft. and the rear setback relief is 31.9 ft. '13, 06/29/2016) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The applicant proposes a single family home and associated site work. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a 1,627 sq. ft. single-family home and associated site work. The plans show the location of the new home, proposed driveway, the septic system location, floor plan and a front elevation." MR. JACKOSKI-Hi, Joel. MR. MONROE-How are you doing, Steve. MR. JACKOSKI-Again a very straightforward application. So I assume you just want Board members to ask questions. MR. MONROE-Yes, sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Questions from Board members? I mean I'll throw out some that we can talk about the macadam especially that covers a lot of this lot and the mailboxes and all that stuff. MR. MONROE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that getting corrected or that's going to stay that way? MR. MONROE-Right now it's just going to stay the same way. We don't really need to change any of that. Basically if we wanted more yard for ourselves. MR. HENKEL-You've got a lot of yard there. MR. MONROE-Yes, I mean, that was existing already. It was done for the right of way for the Ellsworth family going up to their properties. So it's nothing that we need to do unless it impacts what we want to do. MR. JACKOSKI-Just checking. Any other questions from Board members? MR. NOONAN-And I'm assuming Mr. Ellsworth is fine with the 68. 1 foot setback since he's selling you the property. Right? He's fine with it. He's your backyard neighbor. MR. MONROE-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. HENKEL-Even though they keep that road it doesn't change any of the setbacks, even though they're going to keep that road there? Just because it's their property. MR. JACKOSKI-Permeability is okay because it's all under. Anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. I'll mix it up a little. We'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Yes. I have no issues with this. This makes sense to me, and I think that I support the proposed project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. 06/29/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. MR. NOONAN-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the application as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'll support the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Not that it matters, but, John? MR. HENKEL-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. MR. MC CABE-Are you guys going to make me do another one? MR. URRICO-You're doing such a good job. Keep it up. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-That's the role of Vice Chairman, buddy. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joel Monroe. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,627 sq. ft. single-family home and associated site work. Project occurs in the RR-3A zone on a 0.99 acre parcel. Relief requested from setback requirements. SEQR Type _— no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on June 29, 2016; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this is probably the best use that could be found for this particular property. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered but are not reasonable and were not deemed possible. 3. The requested variance is moderate at worst. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: d) e) f) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. '115 06/29/2016) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0151-2016 Joel Monroe, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 29th day of June 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. MONROE-1 have one question, actually. If we wanted, I mean, this was all proposed and it was kind of quick. If we wanted to actually move the house forward on the property, the front of the house actually on the roadside meets the setbacks. Say we just want to move it five or ten feet when we get it laid out. MR. JACKOSKI-As long as you do not create an additional setback restriction. MR. MONROE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-You can always not use all of the relief that we granted. In other words, if you wanted to pull the house forward toward the road, and keep the back of the house where it is and it became 3200 square feet, as long as it doesn't create another trigger point for permeability and FAR and all that other stuff, you're fine. MR. MONROE-Not so much the house being bigger, but the whole house itself moving. MR. JACKOSKI-It doesn't have to be there, it's just that you can't be any closer to there. MR. MONROE-Okay. MR. FREER-But if you create a variance requirement for the front, then you have to come back. MR. MONROE-As long as we don't violate. MR. JACKOSKI-As long as you don't trigger any other ones, that one you can go that close and that's as far as you can go. MR. MONROE-Okay. All right. Great. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're all set. Right? We approved it. You can move on. Have a good day. MR. MONROE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0162-2016 SEQRA TYPE II MATTHEW J. & KRISTY L. BRENNAN OWNER(S) MATTHEW J. & KRISTY L. BRENNAN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 593 MOON HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. DIAMETER ABOVE-GROUND SWIMMING POOL WITH DECK WHERE THE EXISTING PARCEL HAS TWO FRONTAGES: ROUTE 149 AND MOON HILL ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN A FRONT YARD. CROSS REF BP 2014- 492 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.19-1-4 SECTION 179-5-020 MATTHEW & KRISTY BRENNAN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0162-2016, Matthew J. & Kristy L. Brennan, Meeting Date: June 29, 2016 "Project Location: 593 Moon Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 24 ft. diameter above-ground swimming pool with deck where the existing parcel has two frontages; Route 149 and Moon Hill Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from restriction for placement of a pool in a front yard. '16 06/29/2016) Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -pools, — Rural Residential Three Acre, RR3A The applicant proposes to install a 24 diameter above ground pool in a front yard where there parcel is bordered by two roads in effect having two fronts. Pools are only allowed in rear yards. 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. Neighboring properties have pools. 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 may be limited due to the parcel configuration having two fronts. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is location of a pool in the front yard. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The plans show the location of the pool at the rear of the existing home. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 24 ft. diameter above ground pool to the North side of their home. The plans show the location of the pool and the parcel having two frontages. The applicant has also shown the location of the septic system, well and the existing tree line on the property." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Another very straightforward application. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time or would you like us just to ask questions? MR. BRENNAN-Just ask questions please. MR. HENKEL-Are you going to add any kind of barrier or screening of any type on that, on the 149 side, like trees or? MR. BRENNAN-No, I don't. There's a fence, a metal fence and it's a four foot fence, but there are no trees. MR. HENKEL-So you're going to have that totally exposed? MRS. BRENNAN-But we would eventually like to put up like a privacy wall. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, we were planning on putting trees there and let them grow, hopefully. So it could block it. MR. HENKEL-And you're going to block obviously the Moon Hill Road side, it's going to be blocked. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, that's got long yews. They're like 40, 50 feet so you can't even see through them, and it's just the 149 side that we were planning on putting trees there. I don't know how long they're going to take. I plan on getting bigger ones so they don't take as long. I'm hoping, but. MR. HENKEL-In the past when we've done a front yard we've always kind of specified either to have some screening. MR. JACKOSKI-Fencing or shrubbery or something. Okay. Any other questions from Board members? There is no one, as I open the public hearing there was no one in the audience. Is there any written comment, Roy? 06/29/2016) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll seek a polling of the Board and I'll seek volunteers to go first. MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-1 don't have a problem with the project as proposed. I definitely think this is not self-created. I mean, you have two front yards. So, you know, now you're going to have a backyard with a pool in it, but I don't have a problem with it as proposed, not at all. MRS. BRENNAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other volunteers? MR. MC CABE-As I viewed the property, it certainly didn't make sense to me to put the pool any other place, and so I would support the project. MRS. BRENNAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support the project. It makes sense. The fact that we have two backyards or two front yards or whatever. That's fine with me. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'd like to see a little bit of screening, but I have no problem with that. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 have no objections to the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. My suggestion would be like an arborvitae hedge or something that will grow up tall in no time at all. They do really well, and it's no different than when we have like a corner like, people have to get the same variance. MRS. BRENNAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, seeing the intent of the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Matthew J. & Kristy L. Brennan. Applicant proposes construction of a 24 ft. diameter above-ground swimming pool with deck where the existing parcel has two frontages; Route 149 and Moon Hill Road. Relief requested from restriction for placement of a pool in a front yard. SEQR Type _— no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 29, 2016; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: '18 06/29/20 16) ) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because they have two front yards. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited based on the zoning of trying to keep pools only in the backyard when you don't have one. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because there's not any other way around it if you want a pool and this is a modest pool. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0162-2016 MATTHEW J. & KRISTY L. BRENNAN, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 29th day of June 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-There you go. MRS. BRENNAN-Thank you. MR. BRENNAN-I just have one other question. I did get a permit and paid for it when I did all this. They charged me for the permit. I have the receipt for it. Do I go back, how do I, do I go back and try to get another, pay for it again? MRS. MOORE-It's on hold. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and you can also get an extension, too. Any other business before the Board? MR. NOONAN-1 might add that I believe tonight was my last meeting. My house is closing the end of July, and I'm going to be out of Town for the two, for the July meetings. So I believe tonight was my last meeting. I will be tendering my formal resignation to the Board. MR. URRICO-Good luck, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-Thank you. It's been fun. I've learned a lot. I actually plan on, if you read the papers, you see the Town of Moreau might need a little bit of help, and I've been in contact with someone down there and they said actually there are some spots on the Zoning Board open because no one wants to touch it. So I may think twice, but I may get involved down there, but I have had a great learning experience here. MR. HENKEL-Well, good luck, Kyle. Give `em hell. MR. NOONAN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-1 would make a resolution that we close the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 29, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 29th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: '19 06/29/2016) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman