Loading...
05-23-2016 �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 23., 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-19-2018 Diana & Matthew Suders 1. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-9 Area Variance Z-AV-30-2018 Stonewood Dev. of NE NY, Inc. 2. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-28; 228.17-2-30 Area Variance Z-AV-31-2018 Erin Rosecrans 5. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-33 Area Variance Z-AV-33-2018 Dean Howland 8. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-4.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'Ilp • a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� MAY 23, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-Welcome to the 23d of May 2018 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. For those of you who haven't been here before it's actually quite a simple process. On the back table there's some literature in terms of the agenda and we'll call each applicant to the table. They'll make a presentation. We'll read in the application. We'll ask questions. We'll open a public hearing and we'll poll the Board and make a motion as applicable and then we'll go on to the next application. So the high school kids are here for their Civics lesson. Did everyone get their thing signed? Okay, and I don't think we have any, do we need to do the? MR. MC CABE-Do you want to table this first? MR. FREER-Yes. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-19-2018 SEQRA TYPE II DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. OWNER(S) DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS ZONING MDR LOCATION 42 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 792 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE THE GARAGE AND 352 SQ. FT. THIRD BAY ON THE EXISTING GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,000 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diana & Matthew Suders. Applicant proposes (revised) construction of a 792 sq. ft. second story addition above the garage and 352 sq. ft. third bay on the existing garage. The existing home is 2,000 sq. ft. with an attached garage. Relief requested for a duplex structure on a lot that does not meet the lot size requirements in the MDR zoning district Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from a density requirement for a duplex in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density residential zone The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home converting the home where 4 ac is required per dwelling and existing is 0.77 ac. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-19-2018 DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Until the June 27th, 2018 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. With any new information to be submitted as soon as possible. Duly adopted this 23rd day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-And just a note that application will, the public hearing will be left open on that. �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� MR. FREER-Yes. Is there anybody here that, the public hearing is still open. Does anybody here want to comment on that application? Seeing no one, okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. FREER-We'll move on to the first applicant for this evening. Area Variance 30-2018 Stonewood Dev. of NE NY, Inc. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-30-2018 SEQRA TYPE II STONEWOOD DEV. OF NE NY INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) STONEWOOD DEV. OF NE NY, INC. ZONING WR LOCATION 0 CLEVERDALE ROAD & 154 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO EXISTING LOTS; ONE IS 1.85 ACRES, SECOND LOT IS 0.26 ACRES; AN ADJUSTMENT WILL CREATE TWO LOTS OF EQUAL SIZE: 1.1 ACRES EACH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.94 ACRES; 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-28; 227.17-2-30 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, would you read this into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-30-2018, Stonewood Dev. of NE NY Inc., Meeting Date: May 23, 2018 "Project Location: 0 Cleverdale Road & 154 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing lots; one is 1.85 acres, second lot is 0.26 acres; an adjustment will create two lots of equal size: 1.1 acres each. Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions in the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size restrictions in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels so each parcel is 1.1 ac where a 2 ac lot 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to combine the parcels for a conforming lot of 2 + acres. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for each parcel of 0.90 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of two parcels to create two parcels less than 2 acres. The plans show the two new lots with setbacks for house location to fit onto the lot." MR. FREER-Hello. Can you please identify yourself? MR. STEVES-Yes. Good evening. I'm Matt Steves from VanDusen & Steves. I representing Stone Development on this application, Jean Hoffman, the principal of Stonewood. This property is located on the east side of Cleverdale Road. You've already read in that it consists of two tax parcels, one of 1.85 and one of 0.26. The .26 on the southwestern corner of the lot is a small 100 by 114 lot that at one point had a small cottage on that. She's subsequently removed the cottage. She's looking to do a lot line adjustment. This is not on lake frontage. Again it's on the east side of Cleverdale Road. She would just like to get two lots in there of reasonable size, 30 foot frontage a piece which would allow for a home to be built on there. There's ample room. There's two wells currently on the property and allow for setback requirements for two modest homes with septic systems. She wants to be able to hold these and at some point maybe have the grandson hold these lots, but there is no development planned at this time, and obviously anything in this zone, a house, would have to come back before the Planning Board most likely for stormwater and any disturbance. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-The lot is going to have two wells on one piece of property? MR. STEVES-One of them will be removed and relocated onto the other. Just because of the fact that there was an existing well casing in the southwest corner or southeast corner, then the existing one, there's two on the same lot anyway. So it's just being able to re-locate on in the front. Obviously we'd put a new well in the front on the northerly lot and allow for room in the back for septic systems. They'll all be engineered. MR. FREER-Any other questions? Well I'll just make a comment for the Civics students. The reason that we have two acre minimum lot size is in many of our zoning places is where we don't have Town water or sewer systems. So we tend to get ourselves into trouble when we have small lots that require wells and septic systems. So one of the things that is important here is how well the septic systems would be able to do, which we don't have any information on. So we're granting this in a way that assumes that this is percable and the next session in the process will meet those requirements. Right? MR. STEVES-Understood. Yes, currently in this instance you already have two lots, one that is really small and leaving the camp that was on there just wasn't practical in this area and we've done a lot of work in this area and we don't have any particular issue for with the soils for the water. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening on this application. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to make a statement about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. FREER-Seeing none, Roy, do we have any written comment? MR. URRICO-There's no comment. MR. FREER-Okay. I will keep the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, normally I would be scared off by creating two substandard lots from one, but I think in this case the adjustment is a good adjustment and the fact that we create two decent sized lots, I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, there's already two lots. They're both undersized. So it kind of makes sense to make them of equal size, and so I certainly would support this project. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, the one lot being .26 acres would be really hard to put another house on that. It would need quite a few variances for the setbacks. So this is going to make it two better project. So I'd be in favor. p.. �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of it. Balancing the two lots is more in fitting with the whole neighborhood. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my Board members that it's a good project for what it is. I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Jim MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, for many years we had one acre zoning up on the Waterfront Residential and this is not really on the lake. It's well set back from the lake. I don't think there's any issues with this one acre lot. It seems more than adequate for modest homes up there. I'm sure something will get built at some point, but you used to have a building on there previously. I remember that. I have no problem. MR. FREER-Okay, and, 1, too, can live with this situation. Kind of better off than beforehand and meeting the criteria we're supposed to evaluate. There's no problem in my mind. So I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I'll seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stonewood Dev. of NE NY, Inc. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing lots; one is 1.85 acres, second lot is 0.26 acres; an adjustment will create two lots of equal size: 1.1 acres each. Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions in the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size restrictions in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels so each parcel is 1.1 ac where a 2 ac lot is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 23, 2018; 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 we're just expanding a very small lot and making two lots equal. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed feasible at this particular time. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial with respect to present Code but considering that these two lots existed for a long time as is, the variance really is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we think that this will improve the environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created but it's actually not. It was created a long time ago with the way this property was divided. �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� 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) 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 Z-AV-30-2018, STONEWOOD DEV. OF NE NY, INC., Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 23 d day of May 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. The next is Area Variance 31-2018 Rosecrans. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-31-2018 SEQRA TYPE II ERIN ROSECRANS OWNER(S) JILL PEDERSON ZONING WR LOCATION 301 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRONT YARD OF A LOT WITH TWO FRONTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN A FRONT YARD CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-33 SECTION 179-5-020 JILL PEDERSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ERIN ROSECRANS, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, could you please read this into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-31-2018, Erin Rosecrans, Meeting Date: May 23, 2018 "Project Location: 301 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a swimming pool in the front yard of a lot with two fronts. Relief requested from restrictions for placement of a pool in a front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from restrictions for placement of a pool in a front yard. Section 179-5-020 —Pool The applicant proposes to place a pool in a front yard along Sullivan Lane as the parcel has two fronts -Glen Lake Road and Sullivan Lane 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives W"' �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� may be considered limited because of the lot configuration having two fronts one on Sullivan and the main on Glen Lake Rd. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for location of the pool to be in the front yard where the rear yard is required. 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 proposes to install a 12 ft. X 23 ft. pool on the north side of the property. The applicant's home main front is on Glen Lake Road and the lot shape in an "L" has frontage on Sullivan Lane where the pool is to be placed. The applicant has indicated the pool is to be screened with fencing and plantings. The location of the pool is because of the location of the septic and leach field areas." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Could you please identify yourself and add any comments that you'd like to what was just read in. MS. PEDERSON-I'm Jill Pederson. I'm one of the co-owners of the property. MS. ROSECRANS-I'm Erin Rosecrans, the applicant. MR. PEDERSON-The property right now is in my name but it is in the process with Mike Muller of being put in both our names, and my daughter lives there. I live at 261 Glen Lake Road and I'm co-owner of the property. The property where I want to put the pool was a former residence of my grandfather and my grandfather and his brother purchased the property there in 1930. So that's when they divided all these parcels, and the place we want to put a pool is part of the property where he lived, and living at Glen Lake my whole life we used to be able to swim across the street at Sullivan's Pavilion where the Docksider is now and since my grandfather owned it a lot of my relatives live up there. They were able to swim. So now there's no place to get to a beach. The right of way doesn't allow swimming and actually part of the right of way was donated by my grandfather and both my daughters and my sister and my nephew all live on the lake and we can't go swimming. We all live across the street and there's no swimming access unless we swim off a boat or something. So I have a new granddaughter. She's two and I've already taken her to swim lessons at the "Y" and I'd like her to have a place to swim. Apparently we have two fronts, but I can show you a picture of what the lot looks like and there's a really ugly shed right there and if the neighbors haven't complained about the shed, I don't see how they can complain about the swimming pool. We have signatures from our neighbors that say they don't oppose it. MR. FREER-You can give it to Roy for the record. Okay. Thank you. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do you want to tell us what you just got handed. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Well I'm going to read one of the other letters first. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-"We write this letter in support of the proposed project by Erin Rosecrans at 301 Glen Lake Rd. to install a pool. While the survey and letter we received lists the location of the pool as a "front" yard, it seems like a back-yard due to the current locations of structures and tree line. As her neighbors we believe the pool will not decrease from the overall aesthetic value of hers or adjoining properties, in fact a pool will be a grand improvement over the dilapidated woodshed currently occupying that parcel. In addition, my wife is the Vice President of the private Glen Lake Park Association next door to the proposed project site and is in full support of the proposal. Thank you for your time. In support, Robert and Brie Livingston" And they live at 3 Sullivan Road. And then the letter I was just handed. "We, the �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'Ilp • a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� undersigned, are neighbors of Erin Rosecrans and have no objection to Erin and Jill Pederson putting a pool in on property they own at 301 Glen Lake Road. We understand it will be on the part of the lot that fronts Sullivan Place where there now exists a wood shed." And it's signed by eight of her neighbors. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody on the Board have questions for the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So the shed is coming down? MS. PEDERSON-The shed is coming down. MR. FREER-Okay. No questions, I'm going to poll the Board, and I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Yes. It's a quite common situation with a lot on two streets. I'm impressed that the applicant sought out the neighbors' approval, the relations in the community. So I would support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support it. With two front yards it's kind of awkward. You really can't put it anywhere else. It's a good spot for it. I'd be for it. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in support. I'm sure it's going to be an improvement to the neighborhood. It will be nice to hear kids playing back there. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in favor of it. If this was a normal piece of property without a second street they wouldn't even be here. So I have no problem with it. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't see any impacts on Sullivan Place or the neighborhood. So I think it'll be a great addition. MR. FREER-Okay, and 1, too, support the project. So good luck teaching that little one to swim. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Erin Rosecrans. Applicant proposes installation of a swimming pool in the front yard of a lot with two fronts. Relief requested from restrictions for placement of a pool in a front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from restrictions for placement of a pool in a front yard. Section 179-5-020 —Pool The applicant proposes to place a pool in a front yard along Sullivan Lane as the parcel has two fronts -Glen Lake Road and Sullivan Lane SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 23, 2018; �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� 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 as this pool fits very well into the property. 2. Feasible alternatives are really none. The only reason we're here is because there's two streets. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial because without Sullivan Drive there they wouldn't even be here. They wouldn't need a variance. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is really not self-created because of the second street. 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 proposes the following conditions: a) 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 Z-AV-31-2018, ERIN ROSECRANS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 23 d day of May 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Good luck. Have fun. MS. ROSECRANS-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Next is Area Variance 33-2018 Howland. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-33-2018 SEQRA TYPE II DEAN HOWLAND OWNER(S) LUKE & JANE SEARS ZONING WR LOCATION 17 HERON HOLLOW ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 768 SQ. FT. 2-DOOR GARAGE WITH 195 SQ. FT. OF STORAGE AREA ABOVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR SUCH STRUCTURE IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AST 159-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.97 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-4.1 SECTION 179-3-040 DEAN HOWLAND, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, could you read this in. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-33-2018, Dean Howland, Meeting Date: May 23, 2018, "Project Location: 17 Heron Hollow Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 768 sq. ft. 2-door, 22 ft. in height garage with 195 sq. ft. of storage area above. Relief requested from maximum allowable height restrictions for such structure in the WR zoning district. Relief Required: �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'Ilp • a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable height restrictions for such structure in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040-Dimensional requirements/ 179-5-020 Accessory structures—garage The applicant proposes a garage to be 22 ft. in height in the WR zone that allows a maximum height of accessory structures of 16 ft. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 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. The feasible alternatives may be considered to have a one story structure. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Where relief requested is 6 ft. in excess. 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new garage at 768 sq. ft. with two doors. The new garage is to have an upstairs storage area of 195 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the building is to be located across the street from the main home." MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Could you please identify yourself and add any comments that you'd like. MR. HOWLAND-Dean Howland. I'm representing Luke & Jane Sears. I don't really have any extra comments. We're just looking for usable storage space on the second floor for storage. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience that wants to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, are there any written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. I'll go ahead and poll the Board and start with John. MR. HENKEL-Actually I'd like to see it dropped down a few feet if possible. MR. KUHL-I have a question for the applicant, if I may, before we do this. MR. FREER-I'm sorry. Sure. MR. KUHL-You're going to put electric and water to this? MR. HOWLAND-No water, just electric for the overhead doors and the light. MR. KUHL-And you're running a business out of this? MR. HOWLAND-No. This is storage. He has boats, a jet ski, kayaks, all the toys. They're a large family and they just simply don't have storage without. liu �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'Ilp • a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� MR. KUHL-If it had to be 16 feet, would you still build it? MR. HOWLAND-1 don't know if he, he likes the height. So it looks aesthetically pleasing with that. MR. KUHL-I understand that. I understand. My question to you is if it had to be 16 feet, would you still build it? MR. HOWLAND-1 don't know if he will still build it. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 had a question on the lots, because the road truncates the lot. Is that considered to be a single lot? MR. HOWLAND-That was two separate lots that when they built the house, because of the septic, the Town had them join those two lots, which they did. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we're not looking at a situation that's going to morph into another house on the other side? MR. HOWLAND-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's out of the picture at this point. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-This is a year round residence or seasonal? MR. HOWLAND-It's a year round residence but it's seasonal for them. MRS. HAYWARD-And as far as the height of the building, I notice the pitch is 12/12. Is that to match the pitch of the existing house across the street? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, they match. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. FREER-Other questions? Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I think it's a great project but I'd like to see it drop down a few more feet, a few feet. I think very rarely do we allow 22 feet for a garage. So I just think it should be dropped down a few feet. I would not be in favor of it as it is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor either. My concern is with the types of materials they're planning on putting upstairs, I'm hard pressed to imagine getting kayaks and lawn furniture and such up around the stairs and up in. MR. HOWLAND-It'll be way easier than just trying to shove it down in the basement. MRS. HAYWARD-1 didn't know what they were placing, but I'm sure there are alternatives that could be looked at. For that reason I'm not in favor at this time. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think because of the location of the garage far away from the house that the roof being what the house may be doesn't come into play here, and I also feel that with a normal 16 you'd have a 7 foot peak, and I think you could store a lot of stuff up there at 7 feet as opposed to the 14 feet you're asking for. I'm talking about above the eight foot of the one downstairs. That's your first level, right? The first level is going to be eight with another fourteen on top. I think that you should re-consider it. I would not be in favor of it the way it's presented. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'IIpI a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, although we have previously approved similar requests, I think that we should all be on the same page here and I would agree, you know, this is set well back from the lake. It doesn't seem really practical that you're going to put a lot of stuff in storage up there. So I'm kind of wondering, you know, why you need so much room and, you know, what the practicality of it. Hauling stuff all the way from the foreshore all the way back there and upstairs doesn't really make much sense so I'd like to see it modified and come over, too. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I also agree. I think the height needs to be lowered. Six feet is way too much to grant. MR. FREER-Okay, and Mike? MR. MC CABE-We've been pretty stingy on granting variances for height in this particular area. So I think if we let this go it would be kind of completely out of character with what we've been doing. Two feet, you know, I could understand, but six feet's a little bit more than what I would tolerate. So I cannot support this project the way it is. MR. FREER-Okay. So you have a couple of options. You've heard the Board's sentiments. You can ask us to vote on it and people are going to vote what they just said, or you can table it and come back with a modified plan, or if you're ready to put something forward that is less of a variance, we could entertain that, but we're not going to get into a construction debate here. MR. HOWLAND-I understand that. So if we can have the owner come into compliance, if he's fine with that, or you're saying basically two or three feet over. Two's the magic number. All right. A couple of feet over or we can come back. So, yes, we will come back. MR. HENKEL-You still could get attic space in there. You don't need eight feet of attic space. MR. FREER-Okay. So are you asking to table? MR. MC CABE-Yes, when would you be prepared to come back? MR. HOWLAND-We'll have to re-submit to you. MR. MC CABE-Well, if we're going to table this, we table it to a certain date MRS. MOORE-Either July's or August. MR. HOWARD-Yes, it would be July then I guess. Unless the owner decides to. MR. MC CABE-You can always request to table it further. MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So what I'll do is I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dean Howland. Applicant proposes construction of a 768 sq. ft. 2-door, 22 ft. in height garage with 195 sq. ft. of storage area above. Relief requested from maximum allowable height restrictions for such structure in the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable height restrictions for such structure in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040-Dimensional requirements/ 179-5-020 Accessory structures—garage The applicant proposes a garage to be 22 ft. in height in the WR zone that allows a maximum height of accessory structures of 16 ft. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-33-2018 DEAN HOWLAND, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Until the 1St meeting in July with appropriate materials to be submitted to the Town by June 15th �a,gllil,m m..IIlVlnk,ullull � :p,a � . i,,,ubIIII'Ilp • a,pa � :":�...,a,u II ."� Duly adopted this 23 d day of May, 2018, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Tabled until the second meeting in July with appropriate materials to be submitted to the Town by the middle of July. MR. FREER-Is that good with you, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So it is okay if you want to, there's nothing scheduled at this time for the first July Zoning Board meeting. It's up to the Board. MR. MC CABE-I'll correct my motion to make it the first meeting in July with material to be submitted by mid-June. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. We'll see you some time soon. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. FREER-So can you help us with the tabling and the scheduling and what we're looking at next month? We're just going to have one meeting? MRS. MOORE-1 have two meetings scheduled for next month in June at this time. So we have the June 20th meeting and the June 27th meeting and I have eight items, potentially, on each agenda. MR. FREER-Okay. So we do need two meetings next month. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other topics from Board members? Okay. I guess we can get a motion to adjourn. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. KUHL-I'm going to second that motion under duress because I really like being here. MR. FREER-We're adjourned. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 23, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 23 d day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman