Loading...
04-25-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 2012 INDEX Area Variance No. 15-2012 Larry Clute 1. Tax Map No. 308.12-2-14 Area Variance No. 16-2012 Dave Armstrong 5. Tax Map No. 315.8-1-9 Area Variance No. 17-2012 Tavis Leombruno 11. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-62 Area Variance No. 18-2012 Dean Howland, Jr. 15. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-32 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, CHAIRMAN JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome, this evening, Wednesday, April 25t", seven o'clock here at the Town of Queensbury Activities Center. Tonight the Zoning Board of Appeals agenda is all new business. For those of you who haven't attended in the past, on the back table is a summary sheet of how this meeting proceeds. We will call each applicant to the table. We will read the application into the record, ask questions of the applicant, open the public hearing, for those items on the agenda that have a public hearing noticed, and go from there. For the students that are here in the audience, if you want to come up to the table I'll sign your sheets and meanwhile we'll call the first applicant. It is Clute Enterprises. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2012 SEQRA TYPE II CLUTE ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) CLUTE ENTERPRISES ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 243 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,022 SQ. FT. DUPLEX. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR A DUPLEX IN THE NR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2012-022 DUPLEX; BP 2012-021 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-14 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2012, Clute Enterprises, Meeting Date: April 25,2012 "Project Location: 243 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,022 sq. ft. duplex on a 0.19 acre parcel in the NR Zone. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Lot size- Request for 0.81 acres of relief from the 1.0 acre requirement for duplex's as per§179- 3-040A(4)(b). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the area is residential in nature with a higher than normal density. However, the existence of duplexes in the neighborhood is uncommon for the most part. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to place a single family residence on the parcel and avoid an area variance. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 0.81 acres or 81% relief from the 1 acre minimum for a duplex that does not have both water and sewer service in the NR zone as per§179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2012-022 Duplex Not issued Staff comments: Existing septic system should be located and decommissioned prior to any construction. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves, representing Larry Clute, Clute Enterprises, who is at the table with me. As Roy has already read into the minutes, it's a piece of property on Luzerne Road on the south side, on the corner of Minnesota Avenue. Immediately to the west is the vacant portion of the back of Westside Auto. Across the street from this is the storage facility. There is an existing building on here. There was a garage that has been demolished since Mr. Clute has taken possession of the property, and we'll pass some photos around. We understand that it is a duplex and a variance is needed, but from the look of the house that we're trying to create there is the look of a colonial. It's basically a four bedroom two bath colonial with a dividing wall for two apartments, you know, a duplex, and we would be putting in a compliant septic system. Have looked at, with Nace Engineering, as far as the capacity and the room for a septic system, and they said there was no issue there, and we'd just like to be able to place a newer home in that location, and because of where it fronts on Luzerne Road across from an industrial area, we just figured a duplex that would be primarily for rentals would be the better scenario than trying to build a brand new single family home on that lot for some return purposes and for the ability to rent. They do have interest for people renting but didn't have a lot of interest for people to purchase a home in that area. So we'd leave it up to the Board for any questions they may have. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you would consider it to be a less than desirable place to build a home because of the busyness of that corner? Yes. MR. STEVES-At the same time, the look of the new home, except for the two doors, I mean, it looks like your standard colonial home. What you see in the photo we passed out is the exact building that is being proposed. These were built in a few different locations around. This one happens to be Washburn Street in the city of Glens Falls. There are some other duplexes farther south on Minnesota Avenue. It is a definite mix use in there between, you know, multi- family or duplexes, single family mobile homes, modulars. Everybody knows what that area is like. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, was there some thought given as to why they wanted half an acre with each lot in these more compact neighborhoods? MR. OBORNE-It is Neighborhood Residential, and I would say basically because the lands are so marginal now. If you're going to subdivide anything now, you're going to need to, you know, jump through some hoops at this point, and to quantify how many duplexes there are in that area, there are six in that general area through the States avenues. MR. UNDERWOOD-So there wouldn't be any plan to replace and change and replace a lot of the older single family ones with duplexes? I'm just thinking from the viewpoint of if we allow this one, how can we say no to anybody else? MR. OBORNE-Again, I think every application stands on its own merits, certainly. As far as setting precedent, I think that's already been set. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. URRICO-Would Mr. Clute hold the mortgage on this or would you own the property or is the intention to sell it to somebody that would hold it? MR. CLUTE-No, the intent is to hold it. I'll transfer it to another company, but the intent is to hold it. Retail over there is fairly difficult, to be honest with you, and as you're aware I do single family homes. If I thought I could do a retail, I'd be doing retail on it, and as Matt has stated, I've looked at it from a lot of different angles. I know I can't. The alternative, I mean, I could probably bring a single-wide in there, but I'd much prefer to stick built a building, to be honest with you. So I could bring in a trailer and fit and probably comply, but I think I'm much better off, and as the neighborhood is, this will be well kept, you know, a paved driveway, landscaping. I think it'll be an asset to the neighborhood, and, yes, I would be holding that. That was a long answer. I apologize. MR. KUHL-You're going to put a single septic with two fields, is that it? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, my thoughts, and I haven't really gotten into it, I was going to do two drywells, rather than fields over there, but, yes. MR. KUHL-So each unit will have its own septic system? MR. CLUTE-Well, one tank, two drywells. Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. It's going to be a single unit. MR. CLUTE-One septic system. MR. KUHL-And your curb cut's going to be on Luzerne Road, or is it going to be on Minnesota? MR. CLUTE-I'd like to do both. MR. KUHL-But the house is going to face north? MR. CLUTE-Face Luzerne Road, face. MR. KUHL-Okay. So you're going to have one cut on Luzerne and one on Minnesota? MR. CLUTE-Yes, if it were to pass, that's what I'd like to do, yes. MR. STEVES-The current driveway on that parcel is really a paved driveway. It's a dirt stone grass driveway. It's historically always front on the exact location that we have it shown coming of Luzerne. That's where the garage was. On the existing conditions plan it sat just to the west of the house (lost word) as you can see on the photo. It's not really paved. It's kind of like a gravel dirt grass, a combination of everything, but it's probably been utilized for 30, 40 years in that location. So to try to keep the units so they have one enters off Luzerne Road and one enters off Minnesota Avenue, you've got to keep them separated but yet from the main travel corridor being Luzerne Road and for that matter from Minnesota Avenue it looks like your single four bedroom colonial. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-Just one more. Your intention is to have long term tenants there? MR. CLUTE-1 would like that, yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Okay, at this time I'd like to open up the meeting for the public hearing that was scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, this is a Type II SEQRA, at this point I'd like to poll the Board. We'll start with Mr. Koskinas. MR. KOSKINAS-Thank you, sir. I spent quite a bit of time walking on that lot, and, actually, Mr. Clute, before I comment, I'll say I've seen you here a number of times and I've seen your work in the community and my hat's off to you. You've added a lot on the west side over there and it looks nice. Having said that, in my view, zoning exists for a reason, and when you appeal to this Board, most compelling to me is that you demonstrate some hardship. Because you're a practiced developer, particularly in that area, you know what this zoning is. Your eyes were wide open when you went in. The street is principally single family and a lot of the lots on Minnesota are larger than the lot you're proposing to build on now, and many of them also, by age and condition, are going to present themselves over the next couple of years with the potential for upgrade and expansion, and when I consider that in our deliberate zoning over there, and I'll tell you, I'm also thinking about the good work I've seen you do with single family homes. I'm not very much in favor of a duplex there. I don't like the idea of a cut on two streets for driveways. I'd prefer to see one of your tidy little single family homes there. I don't see a hardship, and I don't see a reason for an accommodation. So I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 think Mr. Koskinas made quite a summation there. I have to agree with him, especially with the two curb cuts. Your building over on that end of Town is second to none. What you've done for those neighborhoods is spectacular to say the least. You've made so many improvements. You've raised the value of the property in that neighborhood so much. I just don't think that fits in the character of what you've done before. I'd have to be against this. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, when I look at the test, I see the five criteria, and whether there's an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Oborne already said there are six other duplexes in that relative neighborhood. So I don't see that as being a change. I think that change has already been established. So I don't think this would be precedent setting. I think it would be conducive to some of the other houses that are already in that neighborhood. Can the benefit be sought by the applicant in a different manner? I think he can. Obviously a single family residence would be preferable there or could be achieved there. We're asking for 81% relief which seems quite substantial, but it is a tight lot. It's three-quarters of an acre, a little bit more than that. I don't think there'll be any environmental impacts, and I think it is self-created, but I think in this instance I think it fits, and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, you know, as far as the test goes, we recognize the fact that it's supposed to be half an acre for each of the units that are in that proposed duplex that you want to place on the property here, but at the same time, I'm listening to what you're saying and having viewed the site there, too, being on the corner there, I can't imagine anybody would want to purchase a home and live on that corner. I mean, most of the houses that are there from the old days and things have gotten a lot busier and the traffic levels are going to increase as we go forward, I think, on that road, and I think at the same time, if you can re-do a property that's decrepit and bring it up to standards like you've done on so many of your projects down on that end of the Town, it's a benefit to the Town, and I don't think a mix of housing, I think when we look at the duplex and the Neighborhood Residential zone, I think the idea was to have a mix, not necessarily all duplexes or all single family, but to have a mix within the neighborhood, and as Roy said, I think I would agree with him on his points that, you know, you have other ones there. It's not a precedent setting thing, and even though the lot is a tiny lot at .18 acres or .19 1 think it is, it's very small. All the lots are small down there. So you get what you get, but of course you could build a single family home there and it probably would be a hard sell for you to unload it at the same point, but I think as you've proven to us in the past that you're capable of changing neighborhoods for the better and I think if you're going to maintain the property as a rental unit I would put my faith in you as being capable of doing a good job with it. So I would go along with Roy. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think you're overbuilding the lot with the two family. I'd prefer to see a one family. So I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MRS. HUNT-Yes. I want to congratulate Mr. Clute on what you've been doing down there. You really made a big difference in the area, and I think a single family home there would be a tough sell even for rental. I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Gee, thanks, Board. Appreciate that. Tie vote. It comes down to me. As I looked at it, I struggle with us not really paying too much attention to our Code. They put the Code in place for a reason. They looked at these neighborhoods and they decided what they wanted for a Code. They didn't take that job lightly. However, across the street we have rental units. We have the pit, as I call it, and we have the back end of the Westside Auto next to you. So I think it's a corner that needs to be improved, enhanced. So, while I don't like the density here and how tight this is on this very small lot, this is a unique situation for me, so I would be in favor. So, having polled the Board, no comments from the public, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2012 CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 243 Luzerne Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,022 square foot duplex on a .19 acre parcel in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Parcel will require area variances as follows: Specifically lot size request for .81 acres of relief from the one acre requirement for the duplexes and that's per Section 179-3-040A(4)(b). Having considered the request for this duplex, the Board does not consider that an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and we all recognize that there are other duplexes currently within that neighborhood. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated with the addition of another one, and it will require two driveways, one on Luzerne Road, one on the other side road. As far as whether the benefit could be sought by the applicant differently, yes, obviously they could build a single family home there and that would also fit. I think that we would consider that you could have a four bedroom home there on that lot and so a four bedroom duplex is essentially the same thing and the septic system will be sized to fit the equivalent. Whether the request is substantial. Yes, it is obviously substantial, 81% relief from the one acre, but again, we recognize the busyness of this corner and the fact that it might not be a desirable location for a single family home, and whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect. I don't anticipate that there will be any. Staff Notes noted minor impacts on the neighborhood, and the difficulty is considered to be self-created because they want to put a duplex there. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank. For those students who joined us late, if you want to bring up your piece of paper for me to sign, I'll be glad to do that. I'll call the next item. AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED DAVE ARMSTRONG OWNER(S) DAVE AND NANCY ARMSTRONG ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 130 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN 85 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SEPTIC SYSTEM CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 97-338 DECK LOT SIZE 4.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.8-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040, A, 5, e DAVE ARMSTRONG, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2012, Dave Armstrong, Meeting Date: April 25, 2012 "Project Location: 130 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: \Applicant has constructed an 85 sq. ft. residential addition and is seeking relief from the Septic System Certification requirement after the fact. Relief Required: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) Parcel will require an area variance as follows: Relief from the septic system certification requirement for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in the WR Zone as per§179-3-040(5)(e), see below. Sept/c system certification. All development activities, including new construction, expansions or extensions, con versions and remodeling, for all uses that require septic systems that commence subsequent to the effective date of this section, shall be required to establish that septic systems comply with the most recently adopted standards and requirements or to update systems accordingly. Written certification from a,professional engineer and/or from the Town Engineer as to comol/ance of existing, updated or new systems shall be requ/red,pnor to the issuance of a zon/ng,perm/t or building,permit. In addition, any septic system that fails shall be required to be reconstructed with a design that meets the most recently adopted standards. 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. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as a precedent could be set for existing non-conforming leach-fields within a floodplain with the granting of relief from the Septic System Certification as described above. Further, improperly designed and installed wastewater systems could potentially lead to water quality issues both on the surface as well as subsurface. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would include citing the septic system and associated Ieachfield in a compliant location upslope and not in a floodplain. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Any waiver requested from the Septic System Certification must be approved by this board and should be weighed if substantial on a case by case basis. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The potential for an adverse impact may be realized as the wastewater system was not professionally design or installed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP 97-338: Deck Approved 1997 Staff comments: The applicant submitted a wastewater design that was installed in 1991 to best of his recollection. During discussions with the applicant, it was stated that the laterals were cited where water was encountered. The detail submitted shows a design that indicates 2 feet of separation from the laterals to the water table. The Zoning Board may wish to discuss this inconsistency and gain clarification on what design is actually in the ground. Test pits to determine both the location of the high water table within the soil column as well as percolation tests are prerequisites to designing a proper wastewater system. If approval is not forthcoming from this board, the applicant has the option to appear before the Town Board as the BOH and seek a septic variance. Town Engineer comments attached. Note: Relief is not necessary for the expansion as the location of the expansion does not violate any area requirements as per§179-13-010F. However, a building permit is required. SEQR Status: Type- Unlisted" MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read the engineer's findings, or can we assume everybody's read them? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-I've read them. Do we need to read them? MR. KUHL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I don't think we need to read them into the record. Thank you. Welcome. MR. ARMSTRONG-Thank you, and thank you for reading that. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. ARMSTRONG-My name is Dave Armstrong, and I'm a lifelong resident of Warren County. Growing up in Johnsburg and moving to Glens Falls/Queensbury probably 30 years ago, and there's a bit of a story. I think, after hearing that, maybe the story will help. I bought the camp in '91 from Mrs. Lapham when my family was young. We've enjoyed it immensely. It's on the basin of the Big Bay area. There are about six camps down in there, one home and six camps. It's seasonal, and I blundered into a terrible mistake by retiring and having a little extra time on my hands and tearing off what was already pre-existing, a bathroom, the kitchen, which was kind of attached to the house, and they were in terrible shape, as well as the bedroom closet, making the whole thing one structure with one ""V" roof, and when I did that, I moved my footings 44 inches. So I would just, whether I get my approval or not, I'm not looking for my innocence, I guess, I'm looking for a pardon. I moved my footing 44 inches and I followed that line across the back of the house. The building section, the way I went with the camp, approaches a bank, one of the banks that run along the Hudson, the old river banks before the dams, and it's probably a, I'm going to say a 50 foot bank. It's very steep, although the tree growth is well established. There's some huge oaks there. It's not a threat to the camp, but there is nothing that would violate my addition or expansion on that section of the camp. It's away from everything and there are, I think I have about 200 and some feet to my line and then there's a wetlands that follow that. Anyway, what I've done is the septic was pre-existing. In '91 1 improved it. I put in a steel tank rather than a hole, and I added on Ieachfields. If you know the ground down there, it's very fragile. You've got about six inches of topsoil. You've got roots that hold that in place. You've got a lot of vegetation. I have two pictures that I would love to have you look at. One is standing on the tank looking toward the river. One is standing on the tank looking up the bank. There's about six inches of topsoil followed by about two foot of sand. So to clarify my plan that I took off the computer, I'm not down three feet. I'm probably down two, and I filled that in with Number Two gray stone. I put in perforated pipe. I brought it up to the stone. I put paper over the top, I sanded it, did the best I could to improve it, and that's the way it's been handling it for the last 20 years, 18 years. I'm about 300 feet from the river. I know it's within the floodplain. It's about 25 feet from that line. There's a survey floating around, and I'm on the backside of the floodplain. The highest water I've ever seen, this was just last year on the Hudson, and it didn't approach my Ieachfields. It probably was about 250 feet from my Ieachfield area. It is a gradual plain, lots of vegetation. I've never had any leakage or runoff. I've talked to my closest neighbor, which is Gladys Swiger. She has no problem with my expansion of 44 inches. That's where I stand. I guess I could take some questions. I did have a criteria for granting my variance. I don't know if anybody got that, but it kind of just told the story that I'm trying to sum up here to you. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. ARMSTRONG-You're welcome. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board members have any questions at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, in the past we've usually sent people to the Board of Health with septic issues on marginal lots. This is a pretty large lot here, but I think the rules and regulations are such in our Waterfront Residential it's important for us to look at it with eyes wide open, and, I mean, are you satisfied that they're 300 feet back from that river proper? MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think so. I mean, as far as the Board of Health goes, those are usually for systems that have not been constructed. This one's been there. It's been working, with all the, let me just leave it at that. MR. KOSKINAS-What's entailed in certification? The Administrator is calling for the septic system to undergo certification. What's that entail? MR. OBORNE-It's to meet Chapter 75A of what is known at the Red Book, which is the wastewater system manual, which is followed by Building and Codes. So it needs to be brought up to current regulations. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. KOSKINAS-But the certification is what I'm looking at. I understand the requirements for the system and that this is nonconforming, including having a metal tank where one's not allowed, but I'm asking when the Zoning Administrator asked for this system to be, this appellant's here looking for relief from the septic system certification requirement. What is that? MR. OBORNE-The certification is, it's a certification that an engineer or an architect would sign off on the existing conditions, they'd put their seal on it. MR. KOSKINAS-So it's a physical examination, a probe of the ground? MR. OBORNE-Exactly. Yes, they would open up that and, you know, if at all possible, if it would handle a snake with a camera on it and the like, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. MR. KUHL-But by the mere fact, and I'm talking to Keith, not you, Dave, I don't mean to ignore you. By the mere fact that he's talking metal tank, I mean, we require concrete, right? MR. OBORNE-1 believe that's true, too, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-That is true. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why is it that we have never, you know, with all the renovations that we've done over the years on Waterfront Residential, why is this for the first time before us dealing with the septic tank? I don't understand the issue. MR. OBORNE-Because the applicant can't certify it. Previous applications have before the Planning Board. They have to. So an engineer will certify it and that's fine. That's a certification requirement, or an architect. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. GARRAND-A couple of questions. How many months of the year do you live there? MR. ARMSTRONG-It's just a seasonal. So it's off and on during the summer. That's one thing, if I could just bring it up. My renovations, although I violated my expansion, I didn't add a toilet or a sink, it's the same toilet. It's a two bedroom camp. It always was a two bedroom camp. It was just tearing off a bathroom that wasn't functional, really, the kitchen and a closet, making it a little bigger, but no addition to any demands on the septic system, and no bedrooms. No more living space, or that's not the word, no more dwelling for people, and my kids are pretty well. MR. GARRAND-Did you call the Town to ask them to come out an inspect this? MR. ARMSTRONG-The problem is that I did all this through ignorance, thinking I could just do this without building permits. So I was caught. MR. GARRAND-Who busted you? MR. ARMSTRONG-1 have no idea. I was almost done, but I stopped like last September. MR. GARRAND-Neighbors. MR. ARMSTRONG-Probably, but I don't know. I think I would have been all right with my septic if I didn't put the 44 inches on. Am I right with that? I mean, I went from six and a half feet to ten feet. MR. KOSKINAS-1 don't think the 44 inches is the issue. MR. ARMSTRONG-It's remodeling my camp. That's nice to know. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know if you added a dishwasher or a washer or dryer or anything? MR. ARMSTRONG-No. The camp is, it was built in 1930. It's probably the first one down there, probably when they were logging the river. It sits on what used to be timbers and they've all been, termites have eaten them up and I've blocked them up, but it's not a really well insulated, I've never insulated the existing walls. The new place I did insulate, but I'm thinking that, I just don't know, if you go by the standards of what the Code says for septic, you can't go down four 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) feet. I mean, you're just going to hit sand, and then it just caves in. If you go into the bank, once you go into that bank very deep, it just starts coming down. Once you get that soil and the roots out of the way, it just caves in on you and washes, it's kind of like a floating place, which has been functioning okay, but I think to put in a septic system, you're going to have to raise that, unless you pump everything 50 feet up a hill, it's not an easy situation for people. MR. JACKOSKI-And you said you were within the 10 year flood, but not the 100 year flood? MR. ARMSTRONG-1 don't know, 100, I'm within the 100 year. MR. JACKOSKI-In the 100, not the 10. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-If he was going to get flooded, he would have been flooded last year. MR. ARMSTRONG-Yes. I'm away from, that's a good point. I thought I'd throw that in for what it's worth. It did almost float my little boathouse, but I was still 250 feet from those Ieachfields. MR. URRICO-You said that the toilet wasn't functional. MR. ARMSTRONG-No, the toilet was functional, but it was just a hole. It was like, have you ever heard of a cess pool in the old? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. ARMSTRONG-That's what I had, and the Ieachfield was tiny. This just shows a little bit of the distance. One is looking at the river and the other, both were taken from the tank. MR. KUHL-I don't know, though, Mr. Armstrong, I don't know if a subject matter expert will not certify why you have, how can we do anything beyond that? If a subject matter expert won't say it'll work or not work? MR. ARMSTRONG-Well, what's working has not been, it's working now, but it hasn't been changed since probably '94. MR. KUHL-Unfortunately the regulations talk about if you do something. MR. ARMSTRONG-Yes. MR. KUHL-And I had a camp in the 80's in Paradox and I had a 1,000 gallon casket in front of it and I had a grinder pump that sent it up 300 feet. So it is doable, and it worked very well for 10 years, but I'm confused with, if it can't get certified, Mr. Armstrong is looking for us to say that's okay. Is that correct? MR. ARMSTRONG-1 guess I'm looking for the variance which says you just said it. MR. KUHL-And why would you not want to make this effort to improve it, to bring it to Code, to, in other words, dig it up and do it? MR. ARMSTRONG-Well, I don't know if digging it up and doing it is going to help down there. It's, you probably could bring in a lot of fill, but it's going to be way above my deck, you know what I'm saying? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. ARMSTRONG-And I don't know if that's going to look nice, and it's very beautiful with, I don't know if it means anything to you, but ferns and skunk cabbage. It's as green a place as you ever could imagine, but it would alter that wetland look. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. ARMSTRONG-And I guess if it's working leave it alone, but I. MR. KUHL-Well, if you had to you'd put it in between the house and the water, and the river, or you'd pump it up behind you? MR. ARMSTRONG-1 would love to be able to, you know, improve it, leave it where it is. If you're talking about a bigger tank, if I can sink a bigger tank in there without it floating, I mean, I would 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) do that. I guess it's the fact of pumping it up that 50, 60 foot hill behind the house that seems like, I don't know if I have the money to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-What you have is the bank there is the old river delta from glacial Lake Iroquois, you know, and this is where glacial Lake Albany, the head of the lake was. So all the sand settled out there. So that steep bank that parallels the Hudson all the way down the corridor there is what you see. MR. ARMSTRONG-My driveway is like (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-And the actual river basin where the river is now, that's cut down through that, all that over the last 10,12,000 years. So he's at the place where the interface, where the water perks all the way down through, and then when it gets to the base there then it starts to flow out laterally towards the river. So, keep in mind he's about between 250 and 300 feet from the river with those trees between his house and the river. MR. ARMSTRONG-And there's some huge roots, there's some big trees there. There's a big pine, and lots of times, like high water is now, it's about 290 feet. Low water would be another 50 feet because sometimes it's mud. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments at this time from Board members? Hearing none at this time we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, there is not. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. We do have a SEQRA scheduled for tonight. Why don't we poll the Board, and I will start with Joyce. MRS. HUNT-1 was just reading the notes from the engineer. I would not be in favor. There are a lot of questions, and I would rather see that what's in there now is certified as adequate before we make any decision. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Before I give my comment, I've got to go back to you, Keith. If Mr. Armstrong would just have to drop the tank in and get the field he's got in there certified, that it's the right length and dimensions, would that be a way to do this? MR. OBORNE-There, and again, I'm not an engineer nor an architect, but I do have some knowledge of this. There would not be an engineer or an architect who would certify this because it's in a 100 year floodplain. MR. KUHL-Because it's new to old. MR. OBORNE-Regardless. I mean, if you look at the spirit of the language, it states that it needs to be brought up to current certification requirements. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. OBORNE-So you can't place a septic system with laterals in a floodplain, unless you get Board of Health approval. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Now you're just here to waive that part of the Zoning Code, that requirement, specific to the Waterfront Residential, for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, or nonconforming structure, because this is not a CEA, but. MR. KUHL-Okay. My view on this, Mr. Armstrong, is that you do have enough land mass to make it right, to do it right, and I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think there's several points to consider here. The camp has been there from the 1930's. Obviously it probably had an outhouse in the old days and then a marginally effective septic pit. He's upgraded it, you know, over 20 years ago now to what currently exists on site there. I think I would rather have the Board of Health review this project. I would think, from an engineering standpoint, it's going to be difficult because it is in the floodplain. I'm sure you've got water that's very close there because it's at the base of the hill, and it would make more sense to have the Town give its assent to this. If the Town Board of Health signs off on it, I would think that would be reasonable to do that. They might make it an upgrade, but I don't even know if it's capable of the difference between a 500 and a 1,000 gallon tank is going to make that much difference there. I think the real problem is going to be the Ieachate and whether it's just going right into the water table, you know, as soon as it exits out of the perforated pipe. So I'd rather pass this to the Board of Health. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Jim. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree. I don't think this is a simple fix. I don't think we can overlook the problems that exist there. I think the only way to look at it is either to fix it or you have the option of going to the Board of Health and seeing if they see something that we don't see, but I would not be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm going to offer a little bit of a different opinion, here. I know camps along the river not too far from there that have a pipe coming out of the ground, going straight into the water, and every morning if you're swimming in that water, you get out when you see that flow coming down the river. This gentleman's 300 feet from the water. He's got a 500 gallon tank in the ground, although it's a steel tank, it's still a tank in the ground. It's seasonal. I would be in favor of granting the relief on this. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-Well, based on my visit to your property, it's a very wet area. You've got a lot of bypass piping around your structures carrying groundwater away, and it doesn't surprise me that your Ieachfield moves water, just where it moves it to, and so I believe, and your comments about if it's working, you know, don't mess with it, doesn't mean it'll continue to work. I think our Codes are established for a good reason. I think they're reasonable, and I don't envy you having to go through it, but in my view, the Administrator's call for certification of the system is justified and I think if I were going to counsel you it would be seek an appeal from the BOH, but as far as relief from this Zoning Board, I don't think that's the way for you to go, and I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So after polling the Board, the applicant is probably going to want us to table this matter until you seek Board of Health, or do we want to? It's up to you. MR. ARMSTRONG-1 think I probably should get underway with whatever it takes to bring it up to Code. MR. OBORNE-1 would recommend the offer for withdrawal, as opposed to tabling or denial would be appropriate. MR. JACKOSKI-Tabling or withdrawal, that's fine. MR. ARMSTRONG-Yes, it's been a long haul and a little bit of an expensive haul, and I should get started on doing something constructively. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So your thought it to withdraw the application? MR. ARMSTRONG-Yes, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Having the applicant withdraw the application, no further action is required by the Board. MR. ARMSTRONG-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-For any students who joined here who haven't had me sign their paper to let everyone know that they were here, just come on up to the table and I'll sign it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2012 SEQRA TYPE II TAVIS LEOMBRUNO OWNER(S) TAVIS LEOMBRUNO ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 345 GLEN LAKE 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 45 SQ. FT. BASEMENT ENTRYWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF BP 2004-923 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-62 SECTION 179-3-040 TAVIS LEOMBRUNO, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2012, Tavis Leombruno, Meeting Date: April 25, 2012 "Project Location: 345 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. covered basement entryway on the north portion of the structure. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: North Front setback: Request for 8.0 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the covered entryway as per§179-3-040. Expansion of a non-conforming structure: Expansion of an N/C structure must be approved by this board as per§179-13-010. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to lot limitations and existing conditions. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8.0 feet or 27% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the WR zone for the covered entryway may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Expansion of an N/C structure must be approved by this board as per§179-13-010. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.}: BP 2004-923: Septic alteration Staff comments: No comments at this time. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could, identify yourself for the record, and if you'd like to add anything to the application at this time, or we'll turn it over to the Board. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Okay. My name is Tavis Leombruno. I'm originally from Bolton Landing, New York. My wife and I just bought this house it will be two years in August and we've done nothing but deal with water issues since we bought it. So last year we put gutters around the whole house and that alleviated a lot of problems, but the gable end of the house is still getting water in my basement. So the original plan was to dig up the gable end of the house right there and repair the block and insulate the block, and then we decided that an entranceway would be better there as well. We have an existing entranceway. It's a bilco door, but it's smack dab in the middle of our patio area, which is right by the pool, which also leaks there as well. So the goal right now I guess would be to eliminate that bilco door and put a nicer entrance on the 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) gable end of the house, being that it's all concreted up and puttied up around the door, and door is rotten and she wants it out of the patio area. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any comments from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Is the basement finished? MR. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. MR. KUHL-Just a personal note. My son went out about eight years ago that had water, and had a company that came in. I was in charge of tearing down the finished basement, and they had a system, where they put gutters all the way around. MR. LEOMBRUNO-I've seen that. MR. KUHL-With a sump pump, and it had the plastic that went top to bottom, it caught all the. MR. KOSKINAS-It's called B-Dry. MR. KUHL-Is that it? That is your solution. MR. LEOMBRUNO-And it's expensive. MR. KUHL-Eight years ago it was $3200, but there is a solution to your water problem. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Well, like I said, we solved a lot of it with the gutters, at least 90% of it I would say. MR. KUHL-How come you don't put another, I call them Murphy doors, back in, instead of this structure? MR. LEOMBRUNO-It's right there on the gable end of the house and the street's right there, and I don't want to, it just looks tacky on the end of the house like that. I'd rather have a nice finished product with a roof line going out away from the house, so it pitches the water away from the house. MR. KUHL-You're not planning on making this a two family house, are you? MR. LEOMBRUNO-No. MR. KUHL-So there'd be no living quarters down there? MR. LEOMBRUNO-Right. MR. GARRAND-An increase in permeability might help on this lot. Out there you've got a driveway on Sullivan, and the other one's on Glen Lake Road? MR. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. MR. GARRAND-More permeability would actually help your water problem. Doesn't it go from like the garage around the side of the house all the way back down towards the back part of the property when it rains heavy? MR. LEOMBRUNO-The garage is on the Glen Lake side there? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Well, the gutters, we have gutters along that whole stretch right there as well. So since then we've had no water in the garage at all, since we had the gutters there. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. LEOMBRUNO-So that stopped that on that end of the house. MR. GARRAND-Is the patio permeable at all? MR. LEOMBRUNO-It's kind of buckled up concrete right now, around the pool itself is all concrete, and then from there to the house itself is I guess our old style pavers that are probably a foot wide by two and a half feet long, and they're all buckled up and busted up. So eventually 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) what we'd like to do is get rid of the bilco and make that a nice patio area. Probably more concrete. MR. KUHL-Well, when you peel the onion, Tavis, it's all to relieve the water issue? MR. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions, at this time, from Board members? Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there an written comment? MR. URRICO-There is not. MR. JACKOSKI-This is a Type II SEQRA. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, in consideration of the applicant I think what he's trying to do is improve the situation that currently exists there, and I think that the covered porch to me looks better that just having a stark, open the door, there's the cold wind blowing off Glen Lake deal. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Basically I think this isn't going to stop the water problems. It might mitigate them to some extent, but the request for relief isn't all that great, so I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-1 think there'd be minor impacts on the neighborhood, and limited alternatives. Relief is moderate and I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. The relief is moderate. It bothers me a little bit, but I think the solution is the only feasible alternative. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with everybody. I have no issue. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-1 agree with Roy's comments. I have no reservations about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So far so good. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KOSKINAS-I'll do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2012 TAVIS LEOMBRUNO, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 345 Glen Lake Road. Granting expansion of a nonconforming structure and relief from Sections 179-3-040 as follows: Eight feet from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the covered entryway as proposed in the illustrations accompanying this application. Finding: One, that no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created. Reasoning: That no negative comments have been received from adjoining properties and the physical size of the project is quite modest. Two, that the applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving an Area Variance. Reasoning: That any expansion to the existing home will result in a variance. Three, that the variance is not deemed to be substantial. Reasoning: That the degree of additional nonconformance is small and the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) project is planned so as to create negligible local impact. Four, that the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Reasoning: That the relief sought is minor and that the boundary being relieved is not directed toward an adjacent neighbor but towards street space, and, Five, that the applicant's difficulty is considered to be self-created. I move for approval. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. LEOMBRUNO-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO.18-2012 SEQRA TYPE II DEAN HOWLAND, JR. AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S) JAMES AND LILLIAN CONWAY ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 32 NACY ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND EXISTING DECK CONSTRUCTION ENCROACHES ON SIDE SETBACK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF AV 9-2011; SP 8-2011; BOH 33, 2010 12/6/2010; BP 99-734 SEPTIC ALT. LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-32 SECTION 179-3-040 DEAN HOWLAND, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I just need to mention that in the interest of all disclosure one of my companies was involved in supplying some of the building product for this project, which is completely unrelated to the issue at hand, so I'm feeling that it's not necessary for me to recuse myself. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2012, Dean Howland, Jr., Meeting Date: April 25, 2012 "Project Location: 32 Nacy Road, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a single family residence and existing deck and associated stair construction encroaches on side setback. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Side setback - Request for 4.1 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback for the proposed landing as per§179-3-040. Side setback- Request for 4.1 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback for the proposed stairs leading from the landing as per§179-3-040. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to locate the landing and stairs along the south east side of the deck to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 4.1 feet or 20.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement for both the landing and stairs may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 8-11 15% Slopes, Conv. of seasonal dwelling to year-round Approved 3/22/11 AV 9-11 Height, shoreline, side setback Approved 2/23/11 BOH 33-10 Septic variance Approved 12/16/10 Staff comments: Previously approved west landing and stairs not to be pursued; applicant states that the western location would be too visible from the lake. Further, according to the applicant it appears the west stairs proposal would require additional relief due to miscalculation by previous applicant in 2011. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. HOWLAND-My name is Dean Howland. I'm the contractor for the customer, and what we came upon is the original application which I have drawings here showed the stairs coming off the deck that's built right where it's supposed to be heading west, and it's a toughie lot, but we have 11 foot 4 inch rise on the west side. So to put the stairs in as approved, the stringers would be over 17 feet long, and also due to the difficulty of the lot, it means they'd have to walk underneath the stairs, but from the lake you'd see a lot of stairs. So if we turned, and the way it was approved, it comes within 6.5 feet of the westerly property line, that's how it was approved originally. You probably didn't discuss it because it sort of shows it hanging out in midair, and so it came up if we put it on the east side and we run it back along the building, and on the bottom of the stairs we build a, it looks like an interior set of stairs, but it's all made (lost words). So I paint it the same green as the siding, it's going to disappear. This only came up because when you look across the lake you see some of the stairs across the lake that, again, being the hilly shoreline, they're just long stretches that are very visible. We just thought we'd come up with a way to make it disappear from view and instead of being six and a half feet off one property line, we'd be 15.9 off the other. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does Code specify like how long a run you can have on those steps, or can it be like 200 feet? MR. HOWLAND-No, we'll have to put in, if we went the other way, we'd have to put in (lost word) span bearings, but you have a rise and a run that you have to be, and it's just the way that we do it. We could shorten it up maybe a foot, but we're right at the bottom of, there's, there weren't many trees on this property that were standing. We lost one pine tree during a windstorm this Fall, and we have two other ones besides the ones that we're going to plant and we're right at their base. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you don't have enough room on the west side to swing the stairs 90 degrees from what you've got proposed over on that west side there? MR. HOWLAND-I can, but I've got to put them out far enough away so the windows would open. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. HOWLAND-Originally it was designed with, I don't know why they had the windows in front of the deck posts and we've adjusted that, but the west side is the only way for us to walk down easily. On the east side we've made a path so we can get a lawnmower down, and that's where we put our retention ponds over there, and if you walk off the east side of, underneath the house, well then you drop off four feet. I mean, we drop 68 feet from the driveway to the water. So we're dealing with some steep property. When we bring the stairs out, we're right on the edge of the bank. MR. KUHL-Probably the other benefit you have from doing it the way you want is you're going to have some protection because of the eaves of the house walking back. MR. HOWLAND-Well, we'll have to put a gutter underneath it. It doesn't, we use an Azek product. So we don't care what the weather brings from it. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. KUHL-No, I mean, from a safety standpoint because these people are going to be 12 month residents. MR. HOWLAND-They're going to be 12, but you won't be using these stairs except for when it's nice weather. I mean, face it, you aren't going to be going down into the water when it's cold. MR. KOSKINAS-Maybe you could help me out. I was at the site, had your drawing in my hand. I wasn't sure I was at the right place, but luckily you had a lot of guys there. This entire lot has been re-graded all the way to the lake. Where it says in the drawing that these stairs are going to remain, they don't, all right. They're gone. MR. HOWLAND-Well, they were rotted. I mean, there wasn't anything left of them. MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, well, it says they're going to remain. I was looking for them and couldn't find them. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, well, what happened we had to direct water, there was no stormwater management for this project. So you had flowers down at the bottom. We had a bank down at the bottom and where the flowers are going to go we put in, see two depressions, and then if you walk down the east side you saw that we put in another depression, just to catch the water, and then we had the bank really steep in the front and we couldn't plant anything on it, so we have a bunch of shrubbery going in there. MR. KOSKINAS-So in the front coming off Nacy Road now you have the S switchback walk to the. MR. HOWLAND-We did that, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-Instead of as it's shown on the drawing. So all this west staircase is gone, right? MR. HOWLAND-We had to take, what happened was when they originally built it, again, remember, when we dug it, when we started it, we were 18 feet below that at that point. That's how steep it was. We had to fill in five and a half feet to start, and the stairs were, they were eight feet deep and we took them out because we were afraid we were going to kill ourselves in the hall, and then the owners, they're in their mid 50's and they said, well, yes, we can probably maybe find you a way to walk down rather than to go down 17 steps. So we did that out back. MR. KOSKINAS-So in the front there's that S switchback that takes you down to the entrance door which is on the west side of the building. MR. HOWLAND-Correct. MR. KOSKINAS-And all the west side stairs are eliminated now? MR. HOWLAND-We took out the concrete steps. Correct. Yes. We talked to Craig about that. He said we could (lost words). MR. KOSKINAS-Yes, I'm just trying to get my understanding. MR. HOWLAND-Right, and then we put in the stone steps going down the rest of the west side where the old steps were that we were supposed to keep. MR. KOSKINAS-The only reason I ask is no variance is required there? MR. HOWLAND-No. I checked. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. Then the proposal, your request, as I understand it, is for the east side staircase. Is that right? MR. HOWLAND-Right. Okay, well, the original set of stairs coming off the deck, as on the approved plans, came right off dead center of the 10 foot, the deck's 10 by 18, the 10 foot side facing west, but it's 11 foot 4 to get to existing ground. The grade that there is existing by the trees, you can still see the original grass, so our run is going to be, well, the stringers are going to be, well, they only show like eight steps, and we have seventeen to get down. MR. KOSKINAS-Without a landing. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. HOWLAND-Well, the trouble with the landing is which way do we turn? We can't go down the hill, and if we come back, we've got to put it, we have to go out far enough anyway to turn it so that we miss the windows from opening. MR. KOSKINAS-When you considered the Zoning Administrator's suggestion that you go to the southeast side of the deck, what's the downside of doing that? MR. HOWLAND-Because we're going back right along the home, and then if you paint the bottom of it green, it's going to basically disappear from the lake. I mean, there's nobody over there on that side. We aren't affecting the neighbor or anybody. MR. KOSKINAS-No, I'm asking about the Zoning Administrator's suggestion that you put the, you relocate the landing and stairs on the southeast side of the deck so you don't require any variances at all. MR. HOWLAND-Well, there was no landing approved originally. It was a straight set of stairs. You already approved it to come out to within six and a half feet of the, that's what it says on here. There's no landing or anything on this. I mean, we could do that, but you're going to be extremely visible from the water and everything. We're trying to make it disappear. MR. KOSKINAS-Well, it's disappeared for me because I don't understand it. MR. OBORNE-Just to clarify, those are my comments, not Craig's. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in essence the west side staircase is not going to go in, you only want the one on the east side? MR. HOWLAND-Right. Instead of being six and a half feet from the west side, we'll be 15.9 from the east side. So we'll just take away whatever it was that you approved originally and put it on the other side. MR. UNDERWOOD-And there's less relief necessary for the east side than there would have been on the west side because of coming out of that 90 degrees to the property. MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure because I'm pretty sure they got relief for that. MR. HOWLAND-Well, the west side was approved, but I don't think anybody knew how close it would take it to the property line because it shows the stairs, I mean, I have the plans. It shows on just partial set, because I don't think anybody knew, well, I mean, we're on to existing grade, but I just don't think it was ever probably brought up. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we never, this was just approved as a building permit before? MR. OBORNE-No, you saw this. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, you have all this that was approved. I gave you pictures, trying to give you pictures showing you how much you're actually going to see. MR. URRICO-There's no way of telling whether the side setback is less for the east side than the one we approved for the west side? MR. OBORNE-Not with the current configuration of the land, no. MR. HOWLAND-Well, the current configuration of the land is where the stairs land, it's original, you can go over there and look. There's a tree. There's original grass. So we just went to the original grade on that side. That's the original grade. MR. URRICO-Has the configuration of the land changed since we approved this? I'm just not following this. MR. HOWLAND-No. It's exactly, you can go over there and see the grass. MR. URRICO-You said there was a miscalculation. Was the miscalculation in the plot or? MR. HOWLAND-Maybe I can show it to you here easily. If you have this plan, they showed the stairs coming down straight here, and then you see, when you see it on the side elevation, 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) whatever set it's on, it's got to be on here, it's cut off. You show the stairs coming straight this way. MR. URRICO-Right. MR. HOWLAND-It's just that they didn't figure the rise and run. They just showed it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Truncating three quarters of the way out. MR. HOWLAND-Right, and it actually goes way past it. I'm actually three feet off the (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-So if you had pursued that, you would have had to come back for a variance on that anyway, right? MR. HOWLAND-Well, I don't know what was approved. I mean, but that's, if I put it in according to the approval, this is existing grade. I'm all the way over here. So I'm six and a half feet off the property line. I just want to put it on the other side and you won't see it from anywhere. That's the nice thing about it. MR. GARRAND-What are they going to do with the snow in the wintertime? MR. HOWLAND-Where? MR. GARRAND-On the road? When they plow the snow, they usually get something we call snow banks, and those usually pile up in people's driveways. MR. HOWLAND-Well, he has a snow blower. So I assume he's going to snow blow it. They (lost words) with a septic system is what we're putting in right now, and they called for a fence, a split rail fence, but we're going to put great big boulders there so they can't, because a split rail fence won't stay there over the winter, but they're no different than. MR. GARRAND-I'm just wondering where he's going to put the snow all winter long. MR. HOWLAND-He'll just blow it on top of the Ieachfield. I mean, you've got the parking, I mean we didn't have much snow last year, but we did have a snowstorm early, and we moved it quite easily. He's got a snow blower. That's one of the reasons we put the switchback in is that he could snow blow his sidewalk. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? Okay. Hearing none, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, this is a Type II SEQRA. I'm going to poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think if you look at the original proposal, certainly with that stairway coming down at right angles parallel with the shoreline it looks kind of silly almost, you know, it doesn't look like it belongs there with such a long run on it, and putting it on the other side of the house and running it back looks to me to accomplish getting you down to ground zero where you can walk down to the lake a lot easier in that respect. It would almost be too busy and at loggerheads with the other staircase coming down on the rock side that you've already created over on that side there. So I don't have a problem with it. I do have a bit of a problem, though, with the fact that, you know, there's no vegetation on site, and I'm wondering if we can condition that with some kind of a review by the Town, as far as re-vegetating the site there and putting some trees up between there and the lake. MR. OBORNE-1 believe that that is part of the site plan, though, as far as that being a condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-So there is an approved conditions that they're going to meet? MR. OBORNE-Yes. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. HOWLAND-There's only 20 native plants by the shoreline. If you've been over there, you can see the mulch bed. That's all going to be low ground shrubs. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, I live on Glen Lake. I live way up at the other end of the lake, and when I paddle around the lake and I look at these lots down in there, certainly Sicards, which we reviewed numerous times, you know, that has lots of trees on it. This lot doesn't have any large trees on it. I would like to see a couple of trees go in there, irregards to that, because I think it does aid in the runoff that comes down off Nacy Road. You've got that steep bank and surely when you have a lot of impermeable up on top of the hill you're going to have water issues, you know, occasionally during major rain events. So I'd like to see a couple of trees go in there, and I think we could include that in. I'll see what you guys say, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HOWLAND-Did you know the Town of Queensbury has a manhole on it would be the south, no it would be the northwest corner? Well, Nacy Road doesn't actually go (lost words). MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know, it comes down around a corner, dumps down towards you. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, and it comes in right at the end of the little garage that we have there. It takes a ton of water. I mean, that's where the driveway is going. That's where their water goes to, and we've cut off anything coming down the hill because we just can't let it go across the Ieachfield. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I know we've worked with you before up on Rockhurst and other places like that, and I think we understand the importance of re-vegetating, even though there may not have been much on site to begin with, but it's important that we try to, in some semblance, regain what's a medium amount, and so I'd like to see at least two large trees down in front. It's going to take a long time for them to grow up and block the view. MR. HOWLAND-1 don't think they'll ever. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not with the height you've got up on top of the hill. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I just have a question before I give my comments. Where's the generator? MR. HOWLAND-The generator's behind the house between the house and the stone wall. MR. KUHL-Okay. I didn't see it, but anyway, I honestly think that they could have gone down to a landing area, and then went back on the west side, but when you look from the lake all you'd see would be a lot of fence, a lot of railing and stuff. I think this is, I like the fact that it goes along the house and it kinds of hides it, and I don't think it's going to be a glaring stairs that would stand out the way of the original one. So I think it's an improvement. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think if you look at, if I recall this from when we approved the west side relief, there's less relief for this than there was for that one, and I think this'll be an improvement, plus it'll be hidden. That'll be another bonus. So I would think this is a better solution than what we had before. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? Sorry, Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 think as Mr. Kuhl said, it's an improvement upon what was previously approved. I also agree with Mr. Underwood. There's definitely some area that should have some plantings on it. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Koskinas? MR. KOSKINAS-Based on the color illustration that shows the stairs going down the east side of the house, I have no reservations. That's, cosmetically, pretty appealing. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problems. I think this is aesthetically much more pleasing and the amount of relief requested is minor. So I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I will close the public hearing. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I assume, is it Jim who's going to make the motion? MRS. HUNT-I'll make the motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? Great. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2012 DEAN HOWLAND, JR., Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 32 Nacy Road, Glen Lake. The applicant has constructed a single family residence and existing deck and associated stair construction encroaches on side setback. The relief required is 4.1 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback for the proposed stairs leading from the landing, as well as the landing as per Section 179-3-040. Whether the benefit could be achieved by other means. I think this is probably the best, most aesthetically pleasing solution. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request, 41 feet, 20.5% relief is minor. It will have no adverse physical or environmental effects, and its self- created because the applicant wants a way down from the deck, and as a condition, we are requesting two Code compliant trees taken off the list that are approved for Waterfront Residential properties, and those trees to be minimum base diameter of four inches, and within 30 feet of the waterfront. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-Be more specific on the trees. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, Jim maybe can be more specific on the type and placement of trees and height. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would leave it up to the applicants. We would like to see two native species trees that are approved for lakeside use planted between the lake and the home, and those trees not to be cut or pruned in the future. MR. HOWLAND-Can I ask a question? Just how far back from the water do you want them? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think anywhere from the water's edge to the house, you know, in that range in there. So anywhere along there is fine as far as I'm concerned. MR. JACKOSKI-Would it be more appropriate to put them within the 30 foot buffer zone? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, let's put them within 30 feet of the lake. How's that? MR. HOWLAND-Okay, yes, that's fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-That'll work. That's going to be well below your view shed. MR. JACKOSKI-And is it reasonable to suggest 12 to 14 feet in height to start? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean, anything's going to grow. MR. JACKOSKI-Or do we want a Wal-Mart special at three feet? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think the intent is to have the trees, you know, become prevalent and not have to wait 15 years for them to be seen. MR. OBORNE-1 would add that they are Code compliant also. MR. UNDERWOOD-And Code compliant with the suggested species for Waterfront Residential. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So Joyce is going to make an amendment. MRS. HUNT-Let me clarify the side setback. Request for 4.1 feet of relief from the 20 foot side setback for the proposed stairs leading from the landing as per Section 179-3-040. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Jim, do you want to summarize the trees so that? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/25/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-Two Code compliant trees taken off the list that are approved for Waterfront Residential properties, and those trees to be, I would say minimum base diameter of say four inches or that sounds reasonable to me, and you can drag them down the hill. MR. HOWLAND-We can still get there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and within 30 feet of the water. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We do have a motion. MR. URRICO-1 just want to make sure that we say that in the motion we're saying 4.1 feet of relief from the stairs and the landing. They're two separate reliefs. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. That motion will identify stairs and the landing. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. GARRAND-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. Do we have any discussion? Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-That is the last scheduled New Business item on the agenda. Is there any additional business anyone from the Board would like to bring forward to tonight's meeting? Seeing no additional comments, is there anyone who'd like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 25, 2012, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 8:20. Good night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 22