Loading...
07-16-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern- Nichols 1. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19 Area Variance No. 64-2013 Dodge Watkins 2. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54 Area Variance No.46-2014 Paul G. Deslauriers 10. Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45 Area Variance No.49-2014 Russell M. Canterbury 11. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-25 Area Variance No. 51-2014 Richard&Jill Long 22. Tax Map No. 240.00-1-6 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 07/16/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 16,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to begin our meeting this evening, July 16th of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Queensbury here at the Activities Center on Bay Road. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite a simple process. There is a sheet in the back that explains how we proceed, but basically we'll read each application into the record. We will ask the applicants to join us here at the table. Then we'll ask them some questions, ask them to add any comments they'd like to at this time to the record. When there is a public hearing scheduled we will, of course, open that public hearing for public comment. The Board will continue to ask questions. Maybe we'll poll the Board to see how we're going to be moving forward with this particular project and then we'll take action accordingly and possibly close the public hearing. We do have some housekeeping to do this evening. So I'd like to get started with that. We do have the approval of meeting minutes from May 21St, May 28th, June 4th„ and what I'd like to do here is get a motion and then a second and then ask each Board member to carefully review the attendance log and where you may have been absent and you would wish to abstain, I'd request that you do so. So can I have a motion to approve the minutes,please? APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 2014 May 28, 2014 June 4, 2014 June 18, 2014 June 25, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21sT, MAY 28TH, JUNE 4TH, JUNE 18th &JUNE 25th 2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico (abstained from 6/25), Mr. Garrand (abstained from 6/18), Mr. Henkel (abstained from 6/4), Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl (abstained from May 21St and May 28th), Mr. Jackoski (abstained from 6/18) NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you for housekeeping. That was a lot faster than going through each item in detail. We have another Administrative Item for housekeeping. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012: BLUE MOOSE TAVERN - NICHOLS; FURTHER TABLING OR DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-This application has been in front of us for an extended period of time, since 2012. At this point, I think we are seeking, based on Mr. Garrand's recommendation last time, that we deny this without prejudice,but I will seek a motion to either table or deny without prejudice. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion we deny without prejudice. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Blue Moose Tavern / Daniel & Ellen Nichols 8 Glen Lake Road & 1300 State Route 9, Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19; for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to construct a 400 sq. ft. dining room expansion to existing 3,465 sq. ft. restaurant as well as 2,500 sq. ft. expansion to existing deck to include new bathrooms and bar. Further, construction of a 4,500 sq. ft. retail building and 10,770 sq. ft.banquet facility with 4 guest suites on second floor is proposed. Relief requested from the minimum front yard setback, Travel Corridor Overlay and maximum height restrictions requirements of the Cl zone. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on August 22, 2012 and left open 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: MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3 5-2 012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN - DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everyone. Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2013 SEQRA TYPE II DODGE WATKINS AGENT(S) MATT STEVES- VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) DODGE WATKINS ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE,TWICWOOD PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE AND 5 TWICWOOD LANE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM 2 - ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RELOCATED SHED ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF AV 65-2013 CLUTE, SB 6-2013; SB 13-72 PHASE 2 MODIFICATION; BP 2008-438 SHED; BP 2006-389 RES. ADDITION; BP 2006-140 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MATT STEVES&LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This project has been in front of this Board on December 18th as well with a public hearing. We are going to continue a public hearing this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 64-2013, Dodge Watkins, Meeting Date: July 16, 2014 "Project Location: 3 Maplewood Drive, Twicwood Phase 2 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment which will result in the relocation of the common property line between 3 Maplewood Drive&5 Twicwood Lane. Relief Required: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179-3-040 establishment of districts -area requirements for the Moderate-density residential and 179-5-020 accessory structure-shed. Lot size Setback(shed) Required 2 acres 25 ft. Proposed 0.50 acres 15.21 ft.-relocated Relief 1.5 9.79 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. 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 may be limited as the project involves a lot line adjustment between two properties to accommodate separate access and setback to the existing shed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant 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 to no impact 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. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, AV 65-13: Clute-pending-no longer needed BP 08-438: Shed BP 06-389: Residential addition BP 06-140: Single family dwelling SB 13-72: 2-7-93 Staff comments: The applicant and adjoining property are proposing a lot line adjustment where the parcel is less than two acres. The plans show the location of the new lot line, the new parcel sizes and the location of the shed with setback information. The lot line adjustment has been proposed so each lot has a separate access. The shed on the property is to be relocate to a more compliant location but still requires a variance for one setback relief. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR.URRICO-Do you want me to go into the criteria? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know that we need to again. We've done it a few times. I mean, this has been in front of us and I think if we work with the applicant we can try to move forward accordingly. Is that fair, Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome everyone. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves and Larry Clute representing Mr. Watkins. Larry Clute's also the property owner to the south. So he's at the table with us and he is also under contract to buy Mr.Watkins's house so that we can get a five year lot line adjustment cleaned up hopefully. We 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) were in front of this Board I think back in December and there were a few concerns that were brought up and we've made some modifications and look forward to input from the Board. Reduced all the required, requested variances on Lot 89, and Lot 90 it just would be the area and then the second driveway we're asking for. Mr. Noonan had brought up a point where there was a big snow bank where there was another driveway. We went up and located the seam where they had extended that driveway out to Maplewood, and that is to be removed. I gave you some photos for, standing at the proposed drive location looking north on Twicwood and looking south on Twicwood and toward the existing structures so you can see that it's in an area where there isn't a lot of vegetation and it's an ideal location for the driveway, so that each house has their own driveway and ability to turnaround on their own property without having to cross over onto each other. The area is reduced a little bit. There was some discussion about trying to not make the property line so convoluted. We went straight back. It still meets all the requirements for the setbacks. The shed that's in the back we're going to re-locate to a compliant location. It was basically in a location where it was approved back years ago when Mr.Watkins put it in,but we will still disconnect the power and move it to a compliant location. That's not a problem, and the only other thing I'd bring up at this point is that, you know, the lot size, we could increase it again, like we were talking about before, by coming behind the driveway kind of where you see that fenced in area, just to the north of Mr. Clute's pool, and jog that boundary line back around there again, but that's at the discretion of the Board. I know there was some discussion about trying to keep it as clean and simple as possible. This works well, but we could take that line in an easterly direction and then jog and get down along the fence line behind the pool to increase the parcel area on Lot 90. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Matt. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. NOONAN-I have a question. Maybe this is for Staff, I don't know. We had raised some questions last time regarding the, I believe it was the 2006 condition that there be no new driveways entering either Twicwood or Maplewood from these properties. If we were to approve this variance, are we then making, then we have to allow for a new driveway because we've cut off driveway access? We would have created the difficulty for the applicant, and then we have to approve a new driveway? MRS. MOORE-There may be a condition that was placed on it. That's why you come back to the Board to amend that condition. You've asked for that and they've indicated why they need that. So I don't know if that answers your question or not. MR. NOONAN-It helps. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Well,they've got to go back to the Planning Board because the Planning Board is the one who made this condition,and it was a condition on Subdivision approval 13-1972. MRS.MOORE-It goes back to the Planning Board next week. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. STEVES-Correct. We were in front of the Planning Board prior to coming to the Zoning Board in December,to show them what we were proposing. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. STEVES-So they can get the recommendation to this Board, obviously, because we knew that there was a modification to what they had already approved as well, and they had no issues moving forward with that, and that's why it came to this Board back in December, and then we had some concerns from this Board and we are trying to address those concerns, but we definitely have to go back to the Planning Board,and that's scheduled for next week I do believe. MR. KUHL-Mr. Steves, wasn't there, wasn't an item brought up on the proposed new driveway about the hill going down? Mr. Clute,are you going to be living in Lot 89,is that your home? MR. CLUTE-Yes,sir. MR. KUHL-Okay. Wasn't there something brought up when you first came up about the slope of Twicwood? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Is there any danger, I mean,what are you looking at when you make this driveway down there? MR. STEVES-I gave you photos. MR. KUHL-Yes, I see it. MR. STEVES-It's a constant, you know, straight slope of about four and a half, five percent down Twicwood Lane. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. STEVES-All compliant roads in the Town, in that subdivision, if anybody's driven up there, it's not overly steep, and if you're looking into Mr. Clute's property where we're proposing it, one of the concerns was to, removing all those trees between the two driveways, and that's not what we would be doing. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. STEVES-It actually goes right into the area where it's actually the best grade. It has about a 20 inch pitch from his, out front of his driveway or his garage back down toward the road and then the swale on the road. MR. KUHL-Okay,but, I mean,this is what you want,this is what you're looking for. MR. CLUTE-Yes,sir. MR. KUHL-And you're going to park your trucks up there or just the truck with the Clute on the side? MR. HENKEL-Mr. Steves, you said that the, you would put the shed in a better compliant spot. So you're not going to ask for a variance for that? MR. STEVES-No,we're asking to move that shed to the compliant location as shown. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you're still asking for a setback,according to this. MRS.MOORE-Yes,only one setback. MR. HENKEL-No way of eliminating that all together? MR. STEVES-I would say yes we could, but trying to keep it in that location. I didn't apply for this. This was obviously Mr. Watkins that applied for it, and this was approved by the Building and Codes with the dimensions, and it was, at the time, I can pass this around so you can see it, 30 feet from the south property line and he had it at five feet from the easterly property line, and it was approved for the building permit and we said okay,we'll push it as far as we can so we went the 30 feet from the southerly property line, and moved it to 15 feet from that easterly property line, and again, I wasn't part of this. We found this in the Town records. Trying to keep it in a suitable location. MR. STEVES-What is this setback on that side line, Laura? Twenty-five. So I'd have to move it another 10 feet,puts it right in the middle of the yard,exactly. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from Board members before we re-open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to invite anyone to the table if they'd be interested in speaking with the Board concerning this particular application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address us? Mr. McNulty. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHUCK MC NULTY 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. MC NULTY-Chuck and Linda McNulty. We live at 14 Twicwood Lane. We spoke before when there was a public hearing,but I have a problem with this, partly because the current situation was what Mr. Clute asked for. He built Watkins' house. Therefore he knew where the property lines were. I don't fully understand the setback on the shed,but I hear part of it is setback from the side lot line. Now when I was on the Zoning Board, 5 Maplewood would have no side yards. It would have two front yards and two backyards. It's a corner lot, and the line that you're moving is one backyard line,but from what I hear, I believe that part of the setback is from the other backyard line which has always existed there. So I think this is a self-caused problem. Somebody put that shed where they wanted to put it, disregarding what the rules were. I'm also concerned about the idea of the driveway, and I understand the driveway is a Planning Board issue, but the point was made earlier, and I think quite validly, if you approve the lot line re-adjustment,then that basically forces the shared driveway to be eliminated and a new driveway to be required. Now, back when the Watkins's house was built, Mr. Clute argued for a shared driveway. That's what he wanted. Putting the driveway for Mr. Clute where he's proposing, halfway down the hill, looks fine when you're looking up that hill,but when you're coming down that hill from my house or anyplace up on the top of the hill, you've got to get to the crest of the hill and start down before you can see whether anybody's coming out of the driveway, if it's going to be down where it's proposed. Now that's also a pathway for school children. The school bus stop there is at the foot of Twicwood hill. So two to three times a day you've got a crowd of kids coming up that hill. It strikes me that it's much smarter to leave the driveway the way it is and there's mechanisms for doing that, even if you move the lot lines. There can be agreements between landowners for a shared driveway. I guess that's most of my points. Linda? LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-The only other point I'd like to make is when Mr. Clute was building the house on the corner there, Maplewood, he was required to take down a maintenance shed that was far more attractive than what's there. The Town required it be taken out of there before they would approve a house. So I don't understand why there are supplemental utility buildings. He's got one on his property that looks gosh awful, and it's so out of place for the neighborhood. The one that the Watkins have is less offensive, but we've had neighbors moving out because this is degrading the neighborhood. They just do not like the downhill turn that the neighborhood is taking. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I am going to leave the public hearing open. I'd ask the applicants to re-join us at the table. If they'd like to respond to anything that they heard during the public comment period, or we'll simply poll the Board for seeing where they'd like to move. MR. CLUTE-I did ask for the singular driveway, without realizing the consequences until I moved into it and actually it was previous to me moving into it. I used to rent the house I now live in. A shared driveway or common driveway all sounds well and good in straight discussion. It doesn't work well in everyday use, no matter how well you get along, and I got along with the Watkins's very well, but still, we all want our own stuff, and so to be honest with you, at the onset, hindsight being 20/20, if I hadn't have gone for the most expedient method,which was the shared driveway, I should have gone for the individual driveways from minute one, but did not, but again, hindsight being 20/20. I'm trying to correct that now. Even though, I'm buying the house on the corner. So obviously I'm not going to argue with myself, but the intent is to sell, and I've already experienced tension between myself and my neighbor, the Watkins's, and my previous tenant in my home also had tension, a shared driveway. So it gets difficult. So I'm trying to alleviate that. The proposal is a very good proposal. The sight distances are very well, and if you've visited the site, it makes a lot of sense, and again, I should have done this from minute one. I did not, but that's why we're back here now. As far as the old shed,it wasn't a shed,it was a pool house,and no,it was not required to be torn down, but it was a pool house. It wasn't a shed. So we brought the pool house down. That's the shed that they were describing and it was a very attractive building. Again, it was a pool house, and it was on the second lot. It wasn't on the lot that I live on. That's why it had to come down. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any further comments? MR. STEVES-Just the one regarding the driveway. Again, you look at that photo where we're standing at the proposed driveway looking north back up to the intersection, you know, that's at eye level. Looking back up, it is not a line of the proposed driveway. We made sure that it was at the most suitable location for this property. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. CLUTE-The location that was chosen was also to try and leave, Twicwood very old, established neighborhood,very nice. That being said, a lot of mature trees. I have a ton of mature trees on my lot. I'd like to leave them there. So we took into consideration those mature trees, not a one to have to be taken down for this proposal. I could do that, you know, I could possibly hug the driveway to the existing driveway and go to the property line, still have a shared driveway, have one curb cut, but literally I'm cutting down a lot of mature trees in order to accomplish that. So there is an alternative,but I don't think it's the wise way to go. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. So it's out of the question, at this point,to make the shed compliant? MR. CLUTE-If the shed's an issue, I'll make it gone. To be honest with you,because the shed doesn't even have to be there,but to make it compliant really is a distraction to the lawn. MR.JACKOSKI-We just have to grant the minimum relief and so we're just trying to. MR. CLUTE-No,and I'm responding. To comply literally puts his shed,or not his,it's now mine,will be in the middle of that backyard. So I would rather avoid that, but if it's an issue as far as getting this done,that shed's gone. MR. HENKEL-According to the survey, it looks like you have a lot of room there, between the shed and the deck there. MR. STEVES-You do,but it's the portion of the yard that is used. MR. CLUTE-Mr. McNulty brought it up. This is a corner lot. So that being said, you really don't have a rear yard. So the yard with the shed in it is their only usable yard. That home, or I say they, me,that side yard is really the only usable yard. On a corner lot,that's all you have. MR.JACKOSKI-And could the turnaround on, I'll refer to it as Lot 89 that's projecting toward Lot 90, is there any way that that could be minimized so that you just use the turnaround to the north of the shed that's on that property? MR. STEVES-He's talking about this turnaround,can we reduce it back down a little bit. Reduce it to like five foot off the property? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just thinking that if you could slide that property line more toward 89's building and make the lots equal in size,at least we don't have a half acre lot. You'd have a larger lot. MR. CLUTE-For discussion, I would prefer to leave the turnaround where it is. Ron had brought up my trucks. My truck has a very difficult time with that turnaround. It's over 20 feet long. So it's a tough turnaround, but the equalization of the lots, if you look, Steve, on the mapping you'll see the fencing that's in place. We can adjust that rear property line adding to Lot 90, to give further area to that. MR. JACKOSKI-We don't want to do the zigs and zags again. I understand. So how will you maintain your stormwater runoff from your property onto the public road? MR. CLUTE-There's already a swale. Queensbury's already accommodated that. MR. JACKOSKI-But, I mean, that is going into Queensbury to take care of, not onto your own property to take care of. MR. STEVES-We could shed the, to the south and take that driveway and put a cross slope on of about one and a half percent,and then you can take care of that on the south side of the driveway. MR. CLUTE-It already does, to be honest with you. Without the driveway, the lawn itself already pitches to the south,without the driveway's addition. So that sloping is already taken place. When, whoever designed this house and built it, they took that into consideration. So that front yard is already sloping to the south. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Noonan has a question. MR. NOONAN-We've been focusing on the shed on Lot 90, but the shed on Lot 89, as it currently stands,is in violation. Correct? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. STEVE S-Currently,yes,both sheds are in violation. MR. NOONAN-Right. So that might be more of an issue than, because that shed looks like it's got a poured foundation or a poured slab. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. NOONAN-So that one's already removed. Maybe, okay, and is that maybe more of the reason why we're looking to change the distance from that shed to the property line? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just struggling with the size of that lot,you know, the corner lot and being a half acre and lots of driveway and very little lawn for anybody to quote raise a family on. MR. NOONAN-Just to clarify,most of the lots in the neighborhood are about.35,.4 of an acre. MR.JACKOSKI-But they're not on a corner either. MR. NOONAN-They're not on a corner. Anyway, any other comments from Board members before I close the public hearing,sorry,before I poll the Board and then close the public hearing? All right. I'd like to poll the Board if I could. Rick? MR. GARRAND-With a shed on Lot 90, it's going from 10 feet to 15 feet and it's going to be more compliant. Even with the, if the Board decides to approve a lot line adjustment, a shared driveway can be maintained. That's out of our purview. I think if it does get approved, the Planning Board should take Mr. McNulty's comments into consideration for the safety aspect of this. As far as the lot size, I know the lots are not that large in there, and since this subdivision was initially approved, there have been houses built in this subdivision, and they're not all two acre lots. I'd be hard- pressed to find many that are two acre lots, and the ones that look like they might be two acres, there isn't much usable property given some of the slopes in that neighborhood. The relief,9.8 feet, to me is moderate at best. As far as the lot size,there isn't a lot you can do with the lot size on here. I think this is a logical approach to squaring off the lot lines and making one lot more compliant at the expense of the other. MR.JACKOSKI-So you're for the application as presented? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree, and I would also recommend the Planning Board take a look at the comments of the McNulty's in planning the future driveway. I would be in favor of this application. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-You're here for lot size, you know, variance from the lot size and the setback for the shed. I feel like the shed shouldn't even be here. You should be able to take care of that on your own and then just ask for lot size. I actually would not be in favor as is at this point in time. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, I don't like shared driveways. So for that reason, I'm in favor of this lot line adjustment. The shed is a whole other issue. I don't think that's all that much relief you're asking for, and you could even more it forward,but then it would be in the middle of the yard or your play area,but I'd be in favor of this. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'd be in favor of the lot line adjustment. I wouldn't require it,but I'd suggest,just to make things cleaner,if the shed isn't a problem, I'd get rid of it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I have no problem with it. I think it makes it definitely a cleaner looking lot with the lot line straight like that, and I have no problem with you having the shed there. It's not asking for much relief. I'd like to see a little bit more of the asphalt taken out, though, but I have no problem with it. There's a lot of homes on Cedarwood that have driveways pretty close, you're talking approximately almost 300 feet here, 270 feet here, and you've only got two driveways there, so I don't see that being much of a problem. Whereas on Cedarwood you've got driveway after driveway on that hill, which is more of a problem than this would be. So I have no problem with this project the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, I think we're all clear that we don't have problems with the lot line adjustment. It's the shed. We've got three folks wishing that the shed would go away, before I make my decision here. So I'd like the shed to be compliant if I could. The shed's not going to go away if it's compliant. So the neighbor's concerns that it's unattractive and degrading the neighborhood,if you put it in a compliant place,it's still going to be. MR. CLUTE-It's gone. MR. STEVES-It's gone. MR. JACKOSKI-I might have said you could keep it, but since you offered. So the applicant has requested that they remove their request for relief regarding the shed. They'll either make it compliant or they'll remove it from the property. So at this point all we have is lot line adjustments and it seems that we're all unanimously in favor of it except Kyle has suggested no, or is it no, yes, Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Well, I guess I was not in favor of the shed,you know, needing a variance, but the lot line being straighter is significantly nicer to look at than the zig zag. So that's kind of where I stand. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So if that's what you want to do, and take away the shed, we'll take away the shed,and I'll see a motion for approval. I am closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dodge Watkins for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury for a lot line adjustment which will result in the relocation of the common property line between 3 Maplewood Drive and 4 Twicwood Lane. The requested relief is for 1.5 acres of relief where 2 acres is required. The proposed lot will be half an acre. Relief requested from the minimum 2-acre requirement for the MDR zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 18, 2013 and left open; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? I don't think it'll produce any change in character to the neighborhood,but as I said before, we're not subject to the second driveway. That's going to be the purview of the Planning Board. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? I think the applicant has made a significant compromise on this with the elimination of the shed. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I think this request might be moderate, given the existing lot sizes. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't believe it'll have any adverse 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) physical or environmental effects as we are only granting relief of 1.5 acres from an existing nonconforming lot. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It maybe deemed self-created. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 64-2013, Dodge Watkins, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 16th day of July 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm glad it's over. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2014 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL G. DESLAURIERS OWNER(S) PAUL G. DESLAURIERS ZONING R-3 YR. 1967 AT TIME OF SUBD. APPROVAL LOCATION 33 WINCOMA LANE - ROLLING RIDGE ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,475 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE (WETLAND) SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF SP 40- 2014, FWW 3-2014; BOH SEPTIC VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.15 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-45 SECTION 179-3-040 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2014, Paul G. DesLauriers, Meeting Date: July 16, 2014 "Project Location: 33 Wincoma Lane- Rolling Ridge Estates Description of Proposed Project: MR.JACKOSKI-The next item on tonight's agenda is an item that I believe is seeking tabling. Is that correct? Could Staff just update us a little bit? MRS. MOORE-The Town Board is scheduled for the septic hearing. The applicant has requested tabling at the Zoning Board meeting. That gives them adequate time to present to the Town Board who is acting as the Board of Health in this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Hearing Staff, would anyone like to make a motion to table, and when would we like to table to? MR. GARRAND-Next week,right? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2014 PAUL G. DESLAURIERS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Tabled to Wednesday,July 23, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.49-2014 SEQRA TYPE II RUSSELL M. CANTERBURY AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL - RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) RUSSELL M. CANTERBURY ZONING WR LOCATION 39 CANTERBURY DRIVE ON WEST END OF GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,979 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2,247 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY, SIDE, REAR, AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL; (WR) DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS NEEDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON A PARCEL WITHOUT THE NECESSARY MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15 PERCENT. CROSS REF SB MODIFICATION 3-2006; SP 46- 2014 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2014 LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-25 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS CANTERBURY, PRESENT MR.URRICO-Now,am I reading in the Staff Notes as they are? Have the specs changed? MRS.MOORE-The specs have changed. MR. URRICO-I'm not sure what I'm amending. So you want me to just read it in, or how do you want to do this? MR. MC CABE-Maybe you could go through and tell us what the new and the proposed are. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'm going to read it as presented in the Staff Notes. Because anything that's changed is going to have to be corrected anyway. Right? All right. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2014, Russell M. Canterbury, Meeting Date: July 16, 2014 "Project Location: 39 Canterbury Drive on west end of Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,979 sq. ft.residence and construction of a new 2,247 sq. ft. single family dwelling. For height,what is required is a maximum of 28 feet,what is proposed is 32 feet 10 inches. The relief is 3 feet 2 inches. MR. MC CABE-That's not right,though. MRS.MOORE-You're reading the Staff Notes as is. MR. MC CABE-Yes,but the Staff Notes are,the math is wrong on the Staff Notes. It should be 4 foot 10. Right? Twenty-eight from thirty-two is four. The height. The math is wrong on the height. MR.JACKOSKI-This is going to be a bit of a struggle because this is also current, so to speak, and not late, I'll say. So, you know, this will be hard to get through all of this because there's a lot of revisions and a lot of discussions we had,but we'll try. I just don't know if we're going to. MR.URRICO-Okay. Relief Required: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 establishment of districts -area requirements for waterfront residential and 179-4-050 road frontage: Permeability Side South Shoreline Height FAR Road Frontage Required 75% 20 ft. 50 ft. Max allowed 28 Max allowed 50 ft. 22%/2720.5 s . ft. Proposed 66.6% 14 ft. 2 in 8 ft. 32 ft. 10 in 35.9%/4443 sq. ft. 0 ft. Relief 8.4% 5 ft. 10 in 42 ft. Excess 3 ft. 2 in Excess 13.9% 50 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. 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 may be available to reduce the amount of relief requested with a smaller footprint and or floor area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant 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 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. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SB 3-06: Modification SP 19-13: SFD (Benton) Staff comments: The applicant has completed a variance application for the demolition of an existing home to construct a new home. The relief requested is for permeability, a south side setback, shoreline setback,height,floor area ratio and road frontage. The information submitted shows the location of the existing and proposed home, elevations, floor plans, septic system, site details including planting plans and permeable paver location on the site. The applicant provided additional information about the planting areas and stormwater management on the site. Staff would recommend the septic upgrade as a condition. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review, has identified the following areas of concern per Laura's comments: the amount of relief requested could be reduced by design modification and achieve the development desired, and that was adopted July 15th, 2014. There were five yeses and two noes. So now,are we going to revise the? MR. HALL-We'll go over what we changed. Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle of Rucinski Hall Architects. With me tonight is Russ Canterbury, the owner of the property. We went to Planning last night for recommendation to the Zoning Board, and heard their comments. We spoke significantly about the amount of hard surfaces that are on this lot existing, and Mr. Canterbury's father built the property in the late 50's, early 60's, and it was put together out of whatever lumber was available at the time, and it's in a state of disrepair and it's at a point where it really needs to be upgraded significantly. The area that's shown on my map here in blue is the area that's allowable for construction without an area variance. It's a very narrow strip. It's about eight feet wide and the length of the lot. The overall depth of the lot is 80 feet back from the lake. The red box that I had indicated here is the approximate location of the existing septic tank. What the 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) outfall of that tank is we don't know. We assume that it is some kind of either a 55 gallon drum or some kind of a barrel that's probably in the location of Canterbury Drive, which is the access point. It's the right of way access to Dr. Sabia's house which is the next one over. The area that's indicated in the gray shade is all concrete surfaces. It runs right down from the front of the house all the way down to the lake. There is very little green space in front of the house, and the yellow area is what the footprint of the existing house is. Our original proposal that we had put together and presented to the Planning Board last night is what you have in your packet. The major item that we've taken care of is the septic field, and that was one of the recommendations that Staff had and that is one of the conditions that we're taking care of. Mr. Canterbury is in contact with the adjoining neighbor to purchase the area that's in the dark green, to allow for a 100 foot separation between the sewage disposal system and the lake to make the sewage disposal system compliant. To do that requires putting in a septic tank and a pump chamber. We've taken up most of the hard surface around the area. The outline of the house is shown. The area underneath of the deck and the area underneath the sunroom are open. They have permeable pavers underneath them. So any of the water will then go into the ground. So we've taken up a significant amount for the hard surface that's underneath those spaces. A couple of the things that came from the Planning Board last night is that the relief that's being requested,the eight feet,the setback from the shoreline, is actually to the deck, it's to the front of the deck. Whereas right now it's all concrete and the front setback goes to the front of the house because the deck is a constructed item and requires additional relief. The other item is the front of this portion which is the screen porch. That also sticks out in the front of the house. So in our discussions with them and in our, Russ and my discussions today,what we've now made our presentation to be is we've taken the screen porch and the garage block and I've shifted those back so that they're more in line with the front of the house. The screen porch does not stick out quite as far as it did before. I moved that whole piece back about four and a half to five feet, and then I took the whole block itself and I moved that back as far as I could to still allow for access up Canterbury Lane to the adjoining property. So I've now pushed that back farther away from the lake. I've also cut down in size the amount of the end of the deck and changed the stair configuration so that is less of a requested area variance. We've one from, we were asking for 12 and a half feet or 12 feet three inches. We're now asking for 18 feet on that side. Again,these are two areas that are elevated. They're open underneath but they are structures so they do require the additional area variance. By moving this and changing it, it required us moving septic a little bit, moving the septic tank and the effluent function, but the tile field itself or the disposal field is still on that piece of property that's up back and it still becomes a compliant system. The biggest thing is we're getting that out of the lake basin itself, making it a compliant system. So that's the reason for the changes that you see in our requested area variances. That's the marked up red system that you have there. So our eight foot shoreline setback becomes 12 foot 3. Again,that 12 foot 3 is actually to the front of the deck. The front porch of the screen porch is now 21 foot 8. The existing house is 23 feet. So we're really close to the front, the front of the screen porch is really close to where the front of the house is now. So other than the deck,which now extends out,we're really not, the house itself isn't really any closer to the lake than it is now. We have significantly increased the green space area in the front of the house and added any plantings for stormwater management. All of the roof gutters and roof leaders will go to those spaces, and we've tried to, like I said, we've tried to push this back now and still maintain access to the adjoining property owner. Those were our big challenges. The two items that we don't have any control over are no road frontage, it's not on a public road, it's on a private right of way. So that's really not anything we had any control over. And the size of the lot. The size of the lot pre-dated the zoning. We don't have any control over that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. HALL-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions at this time from Board members? I have a few, but I'll let some others go first. MR. MC CABE-So just from what I hear is that from, the relief that you're requesting goes from 42 feet to 37 feet 9? MR. HALL-Correct. MR. MC CABE-And the permeability,you don't have a number on that? MR. HALL-Yes, our permeability number goes, we were asking, it was 66.6% and it goes up to 67.34%. So we increased, slightly, the amount of permeability. Again, you know, we're better now than we are currently,but it's still not 100%compliant. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. MC CABE-The Floor Area Ratio? MR. HALL-The Floor Area Ratio stays the same. Nothing, we just moved things around to push them back as far as we could. The existing,current house has six bedrooms,five bedrooms? MR. CANTERBURY-Five bedrooms. MR. HALL-Five bedrooms. This house has four bedrooms. So we've actually decreased the size of the, or the number of bedrooms in the house. The existing house has been built and added on and it's really, it's chopped up. The existing plans that you have show how the house is all chopped up and there's, the rooms don't make a whole lot of sense. They were kind of put together as they were needed. MR. URRICO-You said you purchased property to put the septic system on or you're in the process of doing that? MR. HALL-We have an agreement with the adjoining property owner,pending approvals. MR.URRICO-Is that calculated in with the permeability? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the property owner to the southeast the owner of the property behind this property? MR. HALL-This one? MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. HALL-Southwest. MR. JACKOSKI-So the property to the southeast, the property owner right there, do they own the property that's being bought? MR. HALL-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Does the property owner that the property's being bought from have lakefront? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. CANTERBURY-Yes. MR. HALL-Their piece comes up here and then actually drops down to the lake, and that was part of the John Whalen subdivision. That, in the pictures that I handed out to you, that's the blue house that sits up on top of the hill. That's all part of that. That was part of that four lot subdivision off of Birdsall Road. MR.JACKOSKI-So there's no possible way of moving Canterbury Drive west? MR. HALL-No. From the edge of Canterbury Drive,this slopes up. MR.JACKOSKI-A hill. MR. HALL-Yes,it's built right at the bottom of the bank right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Does the blue strip that you've identified on the plans there change at all because you've added all that property? That the house could be located in a different location because you've got all that property now and you could meet the setbacks? MR. HALL-Well,we've got Canterbury Drive which kind of limits that. MR.JACKOSKI-I understand that. MR. HALL-Right. Yes,technically,yes,that blue strip could get bigger. I left it from the original just to show where the original was. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. KUHL-I wouldn't say you couldn't move Canterbury back. I realize that there's only one house beyond Canterbury. By the way, I've been in this house. I know the dock,but,you know,you could build a retaining wall and move that Canterbury Drive back because you've only got the one house next to you, and you could move it back some more, but I have another question. There's your septic. Where's your water coming from? Are you pulling lake water? MR. HALL-Well,currently it's being pulled from the lake. The well is right here. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HALL-The proposed well is right there. MR. KUHL-It's going to be 100 feet or less than 100? MR. HALL-That's 100 feet. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HALL-That's what this arc indicates. MR. KUHL-Okay. Good. MR. HALL-One hundred foot separation from the proposed well. One hundred foot separation to the lake. That's why we had to increase that to push that back to make it compliant from the well. Yes. MR. KUHL-Interesting thing in the deed, I don't know if you read it,but it reads in your deed that no structure shall be built upon said lots nearer than 20 feet from the rear line, right? And then the next paragraph it's also conveyed between parties hereto to be binding upon their successors, no structures maintained closer to the lakeshore than the residence erected by Canterburys. So by this deed, you're saying you've got to be 20 feet from the water on this new structure. This is in your deed. It says that no house will be closer than the Canterburys, in other words,that structure, the one you're tearing down. So what that's saying is even, that you should be at that footprint, further back or further east or west,but not closer to the lake. MR. HALL-And by that I would say that our structure itself,the house portion itself, does meet that. We are 20 feet. The deck, by definition at that point I don't believe would have met that requirement,but the definition of the deck now does. MR. KUHL-I'll give you another thing. If the height had to be 28 and no further, would you build a house? MR. CANTERBURY-The issue is that the basement is, you know, perhaps the greatest issue of the house in that it was originally a dirt basement and a crawl space. Concrete's been poured. It's a low header. So it's, you know, six and a half feet or so in the basement. So because the corner of the house, you know, which is the only part that is at that grade, basically the doorway to the basement is the only thing that's that low and the measurement for the height starts there, and it doesn't allow us to have three 8 foot floors. MR. KUHL-Well, the new house that Milne's daughter built around from you, right,the one with the stones,that didn't need a height variance. MR. CANTERBURY-But they don't have a walk-in basement. MR. KUHL-They do. They walk out. They walk out. You know the house I'm talking about? MR. CANTERBURY-I believe you're talking about the Cembrook,yes,it's a fairly large house. MR. KUHL-They didn't need a height variance to build that house. MR. NOONAN-Nor did Merritt's. MR. KUHL-The one behind it. The new one behind them. So I would really like you to re-consider your height request,because I think you can still accomplish the floors you want within 28 feet. 1s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. HALL-In looking at it, we're eight foot floors on all three. There's twenty-four plus the thickness of the floors, which is afoot for each. So we're up to 26. That leaves us two feet to do a roof pitch. I've got this, right now, at a four twelve pitch which is as low as I can make it and still have it look somewhat similar. If I drop it more than that, I think we start getting into a flat roof situation, and I'm not terribly comfortable with that, and as Russ said, the only place that we're really at 32 feet is from the front walkout to the peak of that roof. At the back of that we're only at 26 feet and change from grade. It's just that one walkout that's got us bound up. MR. KUHL-But I think you could accomplish more distance between the house and the lake by building a retaining wall, moving the road back, moving the house back, just to let that last driveway in,because you're purchasing the property back there. MR. HALL-We're only purchasing this little piece, and right now the property line goes up here. So, I mean,we can really only move it a couple of feet at best,and it's one car. MR. KUHL-Well, the drawing I have, you're 26 3 from your property line going through the driveway. I got that one, and you're 22 4 from the property line where the road is to the left of it, which would be,what,south? MR. HALL-Yes, and we've currently moved it back so that this back corner is 22 feet. I moved it back to the 22 foot level there, and the garage would be 13 5 from the previous property line. Obviously significantly more than the property line, but, you know, we shoved it back really as far as we could. Pushing it back even that far is requiring us to build this wall and this wall as retaining wall structures to hold all that back,within the house. MR. KUHL-Now that's the first level of the house. MR. HALL-Well, the garage itself, the difference between the contours out here and the finished floor is about four feet. That's similar to what's there now. I mean,it's a fairly good sized drop. MR. KUHL-And I realize the functionality of your house is towards the lake. I realize that the back of the house is not really functional at all because of the roads. MR. HALL-Right,and the bank moving right up behind it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I live in a 32 foot high house on Glen Lake, 50 feet off the shore in the bay and Birdsall. I can't imagine what that house would have looked like 20 feet off the shore. I just can't imagine how straight up that is going to be on that lake. Thirty-two feet tall, 20 feet off the lake. Plus the deck extending out forward of it, and when did we stop believing in,you know,this 50 foot stretch off the lake, and we haven't talked about,you know,buffering the shoreline,which I know is a Planning Board issue, but this just feels way too big to me, and I know the Planning Board suggested to you that it was. They very rarely come back to us with comments. They're usually pretty much straightforward,but I think they indicated last night that this is a tough sell. MR. HALL-I found it odd that Mr. Krebs put forth the resolution and then voted no for it. The reason I think that that was is he felt there wasn't, and correct me I'm wrong, he felt that there weren't any major issues. Both he and Brad felt that there weren't any significant issues that couldn't be overcome, and the people who voted yes voted that they thought that it's a minor modification that they could be maybe in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,but you've got to come to us first. MR. HALL-That's why we're here tonight. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-I do. MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Rick. MR. GARRAND-I do agree with Mr. Jackoski that being that close to the lake, the, the height is somewhat of an issue,but I also realize the fact that if you look at the contour lines on the drawing, moving that driveway around is going to require significant excavation. It's a steep slope back there on the other side of the easement that leads back to that camp. I can't see how you would do that without some serious excavation and disruption of the natural grade through there. I 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) understand pushing the house back and all that. The increased permeability's great because I was there during a rainstorm and the water just rolls right off of this property as it is right now, it rolls off of there. My pickup truck nearly got stuck there because there was so much water coming off there. I managed to park on the lowest part of the property. MR. HENKEL-I was there also during a rainstorm. MR. GARRAND-So you know what I'm talking about? I probably still have mud all over the underside of my truck from that,but. MR.JACKOSKI-Hoffman's,they'll clean your car for you. MR. GARRAND-As far as getting 50 feet off the lake, I don't see how you can do it with this lot. The most compliant, as you've shown in your drawing there, where that blue is is 50 feet off the lake, and there's no way you can conceivably build a house there. The house is more or less a pre- existing, non-conforming structure. I understand you're trying to do,you've done a lot with what you've got to work with there. You've definitely got to buy that property for your septic because everything slopes right towards the lake there. About the only thing I have an issue with is the height and the appearance it's going to have from the lake. It's seriously, as Mr. Jackoski said, it's straight up and down right on the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you tell me, Ethan, how far is it from the front of your blue, well, I'll rephrase that,from the east line of your blue box to the back line of the house on the south end? No,the blue line and then back to the back line of the house right now. How wide would the house be if the house were fronted at the blue line to your back line,is that 12 to 15 feet,that's all it is,right? MR. HALL-From here back to here? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes. Maybe 12 feet. MR.JACKOSKI-So 12 plus the 8 is a 20 foot. You could end up with a 30 foot wide house that's very long there and you would be nowhere near 20 feet off the lake. You could do a 1500 square foot, 12 feet from. MR. HALL-Twelve feet from the front of this blue line to the back of that. MR.JACKOSKI-So,you know,a house that's 26 feet wide would put you how far off the lake? MR. HALL-Twenty-six feet wide? Would put us here. It would be 36 feet to the front. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-I think you pretty much shoe-horned that in there as best you can, given the fact that you have to provide that easement. You've got the hill on the back side of the easement, and you've still got to have a place to put your septic tank,or your septic system. MR. HALL-Right, still room to move it because we have to maintain 10 feet from the house and 10 feet from the property line. MR. GARRAND-Yes, your options are limited. I think, you know, with what you've got there, it's pretty good design,with what you've got to work with. The topography's a big thing here. MR. HALL-We tried to keep, the reason for the photo rendering that we did was to show how it looks next to the Thomas house,the house to its right. MR.JACKOSKI-And how far off the lake are those two houses,do you know,the one to the north and the one to the southeast? MR. HALL-This one and this one? MR.JACKOSKI-Are you forward of those houses? MR. KUHL-That concrete work in front of it is. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. HALL-The concrete work that's there is, yes. Well, I don't know the exact outline of this. I know that the deck on Doc Sabia's comes out in front. So I'm not sure how far that is, but it looks like that's about, I mean, from the end of the existing line to the lakefront right now is 18 feet, and that's from the end of that line,and I don't know that that's the end of his deck or if that's just where the survey's done. MR.JACKOSKI-That's keeping in the character of the neighborhood. MR. HALL-Yes, and Terry and Cheryl's,the front of theirs to the shoreline extended would be about 20 feet. MR. GARRAND-Yes,they're pretty close,too. MR. HALL-Yes, and their walkway or their stairs come right down to a patio that goes right out onto their deck as well. So that's really what we tried to mimic with this is coming down off the deck out onto the dock. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Just one. But your intentions here, you're going to demolish the whole thing. It's not like you're going to build on your footprint. You're going all new,right? MR. CANTERBURY-Yes,because the foundation. MR. HALL-It's a mish mash of different types of block. MR. CANTERBURY-My father, he tore down a house and built the house out of used materials, and he learned every trade while he was building it. MR. KUHL-All right. MR. HALL-Plumb,true and square don't exist. MR. CANTERBURY-And like I say, the concrete is everywhere. He's got concrete on all sides of the house. There is no permeability, and the septic is, you know, who knows. I realize, the height variance, I know, is a significant issue, but, you know, we tried to mitigate as best as possible and our peat doesn't get to the foundation of the Benton house,which is twice as big,you know,while it may be a presence there, I think, you know, that the Benton house is going to stand out a lot more than that. It's big and it's large, and the foundation starts over the top of our house, and it's an 8,000 foot house. Many of the houses, while they may be further set back from the lake, are much higher because of the topography. So it's not out of character with the height of houses around the lake in terms of where they, you know, maybe from the foundation, but not from what the visuals are. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Yes, sir,if you could join us at the table,please, and state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID JARVIS MR. JARVIS-My name's David Jarvis and I live on the lake also. To address your height issue for Cembrooks, I was involved in that project, and the reason they were able to stay under the 28 foot height restriction and build the house they built, was because of the slope of the land, because the 28 feet obviously follows the slope of the land. So they were able to build a house with the dormers that follow the land up to stay under that height restriction. Whereas you're taking a house that's on a flat grade. No matter how you figure the figures, if you want three stories, two and a half stories,it's going to come out to that height because you have,you're flat, is basically the only way it works, and with Mr. Canterbury's house, basically it's already developed behind him so it's really not going to affect anyone behind him as far as views of the lake anyway, because Benton's already own all that property behind the next three houses. So it's a pretty good plan and I've been in his house and it's a huge improvement to what's there for sure. It's not going to affect the lake in a negative way in any means. So I think Ethan's done a good job drawing it out. That's about it as far as the Cembrook's house goes. That's why they're able to do that. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. MR.JARVIS-Yes,no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other individuals in the audience who'd like to address the Board. Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open. I assume there's no necessity, then, to address the Board further. We'll poll the Board. MR.URRICO-I have a public comment. MR.JACKOSKI-I forgot written comment. That's always important. MR. URRICO-"I am writing this letter in support of Russ Canterbury's building project. I reside directly adjacent to his property at 43 Canterbury, Lake George, IVY. I have reviewed the public notice and Mr. Canterbury has shared his house plans and request for variances. We are in support of the demolition and building project. We both feel it will beautify and enhance our neighborhood and add to the beauty of our wonderful lake community. Our support is without reservation and wish the Canterburys the best. Respectfully,John and Mary Jo Sabia" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there any other additional written comment? Do you want me to read it, Roy,because you can't see it? I'll go ahead and read it. It is from Terry and Cheryl Thomas. "My name is Terry Thomas and along with my wife Cheryl we live on Canterbury Drive and are the next door neighbors to Russ and Leslie Canterbury and we both approve of the project that they propose to undertake, this will only enhance the beauty of the property and the lake. Thank you. Terry & Cheryl Thomas" And it's dated today at 7:45 a.m. Any further, Staff? No additional written comment. We have had public comment. The public hearing is still open. I'm going to poll the Board. John,you get to go first. MR. HENKEL-Basically we're looking at five variances. The road frontage, obviously it's not really their fault. MR. HALL-Right. MR. HENKEL-It's a little excessive for me, and I know it looks like a nice project there, what you're trying to do with the stormwater and everything and cleaning it up, definitely getting rid of some of the concrete that's there now. It's still a little tough to stomach. I just don't think it's quite fitting into the neighborhood. I mean, yes, there's a few homes that are a pretty good size, but there's also a few that are small camp size. I'd like to see a little bit smaller project. I'm not for it at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I looked at the six requests. The permeability, I could excuse. On the south side looking for 20 feet and proposed at 14. So the roughly six foot that's being requested,that's about a 30% relief looking there. The shoreline, even at 12 foot 3, you're looking at almost 80% relief there. The height,you're looking at 4 10. I calculate that as almost 20% relief. I've got a problem with it from the other side. If you're on the bike trail or on the little pond beyond it, the situation with the foliage or vegetation is the only thing you see is that big house up on the hill that's framed a little bit but it's up on the hill. You can't really do much about that. I don't want to see a skyline over top of that. There area lot of people that use that bike trail,and right now you can just seethe very top of the pewter,the first pewter colored house. There's two pewter colored houses,and you can see the first of that, and now you're starting to see a lot more skyline than what I'm comfortable with. Floor Area Ratio there, we're looking for more than 60% relief there. So I calculated it all, with the road frontage, I'm fine with the road frontage, so I calculated it all together, we're looking at somewhere around 300% relief, even conceding 100% relief with road frontage and 10% relief with permeability,we're still almost 200%. That's too much. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, I like the fact that you're putting in a new septic. Yes, the road frontage, there's nothing we can do about it. If you take a look at the new numbers they gave us, some of the numbers change a little bit. I struggle with the height, I mean,that's all I struggle with is the height. All the rest I'm all in favor,but,being as how it's the height, I'd be against it for the height. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. NOONAN-Because you're going to meet the conditions of the septic upgrades and actually the conditions that you stated, the proposed, are those from the Planning Board or are those you came up with as a suggestion, I guess? MR. HALL-The ones that are in red? MR. NOONAN-All in red. MR. HALL-The ones that are all in red are the revisions made based on the suggestions of the Planning Board. MR. NOONAN-Right. So they weren't dictated. They were suggested to do something different. MR. HALL-Suggested. Yes,in the 24 hours since our last meeting. MR. NOONAN-Considering you had 24 hours or less to do this, with the conditions, the design modifications as well requested by the Planning Board, and meeting the condition of the septic upgrade, I'd be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I understand the intricacies of this project and what they're trying to accomplish, but as a Board we're charged with providing the minimal relief, and when you look at the cumulative impact of this and taking them individually, as Mike just did,you see there's a lot of relief here, and it's really a lot more than I'm comfortable providing. I mean, Number One, there are feasible alternatives that can be used to reduce some of the, and mitigate some of the relief that's available. You may not like it, but I think we're going to have to see some compromise for me to be comfortable with it, and I think much of it is self-created, and I think it would have an impact on the neighborhood,and so that's where I stand. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think this lot presents a lot of challenges and I think a great job has been done on the design of this. I agree with Mr. Kuhl. A lot of this can be excused given the constraints of this lot,except for the height. So I agree with Mr. Kuhl. MR.JACKOSKI-So at this point it's just no on the height. MR. GARRAND-Just no on the height only. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, I really like the design of the house. I like the look of the house. I think it can be pared down significantly. I think, again,we're charged here with granting minimum relief and balancing test, and we're just as, as Mike has suggested, we're really stretching the limits. So I'm concerned about the front, well, I call it the front side, the lake side, the lakeside relief. I'd like to see it get reduced somehow and have more relief. I think that the Planning Board's going to seriously consider shoreline re-buffering. So some of that will be mitigated. I do understand the house to the northeast, I guess it would be, is relatively close to the lake and is tall also. I do understand, from looking at the lake,you do have that house sitting up on the hill. So actually that might help you because it's masking it a bit and the house is looking down on you, so to speak. So I don't know that I'm really concerned about the height. I'm more concerned about the setbacks. If you could somehow reduce the front, I'm sorry,the lakeside relief, I'd be happier with the project. I think it's kind of unfortunate, but maybe not. I mean, you're getting some good feedback from us, but having only 24 hours to really kind of consider things is difficult, but I think the look of the house is great, and I'm sure the doctor's house next door eventually is going to be built out, too, at some time. So that whole row of that end of the lake, with Mr. Whalen's subdivision and all these houses is changing and for the better,just with a little bit more tweaking, I think. MR. HALL-Do we table it,see if we can maybe come back? MR. CANTERBURY-I don't have a problem with that. MR. HALL-Would it be okay for us to ask to table this so that we can make some modifications, try and figure out a way to drop these down? I mean,based on the poll that I've heard. MR.JACKOSKI-You're requesting a tabling. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. HALL-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-So what you're saying is you're requesting a tabling,and I think that's fair. MR. HALL-Yes,based on that. MR.JACKOSKI-It's been tough to have you come here within 24 hours and modify this. MR. HALL-And,you know,we took a shot at trying to hear what the Planning Board had to say, and took some measures to try and do that. We may be able to take a look at the height and try and figure out. I'm afraid that if we drop the roof down anymore, we're going to wind up with a flat roof, and I know that there's one that's farther down on the other end of the lake that has all flat roofs,and I know I don't like the look of that house. MR. KUHL-So you're requesting a tabling? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it's going to have to be the September meetings at the earliest with the submission date of August 15th, or the middle of August deadline, whatever is required for September's meetings,if that's okay with you. MR. HALL-I mean,at this point,we know we're beyond the deadline for the August meeting. MR.JACKOSKI-I hate to put you off, and honestly I think that even if we gave,you're going to have a lot of work to do at the Planning Board, but I don't know that because they're the Planning Board, but 20 feet off the lake and what you've got going on, I think you've got a lot of work. MR. HALL-Based on what we heard from them last night, they were willing to hear, the biggest thing that they had, that they saw, was us taking up a lot of the impermeable surface. That was what they were. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a great trade-off. It's a great balance and the new septic system is a great balance, no doubt about it, especially with that low-lying area where all that water runs into the lake. MR. HALL-Right. Everything comes down through and who knows what's happening. MR.JACKOSKI-Again,it's a balancing. So we'll get there. MR. GARRAND-So far,then,you've done a great job with the design. MR.JACKOSKI-The design is fantastic. It's just wish you had a bigger lot. MR. CANTERBURY-I hear you. MR. GARRAND-Talk to the neighbor. MR. GARRAND-All right. We do need a tabling motion. Do I have a tabling motion? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2014 RUSSELL M. CANTERBURY, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to a September meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with a deadline date for submission of materials of August 15th, 2014. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Do you think you want us to keep all this, or do you think you're going to be submitting a lot of new stuff? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR. HALL-I have a feeling we're going to be submitting a whole bunch of new stuff. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. CANTERBURY-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2014 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD &JILL LONG OWNER(S) RICHARD & JILL LONG ZONING LC-42A LOCATION 2407 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A SWIMMING POOL WITH DECK IN THE FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED TO INSTALL A POOL IN A YARD OTHER THAN THE REAR YARD AND SETBACKS FOR THE DECK. ALSO, RELIEF FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA). CROSS REF SP 49-2014; BP 2014-201 POOL; BP 2013-491 RES. ADD.; BP 98-639 ADDITION; BP 97-048 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-16 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040; 179-13-010 RICH&JILL LONG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2014, Richard & Jill Long, Meeting Date: July 16, 2014 "Project Location: 2407 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a swimming pool with deck in the front yard. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-5-020 accessory structures -pools, 179-3-040 establishment of districts -area requirements for Land Conservation 42a, 179-13-010 continuation -expansion of a non-conforming: Pool location Setbacks-N deck Setbacks-S deck Setbacks-Front deck Required Rear yard 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. Proposed Front yard 13.6 ft. 65 ft. 99 ft. Relief location 86.4 ft. 35 ft. 1 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. 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 may be limited due to the size of the parcel where the existing house currently does not comply with the required setbacks as well as any expansion would not comply with the required setbacks. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant 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 to no impact 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 to be created by the zoning code as the structure was built in 1964 prior to zoning. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 49-14: Pending BP 14-201: Pool,deck, pending BP 03-491: Residential addition BP 98-639: Addition 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) BP 97-048: Addition Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a pool in the front yard where it is required in the rear yard and to construct an associated deck that does not meet the required setbacks. The applicant has provided an updated survey showing the location of the pool and deck with distances noted. The applicant has indicated the pool in the front yard is the better location as the septic system is located in the rear and they would need to disturb existing trees/vegetation. The existing home with the new deck is almost 100 ft.from the front property line. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted July 15, 2014 unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MRS. LONG-Jill Long and my husband Rich. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. It's a pretty straightforward process. So you probably don't have to add anymore. We can just ask questions,if that's okay with you. MRS. LONG-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-You didn't put it in the back? MR. LONG-We have a cliff back there. MRS. LONG-I have a 40 foot embankment from the backyard, and it's the septic and all the leach field,and then there's a 40 foot cliff. MR.JACKOSKI-Sometimes we just have to ask questions to go on the record. MRS. LONG-That's okay. MR. HENKEL-Do you realize that's kind of close to the house? If that ever broke, how much water that would be? MRS. LONG-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's got to be about,what, 2,000 gallons? MRS. LONG-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's pretty close to the house. MRS. LONG-Yes,but the water when it runs goes kind of, I don't know how to explain it. MR.JACKOSKI-Hopefully it won't happen. MRS. LONG-It better not. MR. NOONAN-Is there any room for a smaller pool on the side where it says the shed to be moved? MRS. LONG-No, that's right on, pretty much on the property line right there, and that shed is surrounded by trees. It's kind of tucked in to trees. MR. MC CABE-Was that supposed to be moved from the last variance? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MRS. LONG-Yes, it's still there because we're not done with the full construction. We wanted to try to get the pool set up so that when they come for the electrical inspection he can inspect that at the same time. MR. MC CABE-Are there any other pools in that neighborhood? I didn't really see any that were in the front yard. MR. LONG-No. MRS. LONG-No,nobody has,and it's in the front,but it's off to the side if that makes any. MR. MC CABE-That's just going to be left,there's going to be no fencing around that or anything? MRS. LONG-We were going to put up trees,just kind of like as a buffer to the road. MR. NOONAN-Is there any way to change the location of your driveway to the other end of the property so that you don't look like you're pulling up to a pool? MRS. LONG-I have to cut down trees if I did that, and that was the other thing. There's a driveway across from us, and the State wasn't comfortable, because we had discussed this years ago, and the State had a concern about us moving our driveway to the south end of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional questions at this time? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any public comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and seeing that there's no one here in the audience to address the Board, I'm going to leave the public hearing open and I'm going to poll the Board. Mike? MR. MC CABE-It's a remote location. If we put a condition on approval of the variance that you do put some trees between the pool and the road, I'd have no problem with this project. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. That's not where I would put it,but if that's what the applicant's want to do, and if you're going to put trees in it,do the trees. MRS. LONG-I don't want anybody seeing me. Believe me,trees are going up. MR. KUHL-I would find other locations on your property, but if this is where you want it, then I think the area is remote enough. I don't think it's going to stand out. I would be more concerned with snow in the wintertime, pushing it out of your driveway, you know, but if this is where you want it, I'd go along with it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm not too big on it, but if that's where you really want to put it, it's a remote area. It's not really like a neighborhood per se. Yes, I'd be in favor of this. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I've just got a problem with it in the front and the potential change in the character of the neighborhood. So I'd be against the proposal. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I also would be against it. If there was any chance you could move it towards, anywhere away from the driveway, I would be in favor of it, but it seems like your options are limited. I hate to say no to a property owner,but in this case I would be not in favor. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm okay with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We have four yeses and two noes, and I don't have to vote. I'm okay. Your topography is limiting it. It's not the best place,but you've offered to put some screening up,and so that's,we all have a right to enjoy our property. MR. LONG-Well,it won't be permanent,either. MRS. LONG-Right. MR. LONG-It'll be a couple of years and we'll get tired of taking care of it. MR.JACKOSKI-So I am going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 51-2014,Richard&Jill Long,2407 Ridge Road,Tax Map No.240.00-1-16 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard &Jill Long for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020; 179-3-040; 179-13-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a swimming pool with deck in the front yard. Relief requested to install a pool in a yard other than the rear yard and setbacks for the deck. Also, relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area (CEA). SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 16, 2014; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? Benefit,because of the structure of the lot,cannot reasonably be achieved by some other method. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The requested Area Variance is moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed Area Variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. You don't have to put a pool in. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 51-2014, Richard & Jill Long, Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/16/2014) A. That trees be planted between the road and the pool for the full length of the pool. B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MRS. LONG-Thank you. Hopefully it gets done before icicles set in. MR. JACKOSKI-I hope. Any further business Board members would like to address? I need a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 16, 2014, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 16th day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 26