Loading...
07-23-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23,2014 INDEX Area Variance No.46-2014 Paul G. Deslauriers 1. Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45 Area Variance No. 52-2014 Jason&Tricia Gottlieb 7. Tax Map No. 226.8-1-2 Area Variance No. 50-2014 Gary&Petronelle Sampson 19. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-11 Area Variance No. 53-2014 Paul Harrington 23. Tax Map No. 308.12-2-10 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 07/23/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 23,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening and welcome everyone. I'd like to open tonight's meeting for the Zoning Board of Appeals here in the Town of Queensbury. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite a simple process for us. We'll call each applicant or representative up to this table here. We'll read the application into the record as necessary. We'll ask the applicant to add any comments that they may wish. The Board will generally ask some questions. When a public hearing is scheduled we will certainly open it up for public comment. During our public comment period we do basically ask that you make your comments within three minutes timeframe, if that's reasonable. For those who haven't already, there is a sheet on the back table that will explain the agendas and this process. So tonight we don't have any housekeeping, which is a really good thing. So we can get right into Old Business,and I'll call the first application. OLD BUSINESS: 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 PAUL DESLAURIERS, PRESENT MR.URRICO-Do you want me to re-read this into the record? MR.JACKOSKI-You don't need to re-read it,but if there's anything new you can read that. MRS.MOORE-Can I just clarify that it is Lot 58 of Wincoma Drive, Section 4, Rolling Ridge Estates. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Staff,for that clarification. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2014, Paul G. Deslauriers, Meeting Date: July 23, 2014 "Project Location: 33 Wincoma Lane - Rolling Ridge Estates Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,475 sq. ft. single family dwelling and other associated site work. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts -area requirements for R-3 1967 zoning: Wetland setback Height Required 75 ft. 40 ft. Proposed 40 ft. 40 ft. 7 in Relief 35 ft. 7 in. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 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 Army Corp. area of allowed disturbance of wetlands on the parcel, location of the approved septic through a BOH variance and the proposed location of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal 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, SP 40-14&FW 3-14: Pending BOH Septic Variance scheduled for June 16th tabled pending Town engineer review and comment; application will be reviewed at the July 21St Town Board meeting. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home where relief is requested from the shoreline setback from a wetland. The applicant has received an Army Corp. permit to disturb the wetland area within 40 ft. of the home where a 75 ft. setback is required. The plans show the location of the home,details of the wetland,grading information and other site details. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. If the applicant could join us here at the table. Welcome back. I know I'm anew face,but that's okay. Do you want to add anything at this time,or would you like to just? MR. DESLAURIERS-The only thing I would add is that we would move the house further away from that line except we're up against the setback requirements for the front lawn. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any additional Board member questions at this time before I open the public hearing again? I do not see any. So I do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I do see a couple here. So if you wouldn't mind giving up the table. Thank you. If you could join us at the table, please. Hello and welcome. We've seen you here before on other projects. So if you could identify yourself,please. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRISTOPHER LYNCH MR. LYNCH-Certainly. Our names are Christopher and Maureen Lynch. Our home and property are adjacent to the wetlands we feel are endanger from this project. We're here solely to protect and speak for the wetlands. Honestly,could care less who builds or not care less who builds on this plot. We can't even see it. It's on the other side of the woods, on the other side of our wetlands. We do, however, care about these wetlands. They are living, pulsing headwaters to important stream and feed into an endangered S-1 protected moral fen, the most protected wetland category in all of New York and support a plethora of wildlife, tons of it, which we enjoy in our backyard. Sadly there's more bureaucracy than science going on here and it's doubtful if everyone here is 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 100% understanding what's going on. We sure aren't. There are, you couldn't, with all the precedents and regulations, Town, State, Federal. There are wetlands designations drawn by Queensbury and there are wetlands drawn by New York State DEC, and there's also this little piece drawn by Army Corps of Engineers. Unfortunately, no matter how you have to try and hide it, this plot encroaches on all three designations. Earlier this year an employee of the DEC came down to create these wetlands were not wetlands. No, it's delineation by DEC regulations is only valid for three years. I didn't even know that one, for no longer, and it's for some pretty obvious reasons. These things change, wetlands. I say the gentleman is sort of wrong, at least in the big picture. What we are saying are previous DEC experts and Town fathers over the last 30 years who drew up these wetlands just blind or were they stupid? No. Even if you believe this micro snapshot, this new boundary would scream that this wetland is being hurt and needs every inch of protection you can afford it, not letting it get short spaced with tons of fill, questionable engineering. If the regulations are confusing, we'll try plain talk commonsense. The nature of these wetlands is that they grow and they shrink. That's the nature of wetlands. Each year wet and dry. With the annual weather and phenomena and the seasons, dryers, one year, swampy in the next year, the DEC map guidance shows specifically that this whole area certainly was wetland at one period, and we submit it can easily, again, be flooded wetland with just one good event, one. That's just the nature of the beast. That's the truth. Queensbury itself mapped these wetlands precisely and ultimately declared them forever wild. Wet one year, dry the next. I think the new DEC employee could be right. I can go on or give it to my wife for her three minutes. MR.JACKOSKI-If you wouldn't mind. That would be great. Thank you. MR. LYNCH-Okay. Thank you. MAUREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-Okay. In consulting with DEC experts, it has been offered one event, such as the hurricane rains that we have had two years in a row, as a matter of fact, take it back to the original nature. The point is, a wetland is not static. As rain comes in, it does ebb and flow with the weather, the systems that we're going through. We are saying, we're asking, hold on a minute, simple logic says we are being asked to allow building in the middle of what has been and will be a wetland. If you take a five year interval, at some point this is going to cause problems. Perhaps not when it gets its Certificate of Occupancy, perhaps not until after the next owner has moved in. It's going to have problems within a few years. The variance brings on problems far into the future. Runoff will be exacerbated. The seller of this house is going to be in the water table. If you go back and look, there's a term, I forget it, of mean high water mark or whatever it is, which comes too close to the foundation of the building. So if the seller is in the water table, there's going to be intervals where it's going to require illegal sump pumps and discharges. There's no place for that to go except into the septic system and directly to the wetlands, or right down the hill into the wetlands which are not going to be very far away, less than a stone's throw. It does put the wetlands at risk. Also any runoff from insecticide, pavement or nutrient loading is going to flush right into the wetland. The fill is going to compact or crush the aquifer soils that are surrounding that area. It's going to channel septic pump out flow directly into the wetlands with insufficient, if any, filtering. You're also being asked to imperil everything that the Town is sworn to protect. A good dozen contractors have looked at this site for building a spec house over the past seven years that we know of. Every one of them has passed on the option of building there. Experienced,local profit seeking contractors concluded, after doing due diligence, it is Rolling Ridge, that this is obviously wetland and nobody can build here. It is not a viable building lot. Their opinions were uniform. If even one of them could have built there,they would have. The standard in Queensbury as published is simple, and I'll quote it here. It is declared to be the public policy of the Town of Queensbury to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits therefrom to prevent defoliation and destruction of freshwater wetlands and to regulate the development, if any, of such wetlands, in order to secure the natural benefits of freshwater wetlands, consistent with general welfare,beneficial,economic,social and agricultural development of the Town. We and the other neighbors are only asking that you adhere to the published law and policy of Queensbury. It's there to protect us all. The duty is not to shoehorn in an ill-advised construction so someone can cash in on a vacant lot investment, but the duty is to protect the homeowners and the citizens living here within immediate reach and to protect Queensbury's wetlands. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, is there any additional written comment? MR.URRICO-No. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. If the applicants could re-join the table, please. So do Board members have any questions at this time before I poll the Board? MR. HENKEL-So the house hasn't changed at all? You're still looking for a seven inch, right, height variance? MR. DESLAURIERS-Yes. MR. HENKEL-You're not going to change,really,what's the septic system. You've got it closer to the road away from the wetlands a little bit farther. MR. DESLAURIERS-And we also changed some of the contour lines to better take care of the stormwater runoff. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. They're asking for 47% relief on the wetland setbacks. I don't think a house necessarily has to be this big. I also don't think that they need to go back this far into the wetlands. There is some room for maneuvering here. As far as the height relief goes, I don't think that's too much of a big deal. They're going to want to build that up, but also if Board members see fit to approve this, they should have stipulations that there be no pools, no insecticides of any kind used on this property, no further fill of wetlands or anything of this sort. This is a very sensitive environmental area and I think it's very important that this Board takes that seriously and tries to protect it. At this point, I think the house could come down in size. I'd be against it at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with the height,but I do have a problem with the setback from the wetlands,and I feel that this is a critical wetlands,and I would not approve this much setback. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I visited this site a week ago Saturday, after a very bad two days of rain, and I did not see evidence of any a lot of moisture on this,which surprised me,not that I was trying to look against it. I just happened to be out there, and I went and looked at. The other thing that surprised me is when I left that area, the neighbor has got filled way in. I mean, he's got so much property back down here it just amazes me how deep the neighbor to the, what would that be, the east, the west, but anyway. MR. DESLAURIERS-It's the north. MR. KUHL-The north. Yes, okay, I see it,yes, to the north. It just amazed me when I turned on to Ridge Road,how deep that neighbor was. I wouldn't be against it. I'd be in favor of it the way it is. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I was actually there during a rainstorm and it's like a bottom of a bowl. It seemed like water was coming from all different directions into that lot. To add more land and the septic system leach field wasn't so close to the road, I'd probably be a little bit more in favor of it. I also have no problem with the height variance,but I'd have to be against it at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think there is room for compromise here. There's a, feasible alternatives are limited, but they're not impossible. Again, like some of my Board members have said, I'm not bothered by the height relief,but I think we're heading into the wetlands. I think there needs to be some more thought given to the size of the house, because we're really treading too close, in my estimation. I don't know what the magic number is,but I think we've,this house is too big,yet, for this lot and this situation. So I would not be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I've been out to the lot a few times as well, and having re-read some of our other minutes, I paid close attention to the Town Board, local Board of Health meetings from the 21St. I would not have a problem with the project at this point in time. The septic issue seemed to have 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) been cleared up the other night. I can understand the concern for the wetlands. You're not in the wetlands necessarily,you're in the buffer zone. So I'm okay with the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, would you be willing to live with 10 feet less of relief on the wetlands, so that that you were at least 50 feet off the wetlands? Because I think that's the magic number for me. MR. DESLAURIERS-I think we could probably do that. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean,you could certainly talk about it if you wish, but my instinct is this is the wetland buffer that we're talking about. It is not the actual wetlands themselves, and that's an important component to this project. I don't have a problem with the height. So I think that with site plan review and Staff,this is going to go in front of Site Plan Review,correct? MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-There's going to be a lot of Site Plan Review to this project, stormwater management, as Rick said, whether or not there's going to be conditions associated with using that property for a single family residence. If we minimize the relief down to 50 feet of, sorry, it would be 25 feet of relief, correct that, 25 feet of relief instead of 35 feet of relief, I'd be in favor of the project, and if the applicant is requesting that we reduce the amount of relief from 35 feet down to 25 feet, I think we can put a motion together to do that. MR. DESLAURIERS-I go with that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has modified the, for less relief, which we're okay with still. So I'd be in favor. So at this time, I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-I would like a clarification on what you just proposed, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-The applicant actually has now requested that instead of having 35 feet of wetland relief,that they only have 25 feet. MR. KUHL-Which means,what,he's going to move the whole dwelling towards Wincoma Drive? MR. DESLAURIERS-It means that I will have to do some re-designing. MR. JACKOSKI-They might put in a skinnier house. They might put a, they might move it closer to the road,whatever's going to work with Site Plan Review,with that amount of relief. MR. GARRAND-Do you want to poll the Board again with that? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think we had four votes for yes with 35 feet of relief. Certainly, the Board members don't want to,but then the application's going to die because my vote is the tie vote. Are those who were in favor of the application, if you want to poll the whole Board, we can. Put a motion together and just vote on it. Is that fair? MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-So,could someone please make a motion? MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 46-2014, Paul G. Deslauriers, Tax Map No. 297.10-1-45 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul G. DesLauriers for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. 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. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 18, 2014; 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 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? Minor to no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? There is no other feasible method for the applicant to pursue. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The area variance may be considered substantial. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There may be minor adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty is not considered self- created. 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. 46-2014, Paul G. Deslauriers, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. That the requested relief be minimized from 35 feet from the edge of the wetlands to 25 feet. That can be done through moving of the structure or re-design. 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 231d day of July, 2014,by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a motion. It's a quite long motion. I want to make sure that everybody's clear about what it is we're requesting here. And so what we're going to do is request that the house actually be moved closer to Wincoma by 10 additional feet, so that the amount of relief is only 25 feet of relief and not 35 feet of relief, or the dimensions change of the home, that's correct. And we just want to take a little moment here to clarify to make sure that we are where we're supposed to be. MRS. MOORE-You've asked them for the wetland setback to be changed, not necessarily the, that could mean that he could move that house forward dependent on what that front setback requirement is,but you're being specific about the wetland. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Just the back, because if they want to move it forward in the Site Plan Review, the folks at the Planning Board approve that house move forward,that's okay with me. Okay. We did have a motion. Could I have a second? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'll second that. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any further discussion? Please call the vote. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,and good luck with Site Plan Review at the Planning Board. MR. DESLAURIERS-Yes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2014 SEQRA TYPE II JASON & TRICIA GOTTLIEB AGENT(S) MICHAEL S. BORGOS OWNER(S) JASON &TRICIA GOTTLIEB ZONING WR LOCATION 389 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING PRIVACY FENCE WHICH CONSISTS OF TWO (2) STANDARD 6 FT. TALL CEDAR FENCE PANELS WITH LATTICE TOPS. THE FENCE IS 16 LINEAL FEET. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION FROM TYPE OF FENCE PLACEMENT WITHIN THE SHORELINE SETBACK (50 FT. FROM MEAN HIGH WATER MARK). ALSO, RELIEF FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES IN THE SHORELINE AREA. CROSS REF BP 2010-023 RES. ALT.; BP 293 YR. 1968 GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.13 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.8-1-2 SECTION 179-5-070 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JASON&TRICIA GOTTLIEB, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-I need to clarify that,just for public interest,the agent here, Mr. Borgos, and my wife are cousins,but I don't feel there's any conflict of interest in that. So we're going to move forward. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2014, Jason & Tricia Gottlieb, Meeting Date: July 23, 2014 "Project Location: 389 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain existing privacy fence which consists of two (2) standard 6 ft. tall cedar fence panels with lattice tops. The fence is 16 linear feet. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-5-070 fences: Type of fence placement w/in shoreline setback Height Required Privacy fence not within 50 ft.of shoreline 4 ft.allowed Proposed 16 linear feet of privacy fence on property line 6 ft. within 50 ft.of shoreline Relief Use of privacy fence 2 ft. Code Definitions....... FENCE A barrier consisting of material(s)assembled, constructed or erected at a fixed location on the ground or attached to the ground. "Fence"does not include a hedge or similar barrier composed ofgrowing vegetation or a man-made berm. FENCE PRIVACY A fence in excess of two feet in height of which 50% or more of the surface area of the fence is opaque. 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. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 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 location of the fencing and the intent to provide a barrier between two properties. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered minimal 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, BP 10-023: Residential alterations BP 293: Garage/ Breezeway Staff comments: The applicant requests approval for an already placed 16 linear feet and 6 ft. high privacy fencing where privacy fencing is not allowed and the height exceeds the 4 ft. minimum allowed in the shoreline area. The applicant has indicated the fencing was to improve on the previous screening between the two properties that had included potted shrubs and lattice work. The current conditions address privacy and safety. The plans show the location of the fence on the property. The applicant included photos from different points on the neighbor's property and their own property. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you and welcome everyone, and just to make sure everyone understands, I did grant a waiver request on this particular parcel for survey, given that the fence is right where it is, I mean, it's right at the shoreline, at the boundary line. So if you could identify yourself for the record,and if you'd like to add anything,please feel free to do so. MR. BORGOS-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael Borgos of Borgos and Delsignore for the applicants, Jason and Tricia Gottlieb. They appear here with me tonight to give a little bit more history beyond what I can tell you. I gave you what I consider a rather complete application. I want to give you as many photographs as possible. I know that some of you took the time to go up and visit the site, and we appreciate that. There's nothing better than being there yourself, but photos are certainly better than words. I'll try to keep my words limited and focused on the relief that's being sought here. As you heard in the opening comments read in by Mr. Urrico, the Code restricts the use of these opaque type privacy fences within 50 feet of the shoreline, and I think we all understand why. In the typical lot situation, we don't want views to be impaired for neighboring property owners looking one direction or the other across the boundary line. The shoreline is a valuable space and highly prized and we want to make sure that's not impaired. The height is also a concern. So those are the reasons the Code was created, and we acknowledge and accept those, but your role, as a member of the ZBA, is to look at the specific factual situation at hand and see where the Code may not apply exactly appropriately due to the factual situations, and where a variance is necessary. So you're the pressure relief valve so the Code isn't applied uniformly everywhere,where it might be unfair. So the five part test that you've all been trained to apply really comes down to the balancing of what are the rights of the applicant versus what is the impact on the neighborhood in general, and I want to give you a little bit of history here with this parcel, and explain how all this came about. The Gottlieb's were fortunate enough to be able to purchase this property in December of 2012 and enjoyed their first summer of 2013 at the site. While they were there, they were prioritizing the infrastructure improvements that they wanted to make, and in the Fall, going into the winter of 2013/14, they retained Rich Gould of Gould Landscaping to improve the retaining walls which had bowed out over time. This property, I think, is unique and is commanding this attention because it was jointly developed in a very intense fashion with the neighboring property to the south, currently owned by Mr. Davidson. That property had a similar steep slope coming from Cleverdale Road down the hill to the lakefront, and 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) there was a common retaining wall that was constructed at some point in the past. That retaining wall had heaved and was bowed and Mr. Gottlieb had Mr. Gould come in to repair it. They had had some issue in the past with surveyors that were retained by the two different neighbors which had a slight discrepancy which is still an open issue, but thus far it hasn't been overly problematic because it only amounts to a few inches, but due to that, Mr. Gottlieb asked me to reach out to Mr. Davidson on his behalf and see if there was a desire to have Mr. Gould repair the entire wall all at once. As it turned out, Mr. Davidson responded to me through Mr. Caffry, and we were able to work, over several months'time,to come to an acceptable conclusion as to where the wall could be cut and Mr. Gould was allowed to proceed on the Gottlieb's side of the retaining wall, and that's the work that you see in the photographs, the repairs that were made. As a next step after that wall was done and all the other landscaping work that was done, they wanted to improve upon the barrier between the two properties. If you look closely at some of those photos you'll see a board that runs roughly east/west that has been determined to be the approximate dividing line between the two properties, and just to the, either side of that there's always been, in prior years, some type of a lattice work,privacy screen,some shrubs,potted plants,a bench,things of that nature,to define the barrier, the differentiation between which side of this commonly developed waterfront dock area belonged to each owner. The Gottlieb's wish to improve upon that because during the summer of 2013 they had a couple of experiences that caused concern, and I'll let them discuss that a little bit with you, but I've referenced them in two general categories, one being safety, the other being privacy. They're related, but I think they're distinct, but that's where they took the advice of people in the community and contacted Adirondack Fence. Bill Pogonoski suggested this privacy screen because it is what they call a good neighbor fence. It's the same cosmetic appearance on both sides, to be an attractive barrier buffer to serve in place of the latticework and the potted shrubs. They undertook this at their own expense and made sure it was installed clearly on their side of the line so as not to impair any of the property rights of the Davidsons. It was only after it was installed that they were contacted by Code Compliance Officer Bruce Frank who went up to the property,heard the complaint of Mr. Davidson and informed the Gottlieb's verbally that it had to be removed. I contacted Mr. Frank and informed him that we would apply for a variance to allow the installed fence to remain. That's how we got here tonight,but I want Mr. Gottlieb and Mrs. Gottlieb to be able to have the opportunity to give you some of their own firsthand impressions and further tell the story. MR. GOTTLIEB-Thank you, Mike. Thank you, everyone. Just to provide you with a little historical context for my background. I grew up in Queensbury on 25 Centennial Drive. So I attended Queensbury High School. I graduated from Sienna College. I spent all of my summers on Lake George. My grandparents built the house on Rockhurst. So I was fortunate enough to have access to the lake as a child. It was a wonderful experience. I was fortunate enough to meet my wife after college. We were married at the Lake George Club because it was such an important part of our lives over the course of the last 15 years. It's an area that is very, very important to me. I love it. My wife loves it. My kids love it. It's near and dear to our hearts. This was a great opportunity for us to come up to Lake George and re-create what we both experienced as kids and afford that opportunity to our children, and I am very grateful for that opportunity. It's unfortunate that we are where we are, but we understand that, you know, this is an important aspect of the process. What I am very focused on, as a parent of two young children, 11 and 12, is I am not at the house all the time. I have to work, unfortunately, I have to pay the bills, and it doesn't afford me a great degree of comfort knowing that my wife and my kids are up in Lake George without me being able to get to them in a relatively short period of time. We have done as best we can in terms of providing the maximum amount of safety and security. We've installed a security system with cameras and one incremental step was this privacy screen, and the reason we did that was for two reason. Number One is there are renters that come up. Every week there's a new set of renters, and by the way, I'm not against renting. My wife and I actually rented on the lake before we bought for a number of years. We are very supportive of that, but what we recognized when the renters would come that it was a new set of renters every week. We had no idea if they were put through background checks, if they had been reviewed in a way that would suggest that they were the right people to be coming to Lake George, and it gave me some level of concern that the privacy screening that had already been put up with very tall shrubs and a reasonably sized lattice and a very big hammock right behind it would suggest to me that why not just try and improve upon that and really, Number One, improve upon it so it's much more aesthetically pleasing. Number Two, provide us with some privacy, which I think is important, and Number Three, which is the most compelling, is give myself and my wife a peace of mind that people that we have no idea who they are on a weekly basis are not staring at me, my family, and most importantly my children, and those were the three main reasons why we did what we did, and I feel that it was extremely justified. I fully understand that we should have come for a variance in advance. I took the advice of Mr. Pogonoski which was that it was defined as a privacy screen, and not a fence. That is absolutely my mistake for not following up. So I do apologize that we are where we are. I'd like to just turn it over to my wife for a brief set of comments and then we can take it from there. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MRS. GOTTLIEB-Hi,everyone. My biggest concern is safety. Privacy is also a concern,but safety is my Number One concern. I have two dogs. I have two kids, and I always have kids over and playing at my house, and every week there's someone new in there. Last year I was sitting on the dock with my mom and my kids eating dinner and a gentleman pulled his boat in, this is a renter, pulled his boat, dropped his pants and started peeing in the lake, right on the steps of where you walk down. So I went and told my husband. I said this is ridiculous and I did yell over to him and say, you know, that's really unacceptable, but these are things that happen with renters. Mr. Davidson is not at the property all the time with the renters. He can't control what they do and who,you know,what decisions that they make. Quite honestly, I was mortified. My,at the time, 11 year old daughter is standing there and I just, I didn't know what to do, quite honestly. I also have two dogs. They allow the renters to have dogs at the property, and,you know, it's my house. My dogs don't have to be on lead when they're at my house,but this is not the renters'house, and their dogs should be on lead and they are not on lead quite often, and that is the other concern that I have. I don't want anybody getting bit, including my own dogs, myself, my kids, my friends. So, you know,this is something that we did,you know,honestly we had no idea that it would cause this type of problem. We had no idea. So,thank you. MR. GOTTLIEB-I would just like to add one thing about the pets. I did notice we were fortunate enough to just receive a copy of the Davidsons' perspective and it mentions that there was one pet that, they rented to one family that had one pet last year. I want to mention, they've had two renters this year. A renter, I think maybe it was two weekends ago came up with a very large black dog. We have pictures if you would like to see them,just to support this,and the dog is literally just walking all over the dock and barking at us. The gentleman was throwing the toy towards our dock. He was throwing it, almost hitting our dock. So it's a little unnerving, as somebody who's not there all the time. I recognize that I can't protect my family 24 hours a day 7 days a week, but there's some fairly easy steps that we can take, and this privacy screen was one of those steps that we thought was appropriate. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Yes. Why didn't you just put in a four foot fence? I will say to you that the first house I bought I had renters on both sides and I had motorcycles going around in the backyard. So when you purchased the house, you probably did your due diligence to find out who was on both sides. Now that you're faced with the renter, because it sounds to me like you're saying that the neighbor's house is always rented. Is that correct? MRS. GOTTLIEB-That's correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. So, I mean, so you have renters there. Why not just a four foot fence instead of a six foot fence, but in all honesty, you purchased the house, you did your due diligence, and now you're stuck with what you have, and I understand that you're looking for your privacy and your safety, I got that, but I think you're asking for, anyway, I think a four foot fence would do the same thing, or,let me ask you,you said her divider was there before. Why didn't you put up that kind of divider? MR. GOTTLIEB-Your questions are great ones. So the main reason we went to a taller fence was we were concerned that dogs,especially ours,we have baby gates at our house to pen them into certain areas so they can't get in and out of certain areas of the house, and they can go right over those gates. Those are at least three and a half feet high, and so there was a concern that if we didn't build it high enough that pets could still jump over that. So that was the main reason why we did it, and you are absolutely right. We did our due diligence. We knew that they had rented. We actually did not know how frequently and we did not know which side of the property that the renters were going to be on, and so that is something that was new information to us, and then when we got there, for the first summer of enjoyment, that's when we recognized that the privacy screen that was already in place, the big bushes and the lattice and the, you know, the hammock, were just not sufficient enough, and so we wanted to take it upon ourselves. What I just don't understand is if you're on their side of the dock, all your view is of us. If we're sitting down at our dock having dinner,they're looking at us. They're not looking at the lake. They have no view other than our boathouse, our boat and our table where we eat dinner down at the dock, and it's always the renters. The Davidsons do not use that side of the dock. So I just want to be on the record. MR. KUHL-And who called to have the fence looked at,could you answer that one for me? MR. BORGOS-My understanding the complaint was registered by Mr. Davidson with Bruce Frank. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR. KUHL-The neighbor who rents complained about the fence. MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR.URRICO-Has the fence made a noticeable difference in your disturbance from the renters? MR. GOTTLIEB-Very much so. Very much so. We have, the one dog that they had last year was able to, would actually come over to our side. Because you can just go through the lattice and the bushes. They can't now and so it's as much we're not, our dogs can't go through and this other dog, so the other dog that they had two weeks ago could not make it over the boundary because we had. So it gave me, certainly, some peace of mind knowing that, even though they were off the leash, it would be much harder for them to make it over to our side of the property. So it certainly has served that purpose. MR.URRICO-Did you try calling the police or anything during any of these incidents? MR. GOTTLIEB-No,we're not,no. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing this evening. I'd like to open the public comment period, if I could, and ask is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? We do have someone. If you could join us here at the table, please. And just to remind you, we do ask that you make your comments within three minutes if you can. I know it's difficult to, but you're going to do your best. I know, but it is fairly possible. So welcome, and if you could identify yourself, I'd appreciate it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN WRIGHT MR.WRIGHT-Yes,thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Wright. I'm an attorney with Bartlett Pontiff Stewart&Rhodes in Glens Falls. I'm here representing Bill and Lorraine Davidson who own 387 Cleverdale Road. They've been there for 24 summers now, always enjoyed a very friendly and cordial relationship with their neighbors to the north, up until the Gottlieb's purchased this property. There's never been any issues with the Davidsons or their guests and the neighbor to the north until now. They've always been good neighbors. So we're dealing here with a lot of allegations that are completely unfounded and we think completely over the top. To your point, Mr. Kuhl, a four foot fence would accomplish the goals that they're saying they're trying to accomplish, and it doesn't need to be opaque either. If you're concerned about dogs crossing the boundary, you can put a four foot fence in. I don't think there's any reason to believe there are dogs that can scale a four foot fence. The insinuation that somehow the renters,the guests that the Davidsons have in Town, are dangerous to children is completely unfounded. These are people who are paying,you know, $2200 a week to come up and enjoy the lake. They're not the dregs of society. These are respectable people. They're college professors,they're nurses. They're families that come back year after year. They're not just transients, and I know that's how they're trying to paint this. So the fence being as tall as it is and being opaque does two things. It obstructs the view north and northwest from my client's sitting area and dock, and this is an area they do use. It's not just the guests. It's the family functions. It's Bill and Lorraine using it when they don't have renters there, and we've submitted a letter from Dick Berke who's the president of Robert Levitt Realty indicating that this'll have a significant negative impact on the value of my client's property, due to the fact it obstructs the view. So this isn't just a harmless fence when you're south of it. It's pretty harmless to the Gottlieb's because their view of the lake is not at all affected. They can look out,they can look north, and it's not a big deal to them. The fence we measured last week is at least six feet six inches tall, not just six feet. So that they do need more relief than they've asked for? I want the Board to clear that up, if you're inclined, at all inclined to grant this variance, but there's going to be an adverse effect on my clients. There's going to be an adverse effect on the neighborhood. There's no similar fences in this neighborhood. You don't have these privacy fences on the shoreline for a reason, and with that I'd turn it over to Bill and Lorraine for them to talk about,you know,how this fence,which is illegally constructed,is effecting them. BILL DAVIDSON 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR. DAVIDSON-Well, I was just going to say a little bit about who are our guests. Our guests are Aaron Nicholson who grew up on Cleverdale, who came and bought a Hacker Craft boat and stayed for two to three weeks, he and his wife. We just had, what was it last week, another family, and these are families that rent, and it was related to the Wards who live down the street, and the Wetherbees who live on Mason Road. These are the kind of people we're getting. We have very, very high quality people. They are all professionals and they're not interested one iota in looking at a neighbor. The Ordinance allows a four foot high fence. A four foot high fence would do just well. As you can see from the pictures, when we had any screening there, it was latticework. My wife put a planter in, and we had a couple of evergreens. Very innocuous and certainly not in violation of the Ordinance. It kind of just defined the boundary. This fence is opaque. It's obnoxious and it does block our view. Very definitely blocks our view. As Dick Berke said, he could certainly make a case for a $100 to $150,000 damage in this fence, lowering property value. As far as the dog,well, I'll defer to my wife,let her talk. She did the research. LORRAINE DAVIDSON MRS. DAVIDSON-Good evening. Thank you for hearing us. As we've said, we have lived there almost 24 years. We are from the area. We have family, children who have grown up on the lake with their friends and have enjoyed it and now comeback with their children. We're not transient people. We do not have transient tenants,as my husband said. We've always asked for families. If you talk to the Davies and Davies,we've rented through their agency many times,they will give you high recommendations of the type of people and the type of quality place that we do have. We have limited to certain numbers in families. We do allow pets because pets are allowed in Queensbury. They are leashed when they're off the property. When they Gottlieb's talked about dogs,their dogs bark at us incessantly when we're on our property and that is a fact of life of living on Cleverdale. When you live that close in proximity to people, you're not looking for a cabin in the woods. You do not even expect that much privacy in all honesty, because you are about a driveway apart from your neighbors. So you become very tolerant and understanding of each other, and as John has said, and Bill, we've lived there for 24 years, and have never, ever, ever had issues with neighbors. If anything, we've helped one another. Our water had a problem, they gave us a hose to help us with it. They brought in a boat. We helped to tie the boat in with us. We're not that type of a family and we don't believe in this. This whole issue of privacy of children. I have young children. My children grew up that way. I never felt that I was so fearful of who was around. I was responsible for watching them,not my neighbors,and the other thing is their sense of privacy about their children, if they don't want them in bathing suits, then tell them to cover up. I saw a whole bunch of them on the road over the weekend, not in cover ups, in bathing suits, but that's what children on Cleverdale do. It's a neighborhood. It's not some area that you're so afraid of. As far as dogs go, I take very private or concern about animals. We love animals, and we have told any time that we have visitors, we have never ever in all the history have had a Rottweiler on that property to a renter, to a visitor or to family members. I can vouch for every dog that we've had, just like they say. A dog will sometimes run across a property. You can't totally control it,but I do know that the people that we have, the last dog they talked about was a lab, who naturally swims, and the tenant is throwing in a toy for them to play. That is what we do at Cleverdale. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,and I appreciate you paying attention to the clock. MR.WRIGHT-Mr. Chairman, if I could just add one more thing that it's in my letter but got left out, I think, tonight, my client's live at the property full time during the summer in the boathouse. So they're in close proximity with their tenants as well. It's not as if they're off somewhere else and their tenants have free reign. They're there,too. MR. DAVIDSON-Yes, I just wanted to say on that, yes, we have always been there when our guests are there. This week my wife was sick, and so we went back to Glens Falls so she could go to the doctor, and so we weren't there all the time, although I was there frequently, but that is the first time in 24 years that that has ever occurred because we are always there, and to say that we don't use that side of the dock, or deck, it's deck, is erroneous because I don't know how they know 24 year history in one year. It just baffles me. We use that. We used it when my daughter was married. We've used it for family reunions. We use it when guests are not there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-Well,there is,but it was from Mr.Wright. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Wright, do we need to read your letter into the record? I mean we have received it. MR. WRIGHT-As long as the Board has all read it, that's fine with me. I think we all want to go home before midnight. MR. JACKOSKI-Board members are okay without having poor Roy read that whole letter into the record? MR. KUHL-That's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. If you could re-join the table, please. So, Mr. Borgos, if there's anything you'd like to add before Board members ask questions,feel free. MR. BORGOS-If I could, just a few points of clarification. First and foremost, I didn't understand, before tonight,the level of concern that the Davidson's have with regard to this. So I'd like to state to them that we don't feel that they have anything but the best intentions for the way they conduct themselves with the renting of the property and how they screen their renters. That's not the concern at all. I think really what it is is Mr. Gottlieb has expressed to you, it's his absence from the property, and his perception, apprehension, if you will, when he's not there. Not being able to control the situation and monitor it himself. So he wishes to put in place what he thought was a modest improvement to what was there already. So in his eyes it is a very minor request to seek this variance to gain a certain modicum of relief and not worry about it as much. Mr. Chairman, would it be acceptable to request that Laura Moore put up some photos from the FOIL request that I made? I know that Mr. Frank took a bunch of photos during his site visit as part of the complaint resolution,and I think that some of them are very helpful. MR.JACKOSKI-They're all photos that we already have in our packet,correct? MR. BORGOS-Yes, they're also in the packet. I think that you have the actual photos from the camera there, too, that are just a little bit larger, easier to see on the screen. What I want to direct your attention to is, in looking at alternatives, there've been some good questions from Mr. Kuhl about the height of the fence and whether or not it should be opaque, and I know the Davidson's and their attorney have brought that up as well. Those are those two fundamental questions. Why does it have to be opaque and why does it have to be that high. The height of it has been discussed as four feet not being adequate to prevent a dog leaping over it. Certainly. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I just address that right now, if you don't mind. Because I've heard it over and over again. Can you tell me how you're minimizing the dogs from simply walking across the ground at the hillside? MR. BORGOS-They certainly could, but it's heavily vegetated, and it's got quite a bit of growth on it. It's just not a natural pathway. If they wish to run across it or if they wanted to swim around it, of course they could. The idea is here that you see the historical development of the frontage. It's a very,very steep slope. So the seawall essentially was developed into this common dock area, deck area, as the only flat land available, and I think you had to get away from the house area in order to achieve a sunny spot. That's probably why it was developed in that fashion. So it becomes a very concentrated, intensive use at that area. So that's naturally where people would bring their families, their activities, and of course their dogs. So the visual screen of the opaque fence is important in that if dogs don't see each other, they're less likely to seek each other out, and it's also the same for humans. If you hear conversation, you may know people are on the other side of it but having the visual screening there, the opacity is important. Most adults are four and a half to six feet tall, on average, so you need a height of a fence there to make sure that that visual screening's there. Those were the thought processes in developing this. I wanted to address the view for a minute. Can you show me the photos that show the view from the Gottlieb's looking south towards the boathouse? And there's one in the packet that I enlarged, near the end of the photos. That one right there. MRS.MOORE-This one? MR. BORGOS-Yes, turn it. That's looking north. That's a good photo to illustrate why we don't believe it's a very large impact. Certainly there is a visual impact if you're standing in that corner where the hammock swing is. You're not going to see much because of the proximity to the privacy screen,but if you get around to the edge here where that photo was taken from,you see that there's not much of a view there because it is the dining table, the built in constructs on the Gottlieb side that are visible. Now,this was a photo that was taken I think this past weekend of the renters from 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) the Gottlieb's boathouse looking back. Everyone's enjoying the social space there. Just beyond, out of the view of this photo, there's a little pathway that leads behind the boathouse, living quarters of the Davidsons, and, Laura, what I'm trying to do is show you in the photos here, there's a separation. If you look at the large Staff photos on Page Four of my submission to you,you'll see it. The upper left photo, Number 13, shows the latticework and there's actually a little bit of a gate you can see there. It's our understanding that the renters are to stay on the north side of that,that is the Gottlieb side, of that separation, and when the Davidsons have renters, they're using the southerly side. So they have their own screening and latticework protection that goes floor to ceiling to completely prevent any interaction between the Davidsons and the renters, and it's surprising to the Gottlieb's that what they did would be objectionable when the very same thing is on the other side. The photo just to the right of it, Number 14, shows how the Gottlieb's view is slightly impaired by the presence of the boathouse to the south. Of course that was there when they bought the property, and they're not complaining of it, but if they need the view to the south, they just walk to the end of the dock. There are alternatives here. So where we acknowledge that there's an impact upon the Davidsons. There's no doubt. It's slight, and in that balancing test of the need for the privacy and the safety concerns that have been expressed, we think that this is a justifiable reason to grant the variance that's been made. Anything that you'd like to add? MR. GOTTLIEB-Just maybe two things. I can't dispute the Davidsons' account that they rent to nurses and lawyers and doctors. That's probably the case. I will tell you the picture that we took this week,which is being shown on the screen,they're probably very nice people. They seem to be nice people,but they also have 90%of their bodies with tattoos and piercings and frankly I'm trying not to have my kids be exposed to that. So I'm happy to have you come up and I can introduce you, and by the way, we have met them, and we asked them about the privacy screen, and their comment to us was we actually like it, it's very nice, and we told them that it's being proposed that we take it down. They said,well that's a shame. MRS. GOTTLIEB-They didn't want to put anything in writing for fear that they wouldn't be rented to again by the Davidsons. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there Board member questions at this time? Because I have quite a few of them,but I'll let other Board members speak first. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a question. Obviously you have a boathouse with a deck on top that you spend time up there. I mean, are you going to put a six foot fence up there,too, so you can't see the people down there? Or does that not bother you when you're up there? MR. GOTTLIEB-It doesn't bother us when we're up there. We spend a lot of time on the other side of the boathouse. We eat dinners down on the dock. You can see a big round table where we tend to spend the majority of our time with our family, and when we have gatherings,there's a fire pit on the north side of our property, and we will congregate over there as well. So it really helps to,you know,keep the screen where it is,given,you know,the amount of time that we spend on the dock. MR. HENKEL-I didn't get a chance to measure that fence. Is that six feet,six inches then? MR. GOTTLIEB-The panels are six feet. MR. HENKEL-Right. There is some space underneath, so obviously that's lifting it up. So actually you're asking for more relief than that. MR. BORGOS-I noticed in Mr. Wright's response that I was handed tonight that that had been measured by Mr. Davidson. I can't dispute it because I haven't personally measured it. I just checked on the standard size of those panels that are commercially available. It wasn't altered,but I do see there is a gap of space at the bottom, and perhaps he was measuring to the top of the post. That might account for the six,six. MR. HENKEL-Now would you consider a moving the panel closest to the water and put a four foot there? MRS. GOTTLIEB-The problem we have isn't with the Davidsons. It's not with their family being there. It's not with them being there. The problem that we have are the renters coming in, a new family every week. Not knowing who they are, feeling that they can pee in the lake and do other things. So it's not them. MR. HENKEL-You bought the property knowing that there were renters there all these years,right? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MRS. GOTTLIEB-I didn't know that they rented as frequently,no. MR. GOTTLIEB-And we certainly didn't know that that was the side of the property they rented on, but to specifically answer your question, we are open to alternatives, absolutely. Our view is we actually, at some point it would be great to have a relationship with the Davidsons. We've been homeowners in New Jersey for 15 years and we have the same relationships with our existing neighbors that they claim to have with everybody on Cleverdale. MR. HENKEL-So none of your neighbors in New Jersey have tattoos or anything? Your kids don't get exposed to that in New Jersey? MR. GOTTLIEB-Our neighbors do not. MR. HENKEL-Where do you live in New Jersey? MR. GOTTLIEB-We live in Montclair, NJ. MR. HENKEL-I've been to New Jersey many times. I've seen numerous people with tattoos. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So the next thing here. Would anyone else like to address the applicants on this application? MR. KUHL-Yes, I would. May I, Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-You may. MR. KUHL-As I said, my first house I had renters on both sides. I had motorcycles. I feared that. They sold the house and people moved in,both sides. House Number Three, I'm on my fifth house, by the way, House Number Three, I'll back up to when I was a little critter. My parents didn't get along with the neighbors, and it wasn't great growing up. House Number Three, I had strong problems with a neighbor. I suggest that the four of you get together and make nice. I would want to have a smaller fence so that my neighbors could help my children if they need it, and should the dogs jump, we train our children, we should train our dogs. I would encourage you to sit down with your neighbors and construct a divider,because you want your privacy, and I understand that. I got that. I really do, but wouldn't it be nice, because, I mean, you're going to be there for a long time, and why have this adversarial relationship? I honestly believe it is not necessary, and I honestly believe that if you probably had gone to them, you probably would have come up with something that was good for both families, but I, personally, as a Board member, I am against a six foot fence, and I will vote against the six foot fence, but on a personal side, I hope you heard me, because it's not nice living next to people that you don't talk to, and that was House Number Three. Okay. Honestly, and House Number Five, I have neighbors,and it's the way you want to be,and you bought a house in a recreational community. Lake George is recreation. I mean, we go out there for 12, 14 weeks and we do things that people in Queensbury don't do because we have the water, and we have water toys,and it's a wonderful yard,and as your children grow,they're going to invite their friends over. The last thing you want is somebody next door not liking what you're doing because it gets crazy, and as a matter of fact tonight my grandson was coming up with three of his friends to play in the backyard. There's no greater feelings, but please work out your differences and do the right thing,but for me, I'm against the six foot fence all the way. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board members have questions? Okay. So I have a few, Mr. Borgos, if I could. How is the deck, I guess it is, that this divider is separating, constructed? Is there, is it a timber crib with rocks under it? What is it? MR. BORGOS-It is upon the land itself. It is not built over the water. I believe it was, again,without being able to rip it apart, I can't tell,but I think it was a seawall that has timbers placed upon it. So I think there's concrete and stone underneath it,but it is definitely part of the land, and that's what's depicted in the survey. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I saw the survey. I just wanted to make sure we understood it. Has there been any thought at all of simply removing that decking, so that there couldn't be an easy access to and fro,just take eight feet of it away,six feet of it away? MR. BORGOS-That has not been considered. That's a novel concept that we haven't even discussed. MR. JACKOSKI-I've got to tell you, I'm struggling with understanding the dog issue, because to me the dogs can just walk right on the upland side and just cross over the property lines. I don't 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) understand how this fence is protecting anyone except for when they're on the deck. If they're not on leads, then they just go around the fence. I live on Cleverdale, too, and my dog traverses up a bank much steeper than that. MR. BORGOS-If the dog wants to go, I'm sure they're going to. MR.JACKOSKI-They're going to go,heavily vegetated or not. So if I'm trying to balance the needs of both residents, I keep hearing about the safety of the dogs,but I don't, it only limits the safety of the dog on 10, 12 feet of that property line. As far as views and stuff, I've got to acknowledge that the neighbor's view is of the boathouse to the north. I mean, when you have your boat in it and you have a deck on it and stuff there's not a great view in between the timbers and up the deck, of the Gottlieb property. So I understand why that's not that seriously impacted. As far as keeping out neighbors who might not be doing things they should be doing in the lake, I mean, the lake water is not ours. I mean, anybody can swim in front of your lake water. They have a right to do that. There's no riparian rights on the lake. People can swim, boat, do everything they want right in front of your water. If they're in that water,they have a right to be there,and that's difficult. MR. BORGOS-I think there's a 125 foot regulation out there. MR. JACKOSKI-If you have access to that, that would be great to see that, because what we understand, especially on Glen Lake, is that people can actually be in the lake water and that's not your water. Riparian rights were really about transporting goods down the rivers and stuff. So people refer to riparian rights all the time. Well, I'm not sure it happens here,but maybe you know something I don't know. I'm struggling with it. I've got to be very honest with you. I just, I think there was a softer way to put up a wall. I love the term screen, but it's a wall, and the way Mr. Pogonoski builds things it's definitely a wall because he's a very good builder and it's very solid. I am sure. So, I, too, I've got to tell you, I will poll the Board, but I'm not in favor of it. So, are there any other Board members who have questions before I close the public comment period and take a polling of the Board? Okay. I'm going to poll the Board. Tonight I'm going to mix it up a little. I'm going to go in the same order. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I think the Gottlieb's made a very compelling argument for their need for privacy and safety for their children and their guests. I think some type of divider or some type of barrier is needed there, but by the same token, I am not ready to set precedent in the Town of Queensbury for a six foot six inch shoreline fence. MR.JACKOSKI-And of course I ripped up my sheet so now I can't tell who went next. So, Mike,how about you? MR. MC CABE-First of all, I want to disclose that on my site visit I met with the property owners. They took me down to the fence, showed me the orientation of the fence with respect to the property line. I did view both sides of the fence,and the statement was made that the fence was for privacy. Because of the steepness of the bank, I don't think the six foot fence is a big deal. I did not find it objectionable in any way. It looked pretty natural to me, and I would be in favor of granting the variance. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm thinking John maybe next,but,why not. MR. HENKEL-Yes. I agree that there's no doubt that it's very close there and the privacy thing is definitely a concern, especially when you've got children, but I would not be in favor of something like that, like I made a recommendation maybe the first panel being six feet, and maybe tapering it off somewhere,the next panel,but definitely not in favor of the way it's presented. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-The first Chairman of this Board that I broke in under suggested in instances like this that we look at the application as if the person came with clean hands, in other words, you were coming before us asking for a six foot six fence, privacy fence, and I must admit that's my first thought was I would never allow that. You made a compelling argument. The Davidsons have made compelling argument, and I want to take the, I want to back up Mr. Kuhl. I think there's room for compromise here. I would not be in favor of this fence the way it exists,but I think there's some room for compromise here that would satisfy both sides,both parties, and I agree with him. Having neighbors that get along with you is a great asset to raising kids. So,you know, I would say no,but I'm open to some compromise here. So my vote could change. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR. KUHL-Yes. No, I'm against it the way it's presented. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Having listened to both sides of the argument, like was stated before, both side have presented good cases as to why, Gottlieb's, why you need it, and Davidsons why you are against it. Privacy is one of the Number One, almost, it's one of the Number One things I've recently read that people are going to be in search of in the future. These are also close quarters. Everyone's living close together,you know, Mr. Kuhl made some very good points about neighbors getting along. It's unfortunate, right now,that there's tension between neighbors over this. Even a,you know, a gate between the two, if, in fact,you need to open up and say,hey, neighbor,how are you, or whatever it might be, could be helpful. I do understand the dog issue. I have two dogs. One dog can certainly jump more than four feet. So I can understand a dog jumping,but at the same time, I don't know if, again, and you've heard this a few times already, Mr. and Mrs. Gottlieb, that a six foot six fence, I don't know if it's appropriate there. I would certainly be in favor of supporting something that says this is a boundary line. We need to keep our side of our privacy here, but I don't know background experiences, I don't know what experiences folks have had to get them to the point where, you know,you are as an adult, and certain life experiences make you say, I don't like this for X, Y and Z reasons because,you know, so I don't pretend to know what they are, and I'm okay with everyone's personal choices. However, I would be in favor of something, but not a six foot six fence. I'm also in favor of something like that,but just not six foot six inches,so not as it is currently. MR. JACKOSKI-So my comments at the end here is that I think when the Code was drafted and they were looking at the Waterfront Residential zone, they had to know that people were going to want privacy and they consciously chose not to allow these tall fences along the lakeshore this close to the lake. To me, it's inherent that that's why the Code's written that way,that they kept it as low as they could. I just don't see that this is the right thing for this piece of property and with this neighborhood and with these two parcels. I'm trying to balance it. I'm trying to find a way to make everybody happy. In looking at all the aspects of what we need to do here, and it just, I don't know of one like this, and I just, I'm not for it. I'm sorry. So I don't know what the applicant would like to do at this time. MR. BORGOS-Well, Mr. Chairman, we've heard some wonderful, insightful comments, and we appreciate all of the well reasons insights that you've given us, particularly Mr. Kuhl's, and we'd like to table the matter to have an opportunity to approach the Davidsons and see if we can, indeed, try to work something out and discuss some type of compromise. Is that something that we can do during this meeting and not delay the determination? I'm going to speak directly to the Davidsons and their attorney to see if we can step into the other room while you continue on with the next agenda item,and perhaps we can return with something different. MR. JACKOSKI-Given the circumstances, Mr. Borgos, if you wouldn't mind, if we could just, because you're asking for us to adjourn, so to speak, let, if you wouldn't mind the Davidson's attorney come and speak. MR. BORGOS-Sure. MR.JACKOSKI-Just briefly,please. MR. WRIGHT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, John Wright for the record. The difficulty that arises is the fence as constructed appears to us is not going to obtain the votes to get the variance as it needs to exist, as it is constructed. Code Enforcement has agreed not to order the removal of the fence until this Board acts. So if we table for a month or two,this fence stays there all summer, and then one of my clients'goals here is to open that view back up and have that fence removed. So it's clear that this fence, as it's constructed, needs to be removed, and we're certainly open to discussing alternatives with them,specifically Code compliant alternatives that we think could meet everybody's needs. So we're not saying,we're not unwilling to negotiate. We just think that,what we'd ask is that the Board take action on the application as it's presented to this Board, and if they want to come back with a new application in the future, they have the right to do that. So that's what we'd ask. MR.JACKOSKI-And just so you know, Mr.Wright,that the Board can grant less relief. So this Board could continue its deliberations and actually maybe determine less relief then move forward. So I understand the compromise is trying to be addressed, but I guess you're not in favor of meeting with the Gottlieb's at this time. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR.WRIGHT-Mr. Chairman,if the Board would prefer us to do that,we can discuss it,but,again. MR. JACKOSKI-It's not our preference. It's the applicant and the neighbors. So we're looking for guidance from you folks. MR.WRIGHT-Okay. Let me defer to my clients. MR. DAVIDSON-Can I say something? MR.JACKOSKI-We're a little out of order here tonight,but sure. MR. DAVIDSON-I think, as good neighbors, and I think as we first met the Gottlieb's, my daughters assisted their son when he was injured and were very concerned and took a great deal of concern for that child. We're good neighbors, and everyone who has lived around us, whether it's in Glens Falls or Queensbury, knows we're good neighbors. We are willing to work with people, but this fence is over the top and is just a blank wall for a view, and as time goes on, our children and our grandchildren, of which we have four boys,will be occupying that house in the summer. We're not all going to live in that boathouse. MR.JACKOSKI-I just need an answer as to whether or not we should adjourn this thing or simply? MR. DAVIDSON-We're willing,you know, it's getting late, I'm willing, I think my wife and I are more than willing to meet with the Gottlieb's,but,you know,let us re-group and see what types of fences and so on so that we can go with an educated. MR. JACKOSKI-So I have a motion by the applicant to table the meeting to another date. So I'd like to request from Staff. No, they're saying that they need to research more before they can do anything this evening. MRS.MOORE-Currently,for the month of August,you have potentially nine variances to review. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we're going to be into September with this. MR.URRI C 0-Traditionally we have allowed the applicant to table. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR.URRICO-So it's not something that's abnormal. MR.JACKOSKI-No,the applicant has requested a tabling given a polling of the Board, and that is our history and process of doing so, and I received that request to table. So, having a motion from the applicant to table and not seeming to get a meeting together here this evening, before we take that motion,you're okay with us tabling this going forward? MR. BORGOS-We don't want to delay anything, but if everybody needs some time to think it through,that's fine. One month or two month,whatever your normal schedule. MR. HENKEL-Of course,you don't have to come back to us if you come up with a compliant solution. MR.JACKOSKI-That's correct. MR. BORGOS-We understand that. MR. HENKEL-So you could solve this tomorrow. MR. BORGOS-That's among the options available to us. MR.JACKOSKI-So unfortunately right now the application deadline for September is August 15th. MRS.MOORE-15th,correct. MR.JACKOSKI-For any new revisions to this. MR. BORGOS-That standard would apply for a revision to an existing application? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we can't see it in August. It's going to be September. MR. BORGOS-All right. Well, we want to endeavor to be good neighbors. So we want to have that meeting with the Davidsons as soon as they can accommodate that. We'll see if we can work towards a solution well in advance of that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has requested a tabling of this matter to the September Board meeting with a submission deadline of August 15th. Can I have a motion to do that? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2014 JASON &TRICIA GOTTLIEB, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to a September meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with a deadline date for submission of any new information of August 15, 2014. Duly adopted this 231d day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. MR. BORGOS-Thank you all. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2014 SEQRA TYPE II GARY&PETRONELLE SAMPSON OWNER(S) GARY & PETRONELLE SAMPSON ZONING MDR LOCATION 30 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED 458 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 2014-173 GARAGE; BP 90-649 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2014 LOT SIZE 4.92 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.19-1-11 SECTION 179-5-020 GARY&PETRONELLE SAMPSON, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-Again,my apologies for going out of order. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2014, Gary & Petronelle Sampson, Meeting Date: July 23, 2014 "Project Location: 30 Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a detached 458 sq.ft.garage this is a second garage on the property. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage: 21,d garage Required 1 Proposed 2 Relief 1 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 construct an addition to the existing garage however that may limit the overall size of the garage allowed for parcels less than five acres. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 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, BP 14-171: Garage,pending BP 90-649: SFD Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage to allow for storage and vehicles. The garage is to have an 8 ft. door which the applicant has indicated is useful for equipment-tractors and such to use for yard work. The plans show the existing home and the location of the garage close to the existing garage where the distance is over 100 ft. from the front and remaining property lines.Also included are elevation and floor plans for the garage. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. We're not,this is an easy Board. So it's a pretty straightforward application. Is there anything you'd like to add right now or can we simply ask you questions? MR. SAMPSON-Well, I went through the concerns that I've got in the minutes. Most people drive up Country Club Road, they don't even see our house, and the garage, as you call it, is going to be right there at the end of the driveway, right next to the house, and surrounded on three sides by trees. I wanted to build an accessory structure, and this is where our realities are sort of different. Your reality is the Code and the rules and the definitions. My reality is that I originally designed my accessory structure with a six foot overhead door. Well,with a six foot overhead door, I'm building a shed and I don't need to be here. I could just build it and it would be approved, because I'm way far away from any boundaries. I have 4.92 acres. A lot of yard equipment, because most of it's wooded, and I have lawn tractors and dump carts and a trailer for behind my car and everything, and all this stuff,but I wanted a little bit wider door. So I went with an eight foot wide door. Now it's not a shed. Now it's a garage. So my reality is, can I have an eight foot door rather than a six foot door. That's the only difference. The building's the same except for that, and the front of the building will be perpendicular to Country Club Road. You'll be hard-pressed even to see the accessory structure back there. You won't be able to see the front of it. So I don't see how it effects the neighborhood or anything else. In fact, we don't have neighbors. I have the bike trail, the parking lot. The closest house is across the road and up the road a little bit, and Sweet Road. There's nothing up to Sweet Road. So I don't have any neighbors mad at me, and so there's nobody here to yell at me. MR. HENKEL-Would you like a 10 foot door? MR.JACKOSKI-So just to clarify,this is intended for? MRS. SAMPSON-Storage. MR.JACKOSKI-Storage and equipment. There's no business purposes for it or anything else? MR. SAMPSON-Right, no, no, no, and right now I have no hard requirement, in fact no requirement at all,to put a car in there. MR.JACKOSKI-I know. It's simply the width of the door. We go through this a lot. MR. SAMPSON-Yes, and there is sort of a safety issue because when I try to back things up I sort of do this a lot. I tend to bump into things, and so maybe it would be better to have a bigger hole to get into. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,or a carport. Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Rick? MR. GARRAND-Do you have any other storage buildings on the property? MR. SAMPSON-No. MR. KUHL-Do you intend on having any? MR. SAMPSON-No. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There's no written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'm going to poll the Board. MR.URRICO-Are there any wetlands on your property? MR. SAMPSON-Just at the very northern edge up by Sweet Road. MR.JACKOSKI-If they're delineated. Were they actually delineated? MR. SAMPSON-Not that I know of. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,so you don't even really know for sure that they are wetlands. MR. SAMPSON-Right at the northern border there's a stream, and that's the only thing I've ever seen up there. There's culverts. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Okay. Board members. Rick? MR. GARRAND-The standard we've used a lot of times is properties five acres and over tend to need a little more equipment for maintenance than properties of lesser size. I've always maintained and been consistent on that. This property is very, very close to five acres, 4.92 acres, and I can definitely see his need for the extra equipment for maintenance of a property this size. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-He's in his own little world. I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm also in favor. That structure, you're talking about 180 feet from any property line and you really can't see it. Go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'd be okay with it, but I would suggest no walls at all. If he has problems driving, I would say. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of this project. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-And closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Can I seek a motion? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 50-2014, Gary & Petronelle Sampson, 30 Country Club Road,Tax Map No. 296.19-1-11 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gary & Petronelle Sampson for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a detached 458 sq. ft.garage. Relief requested for a second garage. Relief is for a second garage on the property as per the Code 179-5-020. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 23, 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? This Board feels there will be no detriment to nearby properties by granting this variance. We can see that it will not change the character at all. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? For storage of a lot of equipment I don't see any other way the applicant could really do it. He's stated he's not going to use it for parking automobiles. I think constructing on to the house would be almost prohibitively expensive in this situation. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It may be considered substantial relative to the Code because it is 100%relief. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Once again, it's a five acre lot. Minimal impacts on the neighborhood. It's not going to affect runoff to any great amount. There isn't going to be significant tree clearing or anything, effects to the groundwater or anything. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It maybe deemed self-created. 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. 50-2014 Gary and Petronelle Sampson, 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; 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 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 231d day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-And if I hadn't have blown it,you could have been out of hereby 7:30. My apologies. MR. SAMPSON-We got to see the show. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2014 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL HARRINGTON OWNER(S) PAUL HARRINGTON ZONING NR LOCATION 57 MINNESOTA AVENUE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN AN ADDITION CONSTRUCTED AT THE FRONT OF THE HOME. THE ADDITION IS 100 SQ. FT. +/-AND REPLACES FRONT ENTRY STEPS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE NR ZONE. CROSS REF NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-10 SECTION 179-3-040 PAUL HARRINGTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2014, Paul Harrington, Meeting Date: July 23, 2014 "Project Location: 57 Minnesota Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain an addition constructed at the front of the home. The addition is 103.25 sq. ft. +/- and replaces front entry steps. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 establishment of districts - area requirements of the Neighborhood Residential District: Front setback Required 20 ft. Proposed 14.3 ft. Relief 5.7 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 considered as to a smaller addition or alternate location. The applicant has indicated that alternatives are limited as the structure is already built with the intent to create a mudroom enclosing the front of the residence. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered minimal 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 impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 14-117: Residential alterations mud room 103.25 sq.ft. Staff comments: The applicant has constructed a mud room addition to an existing home that does not meet the required setbacks. The applicant has indicated the mudroom was constructed for energy efficiency for the main entrance of the home. The information submitted shows the location of the addition, structural information and survey information. The Real property information indicates the structure was built in 1952 as a cottage including the attached garage and some porches. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Harrington. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time or would you simply like to field questions from the Board? MR. HARRINGTON-Questions would be fine. MR.JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions? MR. KUHL-When did you start constructing this? MR. HARRINGTON-Fall of last year. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Why no permit? MR. HARRINGTON-Honestly,lack of intelligence. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. HARRINGTON-I come from an old family farm where, you know, we needed a building constructed. So,lack of intelligence on my part would probably be the best answer. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. KUHL-Did the Code Enforcement person come by? MR. HARRINGTON-Yes. MR. KUHL-And what you have there is up to Code? MR. HARRINGTON-We're in the middle of that. MRS. MOORE-They're in the middle of that with our Building Code inspector. I believe it was Charlie Dyer. MR. KUHL-No, but what we're saying here is it will be brought up, it will be built to Code is what Charlie's going to? MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional questions? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing,seeing no one in the audience. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-There is none. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Having none, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't have any problems with it. I think the only concern the applicant should have is the buildup of snow on the roof in the wintertime,if this isn't going to be heated. It's almost a flat roof, and it's going to be significant snow accumulation from the sloped roof down to this roof. Just something you should bear in mind. Beyond that, I don't have any objections to this appeal. It's for 5.7 feet. That doesn't seem like a lot, or significant in any way, shape or form. I don't think it's going to change the character of the neighborhood. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-It's certainly not out of character with the neighborhood. A number of the other houses appear to be a little bit closer than what they should be. So I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I definitely agree with Rick and Mike. There's no impact to the environment or the neighborhood,and I'd be in favor of this. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes. I think this satisfies the test. It's a minimal relief. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, it appears the neighbors like it. I have no problem with it. I agree with my Board members. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-No problem with the size of what's proposed. MR.JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and I'll seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 53-2014, Paul Harrington, 57 Minnesota Avenue,Tax Map No. 308.12-2-10 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul Harrington for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant requests to maintain an addition constructed at the front of the home. The addition is 100 sq. ft. +/- and replaces front entry steps. Relief requested from the front setback requirements of the NR zone. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 23, 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? An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested area variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? It will be hard for benefit to be sought in any other method since construction has been already started. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/23/2014) 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We believe not. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We think not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Of course it is. 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. 53-2014, Paul Harrington, Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 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 23rd day of July, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Any further business before the Board? Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 23, 2014, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 23rd 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 MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone. Goodnight. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 26