Loading...
06-24-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 24-2015 Kenneth J. Walker 2. Tax Map No. 308.7-1-20 Area Variance No. 26-2015 Capital District Developmental Disabilities 8. Service Office Tax Map No. 297.17-1-6 Area Variance No. 34-2015 Gregory V. Canale 12. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-11 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call the meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order for today, June 24th. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's a quite simply process. We will call each application. Roy will be reading the application into the record. We'll ask the applicant to join us at the small table. We will ask questions of the applicant, if they want to add anything to the application they wish to. We'll open the public comment period when there is one advertised. I will poll the Board after that, and we'll determine where we go from there. Those of you who haven't been here before, there is a sheet on the back table with the agenda and explaining the process. So a few things this evening. We do have some housekeeping to take care of. We need to reaffirm the resolution from last week of the Appeal of Michael J. and Heather O'Connor, concerning the Tails Wag Inn Notice of Appeal No. 2-2015. That meeting was held on June 17tH RESOLUTION TO: Re-affirm to Disapprove Appeal No. 2-2015, Michael J. & Heather O'Connor regarding property owned by Kimberlee Polunci - Tails Wag Inn at 21 Blind Rock Road, Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael J. & Heather O'Connor from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-10-070 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination made on March 13, 2015 regarding 21 Blind Rock Road, Tails Wag Inn that the project will require an Area Variance only for property line setbacks. And as amended at the June 17, 2015 where the applicant clarified their position that they felt a Use Variance was needed and the Zoning Administrator determined a Use Variance was not required. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the applicable criteria of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of the NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. The Appeal was filed within the required 60-day timeframe. 2. The Appealing Party is aggrieved and were found to have standing. 3. The merits of the argument as provided by the appellant with responses from the Zoning Administrator have been considered. It is our finding that the positions offered by the appellant are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision at hand. 4. The Zoning Board upholds the findings of the Zoning Administrator. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO RE-AFFIRM TO DENY Appeal No. 2-2015, Michael J. & Heather O'Connor, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 2015 , by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'd like to know why we're doing this. MR. JACKOSKI-The record wasn't clear that we, the way the record read, we made a motion to only approve, to deny the appeal on the Area Variance, but Craig made a determination at the meeting about the Use Variance, and we never actually said we also denied the Use Variance, which was a decision by Craig. So that's why we're clarifying. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. First item of New Business this evening, and it should be a lot simpler than that was, Kenneth Walker, Area Variance No. 24-2015. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2015 SEQRA TYPE II KENNETH J. WALKER OWNER(S) KENNETH J. WALKER ZONING MDR CURRENT SR-1A YR. 2002, APRIL 9 AT TIME OF SB APPROVAL LOCATION 34 WESTBERRY WAY PINE RIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 900 SQ. FT. 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 2006-346 SFD SB 7- 2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.7- 1-20 SECTION 179-5-020 KENNETH WALKER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2015, Kenneth J. Walker, Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 "Project Location: 34 Westberry Way Description of Proposed Project: Construction of a 900 sq. ft. two car detached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance as follows: second garage. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage 2 nd 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 considered to expand the existing attached garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested 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. The project will have minimal effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage on the site for storage of classic cars. The applicant has provided plans showing the location of the new garage and a sketch of the elevation." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. WALKER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record, and if you'd like to add anything to the record. That would be great. MR. WALKER-My name's Kenneth Walker. I don't have anything to add. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. Any questions at this time for the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Now this new garage, is that going to be setting back farther than the house or is it going to be closer to the road? MR. WALKER-It's going to be close, you know, it's going to be set right close to the house. MR. HENKEL-But as far as to the road, though. MR. WALKER-Yes, it's going to be close even with the house to make it look aesthetically. MR. HENKEL-And also obviously your garage doors are going to be facing the road. MR. WALKER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-I went around the development there and actually I was really surprised. There was hardly anybody with even sheds. I counted them, there were very few, and there was no second garages except for one house at 71 Westberry had a second garage, but it was connected. It looked like it was an add on later on. MR. WALKER-Correct. MR. HENKEL-But there's no other second garages or, like I said, very few sheds. So, like I said, I was very surprised. To me, that's going to be a tough fit to that neighborhood. MR. WALKER-If you look, my next door neighbor has a shed that's 12 by 14 right next to my fence line. The next door neighbor to him has a shed out back to him. MR. HENKEL-I wrote down the different numbers of the houses, 72, 14, there was one two story shed at 84 Westberry. MR. WALKER-Yes, there's one right next door to me, exactly right next door to me. MR. HENKEL-They're well hidden if they are. Like I said, I rode around the neighborhood quite a bit. So that's the only concern I have. It doesn't really fit into the neighborhood. MR. WALKER-Sure. I'm not trying to disagree with you, but I mean, if you take a look around the neighborhood, I would bet within the two roads. MR. HENKEL-Not sheds. I'm saying garages. MR. WALKER-No, not second garages, no. MR. HENKEL-And is there any way, have you looked in to like connecting that to the house? MR. WALKER-Yes. It's just structurally it's just so much more expensive. You have to do a different pour for your foundation, and it's just, there's not any really good place to connect it. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, why couldn't it go at the end of the current turnaround? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. WALKER-At the end of my driveway now? Because of all the ventilation coming out of my kitchen. MR. JACKOSKI-You can vent that out, up. MR. WALKER-Yes. I just, and more cost. I've saved for a long time just to do this, and to find somebody to do it on the budget that I have. MR. HENKEL-You live in a very nice, it's a nice development, and I think that would actually cheapen your house by having it not connected. MR. WALKER-1 disagree. I think it's going to be a beautiful looking garage. It's not going to have, aesthetically it's going to look exactly the same as the house with siding, roofing, and just talking to the neighbors, I mean, none of them are here to go against it. I've talked to them. They all, even my next door neighbor Bob is more than happy to have me put the garage there. MR. JACKOSKI-So, you know, part of the task of this Board, unfortunately, is to grant the minimum relief, when there are no alternatives. So we, unfortunately, have to go through a balancing test and look at all the different options that you might have, where you wouldn't require the variance at all, and the goal is to always minimize the number of variances and the amount of variance relief. So what's troubling to me is that this garage could go on the other side of the house where the driveway already is and not have another curb cut, which, you know, I don't know. I don't think there are any other properties that have two curb cuts or two driveways onto the property. MR. WALKER-1 mean, so you also looked around, if you looked at both pieces on the side that you're representing there, on the side. MR. HENKEL-I drove around the neighborhood about four times, up and down. MR. WALKER-Just aesthetically for the neighborhood, too, I think the placement of where I put it would be even better that way. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other Board member questions? MR. KUHL-Yes. Is it your intention with this project to put a 30 foot wide asphalt driveway to the garage? MR. WALKER-That was what was planned, yes. MR. KUHL-And you're saying that you're storing antique vehicles in here? MR. WALKER-Yes, my antique car. MR. KUHL-I hate to say it, but I think you'd really change, because you're going to put it in front of the fence towards the road. Right? MR. WALKER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Why don't you put it way in the back of your property? MR. WALKER-There's not enough setbacks in the back. MR. KUHL-Well, you could get relief if you put your garage way in the back. If it's for antique vehicles you're not going to be using it every day. Right? MR. WALKER-And with the sewer that's in the back and the. MR. KUHL-Well, not if you'd extend your driveway and go around your pool in the back. MR. WALKER-There's definitely not enough room in the back. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. WALKER-1 mean, if you wanted to come out and take a look, there's definitely not enough room in the back. MR. KUHL-Okay. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-But if I look at the plan up there, we could certainly push that garage back, I'm going to guess, 40 feet. MR. WALKER-1 could push the garage back definitely, yes. I just think with that, too, you're creating more driveway. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, and I'm not excited about the second curb cut at all, but how do other Board members feel? Any other questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. WALKER-Can I add one thing? I've worked very hard my whole life to be able to afford this kind of stuff. I chose where I choose to live because of the Town. I would never do anything to hurt the neighborhood. I don't believe, and talking to the neighbors, I don't believe they think it would hurt the aesthetics of the neighborhood or the value of the neighborhood. There's, you know, again, I'm not a rich, rich man so I can't afford to do a lot of connecting and, you know, the other big reason, too, I forgot to say is with the cost of, with the utilities where they are on the property, to take the utilities all the way to the other side of the property, the cost, the gas all the way to the other side of the property, for the heat in the garage would be just astronomical. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No problem. So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I will leave the public hearing open and I will seek a polling of the Board. I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-1 think this'll produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I didn't see any other second garages on this property. I'm also d about the additional pavement on that part of the property. I just think it would look totally out of character. So I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I feel for the applicant, but I'm really concerned about having a second garage on not only a property that's less than three acres, but this is even smaller than that. It's less than an acre, and I think we're just setting a dangerous precedent for the community at large, not just the neighborhood. I think there are alternatives. I'm not thrilled about the curb cut either. So I think there might be some environmental issues as well. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I also agree with Roy and Rick. I would say, yes, the same thing. The acreage is too small, less than an acre. I think there are alternatives. MR. WALKER-What would an alternative be? MR. JACKOSKI-Hang on, we have to go through the process. So just bear with us. MR. HENKEL-I think it could be connected to the other side, more feasible than running the gas and the power and everything underground to a new garage. So I feel for him. I mean, there's never enough garage space. I understand that, but I would say it would be unfair to the development, to the neighborhood. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'd much rather see a second garage than some sort of temporary structure or shed to house the antique car. So I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I believe we are charged and responsible for setting precedent, and the reason that there's a zoning law for having one garage in this type of neighborhood is going through the 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) process and has gotten by you by the community and I'm especially concerned that it is less than an acre and that there aren't other second garages in the neighborhood, and 1, therefore, I don't support the variance as stated. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Mr. Walker, I think you're changing the character of the neighborhood too severely. You want an alternative? Put it opposite your asphalt driveway, put it east/west. MR. WALKER-1 can't afford that, sir. I mean, it's so much more money to do that kind of stuff and connect it to that. MR. KUHL-I'm not suggesting you connect it to the house. I'm suggesting you just put it off your asphalt driveway over on this side. MR. WALKER-So if I change it to that side without connecting it? MR. KUHL-Well, the way you're presenting it, I would be totally against it because you have a second curb cut. You have a lot of asphalt. If, in fact, this is for antique cars, do you really even need asphalt? My thought when I looked at the whole thing, if it was for antique cars, I would put my garage way in the back behind the pool, but you say you can't do that. I understand all of that. We're changed with saying yes or no, so I have to say no. I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time, the application, as it's presented, isn't going to pass, but there's a couple of alternatives for you, and you have to kind of tell us what you'd like to do. You can withdraw your application. You can ask for us to table the application until you reconsider some of the comments that you've heard from the Board, so that you don't lose what you've already started, or you can ask us to vote, but I think you already heard what the vote might be. You have to understand. It's not us personally. Unfortunately we have to follow the guidelines that are established in this process, and we understand economic concerns. MR. WALKER-No, but I'm just talking, there's one already in the neighborhood. There's one in the neighborhood and I've got pictures here of just around the neighborhood, other neighborhoods in the area, neighborhoods right around here that have three car garages with another car garage, freshly brand new built in Queensbury, another one here, another one here. I mean, all within a couple of miles of here. MR. JACKOSKI-But a couple of miles that, neighborhoods today, you know, are, they're named. They're labeled. They're much tighter than just two or three miles away. So I could argue that the neighborhood up on the east shore of Lake George in North Queensbury is only a few miles away from here. It's a totally different character. MR. WALKER-What makes it any more special for somebody else to? MR. JACKOSKI-Because that's what the zoning, as Mr. Urrico suggested, that is the Zoning Code that has gone through the public process. There have been hearings on it. There are all these different zones that you live in, people buy into these districts because of the existing Zoning Codes, and many other things. At this point it may behoove you to simply request us to table it and then you can reconsider it and work with Staff and work your surveyors to see what else you might have as alternatives. If you'd like a tabling, we could certainly do that. MR. WALKER-Can I just switch it to the other side? MR. JACKOSKI-No. Unfortunately because it changes the whole application and we would have to go through a public hearing all over again. MR. WALKER-So I'd have to do the whole application over again? MR. JACKOSKI-That's up to Staff to work with you on how to do that. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, there's not a setback. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a second garage. MRS. MOORE-It's a second garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but it didn't give the neighbors or anyone else a fair opportunity to understand that we're going to change the project completely by moving it all over and reducing another curb cut and all that other stuff. I know we're charged with minimizing relief, but. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. WALKER-And also why ask the neighbors? If the neighbors are all, if the neighbors have no. MR. JACKOSKI-We have to notice them. It's part of the process. MR. WALKER-They're the ones that, like I said, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I am a little bit, and it says right here you don't live in the neighborhood, the other people do. They all don't have a problem with it. Not one person has a problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-What I'll say to you is, though, that the citizens of Queensbury have relied on the Zoning Board to do the best that we can as all, right now there are seven members of us sitting here. So sometimes community members simply rely on us to do whatever they, is right, because we understand the consistent history of this Board. So all I can say to you is maybe they won't say anything to you at all, but they rely on us to do our job, and that is our job. MR. WALKER-See, but that's just a waste of money to send out that letter then. So if it doesn't matter what they think whatsoever unless they're against it? MR. JACKOSKI-That's not correct, sir. MR. WALKER-It is. I mean, honestly it is because not one of them is here. Not one of them is against the project, but if they would have been, that would have helped you out, but if they're not. MR. FREER-Your neighbor didn't write or come and say he was for it either. MR. JACKOSKI-You have no one here who said they were for it either. So, I mean, you can't look at it in that direction. MR. FREER-We see that routinely. MR. JACKOSKI-So what I'll suggest is you've asked us to table the application. So I'd like to get a motion on the record to table the application for a new submission deadline in August for a September meeting. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. MR. URRICO-I'm sorry. I'd like to vote against this right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, unfortunately the applicant's asked us for a tabling. MR. URRICO-Okay. I just don't think he's shown very much respect for this Board right now. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. MR. WALKER-1 don't see where I'm disrespectful. I'm just trying to state the facts. MR. URRICO-I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand the facts because this is a second garage on a piece of property that is only allowed one garage. MR. WALKER-But there's one right down the street. MR. HENKEL-It's connected. MR. URRICO-We can only deal with one property at a time. You're the one that's applied. MR. WALKER-Okay. So we'll table it for now. MR. JACKOSKI-So I do have a request from the applicant to table, and I certainly understand you can vote no on the tabling motion. MR. MC CABE-I make a resolution that we table Area Variance No. 24-2015 to September with an application to be completed by the proper date in August. MR. WALKER-You know what, forget it. Don't table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. WALKER-Don't table it. I'm going to end up putting my house on the market because I don't want to live. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant is withdrawing the application. So I'd like a motion to deny the request for the variance. MR. WALKER-You make it really nice to live in this Town. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to deny the request, or, Staff, let me find out, do they simply withdraw it and we don't have to make a motion? MRS. MOORE-They have withdrawn the application. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. They have withdrawn the application. We have no action to take. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-My apologies to the Board members. That's the first time in my history as a Board Chairperson that we've ever had an applicant actually storm out of the room on us and I apologize. I think everyone acted very professionally and respectfully. So we'll move on. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2015 SEQRA TYPE II CAPITAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICE OFFICE AGENT(S) STEPHEN J. RUTKEY, P.E. AECOM OWNER(S) CAPITAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICE OFFICE ZONING MDR LOCATION 40 MEADOW LANE - RIDGE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 273 SQ. FT. PORCH WITH RAMP ADDITION ALONG WITH 82 SQ. FT. OF NEW PAVED SIDEWALK AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2015 LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.17-1-6 SECTION 179-3-040 STEPHEN RUTKEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2015, Capital District Developmental Disabilities Service Office, Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 "Project Location: 40 Meadow Lane - Ridge Meadows Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Construction of a 273 sq. ft. porch with ramp addition along with 82 sq. ft. of new paved sidewalk area. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance as follows: Minimum side setback relief. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements. Minimum side yard setback Required 25 ft. Proposed 9 ft. Relief 16 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 configuration of the existing home on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 273 sq. ft. ramp addition and 82 sq. ft. of additional sidewalk drive area to an existing group home. The applicant has indicated there is a need for an alternative entrance that is a direct route from the building. The plans show exterior of the building and the alterations. The plans show the location of the existing home on the lot and additional plans show the proposed ramp. The plans for the lighting should be updated to be a compliant fixture that are cut-off lights." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. RUTKEY-Well, this is my first appearance with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, but I'm sure this isn't an anomaly. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I mean, this is a pretty straightforward application. MR. RUTKEY-Well, I'm glad to be here. My name is Steve Rutkey. I'm with AECOM. We're a consulting engineer and we represent Capital District Developmental Disabilities Service Office, or DDSO. DDSO is a branch office of persons with development disabilities, and they manage and own a number of single family type residential properties throughout the Capital Region area which are used to house developmental disabled adults and the staff on a full-time basis. DDSO has owned this particular house since 1995 and it's been in that use since that time. The building dates, I think from the early 1960's. I forget the exact year, but pre-dating the present zoning. The exterior of the building has largely been unaltered on the side, and so the current fagade setback as it was originally built. Less than the 25 foot setback that's required. The work we do for DDSO is various. In this case it was to provide a second means of ingress, and all of their ingresses to the building are intended to be handicap accessible. So the design here was to extend a landing from the right or left side of the house and then bring a ramp around to the front. Topography wise it actually works out. It's a platform around to the front and the ramp occurs right in the front of the house down to the grade, tight to the existing sidewalk. It was during the design of that improvement that we identified to our client that it appeared that a variance was needed and I worked through the Town to get this far. MR. JACKOSKI-And I apologize for forcing you guys to deal with the survey stuff. MR. RUTKEY-No, not a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-But unfortunately we had to have that survey. Okay. So does anyone have questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Is there going to be any landscaping in front of this ramp? MR. RUTKEY-Nothing was proposed. We show, to kind of contour it in where the platform section ramps down, we show a little retaining wall, but the materials of that haven't been defined, but it would be a concrete, the concrete block, architectural block type wall, or something of that kind, or stone. DDSO would certainly be open to any landscape requirements. They intend to put this out to competitive bid and we could easily put it in there. MR. HENKEL-How about on the west side landscaping there, a little bit to show, you know, so it's not, because it's kind of bordering the property there. It's only nine feet to the property line. MR. RUTKEY-There is a drainage easement on that side, and there's a little bit of separation from that. Figuring for the height of the platform plus the railings, you probably are six feet off 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) the ground at that point. So it might be difficult to get something that's really going to be a complete screen. MR. JACKOSKI-And that wide. MR. RUTKEY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And they need ingress and egress on that side for the backyard? MR. RUTKEY-Yes. Right. They need something that's more proximate to the bedrooms. I have some architectural plans here, too. The three bedrooms are on that side of the house, and the other egresses are via the front door, which is shown on the right of this drawing, or through a kitchen, through an office and out the back, and this location is really the only realistic route to send them, at least getting them outside of the house so they can go to the back, but then there'd be an area of refuge in the back as well. MR. HENKEL-Is that a certain type of, amount of clearance that it has to be for the three feet clearance for the gas meter? MR. RUTKEY-That is Code, yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. FREER-And there's six clients living at this location, do you know what the full capacity is? MR. RUTKEY-I should know that number off the top of my head, but I don't. I don't think it's six. I think it's fewer than that. There's three bedrooms. They're single or double occupancy. It looks like there's two closets in the back. I would guess there's probably four adults at this property, but the quantity of ingress is independent of the quantity of clients. It's more of a life safety code of having a second path out, and some able bodied people that could be through a window with a certain opening, but here they want to have wheelchairs, help people out via wheelchair. MR. JACKOSKI-Or certainly during an emergency. It's a lot easier to walk down a ramp. MR. RUTKEY-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further questions? MR. GARRAND-Yes, I've seen these at some of the other DDSO homes, and the one thing I did notice is that it does appear to be a large structure that's kind of overpowering the outside of the house, and just aesthetically that's why I suggested a couple of plantings just to break up the outline of the structure. MR. JACKOSKI-At least in that front right corner. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. RUTKEY-Yes, and it's certainly what we have to do prior to a vote, but we certainly would agree to any coordination with the Town as to what those plantings might be. Again, there's plenty of real estate to plant things there. I don't think there's any competing utilities, except possibly the gas service coming from the street, but we could straddle that. MR. HENKEL-And there's probably nothing on the property line between the two pieces of property. MR. JACKOSKI-Because that drainage easement, that's the problem with that. MR. RUTKEY-I think that's just to maintain a swale through there. We've also noted the comment on the cutoff lighting on the pole. MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? We will leave the public hearing open and I will seek a polling of the Board. I will start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no issue with this. I think it's right. I mean, you're going to see the ramp. You're going to see all the ramp, and if you could minimize that, but I'm not saying 16 bushes or two trees or any of that, but just be conscious of that, but, no, I have no problem as submitted. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-1, too, support this variance, but I agree with my colleague about landscaping. It would be useful and beneficial for the neighborhood. So I support it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I also support the project as well. Agreeing with my colleagues there saying that there should be somewhat some screening if possible So, yes, I agree with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of it as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 also am in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-See how easy we are. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And now I will ask Rick to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Capital District Developmental Disabilities Service Office. Applicant proposes construction of a 273 sq. ft. porch with ramp addition along with 82 sq. ft. of new paved sidewalk area. Relief requested from minimum side setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. The required setback is 25 feet; the proposed is 9 feet; 16 feet is the requested relief from the applicant. SEAR Type 11 - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. I don't think it'll produce any noticeable change in the character of the neighborhood. 2. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant: Given the layout of the house, I don't see how. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. I would say it's moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) / would be outweighed by (denial) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The applicant has also agreed to install some buffering between the street and this ramp in order to break up the outline of the ramp. Staff is going to advise him on what would be nice plantings to break up the outline of this ramp. The north side only, to the east of the easement. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2015, CAPITAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES SERVICE OFFICE, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 24TH day of June, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 just want to confirm. Right now you have it on the north side of the building along the ramp, but I also heard you mention the west side. So do you also wish plantings on the west side? MR. JACKOSKI-No, I think what he was saying was plantings in the front on the north side would be enough to help. MRS. MOORE-Break up the outline. MR. JACKOSKI-Outline that would be obvious from the west side. So I don't think you're asking for a north line right across the front. You're just asking to, just enough to break up the outline. MR. HENKEL-So that would be the north side. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MRS. MOORE-North side only. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-And I don't think we're asking to have any plantings in the easement area, correct? MR. GARRAND-Yes, that swale might be tough. MR. JACKOSKI-So just to the east of the easement, but on the north side. Does that make sense? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. Thanks for coming. MR. RUTKEY-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2015 SEQRA TYPE II GREGORY V. CANALE OWNER(S) GREGORY V. CANALE ZONING OFFICE LOCATION 456 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 368 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2008-644 SIGN; BP 2009-055 COWL ADD; BP 2005-898 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 890 OF YR. 1970 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2015 LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040 GREG CANALE, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2015, Gregory V. Canale, Meeting Date: June 24, 2015 "Project Location: 456 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 368 sq. ft. deck. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance as follows: Minimum side setback relief. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements. side setback relief Required 25 ft. Proposed 19.2 ft. Relief 5.8 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the existing building configuration on the lot and shape of the lot. The deck may be reduced to a more compliant size to minimize the setback to an almost 10 ft. wide deck. 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. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 368 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing building. The information submitted shows the location of the deck and photos of the area to be attached to the building." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. A fairly simple application and the picture says a lot, but if you'd like to add anything to the record, please feel free to do so or we'll ask you questions. MR. CANALE-Mr. Chairman, Board, thank you and good evening. You're quite right. The picture speaks 1,000 words. I would indicate that under Number Two, making the determination for the Board to consider it indicates that the deck may be reduced to a more complaint size to minimize the setback to an almost 10 feet wide deck, and I gave that serious consideration prior to going through the zoning process. However, there are two basic reasons why I decided to seek relief from the 25 foot setback for 5.8 foot relief. A 10 foot wide deck would be sort of incongruent to the property configuration, and it would make it very narrow. That's the one consideration. The second consideration was if you put a table and some chairs, maybe a grill and a few adults on that deck, which would be a presumptive use, a basic, normal use, it would be very small. It would be kind of tight. Because the proposed 5.8 foot relief I seek has very minimal impact on the neighborhood, in fact to the left it's all undeveloped wetland and there not only is no neighbors, but nothing but vegetation. That's probably going to be that way for a very long time, and because the proposed deck cannot be seen from any place on the public highway, the only place you could see the proposed deck would be from the golf course actually. That's why I ask to respectfully seek a setback. MR. JACKOSKI-So could I ask a few questions? MR. CANALE-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-So on the drawing that was just up it says that the required setback is 20 feet. So it's misleading to look at that picture and assume that there's only a little bit of relief when in actuality that line to the left is going to move to the right five feet, to scale. MRS. MOORE-Yes, we talked about that today. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. I do think the deck will be visible from Bay Road when you are coming from the north. So I don't think it is totally accurate to suggest that you won't be able to see it at all. Because you can almost see back in there. As it goes further back you're going to be able to see more of it because of the angle that you're going to be approaching from the north. So just to set the record straight that I don't think it's true that you're not going to ever be able to see it. I think you'll see it more in the winter than you will in the summer. MR. CANALE-1 agree. MR. JACKOSKI-So those are my comments. Any other comments from Board members? MR. HENKEL-I think the only question I have is when you design this, if you notice they put a post right where that window is on the, facing the east. You have a post in front of your window, right here, this one here, a post holding the deck. MR. CANALE-Yes. They built, when I hired a contractor, he started to dig. There are no posts there. MR. HENKEL-No, but I'm saying when you do build that, there's going to be a post, I mean, is that what you want, a post right in front of that window there? MR. CANALE-No, I don't. MR. HENKEL-According to this diagram that you gave us, you might want to make some changes there, because they're either going to have to change out that window or, that post right in the middle of it wouldn't be good. MR. CANALE-1 never noticed that. MR. HENKEL-So that might be something for concern, but I have no problem with it. I think the deck is within the lines of the building itself. It's not outside the lines. So I think it's a, and you're right. Once you put a table and a gas grill out there, there wouldn't be any room for anybody to be out there. So if you're going to build it you might as well be able to use it. So I think the size is a good size. MR. JACKOSKI-He may be the first attorney in the Queensbury area to hold conferences out on the deck. MR. KUHL-I pass that building a lot, and you have that elevator in the front. Was that an alternate alternative to a ramp? MR. CANALE-Yes. MR. KUHL-You had to do that for handicap access? MR. CANALE-Yes. I am putting, next spring I'm going to put some shrubs in front of there, in the front of the house. MR. HENKEL-It's almost like the project that we did on the corner of Main Street. Where they had a ramp in front. MR. CANALE-This is the first time I've appeared in front of the Zoning Board and I'll be sure to send Mr. Walker a thank you note on teaching me how not to present an application. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Anyway, are there any other questions at this time from Board members? All right. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm opening the public hearing. Is there any public comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing absolutely no one left in the audience, I'm going to ask if there's anyone in the audience, so I'll leave the public hearing open until I poll the Board. I'll poll the Board on the application as presented, and I will start with John. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) MR. HENKEL-Yes, like I said, because the deck is within the lines of the house and not outside of it, I don't have any problem with that setback of 5.8 feet that they're asking for. Is that right, then? MR. JACKOSKI-Five point eight. MR. HENKEL-I have no problem with the project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think the applicant has done a very nice job with this property and I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the application. The only feasible alternative is not really a feasible alternative. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I believe he's asking for minimal relief. I'd be in favor of the way it's stated. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'll agree with Mr. Kuhl. Staff Notes and all say it's minimal relief. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-1, too, support this variance and believe that it's minimal relief for the legitimate zoning that we have here in Queensbury. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want to talk about a bike rack? It is Bay Road. The College is just down the street, and it is a business. MR. FREER-Twenty-five parking spots or more. He's off my list. MR. KUHL-You should have been here last meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, long story. All right. So we have polled the Board. I am going to close the public hearing. I'm going to seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gregory V. Canale. Applicant proposes construction of 368 sq. ft. deck. Relief requested from minimum sideline setback requirements for the Office zoning district. SEAR Type 11 - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We believe that this, indeed, will enhance the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and are not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. This is a minimal request. It does not require very much relief from the side setback. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2015) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2015, GREGORY V. CANALE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there any other business Board members would like to bring up in front of the Board? So can I have a motion to adjourn, please? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 17