Loading...
10-28-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 45-2015 Mark Collyer 1. Tax Map No. 295.11-1-1 Area Variance No. 56-2015 Thomas LaPier 5. Tax Map No. 301.17-2-8 Sign Variance No. 53-2015 Sean Akins d/b/a State Farm Ins. 8. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-8.6 Area Variance No. 55-2015 Michael Yurdiga 11. Tax Map No. 266.1-2-62 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) OCTOBER 28, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RICHARD GARRAND MICHAEL MC CABE RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome everybody to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of October 28, 2015. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it is actually a very easy process. We'll read the application into the record, Roy will read it into the record. We'll ask the applicant to join us here at the table. We'll listen to the various comments that the Board members have. We'll then open up the hearing to the public when there is a public comment period noticed. We'll either leave the public hearing open or closed, depending on how we poll the Board and where we think the project is going to be moved and then we'll take action accordingly. Sometimes we table projects, sometimes we approve them. Sometimes we deny. It all depends on the project. So it's relatively easy. Don't be afraid of us. We'll knock these out as fast as we can. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MARK COLLYER OWNER(S) MARK COLLYER ZONING R-3 (1967-FRANKLYN MANOR) LOCATION 32 BONNER DRIVE FRANKLYN MANOR SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 288 SQ. FT. SHED ON THE PROPERTY. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES MAINTAINING EXISTING NUMBER OF SHEDS AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND NUMBER OF SHEDS ALLOWED. CROSS REF BP 2015-255 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-1 SECTION 179-5-020 MARK COLLYER, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-The project has been in front of us before on August 26tH MR. URRICO-Steve, I'm just going to read in the letter. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. MR. URRICO-"I have decided to amend my application for a second garage on my property. The width of the doorway will be changed from 8 feet to less than 6 feet, thereby making this structure a shed instead of a garage. I am asking for 3 feet relief on the east side (5' required), and 7 feet relief from the north side, (30' required) resulting in the 12' x 24' structure to be 2' from the side property line and 23' from the rear line. This setback relief is no different than the original application." And that was submitted by Mark Collyer. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Hello, Mark, welcome again. MR. COLLYER-Hello. Thanks, Steve. All right. Just to reiterate, it's pretty much the same thing. My name's Mark Collyer from 32 Bonner. I'm looking for a shed because I have no basement in my home and I have nowhere to store things normally people would store, and the variance is there for the side and rear setbacks because I've got a back and a corner where it's really less obvious to anyone, rather than being stuck in the middle of my backyard or another location. I want to keep everything in that corner. As you can see there's another shed already in the corner, and my neighbor's shed is also back in that same corner. So we cluster these together it won't look so bad than sheds being spread out all over the place. So last time I was here I was trying to get a variance for a garage because I wanted eight foot width on the doors. Apparently I got the feeling that didn't sit too well. So I decided to change the door width to the normal under six foot width so that it is now determined a shed. So now I'm just 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) asking for the same thing I was here for before, but now that it's considered a shed, this is where I'm at. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mark. Are there any questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-Yes, are you planning on taking any more of the buildings down? Are you going to take the garage that's not on your property and the woodshed that's partially on your property down? MR. COLLYER-The tarp canopy I may not be able to because of the door width now on my shed, but the lean-to that is considered a shed apparently is going to be re-built and moved onto my property because as you can see by the plot plan it does impinge on that neighbor on the property behind me, which is woods, but still it's not on my property. MR. HENKEL-So you intend to have four buildings on there? MR. COLLYER-Well, there's going to be three on my property plus the canopy. I might have to keep the canopy because I may not be able to fit my boat in the shed, but my plan is to reduce the size of the lean-to also so that it'll be less than the 500 feet that is required for the total number of square foot on the sheds, and plus also move it on my property where it belongs. MR. KUHL-Can I ask? You know, Mark, one thing I was thinking about when you came last time. How come you just don't take that lean-to and put it between the new garage and your shed, you know, two sheds? MR. COLLYER-I could. There's not a lot of room there. There's only maybe six feet I've got between the two. The reason I can keep it in the back is because I want the sun to hit it. MR. KUHL-Say no more. Okay. MR. COLLYER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, could you clarify for us? In the draft resolution section, the agenda, it says relief requested from setback requirements, which we've just addressed with Mark. Maximum square footage. MRS. MOORE-It's the number of sheds. He's permitted two sheds of no more than 500 square feet total. So that's where he's asking for three sheds and he's explained that he would not have more than three sheds, no more than 500 square feet total. MR. JACKOSKI-So we don't need the maximum square footage relief. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-It's still going to be under 500 square feet, but he does need the number of sheds relief. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Mark, the total amount of shed space is going to be under 500 square feet? MR. COLLYER-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Including the canopy? MR. COLLYER-Not including the canopy. The canopy will take that over. MRS. MOORE-Right. The canopy is on an adjacent parcel. MR. COLLYER-It's not on my parcel right now. MR. JACKOSKI-But there's an intent to put it on the parcel. MR. COLLYER-Not right now. No, what I was talking about was the lean-to that's actually. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I understand that. MR. COLLYER-No, the canopy I don't have anywhere to put my stuff, my boat. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) MRS. MOORE-That's an arrangement between he and that other property owner. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions before I re-open a public hearing on this application? Okay. We are going to open the public hearing on this application. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address the Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open. There's nothing to respond to, Mark. So I'll poll the Board. Would anybody like to go first? MR. MC CABE-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-I assume that your neighbor that you had the discussions with, did he present a letter the last time or did we have a letter saying it was okay? MR. COLLYER-It was part of my original letter. I just had him sign a line of the letter I wrote, and he was actually here and did a little thing for me, and he has no objection at all. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So I was impressed that Mark did approach his neighbors, and I feel better about approving a shed rather than a garage on such a small property. So I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anyone else want to volunteer? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no problem with this, Mr. Chairman, with the modification. I also believe that your six foot door is going to allow you to put your boat in. I push a lot of boats around. It shouldn't be a big deal, but that's up to you. MR. COLLYER-We'll test that theory. MR. KUHL-I definitely believe you should take down the canvas thing because your boat should fit in that unit you're putting on your property, but I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm in favor with the shed and the setbacks no problem with that, but I feel that that wood shed should come out, and I'd be okay with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I was a no the last time. I just thought the property was too busy, too much going on, and I looked at it from the standpoint of the second garage. I threw out some ideas of moving the lean-to here and there, but, you know, at this point, you know, you can't worry about, like you said, the other tarp covered structure. It's on someone else's property. So technically it's not on your property. So it's not your issue or our issue tonight. You've made some concessions with the door size and I'd be okay with this project at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick MR. GARRAND-I think the applicant made reasonable accommodation for the Board's request so I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm also in favor based on the new application. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing, and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark D. Collyer. Applicant proposes to place a 288 sq. ft. shed on property. Project also includes maintaining existing number of sheds and square footage. Relief requested from setback requirements, maximum square footage, and number of sheds allowed. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 and Wednesday, October 28, 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 because the permanent shed will be a better method of housing materials. 2. Feasible alternatives are very limited because of the size of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because none of the dimensions are really very big. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 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. 45-2015, MARK D. COLLYER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mark. MR. COLLYER-Thank you, Steve. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll move on to New Business this evening. These applications are new to us. Area Variance No. 55-2015, a Type II SEQR. This is Richard and Mary Merrill at Sunset Trail. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening and I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you reading it into the record, is Mr. Yurdiga in the audience? I don't think he is. I'm going to go step outside and call him and see where he's at. MR. JACKOSKI-And his agent isn't here either? MRS. MOORE-No one is here for Mr. Yurdiga. Is that correct? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Not that we're aware of. MRS. MOORE-Not that they're aware of. So I apologize. I'm going to go take a minute and do that. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, since I've already called it, I guess we leave it open. We'll come back to it, but I'm going to allow public comment to happen since it's been advertised if they are available for us. So hopefully they'll be here soon. I'll move on to the next application. Hopefully we won't need you, Laura. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2015 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS LAPIER OWNER(S) THOMAS LAPIER ZONING R-3 PRE-EXISTING LOCATION 19 CHEROKEE LANE — TYNESWOOD PHASE 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 60 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2012-280 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 90-320 PORCH; BP 8630 INGROUND POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.17-2-8 SECTION 179-3-040 THOMAS LA PIER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2015, Thomas LaPier, Meeting Date: October 28, 2015 "Project Location: 19 Cherokee Lane—Tyneswood Phase 3 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. garage and 60 sq. ft. breezeway. Relief requested from minimum yard setback requirements. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179- 3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional requirements for MDR zone/ R-3 Tyneswood, Phase 3. Relief requested for Front setback. Front Cherokee Lane Required 30 ft. Proposed 11 ft. Relief 19 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size of the lot, the orientation of the home on the lot and that the lot is a corner parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created as the house orientation on the parcel is pre-existing where any new construction may be subject to a variance request. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to convert the existing garage into living space then add the 6 ft. x 10 ft. breezeway and 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage. The parcel is a corner lot where the relief requested is for the front on Cherokee Lane. The plans show the location of the home with new additions. Elevation drawing and floor plans are also included as part of the submission." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time or just answer questions from Board members? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) MR. LA PIER-No. All I want to say is that we purchased the house in August of this year, and prior to purchasing I looked at the setback requirements, and by my fault, I considered 30 feet setback from the road, which I found out later once I had applied for the permit, and then had I known that the setback was 25 feet from the center of the road, that's where your 30 feet would start. My wife and I probably would have never purchased the house. However, because of the orientation of the house, right now a corner lot I'm seeking for a variance because we already started the process of converting the existing garage right now. So, I mean, that's all I have to say is that because of the orientation, and I've seen other corner lots with attached garages of such, you know, of mine. So that's pretty much all I have to add. I mean, I have the drawings. It's very minor of what I'm going to encroach towards the setback. There's no way that it's going to affect the snowplowing for the access to the utilities. So I'm just looking for a variance so I can proceed with this project.' MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. LA PIER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand the confusion. It happens. MR. KUHL-Are you Tom? MR. LA PIER-Yes. MR. KUHL-You didn't introduce yourself. MR. LA PIER-Yes, my name is Tom LaPier. MR. KUHL-Okay. That's okay. Just for the record, but also a variance where you're here to ask for is not a nasty thing. I would hope that you would not buy a house because you needed a variance next time. Okay. MR. LA PIER-Well, this is my first experience with getting a variance. MR. KUHL-I mean, we're not a bad boy here. We're easy people. MR. JACKOSKI-You are. MR. KUHL-Well, I've been on that side. MR. JACKOSKI-So have 1. MR. KUHL-No, but I think you have a good project here, and I think it's a good, and you're stuck on a corner lot. It's just something you have to put up with. MR. LA PIER-Again, it's going to increase the value of everybody's property of what we're doing to it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board members have comments before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open just for a minute. I have a couple of questions. So the neighbor that is to your poolside, yes, that one. Thank you, Laura. Have you had any communication with them about the fact that that garage is really going to obstruct their view and really is way far forward of their house? MR. LA PIER-1 have, and he has no problem with it whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-But he didn't give you a letter or anything saying? MR. LA PIER-No. Well, had I known I needed that, he would have. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just wondering. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) MR. LA PIER-And actually I spoke to many of the neighbors and they do not have an issue with it. MR. JACKOSKI-It just concerns me that it really sticks out forward of their house. MR. LA PIER-It really doesn't. No, it really doesn't. The way it is, because it's four feet back from the end of the house, and there's a fence and some tree lines, a tree line there, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Have you spoken to him? You said you did so I'm going to trust you. Anything else? So I'm going to poll the Board very quickly. Would anybody like to volunteer? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. I think the project is a nice project as proposed. I'm okay with it. MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm also in favor of it. It's just the oddity of a corner lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I agree with the Staff that the relief requested here is moderate. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I believe it satisfies the test. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I think it enhances the neighborhood a little bit. So it definitely would be good. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 feel it would be an enhancement to the neighborhood and I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and so do 1. So I'll close the public hearing, and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, you may. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas LaPier. Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. garage and 60 sq. ft. breezeway. Relief requested from minimum yard setback requirements. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 28, 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 because of the fact that it's a corner lot. 2. Feasible alternatives are very limited and have been considered by the board, and are not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the property location on a corner lot. 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. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) 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. 56-2015, Thomas LaPier, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, good luck. Welcome to Queensbury. MR. LA PIER-Thank you very much, and I do want to say that I thank everybody on the Staff, on the Board, and I also thank the Town of Queensbury. They've been very understanding and helpful in this whole process. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-We try. Thank you. So I guess at Staff's recommendation I'll leave open the Yurdiga thing a little longer. MRS. MOORE-He is on his way. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's hope. Otherwise we're going to postpone him. So we'll go to the next application. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 53-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SEAN AKINS D/B/A STATE FARM INS. AGENT(S) SEAN AKINS OWNER(S) NORTHGATE ENTERPRISES INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 360 QUAKER ROAD — EAST GATE PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 9.28 SQ. FT. SIGN PANEL ONTO PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN. CROSS REF MULTIPLE LISTINGS FOR BUSINESS PLAZA WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2015 LOT SIZE 0.6 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-8.6 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6 SEAN AKINS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 53-2015, Sean Akins d/b/a State Farm Ins., Meeting Date: October 28, 2015 "Project Location: 360 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 9.28 sq. ft. sign panel onto pre-existing nonconforming 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign structure. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for a freestanding sign Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variance from Chapter 140, Section 140-5 General Standards, Relief requested from sign setback in the Cl zone. Setback for signs at 60 sq. ft. Required 25 ft. Proposed 7.4 ft. over the front property line Relief 32.4 ft. over Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) 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 relocate the sign to a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief 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 as proposed may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add a 9.28 sq. ft. panel to an existing 50 sq. ft. sign. The relief requested is for the location of the sign that is 7.4 ft. over the front property line where a 25 ft. setback is required for signs at 60 sq. ft. The applicant has received a work permit from the county that allows for the sign to be maintained in the current location." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, but I think this is going to be a very quick application. MR. AKINS-Okay. My name is Sean Akins, and I opened the State Farm agency on 358 Quaker Road in July. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Are there any questions from Board members concerning this sign application? Seeing and hearing no one at this time, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to try to do this in under a minute here folks. So this is an Unlisted SEQR. So we need to have Rick do his infamous SEQR motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 53-2015 Sean Akins d/b/a State Farm Ins. Based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2015 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-I would suggest that you include a no significant environmental impact. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Now that we have SEQR out of the way, I'm seeking a motion for approval. MR. GARRAND-I'll make the motion. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sean Akins d/b/a State Farm Insurance for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes placement of a 9.28 sq. ft. sign panel onto pre-existing nonconforming 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign structure. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for a freestanding sign. The required setback is 25 feet. The proposed is 7.4 feet over the front property line. Relief is for 32.4 feet. This is a pre- existing nonconforming sign. The sign was here well before Mr. Akins came in with his business. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 53-2015 Sean Akins d/b/a State Farm Ins. based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 28, 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. 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 sign variance? None whatsoever. That sign has been there for quite some time. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? To move this back the sign would probably in the building. That's not feasible. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I think the request may be deemed substantial just from a numerical perspective. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We went over the SEAR form and we deemed it a negative declaration. I don't see how this will have any adverse environmental effects at all. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It's not self-created by the applicant. The applicant moved in here with a pre-existing, nonconforming sign. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 53-2015, Sean Akins d/b/a State Farm Ins., Introduced by Richard Garrand, 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. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; 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' 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign 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 sign 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 28th day October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Welcome to doing business in Queensbury. MR. AKINS-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-1 think he's in the back room. MR. JACKOSKI-Let him know I'm twiddling my thumbs. I guess we can take a break. All right. So I'm going to reconvene the meeting after this 12 to 15 minute break here. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL YURDIGA AGENT(S) SANDRA POULOS OWNER(S) RICHARD & MARY MERRILL ZONING RR-3A LOCATION SUNSET TRAIL (PICKLE HILL ACRES SUBDIVISION) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,360 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING INCLUDING PORCH/DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.75 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-62 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL YURDIGA, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2015, Michael Yurdiga, Meeting Date: October 28, 2015 "Project Location: Sunset Trail (Pickle Hill Acres Subdivision), Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,360 single-family dwelling including porch/deck. Relief requested from minimum yard setback requirements for RR-3A zoning district. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional requirements for RR 3A zone. Relief requested for Front, Side and Rear setbacks. Front Rear Side South Required 100 ft. 100 ft. 75 ft. Proposed 67 ft. 92 ft. 55 ft. Relief 33 ft. 8 ft. 45 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) 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 limited as any new development on this parcel would be subject to a request for variances. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate overall. 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. The applicant has indicated the existing garage is to remain and the new home would be the only addition to the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created as the parcel is a pre-existing nonconforming parcel with an existing garage. The parcel was part of a 1964 subdivision that pre-dated the zoning in the area. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a single family home of 1,360 sq. ft. on a parcel that measures 165 ft. x 200 ft. The relief requested is for setbacks for the RR-3A zone that is associated for parcels that are 3 ac or larger —100 ft. front and 75 ft. side are the required setbacks. The parcel was part of the Pickle Hill Acres Subdivision. The applicant has provided a survey, proposed home layout, and information on siting a residential septic system on the site." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. YURDIGA-Michael Yurdiga. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Yurdiga is there anything you'd like to add at this moment? I know you weren't here to understand how the process works, but normally we simply ask questions and then we open up the public hearing when there is one, and in this case there is one. We allow the public to speak, and then we ask you to clarify anything that may have been addressed by the public, and then we ask more questions and then we poll the Board and we move forward accordingly. So I assume you just want questions from the Board members? MR. YURDIGA-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Questions from the Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Yes, Mr. Chairman. Are you going to be living in this house? MR. YURDIGA-Yes. I'm retiring in two years from my job. I live on Long Island and I come up here a lot. Cousins and friends live here. So I'm looking to, but it's not going to be a rental or anything. I'm going to be there. If I'm not there it's going to be unoccupied. MR. KUHL-You're going to build it in 2016? MR. YURDIGA-I'm going to try. MR. KUHL-Well, your building permit is only good for a year. MR. YURDIGA-That's right. That's why I'm going to try, at least get it started. I built a house before, what I live in now on Long Island, and I'm just going to GC it myself. Take my time, do it right, according to all your Building Department regulations. I'm just looking, very quiet people, just looking, you know, I met a few people in the neighborhood already, very nice people. MR. KUHL-I moved up in 1980. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any reason you can't push the house back further? MR. YURDIGA-Well, the septic was an issue, I thought. I wanted to make sure I was away from the home. That's right, we were going to put maybe a deck on the back of the house. I figured between the septic and the deck we kind of wanted a little bit of a buffer between the back property. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other Board member questions? Seeing or hearing none, I'm going to open the public hearing. First I'm going to ask Roy if there's any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-I have not located any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to ask if there' anybody in the audience wishing to address this Board on this particular application? So I don't know the relevance of your document here. JIM BARNES MR. BARNES-That's the lot. Two hundred by. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand, and from what I can tell from the survey, you're actually more generous than the actual survey suggests. So you say it's 35 feet but they say it's only 34.4 feet. You say it's 32 but they say it's only 28 or 29.7 MR. BARNES-1 was doing the best I could. MR. JACKOSKI-Regardless. MR. BARNES-1 just wanted to give you a general idea of what's there. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. What is the concern you have with that? MR. BARNES-My concern is where is he going to put his septic? My well is 24, I'm about 20 feet below this property. My well is right directly in line with this property, and the size of this house according to the rest of the house, according to the rest of our property. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm kind of trying to be as lenient as I can, but I kind of need you to be on this microphone and identify who you are. MR. BARNES-My name is Jim Barnes. My property borders, all that property comes right to mine. MR. JACKOSKI-So, and I hear you, Mr. Barnes. So, first of, the Town of Queensbury is very well aware of separation distances and requirements from wells and septics, and I believe it's 100 feet, and if there was a determination that your well, purported location of your well, and the purported location of where this septic is going to be was less than 100 feet, they would be required to file with the Department of Health, the Board of Health in order to continue with the application. There has been no determination in front of us, that we're aware of, that your well is within 100 feet of the proposed septic system. MR. BARNES-1 agree. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So there is no issue, then, with the well and the septic. MR. BARNES-I'm 20 feet, my property's 20 feet below that property. Have you ever known water to run uphill? Right directly behind this property. The whole property, my whole property covers it. Anywhere he puts it it goes downhill, anywhere he puts the septic it comes downhill. I've got three acres. Every bit of his property is right in front of me. MR. JACKOSKI-How far do you believe your well is, and I'm trying to give you a little latitude here. So how far away. MR. BARNES-It could be 100 feet, but that doesn't, you know what I mean? MR. HENKEL-What about Lot Two? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, let's not debate it. So it's not within the purview of this Board to identify and be the Board of Health. So I can't address the well and septic separation for you. There is no variance in front of us for that, and that would come from the Board of Health. MR. BARNES-Right. If my well goes bad and sour, then I've got to them. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but I don't have any authority to address that matter. What I can tell you to do is to please work with our Staff, work with the Building Department, tomorrow, whatever you want to do, and try to understand what the separation distances are and make sure that there's no concern, under the current State guidelines. MR. BARNES-There's not enough room on this land, on this site to put up a house and have the setbacks. MR. JACKOSKI-That's why we're here. That part I can work on. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience? Yes, ma'am, please, and if you could identify yourself for the record and address anything that hasn't already been addressed. GEORGETTE FOLLEY MS. FOLLEY-I'm Georgette Folley and I'm on 17 Sunset Trail. I also live directly across from this property. I guess I expected to see a site plan. MR. JACKOSKI-There is a survey. It's been part of the application. It's been on record for the public to view. MR. GARRAND-Would you like to see it? MR. JACKOSKI-You can certain come up and see it. MS. FOLLEY-I would like to see. I guess I called. MR. BARNES-We didn't get notice until the 17th of the month. MS. FOLLEY-I called and talked to someone and I didn't, I was not told that this was here. This is why was asking. We discussed other things, but not this. I presume that there is a reason that there's a 100 foot setback from the road, to the center of the road and from the back lot it's 75 on either side. That's done for a reason. We built our house 40 years ago, and we like that location because of the natural forested land, the distance between the homes, the privacy. That was very, very important to us, and it is zoned Rural Residential Three Acres, and next to us is the area right next to us that's Rural Residential Five Acres. Down at the bottom of the hill, on Pickle Hill, it's State land, and we appreciate the fact that the Town of Queensbury and the zoning, and the APA, of course, have, must have to have had something to do with this, to protect the rural character of our area, and when I saw what the setbacks had to be, I was surprised that this was a legitimate building lot, and as a result of the setbacks and the fact that I would like to keep my property and our street, our whole area, rural residential, peaceful, quiet, I'm going to have to say that I cannot support the variance changes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Sir, would you like to add anything? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, I live right next door to the lot and I share all the same concerns that Georgette does. I was looking for something like this as well, and my concern is having a house on a, you know, I didn't see the size of this house, and having another house that close to mine seems like that's what I'm going to be seeing is another house and not this rural area that we moved into. We purchased our house in 2009, right after I retired from the Navy, and that was one of the reasons why we purchased there. The school district was one and the ruralness was one because quite frankly 26 years in the Navy, I really don't like to be around that many people. So I appreciated the rural area. I am from this area. So it was me moving back home and finding a nice, quiet rural area to be in. MR. JACKOSKI-And I appreciate that, and being your school board president, I think your school district is excellent. PETER ARCHARD MR. ARCHARD-HI, my name's Peter Archard. My wife and I, we live at 20 Sunset Trail, which Frank is the first house. That lot that he's looking to build on is between us. We're right behind him. We also, when we, when my wife divorced and we decided to stay within the Lake George School system, were looking for an area that was quiet, peaceful, not a lot of traffic, a quiet neighborhood for the children. This is a dead end cul de sac, you know, neighborhood. Kids ride their bike, walk, there's plenty of room. One of the reasons we picked that house and the square footage, but it also had the land around it, and there was space between Frank and I. There was that natural buffer, and to now put a house there where I'm going to look out my bedroom window, the one side of the bedroom and now see a house that nobody's going to be 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) in, you know, he's not going to be there all the time. Who's going to maintain that property when he's not there? We don't know how often he's coming up from Long Island. In looking at this, and I'm no expert on this, when I look at the stakes that are like marking the property lines, the corner of his is right out at the utility pole. The next, right at the utility pole, right on Sunset Trail, the next stake, here, I'll give this back to you. So here's Sunset Trail. So here's the corner of his lot. So here's our house. The next, our next stake is back here. So it goes at an angle, and so I have, at certain points in here, six to eight feet of buffer, trees, bushes. There's a large rock that is back here which is at the corner of Jim's property, and, you know, I can see where the previous owner had the landscaping company, you know, they dumped their leaves and grass cuttings and what not. So, you know, our lot goes in at an angle, you know, I'm hoping you don't approve this new plan, but if it does, I would like to make sure that that line is abided by. So if I am going to have to look at a house, at least I will have that six to eight feet of buffer instead of just all those trees are cleared. I mean, I work for the State. I'm not home all the time. They start clearing trees and bushes, who's to say that they're going to follow exactly what that line is, that angle, they cut down a large tree in between and there goes my buffer and then I'm looking right at his back deck or porch, you know, I don't know the rules. I know he's concerned about the septic. Our septic is like right behind our house. Like our house, like there's a big dirt leach field. It's right there. So it can be close by, but like I said, I would hate to see the neighborhood change. It's a very quiet 18, 17 house subdivision, and to put a house directly between us would change the look of it and also potentially drop the value, you know, of the rest of the neighborhood. This house does not fit in with the rest of the houses in our neighborhood. Neither on Pickle Hill Road or on Sunset Trail. So hopefully you take that into consideration. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to address the Board? So I'm going to ask the applicant to come back to the table if he could, but before you speak, we sit here and we've been doing this for a long time, and we understand neighbors who want to cherish and protect their neighborhoods. This Board is tasked with, the Code is written to easily expedite building permits if they meet all that criterion. The Zoning Board is set up not to violate a law. That's not what we're doing here. We are looking at an application that doesn't currently meet the existing zoning, and we have to make a determination as to what will work on the project. This has been a subdivided lot that was done many years ago. It's always been there. You should have known that somebody owned this lot. Because it was a building lot when it was created, we're not creating another building lot here. It's always been there. We can't take away the rights of somebody to build on their property because zoning changed. They have to come in to the Zoning Board and work out the best project that can be worked out for the parcel. That's really what we're after here and I understand that this is what you're used to, having this be a green lot. There's been a little bit activity. There's always been a garage or a building on it. Technically there's supposed to be a residence attached to a, or on a parcel when there's an accessory building on it, but this one's been grandfathered in for so long. Now's the time that they're looking at putting the house on it. It's very hard for us because we understand you're all united in trying to protect your neighborhood, but we're tasked with granting the least amount of relief, but yet allowing the owner of the property to develop their property accordingly. So I just want to make sure you understand, they're not violating any laws. They're looking at Code and trying to decide how best to access the Code and make things work. MS. FOLLEY-Can I make a comment? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, go ahead. MS. FOLLEY-When the Merrill's bought their property, and they bought the two lots and they built their house, that was going to be all of their property, the two lots. When we bought, my husband and I bought our property, we bought two lots because we wanted to have the buffer. We wanted to have everything. We have a large house. We have a three car garage, a separate, so that it didn't impact the look of the neighborhood. Now, I don't know exactly what the intent was, but I think that when Dick died, Dick Merrill died and Mary sold the house, it was easier to sell the house in the one lot. Her son also had stored things in the garage on the lot that is for sale now, but I think the intention of that property was to have one big lot, even though they bought it as two separate ones. Because in 1964, that's how it was sold, but it was to be one lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. Unfortunately they had two separate deed descriptions and they maintained their rights to two separate lots. They never officially combined the lots into one. So they did not ever legally demonstrate their intention to leave it as one lot. They left it as two and they protected their rights. They paid their taxes on two, and unfortunately there's nothing I can do. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes, but you're going to take 50 year old, nothing is 50 years old anymore. This is today, not 50 years ago. I know I was married in '64, all right. Things have changed. You comply with today, not the laws 50 years ago. MR. JACKOSKI-We're not complying to the laws 50 years ago, but this was built as a building lot. So, sir, I'm going to respectfully, I'm sorry, I understand the frustrations, but this Board is tasked with the application that's in front of us and finding out what is best, and we haven't voted on this yet, finding out what is best for the overall application. So we're going to move forward a little bit with this. I have not closed the public hearing. I want you to understand that. I have not closed it yet. I'm going to seek comment from the applicant, seek polling of the Board members, and then try to figure out what we're going to do with the application. I understand it's frustrating. I'm doing the best that I can and we've got a long history of dealing with situations just like this. MR. YURDIGA-As for Peter, you had asked me before why I put the property where I did. I'm looking to take as little trees and things out of the property. I'm trying to wedge that house in and keep the buffers of the trees. Actually, there's a neighbor, if you're looking at the property to the right, I don't know. AUDIENCE MEMBER-The white house. MR. YURDIGA-Yes, is that yours? AUDIENCE MEMBER-That's me. MR. YURDIGA-Yes, I'm looking to put some trees so he has more privacy, if I am able to put a house there. So that's why I'm putting it in the middle of the property. It's really to make it, I don't think you're even going to see it from the street. I'm looking to leave all the front trees in there. It has nice little winding road going down to it. I'm looking for a little hideout that eventually will be my full-time home. MR. JACKOSKI-And we can see where you've put the house. MR. YURDIGA-Right. So it gives a lot of buffer around. What I'm saying is I'm not looking to change the character of the neighborhood or upset anybody, and also, as far as keeping the property maintained and clean, it will be, whether I'm there or not, it will be clean and always maintained. There will never be a junk car on the property. I just want him to know. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want you to understand. This Board can't dictate the maintenance of the property for the next 50 years. MR. YURDIGA-1 just feel like he's there and I don't want to upset anybody. I'm not looking to do that. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. MR. YURDIGA-You know, I'm just really looking for a really little hideout there that's, I don't think anybody, when it's done, would be very upset, because I feel bad about their comments. MR. JACKOSKI-We're okay. Board member questions at this time? MR. GARRAND-Yes. What can you do to alleviate the neighbor's concerns as far as septic goes, and to permanently mitigate the view shed for your neighbors? MR. JACKOSKI-So, Rick, I'm going to say. The septic system is not in. MR. GARRAND-1 know it's not part of it. I was just wondering if there's anything. MR. YURDIGA-Well, the property behind me, I would think that the well is more than 100 feet away, from what I can see, but I never checked for that, but there is, behind the garage and the property line there's a nice buffer there. I don't think he'll even be able to see that house, quite honestly, when it's done, because if you see where the house is sitting there. It's a heavily treed lot, and I actually placed it, there's some trees that I don't want to remove. I mean, I really placed it where I'm pulling down a few pines and really trying to kind of like I said wedge it in there, and I don't really think you're going to see the house much from either side. I know the house from the lake, if you're looking at the property, the house to the left will not even see this house. There's 50 foot of heavily treed. I mean, you'll see it, but it's not going to be an eyesore by any means that 1, you know, I could see. The front trees are all staying on the 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) property so, you know, I'm really looking for, you know, to come in there and kind of windy, treed lot and keep it, other than a few dangerous pine trees, the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member comments or questions? There was no written comment, correct? MR. URRICO-There was no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to poll the Board at this time. Do I have any volunteers? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Well, this is an interesting project you're brought in front of us, sir. As far as the neighbors' comments about keeping buffers, it appears that you're going to do it on your own. Sometimes people cut to their property line and expect the next guy to keep a buffer, but it looks by the aerial shot that everybody's got their buffers. The other thing where both neighbors come, you know, your neighbors had years to buy this lot if you wanted to keep it forever wild between you and you didn't do it. This gentleman has come up and he wants to build a house, and again, in kidding earlier, I said I was on that side of the table because I came with three variances and as far as I'm concerned, I think you're putting your best foot forward, and I think that I'll be in favor of this project the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. MR. NOONAN-I'll go next. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I also, well, I think the property owner has the right to put a house on this piece of property. It's a buildable lot. It doesn't sound like it's starting off like a nice relationship between neighbors, and that's going to have to be worked on, but that's not our task here on this Board. He has the right to buy the property. He has the right to put a house on it. I don't know, but is this the last lot that is available to purchase, because I feel like there's another Richard Merrill lot out there that could be, have a house on it that's about the same size. Mr. Yurdiga has the right to buy this and put a house on it and ask for a variance. I'd be in favor of this proposal. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well, honestly I think the variance could be reduced by a smaller house. I know anything they do on this piece of property is going to require a variance, but I thought the house could be smaller, something in the 900 square foot range. Because this proposal is calling for a 1400 sq. ft. dwelling. MRS. MOORE-There's a reason why Staff and I worked with the applicant, that includes the decks. It's a smaller footprint, but there's decks on it. MR. JACKOSKI-So your answer's no? MR. GARRAND-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm going to be in favor of the application. I think there are a lot of things that come into play here. One of them is the self-creation part, which usually is on the applicant, but this time the difficulty is not self-created as this is a pre-existing, nonconforming parcel with the existing garage. So the parcel was part of a 1964 subdivision, and that's what he's buying, and I think, yes, maybe he can reduce the house somewhat, but I still think you're going to deal with some setbacks, some setback issues that are going to be really mitigated by the tree line and the way he's putting the house on that property. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Again, we can't prevent the construction of a house, and I'm pretty sure that's what the neighbors would like, but we can encourage the applicant to get together with the neighbors and perhaps put up some barriers to minimize the appearance of the house from the 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) outside or, you know, from around the property. I would find fault if the house was huge, but it looks like the house is really pretty small, and it doesn't look like it could be situated any, you know, closer to the middle of the lot. So it's as far away from every edge that it could possibly be, and so I think the applicant has done his best to minimize the visual effect for the surrounding area. So I'd have to support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I drove the development, and you can see all the houses from Sunset Trail and you can see that even the houses from side to side, these people knew that this was probably going to be a lot that was probably going to be built on some day, if not, you know, they probably could have purchased it or whatever, but I think we really can't stop this guy from building a house as long as he tries to keep a buffer like people want, and I think what he's asking for, 67 feet from the road, and 75 feet from one line and 55 from the other and 92 from the back, I think it's reasonable so I'd be in favor of the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm in favor also, but I would hope that you can try to work with your neighbors, especially the neighbor who suggested that the property line actually angled off. I don't believe that that's the case on the surveys, and there could be some confusion as to where the corners of the property are, but do yourself a favor. Make sure you mark all four of your corners before you do any building, just to be safe. I can't tell you to do it, but I would recommend you do it. Even though it says there's an IPF, which means Iron Pipe Found, that line should be, you do have 55 feet on that side and I don't know how close that neighbor's house is to you. I don't think there's six or eight feet of buffer, but I'm hoping there's more land there because it looks like a double lot, but it looks to me like we have enough votes to move forward with an unrestricted approval. So I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael Yurdiga. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,360 sq. ft. single-family dwelling including porch/deck. Relief requested from minimum yard setback requirements for RR-3A zoning district. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 28, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. There are some alternatives to moving the location of the home, however the applicant has explained why he has chosen to put the house where he has, maintaining buffers and privacy, and those have been considered by the Board. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 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 because the individual is purchasing in a subdivision that was detailed in 1964. 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; 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2015) 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. 55-2015, Michael Yurdiga, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Maybe you have an opportunity to sell the lot, now, to one of the adjoining neighbors. You'll have to see. Is there any other business in front of the Board this evening? Having none, I'll call for a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 28, 2015 Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 20