Loading...
08-23-2017 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-48-2017 Timothy Brown/Morgans Property Management 1. Tax Map No. 302.54-26 Area Variance Z-AV-50-2017 Craig Nicholson 4. Tax Map No. 279.4-74 Area Variance Z-AV-51-2017 Richard A. Hughes, Jr. 10. Tax Map No. 290.4-22.6 Area Variance Z-AV-53-2017 Katharine Seelye 13. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-10 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES [IF ANY] AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR.JACKOSKI-Hello everyone and welcome. I'd like to begin this evening's meeting and call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for tonight, Wednesday, August 23" here at the Queensbury Activities Center on Bay Road. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's a fairly simple process. There's an agenda on the back table. There are Staff Notes as well. We'll call each applicant to the table when it's time to deal with that application according to the agenda. We have all New Business this evening and no Old Business and no housekeeping so we can get right to business. What I'll do is call the applicant to the table. Roy will read the application into the record and then we'll take additional comments from the applicants if we feel it's necessary. Board members will ask questions and when there are public hearings scheduled, and for this evening all four of the applications in front of us do have public hearings scheduled, we'll open the public hearings. We'll listen to public comment if there is any. After the public hearing we may or may not close it depending on what kind of activity we found during the meeting. We'll ask the applicants to re-join us at the table. We'll ask some more questions. I'll poll the Board then we'll determine where we're headed. So the very first item on this evening is Timothy Brown Morgans Property Management at 16 June Drive, Area Variance Z-AV-48-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-48-2017 SEQR TYPE 11 TIMOTHY BROWN/MORGANS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AGENT(SJ TIMOTHY BROWN/MORGANS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OWNER(SJ DONALD AND NANCY SWINTON ZONING MDR LOCATION 16 JUNE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 168 SQ. FT. COVERED FRONT PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,584 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF CURRENT: AST 187-2017 3-SEASON PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2017 LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 302.54-26 SECTION 179-3-040 TIMOTHY BROWN, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-48-2017, Timothy Brown/Morgans Property Management, Meeting Date: August 23, 2017 "Project Location: 16 June Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 168 sq. ft. covered front porch addition to an existing 1,584 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone The applicant proposes a covered front porch addition that is to be 23.7 ft. and is required to be 30 ft. from the front property line. 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 considered limited as the existing home is 29.4 ft. from the overhang to the front property line. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 6.3 ft. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 168 sq. ft. covered porch to be placed at the front of the home. The plans show the view of the porch from the road and it will align with an existing path to the driveway." MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Hello,welcome. Could you please state your name for the record? MR. BROWN-Timothy Brown. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a very straightforward application. I assume you just want Board members to ask you questions and go from there. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members on this application? Having none, is there anyone here in the audience, I'll open the public hearing, who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-So far so good, right? Am I doing all right? So far so good. All right. So I'll poll the Board and see what your thoughts are. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it's driven by the long radius of June Drive on the front there, and I think that if you're going just off the property line there's not that much relief that they're asking for and you still have the Town right of way out to the actual edge of the road. So I don't think it's any big deal at all. I think it'll improve your home and I think a lot of these houses that are on some of these smaller lots, you know, when you add the front porch and enclosed porch is a big difference in the wintertime, instead of opening the front door and having the cold air blow in. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 think it's a nice looking plan and fits in with the lines of the house certainly. I can see why you've made it this size. Quick question. What's the plan with the shed that's in the breezeway area? MR. BROWN-There's going to be a shed in there. There is a classic shed on the property way. That should be way, this one way in the back corner here? MRS. HAYWARD-The one I saw was right in front of the house, next to the garage. MR. BROWN-1 think they moved it. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. MR. BROWN-Yes, it's movable. It's not a permanent shed. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. MR. BROWN-They just had shifted it off to the side. MRS. HAYWARD-1 just happened to notice it yesterday. MR. BROWN-Yes, it used to be over on the other side of the garage, and I think they just. MRS. HAYWARD-Otherwise I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support the project. I think it meets all the criteria that we're charged to use. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-It definitely makes an improvement to the neighborhood so I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So far, so good. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, there were questions in the application about whether it was a screened in porch or an open porch. So just, the applicant I know is talking with the property owner and I wasn't sure if there was a decision of whether it was screened or an open. So they should clarify that. MR. BROWN-Yes. We discussed it originally as screened, for purposes of their dog who is probably not going to be around much longer. They don't plan on getting another dog. MR. JACKOSKI-Screened's okay, right, Staff? MRS. MOORE-It's okay. I just wanted to clarify whether it was or wasn't. MR. HENKEL-It's just going to be screened from top to bottom, not enclosed. MR. BROWN-That's how they had discussed it, right, but as of right now they don't think they're going to want it. So as far as I know it's not going to happen that particular way. In the future I'm sure they could do it. MR. HENKEL-So is that something we should put in the conditions, not to be enclosed? MRS. MOORE-1 just wanted to clarify that the plans that are going to come in for the final plans say not screened. I mean, if he chose to do that at a later time then he'd come back before the Building Department if needed and have that discussion with the Building and Codes Department. I just wanted to clarify it for our plans. MR. JACKOSKI-So clarified. Okay. I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Timothy Brown / Morgans Property Management. Applicant proposes construction of a 168 sq. ft. open front porch [not screened-in as clarified by the Board and Staff] addition to an existing 1,584 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone The applicant proposes a covered front porch addition that is to be 23.7 ft. and is required to be 30 ft. from the front property line. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 23, 2017; 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 we believe that the porch will actually enhance the look of the house. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board; they are not reasonable because of the configuration of the road and house. 3. The requested variance is not substantial; 20 percent relief is within reason. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We feel that it's going to improve the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty, of course, is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall 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; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a] Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-48-2017, TIMOTHY BROWN/MORGANS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 23" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-There you go. Good luck. The next item on the agenda this evening is Craig Nicholson, Area Variance Z-AV-50-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearings scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-50-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 CRAIG NICHOLSON OWNER(S] CRAIG NICHOLSON ZONING RR-3A YR. 1988 CURRENT: RR-3A LOCATION 12 DREAM LAKE ROAD— (KILMARTIN SUBDIVISION] APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 896 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. PARCEL HAS AN EXISTING 1,787 SQ. FT. HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE ON PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF CURRENT: AST 282-2017 DETACHED GARAGE; SUBDIVISION NO. 64988 KILMARTIN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2017 LOT SIZE 1.38 ACRE(S] TAX MAP NO. 279.1-74 SECTION 179-5-020 CRAIG NICHOLSON, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-50-2017, Craig Nicholson, Meeting Date: August 23, 2017 "Project Location: 12 Dream Lake Road (Kilmartin Subdivision) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 896 sq. ft. detached garage. Parcel has an existing 1,787 sq. ft. home with an attached garage. Relief requested for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. 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 be considered to include an addition to the existing garage. The number of sheds is to be reduced to the maximum allowed at 2. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is to allow two garages where only one is allowed. The four sheds total 456 sq. ft. where the applicant has indicated the sheds would be reduced to be compliant with the number allowed. 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 be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an 896 sq. ft. detached garage. The garage is to have two garage doors and interior stairway to access the storage area above. The applicant has indicated the existing storage sheds will be reduced to two. The location of the shed is near a non-operable man made pond (after 2004 per aerials) that is to be filled for the placement of the garage. There is no driveway to be installed access will be from the existing lawn area. The board may consider requesting information on utility connection —i.e. water or electric service for cleaning and lighting." MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. NICHOLSON-Sure. Craig Nicholson. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to give us a little more info. on what's going on with the property? MR. NICHOLSON-Well, I've always wanted a detached building down there to store various items. The pond was fun but after a fracking of a neighborhood well and whatnot I lost my artesian well and my pond, my ability for my pond to hold water. So the pond wasn't a feasible thing anymore, and it was a good area to put a garage, well, I was originally not calling it a garage, but I wanted garage doors, so if I wanted garage doors I had to call it a garage. It's considered a storage unit for snowmobiles, motorcycles. I have a Jeep that I play around with, four lawn mowers. I need a building to store my equipment in, and the sheds aren't working out. I had no idea there was a limit of two. I've been told this, actually. The fourth one actually is a tent garage which is easily removable. The other ones I can dismantle them, take out of there. I just want some area to store things. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members before I open a public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. So, utilities, plumbing, lighting? MR. NICHOLSON-Nothing at the moment. I mean, I understand with the way they're talking, yes, I'm going to probably want lights. I could power that off my house. I don't need an additional entrance or anything. It's close enough to my house that I could bury a cable from, I'm not planning on doing that immediately, but I'm sure I'm going to probably want some light at some point. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the second floor going to be used for living quarters? MR. NICHOLSON-The second floor is attic storage. Just get some clutter out of the existing garage so that the cars can be parked in the existing garage and miscellaneous stuff you can store up there that might be in the way. MR. HENKEL-Staff, I thought the height was only allowable at 16 feet? MRS. MOORE-That's in Waterfront Residential zoning. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Well that's Dream Lake. MR. JACKOSKI-We're RR-3, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a quick question. Do you ever plan on putting a driveway in? MR. NICHOLSON-1 have no plans on doing that at this point, either. I realize if I decide to do anything like that I'll have to come back in front of the Board to do so. Like I said really it's just going to be a larger storage unit. MRS. HAYWARD-Combining the sheds. MR. NICHOLSON-Yes, the garage shed and the shed that's not there will disappear, which will make my wife's day because she doesn't like the Adirondack look shed, and the garage she is not really all that appealing either and this garage I plan on having it match the house siding, etc. I don't see where it's going to block anybody's view. I do have one neighbor that's already responded in writing saying that he has no objection to it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, do you have that? MR. URRICO-No, I don't. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be able to give us a copy of that? Could you give it to our Secretary, please? MR. URRICO-I have a question. When you remove the two sheds, what will be the size of the sheds that remain? Do you know? MR. NICHOLSON-1 have one 8 by 8 shed that's up by the house and I have another one in my backyard that's 8 by 12. MR. HENKEL-Are you planning on doing away with the one that's not in compliance with the setback? MR. NICHOLSON-I'm getting rid of the 8 by 12 that's down there where the garage unit would be and the tent garage, and clear that lower yard completely of sheds. MR. HENKEL-Not the one on the west side, though. MR. JACKOSKI-With the wood ramp. Closest to the driveway side. MR. NICHOLSON-The one close to the driveway is the small 8 by 8. If need be I could probably remove that one, too. That would be a third shed. The one that I would like to keep obviously is the one in the backyard next to my pool. MR. URRICO-And what's the size of that one? MR. NICHOLSON-That's 8 by 12. Basically I'd like to keep the 8 x 12 and the 8 x 8, the one out up by the garage. MRS. MOORE-There's 160 feet of shed if those two remain. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but if he leaves just the 96 square foot one, then there's one shed. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, I get you're in a Rural Residential zone, and the character of a Rural Residential zone is anticipated to be different from an MDR, Moderate Density Residential. So I understand outbuildings and stuff in an RR zone. It's a little different when they're in an MDR zone which is considered more neighborhood and more non-rural, so to speak. While I respect that you've tried to remove two, it would be nice if you could remove three, but let's see what the other Board members are going to be talking about after we do the public hearing, if that's okay with you. MR. NICHOLSON-Right. The original plan was to get rid of the two that were down there and take. MR. JACKOSKI-So if it's okay. I understand. It's a balancing act. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there any written comment, Mr. Secretary? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Well there's one now. 1, Andrew J. Serra, have no opposition to Craig Nicholson adding a garage to his property at 12 Dream Lake." I don't know where he lives. Do you know where he lives? MR. NICHOLSON-He lives, actually he's the first house off of Bay Road. He's got a Dream Lake Road address, but he's on Bay Road. MR. JACKOSKI-So he's on the side of the property away from the shed. MR. NICHOLSON-Away from the shed. MR. JACKOSKI-Have you talked to the neighbor on the other side? MR. NICHOLSON-Andy Holding is my nearest neighbor on the garage side of my house. He actually helped me with the variance application. I don't believe he has any objection to it. MR. JACKOSKI-He hasn't written and said he doesn't. MR. NICHOLSON-The house between myself and Holdings has been vacant for five years or whatever it's been. I have no idea what's going to happen with that, but. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, according to the distribution list, Andrew Serra is at 2 Dream Lake Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I'll ask the public. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. Would anyone like to volunteer to go first? MR. FREER-So one of the criteria I use is are there any objections from the neighbors to what we're trying to do here as we decide on the variance, and so it's a good idea that you got your neighbor to say that he has no problems with this. There's no neighbors sitting here saying that they have any problems. The way I look at it it would seem to make a lot of sense. I saw your Jeep out there and it probably could use a better home, and again, as the Chairman said, this is a rural zone and so I support the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. Any other volunteers? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll go. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think the other issue is that we could raise the issue that it's not a three acre lot, but I don't think any of these lots down there were three acres when they were made. MR. NICHOLSON-The originality was that they were all supposed to be three acre lots. When I purchased my lot, you guys at the Town of Queensbury actually helped me out a lot. Andy already built his home. Nobody ever caught it. Subdivision was done and it was supposed to be two lots, three acre lots, and somewhere between the time that the town of Queensbury approved it and when I built my house, magically appeared there was another line in the subdivision map that was filed with the County, and all of a sudden Andy only had like an acre and I only had an acre and a half and the other lot was like two and a half. Supposedly the original subdivision map was two 3 acre lots. According to the map that's what it would be. Something happened. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think in this instance when you've got 1.38 acres, it's more than adequate for the other building on there and I think you're consolidating the two sheds and dropping that down so it's going to clean up your yard and make everything work better for you. MR. NICHOLSON-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't have a problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of it. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-Even though he doesn't fit in with the three acres, but it's Rural Residential the area and I guess I'd be in favor of it as long as he's moving the one shed to the west to comply with the setback or eliminating it and going down to the two sheds as promised. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'd support the project with the condition that he only have two additional sheds. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of, but I would like to see him go down to the one shed that he volunteered to go down to. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'd be in favor of the project if he went down to one shed as well. MR. NICHOLSON-Okay. So the one shed being the one in the backyard. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't care which one. MR. NICHOLSON-Actually, like I said, the tent garage, I mean, we're calling that a shed. MR. JACKOSKI-But by Code that's what it is. So if you got rid of the little one that's closest to Bay Road and you kept your 8 by 12 out there in the back. MR. NICHOLSON-1 would keep the one in the backyard for my pool. If I had to get rid of the other and the tent garage. MR. JACKOSKI-So if you leave just the one that's 8 by 12. MR. NICHOLSON-The worst part is I've not had one neighbor ever say anything about the sheds. MR. HENKEL-It makes it look neater, too. MR. JACKOSKI-But now you're going to a larger garage. So we don't like approving second garages. We have to look at each application and determine what it is. What we see here is you've got an opportunity to clean up your yard, consolidate it into one building, a nice looking building. You're in a Rural Residential neighborhood. If you can go to one shed. MRS. MOORE-That's fine. I just want to clarify that the one that's on the west side is not considered not compliant. It's less than 120 square feet. So just so you're aware of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Still too many sheds. MR. NICHOLSON-It's a good-looking shed, too. The eyesore is the one down there my wife wants down and the tent garage, but I don't have a problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-We don't care which one you keep. You might want to please your wife. It's up to you. MR. NICHOLSON-No. I'm okay with getting rid of the 8 by 8. It's a beautiful shed. MR. JACKOSKI-We have enough to carry a motion with one shed. I'm going to close the public hearing. SANDY REARDON MS. REARDON-Can I say something? I'm one of the neighbors. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Sure. I'll re-open the public hearing. Hi. MS. REARDON-Hi. I'm Sandy Reardon. I live down the road from him, and last year they let Jack Curry put in a second garage. He lives opposite Dream Lake Road, off on a hill. He used to own the big farm next to it, and they let him do it, and Dick Kilmartin originally owned all this land. He has a two car garage with a carport attached to it. He has two sheds out back and nobody has said boo to him. MR. JACKOSKI-Well now that you've told us about it we'll say boo. MS, REARDON-Somebody ought to say boo because he gets away with murder around here. I don't see why Craig can't have another garage. Even his two sheds. MR. JACKOSKI-I appreciate that. MS. REARDON-Okay. Thank you. Now I will close the public hearing again. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Craig Nicholson. Applicant proposes construction of an 896 sq. ft. detached garage. Parcel has an existing 1,787 sq. ft. home with an attached garage. Relief requested for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 23, 2017; 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 we feel that the new garage will consolidate a number of smaller buildings and add to the appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are deemed not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is substantial but we are willing to forgive that for the good of the overall look of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is, of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the requested variance under consideration is the minimum necessary. 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) In addition to the new garage, there should be only one outside shed on the property. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-50-2017, CRAIG NICHOLSON, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 23" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer,Mrs. Hayward,Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. The next item on this evening's agenda is Richard A. Hughes, Jr. 167 Chestnut Ridge Road, Area Variance Z-AV-51-2017, a Type II SEAR with a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-51-2017 SEQR TYPE 11 RICHARD A. HUGHES, JR. OWNER(SJ RICHARD A. HUGHES,JR. LOCATION 167 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,008 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE TO INCLUDE 432 SQ. FT. FOR STORAGE AND 250 SQ. FT. FOR USE AS A CARPORT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE ON PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF CURRENT: AST 409- 2017 DETACHED GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 8.21 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 290.1-22.6 SECTION 179-5-020 RICHARD HUGHES, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-51-2017, Richard A. Hughes, Jr., Meeting Date: August 23, 2017 "Project Location: 167 Chestnut Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,008 sq. ft. detached garage to include 432 sq. ft. for storage and 250 sq. ft. for use as a carport. Relief requested for a second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. 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 considered for an addition to the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is to allow two garages where only one is allowed. 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 be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 432 sq. ft. detached garage with a 250 sq. ft. open car-port area. The garage is to also have interior stairs to access the storage area above. The plans show the elevations and floor plans of the building. The applicant has indicated the building to be used for storage for lawn equipment and furniture. The survey also shows the existing shed to be removed. The board may consider requesting information on utility connection —Le. water or electric service for cleaning and lighting." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Dr. Hughes. DR. HUGHES-Hi. Good evening MR. JACKOSKI-Straightforward application I suspect similar discussion that we just had. Would you like to add anything more to the record at this time? DR. HUGHES-Most it's used for storage of equipment. I've got eight acres and I try to keep it up a little bit. I've got a tractor with an attachment, a brush hog, a tiller because we like to garden a lot. I've got a boat trailer that I'd like to store and I really would like to have all this stuff in a garage not sitting out. It's a nice neighborhood. I really don't want it looking like a junkyard. That's all. MR. JACKOSKI-The minimum lot size in the MDR is two acres, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So you've got four times the necessary acreage which is kind of nice. Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. So can you tell us about lighting, heating and plumbing? Any plans to do so? DR. HUGHES-Currently there's a small shed that I'm donating away. So that'll be gone. There's actually a conduit, the contractor found a conduit with some power out there. So the electrician that's looking at it said they'll just run a new wire through the conduit so I do want electric out there but there's not going to be heat or anything else otherwise. MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-So far, so good. Nobody's complaining. I'll poll the Board and leave the public hearing open. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I don't think it's an unreasonable request. It is a request for a second garage, but again it's the same argument that we made in the last previous application, and it's a large rural lot and I think because you're keeping the building close to your other buildings, I think it's a good project. DR. HUGHES-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement with Jim. I think the size matters in this case, the size of the acreage and I think that mitigates any second garage in my opinion. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I just want to be clear that you're not going to be doing any aviation activities. No drones. I support the project. I makes sense with eight acres. Besides the fact no people object in the neighborhood, my other criteria for a second garage seems to be five acres. So you meet that one and I'm good with that. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think eight acres warrants a second garage, to take away the shed that he's getting rid of that's on the property now. So I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, the size of the property warrants a garage of that size. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement with the rest of the Board. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-And so am I. The key for me is that you've got four times the required acreage and you're keeping up your property. So I'm for it as well. So I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I'll make the motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard A. Hughes, Jr. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,008 sq. ft. detached garage to include 432 sq. ft. for storage and 250 sq. ft. for use as a carport. Relief requested for a second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. The applicant requests relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 23, 2017; 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 there is four times the minimum density on this lot for this zoning area. Therefore, it takes more equipment to maintain and use the property, so there is no detriment to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives are really not practical other than to add to the current garage but this makes more sense in terms of usefulness and aesthetics. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it is a second garage which is 100 percent more than we allow but given the above information it seems to be okay with the Board. 4. There is not an adverse effect to impact the physical conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but again, it makes sense because up-keeping the property and the large amount of land associated with it is feasible to have two garages. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant making this request outweighs (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community / neighborhood; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Removal of the one shed. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-51-2017 RICHARD HUGHES, )R., Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 23" day of August 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison, I'm sorry, you did not say removing the one shed. MR. FREER-I didn't say that. That was in the application. MRS. MOORE-It was in the application. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to make sure that we're all clear that that other shed is coming out. AYES: Mr. McCabe,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward,Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. Next item on this evening's agenda is Katharine Seelye. Dennis MacElroy is the agent. It is 14 Crooked Tree Drive. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. It's Area Variance Z-AV-53-2017. A Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-53-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 KATHARINE SEELYE AGENT(SJ DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(SJ KATHARINE SEELYE ZONING WR LOCATION 14 CROOKED TREE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 225 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA. CROSS REF P-SP-55-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 239.15440 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-53-2017, Katharine Seelye, Meeting Date: August 23, 2017 "Project Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 232 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief requested from minimum shoreline and setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The applicant proposes 232 sq. ft. residential addition that is to be 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 setback is required. 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 considered limited to add a first story bedroom on the home due to the configuration of the structure on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested is 25 ft. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 232 sq. ft. addition to an existing home for a first floor bedroom. The project includes alterations to the first floor and minor to the second floor. The plans show the existing and proposed floor plan and a rendition of the new addition." MR. JACKOSKI-Hi, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Hello. Good evening. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design here with Katharine "Kit" Seelye, the owner of this, second generation owner of this property at 14 Crooked Tree Drive. This property is located off of 9L. I don't know whether you got the chance to see it. It's been in Kit's family for, her parents originally acquired the property. At one point in time it actually was two lots and there was another house on the lot to the east. That was removed and the primary residence is as it is today. What Kit would like to do is add a first story addition that would allow for a first floor bedroom. It's really a question of having better access as the years go on. So that space, logically, architecturally, physically to the site is off of that eastern end of the existing structure. It's, again, roughly 230 square feet, single story, compliant with all permeability, floor area ratio, building height standards. The one we bump into is the 75 foot setback which is, as you were aware, the one area of Queensbury that has the 75 foot setback. It's related to APA land use classification. The house was there well before the APA and the 75 foot setback, but that's what we're living with, and that's why we're here requesting the variance. The proposed addition is 50 feet from the lake. There are other sections of the house that are as close as 33 feet. So while it is noncompliant in itself, it's less so than what currently exists. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open a public hearing? MR. FREER-So I just want to make sure, I went down there today. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it's a sharp turn in. MR. FREER-So it's the house to the right toward the water. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. FREER-The first one towards the water. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That lot is in there and sort of wrapped around by what was the old King property. Now that's under new ownership. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions? I'll open the public hearing. Seeing no one in the audience this evening, so I suspect I'm not going to get any public comment. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are two letters. "We are writing you regarding Kit Seelye's proposed renovation of her house located at 14 Crooked Tree Lane. We would like to express our support of a first-floor bedroom addition. We are convinced that it will blend in with the current structure and make the house more functional for her needs. It will not interfere with the use or enjoyment of our property. We attest that we have no objections. Please feel free to email or call if you have any questions. Michelle Kaplan David Cohen 18 Crooked Tree Lane" And there's one more letter. "We are writing to support the proposal by our neighbor, Kit Seelye, to add a first-floor bedroom to her home. We live next door to Kit. Her proposed bedroom will in no way interfere with our view of the lake or our enjoyment of it. In fact, it will not even be visible to us from our home. From what we can assess from the plans, this small bedroom will fit in perfectly with the surroundings. We have no objections to her proposal and hope you will be able to approve it. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mark and Barrie Handleman 3142 State Route 9L" MR. JACKOSKI-Having no other written comment, I'll poll the Board at this time. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. Looking at the pictures of your current camp, you can hardly notice it, and I agree with your statement as far as the alternatives. There really don't seem to be any. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, it's a nonconforming structure and I don't believe that she should be penalized for that and so I will support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I like the extra trenching that you're doing to absorb the stormwater, and like everybody else says you're not getting any closer to the lake than the existing building you have there now. So I'd be in support of it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project, too. This is a good example of why the Zoning Board exists and why variances exist and how each property needs to be looked at individually because the circumstances warrant certain changes to the variances. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I agree with this. It makes sense. Fifty feet seems to be what goes on at other places, and I appreciate you guys taking that into account. So I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I was on the Board the last time you came in for an improvement project out on the site there and I think that's when you put in the Elgin system and upgraded all the septic and I think that this project is very reasonable. Fifty feet's more than adequate as far as the setback from the shore. I don't think there'll be any impact whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Katharine Seelye. Applicant proposes construction of a 232 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief requested from minimum shoreline and setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The applicant proposes 232 sq. ft. residential addition that is to be 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 23, 2017; 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. After reviewing the project, the Board feels there is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited based upon the fact that this house has been there for several generations. 3. The requested variance is 25 feet which is considered to be not substantial in this instance here because of the 50 ft. We feel it's adequate from the setback to the shoreline. 4. As far as any impact on the physical or environmental conditions we do not feel there are any adverse ones. 5. As far as the alleged difficulty; it is self-created because of where the house is currently existing. And I think the Board recognizes that parts of the house are as close as 33 feet from the lake/waterfront. 6. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-53-2017, KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 23" day of August 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward,Mr. McCabe,Mr. Underwood, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck, Kit. KATHARINE SEELYE MS. SEELYE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other business before the Board? May I have a motion to adjourn? MR. MC CABE-1 make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. MR. URRICO-Second. MRS. MOORE-Well, I guess my question is that at next month's meeting you have potentially Steve, Harrison, Michelle, Ron and John. So that's enough for quorum, enough for Super Majority. If some of you decide not to show, then we would have to cancel that meeting. MR. URRICO-I'm going to see if I can get an early flight that day. So I'll let you know. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have five. I say we go with it. Let all the applicants know we don't have a full Board. It's their prerogative to pull their application if they so wish. They'll go to October. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 23" day of August, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Freer,Mr. Underwood,Mrs. Hayward,Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman