Loading...
10-18-2017 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017 James Beaty [Harr Pars, Inc.] 2. Tax Map No. 290.54-50 Area Variance Z-AV-43-2017 Stephen H. and Deborah A. Richards 9. Tax Map No. 297.7-1-26 Area Variance Z-AV-67-2017 Stephen H. and Deborah A. Richards 15. Tax Map No. 297.7-1-26 Area Variance Z-AV-70-2017 Katharine Seelye 22. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-10 Area Variance Z-AV-69-2017 Marylou and Robert Dunton 25. Tax Map No. 239.16-1-25 Area Variance Z-AV-66-2017 Larry Clute 34. Tax Map No. 309.9-1-87 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 ZBA Meeting 10/18/17] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals here in the Activities Center at 742 Bay Road. For those of you who haven't been here in the past it's actually a very simple process. There is an agenda on the back table with Staff Notes and some basic descriptions of the projects that are in front of us this evening. We will call each applicant to the table here to address the Board with their application. After Roy reads the application into the record when it's appropriate there are public hearings scheduled for this evening that have been advertised and we will have public hearings for each of the items on the agenda this evening. We will ask the public for their comments. We will then have the Board respond or have the applicants respond to those comments and then we will poll the Board and see where the Board's going, make some determinations accordingly and possibly seek some motions. So I'll do some housekeeping here this evening, and the first thing is to have the approval of the meeting minutes of September 20t". 1 need a motion for approval. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 20, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 18" day of October, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next item this evening I'd like to have, under housekeeping, another approval of meeting minutes but for September 27tH September 27, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18" day of October, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We'll begin now with Old Business, James Beaty (Harr Pars, Inc.) 168 Sunnyside Road. It is Tax ID 290.5-1-50, Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017, a Type II SEAR. There have been public hearings scheduled and held on May 17" and tabled for October 18tH 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 JAMES BEATY(HARS, PARS,INC.) OWNER(SJ HARS PARS, INC. ZONING MDR LOCATION 168 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF LAND WHERE EXISTING GOLF COURSE BAR/AND 4-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ARE LOCATED INTO TWO PARCELS. THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, LOT 1, WILL BE 0.30 ACRES AND THE GOLF COURSE, LOT 2, WILL BE 10.56 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE/DENSITY, BUILDING SETBACKS, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF NEW LOTS. CROSS REF SB 7-2017 PRELIM & SB 8-2017 FINAL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2017 LOT SIZE 10.69 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 290.54-50 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Mike to handle this one. I'm going to recuse myself because of a conflict of interest. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Roy, have we read? MR. URRICO-I'm going to read in the highlights. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance Z-AV-35-2017,James Beaty,Meeting Date: October 18,2017 "Project Location: 168 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/ and 4-unit apartment complex are located into two parcels. The apartment complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the golf course, Lot 2 will be 10.56 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size / density, building setbacks, and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. Revised to show a replacement septic for lot 1 on lot 2 by easement. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the creation of the new lots. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for 2 lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot size, density, building setbacks and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement MDR zone The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot 1. Density requires 8 ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1. Setbacks for lot 1 —4Unit Building east side 17.4 ft. where 25 ft. is required, 4Unit Building south side 13.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Garage is 11.3 ft. west side where 25 ft. setback is required; Garage is 17.9 ft. from the south property line where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Lot 1 permeability is 26 % where 50% is required. Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback for the deck attached to the 2story garage is to be at 5 ft. where a 25 ft. 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 limited due to location of the existing buildings on the parcel and the intent to separate the apartment building from the golf course. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for lot one includes 1.7 ac for lot size, 7.7 ac for lot density, Setback 4unit side setback east 7.6 ft. and rear setback south 16.5 ft. ; Garage side setback west 13.7 ft. and rear setback south 12.1 ft. Lot one permeability relief is 24 %. Relief for Lot 2 setback side 20 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 has revised plans and proposes subdivision of a 10.86 acre parcel into two lots — one 0.30 acre and one 10.56 acres. The apartment building will be on the 0.30 acre parcel and the golf course and associated buildings to be on the 10.56 acre parcel. The applicant has updated the plans to reflect the location of a replacement septic system for lot 1 buildings. There are no changes to the site or buildings on either proposed parcel." MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper on behalf of Hars Pars with the three owners, Jim Beaty, Herb Lavery, and Greg Colburn, and as Roy said, we've re-submitted showing the exact area for the septic, the septic easement to get to the septic area and a replacement field for the apartment building. So I'd like to just start out with a little history here, and I know you guys have heard this previous, this application. So these three individuals have owned it now for 13 years. The apartment building has been in existence for about 75 years and the golf course for about 60. So historic Queensbury east side uses. About four years ago when they decided that they'd been doing this long enough and they wanted to sell, they listed it for sale as one parcel because it is one parcel, and they haven't been able to get a contract on the sale for four years. So the reason that we're before you is because it seems that there's a different market for someone who wants to own and operate a multi-family building and someone who wants to operate a golf course and a bar, and it will also require less capital if somebody wants to just buy the two separately, you know, they'll get roughly the same out of it but it'll just be easier to find two different parties that have different goals to own these two uses. So that's really why they're here, just so that this can get sold and that they can sell them separately so that they will get sold. Looking at the impact on the neighborhood, nothing is proposed to change. The existing buildings, the existing parcels, the utilities, everything is here. They're not doing anything to try to change anything. It's just to separate it so that it's two parcels and it can sell separately. So they're driving by nobody would know, and there won't be any change, and I think that Staff knows we're pretty clear about, you know, no environmental impact, no impact any other way because of the change. So we're here before you to just consider this as an older Queensbury use. They really need this relief. Things that were built then were built next to each other. But again, whether it's in one ownership or two, it doesn't change anything. So that's really the story and we're here to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, John. MR. HENKEL-Now, when the, was this all one piece of property? Obviously the apartments were first. They're 75 years old. So was that one piece of property and then they decided, the owner of the apartments decided to build the golf course? Is that how it worked? MR. MC CABE-I'm familiar with that. It wasn't really apartments. That was an antique shop, and it was owned by Bob Sheerer and he lived upstairs. Downstairs was the antique shop, and then he also, as a hobby, developed the golf course a little bit later. He moved his antique shop and changed the downstairs into apartments so he could get some revenue out of the building. So it was, the two properties were always different. The only thing that was common was the owner Bob Sheerer. MR. HENKEL-But always just on one deed? MR. MC CABE-Yes. Well, no, he probably bought the golf course a little bit later. MR. HENKEL-But the same one piece of property? MR. MC CABE-Well because it was just one individual. MR. LAPPER-That's one piece of property. MR. MC CABE-There were some apple trees back there. Anymore questions? 4 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Last time my concern was if somebody bought the golf course five years from now, they bag it and decide they wanted to do a subdivision back there. Does that double down on your capacity for what you have, because, you know, as it stands now you sort of need eight acres to justify the size of the apartment building as it currently is, and I don't think if things stay the same it's any big change, you know, I would agree with you on that point, but I think not knowing the future I think it's important for us to dial in, do we want that to remain as golf course, open space or whatever it is back there, or would it be subject to subdivision review at some point in the future? Because I don't know if we can give a double down, double allowance for that. MR. LAPPER-Right, and so if somebody, let's just play that out. If somebody bought it as a golf course to run it and decided, you know, at some time in the future that they wanted to build houses, so they would need a variance for that lot because that's eight acres in a two acre zone, so, you know, to say four acres, obviously we're using the density up front for the apartment building. So that would be a decision for a future Zoning Board to make, but that's not really, you know, just what's there. There's a lot of small trailers around. I mean, it's not really conducive to estate lot development right there. I'm not saying that things can't change and it couldn't happen, but it just doesn't seem likely that people are going to build houses on big lots. MR. MC CABE-Also a lot of that acreage is water. MR. LAPPER-That's a good point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would think at the most you'd be looking at two or three places back there if you switched it over. I don't think you'd be looking at like 10 buildings or some massive amount. MR. LAPPER-Hopefully it wouldn't happen because it's nice to have that use in the neighborhood. They were telling me that this is like the oldest golf league, community in the country. It's been going ever since. People use it. People like it. MR. KUHL-Is there any interest in anybody buying it today, or are you just preparing for it? JIM BEATY MR. BEATY-Preparing for it. MR. KUHL-Preparing for it. Okay. MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE, FILLING IN FOR STEVE JACKOSKI MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a question about the septic. I just want to be clear. The septic for Lot One, will that be located in Lot Two? MR. LAPPER-Yes, so that, what we showed on the map that we submitted is that we need an easement that will be in the deed when it gets separated, as a condition of Planning Board approval that that's perpetual. So if it needs to be replaced the area is there and they have the rights. MRS. HAYWARD-Was it a consideration that Lot Two be made smaller to accommodate the septic rather than the easement, or is there a particular reason that the lot line was put there? MR. LAPPER-Because of the golf course use it's really important for the golf course for that facility. It would have to be then made available for septic. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-This definitely creates quite a problem. You've got this septic leach field is going to be under the golf course. So if this guy, if you split this up and this guy owns the apartments and kind of doesn't take care of it and he lets his septic overflow and doesn't want to take care of it it's going to cause a problem to the golf course. It could create quite a problem down the road. MR. LAPPER-Well, but that would be a Town Board of Health issue, if you have a failing septic system. MR. HENKEL-I realize that, but if it still stays one it's probably not going to happen. MR. LAPPER-But I mean that's a legitimate concern but I think that can be addressed in contract, you know, when these get sold that has to be, on both sides they have to be properly maintained. 5 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17] MR. FREER-So have you been to the Board of Health with this? MR. LAPPER-No. There's nothing that requires. MR. FREER-There's no Board of Health requirement to have a septic on somebody else's land? MR. LAPPER-No, just easement. That's totally permissible. It doesn't require a variance. MR. MC CABE-Anymore questions? At this point a public hearing has been advertised. The last time we were here I closed the public hearing. So I will re-open it at this particular time and ask is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this issue? Roy, do we have anything? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-Nothing recent, no. MR. MC CABE-The last time there were a couple of neighbors that complained. Has that been addressed at all? MR. LAPPER-Yes. HERB LAVERY MR. LAVERY-So I addressed it by going across the street to ask them what their concern was and they said we really don't have any issue with the golf course or the existing apartment. They said that their concern was that somebody could then, in the future, put a four unit apartment on a third of an acre and a lot that's for sale next to that. So their issue was not with what we were doing but something that I don't think would happen with the current requirements, if I understand them correctly, but that was what their concern was. Nothing to do with us. MR. HENKEL-I don't remember the letters, but those two letters not in support, is that what they? MR. URRICO-Well, we read them in so I don't think we need to read them again. MR. HENKEL-I was just wondering. I knew they were not in support, though. MR. LAPPER-What Herb was saying was that there's a vacant lot across the street between these two neighbors so they were afraid of precedent that now anybody can build a four unit on a small lot and somebody was going to go ask for that, but the difference is this is existing building. That's a vacant lot. MR. MC CABE-Yes. Their letters were pretty vague. It didn't really state any. So there being no issues, I'm going to close the public hearing and poll the Board on this issue and Ron, what do you think? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-As long as the easement is bulletproof and can't be taken away, and I don't know how bulletproof goes in the legal, because you lawyers just assume things. That would be my concern. If we're going to allow this, that that easement would not be held in jeopardy if somebody buys it and then issues happen. MR. LAPPER-We can provide for that as a condition. MR. KUHL-Again, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know how that goes, and I guess I have to ask Staff. Is this a different type of easement than I have on my deed at home because I have a drainage pipe going through my land? Because this is a septic. I mean, without that septic, that unit cannot function. I mean, how is this easement going to be bulletproof so it'll never be taken away from Lot One? That's my question. MR. CROWE-Well the nature of the easement is that it's a right in the land. MR. KUHL-A right to use that land. MR. CROWE-Correct, for that purpose. 6 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. KUHL-Yes, that's good when it's just raw land, but they actually have a revenue producing piece of dirt on top of it which is the first hole, isn't it? MR. CROWE-Just the nature of an easement is the land that's burdened by the easement, so the golf course, can't do anything that cuts off the rights of the apartment building's right to the septic. So by having an easement you have the perpetual right to use it for what it's there for. If you want to say we're going to put a deck out there, that's not what the easement provides for, but there's nothing that the golf course owner could do to cut off their right to a septic. MR. KUHL-Because the easement will stipulate that it's an easement for use of a septic. Is that right? MR. CROWE-That's correct. I think it would probably have to specify septic and, you know, to whatever degree the volume or the specifics of that septic requirement would be to maintain a valid system. MR. KUHL-I mean, my concern is that because these gentlemen are setting this up to sell it so that everybody comes out as a win/win. If you're saying that that easement that they're going to give will work, then I'd be in favor of the project. MR. FREER-So, Mike, I have another question. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MR. FREER-So of these four apartments, how many bedrooms? I mean, I was listening to a discussion, how many bedrooms are in this four unit apartment building? MR. LAVERY-Six. MR. FREER-Six total? MR. LAVERY-Six total, two 1-bedroom units and two 2-bedroom units. MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Are you all set, Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Michelle, what are your feelings here? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, given what I've heard, although the request is certainly substantial, we've got a very unique situation, and under the circumstances and with the easement, which I think is the best that we can legally do to guarantee that the septic would be maintained properly, I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would agree to a two. I think the only other caveat we might want to put in here is that if that apartment building is replaced with a new building at some future date, you know, it's kind of at the mid-cycle of its life or a little bit past its prime as it presently stands there, I would be concerned with that no more units would be added in at that point. It's a four unit apartment building as it currently exists and I think that that's what it would remain. I don't really have a problem with the easement. I think it's a reasonable recourse and it'll allow you to sell the golf course separately and that's what your intentions are. I think in the future though there will be significant encumbrances if someone wants to develop that golf course into a subdivision and that may or may not come to fruition. We don't know what tomorrow brings either, but by the same point, I think it's reasonable. It's an oddball request. It's one of those ones that doesn't fit any real normal plot. I'd go along with it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-They are asking for a lot of relief here, but I guess after hearing the whole story I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17] MR. FREER-I'm not going to support this because I really think it's too much relief in terms of a four unit apartment on .3 acres when it should be eight acres. So I applaud the effort for dealing with the septic, but I'm not going to support it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to be in favor of the project, and the reason, I know this is a very unique application, but it reminds me of shopping complexes that we've approved where there's zero setback to like Home Depot and Staples in order to accommodate the store, and it's the same situation in there. They have zero setback but they really own part of the property. So we're not going to see another one like this again I don't think. There's nothing like this in the Town. So I'd be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-And myself, I believe that this situation was created years ago and all the relief was created years ago long before we had our zoning laws in this particular area. So it's really not a problem of the applicants here. It was created years ago when Bob Sheerer had two businesses himself. So I'd be in favor. So hearing that, we're going to go ahead and take a vote if that's okay with you. So can I have a motion here? MR. KUHL-Could I make that motion here, Mr. Assistant Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Most certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Beaty. Applicant proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/ and 4-unit apartment complex are located into two parcels. The apartment complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the golf course, Lot 2 will be 10.56 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size / density, building setbacks, and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. Revised to show a replacement septic for lot 1 on lot 2 by easement. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the creation of the new lots. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for 2 lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot size, density, building setbacks and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement MDR zone The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot 1. Density requires 8 ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1. Setbacks for Lot 1 — 4-Unit Building east side 17.4 ft. where 25 ft. is required, 4-Unit Building south side 13.5 ft. where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Garage is 11.3 ft. west side where 25 ft. setback is required; Garage is 17.9 ft. from the south property line where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Lot 1 permeability is 26 % where 50% is required. Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback for the deck attached to the 2-story garage is to be at 5 ft. where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 and Wednesday, October 18, 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 of its existing nature; the fact that it was an older building there and then the golf course was developed. 2. Feasible alternatives, however are really limited. 3. The request is not really that substantial because of the uniqueness of the existing building and golf course. 8 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, we could say it's self-created but it's existing and it's a good use for the property. 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) If any new building replaces the old existing building, that the new building can be no more than four apartment units. 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 NO. Z-AV-35-2017, JAMES BEATY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18" day of October 2017 by the following vote: MR. KUHL-Did we want to put that caveat in there about, should the older building, any new building that would be built to replace the old building would have to be no more than four units? Is that necessary? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think so. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So just re-state that. MR. KUHL-What I'm suggesting is that we add on, if any new building replaces the old existing building, that the new building can be no more than four apartment units. Okay. MR. CROWE-In the discussion on that, if it were to be more than four, they would have to come back anyway. MRS. MOORE-Yes, they'd have to come back for review. Even if the building were to be demolished, it's possible that the project would have to come in for another review. They couldn't just build a four unit apartment complex anyway in that zone. MR. KUHL-Okay. So it stands. MR. MC CABE-1 have a motion. Can I have a second? MR. UNDERWOOD-Second. MR. MC CABE-Call the vote, please. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Freer MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much, everyone. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda this evening is Wal-Mart. That's been withdrawn completely. So we don't have to hold the public hearing? MRS. MOORE-We don't, no. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. JACKOSKI-Good. Next item on the agenda is Stephen H. and Deborah Richards, Area Variance Z-AV-43-2017, a Type II SEQR at 65 Hicks Road. There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening, October 18tH NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-43-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 STEPHEN H. AND DEBORAH A. RICHARDS OWNER(SJ STEPHEN H. AND DEBORAH A RICHARDS ZONING MDR LOCATION 65 HICKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 400 SQ. FT. SHED NEXT TO AN EXISTING 400 SQ. FT. SHED. THE PARCEL ALSO HAS AN EXISTING 2,332 SQ. FT. HOME, 768 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND A 100 SQ. FT.SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE, NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND SETBACKS FOR SUCH STRUCTURE IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AST-247-2017 SHED; AV 14- 2012 SECOND GARAGE; SUB 54994 ADMINISTRATIVE FOR MC GUIRE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2017 LOT SIZE 1.26 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 297.74-26 SECTION 179-5- 020 STEPHEN AND DEBORAH RICHARDS, 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-43-2017, Stephen H. and Deborah A. Richards, Meeting Date: October 18, 2017 "Project Location: 65 Hicks Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 400 sq. ft. shed next to an existing 400 sq. ft. shed. The parcel also has an existing 2,332 sq. ft. home, 768 sq. ft. detached garage and a 100 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested from maximum allowable size, number of allowable accessory structures, and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for placement of an additional shed —for maximum allowable size, number of allowable accessory structures, and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —shed: The applicant proposes a fourth accessory structure on a lot less than 3 ac and it is to be located 6 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for the allowable size where 1,668 sq. ft. is existing including the 400 sq. ft. shed to be maintained. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited may be considered to relocate the shed to a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is for a fourth accessory structure where only two are allowed. Also requested is setback relief of 19 ft. The allowable maximum size is 500 sq. ft. and total on site for 4 buildings is 1,668 sq. ft. 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 will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 10 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has installed a 400 sq. ft. shed adjacent to an existing 400 sq. ft. shed. The applicant has indicated the sheds have separate access doors and will have matching siding. The photo show the existing arrangement and the use of the building is for storage." MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. Welcome. MRS. RICHARDS-Hi. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to add anything to the record at this time or just simply have Board members ask you questions? MRS. RICHARDS-Just ask me questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any Board members that have questions at this moment? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. How many of these structures were there when you guys moved on site? I mean have they always been there or have you constructed? MR. RICHARDS-We built a new garage. It's actually my workshop. You folks gave us the variance for it, and the carport was there, but we moved it. It used to be on the garage that's on the house, and we moved it, and we moved it where my new garage is, the shed, my workshop, and we moved it where it is now. MRS. RICHARDS-Where it was the snow was coming off the roof. MR. RICHARDS-So now it's on the back. I don't know if you've got pictures. It's on the back line on the hayfield side. MR. FREER-So who owns the property behind you? Is that the airport property? MR. RICHARDS-No, that's where all the corn is. That's on the front of us. Behind us is McGuires. MRS. RICHARDS-Mr. and Mrs. McGuire. MR. RICHARDS-That's a hayfield. They mow the hay and bale it. MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE FILLING IN FOR JOHN HENKEL MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a question. What do you plan to use the space for? You've got a lot of garage space here. MR. RICHARDS-Well, we have a Kawasaki Mule. I think I wrote all that down. MRS. HAYWARD-You did? I'm sorry. MR. RICHARDS-And we have a car trailer. We have a rowboat on a trailer. We have a four-wheel drive John Deere Tractor, riding lawnmower, two push lawnmowers and a Harley motorcycle and we have quite a few toys and I just don't like anything sitting outdoors. We feel we have a very nice looking yard and that's the way we'd like to keep it. MRS. RICHARDS-Plus we have a '42 Chevy truck, '47 Chevy truck. MR. FREER-So which one do you think you should get rid of? MRS. RICHARDS-Neither. We show them both. MR. JACKOSKI-And just for the record so everyone knows, Michelle's going to be sitting in for John because John's going to recuse himself given some ex parte communication that he had with the 11 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) applicants on this particular project. Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-Yes. I want to know how we ended up with so many sheds and them being too close to the property line? MR. RICHARDS-1 have no idea. MR. URRICO-You didn't put them there? MR. RICHARDS-Yes, I put them there. My garage is 10 feet off. MR. URRICO-Well, can you move one of the sheds away from the setback? MR. RICHARDS-Well, I moved it to match my garage, because my garage is 10 feet off the line. So I just assumed that put it 10 feet off the line. MR. URRICO-1 don't think you can have both. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to be in favor of having extra shed too close to the setback. So you need to explain to me how you can remedy that situation, at least for my vote. MR. RICHARDS-Well, these are all on crushed stone pads. I don't understand what you're asking me to do. MR. URRICO-Basically you're in violation of the Code right now with the number of accessory structures that you have and the fact that they're, one is too close to the line. So you're asking for two variances due to the fact that you have an extra accessory structure that you're not supposed to have. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I put the new shed right next to the old shed. I just put it next to the old shed. It would look funny if I didn't put it next to it. MRS. RICHARDS-Yes, because there's the shed that was there and that's the new shed and we made it even. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FREER-So do you have a variance for the old shed? Is that what you said? MRS. RICHARDS-That was there. MR. RICHARDS-That shed was on the property. I have no idea. Craig's, Mr. Brown's been over and I guess everything was okay on that. We got a variance to build the brand new garage, and I'll show you a picture of that. See we got a variance to build this garage. MR. KUHL-But I think the issue here that Roy's bringing up is that one is 10 foot off the property line and the old shed is six foot. MR. RICHARDS-No, this is nine feet. It was supposed to be 10 but I guess it ended up being nine. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-That you're right it should be 10. And so this shed we put right next to it and now you can walk. This is all open. It's all one big building now. MR. JACKOSKI-And, sir, how many feet are you supposed to be off the back line? MR. RICHARDS-1 thought 10 right there. Because that's what we've got there. MR. JACKOSKI-And you cannot move the sheds 15 feet forward? MR. RICHARDS-Well. MR. JACKOSKI-In order to allow yourself to have an extra shed. MR. RICHARDS-You want both the sheds moved forward or just one shed moved forward? 12 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. JACKOSKI-We're trying to find a balance between the collection of garages and sheds that you have, which is not typical, at least in my experience, for a property the size of your parcel. So we've got multiple garages. We've got multiple sheds. I mean there's a lot of stuff happening on the property. MR. RICHARDS-Is there any way we can re-zone this one not being a garage and call it my workshop? MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have a garage door on it? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Well then it's a garage. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. All right. MR. MC CABE-You could make it a shed by reducing the size of the door. MR. JACKOSKI-Good now we'll have six sheds on the property. MR. RICHARDS-Well, I restore cars for a hobby, and since I retired I like to restore nice cars. MRS. RICHARDS-And we register them and show them. MR. RICHARDS-1 paint them and I do it all and I do it in there, but that's all right. No we'll call this a garage. That's why we're calling these sheds because they're right full of car parts and tractors and all our stuff because I just don't want it outdoors, but you said can I move it 15 feet. To make it 25 feet off that line? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know whatever the amount is that you don't need a variance. MR. MC CABE-It's 30 feet. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. I guess we could. I'd have to cut all these trees down probably. Those are some big trees. I can move it. MRS. RICHARDS-1 don't think we can move it 30 feet, though. We've got a big green bean tree. MR. RICHARDS-This picture I think is in the winter but this is a huge tree here and a huge, but we can move it if it's got to be moved. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So that the Board stays focused on what we are after here, we are trying to accomplish the following: add a second garage and relief requested from the maximum allowable size, number of allowable accessory structures and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zone. Correct, Laura? So we have the number of structures and setback and size. MRS. MOORE-And size. MR. FREER-And help with the 67. Why is this not? MR. JACKOSKI-The fence. MRS. MOORE-The fence is a separate application. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll do the sheds first and then we'll do the fence second. Unfortunately they're two different parts of the process. They're two different applications. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we see if we have any public comment? MR. JACKOSKI-I'll get to that. I want to make sure Board members are okay with where they're at. All right. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. 13 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience 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 at this time to see where the Board's thinking they're going to lean. Would anybody like to go first? MR. KUHL-Can I go first, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly. Thank you. MR. KUHL-It seems to be the rhythm of my night. In observing your property I find you have a very nice piece of property. I really do, and the fact that you want to go out and add more, I think the property can handle it. I don't like setting precedents. You're asking for almost four times what, no, three times, 1600. 1 would go along with it, but with reservation. MRS. RICHARDS-Hopefully, our plan is someday. MR. KUHL-You don't want to say anything. It's not your turn. That was my turn. You're stepping on my turn. Thank you. So all in all, I don't like to start this, but I'd go along with it with reservation. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the only people that are really affected by this are the applicants. I mean, there's no neighborhood opposition to it. Nobody raised any red flags in this. I don't even know how it came to be before us. Did somebody drive by and see the extra shed? That's the question in my mind, but it is an extraordinary request, as Ron said, but at the same time I don't really think that if we had not discovered this that anybody would be impacted by it whatsoever. So I think that, you know, as far as the impacts go to the neighborhood, I don't think there is anything that's, there's no opposition to this and with the exception of the applicants, they're the only ones affected by this, it seems like they're putting it to good use. I don't think it's like a way over the top use. So I'd go along with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 agree with my fellow Board members, both of them actually. I'm reluctantly in agreement. My concern is, you know, the need for so much storage space. You considered alternatives for storing some of your equipment off site so you wouldn't need so much space, but we need to look at each individual project on its own merits and this is a unique project with a unique property set up. So I'd reluctantly be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-This is a little bit beyond my tolerance. It's asking for too many points of relief here. Too many auxiliary structures too close to the property line and too much space is being asked for. So I can't support this project, just too many variances. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. So I don't support this either. We have zoning so that we have residents, and it sounds like your car restoration business has overcome the zoning that you need all these extra structures on the property, and so it's really not residential. You're asking for more relief than we should be providing in a residential so that you can do restoration of cars, which is not really sort of, the structure limits are so that people don't, you know, create all sorts of other activities in a residence. So I don't support this. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, for me the request is far too substantial. I think that given the size of the lot and what you're requesting is way over the line for me, and I think it does create a precedent if we grant it down the road for that size of lot, and I don't think the immediate neighborhood is necessarily affected but it could extend beyond the immediate neighborhood when we consider other requests for accessory structures or garages that are of the same size. So I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have a three, three split vote. You folks haven't ever been here before, but to be consistent with my past rulings and votes in the past similar to yours, I'm in agreement with Harrison, Mike and Roy that it's just too much for the parcel. I understand you got a variance already for the second garage, and I think coupling it with the extra structures and exactly what Mr. Urrico said. It's 14 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) just too much for my taste. So I would be against the project as well. So after listening to the Board and hearing what the polling of the Board has suggested, you obviously have a few options at this point. Certainly you can re-think the project a little and possibly come back to us if you'd like us to postpone the project so to speak and give you some more time to come up with some alternatives. You can certainly ask us for a vote. You can certainly do that. You could withdraw your application completely. I suspect that's not what you want to do. Or is there anything else I can have them do? MRS. MOORE-There's tabling. MR. JACKOSKI-Tabling. It's really up to you at this point what you want to do but it appears right now that the Board is four three against the project as submitted. We can't guide you on what we will possibly accept in the future. We can't give you that guidance. We have to allow you to come back to us and say here's what we did to maybe make it more palatable. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? If we deny them at this point, then the 400 foot addition shed, that's the one that has to go? That's the thing that's in excess? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not going to make that determination. That's up to Craig Brown to decide. MR. UNDERWOOD-That would be what I would surmise. MR. JACKOSKI-That's why we have the Zoning Administrator. I'm going to let him decide that. MR. RICHARDS-Can we make a determination tonight, like we'll tear down the 100 square foot shed? MR. JACKOSKI-So we are allowed to give you less relief than your application requested, and that suggests to me that that's kind of what you're thinking, but we can't sit here tonight and negotiate back and forth. We could listen to one shot at a, here's what we're willing to do, and I'm not giving you any suggestions. I'm just trying to let you understand what might be feasible. We'll pull those sheds forward so we don't need a variance on the setback. We'll eliminate this one so we don't have as many. Those kinds of things can happen, but you may simply want to table this application until next month, re-group, talk with Staff, work with Staff and see what else you can come up with after you've heard the Board members suggest they are too close to the line. There are too many. You do already have a second garage. Maybe there's alternatives that you could come up with besides what the current existing application is. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Can I keep talking? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Those sheds aren't for the restored cars. That's not what they're for. They're for just our things we own. The restored cars, that's not part of those sheds. MR. FREER-Well we already gave you a second garage that you're doing that kind of stuff in. That's what you said, so if it was a resident, my point, resident, that's where your John Deere would go in the second garage, right? But there's not room because you're doing other things. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, it's very difficult for us. We really can't guide you on where you should go. There's seven and a half or eight of us here listening. So, I mean I do think that the most appropriate thing for your benefit is to table the application and work with Staff and then come back in front of the Board. That is typically what happens. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So I do have a request from the applicant to table the application. MR. FREER-I'll make a motion that we table the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. We'll table it to the November agenda. Is that okay? I just reviewed the November agenda. It's pretty busy. MRS. MOORE-It's busy. It would be the first meeting in December. MR. RICHARDS-That's fine. Next year, January would be fine. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. JACKOSKI-Right, because you get to keep everything there. I know. I apologize, but we're trying to make it right. So we do have a request for tabling, to table it to the first meeting in December. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen H. & Deborah A. Richards. Applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 400 sq. ft. shed next to an existing 400 sq. ft. shed. The parcel also has an existing 2,332 sq. ft. home, 768 sq. ft. detached garage and a 100 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested from maximum allowable size, number of allowable accessory structures, and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-43-2017 STEPHEN RICHARDS, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled until the first meeting in December 2017. Duly adopted this 18" day of October, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the next item on the agenda happens to be the same applicant. 65 Hicks Road. So it is Area Variance Z-AV-67-2017, a Type II SEAR. It is MDR zoning. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-67-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 STEPHEN AND DEBORAH RICHARDS OWNER(SJ STEPHEN AND DEBORAH RICHARDS ZONING MDR LOCATION 65 HICKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED/INSTALLED FENCE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PLACEMENT AND HEIGHT AS THE FENCE EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 4 FEET FOR FENCES IN FRONT YARDS. CROSS REF Z-AV-43-2017; AST-247-2017 SHED WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2017 LOT SIZE 1.26 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 297.74-26 SECTION 179-5-020 STEPHEN & DEBORAH RICHARDS, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll have Roy read it into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-67-2017, Stephen and Deborah Richards, Meeting Date: October 18, 2017 "Project Location: 65 Hicks Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed / installed fence located in the front yard. Relief requested for placement and height as the fence exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet for fences in front yards. Survey waiver request granted. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard fence exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet for fences in front yards. Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 4.5 ft. tall and encloses the front of the property on Hicks Rd. 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. The fence placement is non-compliant with an existing Water Department right-of-way requirement. 16 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) 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 a compliant fence height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is .5 ft. in excess of the allowed fence height. 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain an installed 4.5 ft. tall fence. The applicant has indicated the fence is needed to keep the dog in the yard. The applicant has been notified and has met with the Town staff in regards to the fence being installed in the Water Department right-of-way. The Board may consider placing a condition on the project that fence placement will need to be accepted by the Water Department, Water Department letter attached." MR. JACKOSKI-So again, welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. Mr. and Mrs. Richards, and what we'll do here again is just ask questions. Correct? So obviously there's a little bit of a complication here from our Water Department. I think everybody's read, and I believe, John, you can sit in on this one. You're comfortable with this one. So, Michelle, thank you. And the easement, right of way easement, is attached to our files here. So, Counsel, just real quickly, it's my understanding that this, and this is identified up on the screen, this easement, there needs to be an agreement before any improvement can be made in the easement area with the Water District. Is that correct? MR. CROWE-That's correct. I don't know, I haven't seen your package. I think the easement specifically says structures, even fences. Obviously it's for the purpose of the water line and so the issue there obviously is being able to get in and access the water line as well as any protrusions below the surface. So that's kind of the reasoning for the easement and I have not seen the Superintendent's letter, the Water Superintendent's letter, but that's my understanding of the easement that the fence is inside the existing easement and that would require prior approval from the Water Department. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So I'll read the language that I've been provided regarding the right of way easement of Robert Rich, 65 Hicks Road, Easement Number P-35, Property Tax Number 297.7-1-26. In short paragraph two reads, the grantor may improve his or her property in the area of the easement including driveways, pavements, parking areas, shrubs, signs and/or other construction to the extent permissible by law, ordinance, regulations or restrictions then in existence as long as the improvement does not conflict with the pipelines or restrict the Water District or Town's ability to maintain and/or repair the pipelines. Any such improvement shall be submitted to the Town for its review and approval prior to Grantor, which was the property owner, carrying out such improvements. So we obviously have that issue here first now, correct? I don't believe there was approval from the? MR. RICHARDS-Oh yes there was. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do you have the document showing that, sir? MR. RICHARDS-1 didn't think this was going to happen. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, all I need is the approval, the actual. MR. RICHARDS-No. All I have is Mr. Strough and Mr. Craig Brown and that's all I have. MR. JACKOSKI-So Mr. Strough gave you approval to erect this fence within the right of way? MR. RICHARDS-Who gave me approval was the maintenance supervisor for the Water Department. He gave us verbal approval to build this fence before it was started. MR. JACKOSKI-And he gave you approval to put the fence right up to the fire hydrant as well? MRS. RICHARDS-No. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. RICHARDS-Well, at the time yes he did. He gave us permission. He came, and right here's the fire hydrant. Right about here. See this little jog? When we first built this fence, we had approval to put that straight. We made two knock outs that you just came right out and lifted it off, and so everything was great. The fence kept going. Then the Water Superintendent came and he said, no, no, no, you can't do that, and it has to have a jog in it. So Mr. Strough, Mr. Craig Brown and the Water Superintendent, we built two 10 foot access gates right here. It's a drive in here. We built this with our own money, this here. Then we put a 10 foot access gate down here, swinging open to drive their equipment in, and Mr. Strough and Mr. Brown, this was all approved, and we just got a nice copy of the Water Superintendent's letter and it kind of threw us in a curve, and all of us in this room have got this curve right now. MR. JACKOSKI-So just help me understand. The verbal approval you got from? MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Strough and Mr. Brown. These were their recommendations to keep this fence up. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm sorry you did say one other person was there and gave you verbal approval, the Water Superintendent? MR. RICHARDS-The maintenance supervisor for the Water Department. I don't know his name. Real nice fella. He came to the house. This was all approved and we proceeded and then the Water Superintendent got involved and said, oh you have an easement. Okay. No problem. We will help you easement onto our property to get to your water line. Now the water line is actually outside the fence and right about here it's in a plastic water main that's not cast iron, duct tile or anything. It's plastic. It makes almost a 90 degree turn. Goes right under the fence, makes another 90 degree turn. Now this is a pond here. We have a pond, and that water main comes right down through here and goes under the fence and goes under everybody's yard because this is a swamp and it's all in a plastic water main. Chances are, I'm a retired plumber and steam fitter, my opinion of this, and it's only an opinion, that nothing will ever happen to that plastic water line as long as we live, but it could. Therefore we have provided easement on both sides and easement for the fire hydrant, which, by the way, is New York State law and our fence people didn't know that. MRS. RICHARDS-But we didn't know that there was an easement when we bought the house. Mr. Rich is dead and Mr. Rich is probably 86 years old. We paid cash for the house. We went to her insurance. We just signed some papers and gave her the cash and that was it. We never knew about that easement. MR. RICHARDS-Well, that's our fault. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So let me understand this. I've been to your home several times. So I've looked at it and looked at it and looked at it, and I did have some discussions with our Water Department concerning it. So one of the concerns is, in the winter, are those gates always plowed out and cleared? Because how are they going to open the gates if it's all iced over and iced in? MR. RICHARDS-1 personally told the Water Superintendent if he has a problem with our fence and he can't open it to drive over it. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, there's lots of liability there. MRS. RICHARDS-Those panels can be replaced, you know, they come in sections. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. We understand. MR. RICHARDS-Yes, there will be access to them. MR. JACKOSKI-And I get, you know, the real issue here is the height of the fence, but also the secondary issue now is, of course, because we are the Town of Queensbury we do have a legal agreement that unfortunately runs with the land, which you purchased. MR. RICHARDS-1 know. I understand that. MR. JACKOSKI-And it says that there needs to be prior approval. I haven't heard, well, I have heard and I'm sure Counsel's heard, people suggesting that they've got verbal approval, but usually something this significant gets put in writing. I know you said you didn't even know it was out there. I understand all that. We've got to find the solution. So let's see what the Board says and we'll see where we go from there. Are there other Board member questions at this time regarding the fence? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. FREER-Yes. What year do you claim that? MR. RICHARDS-This year. We've been doing this for six months. MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. RICHARDS-Counsel, have you been advising Mr. Strough or Mr. Brown on this matter? MR. CROWE-I've been made aware of it before it came on to the agenda, and at that point in time it was I think a negotiation. The fence was already up and it was a negotiation of how can we make it work for the Water Department and also for the homeowner in terms of first I think the option was can we just move it out of the easement, move it back, and then I think along those lines is when discussions came up with access points. Like I said all of which I think were after the fence was constructed but of ways in which the two parties could work. My understanding was that the Water Department's positon was that the fence just needed to be outside of the easement area for access purposes. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's my understanding that nowhere in the Town of Queensbury do we have improvements over easements like this except for this parcel, that the water district does not allow for this kind of a structure to be built within the easement area. MR. CROWE-Yes. I don't know if they've given any prior approvals. That wasn't relayed to me as, you know, there's been similar applications in the past. MR.JACKOSKI-What I've heard from Mr. Harrington and what I've heard from Mr. Brown is just that. That's obviously me having those conversations with the Town of Queensbury, but it's my understanding that they don't have any situations where they have allowed structures like this to be built in the right of way. So obviously you've had discussions and negotiations. Obviously the Water Department, district hasn't come to a resolution otherwise you'd be sitting in front of us saying you've already resolved all of this saying you're okay with it. MR. RICHARDS-Excuse me, sir. I was under the impression this was all resolved, and that's why we're here. MR. JACKOSKI-All I can tell you is that I'm sitting here and I'm looking at no documentation from anyone telling me that you got approval to have this fence within the easement area. Unfortunately that's the packet that I'm dealing with at this point. MR. RICHARDS-No, I agree. I was under the impression this was all resolved. I'm just as upset as you are. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're trying. We're trying to figure out what we're going to do here, how we're going to handle this. So we have an easement issue. I think we all understand it pretty clearly now, and we have the height issue which we really haven't addressed. So do any Board members have issue with the height issue before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-I think the height compliments the whole effort that this applicant has put forward. I think it's a good addition to the property, to the community and it compliments everything. So I would be in favor of the fence the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-So let's open the public hearing before we get into. MR. KUHL-I didn't know if you wanted my opinion. I thought you asked for my opinion. MR. FREER-So my question about the fence is did you know that there was a four foot requirement in the front yard in the Town of Queensbury? MR. RICHARDS-Yes we did. MR. FREER-And why couldn't you be compliant with it? MR. RICHARDS-Because my wife purchased a 54 inch fence. MR. FREER-Because of the dog? You didn't think a dog? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MRS. RICHARDS-No, it was my fault. I ordered it. MR. FREER-That's fair. MRS. RICHARDS-Forty-eight and fifty-four. I didn't know. That's my fault, but, you know, I think from the road that the 54 looks fine and I'm trying to keep the coyotes. The coyotes last winter were four of them in our neighborhood, just four of them, and we have a little rescue Boston terrier and I want to get a black lab puppy. Coyotes are, you can hear them at night. There's just four of them out there and we have a doggie door. So our dog goes out to go to the bathroom. It just scares me. MR. KUHL-No coyotes over the doggie door? MRS. RICHARDS-No, Thank God. It's a little doggie door. MR.JACKOSKI-And the dog can't get through the fence. Because it is an open fence, not a stockade. MR. RICHARDS-It's five inches in between each one, center to center so it's four. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any other Board member questions or thoughts before I open the public hearing? So, Counsel, one last thing. Who is the authority to give the approval for anything to be built in the easement right of way? Is it Chris Harrington? Is it John Strough? Is it you? MR. CROWE-It would be Chris Harrington or the Water Superintendent at the existing time. So whoever, either was his predecessor or who comes after Chris Harrington would be able to give the permission or the approval. MR. FREER-But they would normally put that in writing, right? I mean, everything now because it's written down, right? MR. CROWE-It would be to the benefit of the homeowner to get it in writing. Is it 100% required? No. MR. JACKOSKI-But it would be your Counsel, the Town of Queensbury, get it in writing. Correct? MR. CROWE-Yes. I think you'd want it in writing, if not recorded. I'd want to have it in the chain of title. MR. URRICO-So what if he did get verbal approval and have we tried to talk to that person who might have been the? MR. JACKOSKI-No, obviously. We're just having our meeting tonight. Here's what I'm going to struggle with on all of this. How often do we tell applicants that we do not deal with civil matters as it relates to deed restrictions or any other deed type detail? The problem I've got is we are the Town of Queensbury. So it is directly effecting us. I don't know if we can differentiate ourselves and say, well, hands off, we're not going to deal with that. That's kind of a conflict of interest in my mind. We're supposed to be representing the best efforts of the Town of Queensbury. MR. URRICO-Isn't it similar to where we deal with a Fire Marshal and get their feedback? We're not required to necessarily follow that. MR. JACKOSKI-That's true. I can assure you I spoke with Chris Harrington at length and I assure you he is not in favor of this fence being in that 30 foot right of way. Obviously he's not because otherwise Counsel would have been able to negotiate a resolution and settlement we'd have in front of us saying it's all taken care of. So anyway. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'm going to ask Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board and I'll start with Jim. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we're in a situation here where obviously the applicant is trying to work this out with the Water Department Superintendent,and I think that it's something that can be resolved. It appears that there's some question as to whether they want anything in that right of way, but I think that, you know, they're asking us for relief from the height of the fence primarily. That's within our purview and I think that the five inches of excess height is not anything that we would be concerned with at this point in time. I think that as far as the applicant goes, it'll be up to him to obtain permission from the Town of Queensbury, whether that's the Water Department, whether that's Craig Brown or whether that's John Strough or the rest of the Town Board, that's up to them. I don't think that's our purview. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'd be in favor of this project the way it is. The road seems to be higher than the land. I couldn't even see the five inches, so I'm in favor. MR. HENKEL-It's six inches though, isn't it? It's six inches. It's 54, right? MR. KUHL-Five inches by the way I measure it. MR. HENKEL-If we're going to give them the approval to do it, it has to be the right height, doesn't it? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's five feet four, or I mean four foot five inches. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the application is for a 54 inch fence. That's what we're going to stick with as built. All right. Harrison? MR. FREER-I saw a movie last Thursday night at the Crandall Library called Still Mine about a guy who built a house and he had the bureaucrats telling him that he couldn't do anything that he wanted to. I agree with Jim that this is a waiver from height from our standpoint, and there's other people in the Town that might have other interests at stake, but I can support a six inch, or whatever. MR. HENKEL-It's 54 inches. MR. FREER-Fifty-four inch height. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's needed there. There's definitely, it looks nice and it's going to keep other animals out of there and I would definitely be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 believe that the additional height is minimalistic and I don't have a problem with it. So I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the fence height and I question whether we're not, we don't have jurisdiction over the easement as well because we are the Zoning Board of Appeals and we're supposed to be arbiter when there's a question regarding the rules and so anyway that's where I stand on it. I know we can't do anything about that. But that's my take. MR. JACKOSKI-So obviously the Board is pretty unanimous in how it's feeling about the fence height. What I'm going to ask is if we do a resolution, Counsel, can we stipulate that it is subject to receiving approval from the water district to allow it be erected or maintained in that easement area? MR. CROWE-1 guess my only concern there is the height of the fence could stay the same and it, you know, it may move if it moves outside the easement. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, if they moved it back four or five feet, they're still allowed to keep it as long as the Water Department allows it be built in the, look, if they put this six inch high fence on the opposite side or I'll call it the house side of the easement, the water district's out. Right? And we would allow the height. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. CROWE-Exactly. By the same token, if the Water Superintendent allowed it to be in the easement, he couldn't grant the variance for the height. So both parties are kind of. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm okay, too, that we allow the height, and it is subject to the water district giving approval to it before they erect it. 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 Stephen H. & Deborah A. Richards. Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed / installed fence located in the front yard. Relief requested for placement and height as the fence exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet for fences in front yards. Survey waiver request granted. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard - fence exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet for fences in front yards. Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 4.5 ft. tall and encloses the front of the property on Hicks Rd. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 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 the fence is just slightly larger than what would be approved. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable at this particular time because the fence is already built. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The half a foot is minimal in regards to the four foot allowance. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. 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 variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Conditioned upon the Water Department granting the structure within their easement area. 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- 67-2017 STEPHEN H. & DEBORAH A. RICHARDS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18" day of October 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17] MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. You're on your way. We'll see you in December. MRS. RICHARDS-So now where do we go? MR. RICHARDS-We'll just go see Laura. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, you work with Staff. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Thank you very much for your time, folks. We'll see you in a couple of months. MR. JACKOSKI-Next item on this evening's agenda is Katharine Seelye. And this project we've seen before. There is a public hearing scheduled for October 18t". It is Area Variance Z-AV-70-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-70-2017 SEQRA TYPE II KATHARINE SEELYE AGENT(SJ DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ZONING WR LOCATION 14 CROOKED TREE DRIVE REVISED AREA VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 16 FT. BY 16 FT. (256 SQ. FT.] RESIDENTIAL ADDITION INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 14.5 BY 16 FT. (225 SQ. FT.] RESIDENTIAL ADDITION BY THE ZBA ON AUGUST 23, 2017. 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. CROSS REF P-SP-55-2017; Z-AV-53-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 239.15440 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-70-2017, Katharine Seelye, Meeting Date: October 18, 2017 "Project Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive Description of Proposed Project: Revised Area Variance for construction of a 16 ft. by 16 ft. [256 sq. ft.] residential addition instead of the previously approved 14.5 ft. by 16 ft.[225 sq. ft.] residential addition by the ZBA on August 23, 2017. 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 256 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. 23 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) 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 256 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. URRICO-And then the Planning Board met and passed a motion, based on its limited review it did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on October 17, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Dennis. This is a pretty straightforward application given we've given approval for it in the past and we're asking for one and a half extra feet. So I assume I'm just going to poll the Board and see where they go and open up the public hearing, but it's up to you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. KUHL-I'd like to know what happened with the foot and a half. MR. MAC ELROY-Well,the applicant received the variance in August. She was talking to contractors, prospective contractors to build the addition. At that point I think she realized that the additional foot and a half would be important. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that the eaves sticking out on the side of the house? MR. KUHL-It's the additional foot and a half. MR. MAC ELROY-No, It's the additional foot and a half. I mean, it certainly troubled her to have to go through the process again, but it was just important enough to her, and she was very apologetic putting the Board through this application again, but that it was, again, important enough to her that she thought she wanted to do that and so here we are. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So it adds like 24 square feet total. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, but without forgetting this, on the previous approval there was a little shed closet on the roadside of the addition that was 30 square feet. That's been eliminated. So it's a net decrease of six square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open it. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "Dear Mr. Brown: We understand that Kit Seelye is seeking permission to extend her proposed bedroom at 14 Crooked Tree Lane by 18 inches. We live next door at 18 Crooked Tree and we remain in full support of her plans. Please see our earlier letter of support which is copied below, and that's Michelle Kaplan and David Cohen 18 Crooked Tree Lane. "Our neighbor, Kit Seelye, has requested a very minor modification to her building request that was previously approved by your Board. The addition of eighteen inches to the original plan will have absolutely no impact on us or anyone else. We urge you to approve it without delay. Thank you in advance for your support. Barrie and Mark Handelman" And I'm not sure what address that is. MR. MAC ELROY-They're the neighbor immediately to the east. MR. URRICO-To the east. I don't have an address here. MR. MAC ELROY-It's probably a Route 9L address. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. URRICO-Okay, and then the same letter actually. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone here in the audience that would like to address this Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and poll the Board quickly to see where they're leaning. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 supported it before. I support it now. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's not coming any closer to the lake, so I support it. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support this. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I'm in support. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-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 for Katharine Seelye. Applicant has submitted a Revised Area Variance for construction of a 16 ft. by 16 ft. [256 sq. ft.] residential addition instead of the previously approved 14.5 ft. by 16 ft. [225 sq. ft.] residential addition by the ZBA on August 23, 2017. 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 256 sq. ft. residential addition that is to be 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 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 this was approved before and this application is just a slight modification to what was approved before. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's only a small portion of what was already approved. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It doesn't bring the property any closer to the lake. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) 5. 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 variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-70-2017 KATHARINE SEELYE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18" day of October 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-You're all set, Dennis. Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is the Mary Lou and Robert Dunton project at 18 Tall Timbers Road. Area Variance Number Z-AV-69-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-69-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 MARYLOU AND ROBERT DUNTON AGENT(SJ DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(SJ MARYLOU AND ROBERT DUNTON ZONING WR LOCATION 18 TALL TIMBERS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,255 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO EXISTING 786 SQ. FT. HOME WHICH WILL INCLUDE A SECOND GARAGE; ORIGINAL FLOOR AREA 3,323 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 7,377 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL COVERED WALKWAY AREA TO THE EXISTING GARAGE; AND A 90 S. FT. UPSTAIRS DECK AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, SHORELINE SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY NOE IS ALLOWABLE ON THE PARCEL. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF P-SP-65-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.29 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 239.164-25 SECTION 179-4-010; 179-5-020 DENNIS MAC ELROY & DOUG MC CALL, 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-69-2017, Marylou and Robert Dunton, Meeting Date: October 18, 2017 "Project Location: 18 Tall Timbers Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,255 sq. ft. residential addition to existing 786 sq. ft. home which will include a second garage; original floor area 3,323 sq. ft. and proposed is 7,377 sq. ft. Project includes construction of an additional covered walkway area to the existing garage; and a 90 sq. ft. upstairs deck area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and for a second garage where only one is allowable on the parcel. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and for a second garage where only one is allowable on the parcel. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- WR zone The applicant proposes a 2,555 sq. ft. residential addition with an attached garage. The addition is to be 46.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 54.2 ft. setback is required due to the setbacks of the two adjoining homes. 26 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) Section 179-13-010 continuation Relief is requested for expansion of a non-conforming home. Section 179-5-020 accessory structure -garage Relief is requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. Section 147-11 stormwater device Relief requested for stormwater device less than 100 ft. from the shoreline 45 ft. is proposed. 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 two adjoining homes are setback further than the applicant's home. The site also has an existing garage that is to remain. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 7.7 ft. for shoreline setback. Relief for proposing two garages where one is existing and the second is to be an attached garage built with the addition. Stormwater device is located less than 100 ft. from the shoreline 55 ft. relief requested. 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 2,555 sq. ft. residential addition with an attached garage. The applicant has explained the existing garage is to be used for housing and the kitchen and plumbing features to be removed when the addition is completed. The plans show the location of the addition, the work to be completed on the existing garage and elevations of both." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion, based on its limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1. With the retention of the original detached garage along with the living space and bathroom in that garage. The motion was approved unanimously on October 17tH, 2017. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Dennis. I think this is going to take a little bit longer than the last one. MR. MAC ELROY-I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Mary Lou Dunton on this application. With me is Doug McCall who's the designer and prospective builder of the addition for this house. To give you a little background, the Dunton's have owned this house since 2012. It's a property that became available. They purchased it and they were impressed and what was favorable to them was the character of the structure. They have had roots in Lake George since the 50's. They've owned a previous home on Cleverdale. Again, they purchased this in 2012. They love the character of the house. So as they approach their retirement years they're hoping to make a decision, make improvements to that living condition that would provide them to, allow them to live in place is the phrase that I have heard several times from the Dunton's. If you went to the site you know that it is somewhat challenging access getting from the existing garage down to the house location. One of the reasons Doug is sitting here as the contractor, designer and contractor is because he had that same vision of retaining the house, not tearing it down and re-building it, which certainly would be allowable, and even allowable without the need to go before the Boards, but the Dunton's hope to retain that house and to add to it, having the addition mimic the character and what not of that house. So I just wanted to impress upon you the importance of that for them. They appreciate the quality and character of the house, and to maintain that and not just tear it down and re-build it. So now a design has been prepared and proposed and it requires variances. The first is being the continuation because that existing house is a lawful nonconforming structure, based on setbacks. The house was 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) built in the 30's, well before any zoning standard came along that made it noncompliant. Similar to many houses along the lakeshore. So that's Variance Number One is that basic continuation of an expansion of that noncompliant structure. Variance Two is the shoreline setback. This structure triggers that provision within the Ordinance that requires the setback not to be just 50 feet but the average of the two adjoining structures. So we've determined that on the two nearest houses, or actually it's a vacant lot to the south, but the next house to the south has a certain setback, as does the house to the north. The average of those two makes the setback 54.2 instead of the normal 50 feet. So graphically on Sheet B-1 we show how that setback line is not at the 50 feet but 54.2 and the area of noncompliance is shown on that plan. So that's Variance Number Two. Variance Number Three is the garage. There is an existing structure, garage structure, with bedroom space above that exists and has existed as proper totally lawful space, and they're hoping to retain that and by retaining that and having an attached garage on the addition creates a situation, another variance situation, and the reason to have the attached garage is for, again, the access and the safety of being able to drive to the house, into the house. So that was the decision made to have the attached garage. That technically is the second garage because they intend to retain the existing garage. Again, the importance of the garage issue is just having that attached garage is something that they want to have because as they age having better access to the addition on the house. The fourth variance is the stormwater related Chapter 147. It's not a zoning issue but it's a technical requirement of the Minor Stormwater requirements for a project of this nature. An infiltration device that receives runoff from a vehicular surface, from a traffic surface and it's been interpreted to include residential driveways. So as it's been, I've been before you before seeking variances for this same type of issue. I think the Park Commission is in the process of updating their regulations which then I assume the Town of Queensbury will adopt. It may correct that situation or avoid that situation in the future by having it either not being interpreted to be residential driveways. Really the intent was for commercial more public roadways, that particular setback. It's always been a conflict where you could have house at 50 feet but the stormwater that's generated from the driveway to that house needs to be 100 feet. So there was always a disconnect with the regulation. Hopefully that's part of the Park Commission's decision. So that's the fourth variance, the infiltration device that receives runoff from the driveway being at 45 feet. So that's the summary of what we're seeking. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing and get public comment? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. You're not calling that garage a second dwelling with a kitchen in it? MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you for reminding of an important point in the story. When the house will be renovated, it will require, it will displace the Dunton's for some period of time. That space, that living space, would be added to to have a kitchen component, a bathroom component. It would allow them to live there during the construction of the house. This is something we discussed with Craig Brown and it was felt to be a reasonable request. It's been done before. It allows the owners to stay on their property, not have to rent another house to live in while this house would be under construction, with the provision that before a CO is issued for the main house, that the second house conditions, meaning the kitchen, would be removed. Now that's been done before. It's what's being proposed here. MR. HENKEL-Not the bathroom, the kitchen. MR. MAC ELROY-The kitchen. MR. HENKEL-The bathroom is going to stay there. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That would be the intent. MR. HENKEL-You could easily put a kitchen back in. MR. MAC ELROY-That discussion has come up and it's come up before. It's whether it's a question of enforcement. I could say this to you. It doesn't mean much. It's certainly not the intent of the owners to have some second living space that could be a rental. That comment has come up before but I can just say to you that that's not these owners intent. That's not the plan. It's re-building to live there and the cost of making those improvements to be habitable while the other house is under construction would be less, certainly, than I think some rental, comparable rental situation over some period of time, which might be, you know, eight months to a year. So that's the thinking behind that. MR. HENKEL-So you'd need the deck too, then, right? 28 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. KUHL-What's in that two car garage now upstairs? MR. MAC ELROY-A bedroom. MR. KUHL-A bedroom. No bath, no kitchen? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Yes. How are you going to get into the new garage? You're building a second garage adjacent to the, behind, towards the lake, right? Where the garage is now you're going to build a second garage attached to the house. So you're going to go past this garage, make a U-turn to get into it. Is that how you're going to get in? MR. HENKEL-It's right here. It's right along the side. MR. KUHL-I have trouble reading it. I don't understand it. MR. MAC ELROY-There's an existing gravel drive down that northerly edge of the property. It goes down and it's a side load garage. MR. KUHL-Okay. So for some reason I thought you were going past the existing garage and then going in. MR. MAC ELROY-There's a walkway that allows you to do that. MR. KUHL-Okay, and you also talked about you're going to have a covered walkway between the new garage and the old garage? MR. MAC ELROY-Not a covered walkway between the two, but associated with the garage. MR. MC CALL-That really, that's just a design element. I'm assuming you people have gone out and looked at this. That garage, it looks fine now. What I've designed here is a Tudor house, and that's kind of classic lake house design, and that garage would just stand out like a sore thumb. If you see I've got the dotted lines on my elevation of the sheet. MR. MAC ELROY-E-1 of the architecturals shows what that. MR. MC CALL-That's the existing. MR. KUHL-Right, no problem there. MR. MC CALL-The only thing on the outside is that facade on the front, just to give it the feel of a Tudor, and those two side things are strictly to just put it out far enough so that that facade works. MR. KUHL-If their intention is to build the addition with the garage so that they can walk into the house, why not just use the existing garage and build a walkway into the house? MR. MC CALL-Because it would be a matter of going down, I think it's probably close to 20 or more stairs to get down to that. MR. KUHL-Put an elevator in. MR. HENKEL-Not if you attach the addition to that. Because you could actually narrow that. MR. MC CALL-It's an awfully large grade change. It really is a very troublesome elevation change. MR. KUHL-Is there going to really be enough room to get into the new garages, and once they're in to be able to back out and get up that hill again? MR. MC CALL-I mean the new garages are going to be perfectly usable. This is actually, I design a lot of houses on Assembly Point. This is actually one of the easiest ones, for access to the garage. MR. KUHL-So if they back out and they go over the hill? 29 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. MC CALL-No, there's no hill at that point. MR. MAC ELROY-The grading doesn't. MR. KUHL-Really? I guess I was looking at something different. I looked at it and I said, wholly moley. MR. MC CALL-Where that house sits, you can see there's a retaining wall that creates the change of elevation on the grade from the lower to the upper garage. So you're going to come around and there's going to be a flat area. Where that house is it's going to essentially be flat. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CALL-It's really that way now. If you go down that road on the side of the house, where the addition, the optimal place to put an addition because it's already flat. I mean, there's minimal that we'll have to take out of that bank between the two. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Mr. McCall, I want to make sure I'm very clear. Both garages are actually attached, so to speak, to the house? MR. MC CALL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the covered walkway. MR. MC CALL-The walkway is just a walkway, the walkways are just there for a design element. MR. JACKOSKI-There's no cover to the walkways? MR. MAC ELROY-The walkways are associated with the existing garage, not between garage to house. MR. JACKOSKI-So the building actually is going to be separate? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. It is now. MR. JACKOSKI-By about how many feet? MR. MC CALL-By at least 30 1 would assume. MR. MAC ELROY-No, I'll give you the. MR. JACKOSKI-And there's no design element to connecting it with a covered walkway? Okay. MR. MC CALL-The only reason I did that, most of the parking, most of the overflow parking would be where the garage is. That's where their parking is now. MR. JACKOSKI-I get it. In the wintertime if they can get up and down the hill and everything else and pull in. I get it. Okay. Any other questions from Board members before I do open the public hearing? We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm opening the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's several but I see some letter writers may be in the audience. Maybe you want to give them a chance to speak first. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Mr. Navitsky? I assume you're one of the letter writers. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-1 am. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you also want us to read your letter into the record? MR. NAVITSKY-No, no. Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper recognizes water quality improvements that will be associated with the on-site 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) wastewater treatment system replacement and with the proposed stormwater management controls. However, there are concerns regarding the extent of disturbance within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George on the steep slopes along the shoreline, especially with the amount and depth of soil excavation and vegetation removal. Additionally much of the disturbance is associated with the second garage, which could be determined to be excessive. We do not have problems with maintaining the existing structure or to expand it, but it is our opinion the benefits from the proposed improvements are outweighed by the impacts from disturbance and alternative designed could be considered to achieve a more balanced project. Benefit could be achieved through alternative design to reduce the shoreline encroachment and second garage. The applicant could achieve the desired increase in living area and eliminate the variance for shoreline setback and second garage through a re- design with the addition extending from rear of the existing structure. This would reduce the extent of disturbance necessary to accommodate the additional garage and would reduce the loss of important natural landscape features. The variances could be considered excessive. The expansion of a pre- existing, noncompliant structure by 121% can be considered to be excessive based on the existing floor area. The addition of a second two-bay garage is also a 100% variance request and should be justified. The requested variances could result in adverse impacts to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As previously stated, there would be water quality improvements. However, the disturbance associated with the construction will remove up to 11 mature trees on steep slopes and perhaps of greater concern is the extent of excavation, which will result in cuts up to 10 feet with shallow depth to bedrock and the removal of all soils, especially in critical locations adjacent to the disposal area. They're putting up basically an eight to ten foot retaining wall just down gradient of the septic field. So that is a large concern of ours. It is our opinion it is vital to minimize the disturbance and removal of important natural landscape features within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. I think also by taking away that garage, you take away the need for another variance which would be for that infiltration basin. I think that the setbacks for infiltration on paved surfaces are completely separate from the setbacks for buildings. Buildings, and I accept, the placement of infiltration structures equivalent to the setback of buildings, meaning they go up to about 50 feet. However, you don't need to put paved driveways that close to the lake. You should keep them away. So therefore I think you could eliminate that variance for the raingarden. The driveway wouldn't be necessary. So we recommend to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to table the requested area variance and request alternative design that will allow the applicant to expand the structure while reducing the environmental impact and number of variances. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Chris. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one else, are there other letters? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Very good. MR. URRICO"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Area Variance Number Z-AV-69-2017 submitted by Mary Lou and Robert Dunton, 18 Tall Timbers Road. We own the home at the end of Tall Timbers Road approximately 200 feet south of the Dunton property. The Dunton proposal is thoughtfully presented and the architectural design and details retain and complement the existing house built in the early 20t" Century and perhaps most importantly, the plan includes replacing an outdated septic system. However, we feel the plans as presented need refinement before approval. The relief requested is the result of a self-created difficulty. The property and site are adequate for the Duntons to construct their addition with only one of the four variances requested (a variance would be required for any addition to their existing non-conforming structure). Whether we agree with the zoning rules or not (too lax; too restrictive, etc.), the Zone WR rules were established to protect Lake George. We have limited our own activities within the existing rules and we think it is reasonable to expect that of others unless hardship dictates otherwise. Granting these variances as presented will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The plan calls for a 122% increase in square footage (from 3,323 to 7,377). Based upon Warren County Real Property website data,the square footage of the 3 houses to the south combined is slightly less than the Dunton's proposed 7,377 sq. ft. home (Mastro = 2,720; Simms = 2,338; Rappaport = 2,314; Total 7,372). The 3 homes to the north are a little larger but combined they are only about 1,000 sq. ft. greater than Dunton's proposed 3,377 sq. ft. home. The variances requested will also have a significant adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood. By building along the shore and adding a 2" garage (rather than foregoing variances by building further back from the shoreline or behind the existing home and garage) the plan requires the removal of most of the natural vegetation including about a dozen mature trees. The natural vegetation and mature trees are to be replaced with impermeable surfaces (driveways, walkways, walls) necessitating a variance for an infiltration device setback of 45' vs. 100'. This additional impermeable surfacing will exacerbate an existing problem where water runs down Tall Timbers Road from the Dunton garage toward the neighboring garage to the north. To prevent flooding the neighbor's garage, a blacktop crown had to be fashioned across the road to divert 31 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) the runoff down the existing dirt drive into the vegetated area where it is absorbed. This is the same dirt drive, vegetation, and mature trees that will be removed and paved over if a variance is approved to accommodate a 2nd garage. The requested variances are substantial, they are self-created and there are feasible alternatives by which the Duntons can gain the benefits they seek. The neighboring home to the north (Brother's) is an alternative example. The Dunton's and Brother's homes were practically twins in size and appearance when they were built in the early 20t" century. When Brother's retired and moved here year-round they too added a substantial addition between the existing house and garage. They also built a second garage on their property away from the lakeshore at the other end of their property off of Old Assembly Point Road. This minimized the disruption of the vegetation and soil near the lakeshore and avoided visual impact from the lake. We respectfully suggest that the plan as submitted be rejected pending modifications which would fully use the advantages of the more than adequate Dunton property within existing rules and without additional variances. Sincerely, Lenton and Barbara Simms" 8 Burnt Ridge Road, Lake George. "We have become aware of a zoning proposal by Marylou and Robert Dunton, located at 18 Tall Timbers Road, Dunhams Bay that changes their existing property from 786 sq. ft., to 7,377 sq. ft. This proposal appears to be an extreme action that does not provide enough information, i.e., blue prints, etc., to be seriously considered by your Boards. We share empathy with the surrounding neighbors of the proposed construction, as we have had to live with the results of your decisions to grant variances that allowed an oversized structure be built next to us. That structure, which no doubt increased your tax base, changed our Adirondack cottage forever. Please listen to adjacent property owners when you consider the variances required for this ambitious proposal, and try to protect the fragile ecology of Dunhams Bay. Most sincerely, Cheryl and Bill Baldwin" 7728 Dryer Road Victor, NY 14564. I'm not sure where their property is here. "This email is to confirm support for The Dunton Family modernizing their home/garage. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Peter Brothers" Does anybody know where they are? MR. MAC ELROY-14 I think. The neighbor to the north. MR. URRICO-And then "For the record, Debbie and I would like you to know that we support the proposed efforts of Bob and Marylou Dunton to modernize both their garage and lake house. Jim and Debbie Mason 27 Old Assembly Point Road, Lake George, NY" "We are very excited to hear about the plans for the Dunton house at 18 Tall Timbers Rd. in Lake George. It is good to see people invest in their property and I am always happy to have new neighbors on our road, especially people who have a true interest in our Town. The improvements will enhance their home and also add beauty and function to the lakefront and also help with access and flow on our road. I hope that the Town will also support these improvements. Thanks, Carmen Della Bella 6 Tall Timbers Rd." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Would you join us back at the table. So, Dennis, if you want to address some of the public comment. MR. MAC ELROY-The first thing I want to do is I totally blanked when I opened up here. The Duntons are with us here in the audience. So if you have further questions. I think in general I think some of the comments, the Simms' letter to an extent of all the letters certainly is an expression of some confusion over footprint areas and floor area, total floor area, multiple floors. I think that that's true that there's some confusion there about what areas are what. There's,this proposal is for additions to an existing structure, tearing down the original without removing or losing the benefit of that existing garage. That offers that opportunity to have a space to live while the construction is going on. I recognize the question about the continuation of that use of the kitchen or whatever. That is a question of enforcement really is what it comes down to. At the time of CO, those components would be removed from that space. So that is the response to that I guess is that they elect to maintain the use that is there but to be able to use it, enhance, let's say, for the benefit of the kitchen during that timeframe of construction. Those really weren't comments that were in the public comment letters but I just wanted to re-state that. MR. MC CALL-And just for the record the 7,000 square foot is a little confusing, just for your information. I mean, my calculation that I drew, the proposed living square footage of the house will be 5,036 square feet. The existing living square footage of the house is 24,022 square feet. So it's an addition of 2614 square feet. I think part of it, that 700 square foot area or whatever that is, they didn't take into account the living area over the garage. This is everything, that's everything that's in here. That's just living area. Just some of the comments last night were such extensive huge addition and while it's essentially doubling the square footage, I've been here before with a lot larger than 2600 square feet, you know, the lot itself, I could have talked the Duntons into tearing that down. They could go on the Internet and get a gaudy looking McMansion set of prints, put it back on that piece of property, requiring all the setbacks to stay the way they are, the way the Town wants them, and it wouldn't come in front of you, you know, the fact that they are, they love the house, they love that Tudor style and want to keep it. You need to walk in the house. It just has a feel of one of the old 32 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) million English Tudors, you know, and that's just the kind of design that I've tried to put into it. So, you know, it's a shame that they're kind of getting punished for wanting to keep that house because they could put the same exact size on the back and have no issues whatsoever, but I fully understand where they're coming from because I do love the old camps. I hate to see all the old camps get torn down and replaced by a structure that really doesn't look like it belongs on Lake George. It looks like it belongs in a development here in the city. So that's just my own personal. MR. FREER-Can you address some of the Water Keeper's comments? MR. MAC ELROY-I'd have to have a copy of the letter. MR. JACKOSKI-I think one of the biggest questions is if we eliminate the second garage, so to speak, and the driveway that goes down so close to the lake and avoid that water infiltration device, that's a significant impact, so to speak, to the project. MR. MAC ELROY-But it doesn't achieve the desire of the safety and access that the owners are hoping to have as far as having the attached garage. MR. JACKOSKI-And then the elimination of all the mature standing trees on the slopes close to the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-In those areas where the building footprint is proposed, yes, there would be loss of some vegetation. There's no question, but there are also trees that are beyond 35 feet from the shoreline, which is the only regulated area of vegetation. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time we have had our public hearing and I'm going to poll the Board and see where the Board's leaning. Is that fair? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I agree that, while this project is desirable, the second garage piece I think takes me over the edge. So as proposed with all these variances I don't support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree. I think there has to be some wiggle room here. I don't hear much in the way of compromise coming from the applicant. I would prefer hearing some compromises being looked at. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think there's room for a little bit of wiggle in this one here. The second garage on the back seems excessive to me. The actual setbacks from the waterfront I think are as proposed, you know, in trying to incorporate the old camp with the new design does make sense to me, and I think that's something that we should consider, but at the same time I think your total square footage kind of pushes it way over the top of what it could be and I think it's more than necessary. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-First I should disclose that on my visit I met the applicants but we did not discuss the project at all. For my point of view, I could live with certainly the expansion of a nonconforming home. I could live with the setback, but I'm having a problem with the second garage. The property is smaller than what would warrant two garages, and so I can't support the project as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I don't really support that driveway along the side of the property. I think you could move this whole project back a little bit and connect the new addition to the existing garage so there's only about 16 to 18 feet there and I think you could eliminate some of that, push it back and connect it and that would give you your, you'd be able to walk from that garage to the new house. So I would not support it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? 33 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17] MR. KUHL-I also don't understand wanting to live there building the house, putting in the kitchen and the bathroom. If it's an existing guest bedroom now that was approved that's the way it should be. I'm in agreement with what everybody else said, but that thing just irks me, excuse me, doesn't irk me, but it goes against the standard. I don't think it should be. Personally I've built two houses and I don't want to be around when they're doing all the work, but that was just me. So I guess you're 0 for 6 at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Dennis. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. I mean we're looking at a tabling. Roy mentioned compromise. We've discussed with the applicant, you know, some ideas about, the idea of the second garage is not a surprise necessarily especially since last night's meeting. What makes that a garage is garage doors. What would change that from being a garage, but the structure would be there. So I'm not sure if the criticism or the concern about the proposal is that being another structure or a structure that is an additional garage and therefore it goes against what the Ordinance says. If those garage doors were removed and you put the six foot doors in and it's still used as storage, which is really what it would be used as. MR. JACKOSKI-But I thought it was for safety reasons? MR. MAC ELROY-That's the attached garage. I'm talking about the detached garage. MR. JACKOSKI-The upstairs garage. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, the existing because that's, I think that's quite important to the applicant that you have that direct access to the house through that, what is technically the second garage in this case. MR. KUHL-You're referencing the new garage. MR. MAC ELROY-I know it's confusing. The new garage is the attached garage and technically that's what's being proposed as the variance issue, but it's because of the existing garage that makes that be called the second garage. So, you know, if that was changed to an accessory structure, would that generate the same concern? I've talked to Craig Brown about this as well this afternoon. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be getting rid of any of the driveway? MR. MAC ELROY-No, you'd still have the driveway because that's the access down to the house. MR. JACKOSKI-The road. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, so that would be part and parcel, but does the application then become a variance for that accessory structure? Is that any more compatible or compliant or does it? MR. JACKOSKI-And that's what you get to work out with Staff. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-We have to go by what he has determined and that's all we can rule on. So I do have a request from the applicant. MR. MC CALL-Can I ask you a question on the design feature, just for the homework here? I understand that everybody does not like second garages with the attached garage. If that was removed it would take that space from 16 feet to 40 feet between the two. So I either have to put a large building in there. Then my issue at that point is if I try to attach the existing garage to the house so they have, even with an elevator, I will be over the height restrictions. So will I be able to come here with a house that's 38 feet tall so that I can get from that garage to the elevator to go down to the first floor? That's just one of the issues I had. There was another one and I lost it. MR.JACKOSKI-Unfortunately we can't sit and debate, we'd like to, but we can't until we see the whole thing and lay it all out. MR. MAC ELROY-But that's from a knowledgeable source as some of the hurdles that. MR. MC CABE-We've approved covers over walkways in a situation like this, and that certainly would be a consideration. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. MC CALL-But I can't get that high enough to even attach with a covered walkway. If you look at this, there are stairs there. I missed that 30 feet by a lot, so don't trust me too far, but I think there's at least 10 stairs from the height that I am at the existing garage to the second floor of the proposed addition. So it's just, you know, I am at the maximum height of 28 feet. I'm there. I can't go another 10 feet to make that connection without stairs, and that throws this whole thing off from the aging gracefully, living, you know, they need to be able to get down to the main floor. MR. JACKOSKI-I get it. I understand that. I know living along the lake it's steep, but I suspect they realized the property was steep when they bought it. MR. MAC ELROY-But we appreciate all that input and we would request that this be tabled. MR. JACKOSKI-I do have a request for a tabling of this application by the applicant until the first December meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Marylou and Robert Dunton. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,255 sq. ft. residential addition to existing 786 sq. ft. home which will include a second garage; original floor area 3,323 sq. ft. and proposed is 7,377 sq. ft. Project includes construction of an additional covered walkway area to the existing garage; and a 90 sq. ft. upstairs deck area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and for a second garage where only one is allowable on the parcel. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-69-2017 MARYLOU & ROBERT DUNTON, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled until the first December meeting, with submission deadline of November 15, 2017. Duly adopted this 18' day of October, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-As a design this looks wonderful. I love the old world charm on Lake George. Hopefully you'll be able to come to a decision. The next item on this evening's agenda is our last item on this evening's agenda. Larry Clute. Corner of Ohio and Central Avenue's. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. It's Area Variance Z-AV-66-2017. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-66-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 LARRY CLUTE OWNER(SJ LARRY CLUTE ZONING NR LOCATION CORNER OF OHIO&CENTRAL AVENUES APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 1,650 SQ. FT. MANUFACTURED HOME ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF AV 24-2010; BOH RES. 12-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 309.9- 1-87 SECTION 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, Mr. Clute, welcome. We'll let Roy read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance Z-AV-66-2017, Larry Clute,Meeting Date: October 18,2017 "Project Location: corner of Ohio & Central Avenues Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 1,650 sq. ft. manufactured home on the parcel. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief. Relief requested from setback requirements for the NR zoning district. 35 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The proposed home is to be located 14 ft. from Central Ave and 15 ft. from Ohio Ave where a 20 ft. setback is required for the front setback —project is located on a corner parcel having two fronts. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size of the parcel and location of septic system. The site has a previous septic variance BOH 12-2010. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested 6ft from Central Ave and 5 ft. from Ohio Ave. 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 project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes 1,650 sq. ft. with a driveway a front entryway. The previous area variance had since expired and the applicant has indicated the same project is to be completed." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Mr. Clute. It's a straightforward application. I assume you just want questions from the Board. MR. CLUTE-I think so, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members on this application as it's presented? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a few questions. Do you own the property next to it, too? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-The one that says Rickett's on there? MR. CLUTE-Actually it should be DKC. MR. HENKEL-And what's the size of that lot? MR. CLUTE-I honestly don't know. MR. HENKEL-There's no way of squeezing a little bit more out of there? Because the problem I can see here, later, that this house that you're showing does not have a garage. So what happens when these people want a shed or a garage? They're going to have to come back and ask for a massive variance and wouldn't that be the time to, because everybody needs a garage or a shed. There's no doubt. So why wouldn't you want to put a house on there that's maybe a raised ranch which would be a little bit smaller footprint and have a garage in it. MR. CLUTE-This actually is a doublewide rather than single stick built home, rather than a raised a ranch, and while we're going at it, this here is designed to, the rectangle that you see is a 62 footer. I'm actually doing a 52. So if the variance that I need coming off of Ohio, I don't need coming off Ohio, I'm going to be 10 feet shorter on that, or as you describe it, if you wanted it, I could pull away from this other lot to get more side. MR. HENKEL-You're still going to need a variance for a garage later, right? 36 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you on the avenue lots I think no matter what you do it's so cramped any improvement that you try to do, it any point in time, you're here at some time. MR. HENKEL-Wouldn't that be a good time to do it, though? MR. CLUTE-Well, yes, but this lot doesn't have much more size than that lot. Either one. The driveway is tight to the westerly side of its lot as well. So it's fairly restricted, too, and then to pull, what you're saying is to take some of the area of the neighboring lot and give it to this lot. MR. HENKEL-I was just wondering how big that lot that you own next to it is. MR. CLUTE-They're basically the same. I think it's 100 foot. I think it's going to be 100 foot. I don't know that but I think it's 100 foot. I've never had that lot surveyed. That, when I bought that a home was already on it. MR. HENKEL-I mean, I know you've gone around and cleaned up a lot of the, you've done a nice job of cleaning up a lot of properties, but I just think it would clean it up nicer if there were a garage for people to, you know, instead of having a car parked outside. MR. CLUTE-No, no, I understand completely. I mean, I'm actually renting this spot. My intention is not to have any garage on it, but I can't foresee the future. I mean, obviously somebody may want a garage. MR. JACKOSKI-So right now you're willing to eliminate the Ohio Avenue variance? MR. CLUTE-This design was for a 62 foot house. MR. JACKOSKI-We get it, but in front of us right now is you need a variance for Ohio Avenue. You're telling me now you're going to eliminate the Ohio Avenue setback and it's only the request for the Central Avenue section? MR. CLUTE-It's only Central. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? MR. KUHL-You're going to sell this to people? MR. CLUTE-Sell what? MR. KUHL-They're buying the mobile and you're putting it on the site? MR. CLUTE-And renting it, yes. MR. KUHL-And how are they going to get in it? MR. CLUTE-What do you mean? MR. JACKOSKI-Stairs. MR. KUHL-We had a conversation. I mean, I'm not at every meeting but remember the last time you came up with one of these? Well let me refresh your memory. After you got approved, maybe because I spent 11 years in quality discipline. MR. CLUTE-1 did put entrances on, but we didn't hand sketch it on this drawing. MR. KUHL-There's no way to inspect this the way it is here. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. KUHL-And at that time you stated that it was the surveyor that did it. Well one day I was going to play golf and I went past the surveyor, and I knocked on his door, yes, and that surveyor told me that you stated, quote, simply put a rectangle on it. This is another rectangle. MR. JACKOSKI-So the question is is there going to be a porch or stoop or stairs? 37 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. CLUTE-There's a stoop, and we took it into consideration when we did the calculations. When I sat down with Staff, Laura, we took that into consideration. So there's a step on there. I'm not sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Where are the drawings that show that? MR. CLUTE-We marked it up. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, Laura, Staff, I mean, I don't have drawings. MRS. MOORE-I'm looking for the other drawing. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Are there any other questions while Laura is looking that up? MR. CLUTE-We did mark up the drawings. So, I mean, this drawing pre-existed. I didn't have this drawing made. MR. JACKOSKI-Regardless I've got to grant relief. I've got to know how much relief I'm granting. MR. CLUTE-1 completely understand. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm trying to get there. Any questions from Board members? I'm going to hold this open item that was brought up. It's very important for us. Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-So you're going to keep the 19 feet on the one side, on the east side, and then you're going to go 25 feet from Ohio on the west side. MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. HENKEL-And everything else is going to be the same? MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. HENKEL-It's going to be just like it is, 17 feet and the septic in the back. MR. JACKOSKI-My fear is that we're going to be requesting more relief on Central than is proposed on this drawing, but I'm waiting for Staff to tell us. So I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to address this Board on this application? Larry, we do have some folks, so if you could sit back there and we'll let them speak. If you could come to the table, sir. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETE SMITH MR. SMITH-My name's Pete Smith. I live at 41 Ohio Avenue. When I called the other day, this was supposed to be a 27 by 72 house on this lot, but now we find out today that it's a 27 by 52 that's going to go on that lot. Can we have a guarantee that's going to be the size? MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So what will happen is if they build anything larger than the setbacks will require, they'd have to come back to us for another variance. MR. SMITH-Right now it's supposed to be a 52 foot house. What if all of a sudden it's a 72 foot house or 62 foot house? MR. JACKOSKI-He can't because it would trigger a variance. MR. SMITH-1 trust Larry. I've known him a lot time. MR. JACKOSKI-The Zoning Administrator and the Building Department would red flag that. That they didn't meet the setbacks. MR. SMITH-The footage is in the back of us, not on the side, but the footage is in the back, on the Connecticut Avenue side, not Ohio side, or Central Avenue. I own two houses right across the road from where he's building and the specs are that way. 38 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17] MR. JACKOSKI-But you're in favor of the project if he meets the setback? MR. SMITH-As long as he only goes 27 by 52 1 have no problem with this at all. Any bigger, I already talked to Larry, that's the size here that you've got. We did hear 62, 72 and that's way too big for that lot. If you guys looked at the lot, you know what I'm talking about. That's a small lot and there was a house on it probably 30 or 40 years ago that burnt down. That's how long that lot's been empty, and it has been approved for 14 by 70 trailers twice, and this application says it was approved in 2010, that wasn't you guys. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. That was the Board of Health. MR. HENKEL-It's better to have a manufactured home than a trailer there anyway, right? MR. SMITH-Yes, I think it would look nicer. My daughter lives right across the road in a doublewide. She's got a nice house. Hers is 24 by 52, a little bit smaller. She lives in a nice one. I don't have a problem as long as it's nice, like I said. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Is there anyone else here to address the Board? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Larry, if you could come back to the table. So, Staff, what have we found as far as? MRS. MOORE-When Larry and I met there was another drawing and it did not get submitted. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Larry, let's try to re-cap. The doublewide that you're going to be putting onto this property is how wide, that is from Central Avenue to the back? MR. CLUTE-Twenty-seven deep. MR. JACKOSKI-And the overall lot is how wide? MR. CLUTE-The lot is 60 feet. MR. HENKEL-Sixty feet wide. MR. JACKOSKI-Which leaves you 33 feet. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-How far off the back line will you be? MR. CLUTE-Sixteen, well, we're proposing sixteen. MR. JACKOSKI-Roughly 17 feet forward? MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. KUHL-No, 14 because he's got a stoop. MR. JACKOSKI-I was getting there. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's not out to the edge of the road, either. MR. JACKOSKI-That's to the property line. That's what we work from, the property line. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have 17 feet. MR. CLUTE-Well 14 with the steps. I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-The requirement is how many feet, Staff? 39 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MRS. MOORE-Is 20 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have a three foot variance plus. MR. CLUTE-Another three. MR. JACKOSKI-Another three. What was advertised as the variance, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Fourteen feet. MR. CLUTE-We calculated the steps. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm getting there. So what we've published is a variance of six feet. So we've allowed for the three foot stoop that doesn't show on the drawing. However, I want to make sure we all understand. That does not give him the ability to pull that house forward toward Central and then put the stoop in. So we want the variance to be six feet to the foundation off of Central Avenue, is that fair? I'm sorry, 14, 17 feet off of Central to the foundation. MR. KUHL-You can't go to the foundation because he's building a stoop there. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the whatever it's called. It sits on something. MR. CLUTE-Right, to the slab, but you're accurate, yes, 17 feet. Is everybody okay with that? I'll poll the Board real quick so we all know where we're going. Ron, I'll start with you. MR. KUHL-I'm going to abstain from this vote. MR. CLUTE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the other thing we always need to keep in mind is we still have the Town right of way out front there, too, so that makes it seem like it's set back further than what we always expect, but I think as long as you're accurate with the 17 feet off of Ohio, that's the most important one that we've got to worry about. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So the Central one went away? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Ohio went away. MR. FREER-Okay. So Ohio went away. That's my understanding he said it was going to be 52 instead of 62. Which means the Ohio variance goes away. Right? MR. CLUTE-It'll be 25 feet now, yes, sir. The only variance as Steve has described is Central Avenue. MR. FREER-Seventeen feet from Central Avenue, plus the three foot. I can live with that. MR. KUHL-Hold on a second. What about this property line to the east? It's 19 feet. Where you're going to put the unit you've got footage. Well, anyway, I'm going to be quiet. If you went on the east side, you've only got 19 feet. MR. CLUTE-1 could, and give it a little bit more. MR. JACKOSKI-He can slide it a little bit here and there being that it's only 52 feet. He's not going to trigger the variance on either side. MR. HENKEL-Because I don't want to give a variance for a garage later. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think they could get a garage on there. Anyway, John? MR. HENKEL-I'm for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 would approve the six foot variance on Central. 40 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, the calculations sound right to me, but I might want to stipulate in the motion that the dimensions have changed, you know, from what was submitted, just to go on record with it. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. So, Larry, if you sited the house right on the setback requirement for Ohio, how many feet does that leave you to the adjoining property line? MR. CLUTE-That would add 10 to that so it would put me at 29 to the east. MR. JACKOSKI-And how many feet do you need for a single car garage? MR. CLUTE-A single is 12. So 12. MR. JACKOSKI-And you said you had 29. So that's 17 feet off the side line, and how many are required, Staff? MRS. MOORE-It's 15. MR. JACKOSKI-Fifteen. So you could get a garage if you hold this home all the way to the setback requirement on Ohio. That would solve your problem, John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, that would make me happy, just in case in the future. MR. CLUTE-I know, and it makes a lot of sense. That extra 10 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not happy either, Staff, approving this project with incorrect drawings, and I think that it's by the grace of God the calculations are working and that we published it properly, but I agree with Mr. Kuhl that we should have proper drawings in front of us to make sure we capture all these things and from now on I think it's imperative that we do have drawings that do show stoops, steps, porches, whatever the access points are. There's no macadam showing on here to a front door. So permeability issues. I mean, there's, is there a side door? MR. CLUTE-Yes. On the driveway side. So we have no macadam showing, are you going to be putting in a sidewalk? MR. CLUTE-To the front door, no. It'll just be access via the driveway. MR. JACKOSKI-Just grass. MR. CLUTE-Grass on the front. MR. JACKOSKI-So the step goes down to grass. MR. CLUTE-Yes. It's fairly common. I mean, the access point is actually going to be to the, off the driveway into the dining room which is the west side of the home. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Anyway. MR. SMITH-Let me ask you a question since you guys changed the figures on the east side. MR. JACKOSKI-We haven't changed any figures. MR. SMITH-What's the exact footage on Ohio Avenue from the edge of the road into his house? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we don't know from the edge of the road. I can tell you from the lot line. MR. SMITH-It's 15 foot. It should be 15 foot. That area only has a 15 foot right of way from the Town. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, I can't, macadam is never perfectly centered on the right of way. MR. SMITH-1 know. I work for the Town. MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you, I don't have that in front of me. I can tell you that Mr. Clute is required to follow the setbacks and the setbacks are based on the lot lines. They're not based on the 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) road. All right. That's the best I can do. I've closed the public hearing and I'm seeking a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Larry Clute. Applicant proposes placement of a 1,650 sq. ft. manufactured home on the parcel. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief. Relief requested from setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The proposed home is to be located 14 ft. from Central Ave and 15 ft. from Ohio Ave where a 20 ft. setback is required for the front setback —project is located on a corner parcel having two fronts. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 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 new structure will improve the appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the six feet requested isn't really out of line with other properties in the neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. 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 variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The building should be no larger than the proposed 27 ft. by 52 ft. b) The building be located at the 20 foot setback requirement on Ohio Avenue c) Allowing a future garage to be built between 12 ft. and 14 ft. wide to the east without requiring a variance. d) That the six foot variance request is to the foundation and it does include the steps required to get to the front door. e) There will be no impermeable surface going to the front door. fJ 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-66-2017 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18" day of October 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? I have a whole bunch of further discussion. Here we go. I think we should condition this that the building should be no larger than the proposed 27 by 52. 42 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) It's nowhere in the application right now. Number Two, I think we should condition this that the building must be sited at the setback line off of Ohio Avenue. Allowing a garage to be built between 12 and 14 feet wide to the east without requiring a variance. Does that make sense to everyone? MR. HENKEL-Very good. MR. JACKOSKI-And we note that the six foot variance request is to the slab, footings, foundation, whatever we want to call it, and does not include the steps or whatever's going to be required to get into the front door. MR. CLUTE-It does. The six foot does include the steps. MR. JACKOSKI-It does include, and that there will be no impermeable surface going to that front door. That's what we heard. Because right now I can't tell if we've got permeability issues on this property because I don't know what the calculations are for the sidewalk. And if we're going to have those, if we're going to have a sidewalk, then I'm not going to be in favor of this application. MR. HENKEL-You've got Town water. Permeability would not. MR. JACKOSKI-That's right. We don't have to worry about that, then, do we? MR. HENKEL-Town water. MRS. MOORE-So right now, as it stood, it was still 1,782 square foot building plus the 665 square foot driveway, plus a 24 square foot stoop. Your permeability was at 59%. Required is 35%. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're okay even if they blacktop the whole front lawn. MRS. MOORE-Even if they do the sidewalk. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It just would help us if we had all the details on the plan. Okay. So can you add all those things? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem with that. So the conditions are the building be located at the 20 foot setback requirement on Ohio Avenue. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, and that the Building be 27 by 52, no larger than. MR. MC CABE-And the building should be no larger than the proposed 27 ft. by 52 ft. MR. JACKOSKI-And allowing for a future garage to be built between 12 and 14 feet in width on the east side. MR. MC CABE-And allowing a future garage to be built between 12 ft. and 14 ft. wide to the east without requiring a variance. That the six foot variance request is to the foundation and it does include the steps required to get to the front door. There will be no impermeable surface going to the front door. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other business in front of the Board for this evening? Can I have a motion to adjourn? Thank you, Mike. Seconded by John. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18" day of October, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 43 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/17) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 44