Loading...
04-18-2018 0,4/18/2018) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017 Joe Orlow 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 290.5-1-21 Area Variance Z-AV-8-2018 Seavey Family Trust 2. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-27 Area Variance Z-AV-16-2018 Tamarra Ellsworth 15. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-29 Area Variance Z-AV-24-2018 David C. Madden Living Trust 17. Tax Map No. 290.5-1-33 Area Variance Z-AV-23-2018 Gerard & Peggy Bielak 20. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-46 Area Variance Z-AV-26-2018 Randolph, Jr. & Denise Bardin 24. Tax Map No. 252.-1-33 (main); 252.-1-57 & 56 (access) Area Variance Z-AV-25-2018 Kevin & Lynsey Whiting 27. Tax Map No. 278.-2-13 Area Variance Z-AV-20-2018 Jason & Rebecca Southwood 31. Tax Map No. 226.8-1-8 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0,4/18/2018) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those who haven't been here in the past, it's actually a quite simple process. On the back table there's information about each application and a bit about the process. We'll all each applicant to the small table here in front. They'll make a presentation. We'll read in the applicable application into the record, ask questions, open up a public hearing, I'll poll the Board, seek a motion and move forward as applicable. So I think we have a couple of meeting minutes to approve first. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 21, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 21ST, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer March 28, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 28TH, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 JOSEPH ORLOW, 11 WAGON TRAIL The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request to further Table the application from Joe Orlow until the June 2018 meeting. 0,4/18/2018) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 JOSEPH ORLOW, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: The application to be Tabled to the June 2018 meeting with additional application materials to be submitted by the middle of May. Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Our first order of business this evening is Area Variance 8-2018, Seavey Family Trust, 3 Glen Hall Drive. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-8-2018 SEQRA TYPE II SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) ESTATE OF BARBARA C. BARRY ZONING WR LOCATION 3 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2-BEDROOM HOME; 1,019 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT); 2,035 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA). PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, TERRACED RETAINING WALLS WITH A WALKWAY TO THE NEW HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND PERMEABILITY. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. AND FOR A PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF A 15% SLOPE. CROSS REF P-SP-14-2018; BP 2006-753 DEMOLITION OF CABIN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-27 SECTION 179-3- 040; 170-4-050; 179-13-010 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-8-2018, Seavey Family Trust, Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 "Project Location: 3 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2-bedroom home; revised 1,019 sq. ft. (footprint); 2,058 sq. ft. (floor area). Project includes site work, terraced retaining walls with a walkway to the new home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and permeability. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for hard surfacing within 50 ft. and for a project within 50 ft. of a 15% slope. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements and permeability Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential The applicant proposes construction of a 2-bedroom home. The home is to be 29 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and 9 ft. on each side where a 12 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is to be 69.5% where 75% 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 character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to construct the home in a compliant location. 3 0,4/18/2018) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of 21 ft., side setbacks 3 ft. each side, and permeability of 5.5%. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project includes stormwater management for the site and a new waste water system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home and associated site work on a vacant parcel. The revised plans show the grading reduction with two versus three retaining walls and terraced lawn areas to the proposed home —note the dry well has been removed and now the holding tanks are located in this area. The home has been reduced in height to 26.96 ft. Also reduced was the floor area to 2,058 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the home, height elevation sketch. The applicant is to provide updated floor plans and elevations including the height." MR. FREER-Good evening. Please identify yourself and if you'd like to add anything to this application that we have already seen once before. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor. I'm the attorney for the applicant and with me is Tom Center who is the engineer for the project, and I would make a couple of comments. I think we listened to the Board's comments the last time we were here and what we've done is tried to eliminate some of the variances or downsize some of the variances that we are still requesting. Basically we moved the home back 10 feet further from the lake, and that got us to an area where the existing grade is at 180 feet, and when we add the house to that, we end up to be less than the permitted 200, if the grade is 180, you're permitted to have a structure of 28 feet, which is 280. So we end up being below that. So we've eliminated the need for the height variance. On the Floor Area Ratio we've also eliminated the need for that variance. There's a porch on the back end of the house, and what we did is downsize that porch so that we were not exceeding the permitted floor area. Permitted, allowed floor area is 2,065, and we end up with 2,058 square feet. We were not able to eliminate the setbacks to some degree. If the side setbacks are three feet on each side, required is 12 feet, and we're proposing nine feet. We may be able to do a little bit better, but we wanted to leave a foot on each side so that if we had some movement, some error, we wouldn't have a violation of what you hopefully will approve. The shoreline setback, as I said we moved the house back 10 feet. Because we moved the house back 10 feet, we actually added three feet to the deck. The deck will be 15 feet in depth as opposed to what was 12 feet, but we did gain seven feet. The deck is now 29 feet from the lake shoreline. You've really got to take a look at the map to see how that's measured. There's a significant indentation on the front of this property where somebody dug out for either a beach or a dock or I'm not sure what, but if you drew a line across the front of the property, even though technically we're asking for a 29 foot setback for the depth, which is where we have to measure from, you're probably talking 35 feet from what is the practical side line or the shoreline of this property. MR. FREER-Yes, they say 33 on my chart, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Thirty three feet. MR. CENTER-Thirty three on the north side and forty-four on the south side. MR. O'CONNOR-And if you actually went over to the Burke property, that setback is 44 feet. The lot is odd because of the indentation and it's also odd because it's not a right angle rectangular type lot. The west shore has much more depth than the east shore. So I think that we've made a good improvement to that request. On the permeability, somebody has suggested that do we need all the retaining walls, could we slope the property better? And we have reduced the number of retaining walls and now have two instead of three, and we've also put permeable pavers in the parking area, and between those two improvements we've increased the permeability to 69.5 feet as opposed to what I think last time around was 65.6 feet. So we've improved that. This is a unique property, and we think that the applicant has done what he can do to make it as compliant as possible. It sits between two houses, one of which is 37 feet from the lake and one of which is 18 feet from the lake. It'll actually be setback further than either of the two adjoining properties significantly. And that's basically it. We can answer any questions that you have. 4 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. Anybody on the Board have any questions for the applicant? I believe we have a public hearing that's still open or we can open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to make a comment about this application? Okay. If you guys could give up the table, please. Sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD BURKE MR. BURKE-My Richard Burke. I'm the neighbor next door. I was here at the last hearing that you guys had, and basically I have the same concerns I had before. You've moved the house back 10 feet, which means the old deck was back 10 feet, but you added three feet onto the deck. So basically you moved the house back only seven feet total. You're asking to reduce it from 12 feet to 9 feet on the side variances. My house is exactly four feet from the property line, one part of my house, the back part of my house, but that's the part that's closest to this house that's being built. Now moving the house back 10 feet now places the deck next to my bedroom window. I'm exactly four feet plus nine feet, which is 13 feet from this property. Before I had some of the house that's next to that section of the house. Now I've got, the house has been moved back behind my house but I've still got the deck, and being this is going to be a summer house they're going to be using the deck all the time and the level of the deck is level to the window in my bedroom. So I think this is pretty close, you know, being 13 feet is pretty close to my house, and I don't think, I think the house is too big. It needs to be downsized, back within the parameters of 12 feet, 50 feet and also I'm very, very concerned in moving these walls in the back and removing any kind of water retention because I'm the lowest piece of property in the area. So all the water that comes off this hill and any of the hills goes down through this property and now it is vacant. It's able to absorb the water, but in a real bad storm it comes right down into my front yard. So the only thing I can say is I'm against the current design. I think it should be downsized and taken a look at again. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Would anybody else like to speak to this application? PATRICIA BURKE MRS. BURKE-I'm Patricia Burke and I'm the neighbor, and again I want to just say that I don't feel that the current design fits the lot. I think the house as proposed is kind of a wish list. I want to emphasize that we're currently a community at that little dead end area and the house as it's currently proposed feels like it's going to be crammed in and I feel that we're going to lose the tranquility and the privacy with it being so tight to the property lines, and he mentioned the deck and close to the bedroom window. Summertime the windows are going to be open. So I want people to certainly enjoy their deck, but I don't also want to listen to conversation going into the late or early morning hours. I feel like it currently, with as tight as the boundaries will be between houses, I think it's a recipe for friction between the households coming, going further. I just would say put yourselves in my shoes and let me know how anyone would feel if you had someone so close to you. I also probably am unique in that I've been a family member of this property for years and I remember the house that was there and it was 600 square feet. I have pictures. It doesn't really matter now, but I don't expect the person to build a 600 square foot house. That's not what I'm saying, but I also think that I'd like to see something smaller on the property. So thank you very much. MR. FREER-Thank you very much. Would someone else like to speak? Sir. BERNIE GANSLE MR. GANSLE-My name's Bernie Gansle. I live at the house on 5 Glen Hall Drive which is on the north side of the proposed house. I started saying this is still a three bedroom house on a lot that only has a two bedroom septic system. On Drawing Number Two that they have, I do not believe that my holding tanks are correctly represented. I believe my holding tanks are eight to ten feet closer to the lake than shown. I guess they'd have to move a well or ask for a variance. They're going to be putting a new holding tank underneath my right of way for convenience and that is really unacceptable to me. I understand they're trying to increase their permeability percentage, but they need to go back under their parking area and not in my right of way. I object to the three foot side setback variance. I won't agree or accept that side setback variance from my camp and as other people stated the house is too big for the lot as designed, and I think Ron has some comments that someone's going to read from 9 Glen Hall Road. Someone is going to read those tonight? I:~ 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-Yes, we'll get to that in a second. So how big is your house square foot wise? MR. GANSLE-It's about 1200. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment on this application? Roy, it sounds like we have some written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, we have a letter. "My wife and I reside at 9 Glen Hall Drive and a portion of our property provides access by deeded right of way to the other Glen Hall Drive properties at the unpaved intersection with Hall Road at the bottom of our hill. Access to my house, at the top of the hill, is by deeded right of way through the same unpaved drive that passes through private property at 3, 5 and 7 Glen Hall Drive. This unpaved drive has been prone to storm water run-off during severe storms that erodes the road. Prior to 2009 the Town apparently installed two drywells on the south side of the unpaved portion of Hall Road in an attempt to prevent the storm water from entering Glen Lake. 1)1 am concerned about the storm water that originates from the top of the hill on Glen Hall Dr. This storm flow has not been addressed on the revised site plan 1 storm water management plan. .The storm water flows down the west side ditch of the unpaved Glen Hall Drive, across the 3 Glen Hall property, channeling the storm water to prevent road erosion and to some extent slow the water flow during heavy rains. After leaving the 3 Glen Hall Drive property, storm water from that ditch then flows across my property at the bottom of the hill (i.e. still on Glen Hall Dr.) and then crosses the intersection of the unpaved south side of Hall Rd. to two downstream drywells (on the adjacent Johnson property). When those drywells overflow, as they did last summer, the excess storm water crosses the unpaved road again and flows into Glen Lake via an adjacent property driveway at 92 Hall Rd. 2) 1 am also concerned because the applicant originally proposed a new drywell that would have picked up the flow from the ditch described above, along the west side of unpaved Glen Hall Dr. However this drywell has now been deleted from the latest revised site plan. The new drywell as originally proposed would have provided additional infiltration capacity and possibly reduced the flow into Glen Lake during heavy rainstorms. 3) My final concern is about construction equipment, delivery trucks, and worker vehicle parking that will block Glen Hall Drive and the access to my house during the applicant's construction. Access to the properties at 90 Hall Rd., 5, 7 & 9 Glen Hall Drive all need to remain unblocked and maintained at all times for the residents, as well as for fire and emergency equipment. Because of the small size of the applicant's lot, there will be continuous issues with parking on private property and blocking access to the above properties during construction. I would ask that if the application is approved, that a condition is included in the ZBA motion to keep Glen Hall Drive open and access unrestricted at all times. Respectfully Ronald Mackowiak 9 Glen Hall Drive" That's the only one I've got. MR. FREER-Okay. If you guys want to come back up please. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me address Mr. Mackowiak's comment first because that's the last I heard. We did have a catch basin that we put in, and when they decided to put in the permeable pavers, we had to re-locate things at the back of the lot. We are minimal to putting any dry well and probably would have to work out something with Mr. Burke who is most concerned I think about the water coming down onto his property and we'd have no problem if he wanted to condition the approval upon us undergoing the expense and installation of a drywell, which would serve the same purpose of what Mr. Mackowiak said of catching the water as it comes down the west side of this unpaved access to the properties that are in that area. We have no problem with a condition that the access be unblocked during our period of construction. That really doesn't have much to do with our request for the variances because if we were doing even a smaller house you'd still have the same problem with construction equipment, but we recognize that. I live on a point where there's a new house being built, and I have probably five to seven cars that are parked someplace in my backyard for the better part of I guess ten months at this point. Maybe even a little bit long. All the lots up there are small. They're 50 foot lots, most of them. So I think you live with it and you act as a neighbor and get along with it. As to the comments of Mr. Burke, we also, we don't have the architectural drawing, but we have said in our letters to the Town that we were going to move the staircase so that it's going to be on his side of the property, and not on, his side is the east side of the property, and not on the west side, which would be an additional buffer of keeping the deck a little bit further away from his property line. I don't know what else we can do on this site that we haven't already tried to do to accommodate everything. As to the comment of Mr. Gansle, I'm told by Tom that he took the holding tank location off of what the surveyor told us where the location was, and we believe that to be true. If that were not true we could actually move the well a little bit to the west and still maintain the property setback so that we wouldn't need a variance in that issue. 6 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-He's showing a bigger holding tank, almost like an advanced system that extends down toward the lake more than on your drawing. MR. CENTER-We can relocate the well. We can confirm that with Hutchins Engineering and we can relocate the well. MR. FREER-To comply without having a variance. MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-And I should probably mention Mr. Mackowiak, he just went through this same process on his property. I think I got him some variances for the house and subsequently for his garage, his two car garage. I think he is on a 50 foot lot. His house is as large or larger than this. This neighborhood is slowly being re-built and people are building larger houses. MR. FREER-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant from the Board? MR. HENKEL-This property is going to be better now than the house that was there before. You're going to be doing better with stormwater and everything else anyway. So it's going to be better than what was there before with the house on it. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and they also went to the disadvantage of putting a holding tank system on, which went through the Town Board and got approvals for that. We had to get a variance for that. So we now have a septic system with holding tanks. We will have stormwater on the site, and we're willing to, as I said, put a drywell off the back of the property that accommodates the flow of that dirt road from the three adjoining properties. That stormwater is not stormwater from this site or from this construction. It's from the adjoining lots which are higher in elevation than this particular lot. MR. MC CABE-How about like a raingarden out in front? Are there any plans for that? MR. O'CONNOR-We have a planting area bed which I think is a raingarden. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy, I'm going to start down at your end, with your thoughts on this. MR. URRICO-I still think the house is too big for the property. I really think we need to scale it back some more. I know we've done a great job getting it to this point, but when I look at the setbacks I still see more than I would be comfortable granting a variance on. So I would be against it at this point. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I took a hard look at this and the deal is it's just a real small lot. Certainly things would be better with a smaller house, but that's a tough request to make in this day and age because people just don't want to buy them, a real small house. I'm kind of impressed that the applicant has made the changes that he's made. What we're being asked to approve is not greatly different than we have typically on these Glen Lake lots. The thing that concerns me most is the permeability, but again there's not much that can be done here because of the size of the lot. The applicant has improved the permeability from 65 to 70. So we're really only granting five percent. So I have to be impressed by that, and I think with the conditioning that the applicant is willing to add to the variance that he improve the runoff, I think that we're in a much better shape with an area where you can channel the runoff and make changes to it, as opposed to a wide open lot where you don't really have any control over the runoff. So I have to say that based on the fact that I believe this project is going to improve this congested area I would approve it. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with a lot of what Mike said. They're only asking for two kind of small variances there. They reduced it down from what they originally asked for the first time. The lots, like Mr. O'Connor was saying, the lots are very small. They all have setback problems. They're not asking for anything greater than anybody else in that area, and like Mike says, they're improving the lot. They're only asking for basically relief of three feet on both sides, and the homes on both sides of them are actually closer than that, and the house fits the lot because it's not over the FAR variance. So I would definitely be in favor of it as is. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm on the fence. I appreciate you moving it back from the lake. That's my biggest issue and I understand, as Mike said, that, you know, people aren't going to build 600 7 0,4/18/2018) square foot camps in 2018 on property at the lake. So I'm going to pass, but I'll wait to hear from the rest of the Board members. Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1, too, am on the fence. I really appreciate the neighbors' input and their concerns, especially the Burkes' concern about the back porch being 13 feet from his bedroom window. It's a small area. Density is my issue. It's a very difficult area to get around. It's very hard to navigate the roads back there. Every time I go back and look at another project that wants to improve it's my concern. So it's a difficult decision. Right now I'd have to say no. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think, Mr. O'Connor, I think you could satisfy the Burkes' issue by moving it off, 12 feet off his line, closer to the Gansle's, because their house is further away, only have one relief on one side instead of three feet on each side. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd have no objection to that being a condition of approval. MR. FREER-So if they did that, Ron, would you? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think that that's a fair compromise for the Burkes' concern that they have 12 feet off of the Burkes' side and would end up being 12 feet off of the other side. You'd be asking for one relief on one side. One less, with that in mind, I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'm a lake resident. I live over there and I paddle by all the time checking out what everybody's up to and how things have been done properly or improperly on the lake, but I think there's still room to be sensitive here, and I think one of the things that I would suggest that we do is this. You have a walkway on both sides of the house and I think if you eliminate the walkway coming down on the Burkes' side and instead plant an arborvitae, a tall growing arborvitae hedge along the whole property line, that might. MR. CENTER-A stone eaves trench trying to get the water from the roof. That's not a walkway. That's still sloped down. MR. UNDERWOOD-My recommendation would be that we put an arborvitae hedge up. I mean that's what I have on my house, and, you know, being in close proximity to the property lines I think everybody recognizes it's a difficult issue with people, but I think what it does is by growing taller that deck could still be where you propose to have the deck there, but it would provide some screening for the Burkes to screen off the view into their house through the window of the bedroom there. My other suggestion would be the following. The deck I think could be dialed back a little bit to what you had originally proposed. I know that you have a landing at the top of the deck there and if you just had the stairs come right up to the deck, slid it back the three feet or four feet, whatever that is there, I think that would move it back slightly and accomplish leaving the deck where it was originally proposed to be on the site. I think the other issue that I still have is, and I think the Planning Board is still trying to dial in, is the suburbanization of the dock. I think you've done a good job as far as cutting back on the number of retaining walls in the back but I'd like to see some of the mature vegetation kept, especially the trees in front as you are going to have two of the three there I guess. MR. CENTER-The two of the three we've kept those. We've kept, in the middle area there was a 29 inch oak, 17 oak and a 24 inch oak which we incorporated into some of those planting beds and then a 19 inch poplar and a 17 inch oak also. So I kind of moved those retaining walls to save those trees. Anything that was removed was because of either the parking area where that was kind of dictated it had to be because of all the wells and everything else that was in there and then the house in the front, but we were able to maintain many more trees. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I really think by putting up a hedge row along there that's going to eliminate. I don't think putting up more fences, because fences to me are very offensive on the lake, you know, and they end up being spite fences. People want to put up a higher fence than normal, but a hedgerow along there, along that whole side, would eliminate, would definitely provide more privacy for the next door neighbors, and I think that again it's only a .21 acre lot. It's only 48 feet wide. So if you're going to build a reasonable size home you're going to have to deal with the setback issues on the side, and I feel like what you've proposed is still a little larger than what belongs there, but I guess at the moment I'd be sitting on the fence still. MR. FREER-Okay. I want to rotate back to. 8 0,4/18/2018) MR. O'CONNOR-Can I answer one question? On that side of the house, there are no windows except for one small window which I believe is at the back of the house, away from the lake and far back from Mr. Burke's actual residence. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would modify it to put the hedgerow up along the edge of the deck so that way it's going to provide a little more privacy. You're only going to be 12 or 15 feet of trees there, they can move out a little bit towards the waterway, too. MR. O'CONNOR-You understand that we purposely moved the stairs from the east side to the west side so that the deck would not be that close to his property, and I would suggest may rather than some trees, that deck is going to be, I don't know exactly how high, but it's like eight feet off of the ground, that we put a screen on the deck along Mr. Burke's side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Like a latticework. MR. O'CONNOR-Like a latticework, if that's something that would work. That would give them I think what they are looking for. Nobody could look over into their house, and it'll give some privacy to it. MR. URRICO-So you're proposing 12 feet and the staircase on that side? You're proposing 12 feet off the, 12 foot setback and the staircase or one or the other? MR. O'CONNOR-No. I am proposing the staircase going over to his side, and on the deck level we'll put some type of screen, like a latticework or actual more solid than lattice, along that deck. MR. UNDERWOOD-You could probably plant it with ivy or clematis. MR. O'CONNOR-It's probably going to be some one of those privacy type fences that you buy at Lowe's, whatever, that type of material and it would probably be six feet off the floor of the deck, but I did not, when we talked to the applicants about moving the house back, they were very, very concerned about being put back in a hole and not having any lateral view up and down the lake, and that's why they wanted the extra three feet of deck, truthfully. So I have not said that they would stipulate to a 12 foot deck. MR. URRICO-No, I meant 12 feet for the setback. MR. O'CONNOR-Oh, yes, we would agree to put the 12 foot here, and then on this side it would be six feet. Yes. MR. FREER-So your thoughts on that, Roy, does that? MR. URRICO-I'm thinking more positively than I was before. MR. FREER-Okay, and, Mike, you copied what Ron was saying, right, Mike? Do you have any thoughts about that? Instead of asking for three feet on either side, since Mr. Burke is the one that has the biggest objection, and his house is closest to take, maintain the coded setback on the south or west side and ask for one larger variance on the east side. So instead of three. MR. MC CABE-So it says, we're only asking for one. We're asking for. MR. FREER-No, you're asking for three on each side. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Yes, so six foot on one, twelve on the other. So we just need the setback on the Burke side. Okay. We'd just need the setback on the north side. MR. O'CONNOR-The variance would be on the east side only. MR. MC CABE-East side, yes. MR. URRICO-And it would six foot. MR. FREER-And that would be six foot versus the three foot they asked for. MR. MC CABE-I'm good. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm feeling much better now with all of these included. 9 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-So you're okay, Jim, with eliminating the west variance on the Burke side and six foot on the east side? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. FREER-And you guys are okay with that? It's not going to get into an elevation. MR. CENTER-Going north south that way does not affect the height issues. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would think we should probably re-open the public hearing and listen to what the neighbors say, whether they're on board with that or whether they think that's reasonable. MR. FREER-I'm okay with that. Do you guys want to chime in on any of the discussion you just heard? MR. GANSLE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. So we just stole three feet on your side if we go with what has been proposed. So come on up and tell us what you think about that. MR. GANSLE-Well, I wasn't happy with three feet so I'm even less happy with six feet, and I haven't heard you address the fact that they're going to put the holding tanks on my right of way. I'm not going to be able to get in and out of my driveway for whatever time there is if they have any problem. MR. O'CONNOR-1 can address that. MR. FREER-Okay. Mr. Burke, do you want to make any more comments for the record? If you do, you have to come up here, please. MR. BURKE-Well, I still think that house should be downsized, but it's quite obvious to me that's not going to happen, but I do like his idea of the privacy fence going up on the deck, of Mr. O'Connor's. MR. FREER-Okay. We can stipulate some constraints in our approval of this variance. MR. BURKE-First of all I liked his idea of the arborvitae. They grow really high, and it doesn't distract from the lake. Fences do distract. I agree with you. I go around that lake all the time, and I don't like fences, but putting a privacy fence for 10 or 12 or 15 feet up on the deck would help and even putting the arborvitaes there would also make it really great. So that would do two things. One visually it would get rid of it real quick. I won't have to have somebody looking in my bedroom window, and putting the arborvitaes in there, over a period of time they'll get high enough it will cover up, and going back to the 12 foot on my side, yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to just re-poll. Roy, where are you with this? MR. URRICO-I'm a yes now. MR. FREER-Okay, Mike, you're still yes. John you're still yes. I'm on the fence, I'm not going to say, and, Jim, you're a yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, as long as we have the stipulations to go along with it. MR. FREER-You've got a good list, and Ron, you've solved one of the problems, and Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Wait a minute, now, I've got to understand this deck screening a little bit better. Are we talking about a deck screen or are we talking about vegetation or are we talking about both? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we should do both. MR. FREER-What I heard, it's my understanding the screening we're talking about is on the, between the deck and the stairs. '10 0,4/18/2018) MR. UNDERWOOD-Between the edge of the building and the edge of the deck, where the stairs go back down to the ground. So that would be 12 feet. MR. O'CONNOR-1 said because we moved it back, he didn't want to be completely obliterated of the view to the side. MR. FREER-Okay. So the screen would go right here. Is that what everyone's cool with? MR. O'CONNOR-The screen would go on the outside of the stairs. MR. FREER-The outside of the stairs or between the stairs? MR. O'CONNOR-No. It would be on the outside of the stairs. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm okay with that. MR. O'CONNOR-Because otherwise you're going to get somebody coming up and down the stairs when you're on the deck. MR. FREER-Okay. Is that what you had in mind, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-So I assume it's going to be, up on the deck side it's going to be six feet tall at least, I'm guessing would be a reasonable amount as far as height. MR. FREER-So were you thinking it would be here between the stairs and the deck or on the outside of the stairs? MR. UNDERWOOD-On the outside. MR. FREER-Okay. So the same as Mr. O'Connor. MR. MC CABE-And then how about the vegetation? MR. FREER-I'm assuming that you guys will give us. MR. O'CONNOR-Fifteen feet about three arborvitae. MR. UNDERWOOD-Tall growing arborvitae. MR. MC CABE-Well I'm going to specify that, I'm not going to say arborvitae because I personally don't like arborvitae. I'm going to say vegetation at least eight feet high. Could be, you know, Colorado blue spruce. I'm just going to say vegetation. MR. O'CONNOR-There's only 12 feet there, guys. I don't think you can put. You've got to do something that's a cone. MR. FREER-Right, I think that's what you were referring to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, arborvitae, that's what I have on my property. MR. FREER-Okay. So, Mike, why don't we let Jim do. MR. MC CABE-I'll let them choose. I'm just going to specify vegetation. And where is it going to extend from and to? MR. O'CONNOR-You've got 15 feet that you're going to stick them in. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well I want them placed close enough so they're going to thicken up so you actually have an impermeable view there at some point in time. Once they get up to deck height you can do a little trimming to keep your. I mean they're usually three, four foot spread on those. MR. FREER-Okay. So, Jim, I'm going to ask you to make the motion, if you would. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Prior to making your motion can you please go over the conditions, so that we can make them clear during the motion so that we're not guessing them? 0,4/18/2018) MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Are we moving the house, then, or are we leaving it as proposed? MRS. MOORE-My understanding from the applicant and the Board is that moving the house 12 feet, it'll meet the 12 foot setback on the Burke side, and will be a six foot setback on the Gansle side. MR. FREER-And they will put a drywell. MRS. MOORE-1 have a drywell, catch basin. MR. FREER-And they'll double check the well location with regard to Mr. Gansle's holding tanks and comply with. MR. MC CABE-That's not really our deal. That's the Town. MR. CENTER-We'll take care of that. In the final plans we'll work it out with Dave. MR. FREER-Okay, and minimize access during construction. That's not ours either really. MRS. MOORE-You can request that a plan be put together for a construction time period that the applicant's to follow during construction. I've seen that done in the past. MR. FREER-Okay. So the last time I was involved personally with one of these lake constructions on a constrained road we urged them not to do it. MRS. MOORE-High peak summer. MR. UNDERWOOD-They've got to do it during building construction time which is summer. So everybody on the lake recognizes the fact that they're going to be a problem for the neighborhood temporarily. I mean that's just something that comes with it. MRS. MOORE-So you used the word minimize. Then you would add that to your resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think that's a reasonable, I mean, like with construction constraints, you know, you can knock off work at dinnertime and not work until 10 o'clock at night and be a little bit understanding of the neighbors trying to have a little bit of peace and quiet during the summer. MR. O'CONNOR-You're saying minimize interference with the right of way. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MRS. MOORE-Can you go back to this screening that's going on on the stairway and is it also on the deck and how high would it be on the deck? I'm not quite certain I followed the whole conversation. MR. O'CONNOR-It would be a six foot opaque type screening. MR. UNDERWOOD-Privacy fence. MR. O'CONNOR-Privacy fence outside of the deck toward the Burke property. MRS. MOORE-So the deck and the stairs. MR. O'CONNOR-No. The stairs are wide open. The stairs are going to be moved to the right side, to the Burke side. The screening on the ground level will be three, six foot arborvitae will be spaced in that area. MRS. MOORE-And then to be specific for a length of what will be this six foot high privacy fence or privacy screening? So that it's clear on the drawing. I mean I want to make sure that it's clear. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks like it's 15 feet, right? That's what your deck is. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. MOORE-The width of the deck is? 0,4/18/2018) MR. O'CONNOR-Fifteen feet. MRS. MOORE-Fifteen feet. So it'll be six foot fifteen width. MR. O'CONNOR-The depth of the deck. MRS. MOORE-The depth of the deck. MR. UNDERWOOD-You don't have to come back for a variance for that. We're granting it as is. MR. O'CONNOR-Well that's going to be compliant. That's at 12 feet so there's no variance required. MR. FREER-Are we good? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. GANSLE-Now they're moving the deck three feet closer to my house. So now there's only going to be six feet between the deck and the house, and it's overlooking my area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we want to consider a privacy fence on that end, too, then? MR. O'CONNOR-1 can't agree to that. You're putting the people in a tunnel as it is. MR. CENTER-And they're 15 feet lower. MR. MC CABE-How far is that house from the property line? MR. O'CONNOR-To the porch? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty-five feet. MR. HENKEL-He's got a porch out front there, too. MR. CENTER-Almost 35 feet from the deck to the porch. MR. HENKEL-Yes, the porches are almost even. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you starting, are you done with your public hearing? MR. FREER-We can close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Having carefully considered the requirements in the Codebook, we have dialed in what our actual measurements will be, and Staff has noted those measurements from the Board. Do you want me to put them all on again, or do you just want to go as recorded? MRS. MOORE-You should be specific. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we're going to be moving the house over so they're going to be eliminating the setbacks on the Burke side of the property, which is the west side of the property. We'll be increasing the requirements over on the east side of the property. As far as the revision of the footprint of the house, we recognize that the applicant has moved the house back significantly from where it was originally intended to be. It's 10 foot further back than what the original proposal was. The terraced retaining walls from the walkway to the new home have also been reduced from what they originally were and the Board seems to be happy with that change. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seavey Family Trust. Applicant proposes construction of a 2-bedroom home; revised 1,019 sq. ft. (footprint); 2,058 sq. ft. (floor area). Project includes site work, terraced retaining walls with a walkway to the new home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and '13 0,4/18/2018) permeability. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for hard surfacing within 50 ft. and for a project within 50 ft. of a 15% slope. Relief Requested: Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential The applicant proposes construction of a 2-bedroom home. The home is to be 29 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and 6 ft. on the Gansle side and 12 ft. on the Burke side where a 12 ft. setback is required for both sides. The site permeability is to be 69.5 % where 75% is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 28, 2018; and re-advertised and noticed to neighbors for April 18, 2018; 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. The Board recognizes the fact that new construction should be done as nearly to compliance as necessary but they have moved back and the location where the property will be located seems reasonable. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. We've considered shrinking down the size of the house, but regardless on a 48 foot wide lot you're not going to be satisfying anybody's requirements because your house would be the size of a house trailer if it were compliant. 3. The requested variance is substantial, but it's a pre-existing condition because of these narrow lots that were created many years ago. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant agrees at this point in time to put up a privacy fence along the edge of the deck on the west side facing towards the Burkes. They also agree to put up three arborvitae. The Board recognizes the fact that by skewing the house and not centering it on the lot, we are slightly greater impacting the property to the east side, but due to the 35 foot setbacks from their deck to the currently proposed deck, we feel that that's still a reasonable thing to do. 5. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; There is no detriment to the health, safety and welfare because there will be an improvement with the holding tanks going in as opposed to the narrow lots being too close to the wells and possible contamination of them. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 7. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The applicant agrees to install a drywell on the Burke side to stop the runoff going to his lower lot to the lower elevation. b) We would also ask that there be minimal detriment to the neighborhood during construction, that Glen Hall Drive not be blocked off during normal hours of operation, from 7:00 a.m. until 6 p.m. in the evening, except for deliveries and stuff like that, normal construction. c) 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-8-2018, SEAVEY FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: 0,4/18/2018) Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I have a question. You didn't mention the installation of a drywell to be shown on the final plans. MR. FREER-Okay. Could we add that? MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you want to say? Okay. In addition a drywell will be added up in the permeable paver area to ensure that there's. MR. O'CONNOR-We will work with Mr. Burke and maybe Mr. Mackowiak and we'll find a place in that right of way where we can intercept the stormwater that is coming off of the upper lots and then we will install a drywell at our expense. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So the applicant agrees to install a drywell on the Burke side to stop the runoff going to his lower lot which is the lower elevation. MR. FREER-Are you okay with that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-And what was your other issue? MRS. MOORE-Did you want to mention in this resolution about minimizing the impact during construction time? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We would also ask that there would be minimal detriment to the neighborhood during construction, that Glen Hall Drive not be blocked off during normal hours of operation, except for deliveries and stuff like that. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Do you have a definition of what normal hours are? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think normal hours of operation would be from 7:30 in the morning until dinnertime in the evening, and no construction to occur after 6 p.m. in the evening. MR. BURKE-So 7:30 to 6:00. MR. UNDERWOOD-7:30 to 6:00. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Most crews start earlier than that time. So you've got to have some flexibility. I mean, even the people that are working. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I would think you're probably going to get deliveries done earlier than that, but I don't think any actually banging. MR. O'CONNOR-Right now the people in my backyard are showing up at quarter of seven, seven o'clock. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Can we modify it until 7:00, then? MR. BURKE-Well, when they did Mackowiak's house up on the hill. MR. URRICO-Okay we need the motion, we can't keep negotiating this motion. So we've got to come up with a plan here. MR. FREER-Okay. So, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Let's just say 7 a.m. then. MR. FREER-Are you okay with that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a motion with constraints as delineated. Can I get a second? MR. MC CABE-I'll second. MR. FREER-Thanks, Mike. Call the vote. '115 0,4/18/2018) AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We're onto Area Variance 16-2018, Tamarra Ellsworth. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-16-2018 SEQRA TYPE II TAMARRA ELLSWORTH AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) TAMARRA ELLSWORTH ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 15 FRENCH MOUNTAIN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A (REVISED) 1,698 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME 576 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.70 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-29 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-100A TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TAMARRA ELLSWORTH, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-16-2018, Tamarra Ellsworth, Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 "Project Location: 15 French Mountain Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. single family home -revised. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements in the RR-3A zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setbacks in the RR3A zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —rural residential three acre The applicant proposes to construct a 576 sq. ft. home to be 75 ft. from the front where 100 ft. is required, 35.6 ft. from the south side where 75 ft. is required and 81 ft. from the rear property line where 100 ft. 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 character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot size being 0.68 ac. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for front setback of 25ft, a rear setback of 19 ft., then side setback on the south side 39.4 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. The project includes an on-site waste water system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: '16 0,4/18/2018) The applicant proposes a single family home on a 0.68 ac parcel. The plans show the location of the home on the lot. An elevation and floor plan were also provided. The applicant has removed the request for a duplex and has a different design home as shown in the application." MR. FREER-Okay. Good evening. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center representing Hutchins Engineering and Ms. Ellsworth the applicant. As was stated originally this was brought in before you as a duplex. It's now changed to a single family home, 24 by 24. Slight reduced the front, south and rear setbacks, the relief they were asking for. It's the same clearing disturbance, and this is a small lot but we tried to keep it in line with what the Board wanted to be compliant. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are no written comments. MR. FREER-Okay. We'll start with you, Mike. Thoughts on this one? MR. MC CABE-I think it'll be an improvement to the property. I'll vote for the variance. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, most of the properties in that area are well under the three acres and I think it's a very nice project to upgrade that neighborhood immensely. Good luck. MR. FREER-Hopefully you can get through the bank mortgage and all that good stuff with the situation as it's developed and so I'd support the project. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I support it as well. I really like the changes you've made and I love the design of your new house. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with it. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the new plot's totally acceptable. It's got to fit with the size of the lot. MR. FREER-And Roy? MR. URRICO-I, too, am in favor of the project. It satisfies the test. MR. FREER-That was too easy, but thank you for taking it under advisement the last time. So I will close the public hearing, and I will seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tamarra Ellsworth. Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. single family home-revised. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements in the RR-3A zoning district. Relief Required: Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —rural residential three acre The applicant proposes to a 576 sq. ft. home to be 75 ft. from the front where 100 ft. is required, 35.6 ft. from the south side where 75 ft. is required and 81 ft. from the rear property line where 100 ft. is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 28, 2018 and left open for April 18, 2018; 0,4/18/2018) Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we feel the new construction will be an improvement to the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, particularly in view of the size of the lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that it's going to be an improvement to the physical conditions. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-16-2018, TAMARRA ELLSWORTH, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MS. ELLSWORTH-Thank you all. MR. FREER-Good luck. Okay. The next application is Area Variance 20-2018. MRS. MOORE-Actually the representative for the next application isn't present yet, so we can move on until he comes in. So our next application would be David C. Madden Living Trust. MR. FREER-Okay, Area Variance 24-2018. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-24-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 DAVID C. MADDEN LIVING TRUST OWNER(S) DAVID C. MADDEN LIVING TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 152 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 400 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,449 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AST 797-2017; AV 100-2001; BP 2002-183 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2018 LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080 DAVID MADDEN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT '18 0,4/18/2018) Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-24-2018, David C. Madden Living Trust, Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 "Project Location: 152 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. open deck addition to an existing 1,449 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from permeability and minimum property line setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements in the WR zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to expand an existing open deck. The existing decks south side is 57 ft. and the north side is 55.5 ft. with the proposed deck to be 400 sq. ft. The new deck is to be located 12.9 ft. from the south property line and 12.3 ft. from the north property where a 20 ft. setback is required. Permeability is to be 73% and required is 75% Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the deck size to be compliant on either side. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for south side setback is 7.1 ft. and the north side setback is 7.7 ft. Permeability relief is 2%. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add a 400 sq. ft. deck area to the shore side of an existing home and deck areas. The plans show the deck area to be constructed." MR. FREER-Okay. Good evening. Would you please identify yourself? Would you like to make any comments? MR. MADDEN-Good evening. My name's David Madden, I'm the applicant. MR. FREER-Okay, Mr. Madden, do you want to add anything to what was just read in? MR. MADDEN-Just the fact that when I built the house in 2002 1 received a side setback variance from the Town and the proposed deck is in line with those setbacks requirements. MR. FREER-Okay. But you didn't build the deck? MR. MADDEN-1 didn't build the deck. MRS. MOORE-He would like to build a deck. MR. FREER-Yes, I'm just confirming that 16 years ago you started this deck. MR. MC CABE-No, he didn't start the deck. He built the house. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment about this '19 0,4/18/2018) application? Seeing no one, and I guess we're opening the public hearing now, and are there any written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are no comments. MR. FREER-Okay. I guess I'll start with you, John. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I don't see any problem with this. I think he's 64 feet from the lake and he's asking for very little, two percent on the permeability. He's looking for very little relief on the side. I think it's a great project. Go for it. MR. FREER-I don't have any strong objection either. I think that it's going to be not a detriment to the neighborhood. I don't see any objections from any of the neighbors. So I would support it. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-For the same reasons as they just said I'm in favor of the project as well. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I wish you luck. It's a good project. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it's in line with the house. He was previously granted variances for the same reason, and I don't think it'll have a negative effect on the lake with the permeability being slightly under. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-And Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problems. MR. FREER-Okay. I'll close the public hearing and request a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please, have at it. MR. KUHL-All right. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David C. Madden Living Trust. Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. open deck addition to an existing 1,449 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from permeability and minimum property line setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Requested: 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to expand and existing open deck. The existing decks south side is 57 sq. ft. and the north side is 55.5 sq. ft. with the proposed deck to be 400 sq. ft. The new deck is to be located 12.9 ft. from the south property line and 12.3 ft. from the north property where a 20 ft. setback is required. Permeability is to be 73% and required is 75% SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 18, 2018; 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: 0,4/18/2018) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this deck is just a natural addition to his property. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited and it's a good add. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. You could suggest that it is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-24-2018, DAVID C. MADDEN LIVING TRUST, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Enjoy. Good luck. MR. MADDEN-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-We're going to keep moving along. So the next item would be Area Variance 23-2018. MR. FREER-Okay. And that's Gerard and Peggy Bielak. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-23-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 GERARD & PEGGY BIELAK AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL— RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) GERARD & PEGGY BIELAK ZONING WR LOCATION 99 SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,598 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,160 SQ. FT. HOME (FOOTPRINT). [EXISTING HOME IS 3,781 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND PROPOSED IS 6,629 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA] WHICH INCLUDES GARAGE OF 903 SQ. FT.; OUTSIDE PORCH, ENCLOSED PORCH, COVERED PORCH ENTRY, AND OUTDOOR KITCHEN AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF EXISTING GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2018 LOT SIZE 0.99 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GERARD BIELAK, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-23-2018, Gerard & Peggy Bielak, Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 "Project Location: 99 Seeley Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 1,598 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,160 sq. ft. home (footprint), [existing home is 3,781 sq. ft. floor area and proposed is 6,629 sq. ft. floor area] which includes garage of 903 sq. ft.; outside porch, enclosed porch, covered porch entry, and outdoor kitchen area. Project 0,4/18/2018) includes removal of existing garage. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements and expansion of a nonconforming structure in the WR zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to construct a 1,598 sq. ft. garage addition with living space above. The addition is to be located 11 ft. 1 in from the side property line where a 20 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to construct the garage addition in a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for side setback is 8 ft. 11 in. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,598 sq. ft. garage addition and second story living space also included are covered walkways on the road side of the home and new garage. The project also includes a new deck area with an outdoor kitchen, screened porch, a covered porch area on the main floor then a walkout balcony and new closet on the second floor for the master bedroom." MR. URRICO-The Planning Board passed a motion based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern, 1. Stormwater management report to be submitted to the Town Engineer for review, and, 2. The variance will be set at 13 feet 7 inches requiring 6 feet 5 inches of relief upon the garage being moved 2.6 inches to the north. This motion passed unanimously on April 17, 2018. MR. FREER-Greetings. Please identify yourself. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Gerard Bielak. He's the owner of the property at 99 Seeley Road. Roy, one thing that's on that that you read from the Planning Board last night, and I picked up on it, Laura, when he said it last night when they made the motion. It says 2.6 inches. It should be 2 feet 6 inches. In our presentation to the Planning Board last night and in talking with them we've agreed to pull the back wall of the garage 30 inches farther from the property line. The application that we had given you requests an 11 ft. 1 inch setback. We've changed that now to 13 foot 7 inches. So we're asking for 6 foot 5 inches of relief. So we've moved the garage farther away from the property line than what's on the drawing that you had proposed. The doorway's probably still going to stay there. We're just going to shrink the size of it up. It's to allow us some more room between the Bielak's and the neighbors so that we can further define the drainage. The problem becomes that the drainage comes down off of Seeley Road and comes down through there, and we're widening that space out so we can get better drainage in between the two property lines and take care of some ponding that's been happening on that side. 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions for the applicant from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. I'll open the public hearing, and is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment on this? If you guys could step back. Hi. Could you identify yourself? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK MC COLLISTER MR. MC COLLISTER-My name's Mark McCollister. My wife and I own 103 Seeley Road, which is the property immediately adjacent to Gerry on the south side. I just want to go on the record that last night I discussed with Gerry some concerns we had with stormwater runoff as well as the setback and they were very gracious to make some changes that I feel are going to improve it. So for the record we're not objecting to what they're doing. I'm sure Gerry will do a fine job. Whether this has sufficient hardship to meet the necessary variance I'll leave that up to you folks, but that's where we stand at this point. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much. Any other people want to make a comment? Yes, sir. JIM WHITE MR. WHITE-My name's Jim White. I live across the street at 104 Seeley Road, and I have dock property right next to the Bielak's property, 97 Seeley Road. I'm in full support of this project. I believe the Bielak's will do a wonderful job with their architect. I've looked over all the information today at the Town office and I know the way Gerry does things. He's been a good neighbor for all these years he's been there, and he's re-locating to the area and I'm in 100% support of this project, and I know with his architect and the Town Engineer it'll be done so that there's no detriment to the lake and the drainage. So I'm in 100% support. MR. FREER-Would any other folks like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is. "My property at 10 Holiday Point Road is contiguous to the property owned by Gerard and Peggy Bielak. Recently Gerry invited me into his house and described in detail the renovations he was planning to make. I strongly approve of the renovations he is making as I believe they will improve his property and reflect well on the adjacent properties. Please put me down as a "Yes" vote. Sincerely, Richard J. O'Keefe" "We are writing in strong support of the Bielak project on Seeley Road in Cleverdale Jerry and Peggy are very good neighbors and good friends. We know their home on Lake George is important to them and their close extended family. Their planned improvements will enhance their year-round enjoyment of their home and of the neighborhood. We are fortunate to have a number of year- round residents on our street. It creates a strong sense of community and safety which does not exist in other lakeside areas. Jerry has been training for the past two years as a volunteer firefighter. We are grateful for his commitment to the community through his service. Their planned property improvements will bring the former Boy Scout Camp Lodge back to life. We hope you will endorse their thoughtful planned renovations, as we do. Sincerely, Jim & Beth White 104 Seeley Road" One more. "My name is Todd Mahony. I live at 87 Seeley Road in Cleverdale. We are out of town and unable to make the Planning and Zoning meetings next week. The Bielak's have been kind enough to share their plans with my wife and I are we are in full support of the improvements that they want to do to their property. If you would like to reach me for further comment" Sincerely, Todd Mahony 87 Seeley Road, Cleverdale, NY 12820" that's it. MR. FREER-Okay. So I appreciate the neighbor's support. Unfortunately we're not going to be able to give Mr. O'Keefe a vote but his support is noted, and I support this project. I think that it will be an improvement and it meets all of the criteria that we're trying to establish here to protect the lake and the environment. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I have a question. MR. FREER-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-Under side setback requirements, it says required 28 feet and proposed 31.6. On Page Two under General Information. So the height requirement is 28 feet. We're 3.6 over. MR. HALL-That's the height requirement. When I put that down I was under the impression that the height requirement was from lowest point to highest point and in talking with Craig because we've recessed the garage down, it's from existing grade to highest point. So 0,4/18/2018) because we took it down. If we were building it up or if we were changing it that would be an area, height variance, but because, I talked with Craig about this, they brought this to my attention today. MR. FREER-Good point. MR. KUHL-So we understand what we're saying here, because it would require you to need another variance. MR. FREER-Right. So that's an error in the documentation that we had. MR. MC CABE-No, it's just that Data sheet. The documentation that we have here is just the side property line. MR. HENKEL-Right, but he's saying in the site plan. MR. KUHL-It says height. And by this they're three feet over, they're three and a half feet over, by these numbers. MR. HALL-Right. This didn't get updated when I sent it to him. The height of the garage itself, the height of the addition is 28 feet. The height of the existing is 29 foot 8. MR. KUHL-So is this incorrect? MRS. MOORE-I can go look, but the height of the addition is 28 feet and does not require a variance. MR. KUHL-Okay. So this documentation you gave me is incorrect. I read every line. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. FREER-Thanks, Ron. Any other thoughts on this, Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I'm good. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It meets all the proposed regulations as far as being in compliance with the Code requirements, and it's strictly being driven by the fact that the garage is going to be on the side. I guess you could have placed the garage directly behind, but who wants to look at their garage. MR. HALL-Well it would be sitting right on top of the sewage disposal, or on top of the septic tank and pump station. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think the only issue that the Planning Board had was the drainage issues which are common to the whole neighborhood over there. I think that moving the garage slightly back from the McCollister side of the property is a good idea, and I think 13 foot 6 is what it is now? MR. HALL-Yes, 13 foot 6, 13 foot 7 inches, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-And John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of the project as is. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. 1:,4 0,4/18/2018) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gerard & Peggy Bielak. Applicant proposes a 1,598 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,160 sq. ft. home (footprint), [existing home is 3,781 sq. ft. floor area and proposed is 6,629 sq. ft. floor area] which includes garage of 903 sq. ft.; outside porch, enclosed porch, covered porch entry, and outdoor kitchen area. Project includes removal of existing garage. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Requested: 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to construct a 1,598 sq. ft. garage addition with living space above. The addition is to be located 11 ft. 1 in from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The relief is 13 feet 7 inches for the side property line setback and the relief is 6 feet 5 inches. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 18, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We feel that the changes will improve the character, the looks of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is certainly not substantial. At worst it's moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that this will improve runoff and so it will be an improvement to the environmental conditions. 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 (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-23-2018 GERARD & PEGGY BIELAK, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just clarifying that it's a 13 foot 7 inch side setback property line proposal and the relief is. MR. HALL-Six foot five. MRS. MOORE-Six foot five. Thank you. 0,4/18/2018) AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. MR. FREER-You're welcome. So next Area Variance is 26-2018. MRS. MOORE-Yes. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-26-2018 SEQRA TYPE II RANDOLPH, JR. & DENISE BARDIN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING, LUCAS W. DOBIE, P.E. OWNER(S) RANDOLPH, JR. & DENISE BARDIN ZONING LC-10A LOCATION 97 WOODCHUCK HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2,755 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME ON AN 18.8 ACRE PARCEL. THE PARCEL IS ACCESSED BY A SHARED, PRIVATE DRIVE ACROSS THE TWO ADJOINING SOUTHERLY PARCELS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LACK OF ROAD FRONTAGE UPON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR LAND DISTURBANCES WITHIN 50 FT. OF A 15 PERCENT SLOPE AND A DRIVEWAY EXCEEDING 10 PERCENT SLOPE. CROSS REF P- SP-28-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 18.48 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 252.1-33 (MAIN); 252.1-57 & 56 (ACCESS) SECTION 179-4-050 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-26-2018, Randolph, Jr. & Denise Bardin, Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 "Project Location: 97 Woodchuck Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 2,755 sq. ft. (footprint) home on an 18.8 acre parcel. The parcel is accessed by a shared, private drive across the two adjoining southerly parcels. Relief requested for lack of road frontage upon a public right-of-way. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for land disturbances within 50 ft. of a 15 percent slope and a driveway exceeding 10 percent slope. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lack of road frontage upon a public right-of-way in the LC 10A zoning district. 179-4-050 —Road frontage The applicant proposes to construct single family with associated site work where the site access is through adjoining lots to an existing public road as the lot does not have physical road frontage Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to lot configuration and the adjoining lots configuration cause the lot to not have road frontage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for lot access not have physical road frontage on a public road. 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. 1:'6 0,4/18/2018) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home. The construction of the home includes a 2,755 sq. ft. foot print with walk out basement area, main floor with an open great room and a second floor with bedrooms and an attached garage. The plans show the location of the home and the site work to be completed for the house construction, septic area, and the 540 ft. driveway. " MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was passed unanimously on April 17, 2018. MR. FREER-Good evening. Please identify yourself. MR. CENTER-Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering along with the applicant Mrs. Bardin. As Laura wrote, this is a variance for lack of frontage. This is a family owned parcels. Many of these parcels all around this parcel are owned by Mrs. Bardin's in-laws and this used to be Stone Schoolhouse Road which is, that's been abandoned now it's Woodchuck Hill Road, but they do have deeded access all the way out to the road. So there is no issue with the access out to the road. I did parcel research and found they have deeded access all the way back there. It's a pretty straightforward project. There was a few things that Luke discussed with the Planning Board that they're going to get some additional site information for them, but other than that there was no issues with the project. MR. FREER-When you say access, right of way access you mean? MR. CENTER-They have a deeded right of way to access the road, the adjacent parcels. MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-Where is this? I got up as far as all the trucks. Going past the trucks? MRS. MOORE-Yes. DENISE BARDIN MRS. BARDIN-Yes. You go past Crandalls and you go down the dirt road. You'll go past his parents' house. MR. KUHL-The dirt road looked like it ended. MR. CENTER-It turns into a logging road. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. CENTER-At the end of the logging road it continues to go out. MR. KUHL-I didn't have the Town sticker on my car. Okay. MR. FREER-We have a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody who would like to comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy do, we have any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no correspondence. MR. FREER-Okay. I'll poll the Board. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of it. I wish you luck with that road. I went there today and I turned around. It's very muddy. You have deeded access, so I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Ron? 0,4/18/2018) MR. KUHL-Yes, I think the variance we're offering is only because of where it is. I have no problem with it. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the Board's granted similar requests numerous times previously for the same reasons and I don't have any problem with it whatsoever. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-It's a large lot. To call it a public road is a stretch. So I don't have a problem granting the variance. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, a few of those properties will never have 50 foot road frontage. So I don't see a problem. MR. FREER-Okay. I, too, can live with this and don't object. So I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Yes, sir. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Randolph, Jr. & Denise Bardin. Applicant proposes to construct a 2,755 sq. ft. (footprint) home on an 18.8 acre parcel. The parcel is accessed by a shared, private drive across the two adjoining southerly parcels. Relief requested for lack of road frontage upon a public right-of- way. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for land disturbances within 50 ft. of a 15 percent slope and a driveway exceeding 10 percent slope. Relief Requested: 179-4-050 —Road frontage The applicant proposes to construct single family with associated site work where the site access is through adjoining lots to an existing public road as the lot does not have physical road frontage SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 18, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because of the remoteness of this property and the neighborhood is very limited. 2. Feasible alternatives, due to the lack of road frontage, are not possible. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial only because of where it is, way up in the hills. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. I really can't say that this is self-created just because of where it is. �:"gig 0,4/18/2018) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-26-2018, RANDOLPH, JR. & DENISE BARDIN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Area Variance 25-2018, Kevin & Lynsey Whiting. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-25-2018 SEQRA TYPE II KEVIN & LYNSEY WHITING OWNER(S) KEVIN & LYNSEY WHITING ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 49 WALKUP ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,168 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR UTILITIES AND DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF RC 4-2017 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.38 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 278.-2-13 SECTION 179-3-040 KEVIN WHITING, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-25-2018, Kevin & Lynsey Whiting, Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 "Project Location: 49 Walkup Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1,168 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with associated site work for utilities and driveway. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for in the RR3A zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant requests to maintain an already constructed single family home. The home is located 60.5 ft. to the east property line where a 75 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 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 due to the construction of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for the side setback is 14.5 ft. 0,4/18/2018) 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain an already constructed single family home. The plans and photo show the completed house." MR. FREER-Okay. Can you identify yourself and add anything you'd like to the written application? MR. WHITING-My name is Kevin Whiting. This is my wife Lynsey Whiting. When we constructed the home we pulled off of a fence line that had, it was originally an old farm property. We acquired the land from Lynsey's folks. So I pulled off the fence line to pinpoint where the house was going, and then when we had the as built survey done, when they came through and put the stakes in, the stakes were actually beyond the original wooden fence that we measured off of. Not far enough where the whole, some of that was my fault, operator error. I'm not trying to blame anybody else but myself, but that's what happened. I thought I had a good control in the field and it wasn't. We do, it is an RR-3 zone. We do have a limited lot. It is only 200 feet wide. So it's only down to two and a half acres plus or minus. I didn't think we were going to need a variance because I thought the house was going to fit. Again, it was my mistake and the house came out twisted. It doesn't, I don't feel it really impacts anybody. We do have a, I did send you a letter from our one neighbor on the opposite side of the house. The setback that we infringe on is on Lynsey's folks' property. They are the other neighbors, and we have gotten permission from both neighbors that they have no problem with this request. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. MC CABE-Just if it's a relative, could they move the property line? LYNSEY WHITING MRS. WHITING-1 don't know what that would entail. MR. WHITING-1 mean I guess that would entail coming up with lawyers and moving the property line. MR. MC CABE-Because you're always going to be non-compliant, where if you move the property line so that you're within the boundaries, then, you know, you've got a compliant property. Just something to consider. MR. HENKEL-Do the Hayes' have a lot of property there? MR. WHITING-They have just over six acres. We have two and a half. The Robertsons have 19 acres next to them. MR. KUHL-I just have a question. You pinned the house, you staked it yourself? MR. WHITING-Yes. MR. KUHL-You didn't get a surveyor? Yes or no? MR. WHITING-No. The surveyor did not pin the corners of the house. MR. KUHL-Okay. Because somebody that comes up here and save $175 and doesn't carry a surveyor. That's okay. It's not a big deal. MRS. MOORE-He did utilize the deed description. So in the deed description is where he took that fence line from. So it was clearly identified in the deed, but that's not where the fence line was. 1 Y 0 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED EDWARD HAYES MR. HAYES-1 could I guess. MR. FREER-Okay. Come on up. MR. HAYES-I'm the father-in-law, Edward Hayes. I just want to state that I think basically what happened was the front of the house is within the outline, supposed to be, but the back end is just a little bit, because he tweaked it, a little bit too close to my property line, which that's the long and short of it. I have no problem whatsoever with him being over because there's still about 200 feet of property between my house and his property line. We have lots of land over there. MR. HENKEL-You don't want to request some big evergreen or something for screening? MR. HAYES-No. We're not looking for that. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? MR. HAYES-Not that I can think of offhand, no. MR. FREER-Thank you. Anybody else in the audience want to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comments? MR. URRICO-Well there's two letters. One is from Mr. Hayes. Is that your letter? MR. HAYES-That's me. MR. URRICO-Okay. Can we use your comments instead, or do you want me to read this in? MR. HAYES-You can use my comments instead, sure. MR. URRICO-And then the second letter is "I recently received a notice of public hearing regarding a setback issue at a new construction site at 49 Walkup Road. It is my understanding that the building was placed too close to northeast side of the site. I believe the distance to be approximately 15-20 feet. I do not have any objection in you granting relief to Kevin & Lynsey Whiting for this discrepancy as it does not directly impact my property line at 37 Walkup, Lake George, NY. Sincerely, Phillip G. Robertson" MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. URRICO-That's all. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron, your thoughts? MR. KUHL-I have no problem with this. He's got a lot of land. He's got a nice house. So he put the things in the wrong place. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It maintains the intent of the RR-3 regulations for the 75 foot setback. You're 60 feet away. It's like who cares. It's not like you did it on purpose. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I don't have a problem with it. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-It's an honest mistake, and I think that what they're asking for is minimal and so I'll grant the requested variance. 3°� 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-And, John? MR. HENKEL-If they made a mistake and it was on somebody else's property it would be an issue, but this is not an issue at all. No problem. MR. FREER-I wish I had something humorous to say, but I also support this application. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I was going to say I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. So we'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kevin & Lynsey Whiting. Applicant has constructed a 1,168 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with associated site work for utilities and driveway. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Relief Requested: 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant requests to maintain an already constructed single-family home. The home is located 60.5 ft. to the east property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., April 18, 2018; 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. The requested variance is really quite small considering the areas involved here. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable since the house already exists. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It would be hard to pick out the mistake. 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 (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-25-2018, KEVIN & LYNSEY WHITING, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018 by the following vote: 0,4/18/2018) AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MRS. WHITING-Thank you. MR. WHITING-Thank you folks very much. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Southwood is here. He does have an attorney representing the project, but the attorney's not present yet. Do you want to at least start? MR. FREER-Okay. So we're going to do Area Variance 20-2018. MRS. MOORE-Yes. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-20-2018 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JASON & REBECCA SOUTHWOOD AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. OWNER(S) JASON & REBECCA SOUTHWOOD ZONING WR LOCATION 388 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 240 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED PORCH ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,446 SQ. FT. WHERE THE FLOOR AREA WAS 2,112 SQ. FT. AND NOW IS 2,352 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, FLOOR AREA, HEIGHT AND FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH STRUCTURE IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF P-SP-24-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.12 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.8-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040 JASON SOUTHWOOD, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-20-2018, Jason & Rebecca Southwood, Meeting Date: April 18, 2018 "Project Location: 388 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 240 sq. ft. enclosed porch on the second floor. The existing home is 2,112 sq. ft. floor area and new floor area is 2,352 sq. ft. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure, floor area, height and from minimum setback requirements for such structure in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from expansion of a nonconforming structure, floor area, height and from minimum setback requirements for such structure in the WR zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant requests to maintain an enclosed 240 sq. ft. 2nd floor porch. Converting the open porch to an enclosed porch the new construction is located 36.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required, 13.5 ft. from the North side where a 15 ft. setback is required, height is 28 1/10 ft. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed and floor area is increased from 2,112 sq. ft. to 2,352 sq. ft. where 1,191.87 sq. ft. 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The enclosed addition had a wall height of 8 ft. and the roof area with open windows. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to remove the addition and covert the porch to an open porch. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for shoreline 31Y 0,4/18/2018) setback is 13.5 ft., the side setback is 1.5 ft. to the enclosed porch, and floor area relief is 21.4 % in excess. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain 240 sq. ft. second story enclosed porch. The plans shows the addition with elevations. The applicant has indicated the room is use as a sunroom for the second floor area." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board passed a motion, based on its limited review did identify the following areas of concern: After the fact application without proper permitting needs to be addressed. And the motion was passed unanimously April 17, 2018. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Could I also add to this, the Board, Maria was nice enough, she was able to type up the minutes from the other night. So that information has been handed to you. The Board did go into detail of what they would like to pursue, not necessarily for this applicant, but in the future with after the fact activities that people have done, either additions or lighting, things like that, that they would like to form a group or give direction to the Town Board to evaluate or come up with a method that somehow penalizes someone for creating, coming back to the Board for after the fact approvals. I'm not sure how that will be received, but the Chairman of the Planning Board will be preparing a letter that will be shared with the Town Board and both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Please identify yourself. MR. SOUTHWOOD-My name's Jason Southwood, 388 Cleverdale. MR. FREER-And could you add? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Tell you what happened? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. SOUTHWOOD-So basically I screwed up. I had an enclosed porch. The home already has a second story, but I've had a non-enclosed porch. If you look at the pictures you can see it. And basically what I did was I tore off that hipped roof and the four foot walls and went up eight foot and put a gable roof on it instead. The floor of that open porch was technically a roof. That was the roof of the living room down below it, and when that house was built I don't know why they designed it like this, but the sliding glass door that went into the house and that porch were on the same plane. Normally there's a step up. So every time it snowed or heavy rain or ice back up the water would come right into the house, not only ruining the upstairs, but also leaking down into the living room and obviously ruining the ceiling. I had garbage cans on there, and I've got little kids and I can't have sheet rock falling on them and stuff, and so I tore that off and enclosed that room and put a roof on it. I didn't know that I needed variances. I've never done anything residential in Queensbury before, but the parameters of the new structure are within the boundaries of the existing house. I didn't go any closer to a neighbor on either side north or south. I didn't go higher than the existing roof line on the already second floor and we didn't come any closer. If anything it probably got a little further away from the lake because there was an overhang on the hipped roof that is no longer there. It's totally my fault. I've done commercial stuff. I own Bennie's Deli over on Route 9, that building there, and I had to go before most of you to get a variance, maybe four inches to get closer, I was going four inches closer to the road. So I got that variance, but I've never done anything residential and being that I said, well basically I'm just continuing the wall straight up that's already there, half the wall's already there, I'm going straight up and putting a roof on it, I didn't think I'd need any variances because. MR. FREER-You didn't think you needed a permit? MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 probably needed a permit. That's how I found out about this was Dave Hatin said a letter out to me saying I needed a building permit and then I went down there and they said, no, you need variances. So I'm like, okay. So here's where we're at with it. 314 0,4/18/2018) MR. FREER-So is it finished? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, it's finished. There's stamped drawings and VanDusen & Steves came out and did the surveys. I believe the one variance is for height, 28, 1 don't know if that's. MRS. MOORE-One tenth of a foot. MR. MC CABE-I think it's one inch. They refer to one inch in the Planning meeting. It's one tenth on our documentation. MRS. MOORE-It's one tenth. MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 didn't know how to read that, either. It's splitting hairs I guess, but I think that's where they took that marking if you moved three inches to the left it's 28 and in some spots it's 27 and a half. So I've got support from all my neighbors, immediate neighbors, neighbors across the street that can't see the project, people down the street. I believe there were letters sent in, and I don't believe it's a detriment to anyone. It actually, according to the Planning Board, looks better than what was originally there, and I don't think it's a detriment in any way. MR. FREER-Does anyone on the Board have any other questions for the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-How long have you owned the property? MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 bought the house in March of 2017. So a little over a year now. And we did that in, sometime in April, it was not an April like this. It was actually warm weather and we had some warm weather and did the work. MR. HENKEL-So you did the work yourself with no contractor? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes. I did the work. MR. FREER-Other questions? Well there's a public hearing but there's nobody behind you. So I'm assuming that there's no comments out in the audience. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. You mentioned you received positive feedback from your neighbors. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Yes, I thought Laura spoke with Mr. Lapper and said that she had letters. MRS. MOORE-It may have been another application. I don't, I didn't see letters in your file. MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 have letters here that you can have, but I didn't know if somebody sent in. This is my neighbor to the south. This is my neighbor to the north, and this is the neighbor to the north of him. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'll just read them. MR. SOUTHWOOD-They should have their addresses on them. MR. URRICO-"I'm writing this letter in support of my neighbor Jason Southwood who lives at 388 Cleverdale Rd. in Queensbury, NY. I have absolutely no objection with his recent modifications to his house. The decks nor the enclosure in any way obstruct my views or impact my property negatively and I think the end result looks very nice. I hope this letter will help in your decision to grant him whatever is necessary to maintain what is currently there. Thank you for your time, Fred A. Alexy" Do you have an address for him? MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 believe he's 392. Don't hold me. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'll look it up and see if I have it on the other. "I have been asked to write a letter of support in regards to my neighbor Jason Southwood. In 2017 Jason made a beautiful enhancement to his home located at 388 Cleverdale Rd. in Queensbury, NY. This was achieved by closing in an already existing upper deck. This addition doesn't block my view or decrease my property value in any way. On the contrary all the upgrades and work done to my neighbor's home has been tasteful and more than likely increased the value of the surrounding 31 11,m 0,4/18/2018) properties. As a direct neighbor it is my hopes that you take our position into consideration when making a decision. J.W. Markert 390 Cleverdale Rd." And the last one is "I currently reside at 386 Cleverdale Road, Queensbury, NY. I am the next door neighbor of Jason and Rebecca Southwood, who reside at 388 Cleverdale Road. I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Zoning Board that prior to Jason enclosing the upper deck on his house, he and I did discuss it and I told him that I had no objections. The new enclosure does not obstruct my view and, in my opinion, both the upper and lower decks are aesthetically pleasing and add to the beauty of the home and our neighborhood overall. My wife, Anne Marie and I are very pleased with the development and maintenance of our neighbor's property and continue to have no objections to it. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Best regards, William and Anne Marie Mather" MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-Do you want these back? MR. SOUTHWOOD-Those are my only copies, but if you guys need them. MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes, we have to keep them. MR. SOUTHWOOD-Mr. Lapper I think has other ones. MR. URRICO-All right. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron, do you want to start? If this gentleman had come in with a story that a licensed builder did this job, it was something in my hot button that we should start to not allow those buildings in the community or whatever we could do, but if this homeowner did it himself, he should have gotten a building permit but he didn't. If the inspection department of the Town approves that he has everything to spec and the way it should I'm not going to ask him to tear it down, but you know what you have to do the next time you want to do something is just take a walk downstairs. They don't bite. MR. SOUTHWOOD-No, I've done it before for commercial property. I just didn't think I needed it for this property. MR. KUHL-Okay. So I'm in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-You know I think we have to keep in mind, too, if this was new construction and you were proposing to build anything here it's a very tiny lot. It's only .12 acres, but I think there's extenuating circumstances I think in this instance here. He's trying to deal with a water problem that he had up there on the roof and the building as constructed, the new construction was done over a part that was already constructed below. So I don't think there's any real cumulative more impact, you know, to the lake or anything else like that. I still think we have to recognize as Ron said coming in after the fact for requests like this, there should be some substantial penalty for everybody who does this I think, and we don't have anything presently at this time, but in the future I think the Town should dial that in and I think that should be the task of the Town Board not ours. So I would reluctantly grant the relief. I think we have to recognize that the Floor Area Ratio, if you look at this property, is like 197% of normal, you know, so it's way up there, and I think that as long as we're on the record saying we'll look the other way this time, but, you know, we're not happy with it. MR. SOUTHWOOD-There's no more room to do anything else. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-He's not the first person to come before us with an after the fact project and he probably won't be the last. I don't think it would be fair to punish him for other people having done that. If you had come to us with clean hands and requested this project, chances are we probably would approve it because it's really not creating any additional problems except for maybe the floor area, and in this case I think the effects are going to be minimal on what's being created. So I'll be in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I mean, I personally hate to see after the fact applications but this isn't the first one tonight and it's probably about the third one that we've gotten in the last couple of 36 0,4/18/2018) meetings, but, you know, I can't argue with what he's done, and, you know, I understand he was trying to address an immediate problem that he had, and so I'll certainly sympathize with that and I'll agree to the variance. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-I have a little bit of a problem with it. I mean basically you had a porch there that you had sliding glass doors that came out on that porch and that's where you were getting the water leak. Right? MR. SOUTHWOOD-No. Not totally. That was one of the leaks, yes. MR. HENKEL-But there's an alternative way, you could have eliminated those sliding glass doors on that deck area there and moved them off and you wouldn't have had an opening level with the floor of that porch. MR. SOUTHWOOD-1 guess you could but you'd' have to pull off the roof and put a dormer on it to get the height. MR. HENKEL-You can't put an overhang on top there? MR. SOUTHWOOD-You'd have to basically put a dormer. MR. HENKEL-You could take the sliding glass doors off that deck area and put windows that are going to be higher. There would be no entry for the water to go. So there was an alternative. MR. SOUTHWOOD-That was the one leak. The other one was there's a drain there and the problem was that drain, in the winter it would freeze up with ice, and I even tried to snake one of those wires down it hoping that would alleviate it and it didn't. Because it was like a basin up there. You know what I mean. So even that wire, it was just around the wire so the water never had enough time to get out of there. So then it would back up so much that it would come in the door and then it would back up on the side of the drain and then down the drain. I've ripped that up before and put a new rubber roof down thinking that would solve the problem, and it just didn't. It got worse and worse and worse. MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I think if you talked to a good builder there would be alternatives, but like everybody else says, I can't hate you for coming forward. I'm not really too in favor of it, but. MR. FREER-Yes, 1, too, struggle with the fact that you think you can just go build in a very fragile environment and add to the structure that's already non-compliant without getting a building permit, and that would have been identified in the building permit. So I'd have a problem with adding to property that's inside the lake setback. So I don't support this project. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 actually agree with Mr. Freer. Because, you know, it's such a tiny lot and being a businessman I think you probably, in hindsight, should have known to come to get a building permit under the circumstances. So I don't mean to punish at all, and I know it was an honest mistake, but I am not in favor of your application. MR. FREER-Okay. So I think there's enough yes's to carry. So we can close the public hearing and I'll request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jason & Rebecca Southwood. Applicant proposes to maintain a 240 sq. ft. enclosed porch on the second floor. The existing home is 2,112 sq. ft. floor area and new floor area is 2,352 sq. ft. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure, floor area, height and from minimum setback requirements for such structure in the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Requested: 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant requests to maintain an enclosed 240 sq. ft. 2nd floor porch. Converting the open porch to an 3., 0,4/18/2018) enclosed porch the new construction is located 36.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required, 13.5 ft. from the North side where a 15 ft. setback is required, height is 28 1/10 ft. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed and floor area is increased from 2,112 sq. ft. to 2,352 sq. ft. where 1,191.87 sq. ft. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 18, 2018; 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 as this was just an addition onto an existing building, a second floor. 2. Feasible alternatives, a feasible alternative would have been to come and request a building permit and we would have reviewed this before it was built. 3. You could say that the requested Area Variance is substantial because the homeowner did not come. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the homeowner did not come and request a building permit. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-20-2018, JASON & REBECCA SOUTHWOOD, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of April 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Okay. Approved. Guys. We have, did you tell everyone? MRS. MOORE-1 did not tell everyone yet, but you can close the meeting. MR. FREER-We have some Workplace Violence Training. It's a good opportunity to do it. MRS. MOORE-You can close your meeting. MR. FREER-Yes, can I get a motion to adjourn? Okay, Michelle, John seconds. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2018, Introduced by Michelle Hayward who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2018, by the following vote: 38 0,4/18/2018) AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 39