Loading...
07-18-2018 iru ;Y 11\1�:rm�:rmfl �::u.711 a/'4':�:18) h;. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING J U LY 18, 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017 Joe Orlow 1. Tax Map No. 290.-5-1-21 Area Variance Z-AV-47-2018 Larry Steinhart 8. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-64 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING \1�:rm�:rmfliru :Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. J U LY 18, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. FREER-Welcome to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals of July 18, 2018. Welcome, everyone. I'd like to open the meeting of The Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here, I think everyone has been here that I see in the audience, but there is Staff information on the back table. We'll call each applicant to the small table. They'll make a presentation. We'll ask questions. We'll open a public hearing. We will poll the Board and make motions as applicable. People know where the exits are, and if you have a cell phone, if you could silence it that would be great. I'm learning from my colleague last night trying to pick up practices here. However, I don't have my tie on and don't hold your breath on that. Okay. So I think the first order is to approve the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 20, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer June 27, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. We're ready for the Area Variance 76-2017, Joe Orlow. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 SEQRA TYPE II JOE ORLOW AGENT(S) GARRY ROBINSON OWNER(S) JOE ORLOW AND MICHAEL ALUND ZONING WR LOCATION 11 WAGON TRAIL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 891 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN REVISED WITH LOFT AREA REDUCED HEIGHT LESS THAN 5 FT. AND THE ENTRY DECK HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 144 SQ. FT. TO 84 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF RC 631-2016 RES. ALT.; BOTH 630-2016 DEMOLITION INTERIOR ONLY WARREN COUNTY \1�:rm�:rmfliru :Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 0.07 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050; 179-5-090 JON LAPPER & GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017, Joe Orlow, Meeting Date: July 18, 2018 "Project Location: 11 Wagon Trail Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain and complete construction of an 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The project has been revised with loft area reduced height less than 5 ft. and the entry deck has been reduced from 144 sq. ft. to 84 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to complete construction of a home on a .07 ac pre-existing parcel. The building under construction is 24.9 ft. from Sunnyside North, 6.2 ft. from Wagon Trail, 4.6 ft. from the rear east property line, and 6.8 ft. from the rear south property line. The zone requires a 30 ft. setback from the front property lines and rear property lines as the lot is a corner lot. Relief is requested for permeability where 67.4% is requested where 75% permeability is required. Revised: 1) Floor area ratio - relief is no longer requested as loft area has been reduced below 5 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the project is currently incomplete and will be completed as presented. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size of the parcel, the location of the existing home and location of the septic area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5.1 ft. from Sunnyside North, 23.8 ft. from Wagon Trail, 25.4 ft. from the rear east property line, and 23.2 ft. from the rear south property line. Relief is requested for permeability 7.6% 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 on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete construction of an 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The home will have two open decks; one is 84 sq. ft. and the other is 36 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the home on the parcel with the deck areas. The elevations show the exterior and interior of the home including a storage loft area. The applicant has received a Local Board of Health septic variance. The applicant had been informed a building permit and variance application were required for the project. The applicant was requested to provide supporting information in regards to the original footprint of the home. The applicant has included the Real Property Service footprint diagram that was 3 \4�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y II �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. complete prior to renovations —the only addition is the 84 sq. ft. open deck (west side) and the 36 sq. ft. open entry porch area (south side)." MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Would you gentlemen identify yourselves and add whatever you'd like. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Garry Robinson here and Joe Orlow, the applicant, is behind us. So this is an odd and kind of sad back pattern way to get here. This was a property that Joe acquired from his late mother and it sat pretty much abandoned for a number of years until he got cited by the Town, and I know most of you have heard this, and when he got a notice from Dave Hatin he started to fix it up and didn't realize that he needed to come before the Town and by replacing one wall at a time he thought that it wasn't going to require Site Plan Review, but it ultimately did and he changed the pitch of the roof. So we should have been here but it's not a typical after the fact situation. He was under orders from the Town to fix up this dilapidated property so I know he and Garry have been here a number of times. They have one neighbor who's got an issue with this, but the goal is really just to replace the same foundation, a very dilapidated house in kind. It's small lots by Sunnyside, near the lake, in keeping with exactly what's there just to make it modern. So all we're seeking is just permission to just finish the project. Laura, if you could just put up the plan that shows the neighborhood sites. Part of the process, he's gone to the Town Board action, the Board of Health and received permission to replace the holding tank that was there, the septic system, excuse me, with a holding tank, and these lots were all old seepage pits. So the holding tank was expensive and inconvenient but a positive result for the neighborhood. Garry's put up, and I'm sure we'll see it in a second is just this in relation to the other homes, and they're all very similar. In fact, the neighbor across the street increased her home by getting another floor. So we're trying to work something out with the Board so that they can move forward. Is there anything that you'd like to show, maybe change the edge of the porch so that you can increase the setback a little bit? MR. ROBINSON-Yes, it didn't change since last time that we were here. We had changed the porch here to reduce it and we had changed that stairway so it didn't take up the whole width of the deck. Pretty much that was the last change that we made. We had made several changes through the process. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? We've seen this obviously before and had some discussions on it. MR. HENKEL-I have a question. I thought, if you reduced that deck in the front, how come it's still at 6.2? MRS. MOORE-Because it's the closest point. MR. ROBINSON-Yes it's just the closest to the setback. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I thought you reduced the size of that deck. MR. ROBINSON-We reduced the size of the deck, but what we did, it used to spa the whole front of the building. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. ROBINSON-So what we did is we took that out, but the closest to the front was over on this side. The reason that we did that is because the parking is over on this side. So we wanted to keep that so the stairway was there so when they parked they could come in. MR. HENKEL-So what's the width? Is that still at seven feet? MR. ROBINSON-Six feet, six by seventeen. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. ROBINSON-The actual closest part of the deck, we took out the part that's next to the stairs is seven feet to the front property line. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we going to consider how many vehicles you could accommodate on the site? Because I think that's an important issue to think about, you know, you're not going to 4 \4�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y II �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. have any indoor garage obviously or anything like that. The other issue I would think would be important would be, you know, what we do with outdoor storage. You're going to need some kind of shed or something. You just can't put crap all over the yard, you know, and make a mess like everybody else in the neighborhood. MR. ROBINSON-There is storage inside. We have that second layer, a mezzanine that's only 4.9 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean I didn't know what, if the intent was to rent it or if you own it, you know, I didn't know what your plans were. MR. LAPPER-So we would certainly stipulate to no outdoor storage. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think that was a concern from the neighbors, you know, previously. MR. FREER-What about parking, Jim? What's your? MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean I would think you're probably always going to have at least two cars on everybody's property because everybody has their own personal vehicle if it's a couple or something like that, but I wouldn't want to see it morph into like one of those rentals that we have in Town with eight cars out there, you know, piling up in the yard and stuff like that, because I think that pushes everybody's buttons in the neighborhood. That's what we're trying to avoid in this case because it's in close proximity. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MRS. HAYWARD-I had a quick question. As far as the outdoor storage, do you plan on storing things under the porch? I mean a lawnmower, a string trimmer. You must have some maintenance things. MR. ROBINSON-it could be under the porch. It could be under the foundation. There is an opening that goes in there. It's not finalized right now but it could be used for that, but those would be places. MR. FREER-So the outdoor storage, outside is the footprint of the dwelling, right? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean they're basically saying they're not, it's not going to be necessary, that they can store everything on site in the building. MR. FREER-Well, yes, within the footprint of the. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-So out of sight, covered. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KUHL-Yes I have a question. The floor area ratio, we talked about relief and they say that relief is no longer requested because the loft area has been reduced below five feet. How did you do that? MR. ROBINSON-It's just, what happens is that roof is coming up, the gable, it comes up like this. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. ROBINSON-And we had it five feet high and we just reduced it to less than five feet, and then it's not included in the floor area ratio. MR. KUHL-You didn't change the roofline at all. MR. ROBINSON-No, the roofline didn't change. What happens is the ceiling, the upper ceiling board that's going to go across the ceiling joist is going to be lower. MR. LAPPER-It's just storage because nobody could stand in there. 5 \1�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, it's only going to be five feet, that's about right. When we found out that's going to affect the floor area ratio we said, well, we had talked to Laura about it and we said well let's reduce it. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. I believe we have a public hearing scheduled this evening or is it still open from? MRS. MOORE-The public hearing is still open. MR. FREER-Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the Board on this topic? Seeing no one, do we have anymore written correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-Yes, there's one letter. "Our names are Raymond and Patricia Soresino. My house is located at 16 Snug Harbor, which is directly across from Mr. Orlow's property. I was present for all other meetings where Mr. Orlow's property developments were being discussed however, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting. I am not in favor of his 891 square foot house, which was illegally erected. I suspect that the house will exceed in square footage for the acceptable size meant for the lot. The house was 464 sq. feet, before illegal construction took place, on 0.07 acres. However, I am skeptical if he owns all 0.07 acres and would be interested in a survey. How far does Mr. Orlow need to be away from the property lines? What is the size permissible on 0.07 acres of property? Does the house fit with the height requirements? We are trying to make Lake Sunnyside a more desirable place to live by adhering to town guidelines. The Town of Queensbury needs to show consistency in how they deal with building and zoning infractions. Others that came before the board, who did not obtain the proper permits ahead of time, who had built decks on their property that were too large for the area were told to take them down. The way you are allowing Mr. Orlow to continue with his property you are essentially condoning his reckless behavior. If people did not need to follow proper building and zoning laws anyone could build a larger house that is not to code. However, the right thing to do is to go through the proper channels to make sure that a house is built safely and correctly. Queensbury has building and zoning laws for a reason, to protect the safety for its citizens. Mr. Orlow was a town supervisor who did not know he needed a permit to totally rebuild another house? I even knew that. Mr. Orlow's house was not a renovation. The fact that issues are just now being addressed with Mr. Orlow's house is unacceptable. How does a septic holding tank get approved without knowing the house situation? If this holding tank gets approved it will end up being extremely close to our own property lines and within an unexcitable distance from our own well. We do not want his holding tank four feet from our property line. It is a known fact that holding tanks have a leaking problem. If the town approves this holding tank are they going to test our water supply regularly like those who live close to the dump? Who is going to pay for our bills when we get sick from E. Coli and salmonella that has leached within our own well. Even Albany health does not approve of holding tanks. Instead of increasing the use of holding tanks why don't we run city water and sewer to the Sunnyside area which would benefit everyone? At the first meeting it was said he was upgrading his home and that he has been living in it for the last 17 years. In truth, it has had a tarp on it for at least four (4) years. Why are you not taking the tarp off the house to see what you are really dealing with? The why that Mr. Orlow's people have been treating this board with their rude and off putting comment is a testament to his own character, lack of care for others and irresponsible. Over the course of Mr. Orlow inheriting the property, animals have started living in the crawl spaces. The house is also sitting in the dirt on the back side. Board members stated that they were not even going to get out of their cars for safety reasons when an onsite meeting was conducted. If you think that the house is unsafe to be on the property for 30 minutes, then don't you think we feel the same way?With this property, Mr. Orlow has been continuously asking for variance upon variance. When will this stop? The fact of the matter is that Mr. Orlow is asking for permission to invade and infringe on my property. Where are my rights in this matter? I am asking you to look at the whole picture and not just what will benefit one homeowner. I need you to protect the community that I and many others live in, put yourself in our shoes. Sincerely yours, Patricia and Raymond Soresino" MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. MR. LAPPER-1 don't want to get into a tit for tat, but I can't leave that on the table just because I can't stand hypocrisy. So this is the neighbor's not foundation that they started with. This is what the house was like before it was knocked down to the foundation, and this is what's there now, which is either two to three bedrooms. They should have had to upgrade their septic system because they substantially improved the value of their house. If you improve a house \4�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y II �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. by 50% of its value or 50% of its size you're supposed to upgrade your septic. They have a seepage pit. They don't have a holding tank. They have a seepage pit for two or three bedrooms. I don't know if the walkout is a bedroom or not, but certainly you all understand that having a holding tank is good for the neighborhood. There's not a situation where it's going to leak because it can't leak because the water gets turned off if they're full. So I just want to put this in the record to show that this neighbor expanded and Joe's staying the same size that he was. So that's for the record. I don't know why there's this animosity, but the fact that this has been sitting there covered with a tarp is because he needs permission to finish the project. That's why we're here. MR. FREER-Okay. Anymore questions? Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and I'd like to start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Okay. There's no question that this is a tight area, and you'd be better off without the house there. However, Mr. Orlow's house has been there and it's been there for quite a period of time. I think the applicant, Mr. Orlow, has made a number of concessions here. The permeability seems to be the biggest one, but he's not the only one with permeability problems in that area. I'd venture a guess to say that just about all of these properties have that same issue. So I would not feel right denying the applicant the opportunity to improve his structure and therefore I will support this project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Mike. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Mike. This house has been there longer than most of those houses over there and they are keeping pretty much on the same footprint, not doing anything too crazy. Yes, it is a small piece of property but I think it should be allowed to have something similar to what was there and I would support it as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm really struggling with this one, but if I were to take this on its own merits and someone were to come in here without the history, I would say absolutely not, not a prayer. It's been there, the foundation's been there. I understand that. It's a dangerous location. It's right on the corner. It's a heavily traveled road at times. I think in good conscience I cannot support this project. I'm sorry. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-It's our charge to grant minimum relief and in every criteria you're asking for relief. The Comprehensive Plan was made and I realize that things have changed, but I mean we didn't approve something across the street that had a lot more land than this. This project is looking for too much, and in good conscience the word minimum relief doesn't even come into it. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Thank you, Ron. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes if you look at the picture that's up on the wall over there at the present time you can see the close proximity of almost every property in that immediate neighborhood over there. The only plus that I see on this is the fact that you're set back so far from Lake Sunnyside, but at the same time, you know, we're talking about a holding tank because of proximity to wells and things like that you wonder how anybody could be on a well and a septic anywhere in that neighborhood and not be subjecting themselves to possible contamination of their onsite drinking water, but at the same time the applicant has come in before us, as has been mentioned by the Board members, you know, we have a situation where we have an old building that's been there for years although it's been unoccupied for quite some time, but at this time, I think, you know, they've made concessions by cutting back the height of the storage space that was going to be living space upstairs in the loft area. That's going to be less than five feet so it no longer qualifies as floor area ratio relief. So I would reluctantly be in favor of the project. I think that's one thing the Town needs to do is to polish up, you know, we need to do a balancing act between what exists and what does not exist and has been mentioned by the Board members that aren't in favor of this project, you know, if this was new there's no way we could approve it, even if we wanted to, but it is pre-existing. So I don't think we should be precise in our calculation in saying that you can't have anything here that already is there. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm also going to reluctantly say yes to the project. I know there's a lot of relief here that's being requested, but some lots just don't lend itself to being upgraded and 7, \1�:rm�:rmfliru :Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. improved within our restrictions at times. I think they made a great effort to get there, and so I'm going to say yes. MR. FREER-Okay. So I guess my thoughts are this really isn't a buildable lot in my opinion by any current standards, and we actually have had some discussions about holding tanks and requirements and we're going to have to have some more discussion about that broadly because there's issues with holding tanks that I don't totally understand but I'm going to get smarter on. It's not our issue. The Town Board of Health already approved it, but I'm going to vote no on this proposal. You have enough yeses to get it approved, but I don't believe this is a buildable lot by our current standards, and even though there's a shack on it and this will be an improvement, somewhere we've got to decide, you know, this no longer makes sense to be a buildable lot. So I'm going to vote no, but there are four yeses. So I'll close the public hearing. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes, sir. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joe Orlow. Applicant proposes to maintain and complete construction of an 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The project has been revised with loft area reduced height less than 5 ft. and the entry deck has been reduced from 144 sq. ft. to 84 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to complete construction of a home on a .07 ac pre-existing parcel. The building under construction is 24.9 ft. from Sunnyside North, 6.2 ft. from Wagon Trail, 4.6 ft. from the rear east property line, and 6.8 ft. from the rear south property line. The zone requires a 30 ft. setback from the front property lines and rear property lines as the lot is a corner lot. Relief is requested for permeability where 67.4% is requested where 75% permeability is required. Revised: 1) Floor area ratio - relief is no longer requested as loft area has been reduced below 5 ft. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 15, 2017 Tabled to February 21, 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 the continuation of the re-build of this property will greatly improve the looks of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not reasonable because of the small size of the property. 3. The requested variance is substantial but can't be avoided again because of the topography of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that this will be improved by the completion of the project. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created. It was created years ago when this property was originally established here. 8 \1�:rm�:rmfliru :Y 11 �::u.7118/'4`.�::u,18) h;. 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) That there be no external storage building. Any storage to be within the footprint (allows items under porch and crawl space). b) That there'll be a maximum of two cars parked on the lot at any particular time. 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-76-2017, JOE ORLOW, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2018 by the following vote: MR. FREER-Mike, are you going to add the constraint of no external storage? MR. MC CABE-1 didn't hear anybody saying that they demanded that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they agreed to it. I think we agreed to two vehicles on site and no outside storage. Storage would be interior on the building. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the Board proposes the following conditions. That there be no external storage building and that there'll be a maximum of two cars parked on the lot at any particular time. MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote, I just want to clarify the storage piece. My understanding was storage within the footprint and you identified there's no outdoor storage building. So I believe it means the same thing. I just want to confirm that that means the same thing. MR. MC CABE-1 specified that there be no external storage space. That's what you guys agreed to. MR. LAPPER-We agreed to add language outside the footprint and that's fine. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Just a clarification. MR. FREER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. FREER-Okay. The next applicant is Area Variance 47-2018. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-47-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 LARRY STEINHART AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ./HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LARRY STEINHART ZONING WR LOCATION 362 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 136 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE-STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,156 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. EXISTING HOME HAS FAR OF 2,007 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 2,143 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF HARD SURFACING TO INCREASE PERMEABILITY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FAR REQUIREMENTS AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF P-SP-47-2018; SIB 4-1980 WARREN \1�:rm�:rmfliru :Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-64 SECTION 179-3-040A JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-47-2018, Larry Steinhart, Meeting Date: July 18, 2018 "Project Location: 362 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 136 sq. ft. (footprint) single-story residential addition to an existing 1,156 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Existing home has FAR of 2,007 sq. ft. and proposed is 2,143 sq. ft. Project includes removal of hard surfacing to increase permeability. Relief requested from FAR requirements and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to construct a 136 sq. ft. first floor addition that is to be 7.6 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The new floor area is 2143 sq. ft. or 23.7% where 22% is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the location of the existing home and the interior layout of the house. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setback of 13 ft. Floor area relief of 1.7% in excess of 22%. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of 146 sq. ft. one story addition on north side of the home. The submission includes photos of the current structure and construction drawings of the addition to be built. The floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided. The applicant has indicate the need for the addition allows for the first floor bedroom and bathroom area to be expanded." MR. FREER-Could you identify yourself and add anything you'd like to the record? MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record Jon Lapper with the project engineer, Tom Hutchins. So we hope that you'll see that this is a very, very modest proposal. The Staff Notes say it's 146. It's actually 136 square feet, and the intent of this is just to make the first floor bedroom a master so that as Joyce and Larry age, this can be their retirement home. It's not adding a bathroom or a bedroom. It's slightly expanding the bedroom and expanding the first floor bathroom to a full bath so it will be off the master suite. One hundred and thirty-six square feet is really a tiny addition and the minimum that could be done. It's certainly not going to be a large bedroom, just for functionality so that they don't have to go upstairs in their older years. Because we knew that this required a variance Tom looked at the permeability and was eliminate existing impermeable areas so that this would actually be a decrease in 10 \1�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. impermeability because we thought you'd want to see that and that that was the right thing to do. So it's actually slightly improving the permeability and because of where this is located behind the garage it's hardly visible from anybody, not on the lakeside of the home. There's really no detriment to anybody. It doesn't change the bedroom count. A few years ago they went to the Town Board of Health and got approval to replace the septic system completely so it's got a conforming septic system, and that's sized for the number of bedrooms. It doesn't change. It actually, when I read through those minutes, they changed the fixtures to low flow fixtures just to reduce the size of the second system so it would be conforming to new standards with new fixtures and that's what the Town Board asked them. So it's 136 which is really important to the applicants in terms of functionality. It really shouldn't make any difference to the neighborhood. JOYCE CLOTHIER MS. CLOTHIER-It's not for the future. I've had double knee replacement. I have osteoarthritis. We have incredibly, I sent you photos of the stairs and I put like shoes on them. The treads are like, they're so, they're not deep. The stairs are really steep. We put two railings on the stairs. I use two railings when I go up and down the stairs. So I can't carry anything upstairs or carry anything downstairs. The stairs are just like, they're scary to me. I need to have to have a first floor bedroom. I really do, and this isn't a big bedroom, and we also made a shower in that bathroom so that I don't have to use a tub. MR. FREER-Thank you, and we have a public hearing scheduled this evening, and I see one person in the audience who probably wants to talk about this. So if you guys would let. All right, Chris. Come on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Happy summer. I'm Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper, and we tend not to support a floor area ratio variance request within the waterfront district and we view this as an opportunity to improve an existing site, non-compliance on permeable coverage. It's recognized that the applicant is proposing a minimal reduction of impervious cover. However, the property currently falls nearly 50% short of the permeability coverage requirement. It is our opinion that the application could improve the balance for the variance request with a greater reduction in impervious coverage for this waterfront property, which would improve water quality. Additionally the applicant should address the requirements of the shoreline buffer requirements which can offset the excessive impervious coverage on the property. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the ZBA to place a condition on the variance request requiring additional removal of impervious coverage to reduce the existing noncompliance, which is consistent with the spirit and the intent of the Code for the protection of resources of the Town and minimize adverse impacts, and investigate additional vegetative planting. MR. FREER-Thank you, Chris. Okay. If you guys would come back up and address the Water Keeper's recommendations. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. What we're proposing, in reducing the impervious area, presently right now this is a planting area. This is a planting area. We're proposing to remove pavers from this area, create a new planting area, as well as this area to create a new planting area. We're also removing some impermeable surfaces in this area that are really more than they need. So across this shoreline we have plantings here. We have plantings here. We have plantings here, and across here. MR. FREER-So what I think I heard you say is that you are trying to comply with the buffer requirements. MR. HUTCHINS-We removed a considerable amount of impervious area near the shoreline that we replaced with natural planting area. MR. FREER-Which are, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to communicate the words that I heard from Chris that comply with the spirit and intent of the buffer. I mean, if you take that concrete out and plant lawn there and then fertilize it, you're not doing what he wants to do. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Right. We're not planting lawn. They'll be planting beds. II \1�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. MR. FREER-Okay. So you're planting stuff that is compatible with the buffer concept that the Water Keeper is advocating. MR. URRICO-Are we talking about a buffer or permeability? MR. UNDERWOOD-We've got to look at them separately. MR. HUTCHINS-We haven't specified what's to be planted. MR. FREER-And I think that's what Chris is recommending. Right? Is that we do make a condition that it conforms with. MR. HUTCH INS-Generally recognized local shoreline planting standards. MR. FREER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don't you come back up and put your heads together on this one. MR. NAVITSKY-Well, our thought, we do view these as two separate. Chris Navitsky again. We do view them as two separate items. The first, regarding a pervious cover, we see, I mean it could be four or five areas of congregation, and we support their variance application, but we see as a balance can there be more removal of impervious cover, and along with that, to bring in the additional planting area. So we do see two separate issues. One being the permeability coverage, benefit of increased living area, getting benefit and relief from the floor area ratio, possibly sacrificing, we have a few patios. It's great. You have a nice dock, a sunroof, a patio, a porch. It's just trying to find a balance. So I do see it as two separate items that we're requesting, the permeability and then to increase the vegetation. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. MR. LAPPER-1 guess it's a matter of degree, because we are increasing the permeability. MR. HUTCHINS-We're increasing the permeability. MR. LAPPER-And on Point Two we can specify, next week we're at the Planning Board, if we're successful tonight, and we can specify that we'll use the native plants and do a planting bed that's appropriate as a condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-The patio that you have out on the side that comes out all the way to the property line there, is that often used by you or is that seldom used realistically? MS. CLOTHIER-Well, we use it all the time, and, I mean, we wouldn't have done any of that work but we put in a new septic system, and literally when I tell you from the road all the way down to the lake our yard was just completely torn up. We replaced, I mean we thought we had permeable pavers. The guy that did the work is not around anymore, but, I mean, we took out concrete sidewalks that were a lot wider. There was concrete between the little boathouse and then the next level up, that was all concrete, but, I mean, we just, I mean, that whole yard was just dirt and then we put pavers in. We thought permeable. My garden down below, I mean that's all perennial plants that don't require water. I was planning on putting day lilies in in those beds. I'm a gardener. I have lots of flowers, but, yes, we do use that, and if you look at our dock, our dock, and I can tell you that I've written many letters to the Lake George Park Commission. We have a dock. It's very small down below, and we're on Sandy Bay, and it's, you can't even use part of it on Saturdays and Sundays because of the boat traffic. The people come so close. Our French boat was literally swept off the dock. So probably three to four feet of the dock isn't even usable on the weekend because, I mean I wish I had brought my IPad. I could show you pictures of the wakes just are coming up on the dock. I mean so to give up any of the dock would be like, we would have nothing. We have a little porch and then we have the existing porch that was on the house that was built in 1931. 1 mean there's not a lot there. I'll put in more flowers, more day lilies or whatever, but. MR. LAPPER-What Tom just asked me, we would make it a condition that we would submit an updated planting plan to the Planning Board for their review if that was an acceptable condition in those two areas of the lake that are going to be made less impermeable. MR. FREER-Okay. Well let me poll the Board. MR. MC CABE-Let me ask the question. We're not being asked to approve permeability. \1�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. LAPPER-That's right. MR. HUTCHINS-That's right. MR. LAPPER-We're just making it better. MR. MC CABE-Also you've got to ask if there's any written. MR. FREER-Okay. Are there any written comments? MR. URRICO-Well there was one by Mr. Navitsky, but I'm assuming that your comments supersede these? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, that's the same. MR. URRICO-Okay, and there's another one. "My wife Mary and I live across the street from Joyce and Larry at 361-363 Cleverdale Road. We fully support the request for a variance to permit a very nice, necessary upgrade to their home. Joyce and Larry are wonderful neighbors and have done exceptional work upgrading their property. They shared their present plans with us and we strongly feel the Town should grant their variance request. My wife grew up in Cleverdale and we have owned our present property since 1973. We have been delighted with all the improvements made by Joyce and Larry as they have been first class and very thoughtful. We feel the same way about their present plan. Please feel free to use this email in a manner you deem best to support the grant of the requested variance. Sincerely, Chris and Mary Mattson" MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question of Staff? The impermeability that currently exists. I mean obviously the septic has been upgraded and the new sidewalk has been put in in the interim after that, too. Was that all approved by the Town and that didn't need a variance previously or anything? MRS. MOORE-1 don't have any record. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't recall this project previously. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I don't remember. It wasn't during the time period that I was here. MR. LAPPER-1 think there was pre-existing concrete that they removed. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that didn't have to go in and get a variance because they decreased what was there. MR. LAPPER-As part of the septic upgrade. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, this was all concrete and there was a concrete walk and a gathering area in here. MR. UNDERWOOD-So currently there's stormwater that runs off of that impervious, that just rolls down the hill under gravity, or is there any kind of structures to kind of grab it before it the lake, or is it not an issue at this point? MR. HUTCH INS-There's a turf area all through here, and there's a wall here. So there's an area for a fair degree of infiltration. They're pavers. They're not 100% impervious but they're, the way they're installed they're pretty impervious. MR. UNDERWOOD-But your planting beds and stuff are absorbing stuff? MR. HUTCHINS-There are planting beds, yes, here, here, here. So there are planting beds between all of it and the lake for the most part. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-This is almost similar to the last one kind of where if we had to approve a new house we probably wouldn't allow it with that permeability and that, but what they're asking for, that addition away from the lake, I wish they could get a little better on the permeability, but they 13 \1�:rm�:rmfliru ;Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. are increasing it by a little bit. That little bit of relief for the side setback is not that great. So I would approve it as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, John. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 appreciate what Mr. Navitsky had to say and I think anywhere we can improve the ecology of the lake and the basin we should take advantage of that opportunity. I would be in favor if we could improve the permeability, as, you know maybe not equal to what Mr. Navitsky's recommending, but at least trying to improve a little more than what's proposed. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, Michelle. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's a good project as presented. It's a very expensive shower, but I understand that as we age, you know, the stairs get to be a challenge, and I appreciate the fact that they have looked to get rid of some permeable and add some plantings. As I heard the applicant talk about the contractor that put pavers in and they thought they were permeable, that's a shame. That's a shame, but you are left with this situation. You spent a lot of money. The way it stands, I would be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Thanks, Ron. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-There seems to be a legitimate need for what's being proposed here. I don't think it's off the top or off the wall. Anyone in the same situation I think would be in the same category of agreement that you need to put this addition on there. It's slightly over by, you know, it's going to be 136 square feet of addition which is not like huge. It's not asking for a whole other floor on the house or massive amounts of more construction on site. It's basically within the footprint of the house. It's just a little corner that you're going to be adding onto there. I would make the suggestion as Michelle. I think between now and the Planning Board meeting I think you could look at adding some more vegetation along those walkways to absorb more flowers, you know, sweeten the pot a little bit from what you have now, and think about it. The excessive amount of impermeability on the lot now seems way over the top and I don't know how it ever got approved with that big, I guess it didn't have to come in for any kind of permission to do the patio because it was hard surfacing, but it seems like that should have gone through a review process at some point, but I guess I'll approve it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Jim. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. 1, too, encourage the applicant to come up with a plan to put vegetation that you submit to the Planning Board and try to cut that back a little bit. MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. I don't think the applicant is asking for very much. It's already a non-conforming structure. So we're being asked to make it a little bit more non- conforming and I don't see that as a problem because in exchange for that we're gaining some more protection at the bottom of the property. So I think it's a fair tradeoff. So I'll support the project. MR. FREER-Thanks, Mike. First of all I'd like to say, Mrs. Steinhart, thank you for coming. I appreciate your insights and it was useful for me to hear your passion about what you were trying to do, because, you know, zoning laws are made by bureaucrats and our job is to sort of sift through, you know, exceptions. So thanks for taking the time to come to see me. 1, too, believe that the project as presented is acceptable and meets the criteria, but would urge that you heard what the spirit of the Board said that anything you can do to continue to reduce the permeability on the property is the desire. So with that I will close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Yes, please, Ron. MR. KUHL-Before I make the motion, thank you, Mr. Navitsky, for coming. Your words are well taken. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Larry Steinhart. Applicant proposes construction of a 136 sq. ft. (footprint) single-story 14 \1�:rm�:rmfliru :Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. residential addition to an existing 1,156 sq. ft. (footprint) home. Existing home has FAR of 2,007 sq. ft. and proposed is 2,143 sq. ft. Project includes removal of hard surfacing to increase permeability. Relief requested from FAR requirements and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to construct a 136 sq. ft. first floor addition that is to be 7.6 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The new floor area is 2143 sq. ft. or 23.7 % where 22% is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 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 is a small addition that basically fits within the roofline of the house. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited because of what they're trying to accomplish. They've been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. It's a small addition to the existing building. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Although we may suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That the Zoning Board would like to see additional vegetative plantings on the site. The planning Board to determine the location. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-47-2018 LARRY STEINHART, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2018 by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we add the stipulation that we would like to see an improvement on the vegetative plantings? And that could be done anywhere along those impermeable areas that would help, you know, lessen the impact of the runoff. MR. LAPPER-And we'll submit that to the Planning Board next week. MR. KUHL-Yes, we can add that. MRS. MOORE-So I'll give you some guidance. So in reference to the plantings, I'd like it to be a little more specific. So you're suggesting there's additional plantings and that to be 15 \1�:rm�:rmfliru :Y 11 �::u.7 a ok'" :;u,18) h;. addressed at the Planning Board level, and that a planting plan will be provided to the Planning Board for their review. MR. UNDERWOOD-Correct. MR. HUTCHINS-This can be done at the following meeting? MRS. MOORE-At the Planning Board meeting. Yes, my understanding is that the Zoning Board said I'd like to see additional plantings. That criteria of the number and the location, other than it be close to the shoreline, there may be other places where plantings could also be improved but this Board is saying additional plantings. MR. FREER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We'll make it better with the plantings. MRS. MOORE-Okay. You need to adjourn your meeting. MR. MC CABE-1 make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MR. KUHL-Second. MR. FREER-Thanks, Ron. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 18, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-We'll see everyone next week. MR. KUHL-You'll not see me next week. I apologize, but family business. MR. FREER-Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 1