Loading...
07-25-2018 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING J U LY 25, 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-46-2018 Judkins Family Trust 1. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-36 (home); 289.10-1-35 (driveway) Area Variance Z-AV-48-2018 Thomas Shelly, Jr. 5. Tax Map No. 295.19-3-32 Area Variance Z-AV-49-2018 Kris D. Roglieri 9. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-37 Area Variance Z-AV-51-2018 Kevin Toomey 13. Tax Map No. 289.12-1-20 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 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) SECOND REGULAR MEETING J U LY 25, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY (NOTE: MICHAEL MC CABE WAS ACTING CHAIRMAN FOR THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM AS HARRISON FREER ARRIVED LATE, AND BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE, FILLED IN FOR HARRISON FREER FOR THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM. CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE, FILLED IN THE ENTIRE MEETING FOR RONALD KUHL WHO WAS ABSENT) MR. MC CABE-I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. If you haven't been here before, first of all there's exits here, here, back there and over here in case of an emergency. Of course we don't anticipate one tonight. The procedure is fairly straightforward. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up. The applicant's case will be read into the record. The applicant will provide any extra information. The Board will question the applicant. Public hearing has been advertised and we'll open the public hearing and take any pertinent information and then we'll poll the Board to kind of get an idea of how everybody feels on the case and if appropriate we'll take a vote. So tonight the first applicant is Judkins Family Trust, and it's Area Variance Z-AV-46-2018. So if you would come forward. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-46-2018 SEQRA TYPE II JUDKINS FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ./LUCAS DOBIE — HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JUDKINS FAMILY TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 15 GENISTA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING OF 943 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH 2,653 SQ. FT. (FAR). PROJECT INCLUDES SITEWORK FOR LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER, AND GRADING. NEW CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT MEET SETBACKS FOR SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACKS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF P-SP-16-2018; Z-AV-12-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-36 (HOME); 289.10-1-35 (DRIVEWAY) SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Roy, if you would read the application into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-46-2018, Judkins Family Trust, Meeting Date: July 25, 2018 "Project Location: 15 Genista Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new single-family dwelling of 943 sq. ft. (footprint) with 2,653 sq. ft. (FAR) with a 330 sq. ft. lakeside patio. Project includes site work for landscaping, stormwater, and grading. New construction does not meet setbacks for shoreline and side setbacks. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests the relief from minimum setback requirements and road frontage requirements for the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential 2 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) The applicant proposes to construct a new single family dwelling. The home is to be located 21 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required, side yard on the east is to be 10.8 ft. and side yard on the west is to be 8.2 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required, Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood 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. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is for shoreline setback of 29 ft. and side setbacks 4.2 ft. on the east side and 6.8 ft. on the west side. 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 updated driveway access, 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 on a site where the existing home was recently demolished. The plans show the grading to occur on both properties in relation to the driveway access and the stormwater management. The applicant's house site plans show the grading and erosion control. The plans show the location and lines for the septic and well connections. The project is similar to the house project that received approvals for AV 12-2018 —The previous home was to be 1,664 sq. ft. floor area and the proposed home is to be 2,653 sq. ft. floor area. The relief requested is less for the currently proposal than the previous project. The existing parcel 289.10-1-36 was granted Road Frontage relief per Section 179-4-050 for AV 12-2018 from the Zoning Board at the February 28, 2018 meeting access to the property is from the adjoining parcel 289.10-1-35. " MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. Thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little, O'Connor & Borie, representing the applicant. With me at the table is the applicant, Dave Judkins, and also the project engineer, Tom Hutchins. This is familiar, I believe, because in February you actually approved a house very similar to this. This house actually as it's now reconstructed or redesigned requires less variances than the approval that you gave in February. In February you gave approval for a 20 foot setback from the shoreline, and this will be 21 feet. The east side variance that you approved in February was 10 feet, and this will be 10.8 feet. The west side was 7.8, and this is 8.2. The rear is very sufficient. It was 91.8. Moving the house back a little bit changes it to 84.9. The permeability on the site actually improves because of the change, and it goes from 78.4 to 79.23. So pretty much the same house. I think Craig refers to us coming back here as being a volume variance because when you move the house back. We're occupying some more air space within the variance area, but we are compliant with the height and pretty much that's the story. We've got some pictures if you want to see a comparison. We believe that we have minimal impact on anyone else. We certainly have looked at alternatives that we thought were feasible and this is the best that we could come up with and we think it has the least impact on anyone. Probably the closest that we've had an impact on is the east side, and that is, actually the west side, I guess, and the east side actually you should remember that a neighbor there is also part of this. We got a variance for him because we're changing the roadway that will come down through to this property and his property, and we've done stormwater. We've done everything. We've got a new septic. 3 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2013) We think that we've done everything that we need to do. If you have questions we'll try to answer them. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions? MR. HENKEL-I still do. I still don't see why that house can't be up where that driveway ends there. Why couldn't the house be that much farther away from the lake? MR. HUTCHINS-It's just a matter of space availability and grading. We've got a relatively thin area for that driveway. MR. O'CONNOR-And it is in line I think with the other houses that are there. The prior house that was torn down was 20 feet. MR. HENKEL-I realize that, but when you've got a chance to make it a better project, I still think you could make a better project by being further away. I've walked that property and that slope that you're building on now, I know you're replacing it where it was kind of, but I think you're still infringing on the lake so close and I think that's a big concern today is keeping that lakefront as natural as possible instead of making everything look man-made. MR. O'CONNOR-There's quite a bit of tree that's left on the site in front of the house, and actually the tree canopy will pretty much camouflage the house as it's going to be constructed. If anything there's going to be a filtered view from the lake. I've got some pictures of it if you want to see some pictures, and if you go back further then we get into more retaining walls in order to have parking behind the house. We'd have to excavate the area that's behind the house. It's not a flat area. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? We do have a public hearing advertised tonight. So at this particular time I'd like to open the public hearing and invite anybody from the audience who has input on this project to provide input. Seeing nobody, I'll ask Roy is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. This was directed to Laura. "Thank you for explaining the modifications of the Judkins' Glen Lake home plans. You understood my concern. The new plans may obstruct our (The Mackey's) from the lower parking area behind the Judkins' house. Having directed me to Map S-3, pointed out a set of stairs from the planned parking area to our diagonal access walk. My thanks for your help noting this change. It appears the Judkins' have accommodated our lower level access arrangement in their new design. Our thanks to them and all of you for the thoughtful planning necessary for the project, and this is Licia Mackey. DAVID JUDKINS MR. JUDKINS-Those are the neighbors on the west side. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'm not sure what the address is exactly. MR. MC CABE-Any other written comment? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I think I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll poll the Board to see how we feel here, and, Roy, I'll start with you. MR. URRICO-Well I wonder why we're here, since we already granted a variance on this way back and this project is ready to go. I suppose this is an improvement on what we approved before because there's less setback, but I'm kind of in agreement that maybe in making the changes we could have accommodated the setbacks more forcefully I think. Nevertheless I think I would be in favor of this at this point. MR. MC CABE-Jim? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it's a volumetric change. It's a 1,000 square feet more than what we approved previously and I think that the setbacks are improved from what approved back in February. So I don't really have a problem with it. I think John's comments are pertinent, but all these houses along that whole stretch there are built into the hillside and I think there's going to be less disturbance than going back to making a huge hole further back and increasing the volume of what you're moving out of there. So it makes sense to keep it where you've proposed. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm fine with it. The fact that Mr. and Mrs. Mackey to the west are indicating what they are is important to me. Neighbor feedback is something I always think about and I reflect upon. So I'm okay with the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, Mr. Hutchins has done a good job with this project as far as the stormwater management and your leach field and your septic tanks are back away from the lake and I guess that's the best you can do with that project. I'd be in favor of it as is. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I think under the circumstances it's an improvement overall, and I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAM LIN-Aesthetically I like the design better. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am in favor of the project. So at this particular time I'll ask for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Judkins Family Trust. Applicant proposes construction of a new single-family dwelling of 943 sq. ft. (footprint) with 2,653 sq. ft. (FAR) with a 330 sq. ft. lakeside patio. Project includes site work for landscaping, stormwater, and grading. New construction does not meet setbacks for shoreline and side setbacks. Relief requested for setbacks. We previously approved this application in a different form back in February and as the record reflects this evening the differences this evening actually decrease the setbacks that we had previously granted. Relief Requested: The applicant requests the relief from minimum setback requirements and road frontage requirements for the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential The applicant proposes to construct a new single family dwelling. The home is to be located 21 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required, side yard on the east is to be 10.8 ft. and side yard on the west is to be 8.2 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required, SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 25, 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. None of the neighbors affected seem to be up in arms about this project. 2. Feasible alternatives could be considered. It could be set back further into the hill, further back from the hill, but we deem that as not necessary because it's more in keeping with less disturbance on the lakefront. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. These are all narrow lots on that side of the lake and so everyone requires some kind of setback difference either from the water or from their side neighbors. 5 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We think it'll be an improvement overall because of the new septic system and stormwater that will be accommodated on site. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. In essence there could be a smaller building on the site but I don't really consider it to be self-created because of the narrowness of the lot to accommodate a normal size home. 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-46-2018, JUDKINS FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 18th day of July 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. FREER-I apologize to everyone for being late. I was dodging thunderstorms and traffic jams. So I guess we're ready for 48-2018. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you starting that application, if they could come to the table, is to just clarify who's sitting as an alternate. MR. FREER-Catherine is sitting as the alternate. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-48-2018 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS SHELLY, JR. OWNER(S) THOMAS SHELLY, JR. ZONING MDR CURRENT LOCATION 4 FOX HOLLOW LANE, WESTLAND SECTION 14 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 400 SQ. FT. OPEN-SIDED DETACHED GARAGE. PLACEMENT IS OVER EXISTING SLAB AREA. EXISTING HOME IS 1,616 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF 672 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.19-3-32 SECTION 179-5-020 THOMAS SHELLY, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-48-2018, Thomas Shelly, Jr., Meeting Date: July 25, 2018 "Project Location: 4 Fox Hollow Lane, Westland Section 14 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. open-sided detached garage. Placement is over existing slab area. Existing home is 1,616 sq. ft. footprint with an attached garage of 672 sq. ft. Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of an open sided 400 sq. ft. second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. 6 (Queensbury ZEA Meeting 07/25/2018) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered to include construction of an addition to the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a detached 400 sq. ft. open garage to be 14 ft. 11 in in height. The relief requested is for second garage to be placed on an existing pad of the same size. The plans submitted show the elevation and arrangement of the building on the site. The floor plans show garage area to be an open floor plan. The applicant intends to store lawn equipment and other associated items." MR. FREER-Hello. Please state your name for the record and add any additional information you wish. MR. SHELLY-Thomas Shelly, 4 Fox Hollow Lane, Queensbury, NY. MR. FREER-Okay. Would you like to add anything to what was just read? MR. SHELLY-No. I think you have the drawing up there. If you can see, where you see the driveway coming up, all right. You see it meets the house, and then to the left of that, adjacent to that, that is the concrete that has been in place for years. Okay. So that's where I'm going to place this, well, I called it a carport but I was informed I couldn't call it a carport. It has to be a garage. So what we have is we have four vehicles, all right. I currently have a two car garage in there, and we have two additional vehicles in which I park on there anyway. I've been parking the vehicles there for a long, long time, I think as indicated in the information that was provided, and I would like to, at this point, compliment Laura Moore for her patience and everything because when I started the process I was really a neophyte in there and to go through it and everything. There were three or four times when I was just ready to throw up my hands and walk out the door. I said I just don't understand this. I just want to put up a carport here, but she was very patient. She smiled, didn't really say anything, just continued to help me. So without her help and some of the other people in the Department I probably wouldn't have gotten to this particular point. So anyway to get back to that, it's going to be purchased from Garden Time. It'll be constructed by Garden Time. It is an open structure, and it will not impact it. It's hard to see there. I don't know if anybody had an opportunity to drive by the property. I think a couple of people did because I saw cars driving by and people stopping, but the people next to me, there's a fence and a bunch of trees. There's no visibility. I spoke to them. They don't have any issue with that. The pine tree is misleading there, but from the road you can't even see it, and from the rest of the neighborhood and everything, and there are, 28 and 38 Fox Hollow they have garages also. So there's something in that area. So it's not out of line with what's there, what I'm proposing, the quality of what I'm proposing to do there. The structure will have the same roofline and it will also have, the shingles will match the house. The wood in it also matches the brown color of the house. So everything falls right in line with the house and right in line with the neighborhood. I don't see any other way to do it in terms of building another garage, you know, like my attached garage and everything. It would be cost prohibitive, and I don't see where there's really a need for that. So I think this will suit my 7 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) needs. All my neighbors seem to be happy with it. I spoke to a majority of them. I was a little bit surprised when I got the list of everybody in there. Just as a sideline, is it 500 feet from each property line where they notify the neighbors? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. SHELLY-Okay because I got the list there and it looked like they sent a letter to everybody in the neighborhood. I'm not a math major, but I said these are a lot more than 500 feet, but anyway, that's irrelevant to what we're here for. So I believe I've provided everything I was asked for, again, with Laura's help, and I already got the waiver for the survey, all right. So I believe at this point what we're looking for is strictly a variance to see if anybody in the neighborhood or anybody on the Board has any questions or objection to what I'm doing. So with that I guess I'll turn it back to the Board. MR. FREER-Thank you. We have a public hearing scheduled on this. I don't see anybody out in the audience that has input for this, because I know the lawyer who's coming for the next one. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. FREER-Anybody else on the Board have questions? MRS. HAMLIN-I do. You're saying that you're going to store lawn equipment? MR. SHELLY-No, actually if you look at my document in here, that I turned in, all right, you'll see in here, when I saw that I said what I actually filled out and everything in my documentation I said I'm going to store vehicles in there. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. That's all. MR. SHELLY-So, yes, there will be two vehicles there. MRS. HAMLIN-That makes sense. I thought I heard it right. MR. FREER-Any other questions? Okay. Now I guess I can open a public hearing. And nobody's in the audience. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. Now I'll poll the Board. Mike, do you want to go first? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I agree with the applicant. A couple of his other neighbors have a second garage. I also agree with the applicant. It's very difficult to see the area where he's going to put up his open sided garage, and so I don't see where it's a detriment to the neighborhood. It doesn't make any real changes. So I would support the project. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Mike. He's almost got an acre of land there. He's not looking for any setbacks. He's not hindering anybody's view. It's a good project. No problem. Go for it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. Although on paper it seems substantial, listening to your explanation it makes all the sense in the world to just cover the cars you've had there for a long time. So I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's not going to be an impact environmentally. Obviously having four vehicles it's nice not to have to go out and unbury them in the wintertime. So I'm all for it. MR. FREER-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, that was me making your dog bark. I saw you in the driveway. Yes, no problem here. People are building houses new with three bays these days. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. I'm just going to go on the record that this is a very small lot for a second garage. This group has been quite adamant about not allowing second garages. I understand that we have to call it a garage, but 1, too, will support this because of the extenuating circumstances. I am concerned about precedent that we're allowing a second garage on a less than an acre in this area, but there are extenuating circumstances. So 1, too, will support this request. Okay. With that I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-You forgot Roy. MR. FREER-I'm sorry. Roy. MR. URRICO-I'm against the project. I think setting a precedent in that area has already been established as you pointed out with some of your neighbors, and we're just changing the zoning for that area by adding a second garage. So I would be against it. MR. FREER-So with that comment I think I will vote against it as well. So you don't stand alone because this is a precedent setting thing. You already have enough people to get it approved. With that I'll request a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Thomas Shelly, Jr. Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. open-sided detached garage. Placement is over existing slab area. Existing home is 1,616 sq. ft. footprint with an attached garage of 672 sq. ft. Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of an open sided 400 sq. ft. second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 25, 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 other properties in the neighborhood do have a second garage. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable to support the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial but not to any great degree. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Since a slab has existed in this particular area for quite a period of time. 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. 9 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-48-2018 THOMAS SHELLY, JR., Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Thank you. You've got it. MR. SHELLY-One quick question if I may. At this point since I do have a variance now, am I ready to proceed forward and go to the Building Department and apply for a building permit? MRS. MOORE-So the next step is you'll receive a letter from us asking for a final set of plans. The Board members probably have extra sets that you might want to take, and then when you receive your letter you can call me and I'll go through that next step. MR. SHELLY-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. The next item is AV 49-2018, Kris Roglieri. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-49-2018 SEQRA TYPE II KRIS D. ROGLIERI AGENT(S): STEFANIE DILLALO BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) KRIS D. ROGLIERI ZONING MDR LOCATION 40 NORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 144 SQ. FT. STONE GAZEBO STRUCTURE WITH A 182.25 SQ. FT. CONCRETE PAD. PARCEL CURRENTLY HAS 4 GARAGES (ATTACHED 1,250 SQ. FT.; DETACHED 390 SQ. FT.; CAR STORAGE 3,000 SQ. FT.; AND EQUIPMENT SHED 626 SQ. FT.) THE EXISTING WOOD SHED IS 470 SQ. FT.; (APPROVED) PERGOLA 1,000 SQ. FT. ARE THE TWO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THIS CURRENT APPLICATION WOULD CONSTITUTE A THIRD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. PARCEL EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE 750 TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THE PARCEL AS EXISTING TOTAL IS 1,470 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSAL WOULD BRING TOTAL TO 1,614 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF Z-AV-17-2018; Z-AV-79-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2018 LOT SIZE 14.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-37 SECTION 179-5-020 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, could you please read it into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-49-2018, Kris D. Roglieri, Meeting Date: July 25, 2018 "Project Location: 40 North Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 144 sq. ft. stone gazebo structure with a 182.25 sq. ft. concrete pad. Parcel currently has 4 garages (attached 1,250 sq. ft.; detached 390 sq. ft.; car storage 3,000 sq. ft.; and equipment shed 626 sq. ft.) The existing wood shed is 470 sq. ft.; (approved) pergola 1,000 sq. ft. are the two accessory structures and this current application would constitute as a third accessory structure. Parcel exceeds the allowable 750 total sq. footage for accessory structures on the parcel as existing total is 1,470 sq. ft. and proposal would bring total to 1,614 sq. ft. Relief requested from total square footage of accessory buildings in the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the maximum total square footage allowed for accessory structures on the parcel in the MDR zoning district. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—gazebo: The applicant proposes to construct a 144 sq. ft. stone gazebo structure with a 182.25 sq. ft. concrete pad. The parcel currently has 4 garages (attached 1,250, detached 390 sq. ft., classic car storage 3,000 sq. ft., , and equipment shed 626 sq. ft.). The existing wood shed is 470 sq. ft., the pergola at 1,000 sq. ft. and the 148 sq. ft. gazebo would be three accessory structure 10 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) and exceeds the total square footage maximum allowed is 750 sq. ft. and proposed is 1,614 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the gazebo size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be substantial moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested 864 sq. ft. 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 144 sq. ft. stone gazebo structure with a 182.25 sq. ft. concrete pad. The plans show the location of the gazebo with photos and drawings of the proposed stone structure." MR. FREER-Thank you, Roy. Hello, again. Please introduce yourself and add anything you'd like to the record. MS. BITTER-Okay. I'm Stefanie Bitter. I'm here on behalf of Kris Roglieri. Just to add to what was just recently stated by Roy, if you're familiar with this project, Mr. Roglieri has a 14 acre parcel and has been in the process of improving it with a pool project. Adjacent to the pool is a pond which the pool will be draining into, and this gazebo will sit on the other side of the pond. The proposal for this gazebo is decorative in nature and is very similar to the pergola and the stone in the design. When it was proposed he had thought that it was landscaping at best and wouldn't be considered something that would further require relief, but here we sit. That being said, as was mentioned, there are a number of buildings that exist on the property but they. The one stall garage which is immediately adjacent to the building, the wood shed that is filled with wood for the fireplaces, the second shed which stores the covers for the fountain as well as the covers for the landscaping and for Mr. Henkel's benefit I visited the site and took pictures of what was enclosed in the building because I felt very bad for my misrepresentation. My sincere apologies, but that building is used for the TP site structures for landscaping as well as the big wooden structure to cover the fountain in the wintertime. His 3,000 square foot garage is for his collection which was their original time. That was before you I believe in December and then the remaining is the pergola which will match this gazebo as part of the pool project. You are employed with doing the balancing test for these variances and I strongly believe that when you weigh the test, it weighs in favor of Mr. Roglieri. I totally understand that we keep adding things, but this is a huge lot that has many privacy features. It is not only 14 acres in size, there is a perimeter fence and it's densely vegetated and no one who is outside of this parcel has any idea that this gazebo will be there. You barely can recognize it when you actually approach the parcel other than by sitting at the pool. That being said, I do not believe there to be any undesirable change to incorporate this. Again large tract, densely vegetated, isolated property with actually commercial uses that are adjacent that would never know this gazebo was added. Another method might be to make this structure a little smaller, but 144 square feet is not very large in size. I think it's 12 by 12. So it's not large in size. It's, like I said, for landscaping purposes, for sitting purposes, for seasonal use. In that regard it's not substantial. It will blend with the other aesthetics that will be added to the property and there should be no adverse effect that's deemed to be experienced. I did take a picture when I was driving in just to kind of give you, you have the survey. So you see where the concrete pad is. You can see where it is in relation to the building. This is the pool area, and over here you can see how vegetated that area is. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. How come the pool equipment room is not another accessory building? MS. BITTER-Is that the teepee thing? MR. HENKEL-It's not on our list here. I know it's probably less than 10 by 10, but it's an accessory building, though. MRS. MOORE-It's part of a pool. MR. HENKEL-It's part of a pool? It's an accessory building, though. MS. BITTER-1 know what you're saying because it looks like a little silo. MR. HENKEL-We're not counting that? MRS. MOORE-1 don't have any. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Well, I've been to the property a few times, but I remember that last time, too, it wasn't listed here. We're not counting all accessory buildings, then? MRS. MOORE-It's less than 100 square feet? MS. BITTER-Yes, it's small. MR. HENKEL-It's approximately probably almost a 10 by 10. MS. BITTER-It's covering a pump he said. Yes. It's small in size. That wasn't the original purpose of it. It was a garden shed, because it's part of the original. MR. HENKEL-That was constructed with the pool. MS. BITTER-No. The circular? Let me see. I have a picture of it. I know what you're talking about. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's kind of similar when people have generators in their yard they put a roof over it. You don't really consider it a building. MR. HENKEL-That's what I was wondering. MS. BITTER-Because I had asked when I was at the property and I was advised that that was one of the original structures because this was a garden area and it was used as like a gardening shed. I say that. It was the wintertime that I was there before, but. MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? We have a public hearing scheduled. I don't see anybody in the audience to address this application. Roy, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. There are none. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'll close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I'll start with John. MR. HENKEL-Start with somebody else. MR. FREER-Okay. I'll start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Well, it's certainly a substantial request, but in my opinion it's a very large lot, larger than most any other lot in the Town of Queensbury, residential lot. I think, you know, given the balance test you brought up, I would have to lean in favor of the project because of the sheer size of the property. 12 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'd be in agreement with Michelle. I think that, you know, we have to keep it in the context of the size of the lot and over 14 acres is more than, you know, I just hope we don't have a continuous cavalcade of more proposed buildings on site. MS. BITTER-1 think what I would do is make a request to the Supervisor because I think that this is an area that should be recognized. Because if you look at the green space and you look at the coverage. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean it's similar. I mean Hovey Pond is down in the immediate area and there's a little covered thing in Hovey Pond there, too, you know, so it's more of an architectural element and it's not really, I wouldn't really consider it to be a detrimental building project or anything like that. MR. FREER-Okay. Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree we've got a lot going on here. Even though it's a large space most of it is kind of wooded. I couldn't see anything because I couldn't get on to the property. So I don't know how much anybody else can see, and that's the balancing test is is there a detriment. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-1 think the biggest problem I'm having with this is the way it's being presented piecemeal with each piece coming before us, an addition and another addition and another addition. Now we're in excess of the allowable accessory structure footage, and regardless of the size that's still a problem to me. So I'm' going to say no. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-It's certainly a large property and it's certainly a very private property, so it would be hard for me to deny this request. The gazebo is very beautiful. I think I saw that at the forum when I was in Rome, right? MS. BITTER-Probably. That's probably where it's being shipped from. MR. MC CABE-So, you know, I'd be hard-pressed. It is disturbing about every three months to have another request, but on the other hand, I certainly recognize this is a unique property. So I'd be in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to go bipolar on this as well. So it's a big piece of property. It's only a block away from my house. I'm very familiar with it. I think he's trying to upgrade and make a lovely piece of property. I am also a little miffed that you've kind of done it in this sort of piecemeal project which we don't like to do. Because it's not in the waterfront, there's no Planning Board requirement, but I guess my other observation is I'm not going to approve any more variances on this property until you bring the principal with you so that we can at least meet him, and I don't believe he's been here. Has anybody seen this guy? MR. HENKEL-No. MR. FREER-Okay. That's just feedback on my part. MS. BITTER-1 will let him know that. MR. FREER-And, John, would you like to speak? MR. HENKEL-I think it's a very nice piece of property, there's no doubt. He's done a nice job with it, but I think according to Code, the way the Code's written, they've got to change this. This is a large piece of property. It should be probably allowed to have a lot of structures on it, but our Code says no so I can't support it as is because of the Code. MR. FREER-Okay. So, Roy, you're against it. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. FREER-And you're leaning. Have we convinced you to lean any other way? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm sorry. I'm definitely in favor. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) MRS. MOORE-It's four three. MR. FREER-Yes. Okay. So I would close the public hearing and seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Kris Roglieri. Applicant proposes to construct a 144 sq. ft. stone gazebo structure with a 182.25 sq. ft. concrete pad. Parcel currently has 4 garages (attached 1,250 sq. ft.; detached 390 sq. ft.; car storage 3,000 sq. ft.; and equipment shed 626 sq. ft.) The existing wood shed is 470 sq. ft.; (approved) pergola 1,000 sq. ft. are the two accessory structures and this current application would constitute as a third accessory structure. Parcel exceeds the allowable 750 total sq. footage for accessory structures on the parcel as existing total is 1,470 sq. ft. and proposal would bring total to 1,614 sq. ft. Relief requested from total square footage of accessory buildings in the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the maximum total square footage allowed for accessory structures on the parcel in the MDR zoning district. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—gazebo: The applicant proposes to construct a 144 sq. ft. stone gazebo structure with a 182.25 sq. ft. concrete pad. The parcel currently has 4 garages (attached 1,250, detached 390 sq. ft., classic car storage 3,000 sq. ft., , and equipment shed 626 sq. ft.). The existing wood shed is 470 sq. ft., the pergola at 1,000 sq. ft. and the 148 sq. ft. gazebo would be three accessory structure and exceeds the total square footage maximum allowed is 750 sq. ft. and proposed is 1,614 sq. ft. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 25, 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 this property is basically of itself. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable considering the request to have a gazebo for the pool. 3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, because the Code is written for more normal properties, it's not really substantial with respect to this particular property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The neighborhood essentially won't see this at all. 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-49-2018 KRIS D. ROGLIERI, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2018 by the following vote: 14 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Thanks. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. The next application is Kevin Toomey, Area Variance 51-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-51-2018 SEQRA TYPE II KEVIN TOOMEY OWNER(S) KEVIN TOOMEY ZONING MDR CURRENT; SR-1A FARMINGTON GROVE SUBDIVISION LOCATION 19 BLUEBERRY TERRACE — FARMINGTON GROVE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ROAD FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. CROSS REF SIB 2-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.12-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050 KEVIN TOOMEY, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, could you please read it into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-51-2018, Kevin Toomey, Meeting Date: July 25, 2018 "Project Location: 19 Blueberry Terrace — Farmington Grove Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum requirement for road frontage on a public right-of-way. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum requirement for road frontage on a public right-of- way. Section 179-4-050 Road Frontage The applicant proposes to construct a home on an existing parcel where the previous subdivision did not account for the required road frontage requirements. Required is 100 ft. and 40 ft. is proposed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the existing lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 60 ft. of road frontage. 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 plans show the setback lines to indicate a home would be able to meet the setback requirements. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created. The subdivision did not address this particular lot at the time of subdivision. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a single family home on 1.29 ac parcel. The lot was not develop at the time of the subdivision of Farmington Grove Subdivision SUB 2-2003 and is subject to the review for not having the road the frontage required. The survey shows the lot location and the road frontage proposed." 15 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Could you please identify yourself and make any additions that you'd like to the comments that were just read in. MR. TOOMEY-Kevin Toomey. These lots, among other parcels, have been for sale for quite some time, and we are not proposing to build ourselves on this lot. We have a contract in place and this is somewhat contingent on this variance. I don't believe that this individual at this particular time plans on immediately constructing a home on that lot. The variance is kind of contingent on the placement. MR. FREER-Okay. Anybody on the Board have questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 do. On Blueberry Terrace there, all the adjacent land that's opposite you there, if you were going to extend Blueberry Terrace further in to access that property for a future subdivision or anything, is that going to be kept as a right of way through there or, I don't know who owns the property back there. MR. TOOMEY-The original, that was the intent when that hub started to go that way was to access the rest of the property back there for that reason. I would assume, again, we've been speaking with developers and so on and so on, I would assume that that would, at some point, I would guess. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would just assume with infill occurring eventually in Town that that would be logical that you would extend that road further back then you'd have frontage. MR. TOOMEY-If and when that happened, yes. MR. MC CABE-1 have a question for Staff. So let's say we approve this variance and then the lot just sits there with the approved variance for a year, then what happens? MRS. MOORE-It's for the life of the property. It's different than a site plan. Right. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. FREER-So I have a question for Staff, for whoever. In the past haven't we had a design for the house, in terms of? As I recall when they asked us for a variance for that six subdivision 100 foot waiver they actually had driveway cut outs identified as a mitigating circumstance for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that's because that was a new subdivision and this is a previously existing subdivision and this is just kind of an oddball piece that was left out, but that was why I made that comment initially because it looks to me like you could extend further down towards the bottom of the screen there, you know, eventually make more lots in the subdivision in there. So this would not impair that happening in the future. It's not changing anything really. You've kind of got to look at it from the aspect of this single entity that we're charged with tonight. MR. TOOMEY-And this, at the time, was obviously an approved lot, approved situation under the Farmington Grove subdivision, and then the zoning obviously changed. We had no control over it. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. HENKEL-So how would the rest of that property be accessed if this isn't a paper road that's planned or something like that? Because there's other property back there, right? MRS. MOORE-It would go through the subdivision process. MR. HENKEL-A lot of times a paper road which is an anticipated. MRS. MOORE-Not right now. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-I have one quick question. I should have looked it up towards the end, but I'm just trying to figure out where the driveway would go here. So what is the side yard setback? MRS. MOORE-Those setbacks are noted on that drawing. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) MRS. HAMLIN-That's what those dotted lines are for. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Right. MRS. HAMLIN-So there's sufficient room to meet the setbacks, at least 20 feet for fire apparatus. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FREER-Any other questions? We have a public hearing scheduled with this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is none. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'll close the public hearing and I'll poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I started with Michelle once first. So I'll go to Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I don't have any problem with this. It's probably not going to get built on any time soon. Even if it does, 40 feet is adequate and if there's further subdivision of that property in the back it's not going to impair that happening either. So I don't think it's going to be any big deal. MR. FREER-Okay. Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I don't see this as a substantial request and so I would approve the project. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also don't see a problem with it as it is. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor, although it is technically a substantial request. It's a unique circumstance, and in the future it may be a moot point if they extend Blueberry Lane. So I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Yes. I understand that it's kind of a leftover and that's exactly what this Board is about is so that people don't get pulled into rules that don't make any sense. So it meets the criteria that we're obliged to consider. So I support it as well. Okay with that I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kevin Toomey. Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum requirement for road frontage on a public right-of-way. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum requirement for road frontage on a public right-of- way. Section 179-4-050 Road Frontage The applicant proposes to construct a home on an existing parcel where the previous subdivision did not account for the required road frontage requirements. Required is 100 ft. and 40 ft. is proposed. SEQR Type II — no further review required; 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 25, 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. It's at the end of a dead end road at the present time. We recognize the fact that Blueberry Terrace may possible be extended as a Town road at some future date, but at the present time there's only 40 feet available for this lot to attach to with a driveway. Because it's the end of a road we deem that it's a doable thing and that a house can be built on this lot. 2. There are no feasible alternatives at the present time because there's only a single access point which is the end of Blueberry Terrace. 3. The requested variance is technically deemed to be substantial but it's not really because this is a leftover piece of a subdivision that was previously approved by the Town and also the Planning Board. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not anticipate any be the addition of one more home in the area. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but it's self-created because it's an oddball piece leftover in a previously approved subdivision. 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-51-2018 KEVIN TOOMEY, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 25th day of July 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. TOOMEY-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay before we adjourn I'd like to just apologize again for being late and just make, Laura, I need to double check that I have the right phone number. Did you get two calls from me? MRS. MOORE-Not on my cell, no. MR. FREER-Okay, and I need to put Mike's in my8 phone, too. So thanks for you guys moving forward. MR. MC CABE-We take care of you. Don't worry about that. MRS. MOORE-And I'll just add something to your night. Last night the Planning Board Chair identified that he had had a conversation with the Supervisor John Strough in reference to the 18 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) letter that they prepared and after the fact activities that kept coming before the Board and the Supervisor said if you would like to form a committee and go forward and explore those things then you can do that, and so at the moment the Chair and I are looking at what that process is and he wanted to make sure that the Zoning Board was aware of it and then if they're able to participate then he would make tht invitation to the members of the Zoning Board to also be part of this committee. MR. FREER-So is this for things that we think should be changed that keep coming up again? MRS. MOORE-It's exploring the possibilities of, you know, you've seen those events that keep coming in front of you. MR. FREER-The one that comes to mind immediately for me is mother-in-law apartments that we review. Is that what the intent is? MR. MC CABE-1 thought the main intent was if they come to us with an already built situation. MRS. MOORE-That's the biggest one. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-No matter what it is, and then exploring how to work with an applicant so that we avoid those things in the future. So if something that may occur is more up front, the landowners know that there's some activity that may occur if they do do something without approvals. MR. MC CABE-There are consequences to doing something without approval. MRS. MOORE-Right, and it has been explored before, and it didn't go any further. So it's being brought back up again. I just wanted to make sure the Board was aware of it. MR. FREER-Inputs? MR. MC CABE-I'd be happy to serve on a committee and attend meetings. MRS. MOORE-So I'll just keep you posted. Right now we're exploring how that process works so that it's legal. MR. HENKEL-It seems like we deny projects that make sense sometimes and we allow people that do projects without a permit that we wouldn't allow. That's where it's wrong. MR. FREER-Well even if we don't approve it they pay a fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or they shut it down. MRS. MOORE-So I just wanted to make sure that the Board was aware of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-We've made them take roofs off, reconstitute buildings that were too tall. We've done that before. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I just want to make sure you were aware of it and I'll keep you posted. MR. FREER-Okay. Very good. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MR. FREER-Thank you, Mike. I'll second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 25, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer 19 ( ]UeeOSbUryZBA Meeting 07/25/2018) NOES: NONE C)n motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 20