Loading...
12-19-2018 (Queenshury ZBA Meedny 1 /19/ 18] QUEENSBURY20MING BOARD OFAPPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1.9,2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, 58 and 61 Area Variance Z-AV-68-2018 Cameron R. Lewis 2. Tax Map No. 296.6-1-8 Area Variance Z-AV-74-2018 Brenton & Lauren Meilhede 7. Tax Map No. 301.5-1-53 Area Variance Z-AV-75-2018 John R. Buchanan 10. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-38 Area Variance Z-AV-75-2018 C. Raymond Davis & Sons, LLC 15. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-2 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR ZBA FOR 2019 18. 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. I (Queenshury ZBA Meedn 1 /19/ 1F] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-I'll call tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order. For those who haven't been here in the past it's actually quite simple. On the back table there's information about each application and a bit about the process. We'll call each applicant to the table. We'll read the application into the record. They'll make a presentation. We'll ask questions. We'll hold a public hearing if one is scheduled, which I believe all four applications will have a public hearing advertised. I'll poll the Board and then we'll move forward with the applicable motion. So, Roy, are we ready for, or do we have to approve? MR. MC CABE-We have some meeting minutes to approve. MR. FREER-Okay. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 14, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of December, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hayward ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: Z-AV-28-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A4 TREE WORKS). FURTHER TABLING. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A4 Tree Works). Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive. Project includes already in use new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area [logs, woodchips etc.]. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company. The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size required for a sawmill, wood product operations, and firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. 179-10-010 Special Use Permit Criteria for Commercial light industrial zone. (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] The applicant proposes a wood product operations (Defined as SAWMILL, CHIPPING and PALLET MILL-Any building, site or place used for the cutting or milling of raw timber into dimensional lumber, pallets, chips or other wood products.) where 100 ac is required and the existing site is 9.4 ac. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 and Left Open; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV- 28-2017,SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A4 TREE WORKSI, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Until the February 2019 meeting with pertinent information to be submitted by mid-January. Duly adopted this 19" day of December, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay, and we'll skip the next one. MR. MC CABE-Yes. APPROVAL OF MEETING DATES CALENDAR FOR YEAR 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES FOR THE YEAR 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of December 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Now we're on to Cameron Lewis, AV 68-2018. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-48-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 CAMERON R. LEWIS AGENT(SJ MIKE LEWIS OWNER(SJ JOSEPH WOODWARD ZONING RR-SA LOCATION 11 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME (1,392 S. FT. FOOTPRINT). HOME IS TO BE 1 %2 STORY WITH A LOFT AND UNFINISHED BASEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR LAND DISTURBANCES WITHIN 50 FT. OF A 15 PERCENT SLOPE. CROSS REF. SP 62-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2018 LOT SIZE 5.87 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 295.64-8 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-48-2018, Cameron R. Lewis, Meeting Date: December 19, 2018 "Project Location: 11 Old West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family home (1,392 sq. ft. footprint). Home is to be 1 %2 story with a loft and unfinished basement. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for land disturbances within 50 ft. of a 15 percent slope. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirement in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes a single family home to be located 37.6 ft. from the front property line where 100 ft. is required and is to be 22.7 ft. from the side property line North where 75 ft. is required. 3 (Queenshury ZBA Meedn 1 /19/ 18] 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 topography of the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback is 62.4 ft. Relief requested for the side setback is 52.3 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impacts 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 to construct a new single family with a foot print of 1,392 sq. ft. The new home is to have a basement, a main floor and a loft area. The site plan shows the location of the new home, the driveway area and the site work." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you'd like to record. MR. JARRETT-Certainly. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and with me tonight is the Lewis family proposing the house that is stated in the application. I have Jessie, Cameron and Mike with me. This is a project that was reviewed by this Board four years ago for a different applicant, different owner at the time, and variances for front and side were granted at that time. We've come back and kept the side line setback the same as what we proposed at that time, that we've actually moved the front back six inches. So it's six inches less relief requested this time than four years ago. If you sent to the site you'll notice the lot is steep and very narrow. It really doesn't fit this zone very well. I think post-dated the lot creation by a few years. You'll note in Laura's Staff Notes that there aren't very many alternatives if you want to minimize environmental impact. Moving the house toward Old West Mountain Road makes the most sense, and obviously with the very, very narrow building footprint, with those setbacks, 100 feet and 75 feet, there's really not much of a building envelope. So there's very few alternatives, and the last comment that I want to make is that technically this is self-created. However, if you're going to allow a single family house on this lot, it's a pre-existing house and a development of right, then you really should grant variances of some type for people to build something there. So those are my comments and I'll open it up to questions. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-Tom, the height of it is going to be 40 feet? MR. JARRETT-Yes, and Mike you can elaborate on that. MIKE LEWIS MR. LEWIS-It's a chalet style, one and a half story, with a walk out basement in the front facing down towards Old West Mountain Road, typical eight foot basement. Actually the height is 34 feet, not 40. MR. JARRETT-We've measured 34 from grade. MR. KUHL-Because in the application it's got 40 here. MR. JARRETT-I thought that was the maximum. (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] MR. KUHL-No, it talks about here 40 feet is the required. Okay, you're right, 34 feet, 34, 6. Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to have to add a garage later at some point? MR. LEWIS-It's a possibility. It's not a requirement. There was a parking space worked in. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 saw where you have the pull off. Yes, I assume that's where it would go. MR. LEWIS-In the future it's a possibility. MR. FREER-So the stream that was also a constraint. You didn't mention that. MR.JARRETT-I did not mention that. You're right. There is a stream that's on the south side where the existing curb cut, that old driveway is. I don't know when that was put in. That was put in prior to the last applicant. South of that we proposed a new driveway. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-Yes, I do. Have you been through the Board of Health with this, Tom? MR. JARRETT-Yes, we got approval for that wastewater system. Yes, we did. MR. KUHL-Okay. In the construction of the house, are we putting a generator in? MR. LEWIS-Not immediately. Maybe down the road. MR. KUHL-I mean, what are you going to do if you have a power failure? MR. LEWIS-It's a system that you're not constantly. MR. KUHL-But you've got a grinder pump that you're going to have to pump up. I had one of those years ago. MR. JARRETT-Normally what we do is put extra storage in the pump tank with an alarm to shut off the water supply. So that there's storage in the pump tank to take the water that's in the system already. MR. KUHL-Right, but then you have gravity and water's in your tanks and above it. Everybody that flushes the toilet is going to have more water coming to it. MR. JARRETT-Only what's in the system after we shut off the water system. MR. LEWIS-We could provide for strictly a generator just to take care of that immediately, take care of that problem. Typically we don't see power outages of any substantial length. MR. JARRETT-Knock on wood we won't get one this winter. MR. URRICO-1 have a question. You said four years ago they received approval for variances. Do you know if the house proposed at that time was the same? MR. JARRETT-Not quite exactly the same. It's a little bit different footprint and actually it's within I think 50 square feet of the same size in the same location. MR. URRICO-Fifty larger or fifty smaller? MR. JARRETT-Fifty smaller I believe. I think it's 50 feet smaller. Laura, do you remember? MRS. MOORE-1 don't remember the size. It's very similar. We did overlay it. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? So we do have a public hearing scheduled. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] MR. URRICO-Yes. I have one letter. "We are responding to Joseph Woodward's request to move his new build closer to the main road and 50 feet closer to our property. As property owners of the adjacent parcel we are requesting that other options be explored for the location of Mr. Woodward's new home. We feel that having a house constructed closer to the lot line and closer to the road causes of a visual barrier in what would be otherwise open and natural surroundings. My husband Glenn Schneider spoke to a site contractor and was told that it is very possible to cut into the existing base of the mountain to create the required 10% slope and still maintain the original required setbacks. It looks as if every other existing home in the area has been built with a minimum of 100 foot set back from the road. We do not understand why it's necessary to change what has worked for all of the other builds in the area. Perhaps you would consider giving an easement for the required slope in lieu of moving the setbacks. Thank you for making our comments available for the boards' consideration this evening." That's Elisa Schneider, and they live at 19 Old West Mountain Road. MRS. MOORE-This is the Woodward property that the applicant is proposing to place the house on and this is the Schneider property. MR. HENKEL-There's a house there now that's below you. MR. LEWIS-There's only a house across the street and there's one house closer to West Mountain Road. There's a vacant lot. MR. HENKEL-Right. There's one house right on that side. MR. FREER-So this is listed as IL So the next one is 19. MR. MC CABE-The closest house was marked 5 1 think. Because I looked at that. It's the first one as you come up the road. MRS. MOORE-So this is the property that we're discussing. This is the neighbor's property. MR. FREER-Okay, and the house to the south, all of them are a little closer. MRS. MOORE-Closer, and there were some Area Variances. I think it was this house and this house were granted some Area Variances previously. MR. JARRETT-It's very unfortunate that on steep slopes like this we have very narrow lots because the driveway is, to create switchbacks to get a driveway that's reasonable, it's almost impossible on a lot that narrow. If you go straight up the lot you've got a driveway that's 20, 25%, which I wouldn't want to drive in the wintertime. I wouldn't want to maintain it. MR. HENKEL-But like you said they deemed it a buildable lot. MR. JARRETT-Years ago they did, which I think today the Planning Board would not approve lots like this on those kind of slopes. In fact, they wouldn't even be developable on those slopes. MR. FREER-Right, and you still have to go to the Planning Board. MR. JARRETT-Right. We have to go back tomorrow night for Site Plan Review, but this was granted approval by both Boards four years ago, basically the same development. MR. FREER-Right. Okay. So that's the only written input, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Jim, please. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think based on practicality and based on the record that we previously approved something similar and this requires less relief, I would see no reason to hold this up. I mean I think it's important for us to review projects like this because they are on steep slopes, but it does fit in and where it's proposed is the most practical place to put it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with Jim. As he stated we approved it once before and this is something very similar. So I can't see any reason why we shouldn't approve it. So I believe this is the minimum relief required and I would approve it. 6 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. I'm in agreement with my fellow Board members. I think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. They've considered alternatives. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I don't think there's any other way of really building that house with the narrow lot like Mr. Jarrett's saying. So I would be on board with giving them their variance. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. The way I view it it's very similar to the house that's just to the south, and if there were problems I'm sure it would have cropped up with that house. So I'd be in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Okay, and Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Okay. I, too, have no problem with granting this variance. So with that, I'd like to close the public hearing and request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cameron R. Lewis. Applicant proposes construction of a single-family home [1,392 sq. ft. footprint]. Home is to be 1 %2 story with a loft and unfinished basement. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for land disturbances within 50 ft. of a 15 percent slope. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirement in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes a single family home to be located 37.6 ft. from the front property line where 100 ft. is required and is to be 22.7 ft. from the side property line North where 75 ft. is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 19, 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 project appears very similar to the building next door. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but have not been deemed reasonable because of the topography of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. At most it's moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district in our opinion. 5. The alleged difficulty of course is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] 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-68-2018, CAMERON R. LEWIS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 19" day of December 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Okay. Onto Area Variance 74-2018, Brenton and Lauren Meilhede. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-74-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 BRENTON & LAUREN MEILHEDE OWNER(SJ BRENTON & LAUREN MEILHEDE ZONING SFR4A AT TIME OF SUBD.APPROVAL; CURRENT MDR LOCATION 7 NOBLE WAY, KINGS COURT SUBD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL TO BE LOCATED IN THE NON- ARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD ON THE WEST MOUNTAIN SIDE OF THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN A YARD OTHER THAN THE REAR YARD. IN ADDITION AREA VARIANCE 31-2008 GRANTED APPROVAL FOR A PRIVACY FENCE IN A FRONT YARD. ADDITIONAL RELIEF FOR THE ADDITIONAL PRIVACY FENCE IS REQUIRED AS WELL. THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING WORKSHOP ADDITION REQUIRES VARIANCE RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF 20 FT. CROSS REF POOL 695-2018; AV 31-2008 FENCE; SB 18-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.02 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 301.54-53 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-070 BRENTON & LAUREN MEILHEDE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance Z-AV-74-2018, Brenton & Lauren Meilhede,Meeting Date: December 19, 2018 "Project Location: 7 Noble Way, Kings Court Subd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an in-ground swimming pool to be located in the non-architectural front yard on the West Mountain side of the parcel. Relief requested from requirements for placement of a pool in a yard other than the rear yard. In addition, Area Variance 31-2008 granted approval for a privacy fence in a front yard. Additional relief for the additional privacy fence is required as well. The location of the existing workshop addition requires variance relief from minimum the setback requirement of 20 ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for location of a pool and a fence relocation in the Moderate Density zone: Section 179-5-020- Pool The applicant proposes a pool in the front yard as the parcel is bordered by two roads. Pools are to be located in the rear yard. Section 179-5-070 —Fence The applicant proposes to extend the fence on the south side of the property with 6 ft. high privacy fencing. Fencing in the front yard is to up to 4 ft. in height and non opaque. 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. 8 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] 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 parcel location bordering two roads — Noble Way and West Mountain Road. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for placement of a pool in a front yard and a 6 ft. high privacy fence also in the front yard. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 912 sq. ft. in-ground pool with a patio that surrounds the pool. The project also includes extending the existing privacy fence along West Mountain Road. The plans show the location of the pool and fencing." MR. FREER-Thank you. Can you please identify yourself and add anything you'd like to the application? MRS. MEILHEDE-Sure. I'm Lauren Meilhede. MR. MEILHEDE-Brenton Meilhede. MRS. MEILHEDE-So we purchased this property in May of 2017 with intent to put in an in-ground pool, not knowing that it needed a variance from West Mountain Road. So, and you can see I have some pictures. The fence was already existing when we bought the house. There is an area relief that we have found for that the previous owners have redeemed. We would like to put an in-ground pool on that side of the property within the fence, but we would like to move the fence. The fence comes in at an angle. You can see on the survey it kind of comes in kind of not perpendicular to the house. So putting a pool in, a rectangular pool in not perpendicular would look pretty funny. So we want to put it perpendicular to the back of the house and then put the fence to surround it and that's still within our 20 foot side setback, and as you can see on the back on the West Mountain side there is a 30 foot no cut zone and that is full of trees and foliage and is very private from West Mountain. So it does appear as if it is a backyard. Even though it's technically a front yard, it very much looks like a backyard in the pictures of that. The workshop was there when we purchased the house. It is 13 feet instead of 20 feet from our side neighbors. That's how it was when we purchased the house. There is a building permit that was granted. I'm not sure why a variance wasn't given at that time or needed at that time, but that's what we purchased. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-So question to Staff, there was a building permit for that? MRS. MOORE-There was a building permit for that and probably the detail that was missing was a setback because it may have been hand drawn at that time. We're inspecting it now for the entire site. It's noted that it's too close to the property line. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So they didn't know that when they built it. MRS. MOORE-1 wasn't there back then. So I can't. MR. FREER-Do we know when the building permit was pulled? MRS. MOORE-1 can find that out, but it was a while ago. MR. HENKEL-So they granted a building permit. MR. FREER-To follow up on where it was going to be located. Okay. Any other questions? So I have a question. Why do you want an in-ground pool? Why don't you just come to the "Y"? MRS. MEILHEDE-I do. I swim at the "Y" in the winter when can't go in my backyard. We also have two children who would enjoy it very much, and t e previous house we had in Bedford Close had a pool. So when we proposed moving for our children, that was, well we'll put one in. (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 018] MR. KUHL-So what are you going to do when your children want a Jaguar? MR. HENKEL-Build them a garage to house it. MR. KUHL-That's it. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no comment. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'm going to poll the Board and start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes. This is another situation, being as how you have two streets front and back to where you have to come, and also the fence, I'd prefer a six foot with a pool rather than a four foot, but if it was me advising you I'd say put an above ground pool so that when the kids are off running somewhere you can just tear it down. You're going to be left with a sizeable investment. If that's what you want, that's fine really. I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Thanks. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. FREER John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I mean they have a good buffer there. They have a big lot so it's not going to stick out like a sore thumb. Of course the workshop doesn't sound like it was their fault. So I'd definitely be on board as is. MR. FREER-Okay. And Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I have no problem with it. It certainly appears like a backyard where the pool's going. The workshop is unfortunate but it happens, and the fence makes sense. So I would support the project. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of it. I would just suggest you wait about five months before using it. MR. FREER Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm all for it. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'd like to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brenton & Lauren Meilhede. Applicant proposes construction of an in-ground swimming pool to be located in the non-architectural front yard on the West Mountain side of the parcel. Relief requested from requirements for placement of a pool in a yard other than the rear yard. In addition, Area Variance 31-2008 granted approval for a privacy fence in a front yard. Additional relief for the additional privacy fence is required as well. The location of the existing workshop addition requires variance relief from minimum the setback requirement of 20 ft. Relief Required The applicant requests relief for location of a pool and a fence relocation in the Moderate Density zone: 10 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 018] Section 179-5-020- Pool The applicant proposes a pool in the front yard as the parcel is bordered by two roads. Pools are to be located in the rear yard. Section 179-5-070 —Fence The applicant proposes to extend the fence on the south side of the property with 6 ft. high privacy fencing. Fencing in the front yard is to up to 4 ft. in height and non opaque. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 19, 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 there is that 30 foot buffer off of West Mountain Road and again this is a property that has two streets, front and back. 2. Feasible alternatives really are not there, but they're limited. Again, the two streets require this applicant to come for a variance. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that this is self-created but only because they want a higher fence and again the second street. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-74-2018, BRENTON & LAUREN MEILHEDE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 19" day of December 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Enjoy. MRS. MEILHEDE-Thank you. MR. FREER-See you at the "Y". Okay. On to Area Variance 75-2018, John R. Buchanan. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-75-2018 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN R. BUCHANAN AGENT(SJ JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(SJ JOHN R. BUCHANAN TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 66 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REVISION TO REMOVE EXISTING OPEN DECK TO CONSTRUCT ENCLOSED PORCH OF 92.5 SQ. FT.; PORTION OF WALL SECTIONS ADJOINING THE DECK AREA ALSO TO BE REMOVED AND RECONSTRUCTED ABOUT 8 FT. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL 112 SQ. FT. RAMP EXTENSION TO EXISTING WHEELCHAIR RAMP. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND SHORELINE 11 (Queenshury ZBA Meedn 1 /19/ 01F] SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN. CROSS REF SP 74-2018 MODIFICATION; SP 58-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.75 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 289.114-38 SECTION 17943-010 E TOM JARRETT & BILL DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-75-2018, John R. Buchanan, Meeting Date: December 19, 2018 "Project Location: 66 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes revision to remove existing open deck to construct enclosed porch of 92.5 sq. ft.; the wall sections adjoining the deck area are to be removed and reconstructed this is about 8 ft. Project includes construction of an additional 112 sq. ft. ramp extension to existing wheelchair ramp. Relief requested from minimum setback and shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for modification to an approved plan. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum shoreline setback requirements for accessory structures in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to remove existing open deck to construct and includes removal of the wall sections that adjoin the deck where the side setback is to be 6 ft. 10 in where a 20 ft. is required and it is to be 27 ft. 8 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The project still includes a proposed update to a wheel chair ramp with a new wooden pathway that is about 34 ft. 2 in. in length and is to be aft 6 in width with a 4 ft. wide landing area midway of the wooden path. The wooden path is to be located 3 ft. 11 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to placement of the existing building on the parcel and parcel shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 13 ft. 2 in to the side property line and 22 ft. 4 in from the shoreline for new enclosed porch. The wooden pathway relief requested is 46 ft. 1 in. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to alter an existing home to remove an open deck and to construct an enclosed a 92.3 sq. ft. deck, remove some of the existing deck area, and to redo the front entrance area with a raised roof area. The project now includes removal of wall sections adjoining to the new proposed enclosed deck and reconstructing those sections. Also, as already indicated the project still includes the proposed construction of a wood pathway from the existing driveway area to the shoreline to help a wheelchair bound client to access the shoreline boathouse area of the property. The plans show the revisions with the wall sections and enclosed porch as well as the wood pathway." 1 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 018] MR. FREER-Thank you. Could you guys introduce yourselves and add anything you'd like. MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett, Jarrett Engineers. Tom Buchanan to my left and Bill Dean to my right. If this project, this application rings a bell it should. We were in front of you two months ago for exactly the same project with one technicality, one difference. When Bill started cutting into the wall of the existing bedroom to tie in the new porch to raise the wall height he found the wall was constructed very, very poorly, very little insulation and the structural integrity of the studding was horrible. So we want to re-build that wall entirely instead of just adding on to it and we were sent back here. MR. KUHL-It doesn't seem like you should have. MR. DEAN-We agree. MR. KUHL-Okay, but serious question. I don't have the documentation from the last one we approved, but the porch is going to be the same dimensions, right? MR. JARRETT-No change in dimension at all. MR. KUHL-What are you doing here? MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn't make sense. MR. JARRETT-Please bring that up the next time there's a Code review. We discussed that with the Planning Board the other night and they agreed that exactly, that there's no sense wasting everybody's time when we have something like this that can be handled administratively. MR. BUCHANAN-Please say something to Craig Brown. MRS. MOORE-1 could just note that's information that goes to the Town Board because the Town Board's the one who amends those. MR. JARRETT-Exactly, but if these Boards recommend it to the Town Board, I think it'll carry some weight. MR. KUHL-I mean functionally if you had just gone ahead and re-built the wall as you were doing it, nobody would have seen it. MR. JARRETT-Possibly, but we don't work that way. MR. KUHL-No, I understand that, but I think this is an expense that you shouldn't shoulder and the Town shouldn't shoulder. For me as a Board member when I read this, because I didn't have the old one, I said I think that's exactly the same. MR. JARRETT-It is. MR. KUHL-It's a waste of Town money. It's a waste of your money, and I'm going to be quiet now so you can go home because the clock is running. MR. DEAN-The unfortunate part is not just the expense, too. We have an 89 year old gentleman, this man's father over here who is unfortunately now two months put out of his bedroom and has to live in his living room through Christmas. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Anyway, we appreciate that sentiment. MR. HENKEL-Who's the one that did all the excavating? Was that Crandall? MR. JARRETT-Crandall. MR. HENKEL-John, I see a model for other lakefront properties because they did a nice job of protecting the coast. MR. JARRETT-The construction you saw was a new wastewater system that they put in. 1 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] MR. HENKEL-Yes, because I was up there a few times and it really came out nice. MR. DEAN-The horizontal pouring helps a great deal. He didn't have to dig anything up. MR. HENKEL-There's a lot of preparation in building those raingardens. MR. JARRETT-Yes, you're reflecting on the landscaping of the property. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Which I agree with is beautiful. MR. KUHL-Only beautiful people live on Glen Lake. MR. FREER-So, thank you. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO"We are the owners of the parcel at 70 Reardon Rd., the immediate adjacent west side neighbor to John R. Buchanan. We urge approval of Mr. Buchanan's Area Variance Request. We are personally aware Mr. Buchanan faces a great hardship due to personal physical limitations as well as disabled parents. His proposed project is important to alleviate disabilities arising from his situation. Respectfully submitted, Michael Seidel Rachel Murray" And they live at 30 Sheridan Street. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. It's essentially the same as what was proposed a couple of months ago. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-It's a great project. Go for it. MR. FREER-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 approved it before. I'll approve it this time. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor. MR. FREER Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. FREER-And Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm for it. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'm going to close the public hearing and request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John R. Buchanan. Applicant proposes revision to remove existing open deck to construct enclosed porch of 92.5 sq. ft.; the wall sections adjoining the deck area are to be removed and reconstructed this is about 8 ft. Project includes construction of an additional 112 sq. ft. ramp extension to existing wheelchair ramp. Relief requested from minimum setback and shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for modification to an approved plan. 114 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 018] Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum shoreline setback requirements for accessory structures in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to remove existing open deck to construct and includes removal of the wall sections that adjoin the deck where the side setback is to be 6ft 10 in where a 20 ft. is required and it is to be 27 ft. 8 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The project still includes a proposed update to a wheel chair ramp with a new wooden pathway that is about 34 ft. 2 in in length and is to be aft 6 in width with a 4 ft. wide landing area midway of the wooden path. The wooden path is to be located 3 ft. 11 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 19, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board previously and because there have been no changes, we do not note that there would be any need to minimize or change anything from the previous approvals. 3. The requested variance is not considered substantial because we thoroughly reviewed it previously and approved it in essence essentially the same as we're doing this evening. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because it's a creation of the fact that the lot is a narrow lot. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Having previously approved essentially the exact same request here, the only modification that we note is the replacement of all three exterior walls. The applicant will be constructing the deck as previously approved. There will be no changes from previous approvals that both this Board and the Planning Board approved. 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-75-2018, JOHN R. BUCHANAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of December 2018 by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-The only modification that we note is the replacement of a wall of two by four construction with a wall of two by six construction. 15 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 018] MR.JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, before you ask for a second, could I clarify one thing? I've been caught in a bureaucratic glitch already. It's all three exterior walls that have to be re-built, as opposed to the one wall. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Sure. MR. JARRETT-If I could clarify that. MR. KUHL-I could second that recommendation. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would make a recommendation that in this instance here I think that the Town has sort of over-stepped its authority and this could have been resolved administratively because we. MR. FREER-And I will bring that action to the Staff. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. JARRETT-Thanks very much. MR. KUHL-Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Tom, really. MR. JARRETT-Thanks. Sorry to waste your time, but we had to do it. MR. FREER-Okay. Area Variance 76-2018, Raymond Davis & Sons, LLC. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 C. RAYMOND DAVIS&SONS, LLC AGENT(SJ HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(SJ ROBERT & LORRAINE CARBOGNIN ZONING WR LOCATION 197 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 176 SQ. FT. OF NEW FLOOR AREA INVOLVING TWO NEW ROOF LINES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 78-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.45 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-2 SECTION 179-3-040; 17943-010 JOHN ISAACS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-76-2018, C. Raymond Davis & Sons, LLC, Meeting Date: December 19, 2018 "Project Location: 197 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a residential addition and alterations to existing home which includes construction of 176 sq. ft. of new floor area involving two new roof lines. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming use in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements in the Waterfront Residential zoning district and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements, Section 179-13-010 Non-conforming The applicant proposes alterations to the roof line on an existing home includes over hangs and a new peaked roof section. The proposed setbacks are 12.7 ft. new roof line side setback on the front of the home and a 9 ft. new roofline side setback on the garage roof area to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited to due to the existing location of the home on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 7.3 ft. to the new peaked roof area and 11 ft. for the new roofline for the garage roof. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to alter the roof lines on an existing home to move stormwater runoff further from the walls of the home. The new peaked roof line is also to add an architectural feature to the home. The plans show the elevations and interior plans for the home." MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Please identify yourself and add anything you'd like. MR. ISAACS-My name is John Isaacs and I'm with C. Raymond Davis. We're the builders/remodelers for Bob and Lorraine Carbognin at 197 Assembly Point Road, and we are just asking for a variance for the roofline additions. What we're trying to do is eliminate the rainwater coming directly down on the house. They have some rot there now and with the new siding they'd like to protect their investment better and we'd like to add that little bit of roofline to the edge of the roof to help do that. We also have the roof overbuilds that are on the front as well. That would just take away the contemporary look of the home and add more of an Adirondack style. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. ISAACS-1 have two written comments. Can I bring those up now? MR. URRICO"I am writing in full support of Robert and Lorraine Carbognin's application to the Town of Queensbury regarding alterations to their house, including roof construction. I understand that they are not changing the footprint of their house. I own a house at 11 Sunset Lane on property adjacent to the Carbognins' property. We believe that this alteration will have no adverse impact on the community or our enjoyment of our property. The Carbognins have been wonderful neighbors and have demonstrated their interest and respect for the water quality of Lake George. Therefore, we lend our support to their application. Sincerely yours, Scott B. Dubin" And this is a similar letter. "I am writing in support of the application Carbognin's family's application for relief of the current zoning regulations. I reside at 2 Sunset lane, two doors away from 197 Assembly Point Rd. After reviewing the proposed work, I do not believe there is any impact to the environment or character of the neighborhood. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, John A. Graziano, Jr." 2 Sunset Lane. That's it. MR. FREER-Okay. Let's see. I just want to make a comment to the group that hopefully you see that this is a Waterfront Residential zone. So we're a little bit more careful about what we do with regard to Lake George. We actually have Waterfront Residential around Glen Lake and in the Hudson River and on Lake Sunnyside. So this Board reviews many applications that try to preserve the lake quality and that's why it's a little different than some place that's not on the waterfront. With that. I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. MR. HENKEL-First of all, are you going to poll us? 17 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] MR. FREER-I'm sorry. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I understand what they're trying to do. I wish they could have considered the permeability a little better. 61.8% is kind of, but I would not hold them back for that. It's a good project. It's a nice project. I'm a little perturbed on the permeability. I think something could have been done there, but I'll go for it. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I have no problem with the project. I think that in a very short period of time it will look no different than, or in appearance wise, it will look the same as that house does now, maybe slightly improved, and so therefore I would support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application as proposed. MR. FREER-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think this is a practical sense one here. They're improving the dynamics of the longevity of that home by adding the longer rooflines on it. I think a lot of times when we review these projects you look at the houses and because of the wind throw coming off the lake and situations like that they don't put enough rooflines on homes to protect them and it's a design flaw that's too common on the lake. So this one makes sense. It's well set back from the lake. It's not going to have any negative impact by increasing that roofline. It enhances the look of the home, too. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with my Board members. I'd be in agreement to approve this project. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm also in agreement. MR. FREER-Okay. I can support this variance as well. Now we'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from C. Raymond Davis&Sons, LLC. Applicant proposes construction of a residential addition and alterations to existing home which includes construction of 176 sq. ft. of new floor area involving two new roof lines. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming use in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements in the Waterfront Residential zoning district and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements, Section 179-13-010 Nonconforming The applicant proposes alterations to the roof line on an existing home includes over hangs and a new peaked roof section. The proposed setbacks are 12.7 ft. new roof line side setback on the front of the home and a 9 ft. new roofline side setback on the garage roof area to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 19, 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: 18 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 018] 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this project is going to improve the longevity of the existing property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's basically very minimum. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) bJ , cJ 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-76-2018, C. RAYMOND DAVIS & SONS, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 19" day of December 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Good luck. MR. ISAACS-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a couple of other administrative things. So the remaining order of business is, I'll just tell you that I got a call from John Strough and he asked if I was interested in continuing to serve as the Chairperson and I said yes. I don't know if he polled other people? MR. KUHL-Yes, he did, but I said I wouldn't just because you were. MR. FREER-So the second part of that is we then elect a Vice Chair and the Secretary, and the incumbents have indicated an interest in continuing, but if there's anybody else interested, then we can sort of I guess discuss it and/or, we don't have to vote on it today? MRS. MOORE-Typically you make a motion for a recommendation. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ELECTION OF OFFICERS: VICE CHAIRMAN AND SECRETARY FOR YEAR 2019 MOTION TO APPOINT ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of December 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE 1 (Queenshury ZBA Meedng 1 /19/ 18] MR. KUHL-Okay. Now we need a motion for Mike to be the Vice Chairman. MOTION TO APPOINT MICHAEL MC CABE FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2019, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 19" day of December 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-So that's all the business that we need to do. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. I'd like to adjourn, absent any dissent. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19" day of December, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman