Loading...
06-26-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) QUEENSBURYZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND MEETING .TUNE 26, 2019 INDEX Sign Variance No. 5-2019 AJ Signs 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-5 Area Variance No. 28-2019 Eric Sage 6. Tax Map No. 279.17-2-3 Area Variance No. 26-2019 Kathy Sanders 10. Area Variance No. 24-2019 James Trudeau 15. Tax Map No. 296.8-1-20.1 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 26, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN (Acting as Chair for this meeting) ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Welcome to the meeting tonight for the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. If you haven't been here before the procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up, read the case into the record, ask the applicant to make further comment, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised we'll open the public hearing, hear comments from the audience and when that's done we'll close the public hearing. We'll poll the Board to get the feeling of how things go and then we'll proceed from there. So tonight our first application is Sign Variance SV 5-2019, AJ Signs, Michael Fiacco. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AJ SIGNS AGENT(S) AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) MICHAEL FIACCO ZONING CI LOCATION 63 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL 16 SQ. FT. PANEL TO THE EXITING 105 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN STRUCTURE FOR A NEW TENANT IN THE MARK PLAZA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE. CROSS REF SV 16- 2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2019 LOT SIZE 3.18 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-5 SECTION CHAPTER 140 TOM WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-2019, AJ Signs, Meeting Date: June 26, 2019 "Project Location: 63 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of an additional 16 sq. ft. panel to the existing 105 sq. ft. freestanding sign structure for a new tenant in the Mark Plaza. Relief requested from maximum sign size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum sign size for a free-standing sign. Chapter 140 -Signs The applicant proposes an additional 16 sq. ft. panel to an existing freestanding sign. The current sign has four panels and this would be the fifth. The previous sign variance allowed 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) for the maximum size sign of 100 sq. ft. The maximum size free standing sign is 45 square feet. Criteria for considering a Sign 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 sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number panels in the sign. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for an additional panel sign to be added to the free-standing sign. Relief requested is 76 sq. ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add a 16 sq. ft. panel to an existing free standing 105 sq. ft. free standing sign. The applicant was granted Sign Variance 16-2013 for 100 sq. ft. free standing sign at a distance of 2 ft. from the front property line. The plans show the location of the existing free standing sign and the proposed panel on the sign." MR. WHEELER-I'm Tom Wheeler with AJ Sign company. Basically we're looking to add more tenant space to the existing monument sign so that all the tenants in the plaza will have visibility from the main road. This really acts as directional aid for the traffic. It's a busy road. We want people to be able to see what's in there where they're going so they can get in the right lane to make the turn safely. This is going to fit right in with what's there. Most people won't even notice that the sign has been changed. It's going to fit the design and just allow us to add more tenants. MR. MC CABE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-Do you know if there will be any other tenants added after this? MR. WHEELER-Not that I'm aware of. MR. KUHL-Are there any other empty facilities that you're going to have other tenants, or is this it? MR. WHEELER-As far as I'm aware, this would be it. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) MR. HENKEL-There's no way of changing that? You've got that Bennington sign, that's furniture, that's twice the size of all the other ones. Could you reduce that? Just push that down to the size of the other signs there? MRS. MOORE-It would be 16 square feet so it matches all the other signs. MR. HENKEL-Right. It's been that's way. MR. WHEELER-That's considered the anchor tenant. That's why it's a little bigger. A lot of times in plazas you'll see that. MR. HENKEL-You've got a lot of wasted sign there with all the blue. If you just had the lettering there. MR. MC CABE-They also have twice the size of all the other tenants, too. MR. WHEELER-He also owns the plaza. He does not want to shrink that down. The way the sign's built, too, I don't know, I believe you'd have to re-build that entire middle structure in order to do that, which would be not very cost effective. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? A public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'll open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak to the Board on this matter. Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written correspondence. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'd like to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (There was some static on the tape in the background and some of discussion was inaudible) MR. MC CABE-So we'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don't think that one additional addition onto this sign, even though it's oversized, it's not going to be that noticeable. I think that because there is no more inf ill that would be available on this sign. I think we could ask them to re-design the sign appropriately, but given the time and expense. MR. KUHL-I agree with Jim also. This is getting into the verticals there and they're not asking for much. So I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor as well. It's not going to increase the footprint of the sign, or the overall size of the sign. For that reason I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it wouldn't be much to do the sign over and I think to let them go beyond what they're allowed, it's a small area, I'm definitely not for the extra panel. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm okay with the extra panel for now, but (inaudible). MR. MC CABE-My feeling is that the applicant has done a very nice job with the signage at this particular location. It just so happens that most of his tenants, except for Sagamore Style there, are fairly new. So I think it's fairly important that they be able to identify themselves in the plaza. So I'm in favor of the application. MR. FREER-So I'm going to against my normal and say I think that it's too much and I don't support allowing for us to go 100% above what Code allows. I'm going to vote against it. MR. MC CABE-But you've got your votes. So at this particular time I'm going to request a motion for the SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2019 AJ SIGNS BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 261h day of June 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So now I'm going to ask for a motion on the application. MR. KUHL-Could I make that motion? MR. MC CABE-You may. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ Signs for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes placement of an additional 16 sq. ft. panel to the existing 105 sq. ft. freestanding sign structure for a new tenant in the Mark Plaza. Relief requested from maximum sign size. We believe the variance is valid for one year from the date of approval. You may request an extension before the first year. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum sign size for a free-standing sign. Chapter 140 -Signs The applicant proposes an additional 16 sq. ft. panel to an existing freestanding sign. The current sign has four panels and this would be the fifth. The previous sign variance allowed for the maximum size sign of 100 sq. ft. The maximum size free standing sign is 45 square feet. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution / Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 5-2019 AJ Signs based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 261h day of June 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 26, 2019; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? We don't believe so. It blends in with the existing sign. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I do not believe so. This is an additional merchant there and he'd like the visibility. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It is not minimal but it is medium. It's not severe. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, I don't think so. I think it blends in with the existing sign structure. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We may suggest that it is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2019, AJ SIGNS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 261h day of June 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-So our second applicant is Eric Sage. It's Area Variance AV 28-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2019 SEQRA TYPE II ERIC SAGE AGENT(S) PETE SANKEY, PE OWNER(S) ERIC SAGE ZONING WR LOCATION 140 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING DETERIORATED 480 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 576 SQ. FT. 2-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 279.17- 2-3 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 ERIC SAGE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2019, Eric Sage, Meeting Date: June 26, 2019 "Project Location: 140 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing deteriorated 480 sq. ft. 2-car garage and construct a new 576 sq. ft. 2-car garage. Relief requested from minimum setback and permeability requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback and permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements- The applicant proposes to construct a new garage to be located 4.2 ft. from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required and 15.4 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability where 74.2% is proposed and 75% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size of the parcel and location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the side setback is 15.8 ft., front setback is 14.6 ft., then permeability is 0.80%. 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 a 576 sq. ft. garage detached garage to replace the 480 sq. ft. garage. The information submitted shows the garage elevation and an open floor plan." MR. MC CABE-Good evening. State your name for the record. MR. SAGE-I'm Eric Sage, 140 Sunnyside Road North. Thank you for having me here. MR. MC CABE-So do you have anything additional that you'd like to talk about? MR. SAGE-The only thing I wanted to mention on the permeability aspect, I don't know if this is something, but the road as you see up on the screen actually is part of the property line, when I did the measurements it ended up being about 4.6% of the permeable area is by the road. I had no say in that. MR. MC CABE-There's nothing you can do about that. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Is there any way of moving that, because I know you're only 15 feet from the road. If you park your cars there it's going to be in the road. Is there any way of bringing that closer to the lake? You've got 61 feet there. I know there's a little bit of a downhill there. MR. SAGE-I suppose I could. I amenable to whatever you want. I talked to the engineer, and put it at the same location where it currently is. The additional four feet would be towards the center of the property. So the footprint is mostly going to be the same. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if you did that, too, you would have even more impermeable surface because you'd have the surface of the driveway. MR. KUHL-Are you re-using any footings or anything from the old garage, or is it all going to be new? MR. SAGE-The footings in the garage, they built them with railroad ties. Unfortunately, is cracked and that's essentially got to be replaced, and also I wanted to mention there's a couple of things I didn't want to do because I actually do care about permeability. What I wanted to do is put in those type of paver blocks, permeable. That will help out. MR. KUHL-You're going to put those from the road to the garage, is that what you're saying? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) MR. SAGE-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-Have you considered decreasing the size of the garage? MR. SAGE-I looked at that and the issue is storage in the garage. The house itself is really small. So it's like, okay, I don't want to build the house any larger because of the septic system. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? A public hearing has been advertised this evening. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who has anything to say about this particular application. Seeing no one, do you have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no comments. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-It makes sense. I was just worried about the parking on the road, but I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-So as I look at this, the garage is, so by granting this variance I think we get a largely improved structure here and it will improve the overall appearance of the property. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it's essentially a replacement. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'd support this as well. I think it meets the criteria. MR. MC CABE-Given this, I'm going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application for Eric Sage. Applicant proposes to remove existing deteriorated 480 sq. ft. 2-car garage and construct a new 576 sq. ft. 2-car garage. Relief requested from minimum setback and permeability requirements. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback and permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements- The applicant proposes to construct a new garage to be located 4.2 ft. from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required and 15.4 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability where 74.2% is proposed and 75% is required. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on June 26, 2019; 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this particular project is going to improve the overall appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable, mainly because of the small size of the property and the slope that it's on. 3. The requested variance is minimal compared to what's existing. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we think that the conditions will improve. 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 NO. 28-2019, ERIC SAGE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 26" day of June 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. SAGE-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So next application is Kathy Sanders, Area Variance 26-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2019 SEQRA TYPE II KATHY SANDERS OWNER(S) KATHY SANDERS ZONING WR LOCATION 119 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 6 FT. BY 25 FT. DOCK AND REPLACE WITH AN 8 FT. BY 30 FT. DOCK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A DOCK ON GLEN LAKE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-42 SECTION 179-5-060 KATHY SANDERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2019, Kathy Sanders, Meeting Date: June 26, 2019 "Project Location: 119 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing 6 ft. by 25 ft. dock and replace with a 8 ft. by 30 ft. dock. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for a dock on Glen Lake. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for a dock on Glen Lake. Section 179-5-060 docks The applicant proposes to install an 8 ft. by 30 ft. dock. The new dock is to be located 14.1 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 shoreline width. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5.9 ft. to the north side of the property. 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 maybe considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) Staff comments: The applicant proposed to remove an existing non-conforming dock and to install a new dock that is further from the north property line than the original dock. The plans show the existing dock and the proposed dock on the site. No other changes to the site are proposed." MR. MC CABE-Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. SANDERS-Thanks. I'm Kathy Sanders. Thank you for your time and consideration. MR. MC CABE-So do you have anything to add? MS. SANDERS-Yes, the only thing I want to add is that right now the dock is on the property line, so it's already out of Code. It's falling apart. It definitely needs to be replaced, and so in order to fit my boat, which is 22 feet long, it's a pontoon, that's the length that I need to put that boat, and then the improvement that's being made is that I'm moving it more to the center of the property line so that it gives the Cembrook property a lot more space on their side because it's no longer on their property line. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Yes. Is this going to be a crib dock or is it going to be an aluminum dock that you're going to lift up? MS. SANDERS-No. MR. KUHL-What's it going to be? MS. SANDERS-It's going to be a wood dock. MR. KUHL-A wood dock that'll be left in all winter. MS. SANDERS-All winter. MR. KUHL-And you're not cribbing it. MS, SANDERS-No. MR. KUHL-Okay. Why eight feet? MS. SANDERS-Because I want to be able to sit on the dock and six feet is just very narrow. MR. KUHL-No, it's not. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can't get around a chair very well. MR. KUHL-Actually not many of your neighbors have eight footers, do they? MS. SANDERS-Two of my neighbors. MR. KUHL-Well you'd have to go down to the property to get an eight foot dock. MS. SANDERS-The Cembrooks have an eight foot wide dock. MR. KUHL-I mean I don't understand why you need eight feet. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) MR. MC CABE-Well when I looked, if you buy a standard dock section, it's four by ten. So she's going to put two standard sections together. So that's where you get the eight by thirty is if you're going to use six sections. MR. KUHL-And how many dock do you own, Mr. Vice Chairman? MR. MC CABE-I looked at the Curtis Lumber dock. MR. KUHL-Well, no, in all honesty I also live on the lake. So and I actually zoomed over there with my boat today. I did the back view on the property. I don't understand why you need eight feet. I just don't, okay. If it's something that you feel that you have to have, my thought to you was would you accept less if that was the only way to get a new dock? MS. SANDERS-I don't know. I mean would I accept less if that's the only way to get it passed, but I just think that the extra two feet is kind of nice to have when you're looking at the sunset view to have two people sitting on the dock. MR. HENKEL-There aren't too many on Glen Lake that are eight feet wide, though. MR. KUHL-No, there aren't. Some of the neighbors have five foot with a little "L". Some do L shaped docks, too. MR. HENKEL-You're talking most of those properties are 50 feet or less of shoreline. MR. KUHL-No, they're not. MR. HENKEL-On Glen Lake? MR. UNDERWOOD-They're all 70 or more, most of them. MR. KUHL-Well you have 50 feet. MS. SANDERS-I have 50 feet. MR. KUHL-Different areas have different. It varies from 30 or 40 or 50 to a couple of hundred. I just don't understand why you need eight feet, but if that's what you're asking. MR. MC CABE-Are there other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this application. Seeing no one I'm going to see if there's any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are two from her neighbors. "We are writing in full support of the variance request for Kathy Sanders for the construction of a new 8 foot x 30 foot dock. She is our new next door neighbor and we have no concerns or objections to this variance. The new dock will be an improvement to what is currently there and is necessary to accommodate her boat. We thank you for considering this variance and kindly ask that you grant approval for this variance. Sincerely, Pamela and John Cembrook 121 Birdsall Road Queensbury, NY 12804" "I reside two houses away from applicant Kathy Sanders who is applying for a replacement dock at 119 Birdsall Road on Glen Lake. I firmly am in favor of the replacement and do not feel the new construction will have any negative affect on the community and or the adjacent properties. Thank you." And that's Maureen Valenti. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing and do a poll of the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes I think if there were any objections it would come from her neighbors behind her. So I'm in favor of the project. I think it's a good project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I have no qualms about permitting this project to ensue and build it as you wish. I think it's going to improve the situation because you're moving away from the Cembrook side. We recognize that all these lots down in the apex of the bay are pretty tight in there and if you put your dock in the middle it gives you more space for your boat as you pointed out to us. So I'm all for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm happy to hear that the neighbors are in favor of it and I'll pull in my horns. I'll support this. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I, too, am in support of your project. I think it's going to improve the neighborhood and also make ingress and egress from your dock safer, having the space between the docks. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes I think it's a great idea they're moving it to the middle. I really don't know if you need the width, but I'll support it, yes. MR. MC CABE-And I will support the project. I think that the old dock needs replacing and contrary to what Ron believes, I learned quite a bit about docks listening to some others and know for a fact that a four by ten is a standard dock section, and so I think that the eight by thirty makes sense and so I'll support the project. Harrison? MR. FREER-I, too, support the project. I think it makes sense and supports our criteria and I don't see any downside that I would object to. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to call for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kathy Sanders. Applicant proposes to remove existing 6 ft. by 25 ft. dock and replace with an 8 ft. by 30 ft. dock. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for a dock on Glen Lake. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for a dock on Glen Lake. Section 179-5-060 docks 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) The applicant proposes to install an 8 ft. by 30 ft. dock. The new dock is to be located 14.1 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. So that means he needs 5.9 feet of relief on the north side. It's compliant on the south side. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 26, 2019; 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. The new location of the dock would be more compliant than it is currently and it will allow for an ingress and egress for the boat. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. Ii could be a smaller dock and be compliant, but the applicant wishes to have an eight foot wide dock so that they can sit side by side with chairs on the dock which makes perfect sense as far as I'm concerned. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it basically makes the situation better than what currently exists. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. This will be an improvement over what currently exists. 5. The alleged difficulty is slightly created by the width of the dock but at the same time it's not unreasonable with what's being requested. 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; All the neighbors that are adjacent support the project also. 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 NO. 26-2019 KATHY SANDERS, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26" day of June 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) MS. SANDERS-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is James Trudeau, and it's Area Variance AV 24-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2019 SEQRA TYPE II DAMES TRUDEAU OWNER(S) JAMES TRUDEAU ZONING PUD LOCATION 4 CHELSEA PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION TO EXISTING 100 SQ. FT. DECK AT THE BACK OF THE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WAVERLY PLACE SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF AST 256-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.8-1-20.1 SECTION 179-3-040 JAMES TRUDEAU, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2019, James Trudeau, Meeting Date: June 26, 2019 "Project Location: 4 Chelsea Place Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 120 sq. ft. deck addition to existing 100 sq. ft. deck at the back of the home. Relief requested from the minimum property line setback requirements for the Waverly Place Subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum property line setback requirements for the Waverly Place Subdivision. Section 179-4-040 Dimensional requirements, 179-12 PUD dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a 120 sq. ft. deck addition to be located 17.0 ft. to the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Note the lot is a corner lot with two fronts and two rears and no sides. 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 deck location. The existing deck is located 17.4 ft. from the rear property line. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 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. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) Staff comments: The applicant proposes 120 sq. ft. deck addition to the existing deck at the rear of the home. The plans show the existing home with the deck and the proposed deck addition." MR. MC CABE-Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. TRUDEAU-Good evening. My name is James Trudeau. I live at 4 Chelsea Place in the Waverly Place subdivision, right off of Meadowbrook Road. We bought the house about a year ago. We loved everything about the house except for the deck, and so I said to my wife no problem. We'll buy the house and make the deck bigger that's all. Maybe I should have put a patio on instead. MR. MC CABE-We'll see. MR. TRUDEAU-Anyway, so I said all right we'll make the deck bigger. Then I find, I came from the City of Albany. I could reach out the window and shake my neighbor's hand in the next house. There was six feet between the houses, but I was shocked to find out there was a 20 foot setback. I thought maybe 15, then I would have been all right, but I came up three feet short. So the only way to build it, seek a variance. That's why I'm here, and I talked to all the neighbors and everybody's good with it. As a matter of fact I've got a letter here from the Waverly Place Homeowners Association Board of Directors approving it. That's the first one, and I should have brought it over but I didn't. I've got a copy for you. MR. MC CABE-That's okay. Give it to Roy, or you can read it into the record yourself. So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Your neighbor said you could use his patio, didn't he? MR. TRUDEAU-That's the funny thing about it. I sit there, it's a corner lot. Where my house faces the side of his house, you almost never see him. Not too many people entertain on the side of their house, but anyway. Everybody's for it that I talked to. Nobody's got a problem with it, plus all the other decks in the neighborhood are much better than my 10 by 10. I'm going along the house sideways making it wider, not going out. MR. KUHL-But your wife requested this? MR. TRUDEAU-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time we have a public hearing advertised. So I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON HATHAWAY MR. HATHAWAY-Hi. I'm Don Hathaway. I live in Lot 13, or on Lot 13 next to him. His backyard comes to my side yard, that's where they meet, and we have no objections at all to his expansion of his deck. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else? ANITA CARTIN 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) MS. CARTIN-My name's Anita Cartin. I live at 10 Chelsea, which would be the next building over, and we also have no objection at all. MR. MC CABE-Thank you very much. That's all we've got for audience. So, Roy, would you do your thing there? MR. URRICO-Yes. "Dear James: Thank you for your recent request to make changes to your home at Waverly Place. At the May 6t", 2019 Board meeting, your Landscaping request to deck addition to existing deck was approved. A signed copy of this letter has been placed in your unit's folder in the Secretary's files. Please note: This approval from the Board does not preclude any permit requirements that may be required by the Town of Queensbury. The Board reserves the right for removal of any items not consistent with the approved request or not installed in a good professional workmanship manner. Project approvals are good for six months from the date on this notification. Projects not commenced within six months must be resubmitted. The Board should be informed in writing upon completion of the project. Thank you again, and please feel free to contact any members of the Board if you have questions. Sincerely, Linda Sugent, Vice-President Waverly Place HOA" MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in support of this project. I think that your plan fits in with the character of the neighborhood and the setback is really no appreciable difference from the setback that exists with your current porch. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree it's a good project. Go for it. MR. MC CABE-So I believe the variance that we're asking for is minimal and so I will support the project. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm also in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I'm all for the project. I mean I think a 10 by 10 deck is tiny. I mean you could barely walk around the chair and table with two people. If you had four people over it's going to be an overload, and I think adding the 10 by 12 is going to make it much more usable. So I'm all for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think that when the neighbors come up in support of a project it makes our job easier and I'd be in favor of this project, even though I'm not invited to the barbecues. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-I, too, support the project. I think it meets all the criteria that we're supposed to me and it's the reason that we have a Zoning Board of Appeals, so that we don't put people 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) up against rules that in general apply but don't specifically make sense for an individual situation. So I'm happy to support the project. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Trudeau. Applicant proposes construction of a 120 sq. ft. deck addition to existing 100 sq. ft. deck at the back of the home. Relief requested from the minimum property line setback requirements for the Waverly Place Subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum property line setback requirements for the Waverly Place Subdivision. Section 179-4-040 Dimensional requirements, 179-12 PUD dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a 120 sq. ft. deck addition to be located 17.0 ft. to the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Note the lot is a corner lot with two fronts and two rears and no sides. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 26, 2019; 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We're just simply extending a deck that already exists. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed necessary at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's very minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact the neighbors seemed in complete support of the project. 5. The alleged difficulty is not really self-created. It's a result of the property being on a corner. 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: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/26/2019) 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 NO. 24-2019 JAMES TRUDEAU, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 26" day of June, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. TRUDEAU-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to ask is there any other business that should be considered by the Board? MR. URRICO-I have one thing. I'd like to thank Sue Hemingway for her work with the Board for so many years and your assistance behind the scenes has been invaluable to our work here and I want to thank you for that and wish you lots of luck. MS. HEMINGWAY-Thank you very much. I appreciate what you said. MR. MC CABE-And I think Harrison might have something to say also. MR. FREER-I totally agree. MR. MC CABE-Sue you've been great. I'll make a motion that we officially adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 26, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 26" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman 20