The URL can be used to link to this page

08-21-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2019 INDEX Area Variance No. 9-2019 Gary Hillert 1. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-53 Area Variance No. 20-2019 Reece Rudolph 6. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-34 Area Variance No. 31-2019 James & Donna Stokes 12. Tax Map No. 315.-1-1.2 Area Variance No. 32-2019 Thomas Williams 17. Tax Map No. 288.-1-65 Area Variance No. 33-2019 William Mason 25. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-24 Area Variance No. 34-2019 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 31. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD MEMBERS ABSENT HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. First of all I’d like to point out that there’s exits in the back. There’s exits on the side of this wall and there’s an exit over in the corner. If you haven’t been here before, the agenda is on the table in the back. The procedure is quite simple. We’ll call the applicant to the table. We’ll read the application into the record. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing is advertised, then we’ll open the public hearing and seek comment from the audience. At that time then we’ll close the public hearing and we’ll poll the Board to see what the feelings are of each member about the application, and then we’ll proceed accordingly. First of all we have to do some administrative work. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 17, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 17, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our first application is Gary Hillert, and it’s AV 9-2019. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2019 SEQRA TYPE II GARY HILLERT AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) GARY HILLERT REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 366 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT HAS REVISED APPLICATION BY REMOVING THE SHORELINE DECK FROM THE SITE. PROJECT INCLUDES MAINTAINING TWO FENCE SECTIONS NEAR THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR THE FENCE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED NEAR THE SHORE AREA (HEIGHT, TYPE, AND SIZE). CROSS REF SP 31-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-53 SECTION 179-3-040. GARY HILLERT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Mr. Hillert, would you come up to the table, and, Roy, would you read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2019, Gary Hillert, Meeting Date: August 21, 2019 “Project Location: 366 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has revised the application by removing the shoreline deck from the site. Project includes maintaining two fence sections near the shoreline. Relief is requested for the fence areas that have been constructed near the shore area (height, type, and size). Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief is requested for the fence areas that have been constructed near the shore area (height, type, and size). 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) Section 179-5-020 Fence The applicant proposes to maintain a 55 ft. long 6 ft. in height stockade fence section that connects from the house to the shoreline –west side. Also, a second section of 11 ft. is at 6 ft. in height stockade located on the east property line within 50 ft. of the shoreline (total fence length 69 +/- ft.). Fences are to be at a 50 ft. setback from the shoreline, no privacy-type fence shall encroach into the front yard setback requirement or shoreline setback requirement. 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 available to remove the fence sections in violation. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the fence section on the west is 50 ft., for type of fence and height of fence. The east section of fencing relief is 39 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 will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain shoreline fences that do not meet the setback, type or height of fence. The survey shows the location of the fence. The applicant has removed the shoreline deck from the application.” MR. MC CABE-I just want to make a correction. I believe the first segment of fence is six foot high, not six inches high. MR. URRICO-Well, it says both. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, can I interrupt you? The way I read my specks, this 179-5-020 is for auxiliary structures. In my document it’s dated 4/1/11. I find that fences are 179-5-070. Is that right or wrong? MRS. MOORE-That is correct. MR. KUHL-That is correct. So that means that Roy has to change what he said. Right? He read in 179- 5-020 fences. MR. URRICO-I read in the Staff Notes as written. MRS. MOORE-That is incorrect. You caught me. It should be the seven and not the five. MR. MC CABE-So we have that correction. Okay then I’d also like to point out that we’re short-handed tonight. So you can defer to another date. However, it’s to your advantage to see what the six of us want to do. You still have to have four in your favor no matter what. So you’re free to explain your situation here. MR. HILLERT-I went to another Board and they asked me to remove, it really wasn’t a deck. It was laying on the ground. It wasn’t attached to any building or concrete, nothing. MR. MC CABE-We understand that. We’re just talking about the fence now. MR. HILLERT-Okay. So I think I have a letter from my neighbor who’s been there for a very long time and she had no, I really don’t have any neighbors because it ends right there at the lake and part of the problem when we put the fence up, because a lot of people just come through the yard. They park across the street and they go fishing in St. Mary’s Bay. A lot of people like to fish there, and we put a sign up and 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) everything. So the only way to keep them off was to put a fence up and my neighbor has no problem with it. She likes the fence. I mean it’s finished on both sides by the way. MR. MC CABE-Do we have a copy of that letter? MR. URRICO-I have a letter. I don’t know if that’s the name, Betty Spadero? MR. HILLERT-Yes, that’s it. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? I just have one question. How long has the fence been in existence the way it is? MR. HILLERT-About four years. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Does anybody else have questions of this applicant? Seeing nobody, a public hearing is advertised, and so at this particular time I’ll open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that has input on this application? Seeing nobody, I’ll look for written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. This is the letter mentioned earlier. “I live at 374 Glen Lake Road in Queensbury. I have lived next door to the Hillerts for some time now. I am absolutely perfectly fine with their small shed and beautiful white fence. I have no problem with the location of the small shed and white fence and they have my approval to keep the small shed and white fence where they are now located. Sincerely, Betty Spadero” That’s it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with John. What are your feelings here? MR. HENKEL-Well, I mean, the one part that you took down there. You took a section down. Right? The one section there. MR. HILLERT-Yes. MR. HENKEL-The one that bothers me the most is definitely the six foot height on the Bay side there. I just don’t think we want to start seeing lakefront properties put six foot fences that you can’t see through all the way to the water. MR. HILLERT-You can see to the water anyway. MR. HENKEL-You can see from the road. All I’m saying is we just don’t want to start seeing a bunch of houses with fences right up to the lake. That just doesn’t look right and plus Code wise it’s not acceptable. I mean if you had maybe a picket fence that was four foot high a certain distance that might be acceptable, but not the six foot high all the way to the lake. So I would not be in favor of this application as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m okay with the fence the way it is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we can support the applicant’s right to keep the fence the way it is. I live on Glen Lake. I paddle by that section there in St. Mary’s Bay all the time and one of the things I notice, being a lake resident, is all the traffic noise that also comes in from the apex of the Bay there, as cars come off, as motorcycles come around the corner there and creates a lot of noise, and that fence acts as a barrier, blocks the noise. I think that the applicant also has made an argument for the fence to keep people from encroaching on his property to go fishing. I don’t really see that there’s a problem here and I think that it’s a unique situation. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. A little known fact is that right beyond this applicant’s property is a public ramp or if you will a public property, and I can understand where the people come thinking that they can go on the 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) other side of St. Mary’s Bay and walk through his lawn. So I would support this. It’s been there for, as he said, four years, and I don’t think it’s obtrusive. It just blends in. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m not in favor of the property. I agree with Mr. Henkel. I think it’s too substantial. I think that you can achieve your aims with a shorter fence at the very least. MR. HILLERT-Have you seen the area? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I have. I’m very familiar with St. Mary’s Bay. MR. HILLERT-Is it from the Bay looking towards the road? MR. URRICO-You can’t argue right now. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, your turn. MR. MC CABE-All right. So my feeling is that if you came to us ahead of time I probably wouldn’t approve this, but the fact that it’s been there for four years and nobody’s said anything about it, I’m in favor of the project. So with that said, I’m going to look for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gary Hillert. Applicant has revised the application by removing the shoreline deck from the site. Project includes maintaining two fence sections near the shoreline. Relief is requested for the fence areas that have been constructed near the shore area (height, type, and size). Relief Required: Applicant has revised the application so the only thing left is relief for the illegal fence that was created four years previously. Section 179-5-070 Fence The applicant proposes to maintain a 55 ft., 6 ft. in height stockade fence section that connects from the house to the shoreline –west side. Also, a second section of 11 ft. is at 6 ft. in height stockade located on the east property line within 50 ft. of the shoreline (total fence length 69 +/- ft.). Fences are to be at a 50 ft. setback from the shoreline, no privacy-type fence shall encroach into the front yard setback requirement or shoreline setback requirement. Relief is requested for the fence areas that have been constructed near the shoreline and that’s for height, type and size. Again, the relief requested is for a 55 ft. in length, 6 ft. high on the west side and 39 feet on the east side. Both fences will be left as is. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday August 21, 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties by the creation of the fence. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered, and that was removing the fence or making the fence a compatible height, but the proximity to the road, trespass on the property and road noise are all potential items that will be doubled and the height of this fence will mitigate this. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it’s an over height fence and it’s a large fence close to the water but it’s a unique situation again here on a corner in St. Mary’s Bay. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the fence was put up four years previously. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh resulting (approve) 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: 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. 9-2019, GARY HILLERT, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward ABSENT: Mr. Freer MRS. MOORE-Do Board members have their surveys or the information that was submitted by the applicant? Can you provide that to the applicant? That way the applicant can provide the current copies back to us. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next applicant is Reece Rudolph, and it’s AV 20-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2019 REECE RUDOLPH SEQR TYPE II AGENT(S) DAVID HUTCHINSON OWNER(S) REECE RUDOLPH ZONING WR LOCATION 24 NACY ROAD APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE PLAN TO REMOVE THE 392 SQ. FT. ½ STORY AND A 189 ADDITION AND A 57 +/- SQ. FT. BATHROOM ADDITION ON THE FIRST FLOOR. PROJECT INVOLVES A NEW SHORELINE BUFFER. THE EXISTING SITE HAS A 623 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND A 968 SQ. FT. HOME; THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,844 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 2,906 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 29-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRE(S) (SURVEY) TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-34 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVID HUTCHINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2019, Reece Rudolph, Meeting Date: August 21, 2019 “Project Location: 24 Nacy Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has revised the plan to remove nd the 392 sq. ft. ½ story and a 189 sq. ft. porch area, to construct a 715 +/- sq. ft. 2 story addition and a 57 +/- sq. ft. bathroom addition on the first floor. Project involves a new shoreline buffer. The existing site has a 623 sq. ft. garage and a 968 sq. ft. home; the existing floor area is 2,844 sq. ft. and proposed is 2,906 sq. ft. Relief requested from setbacks, permeability, and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks, permeability, and floor area. The applicant updated measurements of the building square footages and living area during a recent site visit. Section 179-3-040-dimensional requirements The applicant’s revision includes removal of the second floor of 392 sq. ft., and a 189 sq. ft. porch area. The new second floor is to be 715 sq. ft. and the first floor bathroom is to be 57 +/- sq. ft. The new second story is to be located 8 ft. 11 inches to the property line, then the bathroom is to be 1 ft. 6 inches to the property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is proposed to be 73.7%, where 75% is required (existing 72.5%). The floor area proposed is 2,906 sq. ft. (27.8%) where 2,300 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed (existing 2,844 sq. ft., 27.2%). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) 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 due to the location of the existing home and lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 11 ft. 8 inches and the floor area is 5.8% in excess of the maximum allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add a 715 sq. ft. second story to a first floor area of 839 sq. ft. where the first floor includes removal of a porch area and installation of a bathroom. The new upstairs is to have two bedrooms and the first floor is to have an open living area. The plans show the location of the addition to the home. The elevations and floor plans show the arrangement of the home. The applicant has also updated the plans to show the existing vegetative buffer and a new shoreline planting area –includes 36 in. to 48 in. with Meadow rue, New York ironweed, Wild Senna and other native species.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. HUTCHINSON-Good evening. Some of you may remember we were here a couple of months ago and sort of the general feeling by some of the Board was that we were still adding too much to the existing Floor Area Ratio. So Reece is here, Mr. Rudolph. He’s the owner, and we sat down and talked about that, and some ways to maybe try and offset what we’re trying to do on the second floor. So just to review really quickly, you can see the plans up on the screen. In the upper left is the existing floor plan, and I’ve highlighted the eaves closets that exist in the building. So those are the sort of triangular spaces you have in roof areas when the roof is lower on a building, and in the lower right hand corner would be the proposed plan. So we’re not increasing the square footage of that floor. We’re raising the roof so that those areas on the top and bottom of the plan, just, you’re able to walk there instead of having to duck. That’s what we’re doing in the second floor, and that previously, because you’re including those blank spaces, added to the floor area ratio that’s an existing condition. So what we thought was the building existing now on the first floor has an old addition that is a shed addition on the left side. Now in the proposed plan it’s small. You can see on the left there. So what we’re proposing to do is take off a majority of that area, return it to vegetation, increasing the permeability of the site. So environmentally improving the permeability of the site and the buffers to help with runoff and all of that, and that offsets, not completely, but as much as we can. We still want a bathroom on the first floor. That offsets what we’re trying to capture on the second floor. So we’ve effectively reduced the net floor area ratio increase over existing down to .6%, and we’ve increased the permeability, a good thing, by 1.2%. We’re removing some of the footprint. We’re just leaving a small, like 55 square foot bathroom on the left there in the upper right plan, trying to offset that black area that we’re trying to capture. Like I said, we’ve got it down to .6% is increase, and I suppose technically by removing, because the building’s angled slightly, by removing some of that on the first floor, we’re also improving the setback by a little less than a foot, but we are improving the area of the building that kind of encroaches on the setback on the down page of the building. We’re substantially away, way beyond zoning, away from the shoreline as it exists, and like I said we’re trying hard to make the second floor useful. It’s very chopped up the way it is, the first floor as well. It’s sort of an older house that is very chopped up. So the spaces become a lot of spaces that are small. So we’re just trying to make it for the owner of the building a little bit more livable by making that second floor just a touch roomier, and we know that was increasing floor area that was already over too much. So we thought by offsetting it that would help sort of the cause to keep this building similar in size. It already has a dormer on the second floor that faces the lake. So the façade of the lake being two stories is sort of the same. You go to the elevations, so on the lower right plan, the upper floor already has that second floor facing the lake. So we’re only increasing the height of that elevation by five-ish feet with a new roof, but it sort of already has that mass that faces the lake now, and you can see in the upper left the small abutment on that elevation. It is the left over space for the bathroom and all the land around that would be brought back to vegetation and/or grass so we can keep the site more permeable than it was. These are some of the changes that we’re trying to make to get it back into shape of what we heard in the last meeting, everybody’s comments and questions. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I do. We don’t have it on our plans. Where’s the septic system on this? Is it where the driveway is? MR. HUTCHINSON-In your original packet there was an inspection of the septic system and signoff by an engineer. So the septic system is in the driveway. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Yes, I see that. Now was there any thought about putting the bathroom on the other side to give you a better setback what would be on the northeast side kind of? MR. HUTCHINSON-That’s a great point. We were, the plan was to use the existing building and sort of clip it back and renovate what was there, but we certainly could look at that. Do you know what I’m saying? There’s already an addition there. So we were going to sort of selectively demo the two ends of it, even though it’s on your left, to try and not impact the site any more than we are, but that is a great point. MR. HENKEL-Because in the future if you ever needed to get some kind of equipment in the front, there’s no way of getting it out there without using other people’s property. MR. HUTCHINSON-Down by the shoreline. MR. HENKEL-Otherwise you wouldn’t be able to get any equipment in there. MR. HUTCHINSON-Yes, I mean that’s an existing condition for sure. MR. HENKEL-Right. I just think it would make more sense to put the bathroom on the other side. MR. HUTCHINSON-It certainly improves it, but we’re still into the setback unfortunately, by the existing conditions. MR. HENKEL-It’s definitely an improvement from the first project that came in front of us, though. MR. HUTCHINSON-I mean it would be nice to take that whole part off, but we think as a living space, dining room, kitchen, not having restroom down there. MR. HENKEL-Well you’ve got to have a bathroom. It would probably be better on the other side. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the status of the garage? MR. HUTCHINSON-Right now it’s kind of in flux. It needs to be re-sided. The second floor, it kind of adds a low space in the second floor that’s not usable anymore. It’s a two car garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-But that’s just storage in the garage? It’s not living space up there? MR. HUTCHINSON-Up above? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. HUTCHINSON-It’s actually just storage because it has a structural additive called collar ties, the anchor joists, that is lower than five feet. So it doesn’t really afford it. It’s relatively old. So I’m trying to keep it stable. It’s perfectly stable, but improving on the structure that is existing back in the past has made that floor not really usable. I’m not sure what it was used for in the past, but since Reece has owned it it’s just been a storage space, but again there’s really no height in there now with the collar ties, the joist connections. And that’s how it will remain. MR. MC CABE-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 that has input on this application. Seeing no one, I’ll ask, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. There were two letters handed to me right before the meeting. “We live at 22 Nacy Road and reside next to 24 Nacy Road. We totally support the proposed improvements that are being planned for that property. The proposal will certainly be a vast improvement to the present state of the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) property. Any improvement will also increase property values and certainly add to the appearance of the neighborhood. Having gone through this process recently, we appreciate the complexity of this proposal and see the value of the improvements that are being sought by Reece Rudolph. It is our hope that this proposal will be approved. Sincerely, Frank & Kathi Miller” “I reside at 28 Nacy Road, Lake George, NY, 12845. I am the neighbor of Reece Rudolph at 24 Nacy Rd. It has recently come to my attention that he is in the process of attempting to apply for permits through the Town of Queensbury in order to renovate his home at 24 Nacy Rd. I have lived on Glen Lake my entire life. I have seen many homes and camps transformed into brand new houses that are appealing to the eye and something residents can be proud of. Unfortunately the property at 24 Nacy Rd., as it sits, is not a place aesthetically pleasing, nor a place we can be proud of. It is with the deepest hope that you will allow him to re-model his home. This will be an obvious improvement to one of the few remaining old camps on the lake, and an improvement to the adjacent properties. I fully support his project and his vision for the property at 24 Nacy Rd. Best Regards, David E. Dutra Marylou Dutra” That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s an interesting proposal. I think one thing we have to keep in mind is it’s a .24 acre lot and there’s not a whole lot you can do here. As proposed it’s going to be adding 100 square feet to what’s already previously been on site for many years, and I think the arguments there, you know, to update the property you’re going to have to do something radical like this. It looks to me like even though it’s over on the floor area ratio at the same time with an extra 100 square feet of building that’s going to occur here, even though you could remove that side building on the bottom part, you know, where the bathroom is downstairs, I still think that it’s not an unreasonable request. So I guess I would reluctantly approve it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no big issues. I like the fact that the property is being upgraded and brought up to standards. So I would be in favor. MRS. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I think it is relatively substantial, but they worked hard to keep the floor area ratio to .6% and increasing the permeability as well. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with Michelle. There’s no doubt it’s 100 feet from the lake so that’s a good thing. Their permeability is almost at 75% and they’re only 530 square feet above the FAR variance and it’s definitely an improvement to the neighborhood. So I would be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-I think the applicant has done a nice job revising his original presentation. I think the applicant has approached his neighbors and gotten a good vibe from his neighbors and I think it’s definitely going to be an improvement to the neighborhood. So I also approve of this application. So that being said, I’m going to ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Could I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reece Rudolph. Applicant has revised the plan to remove the 392 sq. ft. ½ story and a 189 sq. ft. porch area, to construct a nd 715 +/- sq. ft. 2 story addition and a 57 +/- sq. ft. bathroom addition on the first floor. Project involves a new shoreline buffer. The existing site has a 623 sq. ft. garage and a 968 sq. ft. home; the existing floor area is 2,844 sq. ft. and proposed is 2,906 sq. ft. Relief requested from setbacks, permeability, and floor area. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks, permeability, and floor area. The applicant updated measurements of the building square footages and living area during a recent site visit. Section 179-3-040-dimensional requirements The applicant’s revision includes removal of the second floor of 392 sq. ft., and a 189 sq. ft. porch area. The new second floor is to be 715 sq. ft. and the first- floor bathroom is to be 57 +/- sq. ft. The new second story is to be located 8 ft. 11 inches to the property line, then the bathroom is to be 1 ft. 6 inches to the property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is proposed to be 73.7%, where 75% is required (existing 72.5%). The floor area proposed is 2,906 sq. ft. (27.8%) where 2,300 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed (existing 2,844 sq. ft., 27.2%). SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday August 21, 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this is just raising the second floor or squaring off the top of the house. 2. Feasible alternatives in this situation would be really limited and really are not possible. 3. The resulting variance is really not substantial. The footprint is staying the same. All we’re doing is raising the roof and squaring off the living area upstairs. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary. 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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. _20-2019, REECE RUDOLPH, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 21st day of August 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. HUTCHINSON-Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is James & Donna Stokes, AV 31-2019. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2019 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES & DONNA STOKES OWNER(S) JAMES & DONNA STOKES ZONING WR LOCATION 45 ALESSIA DRIVE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A 3,329 SQ. FT. HOME CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SIDE SETBACK. PROJECT LOCATED IN CERRONE WEST MTN. SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC-198-2019; SUB 2-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 5.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.-1-1.2 SECTION 179-3-040 RICH HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES STOKES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2019, James & Donna Stokes, Meeting Date: August 21, 2019 “Project Location: 45 Alessia Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain a 3,329 sq. ft. home currently under construction that does not meet the side setback. Project located in Cerrone West Mtn. subdivision. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040-dimensional requirements The existing home is currently under construction and is 22.9 ft. to the east property line where a 25 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 limited due to the existing house location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2.1 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 impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain a house currently under construction to remain. The applicant has explained an existing marker in the field during construction was utilized to determine the setback. The applicant had the as-built survey completed in June of 2019 that indicated the setback is 22.9 ft. and did not meet the 25 ft. setback requirement. The applicant has included the survey and photos in regards to location of neighbors to the property. The neighboring house on the east side of the home is about 330 ft. away to the applicant’s home.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. Would you like to add anything? MRS. DWYRE-Can I just remind you to state your name when you come up to the table. Thank you. MR. STOKES-I’m James Stokes. My wife and I own the property that’s under discussion tonight. With me is Rich Hall who’s my general contractor. So we’ve got everybody here tonight that can answer any questions that might come up. I’d like to start out by saying our intention was never to be at this table, but th the setback caused it. When we had the first survey done on April 12 on the plot map it showed that we really wanted a 26 foot variance. We didn’t want to be anywhere near that line. However we had to be on that side of the property because of the terrain. We knew we had to up that line. That’s why we asked for the survey. Well we got several things off the survey and there’s several things we didn’t get. The only things we got in terms of makers were at the very front of the lot and very back of the lot, and as they were doing that they walked right past an old marker that’s 3.5 feet out of alignment and they did not re- pin it for us, nor did they tell us about it. If either had taken place, we wouldn’t be here tonight, but I really 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) don’t want to get into blame. That’s not what this is about. It’s about impact on our neighbors and the environment. So what we did, and we found this out in June actually, when we went to do the final survey, and we got a call that said, we’re in violation. The surveyor called us and I said that can’t be, and they went out the next day and re-did it and sure enough. So we had the neighbors over, especially Jocelyn who it impacts the most. He said let me get this right. You’re telling me I’ve got three and a half foot more property than I thought I had, and you’re in violation of the setback, there’s 330 feet between our houses and the woods. We can’t even see each other. So the impact was pretty minimal. And that probably sums it up, but I would like to thank you all for the attention to this issue. I’d like to thank Laura. She’s the one that lead us expeditiously through this process. MR. MC CABE-Do you have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-I find it interesting that we’re being thanked. Suppose we say you have to move your house. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So there is a public hearing advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that has any comment on this particular application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BART JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-I don’t have any objection. I’m just saying I just wanted to come here and I wish you luck. You live right behind us and that’s all I wanted to say. MRS. MOORE-And could I just confirm your name again? MR. JOHNSON-Bart Johnson. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience that has anything to add to this application? Seeing nobody, I’m going to see if there’s any written comment. MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor. I have to admit at first I wasn’t, but after looking at your property and understanding the terrain it’s an unfortunate mistake that has led to probably stopping the progress on finishing your home. So I feel for you about that, but I’m in full support of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’m also in support of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. We’ve had situations where we’ve had survey errors before but never with 330 feet between the houses. So that’s much better. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s no advantage to what’s been done here. In retrospect it satisfies the 25 foot setback, you know, a little less than 23 feet is what you’re lacking there. So I think it’s not a problem. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-If it were a different builder I’d have big objections, but I understand the situation. Unfortunately for me I could not find Alessia Drive on the map. So I did not go look at your house. MR. MC CABE-It sits at the top of West Mountain. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. KUHL-Anyway. I have no issues with it. There are times when things like this happen. I actually built a house in Massachusetts and I was off a couple of feet. A lot of times, though, I think the first issue that I came across that was two foot off I was told by a builder that that builder did not have the surveyor come back and re-check the spikes before they did the footings, etc., but I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And, I, too, see no harm in approving this application. You’d need a drone to really get back there and see what’s going on. So I’ll approve the application. So with that being said, I’m going to ask for a motion. MRS. HAYWARD-I’ll make that motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James & Donna Stokes. Applicant requests to maintain a 3,329 sq. ft. home currently under construction that does not meet the side setback. Project located in Cerrone West Mtn. subdivision. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040-dimensional requirements The existing home is currently under construction and is 22.9 ft. to the east property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday August 21, 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. This was obviously an honest mistake that resulted in a minimal variance to the property line and there’s 330 feet between the two houses. So that’s why it’s not an undesirable change. 2. Feasible alternatives, the only feasible alternative would be to move the already built house two feet which is not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s only about two feet. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. They considered the terrain carefully when they planned the house and there’s no essential change in the terrain. 5. Although the alleged difficulty is technically self-created it doesn’t have bearing on today’s proceedings. 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. _31-2019, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. STOKES-Thank you, everybody. Thank you, Laura. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is Thomas Williams, and it’s AV 32-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II THOMAS WILLIAMS OWNER(S) THOMAS WILLIAMS ZONING MDR LOCATION 1232 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 1,140 SQ. FT. TO A SECOND DWELLING. THE STRUCTURE WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS A BOAT STORAGE IN 1998 WHEN PREVIOUS OWNERS CONVERTED IT TO LIVING SPACE. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS REMOVED ALL COMPONENTS OF LIVING SPACE PER TOWN CODE REQUIREMENT. EXISTING STRUCTURE IS COMPLIANT AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE EXISTING SITE ALSO HAS A HOME OF 2,662 SQ. FT. (FAR) WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE 986 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED IS TO MAINTAIN TWO DWELLING UNITS ON A LOT LESS THAN 4 ACRES. CROSS REF AV 42-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2019 LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRES; 1.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-65 SECTION 179-3-040 THOMAS WILLIAMS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2019, Thomas Williams, Meeting Date: August 21, 2019 “Project Location: 1232 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert an existing accessory structure 1,140 sq. ft. to a second dwelling. The structure was previously approved as a boat storage in 1998 when previous owners converted it to living space. The previous owners removed all components of living space per Town Code requirements. Existing structure is compliant as an accessory structure. The existing site also has a home of 2,662 sq. ft. (FAR) with an attached garage 986 sq. ft. Relief requested is to maintain two dwelling units on a lot less than 4 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of dwelling units located on one parcel in the MDR zoning district and the lot size requirement for 2 dwelling units on a lot less than 4 acres. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements –moderate density residential zone The applicant proposes to convert an existing storage building to a second dwelling on a parcel that is less than 4 acres, where the requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one dwelling unit per lot in the MDR zone. 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 character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to maintain the building as storage building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 2.63 acres and for a lot to have two dwellings. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) The applicant proposes to convert an existing storage building to a second dwelling on the same parcel with an existing single family home. The applicant has explained the previous owner had existing two dwelling units on the property without approval. The Town required the conversion of the second dwelling to a storage; Building and Code confirmed building was converted to storage. The building has had a second inspection recently due to a neighbor concern, and reconfirmed the building is used as storage. The plans show the location of the existing single family home and the building that is to be converted to a dwelling on the parcel.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. State your name for the record, please. MR. WILLIAMS-Thomas Williams, and this is my fiancé Hillary Johnson. So just to expound on the summary there, we did purchase this house after a protracted purchase period. We were here last year during the purchase period dealing with the same issue. The compromise we came to with the previous owner was that we would convert everything back into storage spaces initially designated in the accessory structure and that’s been completed. So we’ve brought the structure into compliance with the zoning and code laws as it pertains to that building. Now we’re coming to you asking for the variance to return that back to a, or to move that to an accessory structure, an in-law apartment. I understand, from what I can gather from the history of this property was that not much was done properly leading up to this point which is kind of where Hillary and I are trying to take over now. We want to do this appropriately and in a correct step. So everything is brought up to Code. We’ve had it inspected on more than one occasion and it currently sits as a storage facility. So now we’re asking that we be allowed to use this as an in-law apartment. Both of us have family that we’d like to keep close by. We have family that lives far away who would benefit from being able to stay close to us when they can. We’re hoping to grow a family and being able to keep parents nearby is pretty important to us. So that’s part of our reasoning behind moving forward with this. As for the structure, like I said it’s already existing. There’s no new construction that needs to go on. There’s no new anything that needs to go on. It’s minimally visible from the road. There’s a large privacy fence between us and our nearest neighbor. We only have a neighbor on one side. The rest backs up to Rush Pond preserve. So there’s no other neighbors impacted. We’re just trying to be able to keep our family close in this situation. The other thing is with us just moving to the area we do want to be a part of this community and part of the Queensbury Town plan itself encourages the use of garages and homes to in-law apartments. So when we reference that it seems like our goals and the Town goals are both aligned in this endeavor. So that’s what we’re asking for. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-It seems like when you came in front of us, when you were buying the house, that you were okay with us not accepting that to be a second family dwelling. It’s kind of weird now all of a sudden you’re coming to us and saying that you want it back to a second family dwelling after you said it was okay. It’s kind of weird. MR. WILLIAMS-Again, it’s probably super complicated. Our closing on the house took about 11 months and it was a very difficult process dealing with the previous owner who made life a little difficult for us and a lot of people. So there was a lot of, it was a lack of communication between what they were willing to do and what we wanted to do. Our goal the whole time was to try to keep this as a mother-in-law apartment. The previous owner seemed to want to sell the house as quickly as possible. His process for that was just to convert it back to a storage structure. It still needed a lot of the zoning and coding upgrades, and that was built into the selling of the house. So those have been done and everything’s been completed, up to Code, but our intention was never to keep this as storage. We wanted this as an in-law apartment. That’s the intention we saw when we looked at the house. The issues with the zoning came up during the purchase process which is why it caught us off guard. As the process moved last year, unfortunately not being the owners of the house, we weren’t able to represent our interests in front of the Board. It was solely the sellers interests that were represented. So his choice was to re-convert it back to a storage space rather than what we had always wanted. So our intention was always to have families there. MR. HENKEL-Because I don’t remember your exact words, but I remember words like they had said that you wanted to be, that you were new to the area and you want to be good neighbors, that you were willing to not have this be a second family dwelling. MR. WILLIAMS-Rental property maybe is what we were talking about. We want family there as an in- law apartment. We’re not looking to rent the property. MR. HENKEL-Why didn’t you say that to us when you came? MRS. MOORE-Well it’s a different application now. MR. HENKEL-It just seems like there’s a play on words there. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-So you’re stating now, Mr. Williams, that this will not be a rental property. MR. WILLIAMS-Correct. MR. KUHL-Are you sure? MR. WILLIAMS-We have no intention of renting it. We chose this property because it’s set back from the road and gives us privacy. MR. KUHL-I understand. As I remember the property owner on the other side of the fence had an awful lot of negative things to say about the property and the use of this structure. When the gentlemen down at the end, the Secretary, reads the correspondence, is there going to be some positive thing to say from that person on the other side of the fence? MR. WILLIAMS-Unfortunately no. We reached out and our neighbors are adamant that the issues they’ve had with the previous owner outweigh her ability to look on this favorably for us. MR. KUHL-Okay. 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 anybody in the audience has a comment on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LENORE GUAY MS. GUAY-I have a letter. MR. MC CABE-So if you’d come forward. If you’d give us the table, please. Would you like to read the letter, or would you like to have Roy read it? So for the record state your name, please. MS. GUAY-Sure. My name is Lenore Guay. I live at 1226 West Mountain Road. MR. URRICO-The Staff passed out a copy for everybody to read. “This is the third time I am requesting nd that the board deny the application for a 2 house on the property located at 1232 West Mountain Road. I welcome and encourage any of the Board members to come to my home and see how such a decision will impact the quality of life at my home. I picked out this property specifically because it was zoned for Single Family Residential Homes and it was not in a housing development where many houses are close together. My contractor, Brian Goodsell, bought the property from Phyllis Holtz and built the floor plan that we had selected. We closed and moved in to the home of our dreams in May of 1996. We were the first home in this area, the Bang's being the second in 1997 and then the Franklins in 1998. I have lived in my home for 23 years. I work for New York State Information Technology Services. I am in my 32nd year and many days I work from home due to a medical condition. Eventually I will retire, but I do not plan on selling my home as this has been and always will be my forever home. The Applicant lived on the property for almost a year prior to purchasing it and knew the garage structure (at issue in this application) could not be used as a second home. While living there, prior to purchasing the property, the Applicant came to my home when they heard Christopher Dwyer's application attempt did not go through. They were told I was the reason and they demanded I back down and allow it. The Applicant advised me they were told they only had to remove one of the two illegal rental setups on the property. They chose to remove the one from the basement of the house, but they claimed they could keep the garage set up as a second home. I told them I didn't think that was correct and that I am not sure why someone would tell them that given the current property is zoned Single-Family Residential Homes. I also told him I had been at the Zoning Board meetings and all the Board Members appeared ready to deny the application, but before the last two could voice their denial the attorney for Christopher Dwyer motioned to "Table" the application to avoid the final ruling. The current Applicant responded by saying, "the Dwyer's were a**holes and that I am a Dr. and will get the application approved." He added that he would buy the property anyway knowing he could convince the Board to change their minds. He asserted that because he is a Dr., who worked at Albany Medical and is now at Glens Falls Hospital, the Board will approve this for him. He then ended our conversation and went back to the other property, much to my relief. Clearly, the Applicant did not need to purchase this property, especially knowing the property was not zoned for his intended use. Other properties in this region are zoned for what he is trying to do and would have accommodated his needs better rather than forcing this type of impacting change to established residences. This spring while having repairs made on my home, I was alerted to the fact that the Applicant (who is now the owner of the property) had done some work to the garage at issue. My roofer's comment was concerning, so I called Dave Hatin and was told not to bother him. He said the new owners must have just been making the structure compliant 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) as requested by the Town. If I had issues, I was to call another office. As far as he was concerned, they could live in the structure but could not have a stove and cook in it. It was a very upsetting conversation - - I felt helpless and more frustrated. Several weeks down the road two large moving trucks pull up to the garage at issue and start unloading furniture that was clearly being moved from another home. Piano, bedroom furniture, living room furniture, kitchen items, etc. Since the garage is only 25 feet from my property, I could hear the entire process, discussions, music blasting, etc. as the unloading occurred. Since my last attempt at communicating with these people did not go well, I went to the Zoning Department to see if I had missed a meeting and some approval had been granted to the Applicant. I was told they were nd completing an application for a 2 house, but there was no approval. The Zoning Office told me they would send someone over to see what was happening, which they did. This did not go over well with the new owner and later that day he came to my home combative and aggressively asking if and why I went to Zoning to report him. I explained how trying to talk to him has not gone well in the past and I was not going to put myself through that again. He restated how I am costing them money and I deserve this behavior from them. He shouted why can’t I just let them do what they want with their property. The converted garage home was there when they bought it, so they should be allowed to use it that way. I told them the property should never have been sold that way since the structure was converted illegally by Chris from a garage to a rental home, which they already knew. Since the applicant was becoming excessively aggressive, I assured them that this is nothing personal; I have objected to this Zoning change since Chris Dwyer put forth the original application. Our feeling of security and our quality of life have been greatly impacted since the illegal conversion. When Chris Dwyer first rented the garage, the tenants were drug dealers who had a discussion about how they would burn my home to ground with my children, grandchild, husband and I in it while we slept if we complained to the Town and they were kicked out. Another time, in the middle of the night, someone mistook my house for their garage home at issue and slit my kitchen screens trying to gain access. When they couldn't get into the house, they damaged a truck in my driveway by jumping on the hood and roof and caving it in. Thousands in damages. There is a police report on file. That was very disturbing, but we knew Chris was selling the property, so we anticipated the correction of the property back to its original state before the property could be sold. I understand the Applicant wants to have his family live with him, but that should occur under one roof. The neighbor on my property's other side and I each have lived with three generations under one roof. If they want their family with them, that's great, but in the same house, just like the rest of us have been doing. People don't live forever. If this were to be approved, and the applicant moves his elderly parents in and they pass, then it becomes a second available rental home again on AirBnB or something else along those lines. The Applicant told me he worked at Albany Medical prior to coming to Glens Falls Hospital. Given that the Applicant is a young Dr. who has already moved several times to advance his medical career, it is likely the Applicant will move again. Should you approve his application, you will be permitting any future owners of the property to use the garage home as rental property, were he to sell. Approval of this application sends the message that bad behavior will be rewarded and a precedent will be set, encouraging other Queensbury property owners to illegally convert their garages and seek approval after the fact. The Applicant's property still has unresolved violations and his application is incorrect where it states the garage structure was returned back to the original boat storage garage as an accessory structure. Attached are the only approved plans for this structure as a boat storage garage. The overhead garage door was never reinstalled returning it to its original use. Zoning enforcement staff have been on the property, but have not addressed another unauthorized storage structure that was built on the property line (using the privacy fence separating our lots as the structure's back wall) to hold the items that were previously kept in the boat house garage structure. I am now also requesting that the board enforce the code and have that storage shed removed from the property line. I am pleading with Board for my and my family's safety and for our quality of life. Please deny this application once and for all, disallow any residential use of the garage structure and require it to be returned to its original approved use as an overhead garage boat storage structure. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Respectfully, Lenore Guay” MS. GUAY-Sorry that was so lengthy. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So just so you understand, the storage structure is not before us. So that’s a separate issue. So the only thing that we’re considering is, can this be a second dwelling and what makes it a second dwelling is whether it has a kitchen or not, and that’s what we requested be removed from the, or, you know, the original application. I believe also there were some setback issues? No, it was just here for the second dwelling. MR. HENKEL-And the lack of land. MRS. MOORE-The lack of land, yes. So it’s not a setback issue. It’s a lack of acreage. MR. MC CABE-So that’s what we have to pass judgement on here today. Okay. So thank you for your input. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on the application? Seeing nobody, is there any more written communication? MR. URRICO-Not that I can find. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’ll ask the applicant to come back and see if there’s any more input. MR. WILLIAMS-Well putting aside the mischaracterizations and personal attacks, the precedent that Ms. Guay brings up I think is valid. That’s what we’re trying to address today. It wasn’t done appropriately in the past. This is an existing structure that doesn’t require any new construction and it’s minimally visible from the road with a large privacy fence between us with trees and we’ve put in extra trees as well to add to the privacy. This is our attempt to do it right and we’re fully aware of the issues with the previous owner. What Ms. Guay and her family went through nobody should have to go through. She had a very unfortunate situation with a past owner that maybe should have been dealt with at the time rather than with us as the new owners. We’re looking to a more positive direction with this. We’re here. We’re a young family looking to start our own family. We have family members that we want to keep close to us and we’re looking to take advantage of this area because we do really love being here. I don’t think it’s appropriate for Ms. Guay to comment on my career choice and where I may or may not go in the future. At the moment this is our home. We really love this area. We chose this area after I completed by Fellowship. We chose this area to make our home and this is where we want to be. We really want to be part of this community. We are trying to do things in the appropriate steps, in the appropriate avenues, following the appropriate course, and that’s that. That’s about all I can say. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to poll the Board. MR. URRICO-I have a question. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MR. URRICO-Were you converting it back to an apartment when you were approached by somebody from the Town about what was going on there? MR. WILLIAMS-No. So the issue was my parents have also joined us in this area. They like being in this area. They want to be close to us. We feel this is a place where we can make our home. So during the purchase they sold their house and were looking for a house in this area. So without a storage facility they moved their things here into our storage facility and stayed in the house with us while they were trying to purchase a new home. So those were the moving trucks that were seen. MR. URRICO-So the application says they’re trying to convert this back to residential. MRS. MOORE-That’s the application. MR. URRICO-Right, but it’s already been seen as a storage facility. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So after it was withdrawn, okay, the owner at that time agreed. MR. URRICO-That was Mr. Dwyer? MRS. MOORE-Dwyer. And subsequently converted this building back to a storage unit. The new owners also assisted in making sure that it was storage unit, storage building. I understand that it was previously a boat storage but as a storage building the applicant and owner, the new owner met with Town Building and Codes. There were items in that building to be a storage building and they completed those items. So from the day when it was withdrawn it was converted back to a storage building. MR. URRICO-So what triggered this application? Did the applicant come forward and request that before he did anything? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Or was he already doing something? MRS. MOORE-He was not doing anything. MR. HENKEL-Who’s going to live there if your parents are looking for another house? HILLARY JOHNSON MS. JOHNSON-So we have one bedroom downstairs that. When we have children I would like to have a child live down there. So then we have an extra bedroom in the other unit to allow friends to come visit or family to come stay with us. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. WILLIAMS-Hillary’s parents live in Kansas. MS. JOHNSON-So if I have a child and there’s only one bedroom for that child. There’s no room for family to come stay. MR. KUHL-Can I ask them a question? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-I understand you went through a long time to get this thing closed. I got that. As I go back in my mind and my memory, I thought it had to do with somebody and somebody else inherited the house because the other guy passed away and he didn’t know it was there. When you bought this, when you went in and looked at this, did you look at that second structure as an apartment or as a storage area or a garage? MR. WILLIAMS-So when we first found the house, when we first identified the house, it was already being used as a living facility. MR. KUHL-I understand that. MR. WILLIAMS-So that’s what we envisioned it as. MR. KUHL-Okay. When you went through the process, then, and they couldn’t get approved, did you re- negotiate your contract because that then became a storage building and it wasn’t a second unit? MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. So you basically understood when you bought the property there was no longer a second unit. Correct? MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to poll the Board. And I’m going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-I’m not in favor of this applicant. The way we went through this whole thing. I understand that he’s trying to do it right. Maybe it’s too soon. I don’t know what his reasons are. I mean I hear what his reasons are, but I’m not in favor of it. I think it should stay as a storage unit. I think that’s the way it was bought. It was negotiated and so I’m not in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be careful on this one here because the track record with the neighbors that are most affected, the situation has improved because I think you people are reasonable people. I think your application before us is reasonable also, but at the same time we have to look at it in light of the facts of what has occurred in past history and recent history both. At this time I don’t think we can approve this as living space because it would be an adverse decision in regards to your neighbors. Regardless of whether you were nice people or the crazy people that lived there prior to your moving in. I would think at this point your choice would be to not pursue this at this time. your neighbors are going to live there for, I don’t know, X number of years, many years probably, and there may be some future point in time where you have new neighbors and you could come in and they might be okay with the second dwelling and I think that the Town Code may change at some point to accommodate second dwellings on property, but right now I think we should be careful and not approve this at this time. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with both my previous Board members, and my reason’s a little different. I also concur with what they said, but I also feel that if we approve this we’re basically changing the zoning for this particular area and that’s not what we’re here to do. We’re here to mitigate situations, not change the Code. If the Code is going to be changed it has to go through a different process. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I understand what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to build a place for his parents. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s definitely lacking, you know, the property’s lacking 2.63 acres. It’s also in a single family dwelling area and there’s no other. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. WILLIAMS-It’s 1.37 acres. MR. HENKEL-Is that what it is? I thought the existing property was only. MRS. MOORE-Right. There’s only one property that houses, the applicant owns two properties, but they’re not merged. So we only discussed the one property. MR. HENKEL-Right. So we’re dealing with property that’s not merged yet. It would be different if it was. So like I said it’s lacking 2.63 acres and it’s not in an area where there’s other similar dwellings. So I could not be in favor of it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I support my fellow Board members. I cannot support this project, although I do appreciate what you want to do with it. It’s just not on this property at this time. MR. MC CABE-I’m sorry. You have to understand that this isn’t personal. Because you weren’t before and there’s nothing to say that you won’t be gone next year. Whatever variance that we grant goes with the land. So it’s going to be there forever. So as it was pointed out, it would be a big decision for us to make if we said okay, you can have a second dwelling on this particular property. It wouldn’t really be fair to the Town who zoned this as single family residential. With that in mind, I can’t approve this application either. So we’re down one, but you’d need a lot more than one vote. So at this particular time your application is going to be denied. You can withdraw. You can table it to join the properties and re- submit it. That may make a difference in somebody’s mind, but at this particular time, I’m going to ask for a decision from you. MR. WILLIAMS-We’ll table it for now. MRS. MOORE-So if you table it, we table it generally to a specific date. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. We’ll withdraw it. MRS. MOORE-So in this case I would withdraw it, and to withdraw then it you would start the whole application process all over again. Okay. Just to be clear. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Sorry. MS. JOHNSON-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So the next application is William Mason, AV 33-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II WILLIAM MASON AGENT(S) WILLIAM MASON OWNER(S) MATT SMITH ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 3 SENECA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH A 768 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 768 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A BASEMENT AND SECOND STORY. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 2,196 SQ. FT. AND FAR WOULD BE 6,103 SQ. FT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR STRUCTURE IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FAR, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 52-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE .05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-24 SECTION 179-3-040 BILL MASON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2019, William Mason, Meeting Date: August 21, 2019 “Project Location: 3 Seneca Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish a 768 sq. ft. home to construct a 768 sq. ft. home with a basement and second story. Proposed floor area is 2,196 sq. ft. and FAR would be 6,103 sq. ft. Project subject to Site Plan for structure in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, FAR, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability, floor area ratio, and setbacks. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts –dimensional requirement WR zone 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) The applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story over the existing 768 sq. ft. main floor. The new construction includes two landing entryways where the North landing is 3.5 ft. from the property line and the second landing west side is proposed to be 3 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required on all sides of the property. In addition, relief is requested for permeability where 64 % is proposed and 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 68% based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the existing lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the entryway on the west property line is 3.3 ft. and on the south entryway is 4.5 ft. The permeability relief is in excess 11% and the floor area is in excess of 46%. In regard to the Floor area, the applicant has explained that the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres are common area for the association members. In addition, the master plan indicates the 18.7 acres are to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: nd The applicant proposes a 2 story addition of 768 sq. ft. and two entry landings. The project occurs in the Takundewide cottage development off of Cleverdale Rd. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted an MOU with Takundewide HOA outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other cottages nd on the site where the increase floor area is the proposed 2 floor mirroring the style of the other housing. The submission includes renditions of the proposed home with the existing roofline shown on the plans. The floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided.” MRS. MOORE-Can I make one correction? It’s actually the east side, not the west side, and I looked at the North arrow when I checked it. So it is the east side. MR. MASON-I didn’t catch that. MRS. MOORE-Thanks. MR. MASON-I’m Bill Mason. I’m the applicant representing Matt and Joan Smith who own the property. MR. MC CABE-This is about the fourth time we’ve had one of these, right? MR. MASON-It’s been more than that. MR. MC CABE-The fourth since I’ve been here. MR. MASON-I’ve got a long history of sitting in this chair with these Boards. We have been through a lot. I do want to point out one correction. I wasn’t listening. I don’t think we corrected it from last night. The property is already part of a community septic system. We have a community septic that was encouraged by these Boards and we built many years ago, a little over 10 years ago, and all of the effluent, they’ve got 1,000 gallon concrete tank at each one of the homes, and it’s processed normally as a septic tank, maintained thoroughly, and it all goes to a central pumping station and it is pumped over 900 feet away from Lake George to three different beds that dose alternately. MR. MC CABE-I believe one of the previous ones was not part of the common septic, but this one is going to be? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. MASON-This one is already in it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. MASON-The existing home is already part of it, and the only impact will be it will go from two bedrooms to three bedrooms, but there is plenty of capacity within the system still because we haven’t added a single home and we have at least three or four homes that we can add if the design capacity was such. The application is for, it’s a nice young family. Their two daughters have recently gotten married and they are now thinking of going further as a family. So a two bedroom home becomes a little bit unworkable for this family and this is basically the need that they have. They don’t live there all the time, but they do come in the summertime. They’re there quite a bit. Everybody likes to get to the lake in the summer. As we talked about the MOU was referred to that we agreed to in 2003 with the Town of Queensbury. I’d love to point out that when considering the 18.7 acres in these applications Takundewide is actually 21 acres and there are 32 homes. So roughly there are about 2/3rds of an acre per home. It is one of the least densely developed parcels on Lake George in our area. We have homes that are on much smaller parcels, but yet when I present it of course the little postage stamp lot that this is on, not counting the 18.7 acres, makes it look like it’s way outside of the norms of the FAR and so on, and that’s really what puts us here. So I submit it is self-created. It was created in 1986 when we subdivided the property and did it that way, but it was in order to create 18.7 acres of shared common green forever wild if you will space that has only enhanced our area. I guess I could stop there if you have any questions. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you have to meet any new statutory requirements for waterfront development, you know, have an inspection done of your septic system prior to building? MR. MASON-We had a, this would be the first one, wouldn’t it. MR. UNDERWOOD-This would be your first one. MR. MASON-Yes. They will have to. MR. UNDERWOOD-They will have to certify that. MR. MASON-You’re right, and I think what they will have to do is put a second access. They only have an access on the intake to the 1,000 gallon tank. I’ll have to, excuse me, the owner, I’m not certain if I am the builder on this one, but the owner will have to, with the contractor is absolutely going to have to abide by that. I don’t foresee any problems. This is a standard. MR. KUHL-Yes, but previous to this we couldn’t have the Board meeting without the septic system, right? A couple of them had to be tabled until they got their septics inspected. Correct? MRS. MOORE-There may be some building code requirements, but the septic system is an accepted septic system for the HOA. So I don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn’t matter because it’s waterfront residential and the new regs supersede that, but at the same time there’s an understanding of which ones of these were hooked up. They’ll have a record of that. So it shouldn’t be a real issue. MR. MASON-Right. I can’t imagine that there would be an issue on this septic system. I can imagine having a problem. Not all of Takundewide is in that system. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Like the previous application we had, your last one, they were not hooked up. So that was in before the situation developed with the new regulations, but going forward there’s a system of checks and balances. So it’ll be followed up. MR. KUHL-Is there going to be an issue because you have a memorandum saying that the houses can only be 1536 square feet, and this one’s coming out at 2196? Is that going to be a problem with your HOA? MR. MASON-There is no problem with us. The only reason that that changed is that the Town Code changed counting the basement. MR. KUHL-Counting the basement. MR. MASON-And if you read the wording within the Memorandum of Understanding, it was always anticipating adding a second floor plus the basement. As far as the homeowners association is concerned, that is not a problem. I would hope that wouldn’t be a problem with the Town because we were clear at 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) the time that’s what we were building, and the Town Code changed and it now has changed the numbers and made it even worse on these little tiny lots. MR. KUHL-For me, as a Board member, with this memorandum back in ’03, I don’t see why they have to come up here and look for floor area ratio and five feet to the property. I mean, when you think about it, we approved as a Town saying it’s a good homeowners association. Everybody’s got their lots. I mean when they go like for like, square footage for square footage, why do they have to come here? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have an answer for you. MR. KUHL-I think I would like you to take that back to Craig, because this should almost be an exception. I mean because the memorandum said that they could do it and we’re wasting Town money and we’re wasting this gentleman’s money. MRS. MOORE-I think as you pointed out the Code changes each time. So each time the applicant comes before the Board. MR. MASON-I don’t disagree with you, but I do, in reading the law and the rules myself, I can see clearly why I’m sitting here right now. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MASON-But unless something were to be able to be changed I think each time someone is going to have to do this. MR. UNDERWOOD-The whole point of it, in 2003 Roy and I were on the Board at that time, was to standardize the process. So in other words each application would come in and essentially be the same as the one that preceded it, because that was the whole thing to streamline it for both points of view from the Town, but it makes sense to have a review process occur because of changes to the Code and tweaks to the Code. MR. MASON-And speaking from the Town’s point of view I would agree with that actually because each one of these applications seems sort of cookie cutter, but they could be different enough that you might regret making it automatic and then all of a sudden somebody’s snuck something through. I’m not saying that I would or anyone would, but from the Town perspective that might occur. So having a review I don’t see as a bad thing to protect you. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application? Seeing nobody, Roy do we have any written communication? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, we don’t. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Although it does appear quite substantial on paper, when I look at the property and look at the drawings, I think it’s really, as far as the footprint of the building, there’s no real net change as far as I’m concerned, and listening to all the testimony about the homeowners association and the green space, and I think it’s a lovely building that’s going to fit right in with all the others. So I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Obviously if we were looking at the .05 acres, this would not be acceptable, but being, looking at 21 acres, whatever you said there, it makes sense, and being on a central septic system and not on its own property makes sense. It’s a good project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project. Having been here for the entire process I think we covered it pretty well in 2003. So I think we’re good. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. MR. URRICO-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my Board members. I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I’ll go with all the others to be consistent. I’m for it also. So I’m going to ask for a motion at this particular time. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Mason. Applicant proposes to demolish a 768 sq. ft. home to construct a 768 sq. ft. home with a basement and second story. Proposed floor area is 2,196 sq. ft. and FAR would be 6,103 sq. ft. Project subject to Site Plan for structure in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, FAR, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability, floor area ratio, and setbacks. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts –dimensional requirement WR zone The applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story over the existing 768 sq. ft. main floor. The new construction includes two landing entryways where the North landing is 3.5 ft. from the property line and the second landing west side is proposed to be 3 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required on all sides of the property. In addition, relief is requested for permeability where 64% is proposed and 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 68% based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday August 21, 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this is a standard design that was accepted at that time. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered at the time, but they were not considered to be reasonable because of these postage stamp sized lots in relation to the full acreage of the full property at Takundewide. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because we based it upon the full acreage of the property and we noticed that these small lots, even though they’re tiny and they require lots of relief, in retrospect they do not have very much of a detrimental effect on the whole property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. This property will be hooked up to the major leach field that was created 900 feet back from the lakeshore. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of the fact that these individual lots were granted back in the 1990’s. 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. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. _33-2019, WILLIAM MASON, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MASON-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next applicant is Cellco Partnership and it’s Area Variance AV 34-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2019 SEQRA TYPE II CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) DAVID C. BRENNAN, ESQ. OWNER(S) STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. ZONING NC LOCATION 347 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING SMALL CELL FACILITY FROM EXISTING STEWART’S SHOP ROOF TO INSTALL A FACILITY ON A PROPOSED LIGHT POLE FOR THE NEW STEWART’S STORE. THE NEW CELL FACILITY IS TO BE LOCATED 175 FT. FROM THE APARTMENT BUILDING TO THE NORTH WHERE 200 FT. IS REQUIRED. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOCATION OF A SMALL CELL FACILITY TO A RESIDENCE. CROSS REF SP 49-2019; SUP 2-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2019 LOT SIZE 1.04 AC TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-130 DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2019, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Meeting Date: August 21, 2019 “Project Location: 347 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing small cell facility from existing Stewart’s Shop roof to install a facility on a proposed light pole for the new Stewart’s store. The new cell facility is to be located 175 ft. from the apartment building to the north where 200 ft. is required. Project subject to Site Plan and Special Use permit. Relief requested for location of a small cell facility to a residence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the location of a small cell facility to a residence. Section 179-5-30- Small cell facilities restrictions in other areas The applicant proposes a new small cell facility on a proposed light pole that is to be 172.5 ft. from the nearest residence where 200 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood 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 location of nearby residences and the location of the proposed light poles. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal in regard to the zoning code requirement. The relief requested is 27.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a small cell facility on top of a proposed light pole. The light pole is to be 15 ft. 6 in. and the new cell facility is to be 31 ft. 9 in. which includes the light pole. The applicant has explained that the existing small cell facility is on the existing Stewart’s Store and will be removed when the store is demolished for a new store. The light pole location was chosen to maintain coverage for the Queensbury Schools. The plans show the type of tower and location.” MR. MC CABE-Your name for the record, please. MR. BRENNAN-Of course. Good evening, ladies and gentleman. My name’s Dave Brennan from the law firm of Young/Sommer out of Albany. With me is Chris Boyce from Pyramid Network Services. He did the site acquisition. The person who goes and knocks on doors and finds sites. So you have said probably 75 to 85% of what I was going to run through in the Staff Notes, but this application derives from, we’ve got an existing small cell facility on the existing Stewart shop which is the, I think I said the last time it was the mansard type roof the flat roof. Stewart’s was approved in I believe April of this year to remodel that store as you can probably see around Town and elsewhere they’ve been going through spending a lot of money upgrading stores, and so we’re getting it off the roof with a nicer design to it. The owner has a flat roof and this particular small cell facility basically serves an area of the 1,000 foot or so radius, and what these do is if you can envision where you’ve seen over the years a traditional cell tower with the longer six or eight foot panel antennas. They provide cover over a mile or two miles. We employ these small cells at a higher frequency and we use them to fill in where there’s coverage or capacity issues that have arisen. So this one was placed primarily to basically act as a sponge and picks up the traffic in this area and takes it off those larger cell towers so they can serve more effectively and this one, again, serves the large use coming out of the high school and the surrounding commercial district. Where we end up in front of this Board is we were going through working with Stewart’s. We were a couple of steps behind and they were in the process of laying out the new facility and we were just going to piggyback on one of their proposed light poles. In the meantime the Town Board adopted some new regulations in April of this year as well with respect to small cell facilities. So we were following Stewart’s coming up with our plan. I was putting this together, I went through the code and realized that now there’s a 200 foot setback for small antennas from residential units. We picked this particular light pole with the idea of two things. That there’s an existing, I believe it’s a church right here. So we naturally picked this one so we were looking behind the church towards the school district. We also placed it because we had an opportunity to choose among some of the poles to push it off the road right of way. I don’t consider these to be a problem if they were on the right of way, but on balance if we could push it off the right of way where people aren’t driving by, it was an improvement. So we pushed it back towards the rear of the site. After we did that we saw the new rules that said 200 feet, but on balance that two unit apartment or duplex is screened from view due to the existing vegetation. This is a total of about 30 feet tall. We thought on balance it’s placed in the right location and it would be more appropriate to ask for a minor variance and keep this off the road and kind of tucked into the back of this site when we had the opportunity, and so in some sense it’s self-created. There’s an element of that because you can see there’s some definitely some other light poles. There’s one or two on the front and there’s one here, here, here, and here, but again, we’re trying to not get blocked through that large structure, and I did have that discussion with the radio frequency engineer when we were officially designing this. There’s some trees and on balance he thought that that was the right pole to keep the coverage at an optimum, and not we find ourselves before the Board asking for relief of 27 and a half feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Laura, what was the old reg? MRS. MOORE-I don’t think we covered distances. MR. UNDERWOOD-We weren’t dealing with it previously, but I think we anticipated they were going to get smaller and smaller over time and eventually they might be on poles in neighborhoods and stuff like that. MR. BRENNAN-If I had to guess, I think what happened was the FCC issued an order. It came out in September and perhaps was effective in January and basically told communities if you wanted to do it you needed to adopt these standards sooner rather than later. I’m sure if people adopted them now, it’s not like it’s not effective, but a number of communities including Queensbury updated their Codes to where small cells in most places still are mentioned. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask your expert what the recommendation was for setbacks? Did they have any kind of technical? MR. BRENNAN-Well, our position, and the interesting thing that I mentioned to the Planning Board last night, is ultimately I think the play out is going to be over time that we are trying to employ existing telephone poles in existing neighborhoods. So it’s going to be an interesting situation as we try to site 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) these. These are providing coverage for our existing system. The next generation can’t turn the t.v. on and not see a commercial about 5G, and so ultimately what will happen is, listen, we’re all from Upstate New York. We never get anything first, second or third. We are employing some of it, but by in large the network will catch up in Upstate and we’ll be employing 5G and again, they have a coverage of 750 to 1,000 feet and we’re going to basically at some point come into a neighborhood and try to put one on telephone poles, try to site them and then be back asking for variances. That’s, unfortunately, what it’s going to end up doing from a technological standpoint is like in Niskayuna they were asking me about this extensively down in Schenectady County, they only have Spectrum, or Time Warner now Spectrum for cable and they’re really looking for an alternative to give people some competition and so the 5G network, what I understand it to be, it will be more of a fixed location, alternative to landline cable t.v. so you can use the wireless system to provide cable t.v. and high speed internet and things of that nature and then compete with cable t.v. and the networks, as compared to, we’re more used to having mobile devices, but to be honest I’ve not done any 5G projects in Upstate New York. All these are still 4G. It’s basically capacity and coverage issues that we’re trying to stay ahead of, because even with the 4G network. I used to never ask the question who in the room doesn’t have a cell phone. Now I’m actually at a comfort point where I still want to ask the question but I know the answer is most everybody has a cell phone now and then the capacity issues are just exploding as more and more people have phones and smart phones and use the data. MR. URRICO-How many small cells are in this area right now? MR. BRENNAN-There’s, I’d have to think in the Town of Queensbury there are three or four. MR. URRICO-And how many do you anticipate say within the next two or three years? MR. BRENNAN-Probably still in the area of three to four. I really just don’t know. There is a big push where they are going through some areas and putting them in cities. We’re going to talk actually tomorrow with the Town of Colonie and the City of Albany about a right of way agreement. Most communities and I imagine Queensbury would be the same, is we need Town Board or city council permission to put them on telephone poles because it’s in a public right of way. So as compared to normally we’re on private property. So there is a push in Rochester, Buffalo and some of the suburbs around Syracuse around the cities to try to get these right of way agreements so they can start employing them, but I’m a little reluctant to say. I know they always want to do it as quickly as possible, but it is difficult to say. I don’t know if anybody from Verizon has knocked on Queensbury’s door for a right of way agreement yet. That would probably be coming, though. MR. URRICO-One more question. The apartment building that’s next door to this, will they get better coverage as a result? MR. BRENNAN-Absolutely. MR. URRICO-Or will they be blocked from view? MR. BRENNAN-The coverage will still work. I mean generally speaking our service is line of sight, but clearly it works inside buildings. It works if you’re not directly looking at the tower because of the ability of the RF waves to refract and bounce, but they’ll definitely get, they’ll be in a spot where they can have high speed internet for sure. MR. MC CABE-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 that has any comment. Seeing nobody, I’m going to see if there’s any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think when you choose a number like 200 feet at some point you’re going to have to dial in what’s a reasonable number, and I think that 200 feet was probably just chosen with no basis in reality as far as that goes. You’re 200 feet from anything in essence, and I think that when you’re looking 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) at being 175 feet, I guess you’re only 25 feet lacking on that. So it meets the objective of being a reasonable distance away. If it was 25 feet away I think we might be a little bit more concerned. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, and again in Colonie we went and looked at a couple of these. The idea is we don’t want it in front of someone’s bay window. So when we site these we’re looking at cul de sacs, when you get to residential neighborhoods, you know, “T’s”, intersections, So there’s some thought given to that in the future. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think the consideration for it being further back in the lot and not being at the forefront of the lot like on Aviation Road makes sense, too, out in front. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well I’m in favor of it as well. I think putting it on the site where it is, it’s sheltered by the trees. I think no one will even notice it’s there with the other mechanicals around the building. So I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron, you’re our resident expert here. How do you feel about this? MR. KUHL-Believe it or not back in the 70’s, the late 70’s, we envisioned it with antennas on every light bulb, but I came from down state. The biggest issue we had was echoing, but we solved that. I mean this is the way the future’s going, as Jim articulated. Arbitrarily 200 feet, there’s going to be more antennas. The thing that gets me crazy is everybody’s got a phone and if you go to put an antenna up they don’t want the antenna on their property. I mean this is where we’re moving to today and I have no issue with this, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m also in favor of it, and just as an aside I would encourage the Town to look at this proactively because we’re going to see more of these applications coming in and more frequently I think, but I’m in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I would agree with my Board members. It’s a good project. MR. MC CABE-And I agree that what’s being asked for is minimal here, and so I’ll support the project. So that being said, I’m going to ask for a motion here. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-And this is not based on my background. It’s just that I’m here today. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Applicant proposes to remove an existing small cell facility from existing Stewart’s Shop roof to install a facility on a proposed light pole for the new Stewart’s store. The new cell facility is to be located 175 ft. from the apartment building to the north where 200 ft. is required. Project subject to Site Plan and Special Use permit. Relief requested for location of a small cell facility to a residence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the location of a small cell facility to a residence. Section 179-5-30- Small cell facilities restrictions in other areas The applicant proposes a new small cell facility on a proposed light pole that is to be 172.5 ft. from the nearest residence where 200 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday August 21, 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: 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this antenna blends in very well and it’s not on Aviation Road. It’s back a ways. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and there really aren’t any other alternatives than what we’re doing here. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it’s a smaller antenna. It’s off the road. It’s not blatant. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created but that’s only because everybody wants a phone and we need the antennas. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) 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. _34-2019, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. BRENNAN-Thank you very much for your time. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to look for a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MRS. MOORE-Just a comment prior to you adjourning. During one of the applications it sounded like you were moving towards a denial. So when you’re doing that, I would suggest when you’re making your comments possibly during your polling is that you select one of the items out of the criteria. There’s five specifically, so something substantial where something has an environmental impact. Pull that out as part of your reasoning because then when the attorney needs to go back through that. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Not that you were going to do a denial and if you were going to proceed with a denial I probably would have suggested you table that, simply because I would encourage you to get. MR. MC CABE-Well, I was going to ask, or the other way to do that would be to propose a motion in favor and have everybody deny that motion. MRS. MOORE-I think there’s a reason why we don’t do that, but I can’t think of it off the top of my head. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s like a contrary thing. MR. MC CABE-Right. So that beats the lawyer. MR. UNDERWOOD-It does, but you’ve still got to have to substantiate why you voted that way. MRS. MOORE-Absolutely. You do. So just a comment. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2019) MR. MC CABE-Yes, and I understand. I was going to ask you because I had a feeling we were going to deny that, and I was going to ask you is there any advantage to him withdrawing as opposed to us going through the motion? MRS. MOORE-Generic application. MR. UNDERWOOD-They can withdraw without prejudice. MRS. MOORE-Absolutely, and that’s what he did this evening. In this case the applicant can withdraw at any time during your discussion. Even at the beginning of the meeting he could say I withdraw my application and leave. You could have done a denial without prejudice, and that’s exactly what happened to this original application. You deny without prejudice so the applicant had an opportunity to leave and come back. MR. MC CABE-So with that said I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MR. URRICO-Ditto. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 21, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: st Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman 30