Loading...
06-16-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 29-2021 Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture 1.. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Area Variance No. 33-2021 Laphatt Holdings 2. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30.3 Area Variance No. 40=2021 Gary McCoola, Architect PLLC 3. Tax Map No. 302.12-1-14 Area Variance No. 37-2021 David Liebetreu 6. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-4 Area Variance No. 21-2021 Ron & Ruth Jameson 13. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-24 Sign Variance No. 3-2021 Ayzo Ridge Consulting 16. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-4 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY CATHERINE HAMLIN JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. If you’ve not been here before, our procedure is simple. We’ll call up each applicant. In the back corner should be a schedule on the back table there. We’ll read the application into the record. We’ll allow the applicant to present his application. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open a public hearing and seek input from the public. Today you have to be here to provide input. At this point we’ll close the public hearing and we’ll poll the Board to see where we stand with the application and then we’ll proceed accordingly. So the first thing we have to do is take care of a couple of administrative items. So, John, can I have a motion for the meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 19, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl May 26, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So we have a couple of tablings tonight. So the first is AV 29-2021 OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222 ROUTE 9L (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 884 SQ. FT. LIVING 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING, A 436 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, CONNECTING THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND REORIENTATION OF THE ROOF ON THE GARAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE OF 1,315 SQ. FT. WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TWO LEVELS AND A HEIGHT OF 18 FEET 11 ½ INCHES. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND MAJOR STORMWATER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK, HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGE, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND SIZE OF GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 8-2021; AV 76-2002; AV 43-02; AV 27-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-13-010. MR. MC CABE-John, could I have a motion. MRS. MOORE-Prior to conducting the vote, you’ll need to keep that public hearing open. MR. MC CABE-That’s right. So I need to open the public hearing. Okay. So I’ll open the public hearing for Area Variance No. 29-2021. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture. Applicant proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary dwelling. The project includes construction of a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the south of the primary dwelling, connecting the structure with an existing detached garage and replacing the roof on the garage. The project also includes construction of a new detached garage of 1,152 sq. ft. which would include two levels (storage of vehicles on the lower level and a workshop above). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and major stormwater. Relief requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height of the alterations to the main home, number of garages, and size of garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: rd Tabled to the June 23, 2021 meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So the second tabling will be for Area Variance 33-2021. I’ve got to open the public hearing for AV 33-2021, and just leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED – COORDINATED REVIEW LAPHATT HOLDINGS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) LAPHATT HOLDINGS ZONING NR LOCATION MANOR DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 3,200 SQ. FT. WITH EACH UNIT TO HAVE A GARAGE, TWO BEDROOMS, AND A DRIVEWAY ONTO MANOR DRIVE. THE SITE IS TO HAVE TWO ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND EACH BUILDING IS TO BE CONNECTED TO WATER. SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DENSITY. CROSS REF SP 34-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30.3. SECTION 179-3-040 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Laphatt Holdings. Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms, and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two onsite septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Site plan for construction of new multi-family buildings in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Relief requested for density. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2021 LAPHATT HOLDING, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled to the July 21, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So I think we’ll start with AV 40-2021. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GARY MC COOLA, ARCHITECT PLLC OWNER(S) RAYMOND MADDOCKS ZONING MDR LOCATION 45 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 196 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH ADDITION, 455 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BEDROOM AND BATHROOM ADDITION, 290 +/- SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH, AND A NEW PATIO AREA OF 368 SQ. FT. THE SITE WORK INCLUDES AREAS FOR THE NEW ADDITIONS, PATIO, AND UPDATING THE PATHWAY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,016 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND PROPOSED IS 2,602 SQ. FT.; THE PORCH /DECK AREA IMPROVEMENT IS 620 +/- SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SOLAR 776-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 & GLENS FALLS LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-14 SECTION 179-3-040 GARY MC COOLA, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Roy, could you read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2021, Gary McCoola, Architect PLLC, Meeting Date: June 16, 2021 “Project Location: 45 Garrison Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 196 sq. ft. screen porch addition, 455 sq. ft. single story bedroom and bathroom addition, 290 +/- sq. ft. covered porch, and a new patio area of 368 sq. ft. The site work includes areas for the new additions, patio, and updating the pathway. The existing home is 2,016 sq. ft. footprint and proposed is 2,602 sq. ft.; the porch/deck area improvement is 620 sq. ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The 455 sq. ft. addition is to be 16 ft. from the property line, the new 196 sq. ft. screen porch is to be 23 ft. from the 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 as the additions are to an existing home where the home is currently not compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code as the additions are on either side of the home. 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes two major additions to an existing home and improving the rear patio area. The plans show the additions with floor plan of existing and proposed. Also included are the elevation views of the addition.” MR. MC COOLA-Hi, I’m Gary McCoola the architect. I’m representing the owners, Raymond Maddox and Joanne Maddox. So they’ve owned the property, lived in the house for almost 30 years and they really enjoy living in that neighborhood, but as they mature they realize some of the inefficiencies of the house. First being that the master bedroom is on the second floor and that the laundry is in the basement. So it requires that they use the stairs to access the basement and the second floor throughout the course of the day. So here we’re really looking for a residence where they can age in place. So they did look at other properties in the neighborhood in the last year or so and didn’t find anything that was suitable. So the charge for me was to see if we could try to make their existing residence more accessible to them as they mature. So the existing house encroaches on both of the side yard setbacks currently. It’s about 15 feet from each of the side yard property lines. So there’s about an eight foot encroachment on each side. MR. MC CABE-Existing, right? MR. MC COOLA-Existing, yes. Also the layout of the existing house has the living room, dining room, kitchen in the center of the house. So the design of the house, putting a master bedroom suite on the first floor really needs to go on the side of the house, and I looked at various options for additions on the front of the house and several on the back of the house. The addition to the front didn’t seem appropriate due to the overall character of the neighborhood. All of the houses have a setback about where the existing house is set back. So what I came up with is a plan to add a master bedroom suite with a porch on the back of the house on the west side and it is in alignment with the existing sidewall of the house. So it’s looking for nine feet of relief into that side yard setback and it’s no different than the existing house. On the opposite side, to the east side of the house, there’s an existing screened in porch and it’s a step below grade. So one of the other things to accommodate the house is being able to get from the car into the house without climbing three or four steps to the first floor. So with the proposed plan there’s a new sidewalk that comes up from the driveway around the back of the garage into a renovated space. That’s the mudroom, and then there’s a new screened in porch behind that. Again, that new construction is in alignment with the existing sidewall of the house. It’s about a two foot relief from that side yard setback. So the drawings pretty much illustrate those two additions on either side. You can see how they match the existing walls of the house. So with that said I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. MR. MC CABE-So it seems pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who might have input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, I’m going to ask Roy, do we have any written communication on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no public 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 Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I guess I am in favor of this. We haven’t necessarily encroached any further so to speak on the sides and the back is in compliance. So I would vote positive. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project. One story in height, back of the house. What you see is what you get. So I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-With the width of the lot only being 100 feet and then you subtract the setbacks which are 25 each, that only allows 50 feet to work with there, and they’re not, like Cathy said, they’re not getting any closer to the line than the existing house is. So it’s a good project. It’s reasonable. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. URRICO-I believe he satisfies the criteria test. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-So I believe what’s being asked for is minimal here. So I, too, support the project. MR. MC CABE- So, Brent, I’m going to ask you for a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gary McCoola, Architect. Applicant proposes a 196 sq. ft. screen porch addition, 455 sq. ft. single story bedroom and bathroom addition, 290 +/- sq. ft. covered porch, and a new patio area of 368 sq. ft. The site work includes areas for the new additions, patio, and updating the pathway. The existing home is 2,016 sq. ft. footprint and proposed is 2,602 sq. ft.; the porch/deck area improvement is 620 sq. ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The 455 sq. ft. addition is to be 16 ft. from the property line, the new 196 sq. ft. screen porch is to be 23 ft. from the 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, June 16, 2021. 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. Minor to no changes will occur. Each are one story in height and are as was discussed in the back of the home. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because neither addition into the side yard setback is substantial and again in the rear of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As repeated, one story in height, rear of the home. It has no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty could be viewed as self-created, but certainly is falling under all reasonable criteria here as we discussed. 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. 40-2021 GARY MC COOLA, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. MC COOLA-Great. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is AV 37-2021, David Liebetreu. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID LIEBETREU AGENT(S) JON C. LAPPER OWNER(S) DAVID LIEBETREU ZONING WR LOCATION 57 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL NEW SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN, CREATE A DESIGNATED LAWN AREA AT THE SHORELINE, INSTALL A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREA FOR THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY, REPLACE BRICK PATIO AREA WITH PERMEABLE PATIO AREAS, INCREASE PERMEABLE PATIO AREAS AT THE SHORELINE, CREATE A NEW HOT TUB AREA AND INSTALL SLAB STEPS. AN EXISTING CABANA OF 168 SQ. FT. REQUIRES REVIEW FOR LOCATION. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR WATERFRONT AREA WORK, HARD SURFACING, FILLING, SHORELINE, SLOPES/CUT ACTIVITIES, AND SHORELINE BUFFER. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS OF THE CABANA AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF AV 38-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, CLARK WILKINSON & GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2021, David Liebetreu, Meeting Date: June 16, 2021 “Project Location: 57 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install new shoreline planting plan, create a designate lawn area at the shoreline, install a stormwater management area for the existing driveway, replace brick patio area with permeable patio areas, increase permeable patio areas at the shoreline, create a new hot tub area, and install slab steps. An existing cabana of 168 sq. ft. requires review for location. Site plan review for waterfront area work, hard surfacing, filling, shoreline, slopes/cut activities, and shoreline buffer. Relief is requested for setbacks of cabana and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of cabana in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The cabana of 168 sq. ft. is located 6.2 ft. form the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The house was constructed 1995. The cabana was constructed sometime after 1995 without the appropriate approvals. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. The applicant requests approval of a pre-existing non-conforming structure that had been built sometime after 1995. 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 as the structure is pre-existing. The applicant proposes to add additional hard surfacing to the area near the structure for a grilling area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of 68.8 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficult may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain an existing cabana structure on the site. The project includes site work between the shoreline and the home with creating a flat lawn area, new planting plan, updating the fire pit 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) area, the hot tub area, addressing drainage issue near the driveway, and replacing the pea gravel with mulch and plantings around the home. The plans show the location of the cabana and planting plan.” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board based on limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed seven, zero, June th 15, 2021. MR. MC CABE-So after 1995 is kind of vague. MR. LAPPER-So this is the third owner. Let me introduce everybody. For the record, Jon Lapper with Clark Wilkinson from Environmental Design Partnership and Geff Redick from Redbud Development and the Liebetreus are here as well. So they bought the house in 2016 and whoa to them they didn’t check to see that the cabana that’s got the exact same architecture as the house wasn’t permitted. And not only that it came in to the Planning and Zoning Board in 2017 with some minor changes. It was all in the application with the square footage and permeability and it never came up then, and now because Laura’s so smart, when we came in with really significant changes in terms of upgrading the property, minor in terms of the site. They want to replace substantially all of the windows and do a lot of landscaping at the lakefront and the other items that were mentioned, the permeable pavers. Laura goes back and looks and says the cabana was never approved. So the first owner built the house in ’95, it appears that this was built probably in ’96 right after they got the CO because it looks just like the house. Then it was sold to a second owner. The Liebetreus were the third owners. So it was a pretty big shock to them when they came in for a simple project to find out that this was never permitted , but that’s where we are. So we’re here to discuss and ask permission to keep that there. I’m sure you all saw it. It’s a lovely structure. It was important to them buying the house. It’s not something that can just get picked up and moved. I think the numbers were a little different because it was a 50 foot setback and it’s only 43 feet 4 or something. Regardless, it’s in a very heavily wooded area. The neighbor on the south side where this is can barely see it and I’ve got a couple of photographs to show you. This is of the neighbor’s house looking from the cabana. That’s the cabin next door and these two are not from the cabin. They’re actually from the property line next door and you will see it’s really hard to see this because it’s so nicely wooded. So as you can imagine when we got involved in this to ask for permission to meet with Laura it was pretty depressing for the applicants so I asked Laura to go back and go through the records and see if it was possible that it was approved. It’s pretty surprising on Glen Lake that you build something and no one’s going to notice it and say something, but whatever. So Laura went back and looked and lo and behold it wasn’t approved . It’s certainly not something that, if it’s self-imposed, it’s not by this applicant. So we’re trying to do the right thing. So from that light, in terms of trying to do the right thing, part of this project, which is why the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval, they’re doing stormwater at the lake from this cabana so it doesn’t just go in the lake like it does now. A lot of plantings along the lake and green space that isn’t there now, really cleaning up, permeable pavers, and actually permeability is improving by this project. So there are a lot of benefits and I don’t think that there is a detriment to the neighborhood because you can hardly see it it’s been there for so long. MR. MC CABE-So if the permeability is improving, why are we asking for relief? MRS. MOORE-It’s going to change. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Just the setback for the cabana. MR. MC DEVITT-So it’s just a setback issue, not a permeability. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised and so at this time I will open the public hearing and see if there is anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular project. Roy, have we got any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-“Our land abuts to the immediate south. We would like to express our concerns regarding this area variance. We are not in favor of the large scope of this proposed project and the change it will have on the natural beauty of Glen Lake. We were disappointed to see so many mature trees removed from the property last season likely in preparation for this plan. Grass next to the lake is a good thing but not if it is regularly fertilized as we observed this petitioner’s agents to do at their former property four lots to our south. Relief from permeability should not be allowed as the site is very steep and torrents of cascading water occur with every strong storm. We also have concerns about the driveway drainage as one half of the petitioner’s driveway is within mere feet of ours. What guarantees do we have that 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) permeable surfaces will become non-permeable in the future if relief is granted? The cabana is a Anon- conforming structure, close to and visible from our property. Regardless of whose fault it is that it exists, expansion of it and improvements should not be allowed. Is there a cooking area? Is there a sink? Where does the waste water go? Will a bathroom be added at a future date? We believe such extensive manipulation of the lakefront will have an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. This property has been under renovations for three years. During that time we have been subject to a cacophony of construction noise frequently to as late as 8:30 p.m. on summer evenings and weekends, depriving us of the enjoyment of our property. It is not an exaggeration to state we had to wear ear protection in our own garden during this time. We would also request consideration be given that the neighbors not be subjected to construction noise during what should be the quiet times of evenings and weekends. Respectfully, Douglas and Debra Petroski” And that’s 49 and 53 Fitzgerald Road. That’s it. MR. LAPPER-That’s the letter from the unhappy neighbors. There is a letter from the neighbors on the north side. MR. MC CABE-So, just to be clear, we’re not asking to expand the size of the cabana, just to locate it. And those other items are mostly Planning Board items. They have no bearing on us. MR. URRICO-I have another letter. “It has been brought to our attention by a few neighbors and through written notification from the Town, that David Liebetreu would like to make modifications to his property which is directly adjacent to ours. Having discussed the proposed changes with Mr. Liebetreu, as well as having reviewed the documentation that was forwarded by the Town, we do not have any objections to the changes as proposed. It seems from the documentation that was provided that the permeability, although not optimal, will still be an improvement over the current condition. The cabana that is currently there has been there for over 20 years from my understanding, and it would seem that it should be grandfathered in. In any case it is unobtrusive, and we have no objection to that structure either. Sincerely, Philip W. Birmingham” And that’s 59 Fitzgerald Road. MR. MC CABE-So do you have anything to add? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. Unfortunately I got there on Monday and I got out of my car and all of a sudden it let loose with the rain. So I didn’t get down there to look at it. So where I see this, it says proposed grill. That’s not there now? MR. LAPPER-No and that’s because they’re living down near the lake so it would just be nice to have. MR. HENKEL-Is there a way of getting that, because, you know, you’ve got the people on that side that sound like they have a little bit of a problem. Is there any way of putting that grill somewhere else not so close to the property line? MR. LAPPER-The area. So two answers. The area where it was on the other side, that’s where that whole stormwater management is going and the plantings on the other side, but if you looked at those photos, I mean that cabin is so far from this and it’s so wooded you can hardly even see it. MR. HENKEL-But wouldn’t that satisfy them a little better maybe if you’re not, because now you’re adding a little bit more of a patio area there with a grill. When you’re cooking you’re going to be talking, cooking, smelling. MR. LAPPER-They’re already hanging out there. That’s where the lakefront and that’s where the cabana is. It’s just really to have a hard surface to put the grill on, just to make it a little bit more. MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I didn’t get down there, but is there a hard surface on the other side that’s to the? DAVID LIEBETREU MR. LIEBETREU-Jon, could I add one point? Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It’s my please to be here. My name is David Liebetreu. This is my wife Kathy and we are owners of the property, and we have been working on improving the property for the last several years since we bought it in 2016. We love Glen Lake. We’ve chosen this as a place for our family to gather, and we’re going to do everything we can to take care of the water quality and the quality of life at Glen Lake. The one point that I wanted to make relative to having variances in the middle of two of my neighbors. The neighbor in favor is literally right on top of us. He has a structure that’s probably five feet from the line, and that’s based on the fact that once upon a time is was one property. So it’s been split. We’re very close to each other and everything’s fine. On the opposite side you see it’s largely difficult to see through that area. The lot there is a rental property that’s owned by the owners. The folks that 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) wrote the letter actually, so they have two properties. They’re three doors down which is where the residence. We just wanted to paint the picture a little more clearly for you. MR. LAPPER-So there’s not a real impact of what you’re doing down there. MR. LIEBETREU-It’s certainly not. It’s a long ways from them. MR. MC CABE-Okay. That’s good. MR. LIEBETREU-So I just thought I’d offer that and answer any questions for anybody as well. MR. MC CABE-John, are you satisfied? MR. HENKEL-It would be nice if they could move it over to the other side, but, you know, because that’s also, if you’re putting, because that area right now where you’re putting the grill is not paved or pavers or nothing there. It’s just grass there. Right? MR. LIEBETREU-Right. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So now you’re going to put a hard surface over there, permeable paver which is still impermeable. MR. LAPPER-Fifty percent. MR. HENKEL-So I’m just saying it’s very tight with the permeability, even though it’s not considered in this, you’re still way below where you should be at. I think it would be nicer if you could put that grill somewhere else That’s just my personal opinion. MR. MC CABE-Sure, but we’re still in the public hearing here. So at this particular, is there any other input from the public? 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’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I think overall I’m not objecting to the application, although I think it would be a show of good faith, as John suggested, for them to just move the grill to show some way of appeasing their neighbors and also minimizing the relief f, well there’s no relief for the permeability, but it would minimize it because there is a carryover from before. So I think I would think it would be a show of good faith, but I don’t know if that’s a deal breaker for me. MR. MC CABE-So basically what we’re doing though is we’re passing judgment on the setbacks. MR. URRICO-Yes, I understand that. MR. HENKEL-But we’re also talking considerations, too. MR. MC CABE-Yes, absolutely. MR. URRICO-So that’s my opinion. MR. MC CABE-But I’m trying to figure out if that’s a yes with conditions. MR. URRICO-That’s a maybe right now. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. URRICO-I want to hear what the rest of the Board members have to say. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So, Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-May I ask Staff a question? Are they going to the Planning Board or they have been to the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-Right. So it went to the Planning Board last night for the Planning Board recommendation, and then they come to you tonight with their recommendation to see if you identify any concerns. MRS. HAMLIN-So it just went to the Planning Board for a recommendation. It doesn’t have to go through site plan. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. MC CABE-Well that’s when it came out that the cabana wasn’t. We have to pass judgment on the cabana. MR. LAPPER-Next week it’s on for Site Plan. MRS. HAMLIN-It’s on for Site Plan to come in the future. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Thank you. That was my question. So I agree with the previous statements. I realize we’re not addressing permeability and you’ve improved it slightly. It would be nice to, I’m not a fan of seeing a lawn go in, especially with fertilizers around the lake and all that. So I’m hoping that maybe the Planning Board can address that as it’s beyond our purview. In regards to the cabana, you know you can’t ask every question when you’re buying a house, and I wouldn’t, we don’t like after the fact, but I wouldn’t penalize current owners. So I would vote in favor of the setback for the cabana. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The applicant bought the property in 2016 and it appears as if they’re doing a lot of work on it to improve the area. Someone in 1995 did something or didn’t do something for that matter and frankly I think they’re innocent victims here that are trying to get things right. So I believe they’re addressing some drainage issues near the driveway, a new planting plan, etc. So with that said I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I’ve been around, Roy and I have both been on the Board since this building was originally constructed by Don Maynard back in the day and I think he kind of hoodwinked the neighbors, you know, when he did the project he showed them one plan and then he submitted his second plan to the Town and built the house as it is which we don’t really have any control over at this point, but I think as far as the waterfront goes, I live on the lake just down the road form you guys on the corner there and I’ve paddled by for years and that cabana’s been there all these years. It hasn’t changed. I don’t think it’s a big change, but I would question a little bit of what you’re planning to do on the waterfront. I think creating lawns by the lake is a definite no in my book. It’s been proven that it has a detrimental effect on the lake, whether you use fertilizers or don’t, and I think because you have the steep bank coming down, I think when the original plans were done in the Planning Board approvals were done, they requested substantial tree plantings on that steep hillside and I notice over the last couple of years the trees have kind of disappeared slowly, and I don’t know if that’s such a great idea, but as far as the cabana goes, you know, I don’t really see that as a negative. I do question, as Roy does, putting a grill and adding to the usage down at the lakefront. There’s only one other shoreline along there, that’s Vittengl’s and that was there before they bought the property, too, but they greatly expanded it by adding grilling and having a fridge down there and everything else. So I’m still sitting on the fence as far as that goes. MR. MC CABE-So, John? MR. HENKEL-I have no problem with the cabana. That’s pre-existing when you bought it, you were the third owner. I just thought to make the neighbors happy even though they’re not right there, they’re renting it, let’s not encroach that side setback or the lake anymore. So if you could put that grill somewhere else, I would be happy with the project, but I wouldn’t accept it the way the grill is there now and increasing impermeable area, and I agree they’ve done a nice job with the property, but like I said, I don’t like to accept it the way it is. MR. MC CABE-So from my standpoint I can’t justify asking the applicant to remove the cabana that’s been there since 1996 say, which is really what we’re asked to approve here. So let me ask you guys. Is there some landscaping that could be done to kind of hide the grill and that area? Would you be amenable to a condition that some sort of screening be done in that particular area? MR. LIEBETREU-Absolutely. MR. MC CABE-So would that satisfy you, John? MR. HENKEL-I’d still like to see it, there’s other places you could put it. I just don’t want to see that grill any closer to this side. That’s my personal opinion. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Roy, would you be satisfied with providing screening? MR. URRICO-No. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. MC CABE-Jim., would you be satisfied with providing screening? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. MC CABE-So the situation we have here is kind of a standoff. You need another vote. Unfortunately we’re short a person tonight. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-Could I address the grass area? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. WILKINSON-Clark Wilkinson with the Environmental Design Partnership. Part of the creation of that grass area is to create a storage area for the water coming off of the roof of the cabana. We’re now collecting it and putting it into there. We have stone and sand filters that we’re going through and then re-collecting it underneath before it’s discharged to the lake. So that really becomes a stormwater management area that’s also trying to filter as much of what’s going directly right into the lake right now and trying to take care of it and filter it out and store it so it doesn’t go directly into the lake. That’s the intent of that grass area, as well as creating a small sitting area or a little play area for smaller children. That’s how it would be used. I just wanted to make sure that was clarified. MR. MC CABE-So you’ve got a couple of choices here. You can table until we get a full Board, or you can talk about re-locating the grilling area. MR. LIEBETREU-I can live with doing something different with the grilling area. We’ll figure it out. We originally had it designed on the other side of the cabana. It encroached a little bit on our drainage plan. So we made a permeable area on the other side. It’s 50 some square feet. It’s a very small footprint, and we’re just going to put a, my son’s in the military. He spent a lot of time in South America and he asked me to build an Argentinian kecha. We have one on the other side right now that’s about this big. We would make something about 2/3rds that size and that’s all that footprint is for, and then with permeable pavers. Having said all that, if that’s what we need to do, we’ll figure something else out. If I could address one more thing, both for Mr. Underwood and Mrs. Hamlin, actually on top of that terrace, there’s zero grass on this lot right now. So we have no lawn, and I’m not inclined to put something in that needs to be fertilized. So actually the plan is to put in one of those new artificial turf surfaces that’s very natural grass like. It will be low maintenance, no chemicals to the lake. We have to work though that detail but that’s basically what we’re going to do for that area. So we’ve got a little bit of an area for people to spread out and play. MR. MC CABE-But I think the condition that we need to get another vote or two votes is to move that grilling area or delete it. MR. LAPPER-So that’s a condition that we would agree that the grilling area will not be located between the cabana and the property line on the south side. MR. HENKEL-And no pavers will be put over there? MR. LIEBETREU-Correct. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. That’s good. MR. UNDERWOOD-I still would like to see a deletion of the grass area. I think it’s big precedent. I mean nobody on the steep bank along this whole side of the lake has that. MR. LAPPER-We need it for the drainage, the infiltration system is underneath that. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think you can do a raingarden type situation like they’ve done on Lake George up on steeper terrain, have that accommodated, too. MR. LAPPER-You know from kayaking by that there’s no area for them to hang out there. So they need something. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but you have kind of like a cantilevered deck there that you can sit on. MR. LIEBETREU-We have a dock. We have a deck and a dock. To us it really felt like a much more comprehensive plan to collect rainwater, to terrace that bank a little bit in the front. That’s really what it is. So the wall would come up from the back of the dock, because right now it’s just crumbling boards 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) from 25 years of lack of maintenance. So instead of trying to mess with that we thought working more with environmental engineers as well as an architect who’s sitting behind me is the best way to improve functionality. Right now we are absolutely committed to the quality of water on Glen Lake. So again, no fertilizers, no natural grass. We’re just doing a bit of a terraced system to help the design. Trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. MR. MC CABE-So eliminating the grilling area is okay with you, John. How about you, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Cathy, do you want to configure a motion here with that condition. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Liebetreu. Applicant proposes to install new shoreline planting plan, create a designate lawn area at the shoreline, install a stormwater management area for the existing driveway, replace brick patio area with permeable patio areas, increase permeable patio areas at the shoreline, create a new hot tub area, and install slab steps. An existing cabana of 168 sq. ft. requires review for location. Site plan review for waterfront area work, hard surfacing, filling, shoreline, slopes/cut activities, and shoreline buffer. Relief is requested for setbacks of cabana and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of cabana in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The cabana of 168 sq. ft. is located 6.2 ft. form the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The house was constructed 1995. The cabana was constructed sometime after 1995 without the appropriate approvals. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 16, 2021. 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. I guess we conclude that based on the fact that it’s an existing structure and we’re merely approving its continued existence. 2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed and considered by the Board and we will condition some of those alternatives at the end of this motion. 3. The requested variance is quite substantial, but again, we’re granting relief for a pre-existing structure that was built prior to the current owner. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, it is existing as is. So there’s no additional adverse impact. 5. The alleged difficulty was self-created. They did purchase the property without due diligence as to knowing whether or not this was previously approved. 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) We condition that the proposed grill area and the pavers from the cabana to the south property line will not be built. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2021 DAVID LIEBETREU, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) Duly adopted this 16th Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. Thank you for your time. MR. LIEBETREU-Thank you all. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 3-2021, Ayzo Ridge Consulting. MRS. MOORE-The applicants are not here. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we’ll go to Plan B. So our next application is AV 21-2021, Ron & Ruth Jameson. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2021 SEQRA TYPE II RON & RUTH JAMESON AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS) OWNER(S) RON & RUTH JAMESON ZONING WR LOCATION 94 HALL ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,440 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 3,478 SQ. FT., INCLUDES ATTACHED GARAGE AND COVERED PATIO. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR GRADING, STORMWATER CONTROLS, AND PLANTINGS. REVISION: THE NEW HOME HAS BEEN MOVED FURTHER FROM THE SHORELINE. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 21-2021; PT 721-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-24 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2021, Ron & Ruth Jameson, Meeting Date: June 16, 2021 “Project Location: 94 Hall Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to demo existing home and garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,440 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,478 sq. ft., includes attached garage and covered patio. The project includes associated site work for grading, stormwater controls, and plantings. Revision: The new home has been moved further from the shoreline. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and permeability for the construction of a new home in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home is to be located 23 feet 8 inches from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required; then 7 feet. 8 ½ inches to the north property line and 17 feet from the south property line where 20 ft. is required. Floor area proposed is 23.95% where 22 % is 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 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 could be achieved by reducing the home size – would reduce setback and floor area. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 32 ft. 4 inches from the shoreline, 3 feet south and 12 feet 3 1/2 inches from the north property line. Floor area relief is 1.95%. 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 has indicated the new home would allow for an updated home with a garage. The home has been moved further from the shoreline. The plans show revised location of the home on the parcel and the elevations.“ MR. MC CABE-So we’ve had quite a bit of discussion on this project before. So we’ve moved things back a little bit. MR. HALL-Yes. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski and Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Ruth Jameson. Yes, at our last meeting we discussed moving it back up the hill a little ways, took Jim’s advice and moved it back. I kind of split it in half if you will. Ten feet was going to put us over the height variance. I went back five and change, kept us right at where the 28 feet’s going to be, increased the distance , but I didn’t ask for height so I figured that was acceptable. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Actually overall you made a much better project out of it. MR. HALL-I figured it would keep everybody happy. And we didn’t have to ask for any additional variance, reduced what we were asking for. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project. Seeing no one, Roy. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is a letter. “First, Ron and Ruth have been good neighbors. However there are a couple of points/questions that are appropriate at this time. The primary access to our properties is through a private easement over one of my two lots. Construction parking is not allowed on this easement. Unfortunately other neighbors have willingly allowed construction crews to trespass on my property at their convenience and to damage my property. Past construction activity destroyed newly planted trees and bulldozed cultivated garden plants. Also, I rent my property and I want to advise my renters as to what are allowable construction hours and days. I also want to advise them of the number/person to contact if there are problems or construction outside of these hours. Thank you in advance Vicki Johnson” I don’t have an address. MR. HALL-That’s the air b-n-b next door. MR. MC CABE-So do you have any response? RUTH JAMESON MRS. JAMESON-She has my house number so she can call us any time. MR. HALL-Ron is a contractor. So he’s fully aware. They know that they can’t park in that area, the right of way. MRS. JAMESON-We put up a sign that they can’t park in our driveway. MR. HALL-Probably what necessitated that letter. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board and I’m going to start with Jim. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we were working here under normal circumstances with new construction the 50 foot would put you way back where you would never see the lake, and I think even if we wanted you to put it five feet further back that would get you into your height variance and everything else. I think my only question for you would be and my only stipulation on this would be that I would like to see you not take down any more trees on the waterfront and do some substantial plantings on there, too, as a buffer along the lake there. I think everybody recognizes with the big jet boats going by and everything else with the waves getting larger and larger with the wake boats, it’s important to protect the shoreline and you’re relatively flat there where you are. You’re not really on a big steep slope or anything like that. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I think it’s well thought out and I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-They pretty much did everything that we asked them to do last time. So in all fairness I would vote to approve. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-With the changes made I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree. Mr. Hall and the Jamesons did a nice job of revising this project and I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, appreciate the changes that have been made by the applicant and I support the project. So, Jim, I’m going to ask for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ron & Ruth Jameson. (Revised) Applicant proposes to demo existing home and garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,440 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,478 sq. ft., includes attached garage and covered patio. The project includes associated site work for grading, stormwater controls, and plantings. Revision: The new home has been moved further from the shoreline. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and permeability for the construction of a new home in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home is to be located 23 feet 8 inches from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required; then 7 feet 8 ½ inches to the north property line and 17 feet from the south property line where 20 ft. is required. Floor area proposed is 23.95% where 22 % is allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 21, 2021 and Wednesday, June 16, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. It’s approximately the same setbacks as all the adjoining camps along that shoreline. 2. As far as feasible alternatives, the Board could ask for 50 foot setbacks, but that would put you way back in the woods. You wouldn’t have any view of the lake and we feel that moving back further from where you are presently located is going to be an improvement. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because you’re kind of caught between a rock and a hard place with that back behind you on the back side there and the Board understood why you want to place it where you are placing it. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We feel it will be an improvement over what currently exists on site. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but it’s also created by the fact of where the lot is and the size of the lot. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The Board would see substantial plantings along the shoreline, no more cutting of mature trees because we feel that’s a detriment to the lake if you take those down. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2021 RON & RUTH JAMESON, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. HALL-Thank you for your time. MRS. JAMESON-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AYZO RIDGE CONSULTING AGENT(S) BRIDGETTE SCHOEMAKER OWNER(S) MATT O’HARA ZONING WR LOCATION 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 60 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN WHERE A SECOND WALL SIGN CANNOT EXCEED 30 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO H AVE A SECOND WALL SIGN AS THERE IS NO FREESTANDING SIGN PROPOSED PER SECTION 140. THE SIGN IS TO BE INDIVIDUAL LETTERS PLACED ON A BACK DROP, FACING THE SHORELINE OF LAKE GEORGE. THE SMALLER SIGN OF 20 SQ. FT. IS TO BE LOCATED NEAR THE ENTRY DOOR FACING DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD (PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR A SECOND WALL SIGN GREATER THAN 30 SQ. FT. CROSS REF SIGN 49-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-4 SECTION 140 MR. MC CABE-So do we give. MRS. MOORE-So let me explain what happened. There was confusion. Obviously we’ve been switching from online to in person meetings. They misunderstood the information that we provided to them. They received a letter in the mail indicating that it was virtual and didn’t review the information in the e-mail that they should be present. So they’re not here due to a confusion issue. So I don’t know if you want to table it to next week’s meeting and I’ll explain to them. It would put seven items on the agenda. So I can quickly go through what those items are, but you already have the packets. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And so you could potentially get this on to your agenda, but it would length your meeting. I know they’re supposed to be seven to eleven, but that is up to the Board. MR. MC CABE-I can’t understand a word you’re saying. So let me just ask you a couple of questions and you nod. How many? MR. URRICO-Seven. There would be seven items. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. MC CABE-Seven and this would make. MR. URRICO-No, this would be the seventh. MR. MC CABE-This would be the seventh. Okay. So I don’t have a problem with that. So, John, make a motion that we table it until next week. MRS. MOORE-It is eight because you tabled the Grasmeders until next week. There would actually be eight items. MR. MC CABE-So there are eight now. Okay. MR. URRICO-Eight items for next week. I think that might be pushing it. MR. MC CABE-Eight’s pushing it, because we’re probably going to have discussion on Grasmeder. So how many the first meeting in July? How many. MRS. MOORE-It’s a full meeting for the first meeting in July at this time. MR. MC CABE-Okay. How about the second? MRS. MOORE-It will be, you can place it on the second. th MR. HENKEL-So July 28. MR. MC CABE-Yes, so let’s do that. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ayzo Ridge Consulting. Applicant proposes to install a 60 sq. ft. wall sign where a second wall sign cannot exceed 30 sq. ft. The applicant is allowed to have a second wall sign as there is no freestanding sign proposed per Section 140. The sign is to be individual letters placed on a back drop, facing the shoreline of Lake George. The smaller sign of 20 sq. ft. is to be located near the entry door facing Dunham’s Bay Road (permit has been issued). Relief is requested for a second wall sign greater than 30 sq. ft. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2021 AYZO RIDGE CONSULTING, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the July 28, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. HENKEL-We don’t have to worry about any re-submittal of any kind of information because it’s already there. MR. MC CABE-So we have a couple of new alternates. So I propose, why don’t you guys come on up to the table here and we’ll ask you questions. So we just want to ask you a couple of questions. So identify yourselves for the Board. JACKSON LA SARSO MR. LA SARSO-Hi. My name is Jackson LaSarso. BRADY STARK MR. STARK-I’m Brady Stark. MR. MC CABE-So LaSarso’s a Hudson Falls name and Stark is a Fort Ann name, but you guys are Queensbury? MR. LA SARSO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay, and so you want to do this. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. LASARSO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So you saw kind of what we go through here. This was a very mild meeting. Sometimes they get much more contentious. Unfortunately you didn’t see input from the public tonight except for in the form of written, and we haven’t seen much because our meetings have been Zoom or remote, but they do get kind of verbal and you can’t take things personally. What we normally do is you’ll get the information in the beginning of the month so you’ll have a couple of weeks to go take a look at the property and examine it and familiarize yourselves with what’s being asked for by the applicant. Tonight was kind of an unusual situation where you have a structure that’s existed for a long period of time. By all rights we could have asked them to remove that, but I practice we normally don’t do that. We generally feel that there should be some penalty for not following the rules, but unfortunately under our rules that’s not the case, but if it was extreme and we felt that the applicant was really trying to take advantage of us we might ask them to remove it. In this particular case here I don’t think the applicant had any idea what he was getting into. So I believe that what we did was the right thing legitimizing it. You’ll be issued ID’s. When you go out to examine a property you can’t. MR. URRICO-Mike, do you want this to be on the record? MR. MC CABE-Yes, there’s no problem with that. You can’t talk to the applicant personally. When you discuss things it has to be before the whole Board. If by some quirk you do talk to the applicant personally then what you need to do is when that applicant comes before the Board you’ll have to condition it by saying I had a private conversation with the applicant and then reveal the details of that. MR. UNDERWOOD-And likewise that goes for neighbors that might be against a project or the public. We’ll get into occasionally like major projects, you know, that there’s a huge public outcry against it or something and, you know, you have to stay neutral in your position, and make your decision based upon what’s in the Code book, familiarize yourself with the Code book. In other words, if something’s coming up like setbacks and stuff like that. Those are pretty straightforward because they’re cut and they’re etched in ink and stone. MR. MC CABE-So what you have to understand there is what zoning is applicable. Is it a Rural Residential or is it Waterfront Residential or, you know, they’re all different categories, and with each category there’s a different type of setback. I know that there’s going to be a missing person for both meetings in September. So that’s possibly the first time that one of you guys will have the opportunity to actually sit and pass judgment on a series of applications. Do you have any questions for us? MR. STARK-No. MR. LA SARSO-No, I’m all set. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do they have to do any certification before they can sit? MR. MC CABE-They have to go through Craig’s orientation. MRS. MOORE-They have to do Craig’s orientation. Speak with Staff a little bit and then they’re only required to take four hours of training sometime in the year. MRS. HAMLIN-They have to take the oath. MR. MC CABE-I would encourage you to come to the meetings and just see what goes on. Each meeting is usually unique. So what you saw tonight, well almost saw tonight, was an Area Variance and a Sign Variance. Of course we didn’t hear the Sign Variance. So the only other application is a Use Variance. The most common is the Area Variance. Every once in a while we’ll get a Sign Variance and rarely we get a Use Variance. The Use is the most stringent. So I’ve probably been involved in eight Use Variances in my seven years here or six years. MRS. MOORE-But most of them were related to telecommunications towers. MR. MC CABE-Most of them were cell towers, which is kind of a unique situation in and of itself. MR. UNDERWOOD-So when you get those weird ones you’re going to have to go to your book and read through and see what the Section says because you’re not going to have a clue. I mean we all started the same way as you guys. MR. MC CABE-And so pretty soon we’ll ask you to make a motion. And so familiarize yourself with the steps in making a motion because at some point you will be asked to make a motion. So is that? MRS. MOORE-That’s a good training session. Thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/16/2021) MR. MC CABE-Welcome aboard. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. LA SARSO-Thank you. MR. MC DEVITT-Welcome, guys. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’ll propose that we close tonight’s meeting. MRS. HAMLIN-I have a question. Are these new microphones? MRS. MOORE-Those are the existing. MRS. HAMLIN-What’s going on? MR. MC CABE-I think because these are active? MRS. MOORE-No. We have a new sound system and it has been tweaked. And it’s been re-tweaked. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s like you’re talking Martian over there. MR. MC CABE-There’s white noise in there. MRS. MOORE-It shouldn’t be. MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, just an observation. If we were speaking with no intercom speaker right now, we can hear one another. We’re very close here. I’m not sure why this needs to be even on. MR. MC CABE-It’s for recording. MRS. MOORE-That mic in front of you is not on. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. Understood. It’s just an odd echo. MRS. MOORE-And I’m usually the one you can’t here. MR. URRICO-Let’s go back to the wireless mics. MRS. HAMLIN-I didn’t mean to stir up a can of worms. MR. MC CABE-You stirred up a can of worms. We’re leaving. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 20