Loading...
07-28-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 44-2021 Nicole McGrath 1. Tax Map No. 302.8-2-76 Area Variance No. 45-2021 Foothills Builders 4. Tax Map No. 289.7-2-2 Area Variance No. 47-2021 Yi Eric Zheng 7. Tax Map No. 308.7-1-71 Area Variance No. 48-2021 Manfred Unkauf & Joan McGrath 10. Tax Map No. 290.10-1-7 Area Variance No. 49-2021 Michael McCarthy 14. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-5 Sign Variance No. 3-2021 Ayzo Ridge Consulting 17. 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 07/28/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY CATHERINE HAMLIN BRENT MC DEVITT JOHN HENKEL 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 th Appeals, July 28, 2021. If you haven’t been here before, our operation here is kind of simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. What will happen is we’ll call each application up, read the application into our record, allow the applicant to present the application. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open a public hearing, seek input from the public. After that we’ll poll the Board, see where we stand on the application, and proceed as required. We’re going to, although make a little change in our schedule tonight. The first application is going to move from first to last. So the other thing is, just from a safety standpoint, there are doors to the north there where you entered. There’s a single door to the southwest in the corner over here There’s two doors on the east side here in case there’s a problem. So our first application is AV 44-2021. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II NICOLE MC GRATH AGENT(S) MICHAEL MC GRATH OWNER(S) NICOLE MC GRATH ZONING MDR LOCATION 37 MEADOWBROOK RD. APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF A 592 SQ. FT. STRUCTURE AS A SECOND GARAGE AS THE DOOR WIDTH IS GREATER THAN 6 FT. THE BUILDING IS USED FOR STORAGE; STRUCTURE WAS BUILT PRIOR TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY APPLICANT. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,942 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HAVING TWO GARAGES WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF AST 357-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2021 LOT SIZE 15.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-76 SECTION 179-5-020 MIKE & NICOLE MC GRATH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2021, Nicole McGrath, Meeting Date: July 28, 2021 “Project Location: 37 Meadowbrook Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval of a 592 sq. ft. structure as a second garage as the door width is greater than 6 ft. The building is used for storage; structure was built prior to purchase of property by applicant. The existing home of 2,942 sq. ft. is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for having two garages where only one is allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for having two garages where only one is allowed in the Moderated Density Residential zone – MDR (Cline Meadow Development –Lot 7 SUB 9-1989 zoned SR 20) Section 179-5-020 – garage Applicant proposes to maintain an existing detached garage that had been constructed by the previous owner. 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 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 as the building had been in place when the property was purchased and is currently in use for storage of items for the property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial. Relief is to maintain two garages this includes the detached garage and the attached garage to the home on a 15.47 acre parcel. 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 the two garages on the site. The plans show the location of the garage and the internal storage areas of the building. The applicant was not aware the previous owner had not obtained a permit or reviews for the garage. The applicant uses it for storage of property maintenance and household items.” MRS. MC GRATH-That about sums it up. MR. MC CABE-It seems like we’ve seen you guys before. You look a little bit familiar. Identify yourselves. MR. MC GRATH-I’m Mike McGrath. Nicole McGrath my wife. MR. MC CABE-So this is pretty straightforward. Do you have anything to add? MR. MC GRATH-No. It was a nice surprise that we got when we bought the place. MRS. MC GRATH-That it was not permitted. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’ll ask the Board, do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing was advertised and so I’ll see if there’s anybody in the audience wo would like to speak on this particular application. Roy, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I actually had a question, I just didn’t get it out in time There was some notation on this map. Was the garage ever used as any sort of living space? The attached garage? No? MRS. MC GRATH-No. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. That’s all I had. I think that I would vote in favor, considering that it’s a 15 acre plus parcel. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree. 15.47 acre parcel, very good size for Meadowbrook Road. It’s a unique property. It really is, and so I would be in favor of your project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we should find fault with the current owners based upon the fact that the previous owners created this problem. So I have no problem on this huge lot. MR. MC CABE-John? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. HENKEL-I think if you had come to us with this project I’m sure we would have approved it anyway. There’s no setback problems. You can’t see it from anywhere. So I’d be for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-When did you purchase this property? MRS. MC GRATH-Three years ago. MR. KUHL-Have you had a building inspection done? Shouldn’t that person be liable for the cost of what you’re doing here? I mean didn’t this person go and, think about it. You pay that individual. We all do it, and I’ve been through six houses myself. Shouldn’t that person have counted the buildings on the lot because they’re supposed to have some intelligence. Anyway, I have no problem with this, but between me and you. MRS. MC GRATH-I would have lots of questions, because there was another building that we had to spend to have an architect do the plans again and they had come and maybe that’s where you, we had to have that approved as well. So that is, we’ve asked lawyers and everyone, and everyone did this. MR. KUHL-And that’s the shame with the whole thing, because you pay good money and you assume that this person is going to do an inspection well. What’s his criteria for the inspection? I mean, to me, I have no problem with this, okay. MRS. MC GRATH-Thank you. MR. KUHL-But my frustration is with people that you pay money for to do a job. Now what does that job entail? He’s inspecting the house. Well then you do a title search, well there’s no liens on here, but who counts the buildings? It should be that building inspector because he should have inspected all your buildings. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m on board. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve the project. You certainly have enough land there to warrant a second garage. So I’m going to ask Cathy if she’d make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Nicole McGrath. Applicant requests approval of a 592 sq. ft. structure as a second garage as the door width is greater than 6 ft. The building is used for storage; structure was built prior to purchase of property by applicant. The existing home of 2,942 sq. ft. is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for having two garages where only one is allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for having two garages where only one is allowed in the Moderated Density Residential zone – MDR (Cline Meadow Development –Lot 7 SUB 9-1989 zoned SR 20) Section 179-5-020 – garage Applicant proposes to maintain an existing detached garage that had been constructed by the previous owner. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 28, 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. In particular it’s a very large 15 acre plus parcel as well as a very well hidden parcel. So this second garage would not be visible from any major roads. 2. Feasible alternatives have not been considered. The building exists and we’re simply allowing the current owner to have a legal situation. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Again mentioning the large parcel of land. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district for previously commented reasons. 5. The alleged difficult is sort of self-created, but we’re kind of thinking it isn’t because other people had eyes on this and should have bought it. 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. 44-2021 NICOLE MC GRATH, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 28 Day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MRS. MC GRATH-Thank you so much. MR. MC GRATH-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 45-2021. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FOOTHILLS BUILDERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW HUNTINGTON OWNER(S) L.P. DAIGLE ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 11 MOONHILL PLACE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 2,319 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCES OF ABOUT 19,786 SQ. FT, FOR SITE WORK AND INSTALLATION OF ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL. SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTING A NEW HOME WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15 SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS IN THE RR-3A ZONE ON A PARCEL OF 0.96 ACRES. CROSS REF SP 43-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JULY 2021 LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-2-2 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2021, Foothills Builders, Meeting Date: July 28, 2021 “Project Location: 11 Moonhill Place Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home (partial as it was involved in a fire) to construct a 2,319 sq. ft. (footprint) home. The project includes disturbances of about 19,786 sq. ft. for site work and installation of on-site septic system and well. Site plan for constructing a new home within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for setbacks in the RR- 3A zone on a parcel of 0.96 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and road frontage in the RR-3A zone on a parcel of 0.96 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and Section 179-4-050 road frontage The applicant proposes a new home that is to be located 73 ft. from the front and 100.3 ft. from the rear where 100 ft. setback is required; then 89 ft. from the North side, 37.5 ft. from the South side where a 75 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for a lot not having direct access to a public highway (Moon Hill Place is a private drive accessed from Moon Hill Road). The deed and survey reference a right of way from the property to Moon Hill Road. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 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 as the parcel previously had a home on it. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the size of the parcel of 0.96 ac in a rural residential 3 acre zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for the front 27 ft., then 37.5 from the south side. The relief for no road frontage may be considered minimal as Moon Hill Road already provides access to this parcel. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home where the existing home was involved in a fire and is to be removed. The plans show the location of the new home; elevation plans and floor plans are included.” MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening, Board. Matt Huntington with Studio A and Quinn Roesch representing Foothills Builders for this project. In addition to the Staff Notes, there’s really not a whole lot to add. Other than we went to the Planning Board last night, received a recommendation to come in front of the ZBA for the requested variances. The existing lot is a non-conforming lot within the Rural Residential area. We have .96 acres to work with which is why we’re requesting the setbacks that we’re requesting and in addition to the road frontage. The lot itself is kind of a level area that’s kind of carved out of a hillside a little bit. So for the location of the house we chose the most level area out of the site. So to try to adjust for any setbacks there weren’t too many other places to put it. Site plan related, we are proposing stormwater management from an infiltration basin where there was none in the previous house and we are proposing a new septic system here. MR. MC CABE-Okay. It’s pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, 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 who has input into this particular project. Just administratively I never closed the last public hearing. So I’m going to close the last public hearing. MRS. DWYRE-You closed it. MR. MC CABE-I did? So is there any new written communication, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there’s one letter. “My name is Jim Whiting. I am your neighbor. First, I would like to say that you have a beautiful piece of property. I am sure you will like living up here. I would like to talk to you about the right of way that we both use to access our properties. I just wanted you to be aware that the Town of Queensbury or Warren County does not plow up here in the winter. It would be great if we could get something in writing that would cover the cost of maintenance and if and when the cost of repairs to the right of way. Hope to speak with you soon.” And he lives at 19 Moon Hill Place. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to close the public hearing at this particular time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I don’t see a problem with this application. This is basically filling what was once there, and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I kind of thought that was a Town road when I went in on it. So I guess the neighbor’s looking for you to pay for the plow, get together. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. MC CABE-That’s not our job. MR. KUHL-Get together. It’s a good project. I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s a better project than what was there before and a better setback. You’re only asking for a minimal side setback and you’re getting a new septic system, stormwater management. The only problem is that is something that should be considered in the conditions is to talk to the, or we have nothing to do with that. Talk to the other owner of the other property about sharing the cost of snow removal. MR. MC CABE-I think that’s kind of between the owners. They know what to do. Cathy? So you’re in favor? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-I want to ask Laura, actually. I asked her about what specific part of the Code has to do with driveway approval, and I looked it up and it seems as though it doesn’t apply to Rural Residential districts. That that is exempted, the needing to be on a public street? So do we really even need this? MRS. MOORE-So the Zoning Administrator has determined that it needs that relief. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Just wondering. Thanks. Yes, I would vote to grant relief from the Town Code for the public street access as well as the variances required. MR. MC CABE-Well that is the variance required. MRS. HAMLIN-The more area type variances as opposed to the access one. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in favor also. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. We gain some improvement in control of runoff. We gain a new septic system, and there’s really not much that can be done with positioning of the structure. So it’s an all-around good project. So at this particular time I’m going to seek a motion from Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Foothills Builders. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home (partial as it was involved in a fire) to construct a 2,319 sq. ft. (footprint) home. The project includes disturbances of about 19,786 sq. ft. for site work and installation of on-site septic system and well. Site plan for constructing a new home within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for setbacks in the RR-3A zone on a parcel of 0.96 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and road frontage in the RR-3A zone on a parcel of 0.96 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and Section 179-4-050 road frontage The applicant proposes a new home that is to be located 73 ft. from the front and 96.4 ft. from the rear where 100 ft. setback is required; then 89 ft. from the North side, 37.5 ft. from the South side where a 75 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for a lot not having direct access to a public highway (Moon Hill Place is a private drive accessed from Moon Hill Road). The deed and survey reference a right of way from the property to Moon Hill Road. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 28, 2021. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 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 The parcel previously had a home on it. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They’re limited due to the size of the parcel which is 0.96 acre in a Rural Residential 3 acre zone. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It should be considered moderate relative to the Code. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered 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. 45-2021 FOOTHILLS BUILDERS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 28 Day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. HUNTINGTON-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 47-2021, 70 Richmond Hill Drive. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II YI ERIC ZHENG OWNER(S) YI ERIC ZHENG ZONING MDR LOCATION 70 RICHMOND HILL DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL 270 LINEAR FEET OF 6 FT IN HEIGHT PRIVACY FENCE. THE PROPERTY ISA CORNER LOT WHERE A 110 FT. OF FENCE WILL BE ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF RICHMOND HILL DRIVE. THE FENCE WILL CONNECT TO THE HOME ON BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,055 SQ. FT. TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF FENCE. CROSS REF POOL-345-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-71 SECTION 179-5-070 ERIC ZHENG, PRESENT; RICK RODRIGUEZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2021, Yi Eric Zheng, Meeting Date: July 28, 2021 “Project Location: 70 Richmond Hill Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install 270 linear feet of 6 ft. in height privacy fence. The property is a corner lot where a 110 ft. of fence will be along the north property line of Richmond Hill Drive. The fence will connect to the home on both the north and south side. The existing home of 2,055 sq. ft. to remain with no changes proposed. Relief requested for location and height of fence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for location and height of fence in the Moderate Density. Parcel was part of the subdivision 4-2003 Barringer heights SR-1A. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) Section 179-5-070 fences Applicant proposes to install 110 ft. of six foot privacy fence along property at Richmond Hill Dr. Total fence is to be 270 ft. to go around yard.. Lot is a corner lot. 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 proposed fence may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood area. 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 lot being a corner lot where 6 foot privacy fences are not permitted. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief request may be considered to be moderate relevant to the code. The relief is requested 2 ft. and a privacy type fence. A front yard may have a 4 ft. height and is to be an open fence type. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The requested variance may have minimal to no adverse impact of the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered to be self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install 270 linear ft. of 6 ft. privacy fencing to enclose the yard where 110 ft. would be located in the front yard as the parcel is a corner lot. The plans show the location of the fence. The image shows the typical fence type to be installed.” MR. ZHENG-Hi. I’m Eric Zheng. MR. MC CABE-So this is a very familiar application. We just had an identical one a couple of weeks ago. So it’s pretty straightforward. I think we understand it all. It’s a fairly common thing when you have a house on a corner lot. So I’m just going to see if the Board has any questions of you. MR. ZHENG-Please. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Any questions? MR. KUHL-Under Item Number Three that Roy read, the front yard may have a four foot high and is to be an open fence type. Is that part of the 270 feet or not? MRS. MOORE-That’s telling you what the rules would be. MR. KUHL-I thought I knew what the rules were, but it sounded like they were saying, no, I have no problem. MR. MC CABE-The only problem is that he can’t have a fence in the front yard. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. It’s not showing where it’s going to be. It’s not really saying how far it’s going to be. MR. KUHL-It doesn’t show it. You’re going to run on Richmond Hill Drive on the north side. You’re going to run all the way across that 175 feet? MR. RODRIGUEZ-I’m Rick Rodriguez. I’m just here because his English isn’t so great. I’m just helping him. MR. KUHL-So, Rick, the property has 175 feet on Richmond Hill Drive to the north side. Is that where the fence is going from the property line across the front? MR. RODRIGUEZ-No. It’s going to go from his garage door out and to there. MR. KUHL-It’s going to go from the garage door out to the east? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. RODRIGUEZ-Yes. MR. KUHL-And it’s going to go south? Then it’s going to go west, right, 200? MR. RODRIGUEZ-His neighbor an existing fence on the one side. It’s going to tie into that. MR. KUHL-Okay. Got it. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Any 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 wo would like to give input on this particular project? Roy, is there anything written? You have a letter and a bunch of signatures? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-Yes. It’s “By signing this you are agreeing to allow a fence to be put up on our property to close in the back yard. Thank you for your support. The property is 70 Richmond Hill Drive. Owner is Eric Zheng.” And there’s 20 signatures on it, all on Richmond Hill Drive. MR. MC CABE-So any other written communication? MR. URRICO-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-Well this is always a difficult thing. When you do a corner lot, corner lots typically have, we were always dealing with the front yard. A corner lot doesn’t have a side yard or a backyard. They’re all front yards. So we tend to make exceptions. I think in this case we can. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no problem as presented. I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Also the one across the street, directly across the street, we just approved like a month ago. Same exact thing. So I’m all for it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve previously approved these before and I don’t have a problem with this one. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-We have quite a bit of precedence for granting these. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, 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 Yi Eric Zheng. Applicant proposes to install 270 linear feet of 6 ft. in height privacy fence. The property is a corner lot where a 110 ft. of fence will be along the north property line of Richmond Hill Drive. The fence will connect to the home on both the north and south side. The existing home of 2,055 sq. ft. to remain with no changes proposed. Relief requested for location and height of fence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for location and height of fence in the Moderate Density. Parcel was part of the subdivision 4-2003 Barringer heights SR-1A. Section 179-5-070 fences Applicant proposes to install 110 ft. of six foot privacy fence along property at Richmond Hill Dr. Total fence is to be 270 ft. to go around yard.. Lot is a corner lot. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 28, 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. We do not note any. 2. Feasible alternatives would be to build this lower fence but it really won’t provide enough privacy on a corner lot so we approve a six foot one. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because we’ve approved these on numerous occasions previously. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It’ll enhance the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created only in the sense that this lot is on a corner. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: 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. 47-2021 YI ERIC ZHENG, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 28 Day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. ZHENG-Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. It means a lot to our family. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So next application is AV 48-2021, 38 Hiland Drive. AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH OWNER(S) MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH RR-3A LOCATION 38 HILAND DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING GARAGE WITH A 672 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION. THE ADDITION IS TO BE 12 FT. WIDE CONCRETE PAD BY 56 FT. IN LENGTH AND 10 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE SITE HAS TWO OTHER EXISTING OUTBUILDINGS AND A MAIN HOME THAT ARE TO REMAIN THE SAME WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A GARAGE GREATER THAN 2,200 SQ. FT. CROSS REF AST 328-2021; AV 4-2020; AST 437-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.10-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 FRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2021, Manfred Unkauf & Joan McGrath, Meeting Date: July 28, 2021 “Project Location: 290.10-1-7 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to expand an existing garage with a 672 sq. ft. carport addition. The addition is to be 12 ft. wide concrete pad by 56 ft. in length and 10 ft. in height. The site has two other existing outbuildings and a main home that are to remain the same with no changes. Relief requested for a garage greater than 2,200 sq. ft. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a garage greater than 2,200 sq. ft. in the Rural Residential 3 acre zone – RR3A. Parcel is 10.31 ac. Section 179-5-020 – garage The applicant proposes to construct a 672 sq. ft. car port addition to an existing garage of 1,680 sq. ft. The total square footage is 2,352 sq. ft. which exceeds the garage size allowed of 2,200 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the addition, although this may offset the style of the barn. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor relevant to the code. Relief requested would be 152 sq. ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 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: The applicant proposes the construction of a 672 sq. ft. garage addition – lean-to roof. The addition would be used for storage of wood for wood working projects and keep it out of the weather elements. The plans show the location of the shed and elevation.” MR. MC CABE-You have to identify yourself. MR. UNKAUF-I’m Fred Unkauf. This is my wife Joan McGrath. I think Page Eight just showed the overall overview of the property in a previous survey. I just wanted to point out that we also, two years ago, bought three acres, almost three acres, on the north side of the property. So basically sort of to the left is the building, down there, but what we’re going to do is add a lean-to on the back of it for additional storage. There’s 300 foot of woods blocking it from anybody’s view. So the only possible view of it from the street is just the front view. You would never see the back. As you get a lot of hobbies you seem to grow things that need storage. So if we go to Page 10, 10 shows basically the as built building they gave me permission for last year and that was built exactly to plan, and I have software that allows me to overlay a previous survey with the outlines of the new building, which is accurate to about one foot, plus or minus a foot, and you can see that the two car garage was built with a concrete apron around it so that I could easily get things that need to be stored around the building. What I would propose on the next page is an addition of basically a lean-to. The spec says carport, but really the angle and the sharp corridor on both sides, you’d be pretty brave to try and bring a cart in and out that way. It’s really just for storage. So what we would do is basically just add a lean-to roof to the back side of the building and it turns out that it needs an additional 500 feet or so of storage compared to the allowed 2200 square foot over the building. MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-That picture that you have up there, where it says woodshed garage. Is that that building that’s kind of like got a looks like a musty roof? MR. UNKAUF-Correct. Yes, that was supposed to be a sugar shack. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. UNKAUF-But we use that for storing firewood. The outside storage area is on the ground, and that’s now infested with woodchucks and all kinds of other vermin. So it’s not really a place to store anything. MRS. HAMLIN-Is that going to stick around for very long? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. UNKAUF-We use a lot of firewood. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. KUHL-What do you store upstairs over your garage doors? MR. UNKAUF-Well there are two rooms. One we store general household furniture. We have an additional house that we’re ultimately closing down, but we don’t want to get rid of everything that was in there. So we’ll be storing a lot of furniture in the mudroom. . The other room I collect certain types of antiques and basically I store them in there. MR. KUHL-And what are you going to store under your carport? MR. UNKAUF-There would be wood for making furniture or cabinets, which these days for one board you could pay several hundred dollars now. So it’s expensive wood, and for my metalworking hobby would be steel stock, I have a stock rack on the back of the building against the wall and that will be stored in the rack. MR. KUHL-So we can expect to see you next year when you build around over here because you’ve exhausted all your storage in the back? MR. UNKAUF-Probably. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-So you’re saying the shed room itself is going to be 672 square feet, or is that the cement pad? MR. UNKAUF-The cement pad is 12 foot wide by 56 long. The same as the building. MR. HENKEL-Gotcha. MR. UNKAUF-And we would have the carport, a roof over just that part. MR. HENKEL-Okay. You also said you purchased three acres behind it. MR. UNKAUF-We purchased three acres to the north of the property. MR. HENKEL-And that’s not on this. MR. UNKAUF-That’s not on there. MR. HENKEL-So this is a separate deed. MR. UNKAUF-That’s a separate deed. Correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. UNKAUF-You’ll probably see us when we decide we’d like to add a little solar panels and put it on that extra lot. MR. MC DEVITT-That’s an easy approval. MR. MC CABE-Other question? MRS. HAMLIN-To clarify. So the 10 acres we’re looking at here doesn’t include? MR. MC CABE-No. MRS. HAMLIN-Is that what the question was? Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. 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 address us on this particular project? And, Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No letters. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 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 Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m fine with it. I think it’s well thought out and it has my vote. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-When you have a gambrel roof like on that traditional barn it’s nice to have a lean- to roof on the one side of it just so you have more storage. So it makes perfect sense. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with the project. It’s starting to get a little tight, though, for what he’s asking as far as square footage for that amount of property, but I’m on board as is for this application. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, Mr. Chairman, as presented I’m in favor of it, just so long as we don’t see Fred back next year for the other side. MR. MC CABE-We don’t give frequent user discounts. That’s what he’s saying. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I mean again we’ve set a precedence for larger lots like this, but that homestead area is getting tight. I wouldn’t like to see too much more there, but I would go for this at this point. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’d be in favor of it. I also would be concerned if this were an incremental process that we’re going through, but I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. You have plenty of acreage here to justify a larger garage and it’s actually not that much larger that we’re approving here. So I’m in favor of the project. So I’m going to ask Ron for a motion here. MR. KUHL-Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Manfred Unkauf & Joan McGrath. Applicant proposes to expand an existing garage with a 672 sq. ft. carport addition. The addition is to be 12 ft. wide concrete pad by 56 ft. in length and 10 ft. in height. The site has two other existing outbuildings and a main home that are to remain the same with no changes. Relief requested for a garage greater than 2,200 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a garage greater than 2,200 sq. ft. in the Rural Residential 3 acre zone – RR3A. Parcel is 10.31 ac. Section 179-5-020 – garage The applicant proposes to construct a 672 sq. ft. car port addition to an existing garage of 1,680 sq. ft. The total square footage is 2,352 sq. ft. which exceeds the garage size allowed of 2,200 sq. ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 28, 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 due really to the size of the lot. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited for the type of use that the applicant wants and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 3. The requested variance is really not substantial due to the fact of the size of the lot and the existing structure. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really is not 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. 48-2021 MANFRED UNKAUF & JOAN MC GRATH, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 28 Day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So our next application is AV 49-2021, 14 Glenwood Avenue. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL MC CARTHY OWNER(S) MICHAEL MC CARTHY & LYNN CONLON ZONING MDR LOCATION 14 GLENWOOD AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING 160 SQ. FT. REAR DECK TO REPLACE IT WITH A 160 SQ. FT. DECK AND TO CONSTRUCT A 200 SQ. FT. ROOF OVER TOP OF THE DECK (A STOP WORK ORDER WAS ISSUED). THE EXISTING HOME 968 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT IS TO REMAIN AND NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 262-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2021 LOT SIZE 0.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080 MIKE MC CARTHY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2021, Michael McCarthy, Meeting Date: July 28, 2021, “Project Location: 14 Glenwood Ave. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a removal of the existing 160 sq. ft. rear deck to replace it with a 200 sq. ft. deck and to construct a 200 sq. ft. roof over the top of the deck (a stop work order was issued). The existing home 968 sq. ft. footprint with ¾ story of 576 sq. ft. is to remain and no changes are proposed. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Moderate Density Residential zone – MDR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and 179-4-080 decks The applicant proposes to complete construction of a deck and cover of 200 sq. ft. The deck is to be 20.9 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. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 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 the existing home and the parcel size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief is for the side setback 4.1 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 proposes to complete a deck addition to an existing home. The project included the removal of an existing deck and replacement of the deck with a new roof over it. The plans show the location of the deck and the roof overhang.” MR. MC CARTHY-Good evening. Hi. I’m Mike McCarthy. I’m the owner of the property. Just a little history real quick. I bought the property about three years ago as a home for my son and my six year old granddaughter, and we found out really quickly in the wintertime we had an issue back on the deck because the existing house and the rather steep pitch with the slate roof and the ice and snow would come down and pile up on the deck pretty solid, making the back door unusable. That’s a safety issue concern for me because that back room in the house where that door is is my granddaughter’s play room and immediately behind that is a kitchen. So if she were in there playing and a fire broke out in the kitchen she’d be trapped with no way to get out. So in my mind a simple solution would be extend the roof out over the deck so the snow slides off onto the lawn not on to the deck. When Mark Smith came over and looked at the deck, he told me it did not meet Code. It was on the house when I bought it, but I didn’t argue at all. I said I’m going to replace it then. So a roof extension now became a roof extension and deck replacement project. The new deck is going to be no closer to the property line than the old deck is. It’s going to have the exact same footprint. It’s going to extend out into the yard two feet further. The only change in setback here is because of the roof overhangs the deck by about a foot. The roof will be about a foot closer to the property line than the old deck was. That’s the only change in setback. It is a non- conforming piece of property in the MDR zone. The lot is supposed to be a minimum width of 100 feet. This lot is only 80 feet, and the house is skewed to one side of the lot, which is the side where we’re having the issue with the setback obviously. So there really isn’t a lot I can do, but like I said the only real setback change is the one foot of the roof overhang. Otherwise there’s no change to any setbacks. MR. MC CABE-So, do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-What are you doing the decking on? Are you going to do Trex? MR. MC CARTHY-Pressure treated. It’s going to be designed by Curtis Lumber. I’ve got a builder who’s all set and ready to go with it. MR. KUHL-That was just a curiosity question, Mr. Chairman. 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 who would like to comment on this particular project. And, Roy, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is 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 John. MR. HENKEL-This is a simple application. It’s a replacement of an old deck that obviously needed to be replaced. They’re not really asking for a great relief there. They’re asking for a relief of 2.9 and 4.1 and that’s not very much for this. So I’d be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the application. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m fine with it. I don’t like how the rear door is blocked and kind of makes it impassible in the winter for your granddaughter. So I’m totally in favor, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I actually have a very similar problem in my house and I’m almost afraid I’m going to get decapitated, the ice block and sliding down. Very minimal request and I will vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I would be in favor of the project as submitted, but from a parental standpoint, being a grandfather, maybe you’ve got to put some kind of a rope ladder in that room so she can go out a window if she has to. MR. MC CARTHY-Good idea. MR. MC CABE-So, I, too, support the project. It’s a minimal request and I hate to see a situation where a door is blocked. So this will relieve that situation. So at this particular time, I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael McCarthy. Applicant proposes to complete a removal of the existing 160 sq. ft. rear deck to replace it with a 160 sq. ft. deck and to construct a 200 sq. ft. roof over the top of the deck (a stop work order was issued). The existing home 968 sq. ft. footprint is to remain and no changes are proposed. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Moderate Density Residential zone – MDR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and 179-4-080 decks The applicant proposes to complete construction of a deck and cover of 200 sq. ft. The deck is to be 20.9 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, July 28, 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 is actually just replacing something that’s existing. 2. Feasible alternatives have not been considered because we have found this to be similar. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is somewhat self-created but not really in that it already exists and it’s already a non-conforming lot. 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: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 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. 49-2021 MICHAEL MC CARTHY, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 28 Day of July 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. MC CARTHY-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 3-2021, 10 Dunham’s Bay Road. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AYZO RIDGE CONSULTING AGENT(S) BRIDGETTE SHOEMAKER 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 BRIDGETTE SHOEMAKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2021, Ayzo Ridge Consulting, Meeting Date: July 28, 2021 “Project Location: 10 Dunham’s Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: 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. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second wall sign greater than 30 sq. ft. in the Waterfront Residential zone Chapter 140 dimensional The proposed sign is to 60 sq. ft. and is on the face of the building towards the lake. Where the maximum size allowed for a wall sign is 30 sq. ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the sign size, although the signage is to face the lake to direct customer from the water the name of the facility. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for an additional wall sign where only one wall sign per tenant in a business complex is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes two wall signs to be located on the building where one is already permitted. The second sign is to be greater than 30 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the signage on the building. The board may confirm no free standing sign.” MR. URRICO-I just want to make sure that we get that said right. MRS. MOORE-So the relief that’s being requested is for the wall sign greater than 30 square feet. MR. URRICO-And that’s it. It has nothing to do with the business complex. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MS. SHOEMAKER-Good evening. I’m Bridgette Shoemaker, owner Ayzo Ridge Design and Consulting. MR. MC CABE-So, Bridgette, you’re on shaky ground here. You left us sitting all alone a couple of months ago. We understood. MS. SHOEMAKER-I was out in Central Mass and I called in and tried to call in. So I called BBL the contractor and I said I can’t get through, and he said this says it’s in person, and I said oh my God the letter I got said it’s virtual. So I was like all right I don’t think I’m going to make it from Springfield to Queensbury in the next 45 minutes, and I apologize. So here we are. So just in making your determination I wanted to point out a few more items. So had this building been on the corner of two streets, it would be allowed the two wall signs. In this event it’s actually still at the corner of two thoroughfares, but the second thoroughfare is the waterway. So obviously a marina wants to attract boats and wants to make sure that it’s clearly recognizable that this is the marina not someone else’s home. So that being said we proposed the letters to fit onto the building that would be visible between about 750 to 180 feet of distance. We wanted to make sure that those mariners have enough time to maneuver in properly, and then secondly there will not be any sound or light pollution from these letters. These are non-illuminated letters. That is a sample of the actual construction and color of the letters that will be used on the building, and additionally, so I had circulated the larger 11 by 17’s that you can see and it’s a blown up version of the architect’s rendering. So the rendering that you’re looking at was approved by the Planning Board in the design of the building. So what’s unique with this application is that the framework that the architect built into the building is what’s causing the request for the 60 square foot variance. The actual letters, drawing a square around the letters, is only 20.7 square feet. So when we initially put in the application it was just for the letters. We had been under the impression by the builder that the façade construction was all approved and no concerns. So we had to come in front of you to include that sign back or area that the architect had so beautifully rendered into the building. So we’d like you to consider that this is not a substantial request because there’s really an architectural accent that’s creating that square footage relief request, whereas the sign itself is actually only 20.7 square feet. Again, with the goal of just notifying the boat operators that they are at the right place and not at someone’s home. That’s pretty much it. MR. HENKEL-There’s down lighting on it. Right? MS. SHOEMAKER-Yes. So there’s down lighting on, yes, that central portion of the building. MR. KUHL-What are the hours the lights are going to be on? MS. SHOEMAKER-That’s a really good question. It would be the same hours as the rest of the lighting on the building. So I would assume that no more than one hour after close each night, and that’s so the staff can get out. MR. KUHL-What hours do they close? MS. SHOEMAKER-I do not know that. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. KUHL-Me either. But honestly, find that out and make sure that whatever lighting there is, so that the neighbors don’t get upset. That’s the only reason. I understand your need to light it up. I mean everybody knows where that building is. MR. MC CABE-The neighbors might want to see it. In fact these lights are probably more for the people that are on that patio of the restaurant here and not really for the sign. MS. SHOEMAKER-Yes. MR. KUHL-But if John Salvador were here, he’d be in the audience. My point here, all kidding aside, just make sure that whatever hours that you turn them off. Okay. Thank you. MS. SHOEMAKER-Yes, absolutely, and that’s typical of the recommendation that I would make to ownership as well. MR. MC CABE-So at least on Sunday they closed at six. MS. SHOEMAKER-Okay. So the sign should not be on in August at six o’clock anyways. So always recommend to owners that any type of signage should be off within an hour of close. Obviously you want your employees to be out safe, but there’s no reason to be on after that. MR. MC CABE-So that was, yes. I took one of the boats out on Sunday, or I went out with one of the members there. In fact I was on this third boat in which was called the Soaring Eagle, and I have to say the business did a really nice job, but you guys are signage lacking because your little side street is one way, but it’s not easy to determine that. So you can get yourself caught into no man’s. MS. SHOEMAKER-This sign, there’s a wall sign that does face the main road. They’re not visible from one another. We have a permit for that already. That sign is built. It’s waiting on the façade to go up. So I think that will help relieve some of that, and that’s one phase one, and then once they get the construction done then we’re going to work on some way finding things and interior improvements, but those are later on down the pipeline. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, actually what color did you say the letters are going to be? MS. SHOEMAKER-The letters are called dark bronze. Did the sample make it back to you? MRS. HAMLIN-That’s dark bronze? MS. SHOEMAKER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-I thought it was gray. MS. SHOEMAKER-That depends on the sunshine I guess. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? Anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-There’s no written comments. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who would like to provide input on this particular project. And I’ll ask Roy if there’s any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-He’s already answered that question. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Even though it’s a substantial request, double the normal size, I think you’ve explained it and because of the letters as we’ve seen it depicted, I don’t think it’s going to be any big deal at all. I think it’ll help identify the business as Mike said. When you come around the corner there you’re looking through a corner. It’s kind of a last minute see and it would make more sense to have it on that side. The other sign is a pretty minimal sign, too. So I’d be in favor of it. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. I also =am in favor. I’ve followed closely what Mr. O’Hara and his family have done with this building and with Freedom Boat Club and we need more people like that in the community. He’s doing a great job. It looks excellent. So I’m fully in favor of what you’re looking for. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I want to say I appreciate that, because from the materials it is substantial, as mentioned, double the size, but anything smaller would just not look right. MS. SHOEMAKER-Thank you. Right. Once you see it in a perspective. MRS. HAMLIN-And it’s well done in terms of blending in with the architecture. So I would vote in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Because of the location, especially the way it sits in a hole like you were just talking about with the way the road is curved in there, I would even be agreeable to more signage because it’s tough to really see. So I’m definitely on board with what you’re asking for. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. I’m in favor of it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-In this case I think the variance request is legitimate. So I’d be in favor of it. I hope they give you the rest of the letters for your sign. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It would look weird with a standard sized sign on there, and the boaters really couldn’t figure out what that building was if they were depending on signage. So I’ll support the project. So with that, I’m going to seek a motion from Jim. Excuse me. I’m getting ahead of myself again. First we have to do SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2021. APPLICANT NAME: AYZO RIDGE CONSULTING., BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th Day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Now, Jim, you can do your motion. 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. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second wall sign greater than 30 sq. ft. in the Waterfront Residential zone Chapter 140 dimensional The proposed sign is to 60 sq. ft. and is on the face of the building towards the lake. Where the maximum size allowed for a wall sign is 30 sq. ft. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 3-2021. Applicant Name: Ayzo Ridge Consulting., based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th Day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 16, 2021 & remained open Wednesday, July 28, 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The answer is no. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It’s double the normal size, but based upon the size of the façade of the building we’ve determined that it fits as proposed. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. It will be lit up only an hour after the normal hours of operation each day. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Not really. The building needs to be identified on a busy curving road here. So we feel it’s not really 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; It will probably be a benefit to identifying the building. 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 3- 2021, AYZO RIDGE CONSULTING, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 28 Day of July 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/28/2021) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MS. SHOEMAKER-I wanted to show you, this is the sign going on the other side of the building. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So is there anything else that we should talk about, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any other items for tonight, but just recognize that next month there’ll be full agendas for both nights. MR. MC CABE-Yes, and I looked at them. There’s going to be some kind of tough ones, just briefly looking at the applications. And then again, how about looking farther into September, because I’m going to miss both meetings. MRS. MOORE-You’ll be missing both meetings, but there’ll be full agendas. Basically I have items up to 30 plus projects. So we’re full. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY TH 28, 2021, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 28 day of July, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 23