Loading...
2011.07.27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 39-2011 Dan Kuntz 1. Tax Map No. 297.13-1-29 Area Variance No. 45-2011 David & Evelyn Dufrense 4. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Area Variance No. 46-2011 David & Evelyn Dufrense 13. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Area Variance No. 49-2011 Florence & Brian Connor 15. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-51 Area Variance No. 47-2011 Kubricky Construction 20. Tax Map No. 302.12-1-31, 32, 33, 34 & 35 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 18, 2011 May 25, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2011 AND MAY 25, 2011, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, second by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Everyone NOES: None NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DAN KUNTZ AGENTS THOMAS G. ALBRECHT, SR. HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S) DAN KUNTZ ZONING MDR LOCATION 239 CRONIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 432 SQ. FT. ONE-STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2011-126; BP 86- 202 SFD LOT SIZE 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.13-1-29 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM ALBRECHT, SR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2011, Dan Kuntz, Meeting Date: July 27, 2011 “Project Location: 239 Cronin Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 432 sq. ft. one-story addition to existing single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Side setback – 5.6 feet of side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR District. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) 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. Lot limitations and existing conditions appear to preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 5.6 feet or 22% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): B.P. 86-2002 SFD Approved 2002 Staff comments: The project proposal is for additional living space to include a formal dining room and family room. No additional bedrooms proposed. Survey waiver request denied. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required.” MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. MR. ALBRECHT-Good evening. Tom Albrecht, Hilltop Construction, here representing Mr. Kuntz. The proposal is as stated. We’re proposing a 432 square foot addition off the rear of the home. The idea is to line it up with the building so that it is parallel with the ends of the building on the east and westerly side of structure that’s there. Currently it is a two bedroom, one bath home. It’s an eat-in kitchen, living room combination, which is rather small. The house is quite small, actually. So the hope is to expand out the rear of his home to benefit the views in the rear and to still maintain the deck that he has on the westerly side of the structure, and we’re asking for a relief on the easterly side setback. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I just want to let you know that I know there was a request to waive the requirement for a survey. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And I just want you to know that the Board has had actually a workshop on this particular matter, not just yours, but generally whenever there’s a lot setback. Dimensional relief requested, we’re pretty much being standardized to require all applications to have that. MR. ALBRECHT-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So just so you’re aware that. MR. ALBRECHT-Because I did ask for that at the beginning. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that. MR. ALBRECHT-And that’s why the report states one thing, but the actuality is a bit different. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. ALBRECHT-And that’s one of the reasons why you’re probably asking for that. MR. JACKOSKI-And we understand perfectly that it seems pretty straightforward, but those are some of the reasons that we look at that. MR. ALBRECHT-So that would be a norm? MR. ALBRECHT-We’ve decided that we would like to have surveys whenever there’s dimensional relief on setbacks. MR. ALBRECHT-Okay. All right. Good. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from the Board members at this time? It’s pretty straightforward? Okay. I don’t think there’s a reason to poll the Board, right? We do have a public hearing open this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, do we have any written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I will close the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39, 2011, DAN KUNTZ, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, second by Richard Garrand: 239 Cronin Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 432 sq. ft. one-story addition to existing single-family dwelling. Relief is requested from the side setback requirements. The side setback – 5.6 feet of side setback relief is needed from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR District. In making a determination, the board shall consider: Whether the benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible for the applicant; it doesn’t seem so; it seems like the most logical place for the construction. There will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The request is minor to moderate. It will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects and it may be considered self-created in the fact that the Kuntz’s want to enlarge their home. th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None MR. OBORNE-I’d like to inform the Board that we’ve had a failure there. So you’re not going to have an overhead tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Tom, did you want any of these surveys back? MR. ALBRECHT-I don’t need them. You can dispose of them. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRENSE AGENT(S) J. LAPPER ESQ.; S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE ZONING WR LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 665 SQ. FT. DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 647 SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF BP 2011-141 DECK; BP 2011-142 BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; SP 47-2011; BP 99-469; AV 81-1998 AV 81-1999; BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 60,98 APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE VARIANCE; BP 98-785 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 APA YES LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2011, David & Evelyn Dufresne, Meeting Date: July 27, 2011 “Project Location: 24 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has removed a 665 sq. ft. deck and partially built a new 647 sq. ft. deck in its place. Relief requested from shoreline and side setback requirements. Further, relief requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Side setback – Request for 4.8 feet of side setback relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement for the WR District. 2.Shoreline setback – Request for 18.5 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the WR District. 3.Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of this board. 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. Lot limitations and existing conditions appear to preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 4.8 feet or 40% relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Request for 18.5 feet or 37% of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the WR District may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of this board. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 81-99: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Approved 7/21/99 A.V. 81-98: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Denied 11/18/98 Staff comments: ? The applicant proposes to remove the bump out area which was slated as a platform for the stairs on the western portion of the deck in order to not encroach further into the side setback. ? Planning Board Recommendation provided. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met and voted and said they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-If I could add to that. That is actually the south not the west that that bump out is coming off of. MS. BITTER-Good evening. MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter as agent for the Dufrenses. Essentially we had a nonconforming structure or deck that was in need of repair. The Dufrenses retained a contractor who began construction of repairing that deck and unfortunately did not receive or obtain a building permit in order to do so. A Stop Work Order was obtained in February of this year. Since that time, we had reached out to Craig Brown to see if the repair concept of this structure would have necessarily needed any variances, would have been able to avoid it, because if they replaced it board by board, we really wouldn’t be in this position, but unfortunately he denied that request. The structure was not safe, and it was deteriorating, and those are the steps the Dufrenses felt was necessary. This is mostly in kind, but actually we’re reducing the nonconformity by decreasing the size, and as Keith just identified, we’re removing that bump out area that’s identified on the survey as area of deck to be removed. In addition, we also have a letter, which I believe is in the file, from the Marwins, which is the most immediately effected neighbor on the south side, indicating their support for the setback variance. We’ve also retained James Miller as the landscape architect. As you guys know there’s a variance that follows this for the sundeck, to implement some shoreline planting when Site Plan Review goes forward. My review of the balancing test is that granting of this variance should not be deemed to have any detriment to the community, first because we don’t believe any undesirable change would occur, because like I said, we’re decreasing the nonconformity and we’re just repairing a structure that was already there. There’s no other method, due to the limitations of the size of the lot, presides for the actual structure of the deck. We don’t believe it’s substantial, again, because we’re repairing an existing structure. No negative effects. We’re actually making it a safer structure, and we don’t believe it should be considered self-created because it was an existing nonconforming structure. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MS. BITTER-You’re welcome, and I do have pictures because we don’t have slides. I can pass those around if you need to. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Keith, why, are we making a distinction that because they completely tore the deck off, that’s the thing? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s my understanding. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from the Board members? Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I just have one. The previous footprint of where the deck was, would that be where the deck is minus the area of the deck to be removed? MS. BITTER-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-So I don’t understand, then, how you’re going to build a 647 square foot deck and the other one was 665 square feet, with the same footprint. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just even off that little square on the side. MR. CLEMENTS-That little square was on there before? MR. UNDERWOOD-That was on there before. MR. CLEMENTS-It was? MR. OBORNE-Right, and so now the setback is different. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And it’s to the stairs that they’re proposing. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did this have any kind of a previous variance granted to it? MR. OBORNE-I’d have to look at my notes. Off the top of my head, yes, back in ’99 it looks like there was some type of, no, that’s a porch. MS. BITTER-Right. It was the enclosed porch, I believe. MR. OBORNE-Yes, no. There doesn’t seem to be. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? MR. KUHL-Well, if you look at the drawing, you’re looking for 18 and a half foot from the shoreline, but the house is 31 foot from the shoreline. So aren’t they asking for more? MR. OBORNE-I don’t have a survey in front of me right now. It would be 50 feet to the deck itself. MR. KUHL-The house itself sits 31 feet from the water now, and the width of the deck isn’t on this drawing. So, I don’t know, what is it, six feet, seven feet? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that’s off that tie line there. See where the sea wall’s further out, Ron? MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe it’s just to the tie line. So you’ve got to add that extra. MR. KUHL-The sea wall really comes right across where they measured that 31 plus or minus to the corner of the house. So they’re really looking for more. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. KUHL-I mean, just a, you’re going to put it right, you’re going to have the right measurements. If the length from the front of the house towards the water is six foot nine inches, that would put it at, you know, somewhere around, about 24 in change feet from the water, right, and that would ask for a 26 foot variance. Wouldn’t it? Stefanie, do you know the measurement of the deck from the front of the house towards the water? MS. BITTER-I do not, unfortunately. MR. KUHL-No? There’s no measurement here to indicate that. MR. JACKOSKI-Does anybody have a scale? MR. OBORNE-I have it right here. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks like it’s about seven or eight feet wide on the front. MR. KUHL-Okay. Towards the water? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. KUHL-So that would put the deck at 23 feet from the water, so then they’d be looking for 27 feet. MR. OBORNE-I have this keyed in at its closest point. I’m saying 18.5. So they’re going to need 31.5, and two, from the deck, I have it at 28.9 or so. Measurement from here is 31.5 to the other side. MR. KUHL-But, Stefanie, the history on this is the contractor just went and started to tear it apart? MS. BITTER-Yes, unfortunately. They tore it apart thinking it was a repair. So they didn’t receive a building permit. So that’s why the Stop Work Order was issued. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any pictures, Stefanie, in the file of the old deck? MS. BITTER-I believe I put it in the submission materials. I’ll just grab it. MR. JACKOSKI-I’ve got a picture of the new construction. MR. OBORNE-I think you’re right, Ron. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have a current picture of the front of the home as it is now? So the front has changed also. MR. GARRAND-Is this patio going to be added on? It’s already there? MR. KUHL-It’s existing. This is what they’re talking about next, right there. MR. JACKOSKI-Pass them down. MR. OBORNE-Unfortunately, the relief requested is on the wrong side of where you need to be, and that’s a mistake on my part. So what you’re going to have to do is you’re going to have to table this application, because it was not notified correctly, and I don’t see any way around that, to be honest with you. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Stefanie, do you know when the hard surfacing patio was put in? MS. BITTER-That I’m not aware of. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a permit for that? MS. BITTER-I’m not aware of that. MR. OBORNE-You know, what we could do, I don’t know, what is the Board’s feeling on this? It was not notified as, it’s looking like 22 feet of relief is what you’re going to need, on this one, from the shortest point from the sea wall on my scale, there’s the 23, 23, so obviously you’re going to need 27 feet of relief. MR. URRICO-The notice wasn’t specific about the recommendation. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. URRICO-So I don’t see where you need to table this. MR. OBORNE-I agree. This is, you know, up to the Board how they want to pursue this. As far as my notes go, the notes are obviously not part of anything that was advertised to the public. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there any kind of public commentary that we received in the mail or anything about it? MR. OBORNE-We have not, there may be public comment here at this point. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we wait and see. MR. OBORNE-I think from the point of view of leaving yourself open for any type of issues, I don’t think that’s an issue, but I want the Board to be comfortable with the process, obviously. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Keith, could you also research the patio? MR. OBORNE-What’s that? MR. GARRAND-Could you research the patio also? MR. OBORNE-The patio is not part of this. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. OBORNE-So that was pre-existing, is my understanding. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And that wasn’t part of any determination that Craig made. MS. BITTER-No. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because I didn’t see it in the record anywhere. MR. OBORNE-Yes, or the deck for that matter, the previous deck. So you have to focus on what’s before you, at this point, but if you want us to research that, we can do that. MR. GARRAND-And again, that would be a Planning Board issue, I would assume, as when they deal with that. MR. OBORNE-Well, it might be a compliance issue also. MR. GARRAND-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Obviously they built the deck and never, there would be no record of it in the building permits plus it needed a variance for the one that was pre-existing. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At the moment we’d like to ask if there’s anyone in the room who would like to approach and discuss this project as part of the public hearing? We have the Lake George Water Keeper. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. First of all, we’d like to thank the Town of Queensbury for their oversight that observed the unpermitted activities, and we think that that’s a compliment to the Town. This is obviously a densely developed area, and it’s our opinion this provides the opportunity to provide some minor water quality improvements that would benefit the lake as well as the neighborhood. A couple of suggestions if the variance is granted. The development of a shoreline buffer. We realize it’s a limited area, but any improvement that could improve infiltration and stabilize the shoreline. Although there is a seawall, a lot of times those come in when there is no shoreline vegetation. So that would be an improvement, and we appreciate the reference to that from the applicant’s agent. Also, if there’s any possibility of stormwater management that can be implemented in this area with the deck, with the patio, and all the other construction in the area. We think that any way we can improve this area would be, for water quality improvement, would be a benefit. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, this is going to go back to Planning Board for their purview? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And, not knowing the history of what it is, there was obviously a deck and patio there for quite some time, but, I mean, it’s also, as the Water Keeper said, it’s an opportunity to put in some stormwater prevention if possible. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. OBORNE-Well, at the very least, it would certainly be advantageous to put plantings in, that’s for sure. MR. JACKOSKI-But again, that’s, the Planning Board, when they review this, I feel very comfortable that they’ll address that. MR. OBORNE-It is, in my notes, it’s basically boilerplate, as Chris knows that I usually ask for those type of improvements to the shoreline buffer, if at all possible. I can’t force the Planning Board to do that, obviously, but. MR. JACKOSKI-I would like to continue with the public hearing. Roy, are there any written comments in the record? MR. URRICO-There was one letter, but it was just, it was from the letter writer that just spoke, Chris Navitsky. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Chris, there’s no reason to read it in? It is part of the record and you’re okay with that, correct? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. No other correspondence? MR. URRICO-No other correspondence. MS. BITTER-Did you get the letter from the neighbor? MR. OBORNE-It might be in with the dock, I’m not sure. MS. BITTER-But it should be for the deck. MR. OBORNE-Okay. I know I talked to him on the phone, but I never received an e-mail. MR. URRICO-I do not see that comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be willing to check the other file on this one? MR. URRICO-Certainly. MR. JACKOSKI-And just see if it’s in that one instead. I’d say read it, please. MR. URRICO-Can we keep this? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. URRICO-“We are the owners of 28 and 26 Brayton Rd. We were approached by Dave Dufresne, the owner of 24 Brayton Rd., to write to you about his plans to modify the deck he is building. He tells me he plans to remove the “bumped out” portion of the deck facing 26 Brayton Rd. Steps will be made that will not require access from our property nor would a fence between properties hinder his access to the deck. As described to us we have no reservations in allowing Mr. Dufresne to proceed with his plans. Sincerely, Russell Marwin, Eileen Bogursky Marwin” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are your applicants here this evening? MS. BITTER-No, they are not. MRS. HUNT-I have a question for Staff. On your Staff Notes, Number Three, since they now request 27 feet of relief, which is 54%, how does that change your, would that be considered severe, moderate to severe? MR. OBORNE-I have my little scale. MRS. HUNT-Fifty-four percent. MR. OBORNE-Fifty-four percent would be considered moderate to severe, but what I have is I have 22 feet of relief is what’s required, from the closest point of the seawall to where the deck corner is by the shed it’s 28 in change. So if you do 22, that would give you enough relief. MRS. HUNT-I thought you said 27. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, you said 27. MR. OBORNE-Twenty-seven was on the southern portion. Obviously my math is fuzzy with this application for some reason, but I can assure you that it is 22 feet at this point, is the relief that’s required for the deck, at its closest point to the shoreline. MS. BITTER-Twenty-two feet? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did anybody go back and look in the file and see what those Area Variances were for in ’99 and ’98. MR. OBORNE-Yes, it was for a covered porch. MS. BITTER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-On the back? MS. BITTER-On the front. MR. OBORNE-On the side I believe. That was constructed without a permit and they were asked to remove that, and I believe it was removed. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, I want to make sure I understand your math, because I’m a bit uncomfortable with it. I understand you’re suggesting, at this point they need 22 feet of relief. They originally were needing 19 feet of relief. How then, that suggests that the front of the porch is only three feet wide. That doesn’t scale. MR. OBORNE-I’m not sure I follow what you’re reasoning is. MR. JACKOSKI-If you utilize the 31 foot point that they have. MR. OBORNE-I’m not utilizing that. MR. JACKOSKI-Why? MR. OBORNE-Because we’re talking about the deck only, not the house. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but if that is the point that you’re measuring from, the closest point to the shore, okay. That’s the closest point to the shore, correct, that side of the lot? MR. OBORNE-That side of the lot. MR. JACKOSKI-The seawall clearly is closer, that’s right. I believe strongly the seawall on the east is closer to the house than on the west of the lot. How far is that 31 to the base of that shed? MR. OBORNE-Twenty-seven feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So twenty-seven feet. So then space is only four feet. MR. OBORNE-Not necessarily, because you’re dealing with tangents here, but the deck is six feet wide. MR. JACKOSKI-Something is wrong. MR. OBORNE-Well, it’s because you’re taking the perpendicular of that 31 feet, and if I take it and go from that point to the closest point on the deck, I’m getting 27 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I have to rely on the surveyors who know which points to measure from when they’re doing these things. MR. OBORNE-From that point to the closest portion of the deck, 26 feet, which would be 24 feet of relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Twenty-four feet of relief makes me, 24 feet versus 19 feet, there’s still five feet. MR. OBORNE-It’s a 10 scale. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. I’d like to poll the Board on what they’d like to do with the application. We’ll start with Brian. Do you think we can move forward, or do you think we should table it because of dimensional relief? MR. CLEMENTS-I think we should table it, and actually my reason isn’t for yours. I think that there wasn’t enough information previously of what was there, but, yes, I’d move to table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I’m sorry, and Ron? MR. KUHL-If we don’t table it, there’s a possibility that after this was done somebody could come up and say we advertised the wrong dimension. MR. OBORNE-I don’t think we advertised it wrong, but the notes are wrong, that’s for sure. MR. KUHL-Okay. Did we advertise the wrong dimensions? MR. OBORNE-No, we didn’t advertise, we don’t typically advertise what the relief, dimensionally, is, only what the Code requires you do. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I also believe we should table it. I think the Planning Board, we should also ask the Planning Board to take a look at what we can do to increase the permeability of this lot also especially lakeside. MR. OBORNE-You want to send it back to the? MS. BITTER-Right, they already gave a positive recommendation. They’re going to have Site Plan, but, I apologize for interrupting. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I think the positive recommendation suggests that the Planning Board has looked at it and they realize that if they want to deal with permeability they will, but certainly we can do anything we want with our recommendations. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I’m even more upset because, you know, we used to always get past parcel history, and we do have the two Area Variances, but I would like to see the building permits for the deck and the patio, because if those were never issued, then I have a big problem with that, because I think that if you were coming in here without a deck and without a patio in front of there, and asking us to permit that, I think we would have, as a Board, we would have issues with that, so I want that looked into. I want to see the building permits. MR. OBORNE-When you do your tabling motion, make sure that that is part of that. MR. JACKOSKI-Alright, at this point it’s obvious that we would need a tabling motion. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I’m confused about how much relief is requested. So I would want to table it. MS. BITTER-I have to just make a couple of comments. I can appreciate the dimensional thing. I understand that you need the specifics to give the Area Variance, but I guess I’m looking for how I’m going to prove these elements. I have pictures of obviously what was there in 1999, and this deck was there. I’m not sure if we’re ever going to find a building permit, but I know the Dufresnes didn’t own this prior to 1999. So here they were in the position of repairing a deck that was rotting away, and they’re going to be in a position where they’re not going to have one. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the Zoning Board is looking also at the fact that in 1999, according to those pictures, that that hard surfacing wasn’t there. MS. BITTER-Right, but the Stop Work Order is for the deck. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but there may be, there could be some concern on this Board’s behalf that they would grant this dimensional relief, provided that patio was removed. MS. BITTER-Okay. I’m just, obviously, anxious to move this forward because we have a deck that’s existing there that’s not compliant and unsafe, as it exists today. So, I was disappointed that we’re going to table it. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-We are, too, but I think that most of us thought that this could be relatively easy, but, again, we don’t have the luxury of having what was there before. Fortunately we don’t have any neighbors complaining about what is being built, but we also see some concerns with what’s on the side. MS. BITTER-All right. So if I understand it correctly, I’m updating the survey? I’m not really sure what I’m going to find on the building permit, or is that your homework? MR. OBORNE-That’s going to be my task. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. OBORNE-As far as updating the survey, yes, that’s what you want. You want to know exactly where the shortest point is and what they’re asking for at this point, but an addendum to that is you want us to research, Community Development to research, what’s up with the patio, what’s up with the deck, as far as permits. MR. JACKOSKI-I’d like to ask, because I didn’t comment on the polling. If we were to grant an approval of the dimensional relief for the deck, provided that it stayed in perpendicular line with the face of the shed, with no more than 22 feet or 27 feet, whatever the number was, of relief in order to do that, subject to the Planning Board giving serious consideration to the removal of the patio, could we move this thing forward at least so that you could get your safe deck, and that it would be up to the applicant if they want, if they were okay with removing the patio. MS. BITTER-And the removal of the patio is, if, in fact, it’s non-compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-I’ll ask my Board that. MS. BITTER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I think that the photograph suggests that there was a deck on the front of this building originally? I don’t know about that shed. I didn’t see that there, correct, Stefanie, that shed’s not in those photographs? MS. BITTER-See, I’m not aware of what exactly the Area Variance, because I believe an Area Variance was granted in 1999. So I’m not sure. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m trying to find a resolution to remove at least the unsafe deck during the summer season of the lake house forward. Do we have those black and white photographs again? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they’re right here. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-No patio, no shed. MR. JACKOSKI-I think we have to table this, Stefanie, I’m sorry. Could I have a motion? MS. BITTER-Can I just request to be on the first agenda meeting for August, if at all possible? So that we can at least try and resolve it in the month of August? MR. OBORNE-We don’t have a problem with that, if you want to do that. The better meeting would actually be the second meeting, at this point. th MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think today being the 27, since we’re so far into July, submission deadlines and getting onto the first agenda would be almost impossible. MR. OBORNE-That’s up to this Board. MS. BITTER-Only because it’s in the queue for the Planning Board next month. MR. OBORNE-Right, that would be on the first meeting. So the first ZBA meeting is not going to be any good at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-So when would we like to table this to? The second meeting in August, and when is the submission deadline. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s already passed. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. OBORNE-Well, proper protocols have already passed, but you can set an artificial deadline if you wish to. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, given it’s passed, and we want to be on the August agenda. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would say by the end of the first week in August. MS. BITTER-So the fifth? MR. JACKOSKI-Is that okay with Staff? MR. OBORNE-I do not have an issue with that. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Staff. Do I have a motion, Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Second meeting in August? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011, DAVID AND EVELYN DUFRENSE, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 24 Brayton Road. Tabled to the second meeting in August with a submission deadline of August th 5. Duly adopted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico Mr. Jackoski: So did you want to move forward with the other application? Ms. Bitter: Yes, if we could please. Mr. Jackoski: The next item on our agenda this evening is the same applicant with the same agents and it is 24 Brayton Road. It is Area Variance Number 46-2011 and I’ll turn it over to Roy. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRENSE AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ.; S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DAVID & EVELYN DUFRENSE ZONING WR LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED AN APPROXIMATELY 376 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH A SUNDECK AND COMMENCED CONSTRUCTION ON A LIKE SIZED DOCK WITH 450 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. RECOMMENDATION. CROSS REF BP 2011-141 DECK; BP 2011-142 BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; SP 46-2011; BP 99-469; AV 81-1998 AV 81-1999; BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 60,98 APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE VARIANCE; BP 98-785 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 APA YES LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-5-060 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT Mr. Urrico: The applicant has removed an approximately 376 sq. ft. dock with sundeck and commenced construction on a like sized dock with a 450 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief is requested from the side setback requirements of the WR zone. The parcel will require an area variance for 19 feet of property line setback relief from the 20 foot requirement as per Section 179-5-060A7. As per Section 179-5-060 the following applies to this project: Every dock or wharf constructed shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the adjacent property line extended into the lake on the same axis as the property line runs on shore where it meets the lake or at a right angle to the mean high-water mark, which ever results in the greatest setback. In looking at the criteria staff says that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. That placement of the structure in a compliant location appears problematic as lot limitations would require a variance regardless. The request for 19 feet or 95% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per 179-5-060 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. And the difficulty may be considered self-created. The staff comments are that the boathouse as proposed is to be 13 feet above the mean high water mark and as such does not exceed the maximum 16 foot 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) height requirement per 179-5-060(11). The boathouse, as designed, appears to show no facilities for sleeping, cooking or sanitary facilities as per 179-5-060(12). And the Planning Board handed over a recommendation and based on its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. That was approved unanimously on July 26 and this is a Type II SEQRA; so no further action is required. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you, Roy, and before we move forward I just want to make sure, I do believe I did close the public hearing on the last application. I didn’t make a note of it so I apologize. Did I make a motion to close it? Ms. Hemingway: I didn’t mark it down. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. So, regardless, I’d like to keep the public hearing open for that last application, if we could amend that. Thank you. Hello. MS. BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. This is on the actual sundeck and dock. Similar set of facts. Same timeframe. Again, the dock and the deck, sundeck, were in need of repair. Actually the sundeck had never been utilized by the Dufrenses because of its instability. Since its time of purchase they retained a contractor to repair it, and he began to do so unfortunately before obtaining building permits. The entire structure is rotted and it’s been replaced in the same location, same size, same shape. The crib had remained, which we, again, presented to Craig Brown, the request that it should be considered a repair, since docks can be repaired up to 75%, but that was declined. Again, when looking at the balancing test, we feel that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist in this situation. There shouldn’t be considered any undesirable change. The applicants are repairing a sundeck and dock that has deteriorated. The benefit cannot be achieved by some other method. When viewing the survey, you can see there’s a limited space, or I should say a limited shoreline to maneuver. Not to mention, if any of you were at the site, there’s a sundeck immediately on the property line to the, I guess it’s considered the northern property line, and there’s another boathouse immediately on the southern. So they kind of bookend this property. So there’s really not a lot of wiggle room, not to mention the fact that to change the location would meant to change the crib’s location, which would present an impact to the lake. We don’t believe it should be considered substantial because we were just repairing it in the same location and the same size. Again, no adverse environmental impacts because we didn’t change its location and it shouldn’t be considered self-created. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any Board members have any questions or comments at this time? MRS. HUNT-Well, I have a question. Why is the new sundeck larger than the old one? What was the reasoning behind that? MS. BITTER-It shouldn’t be considered larger. It should be the same. As to the size that’s identified on the Staff comments, the way it was discussed it’s because the one, the top deck is obviously bigger than the bottom because the bottom provides the space for the boat. So that’s why they’re not exact. MR. JACKOSKI-The stairs don’t count as square footage? Okay. MR. OBORNE-You’re asking me? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. OBORNE-The landing would be counted as square footage, the stairs would not. I had no idea, and the applicant, you had no idea how big the previous sundeck was prior to that. So we have no idea. MS. BITTER-Right, but I did present pictures in the application. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience at this time who’d like to address the Board? Mr. Navitsky. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We’re not opposed to their proposal. Again, we’d just like incorporation of some shoreline buffering, and I think we’ve already seen that they’re interested in doing that. So we have no opposition. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience at this time who’d like to address the Board? Seeing no one else, were there any other letters in this particular application? MR. URRICO-Other than from the Water Keeper, I do not see any other correspondence in here. MR. JACKOSKI-And I will make note that one of the other letters was just for the deck from the neighboring parcel. Okay. At this time I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional comments or questions from the Board members? Are we comfortable in moving forward? Okay. So can I have a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2011 DAVID AND EVELYN DUFRESNE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, second by Brian Clements: 24 Brayton Road. The applicant has removed an approximately 376 sq. ft. dock with a sundeck and commenced construction on a like sized dock with a 450 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief requested from side setback requirements of the WR zone. The property line setback relief will be for 19 feet from the 20 foot requirement as per Section 179-5-060A7. On the balancing test: Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Moving a crib is quite extensive and the damage to the lake might be more than its worth. By removing the crib portion of this dock, so it seems prudent to place this dock and sundeck in the same place as the other one. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties; no it’s going to be pretty much exactly as it was previously with the exception of the railings. Minor changes to the stairs. Is this request substantial? In light of the numbers it would appear to be substantial. Will this request have any adverse physical or environmental impacts? I cannot foresee any adverse environmental effects. And, is this difficulty self- created? It may be deemed as self-created. Duly adopted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and I apologize, Stefanie. I hope the other matter works out. MS. BITTER-All right. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and I further echo that. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2011 SEQRA TYPE II FLORENCE & BRIAN CONNOR AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENV. DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) FLORENCE & BRIAN CONNOR ZONING WR LOCATION 6 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 580 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2000-081 SFD; BP 2000-133 BOATHOUSE; BP 2000-314 REPL. DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 APA YES LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-51 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2011, Florence & Brian Connor, Meeting Date: July 27, 2011 “Project Location: 6 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 580 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from maximum allowable height requirement of the WR zone. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1.Height – Request for 7 feet of height relief from the 16 foot maximum allowable for detached garages as per §179-5-0 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. The nature of the project, which is a detached garage with attic storage, appears to preclude a feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7 feet or 44% relief from the 16 foot maximum height requirement for the WR District as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Found Staff comments: The applicant will be required to combine both lots in order to avoid the requirement that no accessory structure shall be erected without a principle structure and/or use as per §179-5- 020B3. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good evening. Roy read in quite a bit of the record, so it seems pretty straightforward. Do you have anything else you’d like to add to the application? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. MAC ELROY-For the record, I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, the engineer and agent for the Connors, Brian and Florence. Florence is with me tonight. Yes, it is pretty straightforward. The Connors own two parcels of land on Holly Lane, divided by Holly Lane. They are two separate and independent parcels. The one that the garage is proposed for could, in fact, support a principle residence, a principle structure, which would be limited to a height of 28 feet. They’re choosing to link the parcels, thereby giving up that right for the principle structure on that parcel, but would like to have the garage structure, which, in fact, exceeds, as proposed, the 16 foot height restriction for an accessory structure. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do we have any questions from the Board members? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume it’s because your lot’s so small, you don’t want to put the garage on the side of the house, it would just eat up the whole yard, in order to put that structure in there. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. I think they considered various options of what to do on that parcel, and that was, it satisfied their needs, without overbuilding the area. MR. KUHL-Why not just a 16 foot garage, height wise? MR. MAC ELROY-I think the storage requirements, the desire to have storage within that structure, would be allowed with the additional height. MR. KUHL-Is there going to be an internal staircase? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. GARRAND-It’s not going to be used for a residence at all? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. KUHL-Will there be electricity in the garage? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. KUHL-So there’ll be electricity on the stairs also? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MRS. HUNT-What will the height be of the attic part? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the total, there will be a portion of that space above the garage area that provides full head room with eaves that come down. Obviously you’re restricted at a certain point. I think that based on, let’s say the floor area that we guesstimated, while the footprint of the garage is 580 square feet, we’re adding floor space that might have full height of about 300, 300 additional square feet of full height. Now I don’t know if I’ve answered your question. MRS. HUNT-What is your height, eight feet, seven feet? MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to be limited in here because of the height of the sides. So it’s just going to be the middle section. MRS. HUNT-Right. I was just. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to use attic trusses or something up there? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It’s a package garage, you know, this isn’t architectural design, or an architect hasn’t designed this specifically. It’s a common package design that you might get at a Curtis. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from the Board? I’d like to open up tonight’s public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to address this Board regarding this application? Mr. Navitsky. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We are not opposed to the application, although we recommend stormwater management for the project. We don’t know if it’s required, but through our algae awareness project, we’ve noticed algae in the mouth of that little cove off of Harris Bay. So if that could be a recommendation incorporated. That’s what we would recommend to the Board. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience at this time who’d like to address the Board? Roy, are there any letters in the file? MR. URRICO-The only letter was from Mr. Navitsky. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Seeing no other comments, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And if you wouldn’t mind, I would like to ask the question of how far off the lake is the face, closest to the lake, of this building to the lake? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got 138 feet from the property line to Holly Lane. MR. JACKOSKI-How wide do you think Holly Lane is? MR. UNDERWOOD-Holly Lane’s probably 30 feet wide, 25 feet, 30 feet wide, and then you’ve got another 30 feet back to the front of the building. MR. JACKOSKI-So we’re about 188, 189 feet off the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. FLORENCE CONNOR MRS. CONNOR-My comment for the Water Keeper is, I called Kathy Bozony at the Water Keeper, since I’m one of the people that’s called her to look at our bay, and she has commented that we are one of the people that do care for the water, and she’s taken pictures of the front of our property to show that we have a real buffer and that we’re a good example of what should be done by a person who wants to preserve the lake, and I’ve been there since 1949, and I know it’s, I’ve seen the lake change, and I would do everything I could to keep it from having something detrimental to the water. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I boated into there last weekend. So I saw the bay myself. MR. KUHL-Dennis, are they going to put gutters on this garage? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, as I look at that drawing, it almost looks like there are gutters on there, but if not, there would be drip edge infiltration, is what typically would be added. MR. UNDERWOOD-Eaves trenches. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. KUHL-So the answer is, we don’t know? MR. MAC ELROY-Whether there’s gutters? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m not sure what the preference of the owners are, actually. MR. KUHL-Florence? MRS. CONNOR-I don’t believe there were gutters involved in it. Gutters will collect water and cause more damage to a house sometimes in the winter. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. MAC ELROY-So there would be, again, to support what Mrs. Connor said about their property, I would be assured that they will provide mechanisms to address stormwater, either through, and the typical way of doing that would be a drip edge infiltration or eaves trench type of situation along the sides of the garage structure. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So I just, if you don’t mind, I want to clarify. The projects will not be used for residential purposes? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And we’re not putting gutters on? MR. MAC ELROY-I don’t believe that that’s a solution that the owners desire. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and you are combining the parcels so that they are one contiguous, one parcel? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s the intent, that they be merged, and we’re prepared, the Connors have an attorney ready to prepare the deed or file the deed for that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there any reason we need to poll the Board? Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll make it. MOTION TO APPROVED AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2011, FLORENCE AND BRIAN CONNOR, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, second by Richard Garrand: 6 Holly Lane. The applicant is proposing construction of a 580 sq. ft. detached garage and relief is requested from the maximum allowable height requirement of the Waterfront Residential zone. Specifically, the relief requested is 7 ft. of height relief from the 16 ft. maximum allowable for the detached garage per Section 179-5-0. Under consideration, the fore shore lot where the house exists is quite small. They did not want to create a garage there because of the detrimental effect on Lake George. This garage will be on a lot that will be co-joined with that property that’s well over 200 ft. from the lake and the only request from the Board is that there will be some eave trench infiltration provided so there won’t be any runoff across the road towards the lake. The benefit could be achieved by building a compliant height structure but the over height structure is only for storage purposes. Again, it’s quite a small home on this side towards the lake there so it will accomplish their need for more storage space. The request is considered to be major relief in this instance here but we consider it to be minor as far as the impacts on physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Duly adopted on Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Any discussion? MRS. HUNT-Do you want to add that the lots will be combined, as part of the variance? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’ve already stated on the record that they’re going to do that. MR. JACKOSKI-So I think that’s okay. MRS. HUNT-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think, as part of our balancing test, too, we also recognize that that was some of the benefit to. MR. OBORNE-It will be required to close out the Site Plan file. There’d have to be a new deed. MR. JACKOSKI-A new deed. Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for being such a good steward of the lake. You don’t see that too often. MRS. CONNOR-No, I know. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2011 SEQRA TYPE II KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S) TOM NACE – NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION ZONING CLI LOCATION 238 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CHANGE OF USE TO EXISTING CONSTRUCTION OFFICE/SHOP TO INCLUDE A RADIO STATION AND PERSONAL FITNESS CENTER. PORTION OF EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN AS EQUIPMENT STORAGE AND SHOP. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK, TRAVEL CORRIDOR SETBACK FOR PROPOSED HANDICAP RAMP. FURTHER, RELIEF SOUGHT FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF SP 51-2011; AV 1-1997; BP 96-771 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011 LOT SIZE 1.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-31, 32, 33, 34, AND 35 SECTION 179- 3-040, 179-4-030 179-13-010 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2011, Kubricky Construction, Meeting Date: July 27, 2011 “Project Location: 238 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a change of use to existing construction office/shop to include a radio station and personal fitness center; portion of existing building to remain as equipment storage and shop. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Side Setback - Request for 10.6 feet of side setback relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the proposed handicap access ramp as per §179-3-040. 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. The nature of the proposal and existing conditions appears to preclude a feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Request for 10.6 feet or 35.3% of side setback relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the proposed handicap access ramp as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not subjective reasoning. 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. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 1-97 Side setback relief for office expansion Approved 1/15/97 Staff comments: ? Parking stripping and ingress/egress re-configuration is proposed. Current security gate associated with the southern entrance to be removed. ? The proposal will require the combining of the five lots into one to conform to current zoning area requirements; the applicant has denoted as such on the plan. It is proposed by the applicant that the remaining space, which is currently utilized for equipment storage, will be converted to office space in the future. ? Planning Board Recommendation provided. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board looked at it, and they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved July 26, 2011, unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. This looks pretty easy, Mr. Nace. So your job might be fairly easy this evening. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering, and Jeff Cintilla of D.A. Collins, parent company of Kubricky. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here on the Board who’d like to ask questions regarding the project? MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s strictly for the handicap access ramp is what we’re looking for, and that’s toward the bike trail side? MR. NACE-That’s correct, the north side of the building. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s going to be the only access for the radio station on that side. They’re still going to come through the front door, too? JEFF CINTILLA MR. CINTILLA-Front door and side door. MR. UNDERWOOD-Front door and side. MR. JACKOSKI-National Grid is still going to have access back there? MR. NACE-Yes, they will. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, even with the snow plowing and all that? MR. CINTILLA-We do their plowing for them, actually. MR. JACKOSKI-I think I saw one meter on the building. If you’re going to have five businesses in there, is there going to have to be like a new entrance and everything put in that building? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) MR. CINTILLA-We’re going to put four meters on to the building, just in case of future use. We have, in the rear of the building, we have another potential tenant. It has two means of egress already, in the rear of the building. He’ll also utilize the handicap entrance, create a little vestibule, covered vestibule entrance inside the building, and then potentially we make take each one of the bays that are there now, currently, and convert those over into potential offices as well. MR. JACKOSKI-It actually seems nice to see some buildings re-purposed, without any additional build out. MR. CINTILLA-And the Collins family feels that it’s important that we, since we’ve condensed all of our operations up at Exit 16, you know, not to just abandon the buildings, and they thought this would be a good use, and we’re actually doing the same thing in Mechanicville where we took our other building and all the folks and moved it to Exit 16. MR. UNDERWOOD-So are they going to utilize the tower over in the back 40 there? MR. CINTILLA-The radio station is going to utilize it only to hang, technology is a lot different today, and he’s going to hang a dish to shoot to the big antenna he has on top of Prospect Mountain, and that’s all they need now, you know, with the AM/FM signals. It’s not these great big antennas anymore like they used to. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not going to be used for a broadcast at all? MR. CINTILLA-No, it’s just going to shoot the signal up to Prospect, and that’s the broadcast. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I know a lot of their stuff comes through the Internet. MR. CINTILLA-Yes, technology’s changing. Maybe someday there’ll be no big antennas around. Just ugly cell towers. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I was at their old building on Main Street. MR. CINTILLA-It’s good for the local radio station because he’s bringing all of his people into one area instead of multiple floors, and they have parking now which they really don’t have Downtown. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Have you seen the inside of that building they’re moving out of? MR. CINTILLA-It’s pretty rough. MR. JACKOSKI-You flush the toilets and it comes down the next floor. MR. CINTILLA-And they’re all excited because they’re potentially going to have a pretty much new studio, compared to what they’re working in now. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it’ll be good for them. Any other comments at this time? Seeing none, I would like to open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing that there’s no one left in the room for the public hearing, do we have any written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-There are no letters, not even from the Lake George Water Keeper. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no public comment at this time, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t think there’s a reason to poll the Board. Is there anyone who’d like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2011, JEFFREY CINTULA, KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, second by Joyce Hunt: 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2011) 238 Bay Road. The applicant proposes a change of use to the existing construction shop/office to include a radio station and personal fitness center with portions of the existing building to remain as equipment storage and shop. The relief required: side setback request of 10.6 feet side setback relief from the 30 foot side setback requirement for the proposed handicapped access ramp as per Section 179-3-040. In making a determination, we’ll look at the balancing test: Whether benefits could be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant; no they couldn’t. Undesirable change to the neighborhood; the fact that big vehicles won’t be there anymore, it’s making an improvement to the area, to the building, and to its use. Whether the request is substantial. No, it’s not really substantial. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Duly adopted Wednesday, July 27, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. At this time, is there any additional business to be brought before the Board? Hearing none, can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 27, 2011, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 27 day of July, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Everyone NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 23