Loading...
09-22-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING ND SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 62-2021 Anthony & Maria Civitella 1. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 Area Variance No. 54-2021 Lester H. Chase III 2. Tax Map No. 2389.19-1-17 Area Variance No. 64-2021 Audrey & David VanVlack 6. Tax Map No. 315.6-2-22 Area Variance No. 67-2021 Steve McDevitt 9. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-58 Area Variance No. 63-2021 Joshua Funk 12. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-18 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 09/22/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT BRADY STARK, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT MICHAEL MC CABE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE nd MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening and welcome to the September 22, 2021 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Under our usual regulations and rules, I’ll call the meeting to order and we have a few minor things that we have to deal with here, a couple of approvals of minutes. First of all, though, we have a tabling motion for, anybody who’s here for the Civitella application, that’s going to th be postponed until next month. That’ll be on the 20 I believe. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA AGENT(S) STUDIO A LANDSCAPE, ARCH. & ENG. DPC JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA ZONING WR LOCATION 104 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMO OF EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,924 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 5,465 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF PATIO AREA ON THE LAKE SIDE, NEW DRIVEWAY AREA OF PERMEABLE PATIO PRODUCT, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUN-DECK AND DOCK, A PERMEABLE PATIO WITH OUTDOOR GRILL AREA, NEW FIRE PIT AREA, NEW SEPTIC, NEW WELL, NEW SITE PLANTINGS AND NEW SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN FOR VEGETATION REMOVAL, STORMWATER MEASURES STEEP SLOPES WITHIN 50 FT. OF NEW HOME, AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, PERMEABILITY, AND INFILTRATION PRACTICE. CROSS REF SP 55-2021; FWW 1-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040; 147-11 MRS. MOORE-Yes. The public hearing needs to be re-noticed, for the record. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Antonio & Maria Civitella. Applicant proposes demo of existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,924 sq. ft. and a floor area of 5,465 sq. ft. The project includes installation of patio area on the lake side, new driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sun-deck and dock, a permeable patio with outdoor grill area, new fire pit area, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, shoreline planting plan for vegetation removal, stormwater measures steep slopes within 50 ft. of new home, and work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, permeability, and infiltration practice. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the October 20, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information due by October 1st. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just so the Board knows, and the public, there was an issue, in regards to the application, there was an issue in regards to the notices not being received by those within 500 feet. So we have to re- advertise for that, and as well the Planning Board under Planning Board recommendations, the applicant 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) requested to be tabled so that they could revise their plan set. So in October you’ll receive a whole new revised set of plans. They’re going to update that project. AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe APPROVAL OF MINUTES th August 18, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TH MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe th August 25, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TH MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-First up on the agenda tonight, under Old Business, is Lester H. Chase and Thalia M. Chase. Their agent is Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell. So Matt Fuller will be representing them. The project location is State Route 9L in Ward 1. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LESTER H. CHASE III AGENT(S) MEYER, FULLER & STOCKWELL ZONING SPLIT (RR-5A & LC-10A) LOCATION 3219 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AS A REPLACEMENT GARAGE OF 1,596 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,582 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 378 SQ. FT. SHED (NO CHANGES). SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, FRESHWATER WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. CROSS REF SP 49-2021; PZ 130- 2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-17 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2021, Lester H. Chase III, Meeting Date: September 22, 2021 “Project Location: 3219 State Route 9L, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. home with a 378 sq. ft. shed (no changes). Site plan for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, freshwater wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages. Relief Required: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) The applicant requests relief for the construction of a new garage that requires relief for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages in the Rural Residential zone, RR5A. The parcel is 2.08 acres. Section 179-4-030 dimensional, Sectional 179-5-020- garage The proposed garage is to be 14.2 ft. from the property line where 75 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for the size of the garage of 1,650 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 1,100 sq. ft. for lots less than 5 ac. The number of garages allowed on site is one, proposed is three garages – two existing. The garage is to be located 68 ft. from the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of garages, reducing the size of the garage and locating the garage further from the property line. The parcel is 2.08 ac and all of the buildings existed at one time, although the size is slightly larger. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for more than one garage, setback of 60.8 ft., and garage size of 550 sq. ft. in excess. 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 difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. garage to replace a previous garage with this garage being slightly larger. The plans show the location of the garage and the type of garage proposed. There are no changes to the site; the proposed garage is located in the same area as the original.” MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell. I’m here with Lonnie Chase, the applicant. As the application description stated, what we’re doing, what we’re proposing to do, is replace a garage that is out behind the house. We were originally on for last month before the Planning Board for a recommendation. One of the Planning Board members actually asked a question about the distance to the wetland that is three properties to the south. It’s nothing that caught our radar or Staff’s radar. I went up the next day and measured it. The 75 foot setback is closed. So we had EDP come in, flag the wetlands and we had Kristin Darrah go back out and survey the wetlands and put flags around, and it came out to 62 and a half feet. So obviously, given the replacement, that’s a non- conforming, prior non-conforming use. So we had to ask for that relief as well. As you’ll note the property, if you guys went out there and did a site visit, there’s a garage that is part of the house. There’s a shed that is not far from the house, and again to the south a little bit, that because of the front door that’s on it renders it a garage. We end up with three garages under the statute, one is a storage shed for snowmobiles and things like that. So if you did see the garage out back, you’ll note that it is beyond it’s useful life, and likely it’s ability to rehabilitate it. The cinderblock is starting to crumble and so the proposal is to square it off, remove the small outhouse that’s out back. In terms of the area variance test of trying to lessen the relief requested and things like that, you’ll probably note right to the back of the garage there, it slopes up a bit and there is some bedrock right there with trees on it. So in terms of excavating and things like that, it does not make a lot of sense to us to pull the garage back further away from the property. That would get closer to the property to the east. There is a letter of support in the materials from the neighbor to the east there. So again, just, in the whole balancing test that we’ve got to deal with with the criteria, it is a prior existing non-conforming use in terms of what your interpretation of a garage is, setbacks, the area, square footage. The square footage discussion is really to square it off. You’ll see on the one corner there’s a seven and a half foot kind of square. If you were out there, again, you can kind of see it. So in terms of just ordering the package for the replacement garage, it’s easier if you order those in standard dimensions. So the idea is to square the garage off, replace it in site, add some stormwater improvements to manage the stormwater out back there. It is shielded quite a bit even from the front. You can’t really see it from 9L. It’s shielded vegetation wise to the south and obviously on the southeast for sure and to the north and the west. We don’t think it has any impact on the neighbors, not really. It’s an idea just to preserve the value. Obviously having a garage like that is better. We don’t think that it has any impact at all. We did go to the Planning Board last night. I think they reported a favorable recommendation and we discussed all this. Obviously we’ll be back, depending on what happens here. Hopefully we’ll have a favorable meeting tonight and we’ll be back to the Planning Board for the Site Plan. I’ll obviously take questions. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. Did I miss something in the packet? Was there an easement granted at one time for these, the driveway? Because the driveway doesn’t go to, there’s no driveway. MR. FULLER-That’s a good question. So, yes, the property right next door, Diane, that’s Thalia’s mom, so it was the parents that owned the property before where the house is and the garage is. So, yes, there is access across that lot to the back here and Diane lives across the street on the lakeside just further down 9L. LONNIE CHASE MR. CHASE-And we have a deeded right of way. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that’s in the title if you ever sold that property, the garages wouldn’t be stranded. MR. CHASE-Yes. MR. FULLER-Yes, good question. MR. KUHL-What’s the use of the garage? MR. CHASE-Right now it’s really just full of small stuff I’ve got to get rid of and my father-in-law had equipment back there that I’d like to get under cover and try to save it a little bit. MR. KUHL-Just electric going in there. No water? MR. CHASE-Correct. Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. CHASE-It has electric right now which I’d probably maintain. I don’t know. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? All right. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? I don’t see anybody out there. Roy, do you have any letters? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, and I also have, the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion st passed seven to zero, September 21, 2021. Letters. “Dear Mr. Brown: Our property borders the Chase property. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation. The project will be visible from our property. It is my understanding that a variance(s) is required for this project. We support the project as the building is an existing building. Our concern with any project is related to lighting and minimal tree removal. Based on the plans and our discussion with the Chase’s we support the variance(s) requested by Mr. and Mrs. Chase. Thank you, Scott C. Johnson 3213 State Route 9L Lake George, NY 12845” And “Our property is directly across State Route 9L from the Chase’s. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation. The project is not visible from the road or our property. It is our understanding that a variance needs to be requested and we wanted to go on record saying we support the variance(s) requested by Mr. and Mrs. Chase to accomplish this renovation. Thank you for your time and service. Daniel Grasmeder and Kathy Grasmeder 3222 State Route 9L Lake George, NY 12845” That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-At this time I’ll start with you, Brady. MR. STARK-I don’t have any questions or anything, but the project does seem pretty straightforward, and with the unanimous recommendation from the Planning Board, I’m in favor of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I will be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-I have a little bit of a problem with it. That’s a lot of garage between that, the house, the garage shed whatever you want to call that. That’s 376 square feet. I would say that’s a lot of garage for the space. I would like to see it a little bit smaller. So I’m struggling with it a little bit. So I’m going to have to say no as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think that the two acre lot supports it. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, am in favor of the project. I think it’s a replacement and I don’t see any grand change that’s going to happen in the neighborhood. It would be an improvement to your property. So anybody want to make the motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lester H. Chase III. Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. home with a 378 sq. ft. shed (no changes). Site plan for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, freshwater wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the construction of a new garage that requires relief for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages in the Rural Residential zone, RR5A. The parcel is 2.08 acres. Section 179-4-030 dimensional, Sectional 179-5-020- garage The proposed garage is to be 14.2 ft. from the property line where 75 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for the size of the garage of 1,650 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 1,100 sq. ft. for lots less than 5 ac. The number of garages allowed on site is one, proposed is three garages – two existing. The garage is to be located 68 ft. from the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 2021 and Wednesday, September 22, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered, perhaps making the garage a bit smaller, but we feel that this is a reasonable and minimal request. 3. The requested variance is substantial in that we’re asking for three garages on one site. However, all the factors have borne out here. 4. There is not necessarily an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 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. 54-2021 LESTER H. CHASE III, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. CHASE-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Next up on the agenda is project applicants Audrey & David VanVlack at 14 Goldfinch Road in Ward 4. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II AUDREY & DAVID VANVLACK OWNER(S) DAVID & AUDREY VANVLACK ZONING MDR LOCATION 14 GOLDFINCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 816 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH A 192 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY ADDITION. THE BREEZEWAY IS TO BE 160 SQ. FT. WITH ROOF AREA OF 32 SQ. FT. AND HEIGHT OF 14 FT. THE GARAGE IS TO BE 16 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1000 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.6-2- 22 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 AUDREY & DAVID VAN VLACK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64=2021, Audrey & David VanVlack, Meeting Date: September 22, 2021 “Project Location: 14 Goldfinch Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct 816 sq. ft. garage with a 192 sq. ft. breezeway addition. The breezeway is to be 160 sq. ft. with roof area of 32 sq. ft. and height of 14 ft. The garage is to be 16 ft. in height. The existing home of 1000 sq. ft. is to remain. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of an attached garage and breezeway. The project is located in Moderate Density Residential zone –MDR on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. Section 179-3-040 - dimensional, Section 179-5-020 garage The new garage and breezeway addition is to be located 2.5 ft. to the side property line where a 10 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 character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 7.5 feet. 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. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an 816 sq. ft. garage, and a 192 sq. ft. breezeway to their existing home. The project includes removal of an existing shed and deck where the addition is to be located. The plans show the location of the additions and the elevations.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Good evening and welcome. Please identify yourselves. MRS. VAN VLACK-I’m Audrey VanVlack, MR. VAN VLACK-And I’m David VanVlack. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add to the application? MRS. VAN VLACK-The only thing, I did recently ask my neighbors, all of our surrounding neighbors, was if they would sign off on the exact wording that they all acquired in the mail, and they were all happy to do so. So I don’t know if that matters. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can give that to the secretary. Thank you. Do Board members have any questions at this time? MRS. HAMLIN-Have you seen that letter? MRS. MOORE-It will be read into the record during the public hearing. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. KUHL-What shed is going away, the wood shed, the metal shed? MRS. VAN VLACK-The wood shed. MR. KUHL-The wood shed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? All right. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Any letters, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, the one that was just handed to me. It says, “This petition is in regards to the Variance request for 14 Goldfinch Road, Queensbury, NY. The VanVlack Family, residing at 14 Goldfinch Road, is requesting an addition of a garage/breezeway. We have proposed construction of an 816 sq. ft. garage with a 192 square foot breezeway addition. The breezeway is to be 160 sq. ft. with a roof area of 32 sq. ft. and a height of 14 ft. The garage is to be 16 ft. in height. Relief is requested for setbacks. By signing this petition you are voicing and showing that you are in support of the Variance at 14 Goldfinch Road.” And it was signed by nine people. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add at this time? MRS. VAN VLACK-We really appreciate your time and this feels very formal and I’m very nervous and thank you for entertaining us. MR. KUHL-Don’t be nervous. MR. UNDERWOOD-At this time I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll poll the Board, and I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-I don’t see a problem with this application. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree. Rather than give the applicant trepidations, I’m in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) MR. HENKEL-I’m also in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I mean it’s right on the line and it’s really tight, but they’re entitled to a garage just like everybody else apparently in the neighborhood has a garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes. I’m in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, am in favor of it. I think that when these smaller lots were created, I don’t think it’s your situation. It’s germain to the whole greater neighborhood over there, too. I think everybody’s dealt with the same thing, and I don’t see that your project, I mean having the breezeway gives you access to your deck in the back and it wouldn’t make sense to just shove the garage up there and have to go through the garage to get out in the backyard. So I’m in favor of it, too. So does somebody want to make a motion? MR. KUHL-I’ll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Audrey & David VanVlack. Applicant proposes to construct 816 sq. ft. garage with a 192 sq. ft. breezeway addition. The breezeway is to be 160 sq. ft. with roof area of 32 sq. ft. and height of 14 ft. The garage is to be 16 ft. in height. The existing home of 1000 sq. ft. is to remain. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of an attached garage and breezeway. The project is located in Moderate Density Residential zone –MDR on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot. Section 179-3-040 - dimensional, Section 179-5-020 garage The new garage and breezeway addition is to be located 2.5 ft. to the side property line where a 10 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 22, 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 as the information we got from all the neighbors are in favor of it. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial due to the size of the lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created but again it’s only because of the size of the 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: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2021 AUDREY & DAVID VAN VLACK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. MC DEVITT-Good luck to you guys. MRS. VAN VLACK-Thank you so much. We appreciate it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Next up on the agenda is Area Variance 67-2021, applicant Steve McDevitt. Agent: Environmental Design Partnership, Chris Keil. The project location is 32 North Lane in Ward 1. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE MC DEVITT AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER (CHRIS KEIL) OWNER(S) STEVE MC DEVITT ZONING WR LOCATION 32 NORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1 ½ STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITION IS TO BE A 320 SQ. FT. GREAT ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A 128 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK. THE ADDITION INCLUDES A 448 SQ. FT. BASEMENT AREA AND A 224 SQ. FT. OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,721 SQ. FT. AND THE PROPOSED IS 3,755 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 58-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-58 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-13-010 CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2021, Steve McDevitt, Meeting Date: September 22, 2021 “Project Location: 32 North Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 1 ½ story addition to an existing home. The addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. Great Room on the first floor with a 128 sq. ft. open deck. The addition includes a 448 sq. ft. basement area and a 224 sq. ft. office on the second floor. The existing floor area is 2,721 sq. ft. and the proposed is 3,755 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area for the construction of additions to an existing home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.26 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 -dimensional The addition is to be 20 ft. from the north side and 29 ft. from the east side where a 30 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is to be 72% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 33% where 22% is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 additions. Noting the location of the existing home is not compliant. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code as the additions make it further non-compliant. Relief is requested for north side of 9 ft. and the east of 1 ft.; floor area is 11% in excess and permeability is 3 % additional hard- surfacing. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The existing home is a 3,600 sq. ft. is a two story home. The addition is 320 sq. ft. great room on the first floor and 128 sq. ft. open deck. The second floor is to have 224 sq. ft. addition as an office. The project also includes a 428 sq. ft. basement addition. The first floor plan shows two bedrooms with living room and kitchen area. The second floor maintains the two bedroom and a new office area.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review identified the following areas of st concern: size of the increase on a small lot and that motion was adopted unanimously on September 21, 2021. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Keil. MR. KEIL-Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. As you know we were at the Planning Board yesterday to discuss this project and we know on face value it might seem like a pretty big ask. So little bit of back story on the project. The applicant in this case is an older couple getting ready to retire. They’re looking to make this their permanent residence. They really want to achieve single story living which is typical of this sort of design, the one and a half story house. So the goal is to create the Great Room so they don’t have to go up and down stairs. The laundry is in the basement. I think the first floor would kind of serve most of their needs is the primary driver behind this project. There’s no increase in bedroom count in this case and it’s my view, you know, you can see that there’s some challenges with this lot being a corner lot. They’re up against having two rear yard setbacks where the originally house was placed and tucked up against those setbacks. Based on the internal layout of the building and floor plan it makes it difficult to sort of expand towards the street or to the west which wouldn’t incur that setback relief request and if you look at the site photos of the surrounding buildings, it’s again in my view in keeping with the character of the existing homes in that street, and mainly that addition is towards the north. So it wouldn’t be visible from the main street frontage there. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-Is there any room for compromise on any of these? Because it just seems like an awful lot to be asking for. MR. KEIL-Understood, and I think there is, frankly. I sort of anticipated for there to be some push back. We had this discussion with the applicant who unfortunately couldn’t make it. They want the project to happen. So I think there’s definitely some things that we could look at a little bit closer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak? Any letters? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are no letters. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll start to poll the Board members. Brent, do you want to go? MR. MC DEVITT-I was glad to hear what you just indicated. As Roy made mention, I think there’s a project to be had here. It feels in some capacities to be a relatively big ask. So I’d like to see what the rest of my piers have as thoughts relative to that, but generally speaking when we’re able to work, kind of constructively here and work something out. So I think as it is it feels kind of like a big ask to me. I do understand that being a corner lot with two rear yard setbacks, I do follow that. Okay. I understand where you’re coming from and I certainly appreciate individuals getting older and achieving single story living. So let me hear what the rest of the Board has to say? MR. UNDERWOOD-John? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Brent. Not that the permeability’s that bad. You’re not far off on that, and the setback isn’t a whole lot. I’d rather see that a little bit less, but I think being 1275 feet over the allowable FAR variance is something that could be worked a little bit better on. So I would not be in favor of it as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I guess I’m the oldest guy here. I don’t think it’s that bad an ask. I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I don’t think it’s too much of an ask also. I would like to see some compromise here on the various variances that are asked for. So I would be a no at this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady? MR. STARK-I would be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I would like to see a little compromise on the greater of the two rear yard variances. Everything else is pretty okay with me. It’s minor, but that one corner, you’re going from 30, required 30, you’ve got 25 now you’re going to 20. I understand the need for sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-At this time I’m going to have to agree with the majority of the Board, although I think Ron makes a valid point here. This is not direct waterfront property , and I think that does some into place because I think we differentiate between the impacts in the greater sense when we look at strictly on the waterfront, but at the same time, you’re stuck with a very small, tiny lot, and so that basically puts a noose around the whole project. You’re going to have to shrink it down somewhat to make the Board more amenable to approving what you’re asking. So I think at this point the best thing for you to do is to table it, I assume and go back and talk to your client and see what they want to do. So does somebody want to make a tabling motion? MR. HENKEL-Do we have a date? MRS. MOORE-I’m going to tell you to November at this time because I don’t have any room on the October agenda. th MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you’ve got November, there’s only one meeting in November, the 17? Is there only one meeting for November for us, or no? MRS. MOORE-At this time there’s only one meeting. th MR. HENKEL-The 17? MRS. MOORE-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve McDevitt. Applicant proposes a 1 ½ story addition to an existing home. The addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. Great Room on the first floor with a 128 sq. ft. open deck. The addition includes a 448 sq. ft. basement area and a 224 sq. ft. office on the second floor. The existing floor area is 2,721 sq. ft. and the proposed is 3,755 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2021 STEVE MC DEVITT, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Tabled to the November 17, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information due by the th 15 of October. nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-And just for the record, you’ve left the public hearing open. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-And our last item this evening is Joshua Funk, Area Variance 63-2021, 302 Bay Road in Ward 2. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOSHUA FUNK OWNER(S) JOSHUA FUNK ZONING CI LOCATION 302 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A 306.5 SQ. FT. MUDROOM ADDITION. APPLICANT REMOVED A 269 SQ. FT. MUDROOM DUE TO ROTTING AND SINKING OF FLOOR. MUDROOM WILL BE 1 FT. WIDER ON EACH SIDE DUE TO PLACEMENT OF FOUR FOOTINGS. NO OTHER CHANGES ARE PROPOSED, EXISTING HOME OF 728 SQ. FT. AND 870 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 588-2021; AV 45-2003; PZ 39-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2021 LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-18 SECTION 179- 3-040; 179-4-080 JOSHUA FUNK & KATHARINE MYERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2021, Joshua Funk, Meeting Date: September 22, 2021 “Project Location: 302 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a 306.5 sq. ft. mudroom addition. Applicant removed a 269 sq. ft. mudroom due to rotting and sinking of floor. Mudroom will be 1 ft. wider on each side due to placement of four footings. No other changes are proposed, existing home of 728 sq. ft. and 870 sq. ft. garage to remain. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a mudroom addition under construction. The project is located in the Commercial Intensive- CI on a 0.292 acre parcel. Section 179-3-040 - dimensional The mudroom addition is to be located 21 ft. on Homer and 47.1 ft. on Bay where a 50 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 character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the mudroom is not compliant to the front setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested on the front property line is 29 feet on Homer and 2.9 ft. on Bay. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the 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 the mudroom addition of 306.5 sq. ft. The applicant had removed the 269 sq. ft. portion of the home due to the area dropping and observed further deterioration of that part of the home. The plans show the location of the mudroom from when it was removed to the partial construction. The submission includes the photos and drawings of the mudroom.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. First, for the record, identify yourselves, please. MR. FUNK-I’m Joshua Funk. MS. MYERS-Katharine Myers. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you wanted to add to the application? MR. FUNK-I’d like to start by apologizing. I was a big misinformed when I initially started construction. I was under the assumption that I could replace an existing structure due to structural defects without going through the proper channels to get permits and variances. As soon as I was informed I was in the wrong, I went through all the proper channels, filled out all the paperwork, etc. So I would like to apologize for that part to start with. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. FUNK-And just really that we’re replacing a structure that was starting to become unsafe. It was built as a deck back years ago before we bought the house and it was put on cinderblock piers and there were no footings in the ground at all. So the frost heaving caused it to shift over time. The roof had begun leaking. There was wood rot in the floor. The floor itself was becoming soft and spongy. The doors weren’t shutting properly. We couldn’t lock the windows anymore. And with the roughly six weeks of rain we had this summer the cinderblocks actually started to sink into the ground and started to detach from the home. So that was the purpose of taking it off was the structure was literally coming off the house. I’m a journeyman carpenter and pool inspector by trade. So I have experience in the construction field. So I came about a foot off the existing structure and drove down four feet, four piers, six by six posts up, joists hangers across the board, new ledger boards, new everything for it, all properly installed the way it should be. So we’re just replacing a structure that went bad with a structure with the right construction practices. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members? All right. I think it’s pretty straightforward. I think commonsense dictates anybody else would have done the same thing. All is forgiven as far as that goes. MR. FUNK-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess at this point I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any letters, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No letters. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this point then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll poll the Board, and I’ll start with you, Ron. MR. KUHL-No, I have no issue with this. How many people come forward when they buy a house and it’s underbuilt when they buy it. So I’d be in favor of it. I think it’s a good project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s very common in a lot of these older homes, the front porches, back porches, they were built on, like you said they’d throw a block down and start building on it. Over time it sinks. That’s because they’re not built properly with footings and that. So I think you’ve done a good job and I would be on board with the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. It’s commonsense. This is a net improvement. So I’m in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I did have a question. Did I read it that you’re going to replace the garage as well? MR. FUNK-No. The garage is a newer structure when we bought the home. MRS. HAMLIN-I misread. Yes, I think that you’re practically on the same exact footprint. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady? MR. STARK-You guys are improving the home, so I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, as soon as I looked at this one I said there’s no question in my mind that we would have approved this if you had come in and asked initially. So at this point I’ll ask somebody to make a motion. MR. KUHL-I can do that, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joshua Funk. Applicant proposes to complete a 306.5 sq. ft. mudroom addition. Applicant removed a 269 sq. ft. mudroom due to rotting and sinking of floor. Mudroom will be 1 ft. wider on each side due to placement of four footings. No other changes are proposed, existing home of 728 sq. ft. and 870 sq. ft. garage to remain. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a mudroom addition under construction. The project is located in the Commercial Intensive- CI on a 0.292 acre parcel. Section 179-3-040 - dimensional The mudroom addition is to be located 21 ft. on Homer and 47.1 ft. on Bay where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 22, 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 as this is simply replacing an old rotting structure with a new one. 2. Feasible alternatives really are limited and technically not possible. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. As stated earlier he’s replacing an existing rotting structure with a new one. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty could be 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. 63-2021 JOSHUA FUNK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-Does Staff have anything they wanted to add? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) MRS. MOORE-I don’t have anything. MS. MYER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll end tonight’s meeting, then. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF ND SEPTEMBER 22, 2021, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of September, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Acting Chairman 16