Loading...
01-26-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING TH JANUARY 26, 2022 INDEX Area Variance No. 62-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 1. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 Area Variance No. 5-2022 Cerrone Land Holdings 3. Tax Map No. 301.18-2-1 Area Variance No. 3-2022 Patrick M. Connors 7. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-1 Area Variance No. 1-2022 David Hatin 12. Tax Map No. 301.12-3-56 Area Variance No. 4-2022 Steve Dempsey 14. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-49 Sign Variance No. 1-2022 Ayzo Ridge 18. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-34 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 01/26/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING TH JANUARY 26, 2022 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT CATHERINE HAMLIN BRADY STARK, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-So good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, th January 26, 2022. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is relatively simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each case up, read the case into the record, allow the applicant to present his case, ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, we’ll open the public hearing and seek input from the public. Then we’ll poll the Board, see how everybody feels on the particular application, and then proceed accordingly. We have a couple of administrative items that we have to take care of first tonight. So we do have a little error from last week that we have to correct. We had a couple of letters that were sent to us that we didn’t read into the record. So we’re going to do that right now. MRS. MOORE-Just for the record it would be Area Variance 62-2021 for Civitella. MR. MC CABE-Yes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA AGENT(S) STUDIO A & JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA ZONING WR LOCATION 104 KNOX ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO AN EXISTING HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,477 SQ. FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,091 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A PERMEABLE PAVER FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREA, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUN- DECK AND DOCK, NEW SEPTIC, WELL, SITE PLANTINGS AND 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. 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 MR. URRICO-“Patty I are thrilled that the property belonging to Antonio and Maria Civitella is going to finally be developed after having lived next door to an abandoned building, and property for 18 years. We do have some concerns in reviewing their plans. We ask that the Civitellas include the immediately adjacent properties in their plot plan. We believe this is relevant information that will prove valuable in the Board’s decision on set-backs and foot print relief. This will provide the Board and residents a greater understanding of the potential effects of the requested foot print relief. In order to build a house of this size and magnitude, a significant number of mature trees will need to be removed. We feel it would be prudent to ensure this will not have a negative impact on the ground water absorption and excess nutrients reaching the lake. The site plan indicates 69.5% of permeable area but the standard is 75%. As a result we ask that the Board consider a more thorough environmental engineering study to ensure the aforementioned concerns are addressed. We are also concerned about the demolition and removal of the existing structure. Our understanding is that there is a tremendous mold issue, as well as potential asbestos and lead presence based on its age. Before it is demolished, we request a thorough review of the demolition plans to ensure all modern health procedures and guidelines associated with these types of contaminants will be followed. This is of the utmost importance to ensure the health and well-being of the residents and habitat of the area. With regards to the Floor Area Ratio requirements, being that this is a redesign, why should it be necessary to go above the required Floor Area Ratio of 22%? The 22% requirement would be easy to meet, and may allow the orientation of the home to marry better with the neighboring properties. The original home has an orientation facing further south which would ease the setback situation to the north. The Town standard of 22% is intended to limit site development to that 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) which can better protect the lake as well as nearby properties. We would like to close by thanking the Board for their consideration of our comments with hopes their ultimate are consistent with other recent reviews of the FAR and permeability variance requests in this very sensitive community. Sincerely, Patricia and George Pensel” “Luise and I welcome the Civitellas to our little paradise at the end of Knox Road. Let’s not drive ourselves out of this paradise by destroying it. It is extremely sensitive ; the lake is on the west, and the wetlands south and east of the proposed new house and of those in the immediate vicinity. Our lot sizes are tiny. New lake-front houses, including the proposed house, tend to be huge: with large foot-prints, high with deep basements and large roofs. Because of the small lots, setbacks from property lines are challenged. Storm-water runoff tends to be minimized. Soil permeability is reduced. Almost all centuries old pines (some of the last on Assembly Point) are proposed to be removed specifically including the lakefront area. Trees are viewed as enemies by builders and home-owners. In truth they are friends: Trees promote soil quality and stability. Trees retain ground water levels and quality. Drinking water for houses in the immediate vicinity at 106 and 105 Knox Road is supplied by lake-water. The proposed residence will be supplied with well-water. One possible reason for the difference: Lake George water quality is and has deteriorated for decades. Development and removal of trees are a cause for that deterioration. Trees protect from harsh wind and cold and sunlight. Lake views are not diminished but rather enhanced by trees. The value of old-growth pines cannot be compensated by young "native trees". Deciduous trees such as maples and beeches are invasive species. These are some of the main reasons for contesting the view of the proposal that it "reflects the character of the neighborhood." Now to some specific variance applications. We provide here concrete support to the general concerns: Minimum side- yard setback proposals of 14' and 15'9" are significantly less than the required 20'. Maximum floor area of 24.3% is significantly more than the WR required 22%. Site permeability of the proposed 69.5% is significantly less than the required 75%, but especially so in comparison to the existing 93%. It is no secret that general building practice seriously disturbs lot- and soil-conditions especially of a small lot such as 104 Knox Road: All of the original, high-quality topsoil built up over centuries (often more than 2 ft. deep!) disappears. It is displaced by low-quality soil dug up to prepare for footings and foundation walls. That poor quality soil is typically piled up on the site only to be spread out over the entire lot when foundation walls are finished. That excess soil is typically not removed to cut costs. But thereby the original grade level increases, which increases the height of the house. The new grade is higher than original grade. Town regulations now prohibit that practice. We request that original grade is retained. We request excess soil is removed. We request that the high-quality original topsoil is retained and spread out over the whole lot when house is finished. These steps enhance the quality of the proposal, the lake and the sensitive environment. These specific concerns undergird the first-mentioned general concerns. We believe more closely meeting required metrics would enhance and not degrade the proposal. We hope and trust the Board and the Civitellas agree. We thank the Board for considering these concerns in their deliberations. Luis and Rolf Ahlers 105 Knox Road Lake George, NY 12845” And they also included answers to the criteria in their envelopes. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So listening to those letters I heard no new information as far as I’m concerned. So I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Antonio & Maria Civitella. (Revised) Applicant proposes to demo an existing home and to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,477 sq. ft. and a floor area of 4,091 sq. ft. The project includes installation of a permeable paver for patio and driveway areas, new steps to future sun-deck and dock, new septic, well, site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the 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. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, permeability, and infiltration practice. The project is the construction of a new home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR on a 0.41 acre parcel. Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147 The new home requires variance for setbacks where 20 ft. is required and 15 ft. 9 inches to the south property line and 14 ft. to the North property line is proposed; floor area where 22% is the maximum allowed and 32.5% 24.3% is proposed; permeability where 75% is required and 69.5% 71.5% proposed; and infiltration practice is required to be 100 ft. for the shoreline where 35 ft. is proposed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 22, 2021 & Wednesday, January 19, 2022. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we’ve established that this new construction will make this property very similar to adjacent properties. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but not deemed reasonable, mainly due to the shape and size of the property. 3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, is not really substantial when you consider what already exists on the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we think that the new construction will improve the environmental and physical conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, 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) The patio will be reduced by four feet. b) Fifty square feet of the K turn will be eliminated. c) The driveway will be reduced in width by two feet. d) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: To read Public Comments not read into the record at the Public Hearing held on January 19, 2022. Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-So if you vote yes, that means that you’ll keep, your vote from last week will stand. AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II CERRONE LAND HOLDINGS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING MDR LOCATION SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 45 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 49.5 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOTS RANGE IN SIZE FROM 0.47 AC. TO 1.57 ACRES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PROPERTY. THERE IS TO BE TWO ACCESS POINTS TO SHERMAN AVENUE. THE SITES WOULD HAVE ON SITE SEPTIC AND BE CONNECTED TO MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY. PROJECT INCLUDES A 20 FT. NO CUT BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINES. PLANNING BOARD REVIEW FOR A SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTE4D FOR LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SUB 2- 2022; SUB 7-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 49.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.18-2-1 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now, John, could we have a motion for the Lead Agency for SEQR for the Cerrone project? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cerrone Land Holdings. Applicant proposes a 45 residential subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 ac. to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowners association property. There is to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. Project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the north property lines. Planning Board review for a subdivision. Relief requested for lot size and setbacks. SEQRA: Planning Board requests for Lead Agency. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD’S REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR PROJECT APPLICANT CERRONE LAND HOLDINGS, AREA VARIANCE 5-2022, Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt. th Duly adopted this 26 Day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody in the audience who came here with regard to the Cerrone project? Okay. So what happened is Cerrone asked for a tabling until next month, but since a public hearing was advertised, I’ll open a public hearing and give you an opportunity for input, but you should understand that the Cerrone group isn’t really here, and your input would probably be better for next month, but whether you do that or not is up to you. So, go ahead, John.. MR. HENKEL-Well do you want to table it before you open the public hearing? MRS. MOORE-I was going to say, Jon is here. I don’t think Jon can answer questions specifically but if the public wishes to have that opportunity to speak, they potentially can do that. Just understand that if you had specific questions, they may not be answered at this time. They will be most likely answered at the next meeting. If you had additional questions beyond what would be answered in a public hearing, you’re always welcome to call the office and speak with me or other staff, but I typically am the one that would handle discussions related to the project. Does that make sense? So those people that are here, do they wish to speak this evening or hold their public comment until they know they may have a more, they’ll be able to have some answers? MR. MC CABE-So go ahead with the tabling motion, John. MRS. MOORE-Well, you still have someone in the audience. MR. MC CABE-Well, we’re going to table it and then I’ll open the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cerrone Land Holdings. Applicant proposes a 45 residential subdivision of a 49.5 acre parcel. The lots range in size from 0.47 ac. to 1.57 acres. The project includes a homeowners association property. There is to be two access points to Sherman Avenue. The sites would have on-site septic and be connected to municipal water supply. Project includes a 20 ft. no cut buffer on the north property lines. Planning Board review for a subdivision. Relief requested for lot size and setbacks. Application to be tabled to the second February meeting pending Planning Board recommendation. The project is to be re-advertised with the Planning Board as Type I action. Zoning Board to consent to Lead Agency, public hearing to be left open. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 5-2022 CERRONE LAND HOLDINGS, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: rd Tabled to the February 23, 2022 meeting. Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So do you want to make a public comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS OGDEN MR. OGDEN-If I could, yes. MR. MC CABE-Sure, absolutely. So you’ll come up to the table here, identify yourself. So this is with regard to Area Variance 5-2022. MR. OGDEN-Okay. My name is Chris Ogden. I live at 59 Lambert Drive which is adjacent to the property that Cerrone wants to purchase and build that off Sherman Ave. So I have a couple, these are a couple of points that I think you folks need to consider, and maybe Cerrone’s need to consider. Now with their setback, with the buffer zone, the project includes a 20 foot no cut buffer zone on the north property lines. I live, and my neighbor Tom Rascoe lives next door to me. We live on the east side on Lambert Drive as you look at the map there. So why is the no cut buffer zone only on the north side of the property? Okay. Something to be considered, and the other thing that I wanted to bring up to the Zoning Board of Appeals and Cerrones themselves, is I have lived in my house going on 35 years this July, so I am very well aware of, that property is the old City of Glens Falls brush dump, but it’s not just a brush dump. If Cerrones want to build around the pit, there used to be a sand pit. That’s where they took the sand. One of my concerns is the properties that will abut the pit itself, the erosion that has happened over the years, that I have seen personally, because I have walked my dogs, I used to walk my daughter out there for years and years, for the past 34 years. The erosion from that pit, because it’s all sand, which is great for septic systems and everything else, because I live in Queensbury, but I’m worried that all these properties that will abut the pit, the erosion has come back quite a bit. So I think that’s something to consider. So I’m looking at the buffer zone to not just be the north side of the property. I think it should include all the way around, north, east and west. There’s no real south side because the south side is Sherman Avenue, Upper Sherman I should say. So it’s something to consider along those lines. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on AV 5-2022? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-I’d like to respond to that? MR. MC CABE-You want to respond to that, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes, just briefly. We’ll get into this next month, but as the gentleman said this was a stump and bush dump for Glens Falls for a long time. So it just sort of sat there unkempt, but the Cerrones have it under contract. The City needs to sell it and turn it into cash and the Cerrones have done a lot of communities in Queensbury and around the Town and saw this as a nice opportunity, just because of where it is in a lovely residential area. So the variance that we’re asking for, because this is a two acre zone now because it doesn’t have sewer, but all the lots around it are smaller than what we’re proposing here. So this is larger than almost all the other lots in the neighborhood. It’s a fairly nicely designed project, and the area where, the dump area in the middle is all going to be passive recreation and potentially active recreation with some courts. So we think this is really nicely done but we have to go to the Planning Board and get a recommendation from there before we come to you, obviously, and the details will be worked out. There’s no buffer required for a house next to a house, but they’ll be nicely treed, and I’m sure by the time we get through this, everyone will be happy with the design. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. We’ve got to have you come back up to the table and identify yourself again. MR. OGDEN-I appreciate what Jon’s saying. I’m Chris Ogden, again, from 59 Lambert Drive. The notice, will we get a notice about the next hearing? MRS. MOORE-You will not get another notice because this public hearing was opened and tabled. So you will not get a new notice. rd MR. OGDEN-So the next hearing on this issue is February 23? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. OGDEN-Is that what he’s tabled for? MR. MC CABE-Yes. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. OGDEN-Okay. So we will not be noticed. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? MR. HENKEL-But before that it’s going to the Planning Board. MRS. MOORE-It’ll go to the Planning Board first for a recommendation. MR. HENKEL-He can’t speak at the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-Not at the recommendation stage. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MICHAEL DAVIS MR. DAVIS-Michael Davis. I live at 8 Grouse Circle, which is adjoining the upper right hand corner of the plan. My question is regarding zoning for forever wild. I purchased the house property seven years ago. I was told by the realtor that it was zoned forever wild. MR. MC CABE-I don’t think there’s a category forever wild, is there? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have an answer for that. MR. DAVIS-I think it is because the house two houses over from me they just purchased the house a couple of years ago and they were told the same thing by a different realtor that Queensbury had zoned this as forever wild, similar to the watershed property. So I just want some clarification on that. There’s no such thing, basically? MR. MC CABE-I’ve never been run into it, but I’ve only been on the Board for a few years. MR. DAVIS-This is the original brochure from when I purchased the house. On the last line it says fenced in yard with forever wild in the back yard. MR. HENKEL-Your backyard. MR. DAVIS-So there technically is no forever wild zone? MR. MC CABE-So you could go to the Town of Queensbury zoning map and you can see how the areas are zoned, and I’d be surprised if you could find a section deemed forever wild. MR. DAVIS-So we’ve got local realtors selling property telling potential buyers that if you purchase this property, you’re never going to have anybody build behind you because it’s forever wild. MR. MC DEVITT-Realtors plural. You said it was two, two realtors. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. MC DEVITT-So there are more than one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I ask a question of Staff? Is it currently LC-42? MRS. MOORE-That parcel? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-No, it is not. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not. MRS. MOORE-No, it’s MDR. MR. DAVIS-So it’s always been zoned MDR? MR. MC CABE-No, that’s the problem. The MDR zoning came about with the new plan probably 10 years ago. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I believe that property has been zoned MDR for quite a while . I don’t think it’s changed zone in the new plan, or the past new plan. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. MC CABE-All right. So Moderate Density Residential two acre lot. That’s the way it’s zoned. MR. DAVIS-That’s the way it’s currently zoned. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. DAVIS-And they’re looking to shrink those lots down in size. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. DAVIS-Is there any way to access maps to this? MR. MC CABE-Sure, on the Queensbury Town website. MRS. MOORE-If you have additional questions you can contact the Planning and Zoning Office and talk with me. My name is Laura Moore. So if you have additional questions, I’m happy to answer them. MR. DAVIS-I certainly will. MRS. MOORE-Thanks. MR. DAVIS-Thank you very much for your time. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Seeing no one, I’m going to leave the public hearing open and we’re going to move on to AV 3-2022. The applicant’s name is Patrick Connors. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 SEQRA TYPE II PATRICK M. CONNORS AGENT(S) DANIEL W. RYAN, P.E. OWNER(S) PATRICK M. CONNORS ZONING WR LOCATION 95 ROCKHURST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING DECK OF 644 SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A 644 SQ. FT. DECK IN THE SAME LOCATION. THE DECK IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AND HAS A PATIO AREA UNDERNEATH. THE STEPS FROM THE DECK TO THE LOWER PATIO AREA ARE TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,890 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT MINUS THE DECK. THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE BOAT HOUSE STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 2-2022; AST 725-2021; AST 876-2021; AV 1454-20953; SP 61-88 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010; 179-4-080 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PATRICK CONNORS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2022, Patrick M. Connors, Meeting Date: January 26, 2022 “Project Location: 95 Rockhurst Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in the same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps from the deck to the lower patio area are to be in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. footprint minus the deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.25 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-4-080 decks, 179-13-010 expansion The deck is to be 40.94 ft. from the shoreline and 8.39 ft. from the side property line. The shoreline setback requirement is 50 ft. and the side setback requirement is 20 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the existing house location and the previous deck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal to moderate. The relief requested is 9.1 ft. to the shoreline, 11.61 ft. to the North property line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is to remove an existing deck to construct a new deck of 644 sq. ft. The applicant has provided site photos showing the existing deck to be removed and the site plans show the location of the new deck.” MR. RYAN-Dan Ryan, the project engineer. I’m here with Patrick Connors, the applicant. I’ll give you a brief overview of the project and I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. RYAN-Basically we have an existing 644 square foot deck. It’s elevated. So there’s a walkout basement underneath it with a large patio slab and the deck is elevated off the rear or lakeside of the house. The deck’s in dire need of repair. There’s parts of the deck that have settled several inches. So the deck is actually sloping and there’s quite a few members that need to be replaced due to deterioration over the years. It’s over 20 years old I believe at this point. The disrepair is to the point where the deck cannot be classified as a repair. Basically it has to be entirely disassembled so that the rim joist and some settled piers can be replaced. So it really makes no sense to do parts of it rather than the entirety of the deck structure. So the game plan really is to remove the existing deck and then re-build it in its exact same configuration. Basically no changes, other than maybe the style of the handrail and types of materials used and to replace a couple of sonotube piers that have settled substantially and we want to get those corrected, and other than that there is no other site work proposed or no other project changes really. The stair configuration will remain the same as will the deck dimensions. Because of the fact that the deck is being removed in its entirety, the Town Code classifies this as new construction. Thus we’re here for variances for basically the existing conditions. Patrick, do you want to say anything quickly? MR. CONNORS-No, other than to say I bought the house from Roger Howard in 2011. I think the deck might be from the 1990’s. As Dan said it needs to be replaced. MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. CONNORS-I would say, too, there’s a beautiful tree that’s there that the deck is built around and we’re going to obviously preserve that. I think we have to preserve that. Roger told me that he wanted to tear that tree down. So we’re going to keep the tree. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Are you doing, since you’re doing this any additional landscaping? MR. RYAN-There’s no land disturbance proposed, other than removing a couple of piers and replacing them with pre-cast piers. So there wasn’t any additional site work intended. So there would be no removal of any existing vegetation. So there wasn’t any proposal to replace anything. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve got a question. Obviously you’ve probably checked that concrete that’s been there for a long period of time that’s going to be all right when you start removing the existing deck and obviously building a new deck over it. There’s not going to be any problem with that? MR. RYAN-Yes, it’s like over 12 inches thick. It’s a pretty massive concrete pad. So there a couple of piers that are off the pad, just off the edge of it, and those are the ones getting replaced. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that would be the only reason I’d have a problem with it is if that had to be removed then I would want that deck to be smaller, but I’m okay with the deck the way it is, as long as that concrete pad is okay. MR. RYAN-We looked into that and the posts do sit right on that pad. MR. HENKEL-Fair enough. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised on this particular project. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project. Go ahead, Chris. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’re not opposed to the project that is requesting a variance, but we feel that the re-development and re- construction is an opportunity to bring properties that may not have the water quality protection measures by the Town’s regulations, implement those, such as stormwater or the landscape shoreline buffering. So we feel that there is the ability to impose conditions on that, and not alter the intention of what the project is or their, you know, overbearance. So we feel that to what extent non=structural practices can be put in, like a rain garden or stormwater planters that would be best for the lake. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So could I ask Staff, would that be better taken care of by the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-We would have to make a recommendation, wouldn’t we? MRS. MOORE-You already received a recommendation from the Planning Board, but typically that is handled by the Planning Board. There’s a count that comes about when evaluating that project, but if you include in there that additional plantings should be included, directed at the Planning Board, you could potentially do that, but really it’s taken up by the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-So if you guys want to come back. Do you have any comment as to? MR. URRICO-I have another letter. I have a letter to read in. MR. MC CABE-We better get that in quick, then. MR. URRICO-And also I didn’t read this earlier, but the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, th and that was passed unanimously on January 18, 2022, and then the letter they have says, “I am writing in support of the project proposed by the Connors. Rebuilding an existing deck structure on its current footprint due to a need for improved structural integrity should be deemed as “maintenance” and I hope that the Boards will agree. Since moving to Rockhurst, the Connors have been diligent about keeping their property maintained and this necessary rebuild will keep their home both safe an attractive. Thank you for your consideration. Steve and Debby Seaboyer, 83 Rockhurst Rd.” Okay. I’m done. MR. RYAN-Okay. In response, obviously there’s always a benefit if the project proposes site work to do additional site work to increase water quality. Here I would say we have a patio made of concrete. They don’t salt it. There’s really no reason to try to improve water quality. It’s rain discharging directly to a lawn that’s 40 feet of well-established grass before it hits water. Creating land disturbance for no reason doesn’t seem to me as protecting the lake. I think the preference would be to maintain as much of the existing site and vegetation as possible from the project as opposed to disturbing more land. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-And you did say the piers there are going to stay on the cement. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-They’re not going to be re-located to the grass. MR. RYAN-No change. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Just the other piers are going to be the ones. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. RYAN-A couple along the side. MR. HENKEL-On the north side. Okay. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. It’s a simple replacement, and I would make a recommendation, though, that on your front line there you probably could, I don’t know how much runoff you’ll accumulate from this, probably minimal anyway. MR. RYAN-Yes, I mean a typical storm is a couple of inches of rain. Obviously we design for the 100 year storm, five inches of rain over 10 feet. So it’s not a ton of water. Again, it’s over a 24 hour period. So it’s pretty minimal. MR. UNDERWOOD-The slope is at least 40 feet away. I mean, that’s a consideration of the property owner to maybe add a little bit of vegetation, a couple of plants or some flowers, a flower bed halfway down or something like that. I don’t think it would hinder you mowing your grass. MR. RYAN-There are a couple of walls that stage their way down to the water line. So it is already broken up and fragmented to kind of trap water and allow some time for it to infiltrate before it does get to the lakefront. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in general it would be nice on Rockhurst if people put a couple of smaller bushes or trees that you can clip the tops off so you don’t impede their view. MR. RYAN-And I think you can tell by all the photos now, there hasn’t been any issues with erosion. He does have quite a bit of forested area along the south side of the house as well that’s always remained as well. It’s pretty well landscaped and the grass is well established, but point taken for sure in terms of maybe his future planning. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I respect Chris Navitsky’s concerns, but I think we’re just replacing something that needs to be replaced, and I’d be in favor of it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well I specifically did ask the question about landscaping because you’re keeping your permeability the same, but there is some room for improvement there. You aren’t actually up to Code on that. It is 70, right? MR. RYAN-Seventy percent. MRS. HAMLIN-And 75 is required. So that’s the only thing. I agree with what Jim said. I mean it’s good to stabilize soil when it’s disturbed, silt fence and whatever. A little additional landscaping wouldn’t be a problem for me, but on the other hand it is an in kind replacement and that’s just my suggestion and it would be nice if the Planning Board could take that up. If I don’t have the votes, I don’t. MR. MC CABE-So are you saying that you support the project? MRS. HAMLIN-I support the project. I’d love to see a condition on maybe adding some landscaping to help with the permeability, but if nobody else is in favor of it, I’ll still be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I support the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as presented. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think our main consideration is we have a deck that’s in tough shape and needs to be replaced and I think that really should be the first consideration here. So I support the project. So it looks like you’ve got some good numbers here. So I’m going to ask, Brent, would you make a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patrick M. Connors. Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in the same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps from the deck to the lower patio area are to be in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. footprint minus the deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.25 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-4-080 decks The deck is to be 40.94 ft. from the shoreline and 8.39 ft. from the side property line. The shoreline setback requirement is 50 ft. and the side setback requirement is 20 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 19, 2022 & Wednesday, January 26, 2022. 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 discussed we’re talking about some handrails and some piers. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are limited due to existing house location and the previous deck. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. If anything it’s minimal to moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It, again, will have a minimal impact at best. It appears to be an improvement with the railings and the piers and bringing a property back that just needs a little bit of work to it. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 PATRICK M. CONNORS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 1-2022, David Hatin. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID HATIN OWNER(S) DAVID HATIN ZONING NR LOCATION 17 ZENAS DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 720 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE WITH AN EXISTING HOME OF 936 SQ. FT. THAT HAS AN ATTACHED GARAGE. PROJECT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA TO THE NEW GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF AV 23- 2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.12-3- 56 SECTION 179-5-020 DAVID HATIN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2022, David Hatin, Meeting Date: January 26, 2021 “Project Location: 17 Zenas Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. second garage with an existing home of 936 sq. ft. that has an attached garage. Project includes additional driveway area to the new garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second garage. Parcel is located in the Neighborhood Residential zone NR – Cresthaven Subdivision 5-1978. Parcel is 11,815 sq. ft. Section 179-5-020 garage Proposal is for a 720 sq. ft. detached garage and existing attached garage is 264 sq. ft. according to RPS. 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 are limited due to the configuration of the house and the location of the existing attached garage. The applicant has indicated the existing driveway is to be expanded so it will access the new garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The total garage square footage with both garages is 984 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed for 1 garage is 1,100 sq. ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage that is to be 720 sq. ft. The information submitted indicates the site has an existing single family home with an attached garage. The location of the proposed garage does not interfere with the backyard or septic system. The parcel is located in an existing Cresthaven subdivision.” MR. HATIN-The application is pretty self-explanatory. MR. MC CABE-You’ve got to identify yourself first. MR. HATIN-I’m sorry. Dave Hatin. The application is pretty self-explanatory. I need a variance for a second garage. I actually had this approved back in 2013. Due some unforeseen circumstances, my wife and I were considering selling the home, we didn’t pursue the second garage. So I’ve reapplied basically for that re-approval.. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. HENKEL-Could you tell us what that original project that was approved was? Was that a two car garage or a one? MR. HATIN-Two car garage. It was actually. MRS. MOORE-It was identical. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this particular project. Seeing no one, do we have any written communication, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are no letters. MR. MC CABE-So at that particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I really didn’t think it was that big a deal to begin with other than the lot is very small, but he got a previous approval. I guess I would go along with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application. The total garage area is under what would be for one garage. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with my Board members. Yes. MR. MC CABE-And I can’t okay this, just to be consistent, because in general I’ve looked for a much bigger lot for a second garage, but I’m only one vote. So you’ve got more than enough. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Jim for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Hatin. Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. second garage with an existing home of 936 sq. ft. that has an attached garage. Project includes additional driveway area to the new garage. Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Parcel is located in the Neighborhood Residential zone NR – Cresthaven Subdivision 5-1978. Parcel is 11,815 sq. ft. Section 179-5-020 garage Proposal is for a 720 sq. ft. detached garage and existing attached garage is 264 sq. ft. according to RPS. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 26, 2022. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) 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 were considered of not having a second garage, but the total cumulative garage square footage is less than that of a single standard garage approved by the Town. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it’s a second garage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 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. 1- 2022 DAVID HATIN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-In the paper it looks like you’re going to remove a shed. Is that what it is? MR. HATIN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-So you’re going to no longer have a shed. You’re going to have just that two car garage in the back. MR. HATIN-If anyone would like one, I would be happy to give it to you. MR. HENKEL-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico NOES: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. HATIN-Thank you, everyone. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 4-2022, Steve Dempsey, 3239 State Route 9L. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE DEMPSEY AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STEVE DEMPSEY ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 3239 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY AN APPROVED ADDITION AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING 1,905 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. THE FIRST FLOOR ADDITION OF 104 SQ. FT. AND SECOND FLOOR 358 SQ. FT. ALLOWS IT TO ALIGN WITH THE FIRST FLOOR. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW DECK OF 444 SQ. FT. AND TO CONVERT A SCREEN PORCH TO 123 SQ. FT. FOR A BATHROOM ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 26-2021; RC 715-2021; SEP 479-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2022, Steve Dempsey, Meeting Date: January 26, 2022 “Project Location: 3239 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to modify an approved addition and alteration to an existing 1,905 sq. ft. (footprint) home. The first floor addition of 104 sq. ft. and second floor 358 sq. ft. allows it to align with the first floor. The project includes a new deck of 444 sq. ft. and to convert a screen porch to 123 sq. ft. for a bathroom addition. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition and second story residential addition in the Rural Residential zone –RR-5A. The parcel is 1.05 acres. Section 179-3-040- dimensional The additions to the existing home where the new addition is to be 33 ft. to the west property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and is to be 32 ft. to the rear setback where 100 ft. is required. The deck is to be 33 ft. to the west property line where 75 ft. is required and 26 ft. to the rear property line where 100 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the house on a 1.05 ac parcel. The parcel is located in the Rural Residential 5 ac zone, where almost any work on the home would require a variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the west setback for both the deck and the addition is 42 ft. The rear setback relief for the addition is 68 ft. and the deck is 74 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may not be considered self-created as the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming parcel. Staff comments: The applicant had updated the plans so the second story addition would align with the first story of the existing home. The interior alterations are proposed to have living space on the main floor propose to improve an existing home with a second story addition, alterations to the main floor and a new deck. The plans show the interior renovation floor plan and the location of the additions and deck to the existing home.” MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. Here on behalf of owner/applicant Steve Dempsey and we were both here together in May where this Board did approve the variances requested at that time and what has occurred subsequently is in doing the detailed design of the house addition, the applicant had to make a few changes, and they’re minimal changes dimensionally but they were enough to earn us a trip back to see this Board. MR. MC CABE-We’re always happy to see you. MR. HUTCHINS-So the big thing was that, and if you look at these two renderings, this is the rear of the house, and the lower one is what we brought to you in May and they decided that that was going to be, there was going to be a constructability issue with that second floor being inside, offset inside the first floor wall so what they did is align the two walls, which created a little bit more volume on the upper level of the addition which was enough of a change to get us back here. Dimensionally, the variances haven’t changed. Actually dimensionally one variance did change. The one to the western property line, the side setback went from 33 to 32, but the project is simply the same. They did refine the house plans. The old house is not squared plumb level or any of those things and that had some impact on putting together 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) plans, and Mr. Dempsey would just like to be able to save this old house and this makes more sense than the plan that you saw, and with that I’d ask for your support for our variance. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-What is the height of the building at its peak, do you know? MR. HUTCHINS-I don’t know if I have that dimension. MRS. HAMLIN-I know you’re not asking for height. MR. HUTCHINS-I’m not asking for height and it’s not the Waterfront Residential zone. MR. HENKEL-It says 35 feet. When you guys changed this, doesn’t it make more sense the first one you did compared to the second one? Because that water is going to shed into that door now? The bottom one that you have here has a projection for that doorway. That water is going to come off that roof into that door. MR. HUTCHINS-There may be a gutter there. MR. HENKEL-The way you have the other one that’s got a lip there that’s going to protect that doorway. Now you’re going to have all that water coming off the roof right into that doorway. That’s going to be a problem. MR. HUTCHINS-Well we’d still have water coming off the upper roof, with either design. MR. HENKEL-So if you have water dripping down the side of a house, that’s creates a problem. That other sheds it away. We’ve had places we’ve had to build out to protect that from the water coming straight down. I mean if that’s what they want. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who has input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’ll poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-It seems like we’ve been here before, I guess we have almost. I’d be in favor of this project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt the way the position of the house when it was put on the lot was going to create any kind of problem with setbacks probably in the future. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Actually aesthetically I like the design better. So yes, I’m in favor, it’s minor. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think what’s being asked for is minimum. So at this particular time, I’m going to ask Cathy if you’d make a motion for us. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve Dempsey. Applicant proposes to modify an approved addition and alteration to an existing 1,905 sq. ft. (footprint) home. The first floor addition of 104 sq. ft. and second floor 358 sq. ft. allows it to align with the first floor. The project includes a new deck of 444 sq. ft. and to convert a screen porch to 123 sq. ft. for a bathroom addition. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition and second story residential addition in the Rural Residential zone –RR-5A. The parcel is 1.05 acres. Section 179-3-040- dimensional The additions to the existing home where the new addition is to be 33 ft. to the west property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and is to be 32 ft. to the rear setback where 100 ft. is required. The deck is to be 33 ft. to the west property line where 75 ft. is required and 26 ft. to the rear property line where 100 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 26, 2022. 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 really have not been considered as we previously approved it. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 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. 4-2022 STEVE DEMPSEY, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project again. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is SV 1-2022, Ayzo Ridge, Town Fair Tire Centers of New York. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2022 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AYZO RIDGE AGENT(s) BRIDGETTE SHOEMAKER OWNER(S) TOWN FAIR TIRE CENTERS OF NEW YORK LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 863 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 124.5 SQ. FT. TOWN AIR TIRE SIGN ON A PROPOSED BUILDING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE INSTALLATION OF A FREESTANDING SIGN THAT IS TO BE 42.5 SQ. FT. THE SIGNS ARE TO BE RED, BLACK, AND WHITE; THE WALL SIGN IS TO BE RED LETTERING. THE SIGNS ARE TO BE INTERNALLY LIT. THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS TO BE 7,269 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF SIGN. CROSS REF AV 30-2021; SP 32-2021; SP 39-2019; CC 760-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2022 LOT SIZE 1.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-34 SECTION 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 1-2022, Ayzo Ridge, Meeting Date: January 26, 2022 “Project Location: 863 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 124.5 sq. ft. Town Fair Tire sign on a proposed building. The project includes the installation of a freestanding sign that is to be 42.5 sq. ft. The signs are to be red, black, and white; the wall sign is to be red lettering. The signs are to be internally lit. The proposed building is to be 7,269 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of wall sign. Parcel is located in Commercial Intensive Zone, CI; parcel is 1.2 acres. Chapter 140 – signs The applicant proposes a 124.5 sq. ft. wall sign where a 30 sq. ft. wall sign is the maximum allowed. The sign is to be LED interior lit with red channel lettering. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the sign to a compliant size. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 94.5 square feet 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 have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 124.5 sq. ft. wall sign for the new proposed Town Fair Tire building. The proposed building is to be 7,269 sq. ft. and received approvals in 2021. The sign located on the building would be located at least 57.4 feet from the front setback; the proposed building received a setback variance. The plans show the type of sign and the location of the sign.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper with John Wypychoski from Town Fair Tire. As Roy just read, we got all our approvals last year and they’re ready to get started as soon as spring arrives. The reason for the variance is just because of the way this building sits on a curve. It’s on a high speed part of Upper Glen Street. It’s setback 57 feet at the closest point and sort of sits down into the site, and they just feel, people are going to be driving by quickly, and, just when you look at the front, if you had, that’s 124 square feet. If it was a 30 square foot sign you just would hardly see it. They’re new in this market, coming from New England into New York, and they just feel that the 30 square feet is inadequate. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. MC CABE-So you don’t have all the people that came to the last meeting. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. That’s a good sign. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-How much wiggle room do you have? MR. LAPPER-How much wiggle room do I need? MR. URRICO-About 95 square feet. MR. LAPPER-There is an alternative at 92 square feet which would be 30 inch letters instead of 36 inch letters. It would be 36 inch, these are 42 inch letters and that would be 36. So if we went down to 36 inch letters it would be 92 square feet. That’s really the smallest that they could live with because of the visibility, just on the front of the building. MR. HENKEL-The freestanding sign is what’s going to attract the people. Where it’s tucked away, it’s really going to be hard to see that on the wall. MR. LAPPER-It cuts both ways, though. MR. HENKEL-The freestanding sign it’s what’s really going to draw the people. MR. LAPPER-That’s a pretty small sign, 42 square feet. MRS. HAMLIN-Could I ask a question? On these plans you show this graphic here. Does anybody know what the letter signs would have been on this particular graphic? It’s not the one you have right in the beginning. Visually it just looks, it looks smaller. MRS. MOORE-So I can actually answer that. So when the applicant came before the Planning Board in 2021, we identified that sign originally as being non-compliant, the original sign package that came to us. So at that point the applicant had proposed a 30 square foot sign. So that’s a 30 square foot sign. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s a 30 square foot sign. MRS. MOORE-That’s what 30 square feet looks like. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s all I wanted to know. That’s too small for me, for the aesthetic. JOHN WYPYCHOSKI MR. WYPYCHOSKI-I’m John Wypychoski from Town Fair Tire. That was going to be my comment.. That is not proportionate. It’s too small and we’d be a little embarrassed to put our shingle out there. So we feel 36 inch letter would be our minimum, and that’s our average throughout our company. So if you guys see fit to give us a 36. MR. LAPPER-That’s 92 square feet. MR. WYPYCHOSKI-And that would be more proportionate, you know, it fits that. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who would like to comment on this particular project. Roy, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to close the public hearing at this particular time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board and then we’ll do the SEQR. So I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-I’ve looked at this a couple of different ways, and I’m in favor as it’s proposed. I look at it and I see a commercial zone there. I know it’s a competitive market out there right now for any business that’s coming into our community. So I’m okay with the variance as it is, at the 42. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I agree with what Brent said. I mean I saw, you know, I feel like the letters as it is would be the most appropriate and I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think this is way over what should be considered. This is 95 feet, almost 95 square feet in excess, and they’re not the only tire place in Town. So are we going to do every tire place sign nearby or every commercial intensive business nearby? I don’t think that’s proper. I think typically what happens is businesses new to the area come in and request something way over the top, hoping that we compromise somewhere in the middle, and this doesn’t seem to be a compromise at all. This seems to be a bad grab for space and I’m not going to be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. However, that other picture being to scale, I don’t think in this particular case, just from the aesthetics, that the normal size, the maximum size would work here, but I don’t think 92 is enough of a compromise, and I wouldn’t want to approve anything that I didn’t see a rendering anyway, just to see it, to me. So I think you’ve got to go down more than 92, and I wouldn’t vote for it tonight. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I think if the building was much bigger then I’d be okay with it, 124.5 square feet, but I would okay with the, like Brent said, business is tough, competition is tough. I would be happy if you could go down to the 92 square feet. So I would be on board with that, not at the 124. 5. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the recommendation to go to the 36 inch letters is reasonable. It’s meeting us part way there. You are set back significantly from the road. It makes more sense to have larger signage. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the 36 inch letters, shrinking the letters down. MR. HENKEL-So that would be 92 square feet then, right? MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, John, I’m going to ask for a SEQR motion. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 1-2022. APPLICANT NAME: AYZO RIDGE (FOR TOWN FAIR TIRE), BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So, Brady, would you give us a motion on the Sign Variance? MR. STARK-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Before that, can I just clarify the square footage? So you’re talking about, is it 92.5 square feet with the 36 inch height letters? Is that correct? MR. HENKEL-92 or 92.5? MR. LAPPER-Okay. So what I’m hearing it it’s 92.5 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) MRS. MOORE-92.5 square feet. We round up. Sorry. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll do that 92.5 as a condition. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ayzo Ridge (for Town Fair Tire). Applicant proposes to install a 124.5 sq. ft. 92.5 sq. ft. Town Fair Tire sign on a proposed building. The project includes the installation of a freestanding sign that is to be 42.5 sq. ft. The signs are to be red, black, and white; the wall sign is to be red lettering. The signs are to be internally lit. The proposed building is to be 7,269 sq. ft. Relief is requested for size of sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of wall sign. Parcel is located in Commercial Intensive Zone, CI; parcel is 1.2 acres. Chapter 140 – signs The applicant proposes a 124.5 sq. ft. 92.5 sq. ft. wall sign where a 30 sq. ft. wall sign is the maximum allowed. The sign is to be LED interior lit with red channel lettering. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 1-2022. Applicant Name: Ayzo Ridge (for Town Fair Tire), based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 26, 2022; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No. The addition of the sign will not impact the surrounding area in a major way. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Feasible alternatives have been considered and we have decided to reduce the square footage of the sign to 92.5 square feet with 36 inch letters. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It could be considered substantial relative to the Code. However we have decided to reduce the square footage of the sign. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, the sign variance will not alter the neighborhood’s physical or environmental conditions. 5. Is the alleged difficulty could be considered self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The letters on the sign will be 36 inches and the overall sign will total 92.5 square feet. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (ZBA Board Member does not need to read the following A through E): A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE 1-2022, AYZO RIDGE, Introduced by Brady Stark , who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 26 Day of January 2022, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Did you have a rendition of that square footage? MR. LAPPER-I do. MRS. MOORE-I know that, it sounded like there was one Board member that wanted to see that. MR. LAPPER-I’ll send it to you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Do you have a physical copy, if that works? MR. LAPPER-I have it right here. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s 36. Okay. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stark, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. MC CABE-So I guess it’s tradition, and I blew it last meeting, to talk about our goals for the year, and I think last year was kind of tough in that our normal sources of training weren’t available to us, but I have to say I utilized a couple of the suggestions that Laura made, and they were ZOOM meetings, but they were really pretty interesting. So I guess if we could continue that for our training for 2022 that would be very helpful. I still would like to see some input from Counsel, just talking about the decisions that we’re making. Are we making good motions? Are we being consistent, or are we vacillating a little bit too much? And then the other thing is it looks like we’re going to be shorthanded until the end of April. Is that when Ron indicated he was coming back? MRS. MOORE-That’s my understanding, and I understand also that the Town Board is aware that we need another alternate. So it’s still out there, but we are missing, we only have one alternate at this point, and that the Zoning Board could use two. MR. MC CABE-Well, because I’m going to miss the second meeting in February and possibly the second meeting in March. So be aware that we’ll be short those two meetings. So other than that, I feel pretty good about our responses in 2021, and I think there’s room for improvement. I think we can make stronger 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) motions and that’s what I hope we strive for in 2022. With that, I’ll make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TH JANUARY 26, 2022, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 26 day of January, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 24