Loading...
06-29-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE29Tr,2022 INDEX Area Variance No.23-2022 Tyler Converse l.. Tax Map No. 30S.6-1-51&30S.6-1-52 Area Variance No.26-2022 Steve Dempsey 4. Tax Map No.2391E-1-49 Area Variance No.2S-2022 Robert&Jean Tarrant 7. Tax Map No.22612-1-S2 Area Variance No. 30-2022 Daniel Zotto&Carrie Hedderman 11. Tax Map No.2S9.9-1-S6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 29TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL CATHERINE HAMLIN MEMBERS ABSENT BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,June 29`h,2022. Our procedure is pretty simple if you haven't been here before. There should be an agenda on the back table. What we'll do is call each application up, read the application into our records, allow the applicant to present his or her case. We'll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we'll open the public hearing,seek input from the public,close the public hearing,poll the Board to see where we stand on the project and then proceed accordingly. So our first case is AV 23-2022,Tyler Converse, 3 April Lane. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.23-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 TYLER CONVERSE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN&z STEVES OWNER(S) TYLER CONVERSE&z ROBERTA CONVERSE ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 APRIL LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO EXISTING LOTS. PARCEL 51 WILL INCREASE FROM 0.49 TO 1.08 ACRES AND PARCEL 52 WILL BE REDUCED BY 0.50 ACRES. PARCEL 51 WILL HAVE AN EXISTING HOUSE WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,008 SQ. FT. AND A DETACHED GARAGE OF 3,515 SQ. FT.; PARCEL 52 WILL HAVE 5 HOMES AND ASSOCIATED OUT BUILDINGS TO REMAIN. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF DETACHED GARAGE,SECOND GARAGE AND SETBACK FOR HOUSE. CROSS REF UV 1-1992;SB 16-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.49 AC. (51) &z 3.79 AC. (52) TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-51 &z 308.6-1-52. SECTION 179-5- 020;179-3-040 MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2022, Tyler Converse, Meeting Date: June 29, 2022 "Project Location: 3 April Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing lots. Parcel 51 will increase from 0.49 to LOS acres and Parcel 52 will be reduced by 0.59 acres. Parcel 51 will have an existing house with an attached garage totaling 3,OOS sq. ft. and a detached garage of 3,515 sq. ft.;Parcel 52 will have 5 homes and associated outbuildings to remain. Relief is requested for size of detached garage,second garage, and setback for house. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of detached garage,second garage,and setback for house on adjoining parcel due to lot line adjustment. The parcels are located in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-5-020 garage The applicant proposes to maintain two garages where one is attached to the existing home and the other is detached. In addition,the detached garage exceeds the garage size allowed where it is 3,515 sq. ft. and allowed is 1,100 sq. ft. The lot adjustment creates a variance for the Main House as labeled on the survey where 12 ft.is proposed and 25 ft.is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) 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 being considered may be limited due to the location of the existing home and detached garage on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minor where 13 ft.of relief is being requested for a setback and moderate relief for the garage that exceeds the allowed size by 2415 sq.ft.for the detached garage. 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 a lot line adjustment so the detached garage and existing home are to be on one parcel. The plans show the location of the homes and accessory buildings on both parcels. The plans also show the lean-to structure at the road is to be removed. There are no changes to the other structures on the parcels." MR. MC CABE-Is the applicant here? MR. WEBSTER-Hi. My name is Matthew Webster with VanDusen and Steves Land Surveyors here on behalf of Mr. Converse, and thank you for that wonderful introduction, Mr. Urrico. That about summarized the technicalities of it. Essentially what's going on here is that this was a kind of a family estate,and overtime everyone had their own house. They improved upon their house,everything like that, but Mr. Converse owned what was kind of an out parcel with his garage on it,while living next door and not actually owning the land underneath. Now that his mother has passed he's looking to kind of clean everything up, make sure that he owns the land underneath his house. So he's proposing this lot line adjustment to kind of clean things up, and regarding the lean-to, I know there had been previous conversations about removing it, but what he's actually hoping to do is just leave that line where it is, because that lean-to really is his old shed and where he stores the equipment that he uses to maintain his property which is for the benefit of everyone in the area. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-Could I ask a question? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MR.KUHL-Thank you. What's the history on the size of the garage? It seems awful large. MR.WEBSTER-Yes,that garage was definitely pre-existing Queensbury zoning if you will. I don't know if you've been to the site. I don't know exactly what year it was built, but it was built before having conformance. MR.KUHL-What are the uses for it,I guess,Matthew,is my question. MR.WEBSTER-He has a lot of equipment that's used to maintain this entire area. MR.KUHL-His own personal,or is it a business going out of,working out of there? MR.WEBSTER-I believe it's personal. MR.KUHL-You believe? I mean,you're going on record here. You're saying that that 3500 foot garage is used for personal use? MR. WEBSTER-Yes,I mean I can't guarantee that he doesn't do jobs up there,but I can certainly clarify that. MR.KUHL-All right. Thank you. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) MR.MC CABE-Anybody else? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'll open the public hearing, see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. 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 Jim. MR. MC CABE-I think everything's pre-existing on site here. I think what it really amounts to is just a boundary line adjustment and I think the size of the garage,being oversized,has not caused a problem in the past so it's not going to cause any problems now, since he's going to own it anyway. He previously owned it prior. So I'd be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS.HAMLIN-I think it's,you know,we're creating one setback issue but trading another one. It's just a lot line adjustment. So I will vote in favor of granting this request. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I don't know,I still have some questions about this large garage. It doesn't seem like we've got a really straight answer on. So I'm reluctant to approve something without really knowing what the use is going to be of that second garage. So I'm going to say no. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I realize that the representative here has suggested or talked about what he believes it is but really doesn't know. I understand the fact that they want to straighten out some lines and get things straight,but I like the little clarification on the larger garage. So I'm not in favor right now. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-It is kind of a weird situation. I understand what Roy's saying. I think if that was a Town road that would bother me more,but that is a private road,obviously. Right? That's what it said,I went through two signs that said it was private. Like I said if it was a Town road I would definitely be against this,but being a private road,I would accept it as it is. MR. MC CABE-And it's obvious that this situation has existed there for a long time. The garage has existed therefor along time. I see that there was a Use Variance associated with this property. So I would assume at some time there must have been some business run out of that,but I didn't see any evidence of that when I took a look at it. So I support the project. MR.HENKEL-Do you know what the Special Use Permit was? MR. MC CABE-I did not do any research. It wasn't Special Use. It was a Use Variance. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I don't know what it is. There is,it'll take me a second to go find it. So it's no longer a Use Variance, as far as I know, if it didn't exist, and I apologize, I don't know what it is. It would be negated, and again,for that garage,this Board,I mean our office hasn't received any,typically if someone's running a business out of a garage their neighbors would. MR. MC CABE-It doesn't seem like any of his neighbors really complained. So it seems like they're all family. So,Jim,I'm going to ask for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tyler Converse. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing lots. Parcel 51 will increase from 0.49 to LOS acres and Parcel 52 will be reduced by 0.59 acres. Parcel 51 will have an existing house with an attached garage totaling 3,OOS sq.ft. and a detached garage of 3,515 sq.ft.;Parcel 52 will have 5 homes and associated outbuildings to remain. Relief is requested for size of detached garage, second garage, and setback for house. Relief Required: 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) The applicant requests relief for size of detached garage,second garage,and setback for house on adjoining parcel due to lot line adjustment. The parcels are located in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-5-020 garage The applicant proposes to maintain two garages where one is attached to the existing home and the other is detached. In addition,the detached garage exceeds the garage size allowed where it is 3,515 sq. ft. and allowed is 1,100 sq. ft. The lot adjustment creates a variance for the Main House as labeled on the survey where 12 ft.is proposed and 25 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 29,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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. Everything will remain as it is. 2. Feasible alternatives,there won't be any real change in size except for the lot line adjustment. The other homes are all owned by family members and not on the previously larger lot. 3. The requested variance is not really deemed substantial because it's already existing. We're not adding or making it worse. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any. The garage is used for maintenance of the property, five acres plus,the two lots together. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because it already exists. It was pre-existing. 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,- S. 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. 23-2022 TYLER CONVERSE,Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 29th Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 26-2022,Steve Dempsey,3239 State Route 9L. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 STEVE DEMPSEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) STEVE DEMPSEY ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 3239 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 419 SQ.FT.GARAGE AND 60 SQ.FT.WORKSHOP ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOME DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPROVED ADDITIONS TO THE HOME. THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS PART OF AV 4- 2022. THE ADDITIONS INCLUDED A CONNECTION TO THE GARAGE AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS DETERIORATED AND IS NOT REPAIRABLE. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) THE GARAGE AND WORKSHOP ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A SIMILAR FOOTPRINT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 4-2022; AV 26-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-49. SECTION 179-3-040,179-5-020 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; STEVE DEMPSEY,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2022, Steve Dempsey, Meeting Date: June 29, 2022 "Project Location: 3239 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove the existing 419 sq. ft. garage and 60 sq. ft. workshop additions to the existing home during the construction of the approved additions to the home. The existing residential additions are currently under construction as part of AV 4-2022. The additions included a connection to the garage and it was determined that the foundation was deteriorated and is not repairable. The garage and workshop are to be constructed in a similar footprint. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a garage/workshop removal and rebuild in the Rural Residential zone—RR-SA. The parcel is 1.05 acres. Section 179-3-040-dimensional The new garage/shed addition would be 2.7 ft. from the side yard setback on the west side where a 75 ft. setback is required. The rear yard setback proposed is 24 ft.where a 100 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 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 setback variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial where relief for the side is 72.3 ft. and relief for the rear is 76 ft. The new structure is in the similar footprint as the old structure. 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 preexisting non-conforming parcel. Staff comments: The applicant had started to prepare for the additional work approved in January 2022 and learned the garage could not be repaired with the new construction proposed. The plans show the garage location and elevation along with the other improvements to the home. The additions will be consistent with the existing home." MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening,Board. I'm Tom Hutchins,here with owner/applicant Steven Dempsey and this is, I think, fairly straightforward. We were here back in January and again last summer. Mr. Dempsey purchased this property. He's doing a fine job of renovating an old house. It's going to be a very nice renovated old house. The garage,the original intent was to work with the structure that's there and as things have been opened up,exposed,and investigated it,it's,we're saying it's beyond reasonable repair. So what he proposes to do is re-build the garage on footprint, same area, but re-build it on a new foundation. So with that I think we'd turn it over to the Board for questions. Steven,if there's anything you want to add. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) MR. DEMPSEY-No,I think it's pretty straightforward. I was hoping to say save something on this house and save$2,but with a cracked foundation,we can't tie the new foundation into it. That's why we're back here. It's the last thing I wanted to do is replace the garage. That's where we're at. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-I think you can trust the Bromleys. The Bromleys are doing it,aren't they? MR. DEMPSEY-Yes. They're a good crew. MR.HENKEL-Yes,they are,good guys. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KUHL-What are you saying, Tom,you got approval for the addition and when you went in there the garage was all? Then you're looking for relief for the garage now because you're going to re-do your garage. MR.HUTCHINS-We're looking for relief to replace the garage instead of renovate the garage. MR.KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.HENKEL-I guess the neighbors don't have a problem with it? MR. DEMPSEY-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised. So I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular project. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron MR.KUHL-I have no issue as presented. You come into these situations trying to rehab older houses. It's the right thing to do,make it right. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes,I agree with Ron. I appreciate them coming in for the variance rather than going ahead with the project anyway. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS.HAMLIN-Yes. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-We thoroughly reviewed the project previously and I think we would have approved it had you asked for it before. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes,if this was a new project we probably wouldn't have allowed it to be built that way, but that was there way before zoning and codes and they're trying to fix a problem there. I think it's a good request. I'd be on board. MR.MC CABE-And so,I,too,support the project. I think we'd be negligent if we forced the construction on a shaky foundation and so I'm in favor of the project. Given that,I'm going to ask Ron to make a motion here. MR.KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve Dempsey. Applicant proposes to remove the existing 419 sq. ft. garage and 60 sq. ft. workshop additions to the existing home during the construction of the approved additions to the home. The existing residential additions are currently under construction as part of AV 4-2022. The additions included a connection to the garage and it was determined that the foundation was deteriorated and is not repairable. The garage and workshop are to be constructed in a similar footprint. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a garage/workshop removal and rebuild in the Rural Residential zone—RR-SA. The parcel is 1.05 acres. Section 179-3-040-dimensional The new garage/shed addition would be 2.7 ft. from the side yard setback on the west side where a 75 ft. setback is required. The rear yard setback proposed is 24 ft.where a 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 29,2022. 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. This variance was previously approved in January,and this is just an addition for work found to be negligent,if you will,under Code. 2. Feasible alternatives really are not. There are none, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the-request. 3. The requested variance really is not substantial as they are just re-building the existing structure. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really cannot be said to be self-created. It's just a product of the older construction and trying to do it right the first time. 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,- S. 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. 26-2022 STEVE DEMPSEY,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Underwood: Duly adopted this 29th Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. Again. MR. DEMPSEY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 28-2022,Robert and Jean Tarrant,308 Cleverdale Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.28-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROBERT&z JEAN TARRANT AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ROBERT &z JEAN TARRANT ZONING WR LOCATION 308 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) HOME AN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,005 SQ. FT. INCLUDING THE PORCH/DECK AREAS. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 2,266 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER AND LANDSCAPING. THE EXISTING GARAGE OF 365 SQ. FT. AND 220 SQ. FT. SHED ARE TO REMAIN. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 41-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.12-1-82 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT; ROBERT&JEAN TARRANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.25-2022,Robert&Jean Tarrant,Meeting Date: June 29,2022 "Project Location: 30S Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and to construct a new home with a footprint of 1,005 sq.ft.including the porch/deck areas. The new floor area is to be 2,266 sq. ft. includes the outbuilding to remain. Project includes a new septic system and site work for stormwater and landscaping.The existing garage of 365 sq.ft.and 220 sq.ft.shed are to remain. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the new home to be constructed in the Waterfront Residential zone WR. The parcel is 0.24 ac. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-4-OSO decks/porches The porch stairs are to be 37.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The house is to be 16.3 ft.from the north side and the garage is to be 1.0 ft.where a 20 ft. setback is required. The house is to be 15.5 ft. from the south side and the existing shed is to be 1.5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The garage is to be 6.5 ft.from the front setback where a 30 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 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 as the project is a new home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the shoreline setback is 12.5 ft. The north side relief for the house is 3.7 ft. and for the garage is 19 ft. The south side setback is 4.2 ft.for the house and the existing shed is IS.S ft. The garage relief is to be 23.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the new home with elevations and floor plans. The site work includes new septic, stormwater management, new plantings for the site. The applicant has indicated the house proposed is a smaller footprint than the original home that was constructed in the ISOO's." MR. DOBIE-Good evening,Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. Very happy to be here tonight with my clients,Robert and Jean Tarrant,30S Cleverdale. So if you'll just bear with me I'll give you a little history lesson on it. The property's been in this family since the 1940's and it's my understanding this home was built in ISSS. It's one of the oldest homes on Cleverdale and it's really showing its age quite honestly. It's a stone and mortar piered foundation that's leaning awfully bad. So 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) there's really no feasible way to try and jack this camp up and put anew foundation. It would ruin the camp. There's nothing level or square about it. They've put a lot of thought into it. They're retained an architect, Curt Dybas, to design a very similar style camp, a little bit smaller. This is the first project I believe I've ever done on the lake with a smaller footprint. It's much more conforming. We'll see a reduction in 435 square feet in footprint. With this project,it will bring the parcel,which is just under a quarter acre,50 foot lot,into conformance with floor area ratio,into conformance with permeability where it is not now. It's very rare that any of these Cleverdale lots are able to meet that. So I believe they made a nice concession, reducing the house footprint,pulling it back from the shore by a little over three feet, and then we've re-designed, very cognizantly, of the Adirondack Park Agency, because they have very strict requirements for non-conforming re-builds, that you're allowed to expand to the rear. They generally let you re-build in footprint. We're doing actually smaller than what's there and a little farther back. So we did make an inquiry to the Park Agency. They wrote us a letter saying it doesn't require a permit but they had review authorization of the findings of the local municipality. So I just wanted to get that on the record that we designed to their criteria, and with the balancing test, I believe it's a nice improvement to the neighborhood,bringing the home further away from the southerly neighbor. So that'll be a benefit for them, and we have an enhanced treatment wastewater system called Fuji Clean, and then a new field on the roadside where we received a slew of septic variances last month for the Town Board for that, and we're also providing stormwater management where there is none now and shoreline buffering. I guess the final main point I'd like to make is that the main body of the house, well the gable and the lakeside, the main body itself meets the 50 foot setbacks. So the relief, the shoreline relief, which we understand can cause heartburn, is for the porch, which is the first floor shed roof porch, and the stairs coming down, again, further back than what's there now. The average lot width is just over 60 feet. So that kicks us to the 20 foot side setbacks. If we were just under 60,it would be 15f feet and we wouldn't need the side setbacks,but that's the geometry of the parcel. We've been working on it almost a year on and off and there's a lot of pieces. I believe it's a very reasonable project. Everything fits together well. I believe it's a nice improvement to the neighborhood. So we're hereto ask for your approval on this tonight. We received a positive recommendation from the Planning Board last week. Their goal is to do the teardown after Labor Day and then get it buttoned up throughout the winter. So they'll be ready for next spring. The camp now has four bedrooms. This is going to three, a little bit of a less intensive use if you will. With that,I'd be happy to answer any questions from the Board. I appreciate your time tonight. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? And you didn't draw up Chris Navitsky. So you must have done a good job. 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 address this particular project. Was there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-Yes,there were three letters. "We are homeowners located at 302 Cleverdale Road and we completely support the variance the Tarrant's are requesting. Douglas and Susan Livingston" "We are in support of granting Bob and Jean Tarrant a variance to take down and build a new home on their property on Cleverdale Road, Cleverdale, NY. The Tarrant family have been strong advocates for maintaining the beauty of Lake George for as long as we have known them and their family....Which goes back generations. We believe a modern septic system has already been approved and the planned home design is smaller in size than the existing home. When have you seen that recently on the lake? I cannot remember. The design of the home will maintain the beautiful contiguous look of the neighbor's homes to the north and south of the property. We understand the new porch although closer than the fifty feet setback required from the lake will be where the existing porch is located. We believe this variance should be ok'd by the Board. The property has been a generational home whose owners have shown excellent stewardship of the lake and we would expect this to continue as the Tarrant's adult children are well educated as the home passes to them down the road. Thank you for serving on this public service Board. Amy and Dan Feeney Sandy Bay Onaway,LLC 296 Cleverdale Road Cleverdale,NY 12520" There's one more letter. "I write in complete and enthusiastic support of Robert and Jean Tarrant's request for the variances necessary for them to replace their current home {Tax ID # 226.12-1-52) with a new, updated, and more environmentally sound structure. Bob and Jean have been lifetime residents of the lake, as was Bob's father Bill and his (and my) grandfather, Frederick K. Tarrant, and their three adult children will likewise be excellent stewards of the lake as well.The Tarrant property has been a four-generational abode, and their investment in it and its systems are a testament to their commitment...and a cause for celebration among the neighbors who know and love them. The Tarrants have always put the health of the lake and their love and respect for community at the forefront of their lives here on Cleverdale, as evidenced by the care and thoughtfulness they have put into planning this project:the enlistment of extremely experienced, lake- sensitive professionals in design, the plan for a smaller footprint than the current structure, their insistence that the finished house be in keeping with neighborhood properties, and the complete transparency of their objectives with their neighbors before anything got started. While variance requests must be assessed on their merits, the variances sought by the Tarrants seem modest in light of the larger environmental benefits to be derived from the finished house. Especially vital,it seems,is the sequencing of elements of this project:their commitment to a state-of-the-art septic improvement(already approved) only makes sense if they can attend to the long-term viability of the house stationed below. The entire project,resulting in both a smaller footprint as well as a safe,updated septic system,is the kind of project 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) that will add environmental security to the lake for a very long time. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this letter, the Tarrants' appeal, and for the vital work you do in stewardship of our beautiful lake. Most appreciatively,Al Freihofer" 300 Cleverdale Road. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with John. MR.HENKEL-I was prepared to say that you needed less porch,but after listening to your neighbors and the engineer on this application,it definitely sounds like a good improvement and outweighs the negative part of it,and I would definitely be in favor of it as is. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we should support the application has it's been presented this evening. It's going to add a positive impact on both the property and the neighboring properties and it will be an improvement to the site. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I'm always really reticent to give an inch on the shoreline, but nonetheless, everything here,you've improved compliance all the way around. I would be voting in favor of this request. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm on board with the variance request. I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think if Freihofer says yes,I have to say yes. I mean he seemed to be a vocal person in that whole community, but anyway, yes. I think it's a good project. I like the fact that they've been good stewards of the lake and the neighbors support it. So I'd be in favor,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. Again I think it's impressive that you've tried to shrink an existing structure rather than expand it. So it sounds like we're set to go here. So I'm going to ask Cathy for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert&z Jean Tarrant. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and to construct a new home with a footprint of 1,005 sq. ft. including the porch/deck areas. The new floor area is to be 2,266 sq. ft. Project includes a new septic system and site work for stormwater and landscaping.The existing garage of 365 sq.ft.and 220 sq. ft. shed are to remain. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the new home to be constructed in the Waterfront Residential zone WR. The parcel is 0.24 ac. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-4-OSO decks/porches The porch stairs are to be 37.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The house is to be 16.3 ft.from the north side and the garage is to be 1.0 ft.where a 20 ft. setback is required. The house is to be 15.5 ft. from the south side and the existing shed is to be 1.5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The garage is to be 6.5 ft.from the front setback where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 29,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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. If anything, there is an increase in the desirable change to the character of the neighborhood. There's no detriment to nearby properties. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) 2. Feasible alternatives were not considered. This is a replacement almost in kind, and due to the size of the property there's really not too many alternatives. 3. The requested variance is not very substantial. It's less than 200/o from the shoreline and bringing the rest of the property closer to compliance at the very least if not beyond. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Especially with the added stormwater provisions. 5. The alleged difficulty can be considered self-created, but the house was from 1880. It was definitely before we had zoning. 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,- S. 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. 28-2022 ROBERT&z JEAN TARRANT,Introduced by Catherine Hamlin,who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 29th Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. TARRANT-Thank you so much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 30-2022, Daniel Zotto and Carrie Hedderman, 306 Glen Lake Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 DANIEL ZOTTO &z CARRIE HEDDERMAN OWNER(S) DANIEL ZOTTO &z CARRIE HEDDERMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 306 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. DECK TO BE ADDED TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME IS 798 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 1,326 SQ. FT. THE DECK IS TO BE LOCATED FACING THE SHORELINE AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 42-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO.2899-1-86 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-080;179-13-010 CARRIE HEDDERMAN,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 30-2022,Daniel Zotto&Carrie Hedderman, Meeting Date: June 29, 2022 "Project Location: 306 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. deck to be added to an existing home. The footprint of the home is 798 sq. ft. and floor area of 1,326 sq.ft. The deck is to be located facing the shoreline area. Site plan for new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of deck addition in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. The parcel is 0.29 ac. Section 179-4-080 decks/porches The 400 sq.ft. deck addition is to 21.5 ft.to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and 8 ft.to the east side property line where 15 ft.is required. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor relevant to the code. Relief requested for shoreline setback is 25.5 ft. and relief for the east property line is 7 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq.ft.deck addition to the existing home as shown on the survey. The deck is to be 12 inches off the ground per the plans. The deck will allow for additional space for deck items." MS. HEDDERMAN-Hi. I'm Carrie Hedderman,co-applicant. So to sum it up,just looking to put a 400 square foot deck on our existing home on the lakeside and we're asking for relief from that setback. MR.KUHL-You're going to take the chairs off the dock? MS. HEDDERMAN-I don't want to. If we need to. MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant? Does that bother you? MR.KUHL-No,no. It's something we used to do when I had a camp on Paradox. We always went down and sat by the water. MS. HEDDERMAN-Yes. MR.KUHL-Are you going to do it in wood? MS. HEDDERMAN-I think we're going to do the higher end of the Trex decking,just so no maintenance. MR.HENKEL-It's actually cheaper than the wood right now. MS. HEDDERMAN-Is it really? We haven't priced that out. MR.KUHL-Mr. Chairman,I should go to you,Laura. With the Trex,with the separations,does that give us any pervious? No? It is what it is. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a pretty big deck,16 by 25. Do you need to have it that wide? MS. HEDDERMAN-We don't. We were just doing that kind of for aesthetic purposes because it just married up with the edges of the house. Actually we were discussing it this weekend. If we do do it that wide,it doesn't give us access to the kayaks and things like that. So I think that was our ask. I don't know that we would actually do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean you're set back well from the water. So I don't think it's going to be an issue. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project? Seeing none,do we have any written? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no letters. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I'll 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 again,we're encroaching into the shoreline,but it seems like a very modest request. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-Yes,I really don't see this as a major issue. It is a large request because of the size of the deck that you're going to put out there,but I think that everybody understands that water goes through decks. It doesn't really change the runoff into the lake. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-No roofs to be set on top of it,right? MS. HEDDERMAN-No. MR.HENKEL-Yes,I'd be on board as is. If it had a roof on it,I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no issue. It's a natural thing. I know you enjoy the property now. You'll enjoy it that much more. I'm glad you're doing it with a good product. So I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project as is. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. It seems very reasonable. So given you have enough votes here. So I'm going to ask Ron if he'd make a motion. MR.KUHL-Why thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Daniel Zotto &z Carrie Hedderman. Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. deck to be added to an existing home. The footprint of the home is 79 S sq.ft.and floor area of 1,326 sq.ft. The deck is to be located facing the shoreline area. Site plan for new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of deck addition in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. The parcel is 0.29 ac. Section 179-4-OSO decks/porches The 400 sq.ft. deck addition is to 21.5 ft.to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and S ft.to the east side property line where 15 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 29,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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 blends in with the house. I realize that it's.24 acres but it's a good addition. 2. Feasible alternatives,again,because of the size of the lot and the desire to have a deck towards the lake are really,they've been included to minimize the request. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's just the natural growth of enjoying the lake. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest the alleged difficulty is self-created, although that was the only way to put the deck towards the lake and they needed this relief. 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,- S. 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. 30-2022 DANIEL ZOTTO&z CARRIE HEDDERMAN,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 29th Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MS. HEDDERMAN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I'd like to remind the Board that we have our next meeting on the 20`h. It's going to start an hour earlier so that we can get some more information on the shoreline, or on the gray water devices,protection. So with that,I'm going to close tonight's meeting. See you next month. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TUNE 29TI, 2022, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: Duly adopted this 291h day of June,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 15