Loading...
07-27-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY27Tr,2022 INDEX Area Variance No.IS-2022 Jeffrey&Joanne Mann 1. Tax Map No.265.-1-23.1 Area Variance No.19-2022 Jeffrey&Joanne Mann 6. Tax Map No.265.-1-23.2 Area Variance No. 31-2022 Cynthia T. Chard 9. Tax Map No. 316.14-1-7 Area Variance No. 35-2022 Rebecca Gearwar 12. Tax Map No. 301.9-1-14 Area Variance No. 37-2022 Evan Gullborg 16. Tax Map No.295.20-1-39 Area Variance No. 39-2022 Gianni Simone 19. Tax Map No. 315.10-1-59 Area Variance No.40-2022 Ben Botelho 23. Tax Map No.295.19-2-7 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT RONALD KUHL MEMBERS ABSENT RICHARD CIPPERLY 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,July 27`h,2022. If you haven't been here before,the procedure is pretty simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. I'll call each case up, read the case into the record, allow the applicant to present the case. We'll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing is advertised we'll open the public hearing, seek input from the public, close the public hearing, we'll poll the Board and then we'll proceed accordingly. So our first case is AV I8-2022,Jeffrey and Joanne Mann. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO.18-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN ZONING RR- 3A LOCATION BAY RD. &z PICKLE HILL RD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 35.23 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE: LOT 1 (692 AC.);LOT 2 (595 AC.); LOT 3 (7.77 AC.); LOT 4 (3.63 AC.); AND LOT 5 (11.57 AC.). THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND THE SITE INCLUDES APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE SITE HAS EXISTING OUT BUILDINGS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF BAY ROAD. THE PROJECT AREAS INDICATE THEY ARE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION OF 5 LOTS, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF WETLAND/SHORELINE WORK,WORK WITHIN 100 FT.OF DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE, STORMWATER DEVICE LOCATION,AND LOT WIDTH. CROSS REF AV 19-2022;SUB 14-2020;FWW 7-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 34.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO.265.-1-23.1 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 18-2022,Jeffrey&z Joanne Mann, Meeting Date: July 27, 2022 "Project Location: Bay Rd.&z Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant proposes a 5-lot subdivision of a 35.23 acre parcel.The lot sizes include: Lot 1 (6.92 ac); Lot 2 (5.95 ac);Lot 3(7.77 ac);Lot 4 (3.63 ac);and Lot 5 (11.57 ac).The project is located in the APA and the site includes APA and NWI wetland areas.The site has existing out buildings along the south side of Bay Road. The project areas indicate they are within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision of 5 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetland/shoreline work, work within 100 ft. of designated wetland. Relief requested for road frontage, stormwater device location,and lot width. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage,stormwater device location,and lot width for a five lot subdivision. The lot is 35.23 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Section 179-4-020 dimensional RR3A,Chapter 147 Stormwater The applicant proposes 5 residential lots.Lot 2 requires relief for lot width where 362 ft.is proposed and 400 ft. is required; road frontage where 400 ft. is required and 325 ft. is proposed. Relief is 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft.where 50 ft.is proposed.Relief is also requested for the 3 ft.vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft.is proposed. Revised is setback to the stormwater management device. 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. The lots proposed are greater than 3 acres. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the environmental constraints including wetlands. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The lot width relief is 38 ft.,lot frontage is 75 ft.,stormwater device location is 50 ft.,stormwater device height is 1 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal 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 a 5 lot subdivision for a 35.23 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with driveways to Bay Road and Pickle Hill Road. The revision includes the reduction in relief for the stormwater setback and the relocation of Lot 4 access from Bay Road to Pickle Hill Road." MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you for your time tonight. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, representing my clients,Jeffrey and Joanne Mann, who are in the back with us tonight if you have any questions for them. Otherwise I'll handle it. We've discussed this quite at length at our May 25`h meeting,the overall neighborhood plan for,that they own the two parcels and it's a Class A Regional Adirondack Park Agency project. So they have their permitting process as well. A few key points I'd like to make tonight for our revisions. We listened to the Board. We've incorporated some changes from your feedback and the main change was we were previously asking for our storm devices, such as our infiltration basins, which are just grass detention areas that infiltrate the stormwater. We were asking for 35 feet for the horizontal setback from any water bodies because of the streams,wetlands throughout the site that provide the constraints which that is consistent with the Lake George Park Commission standards which were adopted last year and I included some,in this recent submission,some of their rationale to allow flexibility of design,why they went to the 35. That didn't go over as well with the Board as we'd hoped. So we've re-grouped. So we're asking to go at 50 feet with it,which I re-read the transcript of the minutes and it seemed like the 500/o relief seemed about in the comfort zone for some of the members. So we went to, we're asking for 50 feet for our storm devices in lieu of the 100 foot requirement from DEC. For this project that's only on Lots Three,Four and Five. Lots One and Two,the field lots, do not need that relief because it's sandier soils in there, none of the waterbody features there. So we're asking for our storm devices,the vertical separation to groundwater to go two feet in lieu of the three feet the DEC standard. Two feet is also the Lake George Park Commission standard. Designing to that gives us flexibility with our design. It's less filling and disturbing by accommodating that,and again, just a point that some of the members that we thought we'd recognized was we're talking about stormwater from residences here. We're not talking about an industrial site or commercial. Water from rooftops and driveways. So we feel it's nowhere near the environmental risk of like a septic relief would be. So septic standard for an absorption field is 100 feet and we don't think that stormwater's nearly the impact. So that's why we're comfortable asking for that relief to go to 50 feet. The other area that caused some heartburn was the Lot Three,the middle lot if you will on Pickle Hill Road,which does have a stream crossing. We recognize that some of the Board members were uncomfortable with that lot. So I included some pictures in this week's submission of where the driveway will be which will be built over an existing skid road at Pickle Hill Road that comes south along the edge of the field and makes a turn to the west for one stream crossing, which we've walked it with my clients and we feel it's the best stream crossing,put in 24 inch culvert,and then the land rises back up 10 to 14 feet to the house site and I just ran to the office to check that house site to snap the flat area topography. It's nearly two acres of what I would call the high ground for the building area. So we've got all kinds of room in the woods there for a home. So we're very comfortable with that lot layout,that it's not an impact on the environment and we do have three test pits that we've performed on that, two of them by the Park Agency's soil scientist to allow a, and they 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) approved a shallow conventional absorption system for our septic. So we're very comfortable with that lot and hopefully some of that evidence that we've provided will make the Board more comfortable with that, and then our final variance is for the geometry of Lot Two, which is the same as we had before , 325 feet of road frontage, and then the average lot width we're asking for relief from that because we had to narrow it up at the road to allow the driveway for Lot Three to be in a better location. With that,I think that's the highlights I wanted to make for the Board. I'm here to ask for your approval so we can proceed with the full design and re-submit to the Planning Board. So thank you for your time tonight,Board. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Who chooses where the test pits are performed and done? Are they chosen by you or are they designated by DEC? MR. DOBIE-We provided an initial layout which was essentially this layout,to the Park Agency for their initial review,and then they bring a team down of Wetland Biologists and Soil Scientists and we walk the house site and say this looks like suitable terrain for the septic and we dig there to test the soils and then we do a redundant test pit. So they work with our layout from a year and a half, two years that this has been going on. MR.KUHL-So what you're saying is the renderings that you provide is where they put the test pits based on where you suggest the houses should be? MR. DOBIE-Yes,sir. MR.HENKEL-And real important where the septic leach fields are going to be would be important also. MR. DOBIE-Correct. We do the geometry with the offsets and look at the topo and provide what we believe is the best area and then approve it with the Park Agency. MR. HENKEL-I notice the depths of all the test pits, the pits are a little bit different, too. Some are 76. Some are 60 inches. So is that because you hit stone or rock or something or was it just? MR. DOBIE-That's a function of the field lots. Lots One and Two are very sandy. So there's no boundary condition there, and then it's just the soils change in the area of the stream it will be a little bit heavier. So there's a perched groundwater table in the spring which they had 25 to 36 inches in that area. MR.HENKEL-I walked the property on Monday right after all that rain,actually it was still raining a little bit. I didn't get a chance to walk Five. I walked Five two months ago when you came in the first time. I didn't get to walk that on Monday. I don't really see any problem with One and Two. Three and Four kind of scare me a little bit. Was there ever any thought of making that one lot instead of two lots? MR.DOBIE-No. There was not. We'd like to pursue this layout and we believe that it would be suitable, two house sites there. Once upon a time we looked at, we had a layout that had three lots where those Lots Three and Four are and we realized that was too much for the land. So we pulled back from the three lots that are there up to the two lots. Lot Four is in the lower area below the barn which is a nice,kind of evergreen area which has sands. Just one thing I didn't mention and we'll update this for the Planning Board is we brought the driveway for Lot Four to Pickle Hill instead of Bay Road,to save that road cut on a busy road there and it takes some of the slope out of it, and we don't have to cross, there's a drainage channel that you may have seen,John, on Monday, that runs across Bay Road down through Lot Four which is seasonal, only runs when there's a heavy rain. So we're not crossing that now. We're coming out through the woods to Pickle Hill Road for Lot 4. MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I was there on Monday and I was kind of surprised there wasn't,you know, you would think with as much rain as we had it would have caused more problems,but I didn't really see a whole lot of any of the lots other than,I didn't walk up to Four. I did talk One,Two, Three. MR. DOBIE-We had five inches of rain. MR. HENKEL-Yes, there was a lot of rain. I'm saying if there was going to be any problem,that would definitely. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? 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 in the audience who would like to provide input on this. Sir? JIM BARNES 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR.BARNES-My name is Jim Barnes. I live next door at 96 Pickle Hill Road for 30 years. From Bay Road to my house is exactly one mile. There's a 24 foot drop from Bay Road to my house and driveway. There's three streams in there. The school buses do not run on that road in the wintertime. All my kids,I had to take them up to meet the bus. They cannot make the hill in the winter. The school buses do not run on that road in the winter. It's a very bad road in the winter. I don't know if any of you have ever ridden it or not. You should give it a try. They do not run up and down,that's Lake George school. They do not go up and down in the winter. They can't make the hill at Bay Road. They can't make the hill going by Sunset Trail. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? MR.BARNES-No. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Is there anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-No,there's nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Jim. MR.UNDERWOOD-I think that,you know,our initial concerns were with the drainage and the wetland accessibility to these properties, and I think that changing the access off of Bay Road was probably a plus as far as I'm concerned. As far as the amount of relief required, that one lot has to cross the other lot, I guess Lot Two up there,or Lot Four,excuse me,the one that's closest to Bay Road. I don't think there's a problem with that either as far as the distance between the different drives that access these points in there. The stormwater devices,last week we had a good training session with Warren County Soil and Water Conservation, and I think stormwater devices serve a useful purpose, even though they're not exactly what we have as far as the Town Code goes at 100 feet. I think 50 feet is adequate. MR. MC CABE-So you're supporting the project? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in support of the project,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm happier with the 50 feet than I was prior to this,so I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I have no problem as presented. I think it's an improvement and I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I think Jim said it all. I agree with it. MR. MC CABE-And so I,too,when we consider what's being asked for here,the road frontage just makes sense. The stormwater devices, the applicant has compromised with this here and I think it's a good compromise, and the lot width is just a technicality matter. It's not really a big deal, and the lot size certainly meets the requirement. So I support the project also. So I'm going to ask Ron here for a motion. MRS. MOORE-Prior to your motion, I just want to provide an update. It looks like it's a typo that's not there. Lot Four needs the physical road access,and I have road frontage. So as part of your motion please include that Lot Four relief is being granted for physical road frontage. MR.KUHL-Lot Four will have access off of Pickle Hill,not Bay Road? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR.KUHL-Okay. Thank you,Mr. Chairman. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey &z Joanne Mann. (Revised) Applicant proposes a 5-lot subdivision of a 35.23 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 1 (6.92 ac); Lot 2 (5.95 ac); Lot 3 (7.77 ac); Lot 4 (3.63 ac); and Lot 5 (11.57 ac). The project is located in the APA and the site includes APA and NWI wetland areas. The site has existing out buildings along the south side of Bay Road. The project areas indicate they are within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes, a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision of 5 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetland/shoreline work, work within 100 ft. of designated wetland. Relief requested for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width for a five lot subdivision. The lot is 35.23 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Section 179-4-020 dimensional RR3A, Chapter 147 Stormwater The applicant proposes 5 residential lots. Lot 2 requires relief for lot width where 362 ft. is proposed and 400 ft. is required; road frontage where 400 ft. is required and 325 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft. where 50 ft. is proposed. Relief is also requested for the 3 ft. vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft. is proposed. Revised is setback to the stormwater management device. Lot Four will have access to Pickle Hill Road through Lot Three. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 25,2022&July 27,2022. 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. We talked about the 50 feet for the stormwater devices. 2. Feasible alternatives have been reviewed and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as this is a good use of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really we could say is self-created,but it's only because of the nature of the properties. 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. 18-2022 JEFFREY &z JOANNE MANN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 27th Day of July 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have one project. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 19-2022. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) AREA VARIANCE NO.19-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 76 PICKLE HILL RD. (REVISED)APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 17.1 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE: LOT 6 (3.8 ACRES); LOT 7(4.1 ACRE); LOT 8 (9.2 ACRES) NEAR TO THE MANN 5-LOT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON A SEPARATE PARCEL. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND IS NEAR TO APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE SITE INFORMATION INDICATES THERE ARE AREAS WITH 15% SLOPES, PROJECT IS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION FOR 3 LOTS,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF WETLANDS/SHORELINE, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE AND STORMWATER DEVICE LOCATION. LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.19-2022,Jeffrey&Joanne Mann,Meeting Date: July 27,2022 "Project Location: 76 Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Revised. Applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision of a 17.1 acre parcel.The lot sizes include:Lot 6(3.8 acres);Lot 7(4.1 acre);and Lot 8(9.2 acres) near to the Mann 5-lot proposed subdivision on a separate parcel. The project is located in the APA and is near to APA and NWI wetland areas. The site information indicates there are areas with 150/0 slopes, project is a major stormwater project.Project is subject to subdivision for 3 lots,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetlands/shoreline, work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. The applicant requests relief for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width for a three-lot subdivision. The lot is 17.1 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 stormwater,179-4-050 frontage Revised. Relief is requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft. where 50 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for the 3 ft.vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for lot 6 of 3.8 ac and Lot 7 of 4.1 ac physical access to use a proposed drive for Lot 8 of 9.2 ac. In addition, Road frontage relief is requested for Lot 8 where 57.86 is proposed, Lot 6 and Lot 7 where 0 ft.is proposed and required is 400 ft.Revision was for setback to stormwater management device. 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. The lots proposed are greater than 3 acres. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the environmental constraints including wetlands. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for the stormwater device location is 50 ft.,stormwater device height is 1 ft.,road frontage is 342.14 for lot 8;400 ft.for both lot 6 and 7. Physical road front for lots 6 and 7. 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 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: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) The applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision for a 17.1 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with driveways through one drive to Pickle Hill Road.The revision proposed is for the stormwater setback relief is less." MR. DOBIE-Good evening again, Board. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering representing Jeffrey and Joanne Mann who've owned the property since 2002. This is their other parcel to the east which is a flag lot to Pickle Hill Road which opens up along, to the south along the westerly bounds of the Sunset Trail subdivision and they would propose a three lot subdivision. The logic being that Lot Eight is a very prime building spot. So we thought if we're going to go to the effort of putting a road back to Lot Eight,there's two more really nice building spots. Let's design it all in one breath, one project, since it is going through the Park Agency as well currently with the other project that we just discussed. There's plenty of space for these three lots, again, with the test pits on them and with this shared driveway configuration,we need relief from the 400 feet of road frontage on a public right of way. So Lot Eight will own the roadway, the shared driveway and the frontage on Pickle Hill Road, and then Lot Six and Seven will have zero road frontage on the public right of way and that's our Area Variances and our stormwater variances. Due to the stream to the west there's no way to hold 100 feet for the storm device for that first 700 feet of road.. So, again,we listened to the Board at our May meeting. We believe it's a nice compromise to go to the 50 feet of setback for our storm infiltration devices and then again the two feet of separation to groundwater in lieu of the three. A lot more flexibility with our design. We're here to ask for your approval tonight and ask if there's any questions the Board may have. So,thank you again for your time. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I've got a Staff question. I thought with zoning they were not supposed to allow in R-1, isn't it we're not allowed to allow flag shaped properties anymore? MRS. MOORE-It may be identified,in a Rural Residential area there's a portion of it that says when you look at a design function of a subdivision in the rural area it will say no flag lots. Stone walls to be maintained,but again,there are opportunities,the applicant can come to this Board for that variance relief requested. So it's stated in there,but if that's the way it's stated,then they would come to this Board for that relief. MR.HENKEL-So I don't know how old that zoning code is. MRS. MOORE-It's probably still there if you want me to take a look at it. MR.HENKEL-Well,I did read it. That's what I was wondering,I didn't know when it was. This property was purchased in 2002? MR. DOBIE-That's correct. MR.HENKEL-So I was just wondering how far. MRS. MOORE-How that particular lot as a lot was developed,like landed as a flag lot. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-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. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So 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-Well like I said before at the last meeting this property didn't really bother me at all with any kind of water problems. It's obviously not going to be a Town road. It's going to be an easement road. So I guess it's acceptable to have the three lots. I'd be on Board with it. They're large lots. MR. MC CABE-So we're looking at the road frontage and the stormwater devices. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR.HENKEL-Yes,like I said,he made compromises to bring him 50 feet. That's acceptable. I'm not big on the lot with the shape of it,but I'd be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have really no issue with this. I think it's a good utilization of the three lots and I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm on board,too. I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm on board, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the only concern with the neighbors to the east of you would be you leave some kind of a buffer on that property that's previously been developed there. I think that's the only issue I would have. MR. MC CABE-And I support the project. I did before and I see no problem with the stormwater device and in fact it's improved as far as we're concerned and the road frontage just makes more sense to do it like this than to come out onto Pickle Hill. So I support the project. So,Brent, I'm going to ask for a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-You bet. Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey &z Joanne Mann.(Revised)Applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision of a 17.1 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 6 (3.S acres); Lot 7 (4.1 acre); and Lot S (9.2 acres) near to the Mann 5-lot proposed subdivision on a separate parcel. The project is located in the APA and is near to APA and NWI wetland areas. The site information indicates there are areas with 150/o slopes, project is a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision for 3 lots,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetlands/shoreline,work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. The applicant requests relief for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width for a three-lot subdivision. The lot is 17.1 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 stormwater,179-4-050 frontage Revised. Relief is requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft. where 50 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for the 3 ft.vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for lot 6 of 3.S ac and Lot 7 of 4.1 ac physical access to use a proposed drive for Lot S of 9.2 ac. In addition, Road frontage relief is requested for Lot S where 57.56 is proposed, Lot 6 and Lot 7 where 0 ft.is proposed and required is 400 ft.Revision was for setback to stormwater management device. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 25,2022&July 27,2022. 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 we've all kind of discussed here today,the lots are greater than three acres and there appears to be plenty of room. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are somewhat limited due to environmental constraints. 3. The requested variance is not substantial and is minimal relative to the Code. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 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,- 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. 19-2022 JEFFREY &z JOANNE MANN, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 27th Day of July 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you're two for two. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 31-2022,Cynthia Chard. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 CYNTHIA T. CHARD OWNER(S) CYNTHIA T.CHARD ZONING WR LOCATION 349 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 480 SQ.FT.CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE OF 960 SQ.FT.THE EXISTING HOME UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS 2,056 SQ. FT. WITH PORCH AREA; NO CHANGES PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE 3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-7 SECTION 179-5-020 CINDY CHARD,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2022, Cynthia T. Chard, Meeting Date: July 27, 2022 "Project Location: 349 Big Boom Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 4S0 sq.ft.carport addition to the existing garage of 960 sq. ft. The existing home under construction is 2,056 sq. ft. with porch area;no changes proposed. Relief requested for size of garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of garage. The garage expansion is located in the WR zone and is on a 3-ac parcel. Section 179-5-020 garage The existing garage is 960 sq.ft. and the proposed carport is 4S0 sq.ft.with a total square footage of 1,440 sq.ft.which exceeds the 1,100 sq.ft.maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 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 considered to reduce the proposed car-port. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 340 sq.ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing garage where the home is currently under construction. The carport would allow for storage of the applicant's son's vehicles while he is deployed. The plans show the location of the carport. The original construction plans had the carport but was removed due to the need for relief." MRS. CHARD-Thank you very much for your time. MR. MC CABE-You need to state your name for the record. MRS. CHARD-Cindy Chard, the person that owns the lot. Basically what we did with the original blueprint was we did have a carport on there, and then when we submitted it for the permit they told us that carport was over what the allowance would be. The site plan was drawn up so that we had a pool for some of the excess water and we got two raingardens and that site plan was prepared by Tom Hutchins engineering group. So that would allow for any of the runoff of the roofs that we had to include the carport that we're requesting. The lay of the land is sloped like this so that the house over on this,the property that's on this side, all that water. MR. MC CABE-So you could reference the drawing up here if that's handier for you. MRS. CHARD-Okay. The Jarvis property right there, one of the considerations that we made when we were talking about the site plan was that water would run into the pools, which are where that section goes out and back in again next to the,where the path goes. Can I getup there? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. CHARD-The pool is somewhat in this area,but the other house is like over in here some place. So any of the runoff water would naturally come this way because of the lay of the land. The raingardens, one's over here and one's over here someplace. That's going to take care of all the runoff from the roof areas and so we don't see a problem with that. There's the proposed carport that's kind of highlighted or circled in your plans. Once my son,you know, the idea was to put his car in there and any other things that he had when he was deployed. When he comes back he's going to take the car and the trailer and we'll probably use it for a boat house,to be honest with you. MR.KUHL-Unless he moves back in. MRS. CHARD-No. He's military. He's already got his next station. MR.KUHL-Okay. MRS. CHARD-That's just about all I had. Are there any questions? MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? It's pretty straightforward. 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? It doesn't look like there's a lot of people here to complain about it. So is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No,there's no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED it (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-I have no questions, and I support the project. I think it's well thought out, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in support of the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I have no issue with it. I think it's a good request. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-According to our notes we're looking for relief of 340 square feet for a second garage. That's acceptable for a three acre lot. So I'd be on board. Yes. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with this. MR. MC CABE-Nor do I. The request is minimal as far as I'm concerned. So,Jim,I'm going to look for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cynthia T. Chard. Applicant proposes a 4SO sq. ft. carport addition to the existing garage of 960 sq. ft. The existing home under construction is 2,056 sq.ft.with porch area;no changes proposed. Relief requested for size of garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of garage. The garage expansion is located in the WR zone and is on a 3-ac parcel. Section 179-5-020 garage The existing garage is 960 sq.ft. and the proposed carport is 4SO sq.ft.with a total square footage of 1,440 sq.ft.which exceeds the 1,100 sq.ft.maximum allowed. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 27,2022. 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. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and we don't see that this is a major request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's just slightly over by 4SO square feet. 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 because they want to have this carport. 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. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2022 CYNTHIA T.CHARD,Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 27th Day of July 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MRS. CHARD-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 35-2022,Rebecca Gearwar. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11. REBECCA GEARWAR OWNER(S) REBECCA GEARWAR ZONING MDR LOCATION 10 APPLEHOUSE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN EIGHT-FOOT-HIGH FENCE ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. FENCE IS TO BE A PRIVACY FENCE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,867 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES GARAGE AND PORCH WILL REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT OF FENCE TYPE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 3019-1-14 SECTION 179-5-020 REBECCA GEARWAR,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2022, Rebecca Gearwar, Meeting Date: July 27, 2022 "Project Location: 10 Applehouse Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install an eight- foot-high fence on the northwest side of the property. Fence to be a privacy fence. The existing home of 1,867 sq. ft. which includes garage and porch will remain with no changes. Relief requested for height of fence type. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height of fence type. The lot is 16,988 sq.ft. and located in the MDR zone. 179-5-070 Fence The fence to be installed is 68 ft. in length and to be placed on the west property line; it will be 8 ft. in height and a 24 ft. south section connected to the house also at 8 ft.in height as a privacy fence. 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 available to reduce the height. The applicant has explained the property to be fenced is lower than the adjoining property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor relevant to the code. The relief requested is for height and is 2 feet. 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 physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered to be self-created. Staff comments: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) The applicant proposes to install a fence on the west property line that exceeds the height of fence allowed. The information submitted shows the location of the fence and type of fence to be installed. The applicant has indicated it is needed for privacy and security." MS. GEARWAR-Hi. I'm Rebecca Gearwar. Thank you for your time,service and consideration. I'm just looking to add two feet to the west part of my property just due to my topography. I like landscaping. If you pass by my home you'll see that, and I plan to continue that. I have arborvitaes but just on that particular part of my property. I just value my privacy at the end of the day and I'm hoping that you'll consider my variance. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-What do you mean by security? MS. GEARWAR-Well,the neighbor has two large dogs and the fence that's in existence is about this high, and they do charge at it. Which is okay,but I have a cat and it's scared of them and some of that security, just having a higher fence so I feel more comfortable and privacy. MR.HENKEL-You don't think a six foot fence would do it? MS. GEARWAR-Due to the topography,the layout. MR.HENKEL-I went and looked at it. It didn't seem like there was that much of a problem. It looked like about 1S inches. MS. GEARWAR-There's an above ground pool which is way higher in my backyard and above that you'd have to actually go to the back of the yard. I don't know if you did,but there's a porch that they have which is several feet higher. It's covered by a tree that's there but when the tree isn't in bloom,you can see clearly through. MR.KUHL-If you could not get an eight foot fence approved,would you then put a six foot fence up? MS. GEARWAR-I would,but my preference would be eight foot. Again, due to the topography it does elevate it. You can see that on the survey map,and again the roof,or excuse me,the porch is significantly higher. MR.HENKEL-There's a little bit of a gully that goes through there it looks like. MS. GEARWAR-A gulley where? MR.HENKEL-Between the two properties. I see the dip. There's a dip there. MS. GEARWAR-Yes, and again from the backyard you can really see the backside is a porch, and again, you know,it's just a privacy thing. I'm home. I'm a school teacher. At the end of the day I just like to enjoy my time on my porch, and I just like to have privacy. I'm in the middle. I have neighbors on both sides that I get along with,but I just,for my piece of mind I like the privacy. MR.KUHL-But you're only doing it on the west side,right,not the east side? MS. GEARWAR-Yes,just due to the expense and due to the other side of my properties, the arborvitaes are several along, which build a natural fence, which inevitably was my goal. I planted arborvitaes but they're going to take a lot of years to get to the point where I want them to be. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? A public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing,see if there's anybody out there who wants to provide input on this particular project. Is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. There's a couple of letters. "I have no problem or concerns of Rebecca Gearwar at 10 Applehouse Lane,Queensbury,NY installing a privacy fence on the west side of her property. Robert and Elaine Raymond 6 Applehouse Lane Queensbury,NY 12SO4" And then there's a letter. `Just wanted to reinforce a DIG-SAFE ticket will be needed if approved. Mike Regan Assistant Controller City of Glens Falls" MRS. MOORE-As Staff we had wondered what it was. MR.HENKEL-That's a ways away from there. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MRS. MOO RE-Yes,there's no watershed there. So I'm thinking that,and again,the comment is that you should be notifying DIG-SAFE. There's a phone number to call, and I find it unusual for a residential project,especially in the side property line. I could see DIG-SAFE in reference to utilities and things like that. I find it a little bit strange,but there is a phone number you can call and communicate with those that are part of DIG-SAFE. It's a utility issue typically. MR. MC DEVITT-Laura,who wrote the letter? Who's Mike Regan? MRS. MOORE-Mike Regan,so I don't know if he wrote it as a neighbor but used his e-mail of the City or if he wrote it as a City employee. MS. GEARWAR-I don't know Mike Regan. MRS. MOORE-That's all right. So within 500 feet, the watershed property, the Glens Falls Water Shed property is within 500 feet. So the City of Glens Falls received a notice. MS. GEARWAR-Okay. MR. MC DEVITT-It's very odd, though,that DIG-SAFE,that there's notification relative to a residential situation. It's a phone number. It's no big deal. MS. GEARWAR-Okay. I'm happy to follow along and follow up. MR. MC CABE-So that's it,Roy? MR. URRICO-That is it. MR. MC CABE-So I'm closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Initially when I saw this I was wondering about the two feet. I really don't like to have these walls of fence facing out to anybody,but I'm satisfied with the explanation. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with Roy. I understand the situation and I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, am in favor of the project having listened to Ms. Gearwar's explanation. I think,you know,if you plant arborvitaes they're going to grow 30 feet tall. MS. GEARWAR-They look beautiful,yes. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I don't think it's a good start to the neighborhood. I think a six foot fence is plenty high enough for privacy there. I would not be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I'm not in favor of an eight foot fence so I'm not in favor of the project as presented. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,see a danger in okaying that eight foot fence. Where we have located eight foot fences is normally adjacent to a main road like West Mountain Road, but that's not really the case here and so,you know,we set kind of a precedent if we say,yes,it's okay in this case,but how do we deny the next person that asks for it? So right now we're at a standoff because we're short a member tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could I interject, Mr. Chairman, and just say I think we have to also consider the fact that it's only on one side of the property. It's not like a compound where you're going to put an eight foot fence around it. MR.HENKEL-If it was a junkyard or something like that,yes,I'd understand. Did you go look at it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR.HENKEL-Because it's not that much,less than eighteen inches. MR. MC CABE-So again you're short a vote here. So you have a couple of choices. The main choice that you can do is table your application here until we have a full Board and,you know, see if the other person is for or against,or you can withdraw your application. It's up to you. MRS. MOORE-I think there's another alternative,if the applicant said that they could do a six foot fence. MR. MC CABE-Of course,yes, a six foot fence,then you wouldn't involve us at all. MRS. MOORE-Yes. And then in regards to just an explanation is that to table the application,the Board could table it to a following month so that you would come back,you'd table it requesting a full Board. So that when you came back the following month there would potentially be seven Board members here, and then they would go through the explanation and do a new polling so you would hear again what the Board's comments were. MS. GEARWAR-She's been great,very helpful during this process, and it has been a process for me to go through,and I wouldn't be in front of you today if I didn't feel it's necessary. So I would like to table it to have a full Board. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MS. GEARWAR-However my question would be,prior to the next meeting,I'm not,I would really like to invite you into my backyard. MR. MC CABE-All of us probably have gone in and visited the site. MS. GEARWAR-Well you mentioned that, but did you go through the gate to go into the backyard? Because if you look just from the front yard you can't see. MR. MC CABE-Well then you'd have to stage a person on the porch or in the pool or something like that. MS. GEARWAR-You don't have to stage someone, but it's a significant elevation that I don't know is adequately captured maybe in my photo. I just think that's something to consider. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOORE-So you could potentially present in the additional information whether you have someone assist you drawing the slope of that area so that the Board could get the sense of what that slope,what the height difference is. MS. GEARWAR-Okay. MR.HENKEL-When do we table it until? MRS. MOORE-You can table it to next month. MR.HENKEL-August what? MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry,it would be either the 17`h or the 24`h MR.HENKEL-I won't be here the 17`h. So I don't know if that's going to change it. MR. MC CABE-Yes,it is because there's only seven of us. We don't have an alternate. MR.HENKEL-Okay. So August 24`h then. MRS. MOORE-It can be August 24`h and additional information by next week. MR.HENKEL-August I"? MRS. MOORE-Is it August 4th or 5th. MR.HENKEL-August 4th would be next Thursday. MRS. MOORE-August 4`h. Because I'm out. MR.HENKEL-Okay. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rebecca Gearwar. Applicant proposes to install an eight-foot-high fence on the northwest side of the property. Fence to be a privacy fence. The existing home of 1,567 sq.ft.which includes garage and porch will remain with no changes. Relief requested for height of fence type. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2022 REBECCA GEARWAR, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the August 24`h, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with information to be submitted by August 4`h,2022. Duly adopted this 27`h day of July,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-So we'll see you in a month. MS. GEARWAR-Thank you. Thanks for your time. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 37-2022,Evan Gullborg,IS2 Farr Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II EVAN GULLBORG AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN&z STEVES OWNER(S) EVAN GULLBORG ZONING PUD LOCATION 182 FARR LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 192 SQ. FT. POOL SHED WITH A HEIGHT NO HIGHER THAN 12.5 FT. THE POOL SHED PLACEMENT IS TO COINCIDE WIT THE POOL FENCE. THE PARCEL HAS AN EXISTING 2-STORY HOME (1,854 SQ. FT.) THAT IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE 0.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO.295.20-1-39 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-020 MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2022, Evan Gullborg, Meeting Date: July 27, 2022 "Project Location: 1S2 Farr Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 192 sq.ft.pool shed with a height no higher than 12.5 ft. The pool shed placement is to coincide with the pool fence. The parcel has an existing 2-story home (1,554 sq. ft. footprint) that is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for setbacks and second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and pool shed(second garage). The parcel is located in the Indian Ridge PUD on 0.55 ac parcel. 179-3-040 dimensional,179-5-020 garage The proposed is a 192 sq. ft. pool shed where the building meets the definition of a garage due to door width. The building is to be located 11 ft.from the rear property line where a 20 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing pool. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The setback relief is 9 feet, and the door width greater than 6 ft. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 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 project proposal is to construct/place a 192 sq.ft.pool shed to accommodate pool,lawn care equipment and seasonal items. The plans show the location of the shed on the property. Also included are the shed type showing the door locations." MR. WEBSTER-Thank you for that introduction, Mr. Urrico. My name is Matthew Webster with VanDusen and Steves Land Surveyors. Here on behalf of Evan and Lindsey Gullborg. As Mr. Urrico pointed out,they're requesting relief for a pool shed,just for,again,storage of pool accessories,equipment, lawn equipment. I understand that it does technically meet the definition of a garage,but it's clearly a shed. There's no way you could drive a vehicle in there or anything like that, and it seems relatively straightforward. Of course we've submitted some letters from the neighbors in support of the project. MR. MC CABE-So it is pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant? I guess I just have an obvious question. Why the requirement of greater than a six foot door? MR. WEBSTER-Well,it is six feet and just because a standard ride-on mower or anything could have a five foot deck. So that way you could drive it right in. MR. MC CABE-So doesn't it have to be greater than six feet to be called a garage. MR.HENKEL-Six feet or greater. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So having an opening or doorway of six feet in width or more.. MR. MC CABE-You were right again. MR.HENKEL-Isn't that large opening in the fence area? MR.WEBSTER-No,it would be on the end of the? MR. HENKEL-Okay. I was going to say,because the way it looks. Okay. Coming out of the end where the fence area,I was going to say how are you going to get the lawnmower over the pool. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KUHL-It's not like the filter or anything is going to be in this shed. This shed is just for other stuff? MR.WEBSTER-Pool accessories and lawn equipment. MR.KUHL-Well,where does he put his lawn equipment now? MR.WEBSTER-I believe in the current garage. MR.KUHL-They are the people? MR.WEBSTER-Yes. MR.KUHL-Is there going to be a refrigerator in there also,electric? MR.WEBSTER-No. MR.KUHL-Thank you. 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. Roy,you've got a couple of letters? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. There's, "My neighbors who live directly across the street from me have recently reached out to me regarding plans to add a shed to their property. In addition,they informed me that the 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) shed will be placed within the minimum 20 feet requirement of the Town of Queensbury for the back of their property. I am writing this letter to inform the Town of Queensbury that I have no issues with the shed and its placement. I feel it will add a positive effect to the neighborhood through better storage on said property and for visible aesthetics. Regards, Kathy Gleason ISI Farr Lane Queensbury, NY" And there are four letters that are very similar to this one. There's another one from Nicole Enny-Tully, 199 Farr Lane. Kristin and Mike Paigo,177 Farr Lane. And the last one I can't read the signature,nor does it have an address,but there are four letters altogether. 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-I'm fine with it,Mr. Chairman. I'd support it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-Yes,I don't think we'd construe this as a second garage. So I don't have any problem with it at all. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-It sounds like a lot. They're asking for three variances for a second garage,which we don't normally consider a second garage. So they're asking for two setbacks, one side setback and one rear. One's asking for relief of a foot and the other one's asking for nine feet. So very minor. So I'd be on Board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-If this shed had a different door other than a wide one it would just be the setbacks, and it appears that everybody that's invited to the barbecues are in favor of this shed. I would also be in favor as presented,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor as presented as well. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. I'm impressed that the applicant got so many signatures to support it. That's not normal. So I've got to go along with it. So, given that, I'm going to ask Ron if he'd provide us with a motion here. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Evan Gullborg. Applicant proposes to install a 192 sq. ft. pool shed with a height no higher than 12.5 ft. The pool shed placement is to coincide with the pool fence. The parcel has an existing 2-story home (1,554 sq. ft. footprint)that is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for setbacks and second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and pool shed(second garage). The parcel is located in the Indian Ridge PUD on 0.55 ac parcel. 179-3-040 dimensional,179-5-020 garage The proposed is a 192 sq. ft. pool shed where the building meets the definition of a garage due to door width. The building is to be located 11 ft.from the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 27,2022. 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 shed is to be placed in the rear of the property. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 2. Feasible alternatives are limited,have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and have been-included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The location of the shed is in the rear of the property. It's the right place for it. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to put this shed with a wider door which qualifies it as a garage,but then again where it's being placed they do need the offsets for the property. 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. 37-2022 EVAN GULLBORG, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 27th Day of July 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 39-2022,Gianni Simone. AREA VARIANCE NO.39-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 GIANNI SIMONE AGENT(S) DANIEL W.RYAN P.E. OWNER(S) GIANNI SIMONE ZONING MDR LOCATION 20 ACRES CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 930 SQ.FT.DETACHED GARAGE ON A SITE THAT HAS AN EXISTING HOME WITH A GARAGE. THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT IS 2,182 SQ.FT.WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE FOOTPRINT OF 600 SQ. FT. NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SUB 12-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE 1.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.10-1-59 SECTION 179-5-020 DAN RYAN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; GIANNI SIMIONE,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance N.39-2022,Gianni Simone,Meeting Date: July 27,2022 "Project Location: 20 Apres Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 930 sq.ft.detached garage on a site that has an existing home with a garage. The house footprint is 2,182 sq., ft., with the attached garage footprint of 600 sq.ft.No changes to the existing home.Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second garage. The parcel is in the MDR zone in an approved subdivision of SR-IA. The lot is 1.16 ac. Section 179-5-020 garage The new garage is to be 930 sq.ft.with space for two cars and an attic storage area above with a height of 29 ft.2 inches. The site has an existing attached garage of approximately 600 sq.ft.where only one garage is the maximum allowed. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) 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 garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code as only one garage is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a second garage on a parcel with an existing home and attached garage. The plans show the location of the garage and photos of the area on the property. In addition,the applicant has provided elevation and floor plans of the garage and is designed to match the existing home." MR. RYAN-Good evening. I'm Dan Ryan. I'm here with the applicant. I'm going to be assisting them about the plans and site. Basically as summed up one garage is allowed typically in Queensbury and oftentimes I think it's been overlooked that second garages can provide a benefit to the community, in particular subdivisions where you have children with cars. You end up with several cars in the driveway unprotected and also the fact that they have to shimmy around to get in and out So there is a benefit here where you have more than one garage,you know two car garage,where you can put two additional vehicles in storage and off site. So in this subdivision development I feel like this would be well suited for that type of scenario. The project allows for the garage to be fully compliant with zoning setbacks. It is a weird shaped parcel as you can see. It's got some fingers sticking out and it is on a corner inside radius,but we were able to find a strategic location for the garage that would allow it to be somewhat concealed by all the vegetation along the front property line area and obviously still connect to the existing driveway. Alternatives really would only allow for maybe reconfiguration of the entire driveway and then having to make a large wing or a garage wing portion extension on the existing home. It's really not conducive to adding an addition on to the existing home. So, allow for a single garage attached. So this is a better, maybe a better alternative, being that it would be somewhat buffered and would allow to attach the existing configuration and also not effect water and sewer amenities on the property as well. Do you want to say anything specific regarding your garage? MR.SIMONE-Gianni Simone. I'm the property owner. I have two kids coming up. My daughter is going to be 16 in August and my son is right behind her. So I do have multiple cars in the driveway. I am also considering purchasing a second car for myself. Therefore I would like some storage for cars and my son's got a car and some dirt bikes and bicycles. So we just need some storage. He scratched my wife's truck way too many times. MR.KUHL-The more you provide,the longer they'll stay. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-This is going to kind of look like a second home on that small property? I mean you've got a little over an acre. That's going to look like a second home. That's a pretty good sized building. The height and everything. I don't think it fits in the neighborhood very well. I mean there's no other second garage in that whole development. MR. SIMONE-There's one on Alessia Way,the subdivision. MR.HENKEL-Right,but not on this one. Because I went through it. MR. SIMONE-Is my home not manicured? MR.HENKEL-I'm not saying it's not a nice home. It's a very nice home. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR. SIMONE-It's going to look the same way. I'm going to outline it with arborvitaes. I'm going to be putting stone around the low part of it. It's going to match my house. MR.HENKEL-But you said there was a second garage. I didn't see one. MR. SIMONE-No,in my subdivision,no. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR. SIMONE-But actually Alessia Drive is Phase II to my subdivision. MR.HENKEL-Thank you. MR. SIMONE-You're welcome. 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 in the audience who would like to provide information on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-Yes. "We have become aware of the above variance application submitted to the Town for consideration and would like to provide written comment for the record and for the Board's consideration during its review. The Simone's are our neighbors and were thoughtful enough to personally show us details of the planned project prior to the submission and/or scheduled hearing date. After reviewing project plans and discussing our comments/opinions with the Applicant regarding the detached garage, we feel the project,as currently proposed,would not be detrimental to the neighborhood,would not create any adverse impact or effect on the physical or aesthetic conditions in the neighborhood, nor would it create any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Furthermore,the size and placement of the garage seem appropriate and reasonable considering the existing home and lot configuration,which also minimizes visibility of the proposed garage due to existing vegetation to remain. It is our opinion that the Applicant has adequately contemplated alternatives and taken time to consider their neighbors during project planning,and we would recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve/grant the requested area variance. Sincerely, Bart R. and Maryann Johnson 21 Apres Circle" Okay, and there's a second letter identical to this one. It's signed by Charles and Meaghan Mahoney 10 Apres Circle. MR. RYAN Just so you know,those properties,one's to the south. That would be closest to this garage. That's one of those letters. The other one's directly across the street, which also would be the most impacted by this project. And I would just like to answer the question about scale with the proposed garage. The existing garage is 26 by 24 and 26 feet tall. This one does have a little bit more width to it. It's 30 by 32, and at 29 feet. So I don't know if that would look like an entirely new house,but it would look very similar to the existing garage in terms of scale. 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. UNDERWOOD-I think it's a reasonable request based upon the size of the lot, the location where it's proposed to be built. I don't see it's a negative for the neighborhood. I think the neighbors that are most affected by it have written letters in support of the project. So I'd be in support of it also. MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-They have a 600 square foot garage already on the house. I just think the lot doesn't warrant a large,another garage that big. I would be for something smaller but not with what they're presenting in front of us. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-The lot at 1.1,a second garage is not unreasonable. We're challenged with giving the minimum necessary. You're doing 30 by 30. If you could only do 22 by 22,would you do it? MR. SIMONE-Can I tell you why I wouldn't want it? MR. MC CABE-Not right now. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR.KUHL-So I think you're asking for a lot. I am not against the second garage,but I think you're asking for a lot right now at 30 by 30. So I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I would not be in favor of the application. I think a second garage, even on this size property,is not warranted. It would set a dangerous precedent for other properties nearby. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR.MC DEVITT-I follow and respect what my fellow Board members have said. I understand. However, I come down the other side of it. I do think that the neighbors that are most impacted have indicated they're in favor of it. I think the planted buffers that are to be re-located are well thought out and I think it does fit in to a well-manicured property. So I would be in favor,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-So regardless of how I feel,you don't have enough votes with this Board. I don't support it either. We've been pretty consistent with limiting a second garage to larger properties,three plus acres. So the 1.2 acres that we have here just doesn't satisfy that so then that puts us in a bind because it makes it hard to deny other people with smaller lots a second garage. I understand the basis for it and hate to see boats and all kinds of stuff just parked on the property. I think it would be much better to have some sort of building housing them, but we're also charged with following the zoning laws of the Town of Queensbury. So I cannot support this project. MR. RYAN-Can I ask a question,a couple of questions? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. RYAN-A couple of Board members were possibly in favor of an alternative size garage. If that would persuade a couple of members to a yes vote,then we're agreeable to come back,table it and come back next month with a revised garage plan or size. Is that something worth doing? MR. MC CABE-So I think you got two yes votes and I think you did have two people that said a smaller garage would have some appeal to them. So that's a good possibility. MR. RYAN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So do you want to table? MR. RYAN-Do you want to table it until next month? MR. SIMONE-Yes. If we could table it I think I'd like to go for a full Board. Am I allowed to say anything else or no? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. SIMONE-Okay. The reason why I made it like this. If you see in the plans there's stairs. I had the interior walkway up to the stairs so that my neighbor doesn't see any staircase, because I built the subdivision So not only are the people customers, but they're also my neighbors and I want to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible. That is the main reason why I made it a little bit wider so all my staircase is in after my garage is up. If you've seen my property,the same thing with the arborvitae is what I plan to do here,because I understand in these subdivisions setting a precedent. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. SIMONE-In the deed restrictions you can't have a boat on the property anyway. MR. MC CABE-I just used that as an example. MR. SIMONE-I like to keep everything neat and orderly at my home. MR. MC CABE-So you want to table it? So are we out of room in August? MRS. MOORE-I'm not out of room, but I just, what I'm looking for is how quickly information can be shared with us so that it can be moved forward? MR. RYAN-Well I think for me I would propose to revise the garage plan. MRS. MOORE-Is that something that you could do with a simple? All you're doing is updating the site data sheet, a drawing and probably a small narrative. So if that's by next Thursday? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR.MC CABE-You know that John can't be here for the first August meeting. So it's got to be the second one. MRS. MOORE-Which is fine because we have an opening on the second meeting at this time. MR. RYAN-So August 25`h? MR.HENKEL-August 24`h MRS. MOORE-24`h MR. RYAN-Whatever documents you need, I would make sure they're in. So if you just want to pick a day. MRS. MOORE-So next Thursday. That other individual was August 4th MR.HENKEL-'So August 4th information. Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gianni Simone. Applicant proposes to construct a 930 sq. ft. detached garage on a site that has an existing home with a garage. The house footprint is 2,IS2 sq.,ft.,with the attached garage footprint of 600 sq.ft. No changes to the existing home. Relief requested for second garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.39-2022 GIANNI SIMONE,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the August 24`h, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by August 4`h,2022. Duly adopted this 27`h day of July,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote,do you want to re-open the public hearing? MR. MC CABE-I'll do that at a later date. MRS. MOORE-Well,we need to advertise for it. So if you're not going to. MR. MC CABE-I see. So I will re-open the public hearing. If that's okay with you guys. MRS. MOORE-And leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MC CABE-I didn't realize that that caused a problem with the advertising. So I'll be aware of that. MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. SIMONE-Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 40-2022,Ben Botelho,7 Owen Avenue. AREA VARIANCE NO.40-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11. BEN BOTELHO OWNER(S) BEN&z JESSICA BOTELHO ZONING MDR LOCATION 7 OWEN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 500 SQ. FT.DECK TO THE REAR OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS ON A CORNER LOT AND HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 2,197 SQ. FT. THE PRE-EXISTING DECK WAS IN DISREPAIR AND HAS BEEN REMOVED. NO OTHER CHANGES ARE PROPOSED. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST-0247-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO.295.19-2-7 SECTION 179- 3-040;179-4-080 BEN BOTELHO,PRESENT 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2022, Ben Botelho, Meeting Date: July 27, 2022 "Project Location: 7 Owen Ave. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 500 sq.ft. deck to the rear of the existing home. The existing home is on a corner lot and has a footprint of 2,197 sq. ft. The preexisting deck was in disrepair and has been removed. No other changes are proposed. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to construct a 500 sq.ft.porch. The parcel is 0.42 ac in the MDR zone. 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-OSO decks and porches The existing deck has been removed and the new deck is to be 500 sq. ft. located 24.3 ft. from the rear property line 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 deck may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home and the previous deck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minor relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 5.7 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 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 500 sq. ft. deck addition to the existing home. The applicant has indicated the previous deck was deteriorated and unsafe. There are no other site changes. The survey shows the location of the deck." MR. BOTELHO-Good evening. Ben Botelho. I own 7 Owen Ave. I moved in back in December and slowly am fixing all the disrepair that the previous owner left us with. One of the projects that we wanted to tackle this summer was the deck. The whole deck was an"S" shaped thing. We are proposing to re- build a new deck in basically the same outline of the old deck,just kind of filling in the"S" shape to make it more of a right angle. We're requesting a variance. We need to be 30 feet under the Code and we're at 24.3 feet. It's a minimal variance because we're keeping the same setback as the old deck. I spoke with the neighbor,the Thompsons. I believe the son's name was Jason who is inheriting the property from his parents,and he has no issues at all. He offered to write a letter but I didn't think it was necessary. MR. MC CABE-A letter is always good,something written. I don't know if we can trust you. MR.BOTELHO-Well,I did go out and hire a well reputed surveyor,too,to make sure all the numbers were right and it's going to look nice. The old deck was just kind of built on cinderblocks and was sinking into the ground so we had it removed. Any questions? MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) MR.HENKEL-I was looking at your house today. I noticed on the other side it's seven and a half. That's kind of weird. I never saw where the house next to you is seven and a half. MR.BOTELHO-Yes,because that's Sunset,but then that seven and a half,it really should be nine. MR.HENKEL-That's weird. On the other side of Sunset. That's the first time I've seen that in houses. MR.KUHL-So can I ask the applicant a question,Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Sure,go ahead. MR.KUHL-Was the original deck the same dimensions? MR.BO TELHO-Similar. You see on the survey where it says former deck? MR.KUHL-Yes. MR.BOTELHO-It was kind of a weird"S"shape. MR.KUHL-So you're squaring it. You're making it more of a rectangle. MR.BOTELHO-I'm squaring it off. And actually kind of reducing it a little on the south side. MR.KUHL-Why didn't you just do it? MR. BOTELHO-We hired a contractor to do it and he went to go pull a building permit and I got into an argument with Craig Brown over an e-mail about the interoperation of the Zoning Code and he said I need an area variance. So here I am. MR.KUHL-Thank you for following the rules. MR. MC CABE-Roy, anything written here? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, it's straightforward. Thank you for coming. Sorry about all the expense you had to go through. That irritates me sometimes when people are trying to do the right thing,but it is all part of the Code. Thank you. So I'd be in favor,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with my Board members. I don't think you should need to have a permit for that, but it's the rules. So God bless you. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a simple request for a replacement. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in favor,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. It's a minimal request and I think it'll definitely improve the appearance of the house. So I'm going to seek a motion here from Brent. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ben Botelho. Applicant proposes to construct a 500 sq.ft.deck to the rear of the existing home. The existing home is on 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) a corner lot and has a footprint of 2,197 sq.ft. The preexisting deck was in disrepair and has been removed. No other changes are proposed. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to construct a 500 sq.ft. porch. The parcel is 0.42 ac in the MDR zone. 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-OSO decks and porches The existing deck has been removed and the new deck is to be 500 sq. ft. located 24.3 ft. from the rear property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 27,2022. 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. The deck may be considered to have little to no impact on neighboring properties. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. They are limited due to the location of the home and deck. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's minor. 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,- 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. 40-2022 BEN BOTELHO,Introduced by Brent McDevitt,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 27th Day of July 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. So at this particular time is there anything else that anybody has? So I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 27",2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 27`h day of July,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-We'll see you in a month. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/27/2022) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 2S