Loading...
08-23-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUCUST23RD12023 INDEX Sign Variance No. 6-2022 Matthew Flansburg for Target 1. ONE YEAR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.12 Area Variance No. 33-2023 Renee&Tom West 1. Tax Map No.239.7-1-16 Area Variance No. 34-2023 Brenden Doster 4. Tax Map No.27S.20-1-19 Area Variance No. 35-2023 Rhianna Hogan-Cerro 7. Tax Map No.2S9.17-1-41 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 OS/23/2023) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23RD,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL ROBERT KEENAN 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, Wednesday, August 23rd. 2023. If you haven't been here before, our format is pretty simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into our record, allow the applicant to present the 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, see where we stand on the issue, and then proceed accordingly but first,before we get started tonight,we have an administrative item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST TO GRANT ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SV 6-2022(MATTHEW FLANSBURG FOR TARGET) Applicant proposes to update the Target facade with relocating the existing CVS sign and to install a new block backer with new 77.1 sq.ft.drive-up sign.The signs to remain include the CVS sign in a new location and the Bullseye logo. The block backer material to the new sign would be similar in color to the blocker behind the existing white Target logo. Site plan for the facade alterations. Relief is requested for number of signs. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Sign Variance 6-2022 on October 26,2022. A one year extension is requested by the applicant. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SIGN VARIANCE 6-2022 MATTHEW FLANSBURG (for TARGETS Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, Seconded by Ronald Kuhl. Extension Granted With Expiration Date of October 25,2024. Duly adopted this 23rd Day of August 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 33-2023,Renee&Tom West. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 RENEE &z TOM WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ZONING WR LOCATION 79 KNOX RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION FROM A PREVIOUS APPROVAL ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME. THE NEW LOCATION ALLOWS FOR LESS DISTURBANCE OF AN EXISTING EMBANKMENT AREA. THE GARAGE IS A DETACHED GARAGE WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,050 SQ. FT. AND IS TO BE TWO STORY WITH A BUNK ROOM AND NO KITCHEN FACILITIES. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 3,190 SQ.FT.AND PORCH/DECK AREA OF 125 SQ.FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED 8,720 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA WHICH INCLUDES BASEMENT AREAS AND BOTH FLOORS OF THE GARAGE AND MAIN HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) CROSS REF AV 53-2022; SP 70-2022; FWW 14-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-16 SECTION 179-5-020 TOM WEST,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.33-2023,Renee&Tom West,Meeting Date: August 23,2023 "Project Location: 79 Knox Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new garage in a different location from a previous approval associated with construction of a new home. The new location allows for less disturbance of an existing embankment area. The garage is a detached garage with a footprint of 1,050 sq.ft. and is to be two story with a bunk room and no kitchen facilities. There is no change to the proposed construction of the new home with a footprint of 3,190 sq. ft. and porch/deck area of 125 sq. ft. There are no changes to the proposed 5,720 sq. ft. floor area which includes basement areas and both floors of the garage and main home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a proposed detached garage of 1,050 sq. ft. that is associated with the construction of a new home. The project site is 1.22 ac parcel and is within the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR and Chapter 94 Wetlands The garage is to be 42 ft.from the wetland where a 50 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The proposed project may 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 to reduce the size of the building to meet the setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested S 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 detached garage in a different location than previously approved to reduce the amount of disturbance due to a bank area on the property. The project is associated with the construction of a single-family home. The plans show the approved garage location and proposed garage location." MR.WEST-All right. Thank you very much. You may remember this project from last October. MR. MC CABE-So,first of all you've got to identify yourself. MR. WEST-I'm sorry. I'm Tom West. So we came before you last October and I was the guy that came up with the crazy idea to have the two variance applications on at the same time, one with the attached garage with the conditioned connector and the other one with the detached garage. Both the Planning Board and this Board agreed with us that it just made more sense for this lot to have a detached garage. Now, quite frankly, when we did that, we didn't realize exactly where we were putting the garage in relation to the embankment. It was our mistake,and so we had the property staked out this spring,which is an expensive proposition every time those guys come out,but we saw that we had made a mistake and essentially what we did here was we had the house, or the garage just a little bit too far into this embankment. Do we have those photos, Laura? You don't have them? Okay. I did have photos in the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) package where I actually staked out both designs. So what we want to do to take the garage out of the embankment here,which doesn't really show on this map very well. There's a couple of mature trees that we're trying to preserve. We want to go forward five feet and over eight feet, and in order to mitigate the impact of going eight feet into the 50 foot setback,we took the stormwater facility here and we flipped it from the side of the garage around to the lakeside of the garage. So actually the disturbed area is about the same or less. It will make it a lot easier to construct. It's all on flat land. We don't have to build an embankment. We don't have to cut down mature trees that we're trying to preserve and it's just a lot better. When we were here last October we did explain the neighborhood. We own six plus acres behind here. So we're the neighbor on the other side of the road. This is all beautiful wetland that extends,you know,a good distance up into this Assembly Point. It's one of the largest wetlands that's not down at the end of a bay or something like that on Lake George, and we do everything we can to protect that wetland, but going from 50 feet to 42 feet is not going to impact the wetland at all. Also because of that wetland, our neighbors,which are the MacElroys,really aren't affected. Dennis did a lot of the work on this project, and we had a lot of neighbor support for the last time. Several people wrote me and said do you need letters and I said,no,I think they understand from the last application. So respectfully we're asking for a change from the variance to allow it to move five feet forward and eight feet closer to the wetland MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, 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. Seeing nobody, Roy,do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No new written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I'm going to close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Yes,after that presentation,how could I say no? It's very well done. He stood up. He walked around. He moved around. I'd be in favor of it. It's a minor move. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's a good size piece of property. The setback is 25 feet from the property line and they're way beyond that. They're just asking for eight feet. So it's acceptable. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a slight change from what we previously approved. I think it's better environmentally. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Certainly in terms of runoff it's better than what we approved the first time. So I'm certainly in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I have no issues with the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve it. I approved it before and what's being asked of us here is very minimal. So at this particular time I'm going to see if Ron can conjure up a motion here for us. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Renee&z Tom West. Applicant proposes construction of a new garage in a different location from a previous approval associated with construction of a new home. The new location allows for less disturbance of an existing embankment area. The garage is a detached garage with a footprint of 1,050 sq. ft. and is to be two story with a bunk room and no kitchen facilities. There is no change to the proposed construction of the new home with a footprint of 3,190 sq.ft.andporch/deck area of 125 sq.ft.There are no changes to the proposed 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) 5,720 sq. ft. floor area which includes basement areas and both floors of the garage and main home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a proposed detached garage of 1,050 sq. ft. that is associated with the construction of a new home. The project site is 1.22 ac parcel and is within the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR and Chapter 94 Wetlands The garage is to be 42 ft.from the wetland where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,August 23,2023. 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. This is a minor move from the previously approved location. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited, and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been-included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. It's just the 42 feet to the wetlands where 50 feet is required. It's just eight 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. 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. 33-2023 RENEE&z TOM WEST,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 23rd Day of August 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.WEST-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 34-2023,Brenden Doster,37 Sunnyside North. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 BRENDEN DOSTER OWNER(S) BRENDEN DOSTER ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 37 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 936 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND A 312 SQ. FT. ATTACHED LEAN-TO ON A 0.66 ACRE PARCEL IN THE RR-3A ZONE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,144 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH PORCHES IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES PROPOSED. THERE ARE TWO SHEDS THAT ARE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE PROJECT. PARCEL IS BOUND BY TWO ROADS WHERE ALL LOT LINES REQUIRE A 100 FT. SETBACK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND SIZE OF GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2023 LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRES TAX MAP NO.278.20- 1-19 SECTION 179-5-020 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) BRENDEN DOSTER,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 34-2023, Brenden Doster, Meeting Date: August 23, 2023 "Project Location: 37 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: (Revised —smaller) Applicant proposes to construct a 936 sq.ft.detached garage that includes a 312 sq.ft. attached lean-to on a 0.69 acre parcel in the RR-3A zone. The existing home of 1,144 sq. ft. footprint with porches is to remain with no changes proposed. There are two sheds that are to be removed as part of the project. Parcel is bound by two roads where all lot lines require a 100 ft. setback. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. The project site is located on a 0.69 ac parcel in the Rural Residential 3-acre zone. (garage size is no longer requested; clarification of size of enclosed garage and lean-to clarified as a total of 936 sq.ft.) Section 179-3-040 RR3A,179-5-020 garage The garage is to be 10 ft. from the south property line, S3 ft. to the east property line (front), and 95 ft. to the north property line 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 limited due to the lot size and configuration bordered by two roads. A variance may be required for any new development on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to relevant to the code. Relief for the south side property line is 90 ft.,17 ft.to the front,and 5 ft.to the north. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 936 sq.ft.garage that includes a 312 sq.ft.lean-to. The plans show the garage to be two bays with the lean-to on the side. The plans show the location of the proposed garage where a previous applicant had also requested a garage as an addition that has since expired. The applicant has indicated neighboring properties have garages and the site of this garage has heavy vegetation around it.,, MR. DOSTER-My name's Brenden Doster and I'd just like to put this garage on our property. I talked to all our neighbors close by and got them to sign a petition saying that they're all okay with this being built. MR. MC CABE-So you want to give that to Roy here. MR. DOSTER-That's all our neighbors that were home and some of them are camps. So they're only here seasonally. I couldn't get a hold of them,and some of them are rentals,everyone that was there signed this sheet. They all have garages and as far as our property goes, everything, we're proposing it. Everything from here up is all just hills and trees. There'd be a lot of excavation and land disturbance to put it anywhere other than right here where I would like to put it for a detached garage and it's pretty straightforward. I feel like it's just a metal building, a lot of vegetation,too, a lot of neighbors won't even see it. There's a lot of trees. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) MR.HENKEL-Why did you decide not to attach it? MR. DOSTER-So that side of the house where we would attach it,where they proposed prior,there's no windows. There's one door. So the sunlight in our kitchen right there,that's the only place to enter where we'd get some sunlight next to the house. We've got a door with a window on it right there. So we'd prefer not to attach it because we don't want to get rid of that sunlight coming in, natural light into the house. 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 that would like to address us on this particular project. Seeing nobody. Roy, do you want to read the letter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-Yes,they're all the same letter. I'll read one. "We understand that a variance is needed for setback reasons and are supportive of the proposed setback reliefs of 10'on the south side of property, S3' on the east side of the property and 95' on the north side of the property." And it looks like there's four neighbors that have signed it. Rose Cramer,13 Juniper Dr.;Jeff Kain,11 Sunnyside North;Stephen Pielock, 44 Sunnyside North;and Thomas O'Keefe, 30 Sunnyside North. 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 Dick. MR.CIPPERLY-I have no issue with it. I think it sort of makes sense to try and protect natural light. It's a good reason. MR. MC CABS Jim MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I fully agree, keep the south side open so you can get some sunlight,warm up the place in the wintertime. No problem. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-You are asking for a large relief but I would say it makes sense. So I'm for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I have no issue with this. I think it's good the way it's presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-Yes, I don't have any issues. It's a narrow lot. I don't think there's any other spot you could put that for the light you want to keep. So I'm good with it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. Really what's being asked here is minimal and in the North Country you need a garage. So,given that,I'm going to ask Dick if he'd give us a motion then. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brenden Doster. (Revised—smaller)Applicant proposes to construct a 936 sq.ft. detached garage that includes a 312 sq. ft. attached lean-to on a 0.69 acre parcel in the RR-3A zone. The existing home of 1,144 sq. ft. footprint with porches is to remain with no changes proposed. There are two sheds that are to be removed as part of the project. Parcel is bound by two roads where all lot lines require a 100 ft. setback. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. The project site is located on a 0.69 ac parcel in the Rural Residential 3-acre zone. (garage size is no longer requested; clarification of size of enclosed garage and lean-to clarified as a total of 936 sq.ft.) Section 179-3-040 RR3A,179-5-020 garage 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/23/2023) The garage is to be 10 ft. from the south property line, 83 ft. to the east property line (front), and 95 ft. to the north property line where a 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,August 23,2023. 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. The adjacent owners have signed off and the location actually makes sense. 2. Feasible alternatives are possible but this seems to be the best location as proposed by the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because even though it goes down to 10 feet from the property line,there's plenty of vegetation,and this is probably the best spot for a garage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really is self-created but it just makes sense to do it this way. 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. 34-2023 BRENDEN DOSTER, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 23r0 Day of August 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-Can I just offer something, I apologize. So the setback relief should be where a 100 foot setback is required. So it's just a typo in the reso. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So our next application is AV 35-2023, Rhianna Hogan-Cerro,117 Birdsall Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 RHIANNA HOGAN-CERRO OWNER(S) MARC CERRO &z RHIANNA HOGAN-CERRO ZONING WR LOCATION 117 BIRDSALL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN L-SHAPED DOCK OF 150 SQ.FT.TO REPLACE WITH A STRAIGHT DOCK OF 150 SQ. FT. THE DOCK IS TO BE 5 FT. BY 30 FT. A PORTION OF THE DOCK IS ON LAND OF 24 SQ.FT.AND ON 15 SQ.FT.IS PROPOSED AS PART OF THE NEW DOCK TO BE ON LAND. THE PROPOSED DOCK IS IN A SIMILAR LOCATION. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE OR THE EXISTING 1,809 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 56-2010; SP 67-2010; AV 49-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-41 SECTION 179-5-060 MARK CERRO&RHIANNA HOGAN-CERRO,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2023, Rhianna Hogan-Cerro, Meeting Date: August 23, 2023 "Project Location: 117 Birdsall Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an L-shaped dock of 150 sq. ft. to replace with a straight dock of 150 sq. ft. The dock is to be 5 ft.by 30 ft.A 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) portion of the dock is on land of 24 sq.ft.and on 15 sq.ft.is proposed as part of the new dock to be on land. The proposed dock is in a similar location. There are no other changes to the site or existing 1,509 sq. ft. home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to install a dock. The project site is on a 0.22E acre parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR&179-5-060 docks The new dock is to be 14 ft.from the east 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. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the current location of the dock to be replaced. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is for dock setback on the east is 6 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 replacement of an L—shaped dock with a straight dock. The information submitted shows the photos of the existing conditions where a portion of the dock has buckled. The plans show the location of the existing and the new dock." MR. CERRO-Thank you for hearing us out. My name is Marc Cerro and this is my wife, Rhianna. Relatively straightforward. I want to give you a little bit of quick background before we get into it. We live locally here in Glens Falls. We had the good fortune of acquiring this property a few years ago in December. We knew that the dock was in disrepair but we thought it was largely superficial. Throughout COVID we tried to get people out to come and quote our docks,and people were busy and so we couldn't get anybody out there. When we finally did, basically it was brought to our attention that the issues weren't just superficial,that anybody that came out thought it would be a full dock replacement. So when we did that,we went through the exercise,we thought changing the shape of the dock would make sense because it would be more consistent with our neighbors. The other thing is we were looking to elongate the dock just a bit because we had concerns about docking our boat and being too close to shore. Along with our submission we have a letter from Maureen Valenti who is our neighbor that is the effected neighbor to the left facing the lake, and I believe Cathy Sanders,who is our other neighbor,she mentioned that she had submitted a letter. I'm not sure if that got into anything,but they're both supportive,the two that are,they're the two that are directly impacted. So we're looking to replace the dock that is essentially broken and change the look and feel so it's more consistent with our neighbors. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-Yes. Mark,what kind of dock are you doing? Are you doing a crib dock? MR. CERRO-No. It'll be exactly the same as our neighbor,Cathy Sanders,construction. MR.KUHL-So you're going to be lifting it in the winter? It's going to stay? MR. CERRO-No,it's fixed. MR.KUHL-And what's going to fix it? Are you going to drive stakes into the lake? MR. CERRO-That's how the current one is constructed. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) MR.KUHL-The current one that needs to be replaced because it wasn't built very good? MR. CERRO-It was hit by a boat, to be honest. It's like a Generation One Trex. So the quality of the material was poor. We're going to replace it with wood. MR.KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. CIPPERLY-You're adding how much length? MRS. CERRO-Five feet. MR. CIPPERLY-Five feet. All right. Thanks. MR. CERRO-And one of the things,because our property line is kind of,it's basically. MR. MC CABE-We've been through all that. We've had quite a bit of discussion on that with other. 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 would like to address us on this particular issue. Seeing nobody, Roy,do we have the letters? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes,I have one letter. I don't have one from Sanders. I have one from Valenti. "My name is Maureen Valenti and I live directly next door to the Hogan-Cerro family. I met with Rhianna yesterday and she informed me of the changes she is seeking to make with regards to the dock and I am in total agreement. They are very considerate and always confide in me with any changes they are looking to implement. I welcome this family and hope they are able to enjoy life on Glen Lake as we all do! Please strongly consider this request. Thank you in advance for your time and energy. Regards, Maureen Valenti" 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-It's understandable why you'd want the extra five feet with your pontoons are right up on the shore and with the wake board boats slamming tidal waves on us all the time on that lake it's unbelievable. So I'd be all in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-It definitely makes sense. I'd be on board. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of the way it's presented. I just hope it lives up to your expectations. If it were me,I'd do a crib dock for sure. I'm in agreement as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I don't have any issues with this. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-It makes sense. I'll go for it. MR. MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. You should have a safe dock to work from. So given that I wonder,Jim,if you'd craft up a motion for us here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rhianna Hogan-Cerro. Applicant proposes to remove an L-shaped dock of 150 sq. ft. to replace with a straight 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) dock of 150 sq.ft. The dock is to be 5 ft.by 30 ft.A portion of the dock is on land of 24 sq.ft. and on 15 sq. ft.is proposed as part of the new dock to be on land. The proposed dock is in a similar location. There are no other changes to the site or existing 1,509 sq.ft.home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to install a dock. The project site is on a 0.22E acre parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR&179-5-060 docks The new dock is to be 14 ft.from the east 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,August 23,2023. 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. It's going to be similar to all the other docks. 2. Feasible alternatives are not really available because of the narrowness of the lot and the small amount of relief that's required to approve this. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's pretty similar to what everybody else is dealing with along that whole shoreline. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not really self-created because of the small lot widths on the lake. 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;It'll be replacing an old decrepit dock. 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. 35-2023 RHIANNA HOGAN-CERRO, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 23rd Day of August 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MRS. CERRO-Thanks so much. MR. MC CABE-So just to reiterate, I won't be here for the 20`h,but I should be here for the 27`h. With that,I make a motion that we close tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 23RD, 2023, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 23rd day of August,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/23/2023) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 12