Loading...
02-21-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING FEBRUARY2IST 2024 INDEX Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 1. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No.227.17-1-25; 227.17-1-24 (septic) Area Variance No.45-2023 Lauren&Christian Freyer 2. Tax Map No.227.14-1-17 Area Variance No.4-2024 Jay&Kim Ogden S. Tax Map No.2S9.1S-1-15 Area Variance No.5-2024 Francis&Cindy Steciuk 13. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-46 Area Variance No. 6-2024 Jerry Aurelia 16. Tax Map No. 301.6-2-71 Area Variance No.7-2024 Michael Shearer 20. Tax Map No.240.5-1-6 Area Variance No. S-2024 Tracey&Matthew Maxwell 23. Tax Map No. 309.9-3-24 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 02/21/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21ST,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY RICHARD CIPPERLY JOHN HENKEL ROBERT KEENAN MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL 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, February 21", 2024. If you haven't been here before, our process is pretty simple. There should be an agenda on the back table there. We'll call each application up,read the application into our record, allow the applicant to present his case. We'll question the applicant. After that, if a public meeting has been advertised we'll open the public meeting, accept input from the public on that particular case. We'll close the public meeting. We'll poll the Board,see how we stand on the application and then proceed from there,but first we have a couple of administrative items. So,John. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17",2024,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 21"day of February,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST TO TABLE AV 4-2023(EBERLEIN)TO MARCH 20,2024 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Geraldine Eberlein. (Revised) Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq.ft.,-an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq.ft.,-and a new floor area of 3,343 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for anew permeable driveway,stormwater management,and shoreline landscaping; the project also includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property to east property line. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks,floor area, and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to March 20,2024. Duly adopted this 21"Day of February 2024 by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 45-2023,Lauren&Christian Freyer. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER AGENT(S) RU HOLMES ENGINEERS PLLC OWNER(S) LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER ZONING WR LOCATION PULVER ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,573 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,874 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. THE SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY LOCAL BOH IS PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACROSS PULVER ROAD AND CONNECTION TO ADJOINING PROPERTY BY THE SAME OWNER. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE,AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 73-2023;FWW 13- 2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-6-050; CHAPTER 94 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.45-2023,Lauren&Christian Freyer,Meeting Date: February 21,2024 "Project Location: Pulver Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq.ft..footprint home with a floor area of 2,574 sq.ft..The project includes associated site work for stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connection to adjoining property by the same owner. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft..of the shoreline,and work within 100 ft.. of a wetland. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a new home. The project site is located on Pulver Road across the street from 121 Pilot Knob Road on a 0.37 ac lot in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 94 wetlands The applicant proposes a new home that is to be 32 ft.6 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft.is required, 24 ft.from the wetland where 50 ft.is required, 9 ft.to the west property line where 20 ft.is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the shape of the lot and location of constraints shoreline and wetlands. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested side yard setback is It ft.,from the shoreline is 17 ft. 6 inches and from the wetland is 26 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. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) Staff comments: The applicant revised the project to remove the garage reducing the size of the home and eliminating the permeability relief. The applicant proposes to construct a new home with associated site work. The home is two-story with an attached garage. The site work includes shoreline landscaping, stormwater and the driveway area. The septic is to be installed on adjacent parcel where the septic has been approved by the local board of health." MR.JARRE TT-Good evening. My name is Tom Jarrett with RU Holmes Engineers and our project team here tonight are Lauren Wells Freyer,representing the family,and Jace Brown,the project architect. The family would like to build a single family residence on a just over one-third acre site on Pulver Road. Currently the site is vacant. You can see some pictures. We wanted to first show you the pictures of the site. These were taken a couple of years ago, obviously in better condition than we have right now. I'll keep going. We can look at the pictures in a second. So we met with the Planning Board last fall to get a recommendation to this Board and although we don't think the Planning Board totally understood the project,we took their comments to heart. They've modified the project since then. So originally we had four variances, three setbacks, two to the water on the east, one to the property line on the west and a permeability variance. The permeability variance is actually caused by Pulver Road. It encroaches on the property. Our project is compliant with permeability as a standalone,but Pulver Road tipped it over the scale and made it a variance„which we've since gotten rid of. There's a project. The family has gone back to look at the project and looked carefully and they've actually eliminated the garage. They've reduced the size of the house considerably,and reduced the permeability on the site so that we're compliant even now with Pulver Road. So we're significantly below where we were before. The house was also compliant from a floor area ratio originally. Now we're well under that. We were 220/o before,which was compliant. We're now 1S%. So let me divert your attention back to the pictures on the screen. This is looking out of the site towards the lake to the north,and then we're going to pan to the east the next couple of pictures. Well,keep panning through the pictures and we'll have a slideshow as we go. In addition to eliminating the garage,the entrance to the house was moved around to the south side which reduced the setbacks to the water supply, the wetland and lake, the inlet to the bay slightly, but it did improve those setbacks. We've pushed the house as far to the west as we could reasonably to try to maximize the setbacks to the lake. Nominally the house is 10 feet from the west property line. We have a chimney that extends to nine feet. So we're asking for a variance here. So the variances we need are two setbacks to the east and one setback to the west,and,Jace,do you want to get into some of the houses changes maybe a little bit while we wait for pictures. MR. MC CABE-I've just got to have you identify yourself. JACE BROWN MR. BROWN Jace Brown,Beardsley Architects and Engineers. So we designed the home for the family on the site. Obviously there was very little hope from the get go of creating a fully compliant design on this site. The setbacks to the east and to the north facing the wetland and facing the lake really resulted in a potential building envelope that would be less than,deep,and very,very long. Certainly would result in not a very attractive home were it to be constructed,let alone functional on this pre-existing lot. So we had presented, as Tom mentioned in the previous iteration, a design that did include a two car garage. After our meeting with the Planning Board we did decide to eliminate that. Right here you can see a new road view of the home from Pulver Road. The former two car garage has been basically shrunk down to a shed and a new entry. This also enabled us to, what had formerly been the front door to have a smaller overhang which also improved the setback to the wetlands on this side of the house. As you can see,the floor plan is a modest floor plan that has just the basic,kitchen,living,dining on the first floor. Then there's a bedroom in the back corner and a modest patio and a screened porch facing the lake. The key thing here is this is really as narrow as we can reasonably make the house. If we were to try to make it narrower we would lose functionality to be able to have these rooms on the first floor and the second floor. They wouldn't be able to accommodate these bedrooms,which is critical to the project. It would be critical to most people for the house. Again,two bedrooms wide on the second floor, a small flex space and office in the back. There's the lake view of the home. Relatively locally inspired design,similar to many lake homes in the area and the neighborhood. It's in character with other homes in the neighborhood. This is, again, the front view that you just saw. This is the facade that is on the west where the variance is being requested, and there is a hedgerow tree line that's on the front which basically obscures this facade from the adjacent property, and then lastly some artistic renderings of the site. Obviously there's a,here, and then to the north you can see the marina across the lake here,but this does give you a sense of how this lot is very narrow, with the wetlands to this side. We feel like the house is appropriately sized given the magnitude of the lot. We've also significantly reduced the throat and distance of the driveway to ensure that it's accommodating the parking needs. And then the overall aerial. Giving some context, this,the rectangle, is the proposed home. The wetland is this right here. So this is the setback. As you can see there are no structures or views over here whatsoever that are really impacted from this shoreline setback and we're more than compliant on the lake setback. We pulled the house back for the permeability and the driveway. So overall,from a site perspective,we feel like it's a modest build on this site. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MR.JARRETT-I'll call your attention to the screen. This is the view from the shoreline looking directly south through the property. Pulver Road is in the background. You can't really see it. That tree line in the background is Pulver Road. So the site is basically vacant right now, high and dry and suitable for house construction. I'd call your attention to Drawing EX-2 in your package. Jace alluded to it., The actual compliant building envelope right now, where a compliant structure can be built, is less than 10 square feet in area. So that's the size of one of your tables. That's the entire on the site that's compliant. So we have to have a variance no matter what we do, and this is an existing site. It's been in existence for many, many years,as long as I can remember. So we can throw it open to Board questions. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I've got a few. I went to the property on Monday and it is a nice shaped property. It's domed. It's not equal to the lake level,which is nice. It'll create some good permeability. My question is, I mean I know you're not asking for permeability,but I would definitely feel better if you were going to use permeable pavers instead of a solid driveway there,because that's going to create,you know, water into that area of the wetlands there. So I definitely think that's something that should be considered, even though you're not asking for permeability. I mean I know you've got off site septic,which is really good. That's nice that you're bringing the septic off site, but I do have a little problem. I would feel more comfortable with approving this project if you'd give us a little bit more permeability, even though you don't need that. MR.JARRETT-We did consider that before, and the family will consider that. I think that's not a bad idea. We can't get 1000/o credit for that. MR.HENKEL-I realize that,but the more you can do to protect those wetlands would be a good. MR.JARRETT-I might point out,we do have a stormwater design that sheds water towards the east,and we have a new wet swale,intercept that whole wetland boundary so it can't get to the wetland directly. It's going to be treated,but reducing the amount of runoff getting to that,the family would have no problem considering that. MR.HENKEL-So when I was there Monday I was pretty impressed with the soil there. I walked in and I looked at the soil and it looks like it's going to be very permeable on that side that leads towards your wetlands. So that gives me some confidence on it,but like I said,I'd be willing to approve it based on the permeable pavers. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none,I believe the public hearing is open from November. Right? So at this time I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who would like to comment on that. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DENNIS PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm a lawyer with McPhillips, Fitzgerald& Cullum in Glens Falls and I'm representing the neighbor,Vincent Andretta,in this matter,who as you're looking at the lake is the neighbor to the left, and Mr.Andretta,through his daughter-in-law,has already corresponded with the Zoning Board of Appeals in an e-mail, I'm sure it's part of your record, dated November 13, 2023, and he explains some history for this property and his major complaint is that the reason that the soils on this property appear to be so permeable and so good is that this property was filled a number of years ago by Mr. Philo and he indicates that before the fill was brought in that this basically was an extension of the wetland, and that the water table was very high. Wetland vegetation there, spongy all year round,and so what we're dealing with here is a fill property rather than a natural soil kind of property. I think that is borne out by the soils work that was done on the property by the engineers when they did a number of test holes on the property. I think the test holes were 5,6, and 7 were on that property, and I probably have not seen such good soils in a long time because they all appear to be of medium sand with trace of some gravel, and not being an engineer, I don't know exactly what it means with some of these. Depths were at 13 inches. There is a note called a refusal. I'd ask Mr.Jarrett what that means, but to me it means that perhaps at that point there is bedrock or fractured bedrock or something which would indicate that the natural condition of that area was other than what it is now. I think that the point that Mr.Andretta makes is that he thought that this was unlawfully filled some time ago. He indicates in his e-mail that he didn't say anything about it then,but now that someone is going to be building a house there,he felt that he had to say something about it now, and that's why I'm here,but once the fill was brought into the area,he's indicated that his land,which is the adjoining land, suddenly was wetter and spongier than it was before this fill was brought in,to the point where he had to do some drainage work on his own, on his own property, in order to deal with some of the water runoff coming from the fill area, and the photos that have been shown to the Board are interesting, all taken during the summer, apparently, very pretty. It's a very pretty site. No doubt about that,but I'm going to present some photos to the Board which also are photos of the site taken when the leaves are off the trees, and I think that you can actually discern from one of the photos that I'm going to be providing you with,which 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) I call Pulver Road fill mounded landscape,where this property is bounded to a certain degree with a high point in the middle. It slopes off to the wetlands to the right. Slopes off to the Andretta property to the left,and I'll submit those to you so you can look at them,if I may. MR.HENKEL-Laura,do we have any information about that,if it was filled in at one time,10 years ago,20 years ago? MR.PHILLIPS-So as you're looking at those photos,I think you also have in your record a copy of the deed for this property, and I'm looking at a deed that is dated in 2020 from Marian Philo to the applicants in this case, and that deed basically has two properties, two parcels. One parcel is on the Catskill, on the road heading to Catskill Bay and Pilot Knob, and then the second parcel is this strip of land that is now before you, and assuming that this was already a filled land, but I'm thinking that probably the original intent of this deed was to have a building lot up on the main road and then a lake access lot,which would provide some kind of pedestrian access to Lake George, with the idea that a dock could be constructed there for access to the lake. Now I am merely inferring that this was the intent of this deed,but the point I'd like to make is that there is a connection between the lot that you're looking at and that's before you tonight and a lot that's up on the Catskill Bay Road, and my theory is that this originally was never intended to be a building lot but a lot that would merely provide access to Lake George, and so that's something that I think should be a factor in this. Looking at the Town map, it appears to me that this whole area is classified on the Town map as a Critical Environmental Area and I think that that's been pointed out by Mr.Jarrett in his engineering work where on one of his plans he makes a point, and I applaud him for this, for talking about the limits of the building envelope. Once the setbacks from the property line, shoreline and wetlands are taken into account, and because of all of the overlapping regulations that would apply to that property,basically with a sliver of land the size of the table that he's talking about,this would not be a buildable lot. So I think that that was very important as well. I notice that the Town Board allowed for an off-site system. That would be a pumping of effluent from this property up to a commonly owned property on the road. I don't know how long that pumping would be, but I do know that this application,whatever happens here,if it's approved,it goes to the Adirondack Park Agency,I believe, and the Adirondack Park Agency has an opportunity to review it. I do know that there is a guidance document produced by the Adirondack Park Agency which discourages pumping of effluent for a distance of greater than 250 feet, and also discourages it from running pipe lines across roads and rights of way. It appears as though on the plan here is to pump this off-site across Pulver Road and then up to a site which is on the Catskill Bay Road. So this to me would be contrary to the policy of the APA, even though this Town Board, acting as the Department of Health,approved such a plan. So with that,I think that this area has a lot of environmental problems to it, and I note that in the notice of the meeting that it has been classified as a Type II under SEQRA, and I think it's Type II because we're dealing with area variances here,but that's not to say that there are not environmental problems and so I looked at the SEQRA form,the Long Form,to see if I could spot areas where notwithstanding the Type II classification, there are environmental issues to look at, and the first item that I looked at is impact on land and the question is,would this construction involve a physical alteration of the land surface of the proposed sale. Certainly the answer is yes, and then a couple of lesser questions under that. I think that that's a yes as well. Impacts on Surface Water. This is certainly going to have impact on runoff, stormwater. That's going to affect the wetland. It's going to affect the adjoining property. So I checked a yes there as well. Looking at the Impact on Groundwater, with a fill site and with some hard surfaces, I think that it will affect groundwater. How much I have no idea. Flooding,I think that's ayes,and that's one of my client's big concerns,that when the fill was brought into this property it produced flooding, and that's with soils that were,based on the soil testing that's been done on this property,those soils were almost perfect soils with sand and gravel,but now with hard surfaces and a setback of only nine feet from the property line, the thought of the client is that the flooding could be exacerbated. We don't know how much,but it was bad before and the fear is that it will be worse after. And then of course we have the question on the Long Form of Impact on Critical Environmental Areas. MR. MC CABE-I'm going to cut you off here. The way we look at this,this is Type II. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. I'll stop on that, but I was saying that even though it's a Type II, there are environmental considerations. MR. MC CABE-I understand that. MR.PHILLIPS-So as you can tell my client is opposed to this project. I'm speaking on his behalf. He feels like he should have been saying these things a long time ago,but now that a major change is going to take place right next door to him in the neighborhood that it was a time to voice his sentiments and his thoughts to the Board in a public forum. So I thank you very much. MR.MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project? Seeing nobody,Roy,do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-There's two letters, one of which is the attorney mentioned this letter, which I think he already covered most of everything that's in here. So I'll read the second letter. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MR. MC CABE-So are you satisfied with your presentation or would you like the letter read into the record? MR.PHILLIPS-As long as it's in the record,I'm happy. MR. URRICO-So the second letter, this is, "I think it's best to give you some history so you may better understand my position. I purchased my home in 2004. At that time it was or had been part of a family compound put together by Bud Walker. My house (1157) was previously occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Bud Walker;the house to my north,(1159—3+bedrooms at the time)was occupied by Mr.Walker's sister,Lois Clark nee Walker:;the house to my South(1155)a small two bedroom cottage was sold to Robert Strasser; while the large (6 Br)house across the street (1154)was occupied by a couple part time from New Jersey. We shared and share a septic field, across the street, away from the lake,in front of 1154. At some point, whether with or without permits, 1155 was increased to four bedrooms. Along came COVID and what happened? The three structures around me all became rentals. The modest two bedroom, (1155) now expanded, advertises "sleeps ten". G-d and Google know what the other two advertise, but I think it's something like ten(10)bedrooms and you all know and recognize that when it is a rental,those capacities are met or exceeded,often or always! Pity the poor septic system—pity our magnificent lake. This year I spent $5,000 on my septic and I was happy to do so if it preserves our lake. CONCLUSION; I have no objection to whatever is legally permitted being approved. If a variance or some special consideration is sought then it should only be done if in consideration therefore a written recorded restriction is obtained from the owners, binding in perpetuity that the home or unit or part thereof will NOT BE RENTED for periods of time less than thirty(30) days consecutively. Sincerely, thank you for your time and effort in these and related matters. Martin M. Filler" 1157 Pilot Knob Road. That's it. MR. MC CABE-So,Laura,just a Staff question. Is this a building lot? MRS. MOORE-The application wouldn't be in front of you if it wasn't allowable. MR.HENKEL-What about the Board of Health? We didn't? MRS.MOORE-The local Board of Health already approved the septic. You don't typically get involved in septics. MR.HENKEL-That's what I thought. Right. Okay. MR.JARRETT-We'd like to address some of those comments that were raised in the public hearing. The site is very old and the fill was done many,many years ago. I've been driving on that road for several years, and that site is very, very old. I don't know when the fill was placed, but it was not recently. I don't believe it was illegal. The APA was there when we first started the project. They did not mention any enforcement action. They did not mention any encroachment on wetlands. All the wetlands that are present were flagged and they're off site essentially. The CEA extends all the way around the lake,500 feet from the shoreline, all the way around the lake. It's just a perfunctory CEA. This is not any special circumstance compared to other areas on the lake. Every area there's a 500 foot CEA. I did dig test pits myself,investigating the site. I personally dug those. I dug them by hand. I noticed I could not get down through the gravel and the cobbles below about 13 to 17 inches. That's why I noted the refusal because I couldn't get down by hand,but I noted cobbles. I didn't notice any bedrock or anything that was evidence of bedrock. It was cobbles and gravelly. It was densely packed. That's why the refusal on the. Very importantly runoff was mentioned and stormwater was brought up by the Board. This is not a grading plan. Our stormwater design includes a wet swale along this entire property line,and our game plan is to put a diversion swale here along the house and driveway to rout runoff around the house away from the west side to this side and all the stormwater management will be here. So the problem with runoff that potentially happens right now from this site to the neighbor will be eliminated. That runoff will not enter that property. It will go back here where it will be treated and this will protect the wetland here . So I think that issue should please the neighbor when he sees what we're doing. As I said the APA was here. They documented wetlands. They did not see any wetlands on the property itself,and lastly SEQRA was brought up. You mentioned it's a Type II. MR. MC CABE-It's a Type II. That's by law. MR.JARRETT-None of those issues I feel were outstanding,but it is a Type II. We would like to address some of the potential use of the property and I think Tim would like to address the history as well. TIM WELLS MR.WELLS-Yes. I'm Tim Wells. I'm Lauren's dad. LAUREN WELLS FREYER 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MRS. FREYER-So I'll start off. I'm Lauren Wells Freyer, one of the owners. My husband and I co-own the house with my parents. We bought it a few years ago. The first thing I want to say, I wasn't sure when it was appropriate to jump in, but, Mr. Henkel, you certainly, it was one of the things we talked about in the design process. We're absolutely happy to commit to that. As I just said, we are a set of parents, husband, daughter. We bought this together. We want to use this for our family. So I heard that letter. We absolutely do not intend,ever,to rent this. I grew up coming to this lake. It's incredibly important to me. The health of this lake is super important to all of us. We don't really want to perpetuate the rental thing that's going on up here. For us it's just part of our,which is why we worked on the septic plan as it is now. We want to do as much as we canto keep the water clean. We can't really speak to the history of the lot. Actually all that we've learned about the history we also were told by our neighbor,MR. Andretta. So we essentially know what you now know. He shared all that with us. We're not familiar with timeline,but he certainly told us that it was decades ago. Again,I don't have a clock. I can't say,but we are aware,as well,of the drainage issues that came up on his site,and when we first spoke to him about this we told him, and we'll say again, we are extremely happy and willing to work with him to try to alleviate that because it would bother us,too. So we're aware of that,and as Tom just showed you on the plan,that's why we've made allowances to kind of pull the backup away from his property. MR.HENKEL-No one has a right to stop you from renting it anyway. That's not up to us. That's not up to our Board. New York State protects you anyway from that. MRS. FREYER-That's fair. But it'll be us. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, I think we have to remember that we're dealing with setbacks. The variances that we're being asked for are two setbacks and they're kind of moderate. They're not really that substantial. I'm satisfied that the applicant has addressed all the other issues that need to be addressed. I will be in favor of this application. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I would be in favor of it as well. I went up and walked the property as well, and,you know,again,what's before us is the request for setbacks,not the issues that have been brought to the fore. I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-Yes. There's no doubt this is a small lot and if the permeability wasn't where it is,I would definitely be kind of against it because of the wetlands, but like I said I'd be willing to approve it and I don't know if anybody else wants to do that,but with the permeable pavers for the driveway,I think it's a great project. That's the point that I'd like to see. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Given the narrow width of the lot,I think it's appropriate for what you've designed here, and I think that Mr. Phillips brings up valid points about the runoff, but I think that the plan to capture the runoff water and putting it over to the north side there, or the east side I think is going to alleviate that concern. So I'd be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR.CIPPERLY-I,too,am in favor of the project. I think you've done a good job in compromise from what we originally saw and I like the idea of the permeable pavers and if we can make that a condition, then I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-I think that's the way to handle that. Bob? MR. KEENAN-This is a difficult lot to deal with,especially on the lake,but I think you've done what you can. You've compromised,I think,from the last go around,and so,yes,I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I'm impressed with the concessions that the applicant has made. I had some problems originally,but the concessions have taken care of those problems. So it sounds like we're in pretty good shape here. So,Dick, I wonder if you'd fashion us up a motion. MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lauren &z Christian Freyer. (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 1,573 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,874 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for stormwater management and shoreline planting plan. The septic system approved by local BOH is proposed for construction across Pulver Road and connection to adjoining property by the same owner. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline,and work within 100 ft.of a wetland. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a new home. The project site is located on Pulver Road across the street from 121 Pilot Knob Road on a 0.37 ac lot in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 94 wetlands The applicant proposes a new home that is to be 32 ft.6 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft.is required, 24 ft.from the wetland where 50 ft.is required, 9 ft.to the west property line where 20 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on November 15,2023&February 21,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because they've done all that they can to try and eliminate offsite issues. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and this is a narrow lot and alternatives are just not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. They've done all they can to try and utilize what they have. 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. They want to build a house on a vacant lot. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That the driveway utilize permeable pavers in lieu of asphalt. b) 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. 45-2023 LAUREN &z CHRISTIAN FREYER, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21s'Day of February 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 4-2024,Jay and Kim Ogden,17 Fitzgerald Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.4-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JAY&z KIM OGDEN AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) JAY&z KIM OGDEN ZONING WR LOCATION 17 FITZGERALD RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,526 SQ. FT. DETACHED SECOND GARAGE FOR VEHICLE STORAGE. THE GARAGE IS TO BE 18 FT. 10 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) INCHES IN HEIGHT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,061 SQ. FT. HOME WITH 336 SQ. FT. PORCH AREAS THAT ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. PERMEABILITY IS DECREASED FROM 75.22%TO 69.29%. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE AND HEIGHT OF GARAGE,HEIGHT OF GARAGE AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF AV 2-2021;SP 2-2021;AV 33-1995;AV 28-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-020 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;JAY OGDEN,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.4-2024,Jay&Kim Ogden,Meeting Date: February 21,2024 "Project Location: 17 Fitzgerald Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,526 sq.ft. detached second garage for vehicle storage. The garage is to be 1S ft.10 inches in height. The site has an existing 2,061 sq. ft. home with 336 sq. ft.porch areas and garage that are to remain with no changes. Permeability is decreased from 75.220/o to 69.29%. Relief is requested for second garage, size of garage, height of garage, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second garage,height of garage, and permeability. The project site is 0.71 ac and located in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040,Section 179-5-020 garage The new garage is 1526 sf which exceeds the maximum allowed of 1100 sf for lots less than 5 ac,height of the garage where it is to be IS ft. 10 inches and the maximum allowed is 16 ft. in Waterfront Residential zone,and site permeability where 69.29%is proposed and 75%is required. Relief is also requested for two garages where only one is 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties, as items are currently stored outside in area of garage. 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 size of the parcel and location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for more than one garage,oversized garage-426 sf,garage over height by 2 ft.10 inches,permeability 5.71%. 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 a 1526 sq. ft. detached garage for storage of boats and RV so they can be inside a building instead of exposure to outside weather elements.The plans show the location of the existing home and the proposed garage area." MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records,my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture here tonight with Jay Ogden,owner of the property. As Roy stated,we are looking to put a second building up which would be garage storage. They own a self-contained RV. They own several boats and water craft, a side by side, and a couple of job trailers. If you've visited the site,you can see all of it sitting out there right now, and the intent is to get that inside the building, get rid of the temporary shelters that are up there. So that's basically where we're at with it. The proposed height is due to the front so we can get a big enough garage to work, get the RV and boats in and allow that rollover of the garage door. We've made it a single sloped roof. The back part of the roof is below the 16 foot,but I've got the pitch at 1 on 12 so that water would runoff and we could capture the water runoff in an cave trench 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) at the back of the building. Really well-drained soil up there. Hard to make water stay in the ground. Outside of that we've really tried to minimize the impact on it. It's going in a flat area out near the road, away from the lake. So that's really where we've tried to nestle it in the back of the lot. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-What's the height of your camper? What you're putting in it? MR.HALL-It's an over the road RV. MR.HENKEL-Thirteen foot. MR.HALL-Yes. MR. HENKEL-So you're telling me you still couldn't get away with that being at the height of 16 feet, which would be allowable without a variance there? MR.HALL-In the front area we've got a 14 foot door,just so that we can. MR.HENKEL-Right. So get that in with about a 16 foot height in the front,so then you'd be about 14 feet in the back which would still give you the height for your RV and that. Right? Because you're sloping that. You're using a shed roof. MR.HALL-Correct. MR.HENKEL-So you could get away with that 16 foot. That would give you that. MR. HALL-With the depth of the roof, in order to do this I have to use at least two by twelves to make this roof work. So that drops my inside height down to less than 15 feet,and to get a 14 foot door in there I can't get a rollover tract that will make that work. MR.HENKEL-You're going to use a laminated beam? MR.HALL-Yes,we are. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR.HALL-But the roof,that's why I've got the posts set where they are and the roof has to be,in order to keep it that flat of a roof,structurally,I have to use two by twelves to support that snow load. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR.HALL-And as the roof pitches back,that's the direction that my door is going in,if I drop that down, my rollover door will hit the roof, the structure, before it gets there. You can see where the beams are underneath, and the cross section is on A-5, so the underside of that back,the next beam back,is only 14 foot and eight inches. So my rollover tract is going right underneath that beam in order to get the 14 foot door in. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR.HALL-And he needs that for the height or the top of the RV will hit. MR.HENKEL-You said the RV is about 13. It sounds a little high. MR.HALL-It's a motor coach. MR.HENKEL-Class A? MR.HALL-Yes. And it's got the air conditioner unit on the top that stays on there all the time. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none,a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'd like to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there that would like to address us on that particular project. Roy,is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there's a couple of letters. "I believe every variance request here should be reviewed closely since there are four requested for this project. The lot is a very narrow lot with a driveway that takes up some of the available space. As a result, there are many trailers and vehicles that are parked 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) between Fitzgerald Road and the house. Perhaps the size and shape of the lot does not have enough allowable room for all of the equipment that is currently stored. I ask that the Board consider whether a resident has the right to store more equipment than is allowed. I understand that a second garage is requested to house this collection of equipment. I understand the desire to eliminate the temporary storage shelters. My main objection is the height of the structure. There are currently no other standalone structures on Fitzgerald Road that exceed the height limit to the best of my knowledge. Can the garage be re-designed to avoid this height issue? Are 14' doors really necessary? If an RV cannot fit within the structure at the allowable height and depth,then perhaps it should be stored off site. The sq. footage of the building is also larger than allowed. I don't believe a variance should be made just to provide room for all of the equipment that one owns. I thank you for your time and consideration. Chris Frielinghaus 97 Mannis Road Queensbury, NY." This one here, "We have not decided whether we will take a position one way or another in this matter. However,we feel that the Board should be allowed to avail themselves of the information on the attached document. All of the present day property owners have a direct link to the original landowners that took part in the 1976 land purchase and conveyance that precipitated access by the lakeside lots,through the conveyance,to Fitzgerald Road. We direct the Board's attention to the "NOTE" appearing on the map from 1976,reproduced below and attached herein, showing the proposed lots to be conveyed to the then owners of the properties at 17, 19, 21, 23 and 25 Fitzgerald Road in Queensbury. The purchase and conveyance occurred in spite of the stipulation that appears to have been placed on the transaction that no building construction on the additional lots was to occur. The question does beg why that stipulation was placed on the transaction in the first place. But it was, and the parties involved went forward with the conveyance. Again, this information is being provided to the Board for their consideration in making a decision in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Kieran and Barbara Schrader 21 Fitzgerald Road Queensbury,NY 12SO4." I have the map if anybody wants to see it. I have one more letter. "This is a follow up to our email exchanges back on January 17`h regarding the variance hearing(AV 4-2024)on the Ogden property at 17 Fitzgerald Road in Queensbury. At that time I had sent you a cell photo of a survey map from 1976 in which there was a conveyance of property by Robert Nolan to the owners of the properties from 17-27 Fitzgerald Road to provide them road access. On that survey map was a"Note"stating that the conveyance was contingent on the conveyed property not being used for any additional structures or for sewage disposal. You had asked if I was in the possession of documents bearing official Town of Planning Board stamps of any nature. The answer is no. What I can tell you is that I was told at the time of the acquisition of my property that there was to be no building on the back portion of my property. I believed everyone was under the same stipulation. It is my understanding that the Town does have a regulation in place disallowing any secondary buildings on lakefront property unless grandfathered in. I have been trying to find out when that regulation went into effect. Could it have been in place in 1976 which was the reason behind the"Note"being placed on our conveyance at that time? Or did the Town regulation originate as a result? Attached you will find four documents that I wish for the Board to review as it makes its decision regarding the variance sought by the Ogden's. 1. Photocopy of the 1976 Survey Map bearing said"Note". Full size print,2'x 2',available. 2. Recent aerial photo of the property in question from 2022. 3. Carriage house photo,50'x 25',for perspective. IT to bottom roof line. 19'to top of hay loading dormer door. Both as marked. I have also walked my property and viewed the"neighborhood"from a street view. Based on the proposed dimensions of 50'x 30'x 1S'9"I find it a bit of a stretch to label the proposed structure a garage. I view it more as a commercial building. I have attached two (2) photos of a 50'x 25' carriage house in downtown Glens Falls for perspective purposes. The proposed building will not only be 5 feet wider (deeper) but the height would reach the top of the doors on the front dormer in this example as marked. This building is capable of containing 6 automobiles. I question the statement in the variance "application" that the "garage" would not negatively change the character of the neighborhood. Walking down the street and along my property I tried to visualize what a 1,500 sq. ft. footprint, 19 foot high "commercial building" would look like when set back 100 feet from Fitzgerald. I would consider it to have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. Furthermore I do not believe that this"commercial building" would be able to contain all of the pieces of equipment presently on the property thereby negating the statement that looking at the proposed structure will be better than looking at the exposed equipment. The neighborhood would be looking at both in the end. It is NOT my intent to rain on anyone's parade. I want to be a good neighbor,but the Town did solicit my opinion. I have put forth the 1976 Survey of all the properties for consideration. I am inquiring as to the timing of the current 2 building restriction by the Town on lake property. And I ask if all of the property owners are/were under the same construction limitation as I was when acquiring my property. If not, this could set a precedent that would allow all of us to construct a similar building on our properties. Respectfully submitted into the record for Board consideration. Thank you for your time and attention. Kieran J. Schrader 21 Fitzgerald Road Queensbury,NY" This is basically the same letter that explains it more in depth. So it's basically referring to the conveyance of the property. So I have that information here if anybody wants to look at it. It's in the record. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing, unless you guys have anything to add to it? MR. HALL-No. The only thing that we can add to it is we've researched the deed. We had Michael O'Connor research the deed, which Mike is related to the family. They've done a complete deed search. We don't find that. We know it shows upon the survey map,but it doesn't show up on any deeds. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 Bob. MR. KEENAN-I think you're eliminating the temporary shelters and kind of cleaning up the yard. So I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes,I think I would be,too. I understand you've done whatever you can possibly do to keep the height to where it is. Short of putting the RV somewhere else,that's the only other solution. So I guess I'd go along with it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I live adjacent to the property. So I'm quite familiar with the situation, and it has existed, and I agree with the other Board members. I think that this is an improvement over having stuff all over the yard. Everybody has too much stuff. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-We really struggle with giving second garages of that size on a piece of property that small. I have no problem with the height and the garage itself. You've got all that extra space on the side there, and you've got for storage, I don't know if that's really needed. The garage I can see for the two doors for housing the boats and the RV, but you've got a whole other section there that I don't understand what that's needed for. MR. HALL-That's the stuff that's in the temporary shelter. There's two box trailers. If you look at the pictures there,there's the box trailers there. There's two temporary enclosures that are full of stuff. They also have a side by side which is in the current garage. MR.HENKEL-I do struggle with this because like I said in the past we've definitely have given a hard time to people with small lots and the neighbors don't seem to be really on board,the neighbors with the letters, but it sounds like our Board is on board with it. So I guess I'll approve it. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I had the issue with the second garage as well and with the amount of recreational vehicles,but I'll go along with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to be a noon this. I think a second garage shouldn't be allowed here and I know we have a good explanation for the height,but I really am not good with that,either. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, am a no here. It's one thing to have a second garage,but for the second garage to be too big is even worse. I've been pretty consistent with not approving a second garage,but I only have one vote. So you've got more than enough here. MR.HENKEL-I move to a no,too,but it doesn't matter. MR. MC CABE-Yes,it doesn't matter. So I'm going to ask Bob if he'd fashion us up a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jay &z Kim Ogden. Applicant proposes to construct a 1,526 sq. ft. detached second garage for vehicle storage. The garage is to be 1S ft. 10 inches in height. The site has an existing 2,061 sq. ft. home with 336 sq. ft. porch areas and garage that are to remain with no changes. Permeability is decreased from 75.220/o to 69.29%. Relief is requested for second garage,size of garage,height of garage, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second garage,height of garage, and permeability. The project site is 0.71 ac and located in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040,Section 179-5-020 garage 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) The new garage is 1526 sf which exceeds the maximum allowed of 1100 sf for lots less than 5 ac,height of the garage where it is to be IS ft. 10 inches and the maximum allowed is 16 ft. in Waterfront Residential zone,and site permeability where 69.29%is proposed and 75%is required. Relief is also requested for two garages where only one is allowed. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on January 17,2024 and February 21,2024. 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 because we believe that it's actually going to clean up the property as far as the temporary shelters. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it fits on the size of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again,it's cleaning up the lot as far as temporary shelters. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created because he does want to build the large garage. 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. 4-2024 JAY&z KIM OGDEN, Introduced by Robert Keenan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 21"Day of February 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.HALL-Thank you. MR. OGDEN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 5-2024,Francis and Cindy Steciuk. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.5-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 FRANCIS&z CINDY STECIUK AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP LLP OWNER(S) FRANCIS J STECIUK REV. LIVING TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 374 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MAJOR RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME INCLUDING REMOVAL OF PORTIONS OF THE HOME,CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS,AND ANEW ROOF. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,162 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 171 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREAS AND 783 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. THE GARAGE IS TO REMAIN AS IS. THE ADDITION TO THE HOME IS TO BE 242 SQ. FT. AND REMOVAL OF 130 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA WITH A NEW FOOTPRINT OF 1,404 SQ. FT. AND 41 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 1,945 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 2,357 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) INCLUDES NEW PATIO AREAS, SEPTIC SYSTEM, SHORELINE MODIFICATIONS FOR ACCESS, EROSION CONTROL, AND IMPROVED VEGETATIVE BUFFER. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE,AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 6-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.65 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040 CONNOR DEMYER,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 5-2024, Francis & Cindy Steciuk, Meeting Date: February 21,2024 "Project Location: 374 Glen Lake Rd Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes major renovations to an existing home including removal of portions of the home,construction of additions, and a new roof. The existing home is 1,162 sq. ft. footprint with 171 sq. ft. of porch/deck areas and 7S3 sq. ft. detached garage. The garage is to remain as is. The addition to the home is to be 242 sq.ft. and removal of 130 sq.ft.of porch/deck area with a new footprint of 1,404 sq.ft.and 41 sq.ft.porch/deck area.The existing floor area is 1,945 sq. ft. and the new floor area is to be 2,357 sq. ft. The project includes new patio areas, septic system,shoreline modifications for access,erosion control,and improved vegetative buffer.Site plan for new floor area, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for residential alterations and additions. The project site is on a 0.65 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The master bedroom addition is to be 37.6 ft.from the shoreline where a 50 ft.shoreline setback is required. The permeability is proposed to be 71.60/o where 750/o is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home on the property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 12.4 ft.for setback and 3.40/o for permeability. 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 impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project includes demolition of interior walls and exterior walls of the structure to remain except where additions occur. The new building additions include a 3S6 sf addition to the north-side area. The north- side area is to be a master bedroom and laundry. Then on the south-side area is to be 170 sf addition. The south side area is to be a new covered front porch and new mudroom. There are no changes to the existing garage. The plans show the location of the additions and the views of the additions on each side." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: Concern for the permeability associated with this project, and that motion was adopted February 20`h,2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. DE MYER-Good evening, everyone. Connor DeMyer with Environmental Design Partnership, representing the Steciuk's at 374 Glen Lake Road. We are proposing renovation of an existing seasonal cottage. The owners would like to use it as more of a year round house, hence the proposed master bedroom and laundry services on site. We are requesting two variances, one for the dwelling to the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) shoreline. Currently the house is 35.9 feet. We are actually making it 37.6 feet. So we're increasing the shoreline setback. Permeability currently is 73.6 and we are increasing permeability to 72 with the addition of some permeable pavers and some shoreline work. Currently the shoreline needs some renovation. So we're doing some enhancements down there,beach, some steps down, and a retaining wall to help with erosion and easy access for the owners. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Hearing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'd like to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there who would like to make comment on this particular project? Is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's 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 Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's a reasonable proposal. It's a modest change to what you have on site there and I think it's going to be good for the lake with the septic system. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, they're asking for very minimal, a little bit of permeability there. It's not a big deal. They're actually going to be farther away from the lake than what the original is. So I'd be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I would be in favor of the project as proposed as well. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'd be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think it's a good to see a new septic system's going in there. It's a very minimal change to the property. So I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm in favor of it. It's sort of a minimal relief and very helpful to the lake. MR. MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. I think what's being asked for here is really very minimal. So,Jim,I'm going to request a little motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Francis &z Cindy Steciuk. Applicant proposes major renovations to an existing home including removal of portions of the home,construction of additions, and a new roof. The existing home is 1,162 sq.ft.footprint with 171 sq.ft.of porch/deck areas and 7S3 sq.ft. detached garage. The garage is to remain as is. The addition to the home is to be 242 sq. ft. and removal of 130 sq. ft. of porch/deck area with a new footprint of 1,404 sq. ft. and 41 sq.ft.porch/deck area. The existing floor area is 1,945 sq.ft. and the new floor area is to be 2,357 sq. ft. The project includes newpatio areas,septic system,shoreline modifications for access,erosion control, and improved vegetative buffer. Site plan for new floor area,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for residential alterations and additions. The project site is on a 0.65 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The master bedroom addition is to be 37.6 ft.from the shoreline where a 50 ft.shoreline setback is required. The permeability is proposed to be 71.60/o where 750/o is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) A public hearing was advertised and held on February 21,2024. 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 will be an improvement over what currently exists on site and it's a very modest proposal. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. This project is deemed to be reasonable and has been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's only a slight change, difference from what currently exists on site. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It'll be an improvement with the new septic system on site. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to improve the property, but it's for the better. 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;and it will be an improvement on what currently exists. 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. 5-2024 FRANCIS&z CINDY STECIUK, Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21"Day of February 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mts.Palacino, Mr. Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. DE MYER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 6-2024,Jerry Aurelia,13 Haven Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JERRY AURELIA OWNER(S) JERRY AURELIA ZONING MDR LOCATION 13 HAVEN LANE APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN INSTALLED 6 FT. PRIVACY FENCE ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. THE FENCE IS 64 FT. IN LENGTH AND IS PARTIALLY LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD. THE EXISTING HOME AND PORCH ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR INSTALLATION OF A PORTION OF A 6 FT PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.6- 2-71 SECTION 179-5-070 JERRY AURELIA,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2024,Jerry Aurelia, Meeting Date: February 21, 2024 "Project Location: 13 Haven Ln Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval of an installed 6 ft.privacy fence on the west property line. The fence is 64 ft.in length and is partially located in the front yard. The existing home and porch are to remain with no changes. Relief requested for installation of a portion of a 6 ft.privacy fence in front yard. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for installation of a portion of a 6 ft.privacy fence in front yard. The project is located on a 0.35 ac parcel in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040,Section 179-5-070 Fence The applicant has installed a 6 ft.privacy fence on the west property line where it would be considered a front yard. Fence in front yard is limited to 4 ft.in height and open style. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to the side yard but would not meet the applicants intent to provide screening between the properties. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is only a portion of a 6 ft.high privacy fence in the front yard. 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 requests approval of already installed 6 ft. privacy fence on the west property line. The applicant has explained the property line had several bushes acting as screening between the properties that have been removed by the neighbor. The fence will allow the applicant to use the back yard and minimize interaction with the neighbors dogs. The plans and photos show the location of the fence." MR. AURELIA-Good evening, Chairman McCabe and Board members. Thank you for letting me come here and speak my peace. I must say, I couldn't have done this without the help and tutelage of Laura Moore. MR. MC CABE-First of all,you have to identify yourself. MR.AURELIA-I'm Jerry Aurelia. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.AURELIA-But anyway,the reason for the fence is two-fold. We live in a friendly little neighborhood. No issues. No problems. With one minor exception,but, Laura,if you could pull up the photo of the left side property before the fence,I think that sort of,there's two-fold reason that I wanted this fence. That's the one. That's perfect. The chain link fence that you see at the far end has been removed,but you see the hedges that are there? Those hedges became very unsightly and what happens is, as you come down the property toward the road, and I don't know if you drove this property. Did you all drive by here? I hope so,because if you saw the hedges as they currently exist,they used to look like,toward the back where the chain link fence is, all the way around,including to the road and down the side,okay. So in essence what happened is,this addition aside,it's an unsightly situation because I used to have to trim the hedges on my side. I couldn't get the lawnmower into the side to mow the grass. In any event, for about two years running the neighbor never trimmed. He did at first,but then he stopped. So they became unsightly. So I trimmed it down,I said you need to do something. The second situation besides the hedges was his dogs. Now his dogs,that chain link fence,they have a privacy fence,you can sort of see it there on the side ,but the dogs can come out through a side door in the house and they can look through that fence,and anybody that walks their dogs,and we have a lot of dogs in the neighborhood,they walk the dogs along the road or, you know, around the corner, and those dogs, if they're out, they can see them. So my attempt was to block that. So that's why I put the fence from that area all the way down,but the ironic part is, since he trimmed his hedges,and he did this two days before my fence went up,okay. So he trimmed all the hedges down to next to nothing. So now my visual out of my driveway,because my fence doesn't go,have you got that one, Laura, where the fence goes down to the edge of the property? Coming out of the driveway. There it is. That's the one. Now there's the end of my fence coming toward Haven Lane,and those hedges 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) and that tree,essentially,when they were full grown,before he trimmed them down to nothing,was more of a blockage. So the fence doesn't even approach that distance where it was in existence with the hedges. Now I don't know what he's going to do with his hedges,but quite honestly I tried all approaches. Before I went to this I said what can I do. I'm on a first name basis with Cathy Cloutier of the SPCA. I know Aubrey the Animal Control Officer. I've spoken to the State Troopers. I've spoken to the Sheriff's,nothing I can do with the dogs. Apparently there's certain regulations that prohibit certain things with dogs on their property. So I said, well, what are my options? So I figured I'll start here and block this off. Now the rest of my yard down the back also has a chain link fence. I intend to put that up down there as well. Now that doesn't require any variances. Am I right? No,not this one. To the back of my property. MR. MC CABE-It depends on how tall it is. MR.AURELIA-Well,it would be like this,six feet. MR.HENKEL-As long as it's six feet or under. MR.AURELIA-Okay. So that's my intention probably this summer,but as I come to you today, as I said, the neighbors,I went around and asked them if they had any objections. They all are willing to sign, and most of those neighbors have dogs that have walked the property, and each and every one of them told me a story about how, a situation that arose with this neighbor. So that's my situation. Do you have any questions or concerns? I understand the safety and nature of the height,but as you can see,I can see better now than I could before. MR. MC CABE-So we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Would you be willing to knock it down to four feet? Queensbury's a nice community. If we're going to put fences all the way close to the road it's not going to look good,especially in these smaller communities, you know, these smaller housing developments. As it is you're not supposed to have it totally, a fence you can't see through,you know,past the corner of your property anyway of your house. So you're breaking two rules you could say. That's my opinion. I just think it's too close to the road. It looks like we're in a prison. But that's my opinion. 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 would like to address us on this particular project. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes,there's two letters. "I live at 10 Haven Lane. I have no objection to the area variance requested by Jerry Aurelia at 13 Haven Lane for his fence. William J. Levandowski" The second letter is "I am unable to attend the public hearing set for February 21,2024. I have no real objection to Mr.Aurelia's request for a variance for the fence in the front yard at this location. However,I would not like it to be a precedent for other 6 foot high fences in the front yards of other locations in this neighborhood. Arthur Yannotti 4 Centennial Drive Queensbury" MRS. MOO RE-In your packet was eight neighbors that signed a petition. So that should be recognized. MR. URRICO-That's all I have in here. You said eight letters? MRS. MOORE-In your application packet, and it was eight signatures. MR. URRICO-All right. MR. AURELIA-What's also in that packet is some pictures of other locations just down the street from where I am. Their fences are right up against the road, and they're six feet. Never been any issues there. I've been in this house for over 20 years,haven't heard any situations arise from that,but I understand your concerns. 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 really don't have any objection to the project. As you say,there are other six foot fences close to the road in the neighborhood. Your neighbors certainly live with what's there. MR. MC CABE-Bob? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MR.KEENAN-I don't particularly care for the six foot high fences,but I think you seem to have the support of your neighbors, and it's just on the one side of your property. I don't have a problem with this project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I just want to ask Laura a question. There's no variance for a stockade fence,right? MRS. MOORE-The type of fence. So the variance is for the height and type of fence,stockade. MR. URRICO-Stockade fence. Okay. I have no objections. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I have no objections to it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I've kind of said my statement. Like I said, I agree with him having a stockade fence out towards a portion of it,but not towards the road. So I'd be against it as is. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-And I can,I agree with your situation here. I think that the fence is warranted, and so I support the project also. So,Mary,I wonder if you could craft us up a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jerry Aurelia. Applicant requests approval of an installed 6 ft.privacy fence on the west property line. The fence is 64 ft. in length and is partially located in the front yard. The existing home and porch are to remain with no changes. Relief requested for installation of a portion of a 6 ft.privacy fence in front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for installation of a portion of a 6 ft.privacy fence in front yard. The project is located on a 0.35 ac parcel in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040,Section 179-5-070 Fence The applicant has installed a 6 ft.privacy fence on the west property line where it would be considered a front yard. Fence in front yard is limited to 4 ft.in height and open style. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on February 21,2024. 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 because it enhances the appearance of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to-minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because in fairness there are other properties in the neighborhood who also have six-foot-high fences. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 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. 6-2024 TERRY AURELIA, Introduced by Mary Palacino, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 21"Day of February 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.AURELIA-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 7-2024,Michael Shearer of 52 Russell Harris Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.7=2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 MICHAEL SHEARER AGENT(S) RU HOLMES ENGINEERS,PLLC OWNER(S) MICHAEL SHEARER ZONING WR LOCATION 52 RUSSELL HARRIS RD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 1,358 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND FLOOR AREA OF 1,752 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING 548 SQ.FT.GARAGE AND 164 SQ.FT.SHED ARE TO REMAIN,ALONG WITH EXISTING GARDEN BEDS AND TREES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES UTILIZING THE EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM AND MINIMAL DISTURBANCE AS NEW HOME TO BE LOCATED IN SIMILAR LOCATION. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS &z STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 8-2024,AV 30-2019; SP 42-2019; AV 33- 2011; SP 36-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-6 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6- 050;179-6-065;147 BOB HOLMES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 7-2024, Michael Shearer, Meeting Date: February 21,2024 "Project Location: 52 Russell Harris Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct new home with a 1,35E sq.ft.footprint and floor area of 1,752 sq.ft.The existing 54S sq.ft. garage and 164 sq.ft. shed are to remain,along with existing garden beds and trees. The project includes utilizing the existing septic system and minimal disturbance as new home to be located in similar location. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks,permeability&r stormwater device setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability &r stormwater device setbacks. The project is located on a 0.26 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The new home is to be 33 ft. 9 inches from the shoreline where a 50 ft. shoreline setback is required. The home on the south side proposed is S ft. 3 inches to the house and 7 ft. 5 inches to the steps where 12 ft. is required. The permeability is proposed to be 65.430/o where 750/o is required. The proposed elevated terrace is to be less than 35 ft.from the lake where 35 ft.is required for a stormwater 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. The project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the neighboring properties. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 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 possible to reduce the building size and reduce the hard surfacing on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code.The setback relief is 16 ft.3 inches for the shoreline,then 3 ft.9 inches to the south property line, and permeability 9.570/o in excess of hard surfacing on the site. 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 new home is to be 100E sf footprint with a second floor of 744 sf and a small mechanical room in the crawl space area. The project work includes a shoreline planting plan and landscape stone path from the garage area to the shore area. The plans show the location of the existing and new home. The plans include floor plans and elevations." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review,did not identify any significant adverse effects or impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on February 20`h,2024 by a unanimous vote. MR.HOLMES-Good evening. My name is Bob Holmes and I'm with RU Holmes Engineers and I'm joined by Mike and Gabby Shearer,the applicants. I believe you've summed up pretty well what our application's looking for. One item,or a couple of items I'd point out. That of the variances in which we are seeking as far as setbacks go and lot coverage, is they're already pre-existing, non-conforming, and we are making some incremental improvements to those setbacks, given the configuration of the new home. The new home will largely match the footprint of the existing home, and the last variance was one that we ended up having to work out with Staff on their recommendation was with regards to the stormwater setback. It was our initial impression that that was not going to be necessary because we were not looking to impound any kind of stormwater there. It was merely an effort to mask an overflow pipe if there were extreme storms that this might surcharge the existing stormwater,but in an effort to keep things moving forward that variance request was added. MR. MC CABE-So we have questions of the applicant? So I have a concern about the permeability. So you're saying that the permeability is basically the same now as it will be in the future? MR.HOLMES-Correct. We recognize the permeability requirement under the Code is 750/o. The lot as it presently exists is 64.530/o, and we are making an improvement. It's proposed to beat 65.40/o. It's is a.9 percent improvement, but it's an improvement. We searched long and hard on where we could make appropriate removal, trying to improve it further. It's just that when you start narrowing up sidewalks and things of that nature it became a bit tough. MR. MC CABE-So if they improve the permeability,then that reduces the requirement for that variance. MR.HENKEL-Which they did. MR. MC CABE-So we can remove that. MRS. MOORE-You can remove that. MR. MC CABE-So other questions of the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Let me just make sure you understand again. So I guess I didn't look at it,in the sense, when I first looked at it I thought there was a decrease in permeability,but if you look at what he said,the current situation is at 640/o green. They're making it 650/o green. So that's a one percent improvement overall. MR. MC CABE-Right. Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing,see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project. Roy,do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comments. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 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 John. MR.HENKEL-I think they're asking for minimal. I have no problem with the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I have no difficulty with it as well. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-It's a really tough lot here but it looks like you're actually improving what's there to some extent. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I also agree. I think the improvements are going to make it better. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's an improvement. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, look at this as an improvement. And the other, the setbacks that are being requested are actually pretty minimal and so I,too,support this project. So,Dick,I've got to go to the well one more time. MR. CIPPERLY-No problem. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael Shearer. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct new home with a 1,35E sq. ft. footprint and floor area of 1,752 sq.ft.The existing 54S sq.ft.garage and 164 sq.ft.shed are to remain,along with existing garden beds and trees. The project includes utilizing the existing septic system and minimal disturbance as new home to be located in similar location. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks,permeability,and stormwater device setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability & stormwater device setbacks. The project is located on a 0.26 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The new home is to be 33 ft. 9 inches from the shoreline where a 50 ft. shoreline setback is required. The home on the south side proposed is S ft. 3 inches to the house and 7 ft. 5 inches to the steps where 12 ft. is required. The permeability is proposed to be 65.430/o where 750/o is required. The proposed elevated terrace is to be less than 35 ft.from the lake where 35 ft.is required for a stormwater device. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on February 21,2024. 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 basically a one for one replacement with a little improvement. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. This is good as it's going to get. They are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's basically a one for one replacement. 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. You want to replace your house. 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. 7-2024 MICHAEL SHEARER,Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21"Day of February 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.HOLMES-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 8-2024, Tracey &r Matthew Maxwell, 46 Rhode Island Avenue. AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 TRACEY &z MATTHEW MAXWELL OWNER(S) LAWRENCE HENDERSON ZONING N R LOCATION 45 RHODE ISLAND AVE. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A 6 FT. PRIVACY FENCE ON THE CORNER LOT OF RHODE ISLAND AVENUE AND CENTRAL AVENUE. THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE IS 115 FT. THE FENCE WAS INSTALLED IN 2023 FOR SAFETY ISSUES FOR THEIR HOUSEHOLD. THE APPLICANT WAS NOTIFIED OF VIOLATION AND HAS PROVIDED A VARIANCE REQUEST. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,440 SQ. FT. WITH A 60 FT. DECK IS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR TYPE AND HEIGHT OFFENCE LOCATED IN FRONT YARD. CROSS REF AV 23-2009;AV 60-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 3099-3-24 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-070 TRACEY&MATT MAXWELL,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2024, Tracey &r Matthew Maxwell, Meeting Date: February 21, 2024 "Project Location: 46 Rhode Island Ave. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain a 6 ft.privacy fence on the corner lot of Rhode Island Avenue and Central Avenue. The length of the fence is 115 ft. The fence was installed in 2023 for safety issues for their household. The applicant was notified of violation and has provided a variance request. The existing home of 1,440 sq. ft. with a 60 ft. deck is to remain unchanged. Relief requested for type and height of fence located in front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for type and height of fence located in front yard. The project site is a 6000 sf parcel in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Section 179-5-070 fence The fence has been installed on the front yards of the corner lot facing Rhode Island and Central Avenue. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered for a compliant fence height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2 ft. in excess of the allowed fence height and stockade. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests approval of an already installed fence of a 6 ft. and privacy type. The applicant has explained the fence is needed for the safety of the children and the dogs. The dogs would jump over a smaller fence and the fence would minimize the interactions as explained by the applicant. The plans show the fence location and the photos show the fence type and area." MRS. MAXWELL-Hi. I'm Tracey Maxwell. MR. MAXWELL-I'm Matt. MRS. MAXWELL-Like he said. We need this fencing,in the corner. We have some big dogs. The dogs have a chain link fence. MR. MAXWELL-As we live in a very bad area. Queensbury is a really nice Town, as we all know,but we all have down spots. Where we live is one of the spots that's not the best spot, and our main concern is our grandkids. We live on a cut street right near Stewarts. We get everybody. We see them running the stop sign all the time. I mean people are getting high. It's all about safety,trying to keep the grandkids in the yard without,many times we've gone out there and seen needles on the ground. We pick them up, throw them away. Out back of our house is supposed to be residential, but it's a commercial property where they park big tractor trailers and work vehicles,what not. So our main concern was trying to keep our animals and our grand kids in the yard,but our biggest issue is our backyard. It's only like six to eight feet wide,seven feet. It isn't that much. So it's hard to fence the back spot and make room for our grand kids,our animals and what not. So that's the main reason why we're asking for this.. When you look on the street you see eight foot fence. At the corner of Luzerne and Rhode Island Avenue there's a wooden fence that's been there for many years. There's nothing wrong with that. Our neighbors across the road, downside,they have a big fence,too. It's just for safety. So that's why we come hereto ask you guys this. We don't even own the place. My landlord,we rent it,and he is okay with us trying to do this. Anything to try and make our animals,our grandkids safe,and Mr.Frank,the Code Enforcement Officer,he worked really good with us,helped us with the steps and told us the options we could do. We try to come here and if it doesn't work out,try to come up with a different agreement with you guys. MRS. MAXWELL-I know it's a lot of big fencing in the yard, and we are,if we can't keep this the way it is, we will propose to go from the corner of the house on Rhode Island and go back around in the small yard. That way we have room for the kids and our dogs. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-Can a renter put a fence up? MRS. MOORE-That's between them and their landlord. MR.HENKEL-They don't have to be here,the owner of the property doesn't have to be here? MRS. MOORE-The owner gave them authorization to represent the project. MR.HENKEL-They did? MRS. MOORE-Yes. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. HENKEL-'The problem is that it's a two way stop. So if you come to that stop sign,you can't really see if there's kids coming or cars coming. So that's one of the problems. That really should be back farther, that fence, and I got out and looked at the fence. Some of that fence looks like it's ready to fall down. If that falls down,that's going to be falling down on the road it's so close. MR. MAXWELL-I know that,there's some old stuff. I would have had all brand new around it,but we stopped when we came to the point with the Code violation. That's why we didn't want to waste any more money buying more pines. It's not a problem to move it a little back,move it back,buy brand new fence the rest of the way. We just stopped, as you see we're renters, and it's not feasible to keep buying the fence if we're going to have to take down,or we can't come to resolution. MRS. MAXWELL-Can I show you? Okay. So we have the fencing that goes from here around. The corner of the house here is far enough away from the stop sign. So if we take it around the back side of the house and around,it'll still give a decent amount of room and it's far enough away from the stop sign. MR. HENKEL-Yes,I'm just afraid,you stop at that stop sign, and I go that way quite often there because it's on the way to Stewart's there,but kids go whipping down there,you know, and you can't see them. If you don't stop,you can't see very far. So I that really needs to be pushed back. MR.MAXWELL-Yes,I agree it's got to be pushed back,and from the beginning,it used to be,I don't know if you've been by it recently or a while ago. It was right along the whole edge of the property right by the street sign, and I moved it back a big ways and cut the 45 in the corner right there. It used to be straight out all the way. MR.HENKEL-Yes,I saw it. It was like this,and then you changed it. It's still not enough. MR. MAXWELL-I get that. I don't have a problem even moving it a little bit more, we can come to an agreement,but as I said,you know,us renting and Mr.Frank,which he's a really nice guy,he is. He worked with us. We've been working with him. He said this is the best option to come here and try to see if we can come to a resolution. I'm not against moving anything back a certain way at all. He just said you might as well leave it be until we came here and figure out some kind of agreement. I hope you guys are all right,and we're willing to work with you,if we have a little wiggle room here,there,on either side. We have no problem trying to comply with that. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. CIPPERLY-You were suggesting anchoring it to the corner of the house. Correct? MRS. MAXWELL-Yes. Going from the corner of the house back and around. MR. MAXWELL-We have two front yards. MR. MC CABE-Yes,we're well aware of that. MR. CIPPERLY-That would free up the corner, and I think that's probably our biggest concern. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing,see if there's anybody who would like to address us on this particular project. Sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RYAN EDWARDS MR. EDWARDS-So Ryan Edwards. I used to live there on Rhode Island. I don't live there anymore,but I do have two tenants that live in the duplex that I own there currently. They both have cited concerns about coming up to the corner. It was worse when it was the,we'll say 90 degree angle at the corner. Now that it's 45 it's a little better,but it's still not great, and being as close as it is to the road,if we have a true winter,like we are capable of in this area, all that snow has got to go somewhere and there just is not any room. So eventually it's going to start encroaching out onto the road,too. So it's just too close to the road. You can't see. Somebody's either going to get hurt,killed or run some kid over on his bicycle. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.HENKEL-I think they just came up with anew resolution. Now they're taking that out of the way. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MR. EDWARDS-So it would be the orange on the back side? MR.HENKEL-And from the corner of the. MRS.MAXWELL-It would go from the corner of the house and around this way. So the whole front yard. This is Central Ave. This is Rhode Island. This fence would begone, and it'll go from here and around. So away from the stop sign. MR. EDWARDS-So it's about 26 feet from the stop sign to where the fence is? MRS. MAXWELL-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-And from both here and then this way. MRS. MAXWELL-Yes, and then it would just connect here to the other side of the house. MR. EDWARD S-That's much better. I like that. MR. MC CABE-So other comment? DAVE DUELL MR. DUELL-Good evening. Dave Duell, Town of Queensbury Highway Superintendent. I support the change and agreement to move the fence back from where it's existing right now at the stop sign. Due to sight distance issues, our plow trucks, like he said, small children, other pedestrians, it is a very busy intersection. We've had,over the years,multiple accidents without this fence installed there. I think this is a good solution to that,and I would support that. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. MR. DUELL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other comments? PETER SMITH MR. SMITH-My name's Peter Smith and I live on Ohio. I was totally against what they were doing,but since you guys changed that, I applaud you for it,because I think we kind of should have had that done before we came here, made the agreement with the Town. I went to Bruce Frank this morning, and he said if you did that,they had no problem either. It is a dangerous situation there. Kids race up and down there, every single day. I've lived there for 69 years and I used to live on Rhode Island,two houses down from where they live. Now I live on Ohio. Every day, I'll bet you a dozen cars speed down that road and run through the stop signs,every stinking day. I've had to call the Sheriff's Department. It's a dangerous situation on all those avenues. So I do applaud you guys considering doing this. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So, Roy,do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'll read them into the record. "Just wanted to be heard regarding the 6 ft.fence at 46 Rhode Island Ave. The way this fence is up right now it is not safe for the community, you cannot see vehicles coming while at the stop sign you literally have to pull into the middle of the intersection to see if any cars are coming. There will be accidents if the fence stays where it is. The property owners/tenants should think of the safety of others and move the fence back so it is not in the way of people trying to see if vehicles are coming. Thank you concerned neighbor. " And I think this is Rachel Pond. The other letter here is Many Piercy requesting to have on record that she is in support of the Area Variance 5-2024 to maintain their fence located at 46 Rhode Island Avenue and she stated that her support is due to the safety concerns and understands the applicants' desire to maintain this fence for those reasons. Mandy thanks the Board for their consideration. That's it. 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 Mary. MRS. PALACINO-As you've re-thought the placement of the fencing,I have no difficulty with approving it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MR. URRICO-Laura,what would be the new dimensions? What would be the new setbacks? MRS. MOORE-So there's no fence setbacks. MR. URRICO-So we're just approving it as presented? MRS. MOORE-As modified at the meeting. MR. URRICO-At the meeting. Okay. What she said. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm in favor of the plan as amended. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I'll agree. With the modifications I think I'm good. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I agree with the modifications. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I'd go along with Laura. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. So what we'll do, Bob,you're going to make the motion here. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is there a timeframe when this is to occur? MR.MC CABE-They'll have a year. So,Bob,what you'll do is make the motion and then you'll say per the change of the applicant. MRS. MOORE-Final plans to represent the modification as discussed at the meeting. I'll give you guidance when we get there. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tracey &z Matthew Maxwell. Applicant requests to maintain a 6 ft.privacy fence on the corner lot of Rhode Island Avenue and Central Avenue. The length of the fence is 115 ft. The fence was installed in 2023 for safety issues for their household.The applicant was notified of violation and has provided a variance request.The existing home of 1,440 sq.ft.with a 60 ft.deck is to remain unchanged.Relief requested for type and height of fence located in front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for type and height of fence located in front yard. The project site is a 6000 sf parcel in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Section 179-5-070 fence The fence has been installed on the front yards of the corner lot facing Rhode Island and Central Avenue. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on February 21,2024. 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 because it's for the health and safety of the occupants. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and I believe they've made some changes in this request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's a modification of the existing conditions,an improvement to the existing conditions. 2S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created because the applicants want a fence around the yard. 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: (based on the meeting tonight) a) The fence location is to be amended so that it's in line with the house on Central Avenue,and then on Rhode Island it'll be,again,aligned with the house to the property line. That change is to be noted on the final plan set. b) 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. 8-2024 TRACEY &z MATTHEW MAXWELL, Introduced by Robert Keenan, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 21s'Day of February 2024 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Now we're going to say that the Board proposes the following conditions, and that's that they make the changes as indicated. MR. KEENAN-Right. The Board proposes the following conditions based on the meeting tonight. How do you want me to word that? MR. CIPPERLY-Can you call that an amended map? MR. MC CABE-So,Laura,how should we word this? MR. URRICO-Well it was the applicant's suggestion,right,and you agreed to it. So we're going to move the fence back,what is that,about 26 feet? MRS. MAXWELL-Yes,26 feet in the front yard. MRS. MOORE-So you're amending the fence location so it's in line with the house on Central Ave. and then on Rhode Island it'll be, again,aligned with the house to the property line. MR. URRICO-We're not asking for any change to the type of fence or the height. MR. MC CABE-Right. MRS. MOORE-That change is to be noted on the final plan set. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.HENKEL-And then it has to be approved by code? MR. MC CABE-No,we're approving it. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Cipperly, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. MAXWELL-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So I'll work with you with those plan sets. So pick those all up from them. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/21/2024) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21ST,2024, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21"day of February,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 30