Loading...
06-19-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 23-2013 David Hatin 1. Tax Map No. 301.12-3-56 Area Variance No. 19-2013 Keith&Kelly Harris 4. Tax Map No. 265.-1-32 Sign Variance No. 25-2013 Stewart's Shops Corp. 8. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-22 and 25 Area Variance No. 22-2013 Whispering Pines Associates 13. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-39 Area Variance No. 21-2013 Paul Derby&Lorraine Stein 20. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-9 Area Variance No. 26-2013 Kacey Mann 23. Tax Map No. 279.00-1-10 Area Variance No. 27-2013 Deborah Ferranti 26. Tax Map No. 300.16-1-11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Welcome. Tonight, June 19th at 7 o'clock here in the Queensbury facility. This is the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and for those of you who haven't attended in the past, it's actually quite simple, but there is a sheet in the back, an information sheet that kind of explains the process for you. We will call each application. We'll read the application into the record. We'll ask the applicant to address the Board with any additional information. Generally the Board will ask some questions. When there's a public hearing scheduled we'll open the public hearing. Depending on the outcome of the public hearing and some polling of the Board, we may keep the public hearing open,or we may take action on the application. So it's quite simple. We're going to start with Old Business after we do the approval of meeting minutes for April 17th and April 24th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 17, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt April 24, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2013, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2013 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID HATIN OWNER(S) DAVID HATIN ZONING CURRENT ZONING NR; SUBD. APPROVAL R-3 YR. 1967 LOCATION 17 ZENAS DRIVE, HEWITT DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 720 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 8252 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.12-3-56 SECTION 179-5-020 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) DAVE HATIN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2013, David Hatin, Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 "Project Location: 17 Zenas Drive, Hewitt Development Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 720 sq.ft.detached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: #of garages Required/allowed is 1 Proposed is 2 one is attached and proposed is detached Relief exceeds 1 garage 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the configuration of the house and the location of the existing attached garage. The applicant has indicated the existing driveway is to be expanded so it will access the new garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The total garage sq. ft.with both garages is 956 sq. ft.where the maximum allowed for 1 garage is 1,100 sq.ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 8252: Single family dwelling Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage that is to be 720 sq. ft. The information submitted indicates the site has an existing single family home with an attached garage. The applicant has indicated adding to the existing garage will alter the home appearance where the new garage is located to the rear of the existing home. The parcel is located in an existing Cresthaven subdivision where setback requirements are different than the Neighborhood residential zone. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Hatin. Is there anything you'd like to add to the record at this time,or would you just like to have some Board member questions? MR. HATIN-No. I can answer questions. I think it speaks for itself. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Board members. I have had one clarification question and that was concerning the side yard setbacks being, I think, Laura, we're going to need your advice on this. Is the side yard setback 10 or 5? MRS. MOORE-Five, it's what's on the plan, and that's because the Cresthaven Subdivision setbacks are different than today's Neighborhood Residential zoning. So we go with the subdivision setbacks for that zone. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So for all members here, if you're looking at the chart in the Code, it does say 10/0,but in this case it is five. MR. GARRAND-I was going to ask you about the shed. MR. HATIN-The shed is going to get moved to the other side of the yard. MR. KUHL-Are you going to use the existing garage as a garage, or are you going to close it in? MR. HATIN-No,it will be used as a garage. MR. GARRAND-What's going on the other side of the house? MR. HATIN-I don't know if anybody visited the property. I'm currently putting a window well in. I'm adding two rooms in the basement that require windows, by Code, and there'll be a window well there. So it'll cut me down to about 10 feet between the property line and the next door neighbor's property line, or the common property line, and it won't give me enough room to get around the back of my yard. MR. HENKEL-I notice it says 36 feet from the back of the garage to the edge of your property line. I notice there's like a bank there. MR. HATIN-That's correct. MR. HENKEL-How far is that going to be from the back? Is that going to interfere with that cutting away from that? MR. HATIN-I do have to cut some of the bank. I did stake it out. I don't know if anybody noticed or not. There were stakes in the ground in the backyard showing the corners of the garage. It goes about four feet into that bank. MR. HENKEL-Four feet. MR. HATIN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions before I open the public hearing? We have granted second garage requests before, but it's never a guarantee. Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. So I'll leave the public hearing open for a bit longer. I guess I'll poll the Board to get an idea of how everybody's feeling about this one. Ron, I'll start with you. MR. KUHL-If you're not going to use your shed, I mean, why build a garage if you're still going to have a shed? I don't understand that. MR. HATIN-It's just a personal choice not to get rid of it. I just re-built it last year. MR. KUHL-I think the project's clean enough, and I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of the project. What's the square footage of the shed? MR. HATIN-It's eight by ten. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Yes,no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I'm okay with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can live with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think it's excessive. No. There's feasible alternatives that are available, and, yes, there are no second garages that I could see in that entire neighborhood. It will change the character of the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. In the past, to be consistent, we've kind of shied away from having second garages and sheds on the parcels, as a consistency matter. I can think of the one up on Assembly Point where we asked them to move the shed. We're all okay, I guess, but we have enough yeses. So I'm going to close the public hearing,and ask for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2013 DAVID HATIN, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 17 Zenas Drive, Hewitt Development. The applicant proposes to construct a 720 square foot detached garage. Relief required is for the number of garages. The allowed is one. The proposed is two. One is attached and the proposed is detached. Relief exceeds one garage. In making this determination the Board shall consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby communities will be created by the granting of this area variance. It was determined that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the configuration of the house. Three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to Code. Total square foot of the proposed garage is 956 square feet, where the maximum allowed for one garage is 1,100 square feet. Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated, and we should take into consideration whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, and this difficulty may be considered self-created. At this time I recommend that we approve Area Variance No. 23-2013. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. MR. HATIN-Thank you. Have a good evening. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2013 SEQRA TYPE II KEITH & KELLY HARRIS AGENT(S) S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) PAMELA HARRIS ZONING RR-3A & LC-10A LOCATION 1653 & 1671 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LOT LINE 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) ADJUSTMENT IN ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,516 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON 20.13 ACRES. PARCEL DOES NOT HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE BUT WILL BE ACCESSED FROM NEIGHBORING PARCEL DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2012-584 GAZEBO; BP 2003-694 SFD; BP 2010-296 POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 123.13 AC.; 28.76 AC. TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-32 &44 SECTION 179-4-050 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2013, Keith & Kelly Harris, Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 "Project Location: 1653 & 1671 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 3,375 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on 20.13 acres. Parcel does not have road frontage but will be accessed from neighboring parcel driveway. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Minimum Road frontage Frontage on public streets Required 400 ft. Required at least 50 ft. Proposed 0 ft. Proposed 0 ft. Relief requested 400 ft. Relief requested 50 Ft Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to topography. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The applicant requests to have zero road frontage is considered substantial to the code however the project activity would be considered minimal as the project proposes to utilizing an existing driveway. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 12-584: Gazebo BP 03-694: Single family dwelling BP 10-296: Pool Staff comments: The applicant proposes a single family house on a parcel that will have no road frontage. The applicant intends to utilize an existing driveway on an adjacent parcel that accesses Bay Road. The plans show the house location for the existing and proposed, along with the driveway that will be used for both homes. Elevation of the house and internal layout were also provided. The project due to location in the LC zone, being in the Adirondack Park along with a project that occurs within 15% slopes triggers site plan review. The Planning Board's zoning recommendation is to be reviewed at the June 18`h planning board meeting. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Keith and Kelly Harris. We were at the Planning Board last night and they did recommend the variance. What's happening here is that there's 120 acres in these two parcels, pre-existing parcels, that were reconfigured so that the area for Keith and Kelly's proposed house is on the best, flattest area to build a house, for the home and the septic system. The utilization of the single driveway is the best alternative for this site. I know you would have all gone to the site, and it's a very steep side of a mountain, but that driveway is built like a road. When it was put in in 2004, when Pam Harris' house was built, the APA and DEC reviewed the stormwater plan for that road and that was all implemented. There is 50 feet at the bottom of the hill available so that we could re-configure this so that we wouldn't need this variance if you will, to create a weird shaped lot that would have 50 feet, but it wouldn't accomplish anything to do that because you'd still need a variance in Queensbury,if you have the 50 feet but you don't use you own access, the access would still be this one driveway. I know, from going to the site,you would all agree that no one's going to build a second driveway parallel to that driveway just so that they'd have their own access. It doesn't make any sense. So this is minimal impact to use what's already there,to build the house in the appropriate location where it's flat,and in terms of what's going on here for density, in a 10 acre zone, we've got 120 acres, and we're proposing two houses. Obviously it's not conductive to more development, but for Pam Harris to grant an easement over that driveway for Keith and Kelly is,be perpetual to run with the land,with this lot, they've got a 20 acre parcel, and that just makes sense to me to use that existing driveway to get up the side of that hill. That's really it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions at this time from Board members? MR. URRICO-I have one question. Does this,this is the original property, right? This dates to back to the original Harris patent? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR.URRICO-Doesn't it get grandfathered in? MR. LAPPER-In Queensbury you still, in order to, right now it's a landlocked parcel. So in order to build a house,it's grandfathered as a lot,but in order to build a house in Queensbury,you still need to have frontage on a public road. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So,it would be nice if it did. MR. KUHL-I couldn't find any markings where the house is going to be. Did you stake anything up there,or is it just? How do you go deep enough into the woods? KEITH HARRIS MR. HARRIS-We had Dave Bolster up there and he staked it out. MR. KUHL-And you're going to clear about an acre of land? MR. HARRIS-Yes,a minimal amount. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman,doesn't that require site plan review? MR. LAPPER-It's on for site plan review next week. MR. KUHL-So shouldn't that go first? MR. LAPPER-No. The Planning Board reviewed it, recommended the variance, and you have to grant the variance before we can go back for site plan review. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Any further comments or questions from Board members at this time? Seeing none, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one. "We are residents of 214 Pickle Hill Road, across the road from the Harris property on 219 Pickle Hill Rd. To say we are concerned over the condition of the Harris property would bean understatement. Since the fall of 2012 we have made our concerns known to you, both by Ken visiting your office, and through telephone calls. We have mentioned our concerns to Tony Metivier and David Strainer. In September 2001, Kate purchased the property at 214 Pickle Hill Rd. At that time no business operation was taking place at the Harris property. Mr. Harris owned and operated his business at a location on Rte. 149 in Fort Ann. Mr. Harris returned home each night in his own vehicle. There were never any commercial vehicles or storing of lumber, etc. on the property. There was no such activity. Had there been, I certainly would have thought twice about purchasing my home. During the summers of 2011 and 2012, a landscaping business stored their commercial vehicles on the Harris property. Each morning employees drove to the lot, parked their personal cars and left in the businesses commercial vehicles. Not a Harris business. Commencing the summer of 2012, Keith Harris (son) who now resides on Pickle Hill Rd. with his family, began bringing excavating vehicles and equipment to his property. His employees began parking there before their work day began. All through the winter,vehicles were worked on in the garage, smoke billowed out of the chimney, diesel fuel odors were common as well as early morning engine starting and idling. Lumber piled up, commercial vehicles came but never left and dirt and debris began to form a berm. Ever since Keith sold his place of business on Rte. 149, his business has been fully operating on Pickle Hill Road. We have created a beautiful home with exceptional landscaping. We thoroughly enjoy our surroundings. What is transpiring across the street is clearly against the zoning regulations of the Town of Queensbury. We need for you to enforce the Town's regulations. Additionally, there is now a dumpster positioned in the driveway of the Harris residence. Is that allowed on a residential property? It is not enclosed. We have been waiting for an answer. This has to end. The Harris' must be made to cleanup their property and stop using it as a commercial place of business and work site. Have you taken a look at it? We look forward to your response. Thank you. Sincerely,Kate Johnson&Ken Rohne" That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-And is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing none, I am going to leave the public hearing open. And let's just start,given the letter. MR. LAPPER-Can I address that letter? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. LAPPER-That has nothing to do with this application. Pickle Hill Road is a parcel of property that Keith's late father used for the business. There was a court decision in 1991 that said it was grandfathered, and that's been that way ever since. I mean, that is commercial. That's a grandfathered piece of property in a residential neighborhood. As Roy had said about the Harris patent, the Harris' have been there since the beginning of time, and that's what it is, but it has nothing to do with this property or this application. MR. GARRAND-So none of this 20 acres will be used for any commercial operation whatsoever? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely not. That's a condition. Absolutely not. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I'll poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-On this piece of property, what concerned me more than this proposed development would be somebody going in there and cutting in a new road and the damage that would cause to the environment. So I'd be in favor of this project the way it is. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Harrison? MR. FREER-I have no problem with this project. It makes sense. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I think this is a logical pursuit to make for this driveway. I would not want to see another driveway cut in. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor. It seems fine. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of it. No problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're going to close the public hearing,and I'll look for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2013 KEITH & KELLY HARRIS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 1653 & 71 Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 3375 square foot single family dwelling on 20.13 acres of property. The parcel does not have road frontage, but will be accessed from neighboring parcel's driveway. The relief requested is 400 feet of road frontage, and also requires relief for frontage on a public street of 50 feet. In making this determination, we should consider whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. I think this is the best situation we could ask for under such circumstances. To cut another road in there would be prohibitively expensive and I think would do more environmental damage. Will this produce an undesirable change in the character of nearby properties? I don't believe it'll change anything at all in the neighborhood. You'll have some tree clearing, but that's about it. Is this request substantial relative to the Code? It might be deemed substantial. Will this have adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood? I don't think it'll have any. I think it'll have less environmental impacts than laying down new blacktop all the way up that hill. Is this difficulty self-created? I do not believe it's self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 19-2013. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2013 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) JENNIFER HOWARD OWNER(S) STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. ZONING CI, CLI LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN LEAVING THE POSTS AND INSTALLING A 52 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AT THE SAME 12 FT. HEIGHT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2001-469 FREESTANDING SIGN; BP 2012- 506; SP 45-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2013 LOT SIZE 0.17; 2.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-22 AND 25 SECTION CHAPTER 140 TOM LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 25-2013, Stewart's Shops Corp., Meeting Date: June 19, 2013, "Project Location: 221 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign leaving the posts and installing a 52 sq. ft. freestanding sign at the same 12 ft.height. Relief Required: 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) The applicant requests the following relief: Maximum size restrictions Setback Required/allowed 45 sq ft at a 15 ft setback Required 15 ft Proposed 52 sq ft Proposed 9 ft Relief 7 sq ft Relief 6 ft Criteria for considering a Sign 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the existing sign supports are to remain in the current location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created relevant to the size. The applicant has indicated that NYSDOT had the property line adjusted at the corner which reduced the setback from the front corner where the setbacks from the road property lines are 15 ft.or more. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2001-469: Freestanding sign Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 50 sq.ft.sign face and to install a new 52 sq.ft.sign in the same support structures. The information submitted indicates the sign will remain at the 12 ft. height. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself,please,for the record. MR. LEWIS-Tom Lewis, the real estate rep at Stewarts. I just gave you a handout that shows the (lost word). I'll answer the last thing first, about self-created hardship. The technology has found a way so that we don't have to go with those 10 foot high poles and then alter the sign. So we've been doing LED lighting wherever we can. Queensbury doesn't allow LED lighting, but they have the kind that flip. So it's electronic inside. When it snows in the wintertime, nobody has to go out there. This is the same sign we have on Route 9 on the north end of the Town. So in terms of the test, the balancing test, we would make the argument that the benefit to the applicant certainly outweighs any detriment to the community. I see no other way to achieve the benefit. Just let me add, though, that we're allowed 60 square feet if the setback were 25 feet back, but the cost of, you know, moving the whole sign just doesn't make sense. We certainly don't think we'll create any undesirable change in the neighborhood. I'm not sure anybody will even notice that it changed. The request is not substantial. You can see, again, by this that the new price sign, that's the only size that they make, although they make a larger one, which doesn't make any sense, and we certainly don't think it'll have any adverse physical effects. So that would be the case we would make and hope that you think that this is a minor variance request. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR.URRICO-Yes,is that an accurate price? MR. FREER-That was my question. You'll create environmental impact by the lines. MR.URRICO-When can we anticipate that? MR. LEWIS-I wish I could do that. MR. GARRAND-Down below the existing Stewarts sign there's a white area. Is that where the Glens Falls National Bank sign is going to go? MR. LEWIS-Well,it shows it on here. MR. GARRAND-Right now,the sign there is blank. MR. LEWIS-Yes,it'll be underneath that,yes. It'll look just like that. MR. GARRAND-Underneath the white area? MR. LEWIS-Yes. There'll be the Stewarts. MR. GARRAND-You'll have to cut the bushes down if you're going to put that underneath the white area. MR. LEWIS-So you're saying right now that there's only this? MR. GARRAND-Right now it's only,you know, Stewarts to there,all right. MR. LEWIS-So if something has to be cut down,we'll do that. MR. GARRAND-Will that obstruct view of traffic from people coming out of that side road? MR. LEWIS-No, I would never allow that. I care more about(lost words) than not. MR. GARRAND-If it's below that white area,won't it be larger than 52 square feet? MRS.MOORE-No, I'm thinking that white area is where they're requesting. MR. HENKEL-That's where Glens Falls National's going to go. MR. GARRAND-That's what I was asking. MRS.MOORE-I believe that's correct. MR. LEWIS-I'm sorry if I didn't understand. MR. GARRAND-So to clarify,right now there's a Stewarts sign there. MR. LEWIS-I haven't looked in a while,but I know it's going to look just like this. MR. GARRAND-So it'll, there's going to be no addition on the bottom of the sign that's about a foot and a half tall? MRS. MOORE-No, they're actually taking that sign out that's on the site now, and just replacing the faces with the new sign. MR. LEWIS-We're only adding three inches onto what's there now. MR. HENKEL-So you're saying it's going to still be, you've got five feet six inches that's going to be the bottom of the sign? MR. LEWIS-That's correct. MR. HENKEL-That's the way it's going to be? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. LEWIS-That is correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. LEWIS-As opposed to five,nine. So it will go down another three inches. So it's eight feet wide by three inches is. MR. JACKOSKI-So the concern is that you're going to have to remove some of those bushes that are there now. MR. LEWIS-If that has to happen,then we will. MR. JACKOSKI-But you'll replant them. So could you elaborate a little bit more on the price per gallon portion of the sign? MR. LEWIS-Sure. This is the minimum height that they make,and what it does is,from the inside of the shop that you could alter the price sign electronically, so that you don't have to go out and manually change the numbers. MR.JACKOSKI-And the background as represented on this picture is black? MR. LEWIS-I think that's correct. MR.JACKOSKI-And what color is the? MR. LEWIS-The same burgundy that it is now. The color's not going to change. The only change is the extra three inches in overall footage. MR. JACKOSKI-Section 140-5 Part B, states, no sign shall use reflective material which sparkles or glitters. Signs known as digital billboards or electronic display panels and similar LED digital advertising displays shall be prohibited. MR. LEWIS-Right, and this is not that. This is exactly the same thing that we were allowed to do at our new shop a couple of years ago on Route 9 over by Montray. It's exactly the same thing that's there now. The only difference is in order for me to meet the Code, I'd have to move the entire sign, which seems excessive. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? To remind everyone, this is an Unlisted SEQR. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. I'll poll the Board,if there's no additional questions of the applicant. I'll start with John. MR. HENKEL-I see no problem with it. I agree with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-It looks like an improvement to what's there today and also it's going to be advertising the Bank. I really have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with the original sign. It's only going to change by three inches on the top. It looks like three inches on the bottom,right,six inches total? MR. LEWIS-No,no three total. MR. NOONAN-The total's three. I don't have a problem with it. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't think this is going to cause any undesirable change in the neighborhood. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I have one question. I just want to make sure,because we keep comparing this sign to the one on Route 9 at Montray Road. MR. LEWIS-The flip thing. MR.URRICO-I understand that. Was that approved. Do you know if that's a legal sign? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.URRICO-Okay. We know that for sure? MRS. MOORE-We specifically asked this at Staff level before it came to the Board about this sign, and Craig and I went over it,and this did not,this is not an LED sign. MR.URRICO-Okay. So this is okay. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. LEWIS-I have a long history with those signs that goes years back. MR.URRICO-Okay. Well,there's always one time. MR. LEWIS-We really try to do just whatever the Town asks us. It's easier than saying no. MR.URRICO-I just wanted to make sure. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-You know, you would think with my store being across the street from the north Queensbury store that I'd know what that sign looked like,but honestly I have no clue what it looks like. I just want to make sure it is not like that sign down on Dix Avenue and Quaker. MR. LEWIS-That is correct. 100%. I would if I could,but we can't,because the Code doesn't allow it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we polled the Board. I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for us to go through SEQR. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-Okay. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2013 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-As long as you promise me that it's like the one across the street from my store. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. LEWIS-I promise. Thank you very much. MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome. MR.URRICO-That was just for SEQR. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,yes. We still have to go through your motion. Okay. So the next motion I'm hoping to obtain is one to approve this Sign Variance. MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2013 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: 221 Corinth Road. The applicant proposes to remove the 50 square foot freestanding sign, leaving the posts and installing 52 square foot. What he's looking for is the required is 45 square feet at 15 foot setback. He's proposing 52 square feet. Relief is seven foot. The setbacks are required 15, proposed 9. Relief is six feet. Whether an undesirable change will be produced to the character of the neighborhood. Minor impact to the neighborhood with this. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method. By re-using the existing verticals, I think it's a good use. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. It's considered minimal. Whether the proposed variance will have adverse impacts? Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions, and it is self-created only because of the DOT property lines, but I recommend we approve Sign Variance No. 25-2013. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Now you can leave. Thank you. MR. LEWIS-Thank you very much,and you can call me because it's the same thing. MR.JACKOSKI-No problem. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2013 SEQRA TYPE II WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATES AGENT(S) RICHARD JONES OWNER(S) WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATES ZONING MDR LOCATION 11 WEEKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2 (24 FT. BY 32 FT.) TRASH ENCLOSURE STRUCTURES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF IS ALSO REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND SIZE EXCEEDING 750 SQ. FT. IN TOTAL SIZE. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED. CROSS REF SP 22-2013; BP 2010-088 COMM'L ALT.; MULTIPLE LISTINGS HISTORY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2013 LOT SIZE 15.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-39 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2013, Whispering Pines Associates, Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 "Project Location: 11 Weeks Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 2 (24 ft.by 32 ft.) trash enclosure structures. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Rear Setback Bldg A West Side Setback Bldg B Height Maximum Accessory Structure Required 30 ft. Required 25 ft. Required 16 ft. Max Allowed size 750 sq.ft. Proposed 10 ft. Proposed 1 ft. Proposed 17 ft. Proposed 1536 sq.ft. Relief requested 20 ft. Relief requested 24 ft. Relief requested 1 ft. Relief requested 786 sq.ft. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are available by moving the enclosures to compliant locations. The applicant has indicated some of the existing dumpsters to be removed are in the same location as the new proposed enclosures. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for the setback request may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The applicant has indicated the parcel adjacent to building B is owned by the applicant and at this time there are no plans to merge the properties. The height request is considered minimal. The accessory size is considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The applicant has indicated the new structures will allow for refuse containers to be stored inside reducing the number overall 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. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 22-2013: Pending BP 2010-088: Commercial alteration Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct 2 trash container structures each to be 768 sq. ft.to be located on site of an existing apartment complex. The applicant has indicated the structures area located in the same areas as some of the external dumpsters. The project is also subject to site plan review and information submitted indicates the new structures are to enhance the site internally and from neighboring properties. The code indicates up to three accessory structures are allowed for this area of residential use not to exceed a total of 750 sq. ft. where the applicant proposes two. The applicant has indicated that they have installed similar structures at their sites in central NY and adding these two structures is consistent with the other sites. The Planning Board's zoning recommendation is to be reviewed at the planning board's June 18th meeting. SEQR Status: Type II -no further environmental review required." MR. URRICO-The Planning Board introduced a motion that based on its limited review it did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they have also declared a Negative Dec for the SEQR. This was adopted June 18th, and it was approved unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Fairly straightforward application. Welcome. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Valente. Dave Valente from Whispering Pines is here as well. What's really interesting about this application is that they've got these three containers that can stay just where they are. They've been there, this dumpster location has been there. These don't require a variance. They're not structures, and what they're proposing is to spend $70,000 to build two structures. This is from their complexes in the Syracuse area. So this is exactly what they're proposing two of these for the sole purpose of enclosing the dumpsters to make it more attractive for the residents,to make it more attractive for the neighbors to shield the dumpsters. It's a pretty big expenditure that somebody else might not do, and it's ironic that it requires a variance to do something to cover up what you could just leave there 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) without it. On the side behind Wal-Mart,their neighbor has this pretty unattractive blue tarp fence that the tenants of Whispering Pines call and complain about. So this structure will also help to partially shield the neighbor's fence, this isn't too neighborly, to have to look at that. It's a little better now when you were there probably because there's some growth this time of year,but that's the view that'll be blocked. MR. KUHL-Why do they do that? MR. LAPPER-I don't know. It's spiteful, I think. This neighbor also has eight dogs or something, too. So that may be part of it,but the goal is to spend a lot of money to just do something simple to enclose these. This is just sized so that the trucks can back up to it and pull them out and dump it, but they plan on re-surfacing the entire site next year, and this is just one of the housekeeping things that needs to get taken care of before that happens. On the other site closer to the Northway, the reason why they don't want to merge the parcels is that they bought these as separate parcels, and because that's a 2.23 acre parcel, and they have some building rights, they may be able to do some amenity to do something else there in the future if they keep it as a separate lot, and if they were to merge it,it would just all count towards the density of what's on this lot. So it would hurt them to do that. So we're proposing it to be one foot from the property line, but it's from their own property line, so there's nobody that's impacted, and again, they have existing outdoor dumpsters there and they'll be shielded from everybody by building this structure. So that's really the story. MR. GARRAND-Did you give the Town of Queensbury the property to put that pump station on? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. GARRAND-I didn't know if you still owned it or not. JIM VALENTE MR.VALENTE-No,we sold it to the Town for a dollar. MR. GARRAND-Very nice. They got a good deal. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time from Board members? MR. KUHL-Are you just going to do sides,or are you going to do a concrete pad? MR.VALENTE-A concrete pad. MR. LAPPER-And even in front of it, it has to be a pretty big sub-base for the trucks to drive in. They're going to do it right. So underneath the front as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any further questions from Board members at this time? Seeing none, is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I am going to open the public hearing for written comment and public comment. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Yes, ma'am, please. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record, please, and your address. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARIE HALLINAN MS. HALLINAN-Marie Hallinan, 19 June Drive, Queensbury. The property directly behind the proposed southeast building, and, yes, I admit the tarps are tacky, but it comes from a little bit of history. It's less tacky than what I've dealt with over the years. I've lived at 19 June Drive for 47 years before the apartments were built and I've owned the property for eight years. At some point the dumpsters were placed at their current location I'm told for the convenience of the tenants. I've learned from the Town of Queensbury that they were grandfathered in, so that the usual Town regulations regarding placement of dumpsters do not apply. I have not seen any other apartment complex in Queensbury that has their dumpsters bordering a residential property such as my situation. The only other dumpster at Whispering Pines is near the tennis court bordering other 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) property owned by Whispering Pines which borders the Northway. Ideally I would like to have the dumpsters behind my property placed elsewhere, not in my backyard. There has been an incredibly loud noise with the trash pickups when the dumpsters are emptied. The lids bang very loudly sounding like a bomb going off. This can be heard all the way down the street. There's often noise when the tenants drop off their trash, and there's decreased property when they would stop to see what was happening in my yard, often looking at the dogs,which,yes,they are cute,but it is my yard. When the Whispering Pines maintenance crew is disposing of heavy items, it sounds like they are having a contest to see how much noise they can make. There's also decreased privacy when the trash is picked up as the trucks are quite a bit higher than the maximum allowed height of six feet for fencing. I'm concerned about increased noise and privacy of this new project. This area is out of the way. It's right in the corner. Being (lost words) there has been some inappropriate activity over the years such as the trash (lost word) behind the garages. Wal-Mart employees have romantic rendezvous during break time. Sometimes during the night there are vehicles out there for extended periods of time doing God knows what that don't seem to have anything to do with trash disposal. I've had trash blown into my yard. Wal-Mart employees have long stated that this is an area used by shoplifters. The police have also been called by other people because of late night activity in this area. I'm also concerned that there would be a break in the fence. There has to be an impenetrably boundary between my property and Whispering Pines. Mr. Valente denies it,but for decades tenants, children of tenants and grandchildren of tenants and also the general public have used and attempted to use my yard as a short cut. Also if the existing trees are removed to make room for this building, what little year round buffer there is currently will be gone. The trees with leaves provide a good buffer for about six months during the summertime, but nothing for the rest of the year. So with the aforementioned activity, what was going on over there (lost words) I'm currently in the process of re-planting evergreen shrubs to give me privacy from the ground up, and in the meantime, I have the tarps there to give me privacy. It cuts down on any,it actually gives me more privacy because the tenants are not,they can't see me so they can't stand there and stare. There were at least a couple of times where I mentioned to the tenants when they were staring,there was this one woman who looked like she was in a catatonic state and I thought something was physically wrong, and it turns out she was just apparently feeling that I was the afternoon entertainment and I've seen it in other circumstances. So that's why the tarps are there, and, yes, they are tacky, but it has helped. So I propose that if Whispering Pines is allowed to complete this project, a barrier that provides privacy and reduction of noise is required so that my quality of life is not compromised. The insisted on Wal-Mart constructing a nine foot wall that borders the eastern side of their property to reduce adverse effects that would be caused by Wal-Mart. I am currently, as I said, in the process of growing an evergreen buffer area at the rear of my property to provide year round privacy from the ground up and I feel that they need to do the same on their side of the fence, and I also have a question, what their plan is as far as the chain link fence. There's a five foot chain link fence there. So I wonder if that could be answered. MR.JACKOSKI-We'll certainly ask the question of the applicant. MR. GARRAND-Ma'am, don't you think that building will reduce the amount of noise, people throwing things into the dumpsters? MS. HALLINAN-I've thought of that. That would be a,probably a good thing. MR. GARRAND-And I'm also wondering why you didn't go with like a stockade fence for privacy? MS. HALLINAN-Well, as I said, there has been a continual, at times, foot traffic, people using it as a short cut to go back and forth to the apartments, back and forth to Wal-Mart, to school, and it has been a problem since the 70's, and it continues to be. So I fully enclosed my yard. I fenced it in with a chain link fence to have it sturdy. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I saw two fences. MS.HALLINAN-Yes,well,the first fence,the five foot fence you're referring to,I believe? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MS> HALLINAN-It was never my intention to take the woods down. I fenced in the backyard with a five foot fence, and with the activities that I mentioned that really I didn't care for that was happening with Whispering Pines,in addition to the tenants in the first floor end unit being actually very vulgar about my dogs when I was out with them, and they were drinking, and I didn't say anything. I just really gave them a walk and that pretty much was the straw that broke the camel's back, and I said enough. I'm going to take the woods down. I cleared it with the Town of Queensbury. I had been dealing with the Town of Queensbury since 2006 regarding this, asking, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) you know, do the dumpsters have to be there. The gentleman I was working with tried everything, and he said no, there is no way. They're grandfathered in, and so I felt that I needed to have my own plan,and that was to fence the yard in on my property line so there would be no question. I've had people cut through and insist that they weren't cutting through my property. The property has been surveyed. I know where the line is. Don't tell me that you're not trespassing. So that's why that happened, and I also, before I did this, I did check with this gentleman at the Town and I said this is what I plan to do, cut everything down, fence it in, re-grow the trees, and until the trees are grown enough to give me privacy, I would have the tarps up there temporarily, and he said I could actually leave them up there permanently. He said they didn't have to come down. So I apologize if the residents don't like the appearance, but I really don't like what's happened over there. We've been there for years and we never bothered the tenants. I think when they were first built they were Robert Gardens. They had a lot of dogs that barked incessantly. We never complained about that. We didn't have dogs at the time,and so. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, what we'll do is we'll try to focus on the questions that we've got right now concerning the application and let's see where we can go from there. Okay. All right. Thank you very much for your comments. I do appreciate it. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, if the applicants could re-join the table, that would be great. So some of the things that came up during public comment are privacy matters,inappropriate activity over there,security issues,landscaping issues,and if you could try to address those for us,Mr. Lapper,we'd appreciate it. MR. LAPPE R-Certainly. The Valente's have spent about two million dollars changing this from Robert Gardens to Whispering Pines since they bought it in 2001. They've really improved it and they don't allow pets. The neighbor who just spoke, there was a treed buffer and she removed it, and it's hard to understand that. I listened carefully to her comments. I still don't understand that, but the goal here is to put up a structure that will act as a buffer, act as a fence, but it'll be masonry and attractive and certainly sound buffering because of the serious construction. So I really think that this project addresses her concerns by shielding the dumpsters from her property, and I really think that, at the end of the day, if this gets to be built, this'll be an improvement for her. Dave Valente just whispered to me that they haven't had police issues, that there may be something in the Wal-Mart parking lot next door, but they haven't had, there's nothing that they're aware of, in terms of their tenants. I mean, they've raised the rent by improving the place and they've got a good tenant base at this point. So we're not aware of what she's talking about. It's probably Wal- Mart. MR. VALENTE-I heard what our neighbor had to say. Three years ago, when she came to me and asked me to help her out with the removal of the trees and the buffer, which she took down her whole buffer on that property line, her cranes and the tree company couldn't access her yard from on June Drive, asked me if they could set up over on our property, which I allowed. Three days of cranes, chippers and logging trucks,to clear her property. I didn't realize that we were going to get these blue tarps at the end of this after that, but as far as being neighborly,yes, we are neighborly, and as far as people coming through, I don't understand why anybody on my property would want to cut through her property. That is probably most likely coming from the Wal-Mart site. As far as debris blowing in your yard, awfully sorry about that. This system here will not allow that. It'll keep it all contained right in that area. I just think it's a good thing, good proposal for our neighbors and ourselves and our tenants. Thank you. MR. KUHL-I have a question. Two things. Are you going to be taking any trees down when you build these structures? MR. VALENTE-There's one scraggly pine behind there, it looks like it'll definitely have to come down behind the dumpster,which is probably(lost word). MR. KUHL-And your pickups,are they the same time every day? MR.VALENTE-They don't come every day. They come twice a week. MR. KUHL-Okay,but I mean the same time? And are they early in the morning? MR.VALENTE-Yes,they're,no,they're not early. I would say they're around 10. MR. KUHL-Okay. So it's not as if you're going to change anything that's there now. MR. VALENTE-Those dumpsters are going to sit right where they're sitting, exactly. They're just going to be enclosed. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-I have a question. Would it be possible to swap, so to speak, some space that's on the one story wood frame garage and make that part of the dumpster area and then turn around and make this 24 by 32 a garage area? MR.VALENTE-Those are strategically locate for my residents and their convenience. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm just talking about strategically within 80 feet. MR. VALENTE-We're, my part of my property's able to dispose of their stuff, but you're saying the location of this dumpster? MR. JACKOSKI-All I'm saying is you have a wood story frame garage backing up to the Wal-Mart wall. Is there any way you could just take that little 24 by 32 dumpster area and make it part of that already existing structure, and actually build yourself another 24 by 32 garage to get back your square footage? MR.VALENTE-We don't have height. MR.JACKOSKI-Modify the structure. MR.VALENTE-We talked to the (lost word) company, and they need approximately 10 feet to drive in, lift up the containers approximately 16 inches, or 6 inches off the ground, back out and dump these containers. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it looks to me like the turnaround area would be the same whether it's at this angle or at this angle. I'm only talking about moving the dumpsters to back up against Wal-Mart instead. MR.VALENTE-They're not going to be able to make that turn. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,how are they making it now? MR. VALENTE-They're going to pull straight in. They come over, they make that turn, they pull straight in and they pick them up and they're done. MR.JACKOSKI-And then they back up to where? MR.VALENTE-Then they back up to, it would be the north side of that parking lot and pull out,take the right and pull out. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that seems to be all the activity that's happening right here which is right in front of this wood garage,correct? MR.VALENTE-Wood garage,okay,there's a run of 12 garages there,okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm asking to modify some of that building so that it's not butting up against the residential area,it's butting up against the commercial area. MR.VALENTE-They're not going to be able to make that turn into that area over there. MR. JACKOSKI-That's only my opinion. Anyone else have any further discussions with the applicant? MR. LAPPER-What Jim is saying is that there wouldn't be enough room for the truck to maneuver to get,to pull the thing out and dump it. MR.JACKOSKI-I have dumpsters myself. I know what the process is. MR. LAPPER-And where it's proposed, it would act more as a buffer for the neighbor than what you're proposing. MR.JACKOSKI-No,I'm saying put a little garage there to gain back your parking spaces. MR. NOONAN-There's no way of putting a structure on the back side of the Wal-Mart, on the east side here where you have that other garage? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. LAPPER-Jim is concerned that. MR. NOONAN-Because then you would have no one to bother. MR. LAPPER-What they're suggesting is that you would have to take down part of the garage and replace it with the dumpster enclosure and then build the garages over here. So your choice would be,if this was denied,then to just leave the dumpsters where they are? MR.VALENTE-They can stay the way they are. MR. JACKOSKI-For me, this has nothing to do with the public comment. These were my initial comments when I first looked at the application. So I didn't have anything to do at that time. I see a dumpster against a residential area, I raise this concern with smell. That's my personal opinion. MR. LAPPER-Okay, and I guess if they're going to stay there the way they are now,this will help the smell because it'll be inside of a building. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other Board members have any questions at this time? MR. NOONAN-There's no doubt you run a nice, I went through there on Sunday and there was no bikes laying around. There's not people working on their cars. I mean, it's a nice run, it looks very nice. MR.VALENTE-Thank you. MR. NOONAN-Your management should get a raise. MR.VALENTE-Thank you. MR. NOONAN-I saw your brother Mike and I talked to him about that also, and I said about that, same thing,without evening hearing this comment from the lady here,Ms.Hallinan. That would be the only thing that would concern me. I think,yes, it's a great idea. It's a good way to solve it, but unless you could maybe put up a fence for her, a stockade fence. MR. VALENTE-She's got a good fence. We have our tarps. We're just looking to clean that corner up. MR. NOONAN-Definitely, there's no garbage laying around on the ground or anything, which is really surprising in a complex that size. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members? I'm going to poll the Board at this time. MR.URRICO-I think Ms. Hallinan would like some public comment again. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, but we've already given, I mean, we have a time limit. We let the public comment go. If there was new comment,from other people,but I feel that we've exceeded the limit we already have in place. So I'll poll the Board if we don't mind,and I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. As far as garbage blowing around, I think this'll solve that. You won't have these dumpsters out in the open. Second, Ms. Hallinan mentioned the noise. The dumpster lids opening and closing are going to be muffled by this building. I think it's a plus for the neighborhood. It's a plus for the residents in the area. I have family that live in this area, and I think it would be great, not to mention it's a lot of money being spent for an environmentally positive project. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thankyou. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. It makes sense tome. I don't see any reason why we should not approve it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it's an improvement to what's there now,and I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd also be in favor of it. I'd like to see it in maybe a little different location, but that's definitely going to make it better there,there's no doubt. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think you're talking about an existing area that's necessary for that complex, and improving it to an extent that will make it not only palatable for the residents that live there, but also cut down on the noise and the stuff blowing around from there. So I think this is a positive element and I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Yes. Taking a look at the variances requested, I don't have a problem with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing and look for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2013 WHISPERING PINES ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: 11 Weeks Road. The applicant proposes construction of two 24 by 32 foot trash enclosure structures. On the rear setback of Building A, relief requested is 20 feet. On the west side setback, Building B, the relief requested is 24 feet. The height is 1 foot of relief requested, and then the maximum accessory structure,this is an apartment complex. This isn't a home. I think 786 square feet is very, very minor. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. We discussed moving the dumpsters around. I don't think that's a really feasible alternative to be tearing down a garage to put a dumpster there, and then moving the garages, re-building them someplace else, I don't think that's economically feasible. This will produce a desirable change in the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? It's minimal. This will have positive environmental impacts on the neighborhood. You won't have garbage blowing around. It will look better than a dumpster sitting out in the parking lot. All in all, I think it's a plus. Is this difficulty self-created? I don't believe it's self-created. I move we approve Area Variance No. 22-2013. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2013 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN OWNER(S) PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN ZONING WR LOCATION 86 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A FLAT ROOF AND CONSTRUCT A PEAK ROOF ON EXISTING 576 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GREATER THAN 16 FT. CROSS REF BP 2010-378 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION; BP 2000-065 DOCK RESTORATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040 PAUL DERBY, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2013, Paul Derby & Lorraine Stein, Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 "Project Location: 86 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a flat roof and construct a peak roof on an existing 576 sq. ft. garage. The new peaked roof would allow for storage in the garage with an exterior access stairway and door. Relief Required: 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) Parcel will require area variances as follows: Maximum allowable height for accessory structure Required maximum 16 ft. Proposed 191/2 feet Relief requested is 3.5 ft.more than maximum allowed Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited as the applicant proposes to use the additional height for storage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code at 21.9%more height than allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2010-378: Residential alteration BP 2000-065: Dock restoration SP 48-2010: 754 sq.ft.residential addition approved 8/24/2010 Staff comments: The applicant proposes the removal of an existing flat roof on an existing garage and to replace it with a peaked roof. The applicant has indicated the existing roof is in disrepair and the new roof would allow for storage in the building with an external access door and stairway. The applicant has included photos, elevation drawings, and site plan showing the existing and proposed construction. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed" MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I'm going to recuse myself. Mr. Paul Derby and I are on the Board of Directors of the GLPA and I wouldn't want to seem favorably because it's one of the Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir, thank you very much. So we're down to a six member, now we're up to a seven member Board. It's a fairly straightforward application. Welcome. MR. DERBY-Thank you. I know you've been in front of these Boards before. Do you have anything you want to add or would you just like us to ask questions? MR. DERBY-I don't think so. I think it's self-explanatory. I'll take questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions at this time from Board members? MR. HENKEL-I guess the only question I'd have that kind of height you're asking for, I mean, you're just looking for storage up there,right? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. DERBY-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Now is that attic trusses that you're putting in there? MR. DERBY-Yes,box truss. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that's already determined. MR. DERBY-Right,and to get the door height with that thinness it needs to go that high. MICHAEL MC CABE,ALTERNATE MR. MC CABE-Did you get any feedback from neighbors regard obstructed views or anything like that? MR. DERBY-No. I did include a photo that was from across the street from that view,then there's a stand of trees behind the garage. They will all stay, and they are 30 to 40 feet high. It sets back behind the other two lake properties. MR. GARRAND-Would you be okay with a condition that they never be converted to living quarters? MR. DERBY-It never will be. Yes. There's no water. MR. HENKEL-Can I ask a question of Staff? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. MC CABE-The existing flat roof, runoff will be random, but with a peaked roof, runoff will be directed. On the east side it looks like no problem because the runoff will go right into the driveway and back onto Ash Drive, but on the west side it looks like the runoff can make its way down to the lake. Are we concerned with that? MR. DERBY-I can address that. Actually on the east side,you're looking,there is a grass area there. That's the tarp of my boat that'll have to be moved. So that goes into a grassy area. It's all flat there,and the west side,when it runs into the grass,it actually runs away from the lake there. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I just, I looked at it, and it seemed like, you know, on the west side there the ground was tilted a little bit. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It does tilt away is what we're hearing. So are there any further questions from Board members? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I am going to open the public hearing for written and public comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. Is there a reason to poll the Board at this time? It doesn't look like it. I think there's favorable response on this whole project. Is that correct? So would we like to have a, I'm going to close the public hearing and ask for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2013 PAUL DERBY & LORRAINE STEIN, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: 86 Ash Drive. The applicant proposes to remove a flat roof and construct a peaked roof on an existing 576 square foot. The new peaked roof would allow for storage in the garage with an exterior access stairway and door. The relief required is three and a half feet. The maximum required height is 16 feet, and the proposed is 19 and a half. Whether an undesirable change is 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) produced in the character of the neighborhood. Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. Are there other feasible alternatives? The feasible alternatives are limited as the applicant proposes to use the existing height for storage. Is the requested area variance substantial? It's not really substantial at 21 feet, or 22%. There are minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the difficulty is self-created. We have one stipulation,and that is the that the overhead area not be used for residential. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. DERBY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2013 SEQRA TYPE II KACEY MANN AGENT(S) ANTHONY CATONE OWNER(S) KACEY MANN ZONING NC LOCATION 1470 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN ABOVE-GROUND POOL IN THE SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF BP 2013-181 POOL; BP 2013-071 DECK; BP 2013-197 GARAGE; BP 2011-273 RES. ALT.; BP 96-346 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2013 LOT SIZE 1.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.00-1-10 SECTION 179-5-020 ANTHONY CATONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2013, Kacey Mann, Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 "Project Location: 1470 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed an above-ground swimming pool in the side yard. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Pool Location Required-rear yard Proposed-side yard Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited as the applicant has indicated the rear yard has a power line and the orientation of the house uses -the kitchen,bathroom and deck access face the location of the pool. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested would be considered moderate relevant to the code. The pool is located greater than 20 ft. from the closest property lines where a 20 ft.rear setback and a 10 ft.side setback is required for a pool. 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. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2013-181: Pool BP 2013-071: Deck BP 2011-273: Residential alteration BP 1996-345: Septic alteration Staff comments: The applicant proposes a pool in the side yard where pools are required to be located in the rear yard. The application is a follow up to Code compliance issues with activities on the property, see Zoning Administrators letter dated May 13, 2013. The applicant has explained the pool location in the side yard is because that side of the house is used as the rear of the house with the kitchen, bathroom and deck access. The applicant has also indicate there is a power-pole with overhead wires in the rear yard and proposed garage is to be constructed in the rear yard where is accessible by the existing driveway. The applicant has included a letter from a neighbor indicating they have no objection to the construction of the pool. The applicant's survey indicates a proposed garage location that has been repositioned by the applicant for compliance purposes so there is no variance at this time for the garage. The Zoning Board may consider requesting additional screening on the north side of the pool area because the north property is a restaurant. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's kind of nice to see this property getting re-used, or re-purposed, I'll say. So at this time, is there anything you'd like to add to the application or would you just like questions from the Board members? KACEY MANN MS. MANN-Questions is good. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any? MR. GARRAND-So you moved the garage? MR. CATONE-I had to move the garage four feet forward. MR. GARRAND-To make the 15 feet setback? MR. CATONE-Yes. I went off the neighbor's survey. We strung a line, and I was well in the variance, but we had to have the land surveyed by our own surveyor and come to find out (lost words) already done,we were on,in the variance,so we moved it forward four and a half feet. MR. GARRAND-Hammer it out. MR. CATONE-Well, we saw cut it right now. We're going to discuss this later. They want it taken out, but I'm going to see, I'll already volunteer to take it out (lost words) little piece of concrete that's four and a half feet by twenty feet. It should come out in the variance, but if I don't build on it, which I don't ever plan on building on it. I was just going to store my plows on it because it's there, I mean,otherwise I'll take it out if I have to. It's already saw cut right now. MR. GARRAND-And it's not a bad spot for the garage back there. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-You've actually done a good job over the years. I've gone by that property for years. It's really looking good. MR. CATONE-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Are you planning on putting a fence or anything along the Ridge Road there at all or shrubs? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. CATONE-Yes,in the summertime there's a buffer of like tiger lilies and they grow. MS. MANN-When it's not raining. MR.CATONE-Yes,when it's not raining. It grows up pretty good there,but,no, I wasn't planning on doing anything. If we have to. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR.GARRAND-Have you used the pool? MS.MANN-We did the first week,but then Craig called and gave us the Stop Work Order. MR. GARRAND-I noticed if you pulled it back you'd be in danger of like the lines and stuff back there,and it's not a good thing when stuff comes in where your easement. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and again, for those in the audience in here today, I apologize for this humming and buzzing in our speaker system, but hopefully Laura will get that fixed for next time. Okay. I will open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "As owner of the Adirondack Bar and Grill located at 982 State Route 149, I wish to advise you that I have absolutely NO OBJECTION to the Tony Catone family located at 1470 Ridge Road placing their above ground pool in the side yard next to my property. They are wonderful neighbors and have drastically enhanced the property over the last few years since taking ownership. James T.Valastro,member owner Adirondack Bar and Grill" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there any other written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-With no other written comment, is there anyone here this evening in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I guess we can quickly poll the Board. Roy? MR.URRICO-I have no objection. I think it's where it should be. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-No objection. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-It's all good to me. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'd be a lot more worried if this thing was moved back toward the power lines. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-No problems. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. Can I have a motion,please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Do I have to do another one? MR.JACKOSKI-That's the nice thing about being Chairman, I don't do motions. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2013 KACEY MANN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Kyle Noonan: 1470 Ridge Road. The applicant has constructed an above ground swimming pool in the side yard. The relief requested is the fact that it's in a side yard and not the rear yard. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood. It's actually an improvement. Whether benefits could be sought by the applicant by some other means feasible. As the applicant has said, their functioning rooms are on the side of the house. The approval would be on the side of the house. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? It's not really considered substantial, and minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Although it is self-created, I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 26-2013. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Again,thank you for fixing that property up. That's just great. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2013 SEQRA TYPE II DEBORAH FERRANTI OWNER(S) DEBORAH FERRANTI AND CHRISTINE A. MACCHI ZONING LC-10A LOCATION 216 FULLER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 678 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION WITH A SECOND FLOOR BEDROOM ADDITION OF 678 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LC- 10A ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2013-231 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.16-1-11 SECTION 179-3- 040 DEBORAH FERRANTI, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2013, Deborah Ferranti, Meeting Date: June 19, 2013 "Project Location: 216 Fuller Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a 676 sq. ft. garage addition with a second floor bedroom addition of 676 sq. ft. The location of the addition does not meet the required setbacks for the Land Conservation 10 acre zone (LC10A) Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Front setback Side yard setback east required 100 ft. required 100 ft. proposed 60 ft. proposed 54.3 ft. relief requested 40 ft. relief requested 45.7 ft. (closest measurement to the setback) 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the size of the lot and lot being zoned LC-10 requiring 100 ft. setback on all property lines. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for size and setback may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) 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 not self- created as the parcel was in an R-2 zone during the 1967 zone ordinance. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2013-231 pending, BP 2006 -0494 rear addition and fire place (property was split zone utilized LC-10a and SR1A), 2006 Building permits for septic alterations. 1969 building permits for attached garage,patio,porch, Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 2 story addition with a 26 x 26 sq.ft. garage and a 26 x 26 sq. ft. second story living area. The applicant has indicated the existing garage is to be converted to living space and the existing driveway will be removed so a new driveway can be constructed for the new garage. The parcel records indicate the home was built in 1969 when the zoning was R-2 with 30 ft. setbacks for the front and rear and a 5 ft. minimum setback with a sum of 15 for the side setback was required. The applicant has provided a survey locating the new addition and the pending building permit file contains an elevation profile; elevation sheet is included for reference. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. Again, another reasonably application. Is there anything you'd like to add for the record at the moment or would you just entertain questions from the Board? MS. FERRANTI-Questions would be great. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? Having none, I guess I'll open the public comment. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone here this evening in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one,this could be a record, I'm going to quickly poll the Board. I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-The applicant would like an addition. As far as where it's going, I couldn't come up with any alternatives as to what they could do, short of tearing down the house and building something farther out back, or just doing something completely different design wise. I don't think it's going to produce a really undesirable change in the neighborhood. They're really not doing a lot with the property. It's a huge parcel of land. Is it substantial relative to the Code? Moderate. Moderate to severe maybe. I don't see any adverse environmental impacts here,either. So I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think Rick did a great job in summarizing what I would have said. I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Great project. Go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I don't see any issues. It's good. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2013) MR. KUHL-Yes, if this were less than 10 acres zoning, she wouldn't be here, but it is what it is. I think it's a good project. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor. It's fine. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing,and ask for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make a motion, Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Fine. You're hogging them all tonight,but go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2013 DEBORAH FERRANTI, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: 216 Fuller Road. The applicant proposes the construction of a 676 square foot garage addition with a second floor bedroom addition of 676 square feet. The location of the addition does not meet the required setbacks for the Land Conservation 10 Acre zoning, LC-10 acres. The relief requested, required 100 feet in the front but proposed 60. The relief is 40 feet. The side, on the east side,required 100 feet,proposed 54.3. Relief requested 45.7. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. Whether the benefits sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the size of the lot, and again, if this were not 10 acre, it wouldn't be here. Whether the area variance is substantial. It's really moderate. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Minor to no impact on the physical or environmental conditions. Although it may be considered self-created, if it were R-2, we wouldn't be here, again. I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 27-2013. Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. That was our last application this evening, I believe. MR. GARRAND-I make a motion to adjourn. MR. KUHL-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 19, 2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th day of June, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 28