Loading...
09-17-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 67-2014 Thomas J. Kubricky 1. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-24 Area Variance No. 60-2014 Thomas Whitermore 9. Tax Map No. 309.6-1-35 and 36 Sign Variance No. 68-2014 David F. Brown 16. Tax Map No. 302.8-2-15 Area Variance No. 52-2014 Jason&Tricia Gottlieb 20. Tax Map No. 226.8-1-2 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 09/17/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE RICHARD GARRAND RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL MEMBERS ABSENT KYLE NOONAN ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome everyone. I'd like to begin this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's actually quite a simple process. There is an agenda on the back table. There also is an explanation sheet of tonight's proceedings. We'll basically call each application up. We'll read it into the record. We'll ask the applicant and/or the representatives here at the table to field any questions or add any comments. If there is a public comment period advertised we will, of course, open up the floor for public comment. We'll probably poll the Board at some point and then decide how to move forward with each application and we'll take it from there. So it's pretty easy. This evening, agenda wise, we only have one housekeeping matter. That is the approval of the August 20th meeting minutes, and just to clarify with Staff, we'll be able to approve those with everybody that's here, right, they were in attendance? Okay. Great. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 20, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20,2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Next item, Mr. Kubricky,Area Variance No. 67-2014. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2014 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS J. KUBRICKY OWNER(S) KUBRICKY, HORRIGAN AND CAMP ZONING WR LOCATION 53 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 450 SQ. FT. DECK TO EXISTING 360 SQ. FT. CAMP STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CREATION OF HARD SURFACING (DECKING) WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF BP 14-342 DECK; BP 12-035 DOCK; BP 10-220 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-24 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 TOM KUBRICKY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2014, Thomas J. Kubricky, Meeting Date: September 17, 2014 "Project Location: 53 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 450 sq. ft. deck to existing 360 sq. ft. camp structure. Creation of hard- surfacing (decking) of the shoreline requires Site Plan review by the Planning Board. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested for the construction of deck to an existing camp that does not meet the required setbacks and is an expansion of a non-conforming structure. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts for the Waterfront zone dimensional requirements. Section 179-13-010 Continuation-expansion of non-conforming. WR Shoreline setback North side setback Required 50 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 23.5 ft. 8.9 ft. Relief 26.5 ft. 11.9 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 may be considered to reduce the deck size or locate further from the shore. The existing camp is 34.5 ft. from the shoreline so any addition to the camp may trigger an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate 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. The project may have minimal to no impact on the environment. The applicant has indicated additional plantings area proposed around the deck and on the site to minimize any stormwater from the site to the lake. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 53-14: Pending BP 14-342: Deck,pending BP 12-035: 72 sq. ft. Dock extension, 1-13-13 BP 10-220: 168 sq.ft. Dock, 5-9-11 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 450 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing camp. The deck does not meet the setbacks for the WR zone. The applicant has indicated the previous deck was dilapidated and needs to be replaced. The plans show the deck to be added and the survey shows the location with new vegetation to be planted. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-A lot of detail for a deck, huh, Tom. Welcome, Tom. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time or clarify for the Board. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. KUBRICKY-Well,what I'd like to clarify with all you gentlemen up here is this place has been in our family since 1956, and I don't know, have all you people been up there to look at it? And what it is is it's a 360 square foot camp on 80 feet of lakefront up there,which it's a very small camp, and we'd prefer to leave it there, you know, we like the size of it. We're not asking anybody to go bigger, you know, because we want to keep it like it was back in the 1956, when it was first built. What I have is, my problem is I have neighbors on both sides of me that have been rallying against this and I wanted to bring to your attention the neighbor to the north of me has like 50 feet of lakefront, not 80, and what they did is they put up a 1500 square foot double decker house, a 12 by 12 screen enclosure and a 460 square foot patio pad out in front of their place next to me. Then they put up a six foot stockade fence running down to the lake right from the road, and what they did is they've taken all their parking now to the north of me,the Koenigs,and now they have to park out in the street, and the people to the south of us put an enclosed porch on,put a deck on, and they also put a six foot stockade fence up where they have to park in the road also, and what we have now is we have parking out front. We don't park in the road. We have eight parking spots out front. All our parking in front of our place is off the Town road because all eight cars come in at an angle, and I'm asking you guys, I'm not looking to make a bigger place. I'm looking to fix that up. It's been in our company for many years and we've had several partners in it and what we've done is we've ended up,gradually as they've been dying off we've been buying their shares up,you know, and I'd make this look real nice, and the reason that I'm asking for a deck that size, which it might sound like it's a lot,but to build on these lots up there you're kind of limited prior,you know what I mean, because of the size of them and the setbacks and all that stuff, and I never complained about either one of my neighbors because I understand,you know,the lake is,the public and each of their houses, you know, they're entitled to do what they want to do on it, and I'm kind of disappointed that my neighbors on both sides of me are rallying my neighborhood, and I've had my neighbors come and tell me that these people are doing this, and you'll see, you know, I'm sure they're here now and they're going to make a comment on this, but what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to keep, this camp is like, it's probably one of the smallest camps in the Town of Queensbury on Lake George, and I want to keep it, I want to keep it just like that. I don't want to,but the problem is,you know, if you go down the notes, it might sound like a big deck, but if you get a nice table and five chairs and, you know, two lounge chairs, you know, that's eating up that square footage there, you know, that I'm asking for a deck, and we'd prefer to keep our furniture on a wooden deck, and I'm not proposing to put like a concrete slab in where we can't get any perc through the deck,because I really don't see any runoff, you know, even from the deck, and I talked to, you know, Dick Meade came up there and he,you know, he's going to do all my landscaping, and he told me, geez,you put these shrubs around here you shouldn't have anything to worry about. So I'd ask you guys for your permission to approve this if would,please. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Tom, thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time concerning this application? MR. KUHL-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. May I ask the question? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. KUHL-Had you ever thought about,instead of cutting down the trees,to set the deck off? MR. KUBRICKY-Well,what's happened is I've had Dick Meade up there. You know Dick? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, and what's happened is the trees have grown, the trees have actually come, their roots have come out of them, and what we've done, over the last three years we've lost two. They just, they kind of, Dick says the trees are at their peak, you know, they don't have a longevity of life,that particular kind of tree, and if you looked up in them,you could see where,you know,we have,where it's rotted actually,you know what I mean, and what it's done, I want to keep the place, and I'm going to, I was going to put some nice sugar maples up and, you know, I want to keep it what it is. I'm not looking to make this a, I want to keep it dated. I want to keep it the way that it was designed to be used on Sandy Bay. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. KUBRICKY-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Have you given any thought to reducing the size of the deck? The deck is going to be bigger than the house. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. KUBRICKY-I understand your concern on that, but, you know, the problem is literally like, it's very small, you know what I'm saying, it's only 360 square feet, and, you know, I talked to the zoning and they said I could put like a, I think it was like a, you know, I think it was like a 2200 square foot camp up there and,you know, I'm not asking to do the camp because I'm looking for the format for the patio furniture because actually we went down and we measured all the tables and the lounge chairs and you know it really looked nice, you know what I mean. If I went 12 feet it would be,you wouldn't be able to walk around the table if you had four,you know, it's basically the size of a kitchen almost is what we're trying to base this off of because the patio furniture,it's a little bulkier than a kitchen table,you know, padded chairs and the umbrellas. Believe me, I put a lot of thought into that because that was a, you know, but it's just, the camp is so small itself that, you know, we're not the kind of people that like to spend the night there. I don't think anybody's ever spent the night there. MR. GARRAND-You'd have to sleep sideways. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, you'd have to sleep sideways, yes, and we're not looking, you know what I mean, we're looking at, to use it what the purpose of it was to be used for, not, you know what I mean. MR. GARRAND-It's basically a day use camp that people years ago would drive up to. MR. KUBRICKY-If you know it. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I've been up there. MR. KUBRICKY-Have you been up there? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. KUBRICKY-To that camp? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. KUBRICKY-You know. MR. GARRAND-I know how small it is,yes. MR. KUBRICKY-Yes, I want to keep it just like that. I just want to clean it up now. We had a couple of desks with the partners, and they dropped out and then their kids have sold me their shares and, you know, I know they're all listed on there and the owners, but they're all out, you know what I mean. It's too much work to go up to the County and, you know, at the time all this was going through, so I just had them all sign it, but, I mean,they've all been bought out since this was turned in. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any additional questions? Okay. We do have a public comment period advertised for this evening. I'm going to open the public comment period and ask Mike first if there are any written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-There are. The first one is, "Dear Chairman Jackoski: I live at 55 Rockhurst Road just north of the property, whose owners are seeking a zoning code variance. And, I am writing to oppose variance 67-2014 as I believe it will have an undesirable effect on the neighborhood and the environment. Specifically, the zoning laws were set up to protect Lake George and this will add stress to a fragile and already over-stressed bay in the lake. If Sandy Bay continues to decline as a desirable location, the neighborhood will suffer and this project is a threat to preserving and protecting Lake George. I strongly urge you to enforce the zoning laws and not grant this variance. I am not in favor of any variance which allows expansion of a non-conforming development within the 50 foot Lake setback. There are other alternatives to improve this property which can be done within the already poor footprint without adding an additional threat to the Lake. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Jacqueline Koenig" The second one is from Elaine Pragon of 62 Rockhurst Road. "Kubricky is planning on renting the docks to be built which will create a lot more traffic on this road - car-wise. This area rents to everyone on the street, it is no longer quiet or safe. I have seen on Sandy Bay, a sea plane that docks there now and its dangerous to all of the swimmers in the lake. Thank you" And, let's see, Mr. Steve Jackoski, Zoning Board Chairman. "Since I will not be in this area on September 17th, I stopped at the office on September 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) 12th, and talked with Craig Brown who suggested that I write my concerns addressed to both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. I am the adjacent neighbor to the south of the property on 53 Rockhurst Road. My first question is: who owns the property on 53 Rockhurst Road? There are 3 names on the deck applicant and only 1 name on the new wharf application. It is my understanding that this application was requested before throughout the previous years and was denied because the specifications did not meet the requirements. (This was told to me by Joan Camp and Kelly Horrigan - two of the owners). What are the required setbacks from the water mark? (I can see another variance being applied for next year to enclose a new deck structure). What are the legal footprints beyond this existing structure of this camp for new construction? (LARGER THAN EXISTING CAMP) Congestion & Parking - with a coniferous hedgerow as per diagram, it shows that parking can very well be a problem NOISE POLLUTION Many camps and docks have become rental units. The close proximity of the camps creates this problem in the AM &PM. SEPTIC With the increase of usage of this camp and docks will there be a potential problem of the septic system? I have enclosed several photographs of this camp located at 53 Rockhurst Road and please note I have written my concerns on the back of the photographs also. I respectfully ask that this area have an ON SITE inspection also. Thank you. Sincerely, Margaret Colacino" MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a couple in our packet, right? We have, it looks like a form letter from Kelly Horrigan in support. MR. GARRAND-Isn't she one of the owners? MR. KUBRICKY-She was. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,she was,and Joan Camp,is she also one of the owners? MR. KUBRICKY-Yes. She's the same people this other lady said were opposing it. MR. JACKOSKI-And Tim Horrigan. Okay. We do have the public comment period open. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application at this time? Okay. Not seeing anyone, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. We do have some comments to discuss if we could,Tom. So this whole mentioning of new docks or new wharfs and renting boat slips,that's not part of this application,correct? MR. KUBRICKY-No. MR. JACKOSKI-There's no docks, no wharfs involved in this whatsoever. So I personally watched the sea plane go up and down the lake. So I kind of like it, but is the sea plane docking at your property? MR. KUBRICKY-No,sir. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone else who has any other questions? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I do. MR. JAC KOSKI-Actually, it's still open. So if you could give up the table, Tom. If you could please join the table and state your name for the record and your address and, you know, we'll give you about three minutes. JACQUELINE KOENIG MRS. KOENIG-Okay. My name is Jacqueline Koenig. The first letter was written by me. What I want to say is I want it on the record that at four o'clock today Joan Mannix walked in my yard and wanted to discuss what I wrote in my comments tonight, and I told her that I was not going to discuss it with her and if she came to the meeting that she would hear what I have to say. Well, she claimed that I was opposed to parking. Now there's nothing in my written comment about parking. So that is not true, and the other thing she told me that if I was arbitrarily, if you guys approve this tonight and I was arbitrary towards it, that she would take my gazebo and anything I have on my property that Tom Kubricky just said was not in the law, and everything that I had done was done by a person who worked for me, and he did everything that we had to do with the zoning both at my house and at my camp 60 across the street. So some of the things that were said tonight were not true, and I'm here to tell you that if anything happens to my property with the threat that I had from Joan Mannix today, I would be very much to blame him for it. I am not the Lake George Park Commission and I am not Queensbury. You have your rules. I followed the rules when I did my 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) building, both at 55 and 60, and I think that everybody should be, you know, following the rules, and that's all I have to say, but I just take exception to some of the things that Tom Kubricky just said about me and my house and my gazebo. It was all done with Joe Roulier and nothing was done underhanded. Everything was up and up,and we paid for it,and I have all the information available if you would like to see it. Thank you very much. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, and just so you know that if by chance you want to talk with Building and Codes, you can certainly talk with Dave Hatin and he can talk with you about, if there are any violations. Just so you can have some peace of mind. MRS. KOENIG-I don't think it's nice to be threatened. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, unfortunately we weren't apart of that discussion. So,but thank you. MRS. KOENIG-It just happened. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application before we call the applicant back to the table? Again, the public comment period is still open. Mr. Kubricky, if you could come back to the table. At this time what I'd like to do, if there are no other questions from Board members, I'd like to poll the Board. Does that seem fair? Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I went and looked at the property. It's kind of unusual. It's very small. I have no problem with the deck. I believe it will be an improvement to the property, and I'd be in favor of the project. MR. KUBRICKY-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I have one question of Staff. We're not making this contingent on the plantings? The plantings he's going to have to go to the Planning Board? MRS.MOORE-No, I apologize,it does go to the Planning Board. MR. KUHL-Okay. It goes to the Planning Board. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Yes, my concern was the two trees. I didn't like the fact that the trees were being cut down, but if, in fact,your tree guy says that they're going to be dying anyway, I think it's a good improvement. I look forward to the plantings to be able to capture the rainwater so it doesn't go into the lake. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. KUBRICKY-Thank you,too. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think the deck could be reduced in size. I think it's a little large for, A, the size of the property,and, B,the house. I don't think you need a deck 30 by 15. It just seems too big. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm looking at other properties in the area and the size of the property, I think it's a very minor, a very small request of that size deck, considering some of the other properties up there. I'd have to go along with it. I'd be in favor of it. MR. KUBRICKY-Thanks. MR.JACKOSKI-Tom,is there any way you could just make it 12 feet instead of 15 feet? MR. KUBRICKY-Well, I tell you, you know, I mean, if it's that important to you, I could, you know what I mean. I'd prefer not to, but like I said,you know, I'm not, the place is so small that it's,you know what I mean, instead of putting up a bigger house,you know, I'm trying to utilize the outside, you know what I mean, and the reason I need a deck to go that wide is for the furniture. It sounds like it's a lot, but when you take the eaves from the house that it's going to be tied onto and, you 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) know, the eaves overhang like two and a half feet, you know what I'm saying, it only gives me 12 feet. Then you take the table, the table is eight, and then you go back with the chairs, you know what I mean. I kind of engineered it,to be honest with you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I would like to ask Staff a question. So if we approve this at 30 by 15 this evening, with the relief requested, and the applicant, at some point, decides to add on to the house with a second story or to the north, to the south, who knows, would we be able to make the deck variance,so to speak,null and void,so they'd have to start over for the whole project again? MRS.MOORE-The variance runs with the property. MR. JACKOSKI-With the property, I know, but if we make it contingent that if the house is ever expanded,that? MRS.MOORE-You can. MR.JACKOSKI-Because that would make me feel a lot better that we're not segmenting here,that all of a sudden we've got a 15 by 30 deck and then we go a second story up and then we start, you know, taxing the property. I think for the community itself, the neighborhood itself, it's not unrealistic to have this deck with such a small house on a fairly large lot compared to some of the others, and they do have their own confined parking. Certainly I don't know about their septic systems and stuff,but they're not adding any,you know,usage to those septic systems with this,but we are, nonetheless,giving a variance that's very close to the lake, and I've often frowned on giving any kind of variance that close to the lake. MR. KUBRICKY-If I built on, I wouldn't build on it, Number One. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'm okay with, I think, granting the application as it sits, provided it's contingent that if the house is ever expanded in any way, that the deck would have to come off or they'd have to start from scratch. MRS.MOORE-You can put that as a condition. MR.JACKOSKI-Would the Board members be willing to do that? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public comment period, and seek a motion for approval of this variance with that particular contingency. Mike, would you be able to try to do that? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 67-2014, Thomas J. Kubricky, 53 Rockhurst Road, 227.13-2-24 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas J. Kubricky for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-13-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 450 sq. ft. deck to existing 360 sq. ft. camp structure. Relief requested from minimum side and shoreline setback requirements. Also, relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure in the WR zoning district. Creation of hardsurfacing (decking) within 50 ft. of the shoreline requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. The relief is 26 and a half feet from the shoreline setback and 11.9 feet from the north side setback. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,September 17,2014; 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: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting of the required Area Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? Not really. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? No,it's moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 67-2014, Thomas J. Kubricky, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. That if any other changes are made to the camp, the variance for the deck is no longer applicable. B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 17th day of September 2014,by the following vote: MR. KUBRICKY-We're doing dock work,too. MR.JACKOSKI-That's a separate matter. MR. KUBRICKY-I want to thank you guys,too. MR. JACKOSKI-Hang on, we're not done yet. We haven't voted yet, Tom. We might change our mind between then and now. So hang on. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,Tom. Thank you very much. MR. KUBRICKY-I just wanted to clarify something for the record, and I don't, I'm sure, did I say that this lady that got up here and spoke did this without a variance or permits, did I say that to any of you guys? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-I don't believe you did, but I don't know the issues, and that's for you folks to work out in your neighborhood. MR. KUBRICKY-Thanks again. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2014 THOMAS WHITERMORE OWNER(S) THOMAS WHITERMORE ZONING NR LOCATION 32 SUNSET AVENUE APPLICANT HAS DEMOLISHED A 1,152 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND HAS BEGUN CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 840 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 14-278 GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.13, 0.13 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-35 AND 36 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 WAYNE NEWCOMB, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2014, Thomas Whitermore, Meeting Date: September 17, 2014 Project Location: 32 Sunset Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has demolished a 1,152 sq. ft. detached garage and has begun construction of a new 840 sq. ft. garage with exterior concrete pad. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested to complete construction of an 840 sq.ft.garage that does not meet the required setback to the rear yard. Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures -garage Rear setback(NR) Required 15 ft. Proposed 9.8 ft. Relief 5.2 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 available to relocate the garage to a compliant location. The applicant has indicated the existing garage was in disrepair and the new garage is not creating new disturbances. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 14-278: Garage,pending 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) Staff comments: The applicant requests to complete the construction of a new garage that does not meet the required setbacks. The applicant has indicated the garage was in disrepair and the structure was demolished. The applicant has explained the new structure is smaller than the existing one and constructed so the rear property line was consistent with the previous garage. The new garage is used for storage and the applicant has clarified that no business operations will be occurring at the site. The information submitted shows the existing footprint, new footprint, and elevations of the new structure. The plans show a concrete area that is to remain at the front of the building and the north side of the building this is accounted for in the applicant's data information. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. NEWCOMB-Yes. Members of the Board, good evening. My name is Wayne Newcomb. I'm here representing Thomas Whitermore this evening. He's currently away on business. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anything you'd like to add to the application at this time,or should we just ask questions? MR. NEWCOMB-I'm prepared to answer your questions,sir. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members,do you have any questions at this time? MR. KUHL-The height of the old building was what? MR. NEWCOMB-It was approximately six foot shorter, as a result of the existing roof that was on it was only one and three quarters or two inch rise per foot run pitch on the roof. MR. KUHL-No, I'm just asking what the height of it was. MR. NEWCOMB-It was approximately 13 foot 8 inches. MR., KUHL-And this,the height of this one is? MRS.MOORE-Twenty. MR. NEWCOMB-The height with this one with the new pitch on the roof is now 20 foot 3 inches. MR. KUHL-And 16 is the maximum. MRS.MOORE-No. MR.JACKOSKI-It's Waterfront. MR. KUHL-That's just Waterfront? I apologize. MR.JACKOSKI-Do you have any waterfront property? MR. NEWCOMB-No,sir,not unless everything goes up around me. MR. HENKEL-It's 28. MRS.MOORE-No, I see 20 feet 9 and 1/8th's inches as a height. MR. GARRAND-There's no way that's 28 feet high. MR. NEWCOMB-Yes,it's definitely not 28 feet. MR. HENKEL-Okay,yes,it's got,looks like 28 feet on there. MRS.MOORE-No,he's got,one of his drawings is Page Three of Five says 20 something, 20 plus. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. HENKEL-Yes,right here. 20.9,yes, 20 feet 9 inches 1/8th,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-What do they plan to do with the concrete that's outside the garage? MR. NEWCOMB-Park lawnmowers on it, keep anything off the grass or whatever. It was existing slab, left over from when we shrunk the now existing building. We thought to keep bicycles or whatever that's outside, it would be a nice spot for that. Maybe even put a table out there, put some chairs around it and keep our garbage barrels on top of trash and what not. MR.JACKOSKI-Was a building permit filed before this building was built? MR. NEWCOMB-No,sir,it was not. MR.JACKOSKI-Was a demolition permit filed in order to take down the old garage? MR. NEWCOMB-No, actually it was already pretty much fallen down, other than three walls, which we wanted to keep there and found that it was terribly infested with carpenter ants. Thus,which is also why we had a problem in the house with carpenter ants,which turned out to be a satellite hive, as they call it in the pest control business, as I understand it now, and once we started to get into the remaining walls that we had anticipated leaving,we found that that was indeed where the main colony of carpenter ants was and the wood was eaten up pretty well in behind the paneling that was existing in there. So we finished taking the other walls down. MR.JACKOSKI-What was the reason for not filing for a building permit? MR. NEWCOMB-Well,we were just trying to put back what we had there existing. MR.JACKOSKI-In the dark of night? MR. NEWCOMB-No,sir. MR.JACKOSKI-But, I mean,why wouldn't you file for a building permit? MR. NEWCOMB-We didn't think that we actually required one at the time. We were just going to try to build onto what was left there that was good. That was,for sure,an oversight. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, because I think if there had been a building permit filed we could have had an opportunity to move this garage to be more compliant than where it is. Now we're forced into the situation where you have a severe financial impact and we have a problem with granting the minimum relief because there was an alternative. MR. NEWCOMB-We are exactly where the old one was, of course, but I understand what you're saying. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other questions of Board members at this time before I open the public comment period? MR. HENKEL-So a contractor is not building this,is that what you're saying? MR. NEWCOMB-No,we live there. We were doing it ourselves. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we're at where we're at. So, hearing no other comments or questions from Board members, there is a public comment period advertised for this evening. I'm going to open that public comment period,and ask Mike if there is any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-There is not. MR.JACKOSKI-Having no written comment,is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? We do have someone who'd like to address, so if you could give up the table. Thank you. DAVE HOWARD 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. HOWARD-Hi. My name's Dave Howard. I live directly behind the property where the garage or whatever it is is being built. One of my big concerns was it's a lot taller. The roof line runs the complete opposite of the old pictures that I have here. It's a lot bigger,but I was worried that there would be an apartment in there down the road,and it's right in my backyard. There's a,looks like a doorway up on the second floor,and I didn't want them back there,you know,staring down into my property,because I've always had a buffer zone from my house on Mallory,then their house over on Sunset. So you had the two yards separating. That was one of my big concerns right there,but it is a lot bigger, in my view,than what was there, and if it was kept as a garage, that would be fine with me, but I guess that's about it. That's all I've got to say on it. It is a lot bigger. The roof line's facing different directions now. It used to run north and south. Now it runs east and west. I know, I remember over here I saw him the other day out in the street and said he was looking at it and asked me a couple of questions. That was my big concern,though. They've done a good job on the house,fixing that up. It was pretty run down. MR.JACKOSKI-Mr. Howard,would you mind letting us see your photographs? MR. HOWARD-Certainly. MR. HOWARD-These were taken years ago. This one is,that's what it used to look like. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HOWARD-And this is before I put my fence in and my pool, which is, the pool's out of there now. MR. JACKOSKI-And that's it there. Okay. So just pass the photos just real quickly to Board members, but in general you're okay with the garage as it is constructed, provided there's no living quarters or commercial activity in there? MR. HOWARD-Exactly. Which I talked to Wayne today,you know, I spoke to him and said that was my big concern, as long as it was kept as a garage. It looks bigger, too, you know, even from my pictures you can see. MR. GARRAND-It's up on a hill,too. MR. JACKOSKI-It's taller, right. Okay. Is there anyone else here who'd like to address the Board on this matter? Yes,sir. If you could identify yourself for the record also. MONTY MC NEIL MR. MC NEIL-My name is Monty McNeil. Nice to see you folks tonight. I know Wayne is doer, and Wayne took a property that was in shambles and he, I looked at the house and he's done a nice job with that, and I looked at what was a garage before he started and, you know, he's done a pretty good job with constructing something,you know, that's much more presentable, both aesthetically and structurally, and it looks like, he tells me that Craig Brown has been over and Charlie's been over there and taken a look at it. So it's built, you know, pretty well, and it sits pretty close to where the garage sat before, and I think his biggest mistake was not coming to you folks first and getting permission to do it, and I think he regrets that, you know, because I think we could have, you know, sidestepped a lot of this right now, but I'm just here to kind of support him, because I know he's in a tough spot right now and he really does want to be a good neighbor, and I know that, you know, because I know the fella, and I think his neighbor would even acknowledge that, but that's all I really have to say. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you,sir. MR. MC NEIL-You're welcome. MR.JACKOSKI-Anyone else? Yes,sir,please. DAN MACERO MR. MACERO-Good evening. My name is Dan Macero. I used to live at 31 Sunset Avenue. He moved in across the street and I built my house in 2002, and that place has been run down across the street for about nine years I've been looking at it. That's one of the reasons why I moved because nobody would do anything with it. It was just a shack. He came in and he did, he's not paying me to come here. I come here on my own. So he did a beautiful job. I mean, I wouldn't 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) have taken that upon me. He took a lot underneath him. The garage was a lot bigger. It probably doesn't look bigger, but the floor print does show that. As far as height is concerned, I would be more concerned about whether he would, that other garage was left there. It was like more of an endangerment to anybody just driving by there and looking at it,but the only reason nobody drove by it because it's a dead end street, and I don't understand why the place wasn't condemned before. I really don't understand it. Where is our Town? I mean,you guys sit here and what do they do? They put a sign on the door? I mean, the place was a hovel. I mean, there were rats in there. He took out four or five dumpsters. I don't even know what that costs now, but he's done a great job, and as far as my input about it, I think you should,you know,honor his variance. I mean,he did try to fix was there, but I knew it was impossible, and I'm a builder myself, but he is at 20 feet, but you have to take a look at the other buildings around there. Most of them are split levels around there. They're five feet out of the ground and another nine feet, and then another six or seven feet for a roof. So what are we really looking at here? I mean,he's done a great job. So, I could probably say more,but I don't think I really need to. MR. KUHL-Is he going to buy you a beer, Dan? MR. MAC ERO-Actually I quit drinking about 22 years ago. Actually, I sold the house last year and I moved to Kingsbury, and I'm going to do a little something up there. So there's a little bit more room. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,try to get back to Queensbury,will you. MR. MACERO-Well,you know what, I like it here,but I like more open space. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. MACERO-Anything else you want to ask me? I mean, I've been across the street staring at that thing for nine years. MR.JACKOSKI-No,we're okay. MR. MACERO-I think he's done a great job. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening? Seeing no one else, I'll leave the public comment period open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Well, I'd like the applicant to come up to the table, first,because I have another question, before I answer you. MR.JACKOSKI-That's fine. MR. KUHL-Wayne, what's going to go in the building? Will there be electric? Just electric, or will there be water in that building,too? MR. NEWCOMB-No,sir. MR. KUHL-Just electric? MR. NEWCOMB-Yes,sir. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. I'm done with my questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. GARRAND-Would you be okay with the condition that there be no living quarters upstairs or any deck overlooking down onto Mr. Howard's property? MR. NEWCOMB-The only thing we had planned on putting outside of that door is a set of stairs and a small platform to get in and out with if I'm bringing like a box of siding up there to throw in that, you know, rather than carry it through the garage door, around the corner and up a stairwell that's inside. Anything that's, it's there just for convenience more than anything. There's not anything that somebody's going to be hanging out on and looking down over someone's yard, and even if so, if it was, there's private things you can do to ensure privacy to your neighbors, but that's never been our plan. It is only for a,take down what was there and it ended up being a little bigger and a little more involved than we had absolutely planned on doing, but there was never any plans for any residence to be up there, or anything of this nature. That was not our intent. It's still not our intent. What may come down the road with him and his property, I have no idea. I know at this 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) time he has no inkling of that. For many reasons, cost. I mean, to put more people in there you'd have to probably enlarge the septic system, and I don't think it's cost efficient. I don't think he feels it is,either. MR. JACKOSKI-So when you build the stairs on the outside of your building, if they're not part of your current plan,can you make them part of your current building plan and permit plans? MR. NEWCOMB-I can absolutely fill out a permit for that before we did it. Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think you probably should make it part of your project, if you can, but talk to the,you know, Charlie or to Craig Brown about that. MR. NEWCOMB-Absolutely. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick,do you have any other questions? MR. GARRAND-You'd be okay with a condition of no living quarters upstairs,though? MR. NEWCOMB-I couldn't answer that for him, but I just know that there's no plans for it. Just the thought of how much it would cost him to do that. I don't believe that he has any plans of doing that whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, well, I think that's going to end up being a condition of this evening's proceedings. MR. NEWCOMB-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-And if you don't want us to move forward,you can ask us. MR. NEWCOMB-Well, I'm authorized to speak on his behalf, so I would say the condition should be granted. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any additional questions from Board members? I'm going to close the public comment period. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion,please. MRS. MOORE-Before you make your motion, can I add an additional condition? The lots be combined as part of the condition? Because currently there's two lots, and just a comment. There are stairs that are leading to the rear of this property. That is where that relief is being requested from,and it did not include stairs,if the stairs are to the rear. MR.JACKOSKI-Aren't the stairs going on the side of the building? MR. NEWCOMB-To get to the upstairs door to get access to that storage area. MRS.MOORE-Okay. Thank you. MR. NEWCOMB-That's not on there. I had put it on. MR. GARRAND-You won't need relief for that. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,but if they were on the back of the building,you've got another issue. MR. NEWCOMB-It's not on the back. It's actually on the side,on the end of it. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. NEWCOMB-On the north wall. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Did you close the public hearing? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-I did. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 60-2014, Thomas Whitermore, 32 Sunset Avenue,Tax Map No. 309.6-1-35 and 36 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas Whitermore for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has demolished a 1,152 sq. ft. detached garage and has begun construction of a new 840 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from minimum rear yard setback requirements for the NR zoning district. The required setback for the rear is 15 feet. Proposed is 9.8 feet with a relief if 5.2 feet. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 17,2014; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? It won't change the character of the neighborhood at all. It fits the former property line in the back side where the relief is requested and it's in character with the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? The garage is pretty much framed and the walls are up. Short of tearing it down and re-building it 5.2 feet away,no. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It's minimal. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We don't foresee any adverse environmental effects. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I would say,yes, it is self-created because they did not get a building permit and did not apply for a variance before constructing this garage. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 60-2014, Thomas Whitermore, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. That the lots be combined into one parcel. B. That no living quarters to be upstairs in this garage. C. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 17th day of September 2014,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any further discussion? We're taking a little risk here because we never did poll the Board. MR. HENKEL-The conditions are? MR. GARRAND-No living quarters upstairs and the lots have got to be combined. MR. HENKEL-And no business can be run there,either. MR. GARRAND-He's already stated that there will be no business run there. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. GARRAND-That's part of the application. MR. HENKEL-That's in the letter? Okay. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck. Congratulations. Move forward. MR. NEWCOMB-Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 68-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED DAVID F. BROWN OWNER(S) DAVID F. BROWN ZONING CLI LOCATION 294 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE INSTALLATION OF A 4.75 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN PANEL ONTO EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF BP 14-326 NEIGHBORS NY; SV 16-06 ADK FIN. & PLANNING SERVICES FREESTANDING SIGN; BP 11-575 DECK; BP 11-024 C/O; BP 06-394 C/O; BP 06-021 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-15 SECTION CHAPTER 140 DAVID BROWN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 68-2014, David F. Brown, Meeting Date: September 17, 2014 "Project Location: 294 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 4.75 sq.ft.freestanding sign panel onto existing freestanding sign structure. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested for the location of a new sign on a signage structure that does not meet the required setbacks. Section 140 Signs. Front yard setback(CLI) Required 15 ft. Proposed (minimum) 1.5 ft. Relief 13.5 ft. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) 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 may be considered limited as the sign structure is already constructed and received a previous sign variance for the existing sign. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial 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 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 14-326: Neighbors Way,pending SV 16-06: Adk. Financial&Planning Services -freestanding sign BP 11-575: Deck BP 11-024: C/O BP 06-394: C/O BP 06-021: Sign Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a 4.75 sq. ft. sign on an existing signage structure that currently has a sign. The existing sign has had a previous sign variance for the ADK Financial and Planning Services. There was a survey for the building at that time but not the signage. The applicant has obtained a letter from the surveyor denoting what the setback of the post is from the front property line. Staff confirmed the highway bound is the same as the front property line as discussed with the surveyor. The plans show the location of the signage,type and style of the sign with the existing. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything you'd like to add to this very easy,simple application? MR. BROWN-Not really. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We apologize for having to make you go through all this. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Is this the last of additions to this sign? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. KUHL-So you're ultimately going to have 294 Adirondack Financial Planning Services, and then Neighborhoods NY,that's it? MR. BROWN-Right. MR. KUHL-You're not going to be coming back in three weeks when you rent out the back room? MR. BROWN-No,no more. The only thing that might change is if I get new tenants. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. KUHL-Okay. The size will stay the same? MR. BROWN-Exactly. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Can you talk to us a little bit about the lighting of the sign? MR. BROWN-That's a good question. I don't really have it lit right now, and I was thinking about how I want to do that. There is a front little light at the top of the front steps that kind of shines on the sign,but it's actually too dark,but there's really not, I don't have lights shining on the sign right now actually. MR. JACKOSKI-No, but if you do light it, there could be some concern with how you light it, simply because that is so close to the road. MR. BROWN-I mean, some thoughts that I had. There are two lights at the top of the peak, right above the sign on the building, there's two lights there. I've never had the chance to get up there and actually get them functioning. They go straight down at the sign. So I'm sure they were working at some point years ago,before we bought the building,but as of right now I don't have. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but just so you know, there are some specific guidelines to follow, concerning lighting that sign. MR. BROWN-I didn't know that. Okay. I'll check. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions, Board members? We do have a public comment period scheduled and advertised for this evening. Is there anyone here who would like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR. MC CABE-There is not. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to leave the public comment period open. I am going to poll Board members briefly and then we do have to do SEQR,if we get that far. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I see no problem with it. The sign's existing. They want to hang an addition to it. I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I don't see any impacts to the environment or the neighborhood, and like Ron was saying, that the conditions should be no more signs. I'd agree with that. I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think the impact's going to be minimal to non-existent. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I agree. I think it's a straightforward request. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. And I think that we don't have to make it contingent on no more signs because if they did more signs on,they'd have to be back in front of us anyway. Correct? MRS.MOORE-If there was a third panel? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. So we don't even have to make it contingent on that. Though we are making you aware that we're hoping there are no more signs to come back in front of us. Okay. So,having polled the Board, I'm closing the public comment period. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to ask for someone to do SEQR. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 68-2014 David F. Brown based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this 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 Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of September.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Having received a Negative Dec, could we please get a motion for approval of this Sign Variance. MR. KUHL-I would like to do that, Mr. Chairman. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 68-2014, David F. Brown, Tax Map No. 302.8-2- 15 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David F. Brown for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes the installation of a 4.75 sq. ft. freestanding sign panel onto existing freestanding sign structure. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirement. Relief required is 15 feet,proposed is afoot and a half. The relief is 13 and a half feet. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 68-2014 David F. Brown based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this 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 Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of September.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 17,2014; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? Minor impacts to none. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? Not really if he's just going to add on to the existing verticals. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It's really not that substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? It'll have minor to no impacts on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is self-created. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE/DENY Sign Variance No. 68-2014, David F. Brown, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency(APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 17th day of September,2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Good luck. MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you very much. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2014 SEQRA TYPE II JASON & TRICIA GOTTLIEB AGENT(S) MICHAEL S. BORGOS,ESQ. OWNER(S) JASON &TRICIA GOTTLIEB ZONING WR LOCATION 389 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS REVISED FENCE PLANS. FENCE IS PROPOSED TO BE 5 FT. IN HEIGHT AND 16 FT. IN LENGTH, WITH A PORTION OF THE FENCE TO HAVE LATERAL OPENINGS AT THE TOP OF THE FENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION FROM TYPE OF FENCE PLACEMENT WITHIN THE SHORELINE SETBACK (50 FT. FROM MEAN HIGH WATER MARK). ALSO, RELIEF FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES IN THE SHORELINE AREA. CROSS REF BP 2010-023 RES. ALT.; BP 293 YR. 1968 GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.13 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.8-1-2 SECTION 179-5-070 MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-At this point I guess the only thing we're going to ask Mike to read into the record are any modifications, and I would suggest that's probably just the project description at this time. Is that fair? MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mike. MR. MC CABE-So the difference is the relief requested. Last time I think it was three feet or four feet. MR.JACKOSKI-It was actually almost five feet. MR. MC CABE-Five feet MR.JACKOSKI-In height. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 52-2014, Jason &Tricia Gottlieb, Meeting Date: September 17, 2014 "Project Location: 389 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has revised privacy fence plans. Fence is proposed to be 5 ft. in height and 16 ft. in length, with a portion of the fence to have lateral openings at the top of the fence. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-5-070 fences: Type of fence placement w/in shoreline setback Height Required Privacy fence not within 50 ft.of shoreline 4 ft.allowed Proposed 16 linear feet of privacy fence on property line 5 ft. within 50 ft.of shoreline Relief Use of privacy fence 1 ft. Code Definitions....... FENCE A barrier consisting of material(s) assembled, constructed or erected at a fixed location on the ground or attached to the ground. "Fence"does not include a hedge or similar barrier composed of growing vegetation or a man-made berm. FENCE PRIVACY A fence in excess of two feet in height of which 50% or more of the surface area of the fence is opaque. 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 may be limited due to location of the fencing and the intent to provide a barrier between two properties. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 10-023: Residential alterations BP 293: Garage/ Breezeway Staff comments: The applicant had requested to be tabled at the July 23, 2014 meeting. The applicant requests to alter the existing non-compliant fence to request placement of a 5 ft. in height fence for 16 linear ft. as a privacy fence where a more than half the fence is opaque. Currently the applicant has an already in place 16 linear feet and 6 ft.high privacy fencing in the shoreline area. The applicant has indicated the fencing was to improve on the previous screening between the two properties that had included potted shrubs and lattice work. The current conditions address privacy and safety. The applicant's agent has indicated they provided new plans to the adjoining neighbors who expressed concern at the previous meeting. The applicant's agent has also indicated efforts to communicate with neighbors as requested by the zoning board. The new plans show a portion of the fence has an open column feature at the top. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I think that's fair enough, and I'm sure the applicant's agents will explain it in more detail. Mr. Borgos,welcome. MR. BORGOS-Thank you. Michael Borgos, attorney for the applicants. Last time it was noted that both Tricia and Jason Gottlieb were appearing here. They were unable to attend this evening as school has returned to session and they're just seasonal residents of this location. We did submit a drawing and illustration of the revised proposal which truly does equate to a thousand words. I'll do my best to describe it in just a few words. I think the description that was in the agenda was a little bit, needs to be clarified a little bit. Only half the fence is approximating five feet in height, and the top 13 inches have some vertical openings rather than horizontal. The other half is less than four feet in height,about eight feet there. So in essence if you look at it from the north looking to the south, you see the retaining wall. As the hill slope comes down to the deck area, that is 43 inches off the top of the deck, and above that, of course,you can visualize the vegetation. Those of you who went down to the site hopefully will remember that. So what they tried to design was an aesthetically pleasing slope, and that's why you have the staggered fence recommendation here. I do know that there were some excellent comments from Mr. Kuhl in particular at the July meeting when we were last here to try to bring the parties together to talk about something that would be mutually acceptable. Mr. Wright and I went back and forth many times to try to do that. Unfortunately we were not able to bring the parties together, and I'm unhappy to report that things have probably deteriorated in the relationship between the parties. So I wish I could have come here to you to tell you that everybody was in happy agreement with this new proposal, but unfortunately we weren't able to get everybody together by the submission deadline. So the Gottliebs put forth this proposal as the least amount of relief that they could live with. So we still have an opaque fence, but to try to bring it down, and you see the opaque portion is below the four foot height for the entire length, minus the posts, of course,that have to support it,but they tried to do it as aesthetically pleasing as possible while still achieving their stated goals of privacy and safety, security. So this is their best effort here, and we hope that it will find favor with you, as the least restrictive alternative. I think it's fair to say, and I'm sure Mr. Wright and his clients the Davidsons will make it clear in a few moments during the public comment, that they continue to believe that a fully compliant fence will serve those purposes. So I think the parties have done their best, outside of this forum, to exchange their views, and we seem to understand each other. Unfortunately we don't agree with each other. So we put it to you to try to take and apply that balancing test under the Code to find something that can achieve the stated purposes without being overly burdensome or detrimental to the neighborhood. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members,are there any questions at this time? MR. KUHL-I just have one. The top part,what is that going to be,two by twos going up to a two by four across,you know,the part you're going to see through? MR. BORGOS-That's existing now. They're going to cut down what's there. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR. KUHL-No, I understand that, but you have four foot of solid fence, and then you have a fixture up on top,right? MR. BORGOS-And that fixture is currently there. MR. KUHL-Okay. I didn't go see it. Okay. MR. BORGOS-It's a standard privacy panel with that latticework top, but it's approximating an inch and a half dimensionally. MR. KUHL-So they already made this modification? MR. BORGOS-No,this is the proposal. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, Ron. So what they've got is they're just going to cut the bottom of the current fence off and drop it down. MR. KUHL-I got that. Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,so the top of the cap on the tallest post is how tall? MR. BORGOS-It would be five feet four inches,from the flat surface of the deck. MR.JACKOSKI-Of the wharf,yes. Any additional questions? Okay. We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone, first off, Mike, is there any written comment besides that from Mr.Wright that we recently received? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MC CABE-Yes. There's quite a bit here from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,that's Mr.Wright's letter that we just got. MR. MC CABE-There's three different versions. MRS.MOORE-They may have been read into the record previously. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So these have all been read into the record? MR.JACKOSKI-What's the date that you have on the? MR. MC CABE-The latest one is September 17th. MR.JACKOSKI-That's today's,yes. What do you have for the next one? MR. MC CABE-Then there's a July 21St. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm sure that was already read in. MR. MC CABE-Yes. There's another July 21St. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I believe those were already read in. We'll talk with Mr. Wright shortly hereabout this large packet that they just gave us. Is there any other written comment? MR. MC CABE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application besides Mr. Wright? Okay. If you all want to join the table, you certainly can. So, Mr. Wright, I don't believe, has Mr. Borgos had a chance to have a copy of this document? JOHN WRIGHT MR.WRIGHT-Yes. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-You did? Okay. Fine. MRS.M00RE-You received it and they just received it. MR. JACKOSKI-We know, yes, and we want to note that, you know, we have not had any time to review this document. MR.WRIGHT-Understood. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,except for the time I sat here scanning it quickly. MR.WRIGHT-I will hit the high points for you and discuss the. MR.JACKOSKI-And you don't need us to read all this into the record? MR.WRIGHT-As long as the Board is going to review it prior to making its determination. I mean, it is part of the record. If you want me to read it in, I'll read it in, but I'll hit the high points and I'll let the Board decide whether it feels like it should read it in more detail. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,there's absolutely no way we can review this on the night of the application. MR. WRIGHT-I understand that. I understand that, Mr. Chairman, and some of the information in here I didn't get until just recently, and that's part of the reason that I wasn't able to do it until now. So, I will summarize this for you and tell you what the major points I'd like the Board to take away from this are. What we've submitted are photographs from my client's property that show the deck area that the applicants are trying to keep private and safe, they're claiming to try to keep private. We've submitted FOIL request responses that we received subsequent to the last meeting for the Board, and I'll discuss those in a little more detail in a second, and we've submitted a letter from Dick Burke with Frank Levitt Realty who's not only a realtor but a licensed appraiser, talking about the dollars and cents impact that this fence will have on my client's property. So, as this Board's aware, I mean, what you're here to do tonight is weigh be benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the rest of the neighborhood, and specifically my clients, and,you know, at the last meeting and then again here tonight,the claimed benefit was an increase in either privacy or safety or both, and so with that in mind, you know, we'd ask the Board to look at really what benefit this proposed fence is going to add in terms of privacy, and that's where the photos come in that are in your packet. This particular area down by their deck is visible from my client's boathouse, which extends out further towards the lake, from a dock on my client's property, which is further out into the lake. It's visible from uphill on my client's property where there's a grill and an area where people can congregate. It's also visible from the lake itself. So a five foot fence on the boundary line isn't going to provide that privacy that they're seeking. It really is going to serve no purpose. In terms of safety, there really isn't anything in this record that's before this Board that would indicate that safety is a concern, and that's where the FOIL requests come in. Following the last meeting in July, we wrote to the Town Animal Control Officer and asked him to search his files for any indication that the Gottliebs had ever had any issues with animals down there, and there's no record of them ever having called Animal Control. We wrote to the Warren County Sheriff and asked had they ever reported any,you know, a man urinating off the dock or whatever they said at the last meeting. There's no record of anything like that. So these issues that they've brought up were not only never brought up to the Davidsons before, but were never reported to any other agency before this fence went up. Only after the fence went up and they did this variance did these allegations arise. So then we get to,you know,what's the detriment to my clients, and they've told you at the last meeting and they'll tell you again tonight that,you know, they do have a view north and north and northwest from that deck, and they've always enjoyed that view, and they use that deck not only for their guests but for themselves when they don't have guests. They've used it for weddings,family reunions,etc. So the use and enjoyment of their property is going to be impaired, and further to that, we get to Dick Burke's letter and he says, look, of the factors that lead to the value of lakefront property, view is one of the biggest ones, and this fence, even in its current condition,will impair and obstruct the view to the north, not only because of its height but because it's opaque. It's a wall. Which is not allowed in this area of the shoreline, and I think that has gotten lost in a lot of this. We talked a lot about the height in the last meeting and not about the fact that it's a wall instead of a slatted style fence and that's just as important to my clients. Even if it was only four feet, the fact that it's a wall, you know, serves as a barrier, a visual barrier up the lake. This fence, one of the reasons we were unable to come together at a meeting to discuss this fence is that the Gottliebs wanted to use this as a way to discuss all of the boundary dispute issues that are going on between the parties,and that's not what this should be about. I mean,this is what the applicants, I think,want to make it about, and they want to use it as leverage to try to settle that dispute, and we think that's inappropriate. We've put the Sheriff's records in the letter so that you 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) could see specifically that when these applicants think something has gone wrong, they do know how to call the police. There's a police report in there. It's in Exhibit E,where a bird flew into the Gottlieb's window and Mrs. Gottlieb called the police and accused Mr. Davidson of shooting her window with a pellet gun, and so the police quickly determined that couldn't have been the case. There were feathers everywhere, but if these issues really existed, these applicants would have called the police. They would have reported it to someone, and they didn't until after this entire thing arose. So we think it's pretty clear that this is, there's something underlying this, more than privacy and safety, which this fence won't accomplish. So we're asking the Board to take that into consideration, and,you know, I don't think this Board is in the business of taking sides in property disputes. So the last thing we really want the Board to consider is the precedent that you'd be setting in allowing a stockade fence adjacent to the shoreline. Based on what's been presented to you, all that you have is a property owner saying I want privacy. There's no indication that there's any safety concerns. So if this application could be granted, simply because this property owner says I want privacy, I don't know what would stop any other lakefront owner from coming in here and asking for the same relief with the same lack of proof, and, you know, I think that's a concern here that this is going to open the floodgates to a lot of these barrier fences popping up around the lakefront when there's really no reason for it, and one of the difficulties that Dick Burke ran into in trying to determine what the value,you know,the impairment of value would be here is that there's no comparable situations. These fences, these barriers on lakefront shoreline properties simply don't exist. So it's very difficult to quantify how much dollars and cents value would be diminished from the Davidson's property. So he puts it that he estimated it at around $150,000. Again, it would be difficult for him to put a specific number on it,but in terms of the balancing test you have to go through,there is an undesirable change in the neighborhood because this would be the first of its kind of Cleverdale, and it's a close community. Everybody understands that you give up a little privacy to live in that close community. The benefits that they're seeking, you know, to prevent dogs from crossing over on the deck,that can be done by a non-opaque fence,by a compliant fence. It's a 25% variance which we believe is substantial. There is an adverse impact on the neighborhood that I talked about and it certainly is self-created. When they bought the property they knew that there was a shared deck. They knew they had children and they stated on the record at the last meeting that they knew that the Davidsons rented their property from time to time. They knew all of this. So for them to build this fence without a permit and now come for an after the fact variance. It's completely self-created. These walls are completely inappropriate in a lakefront atmosphere, and these are good people who've lived there for 24 years and never had a problem with their neighbors. So there's no reason to think that these people are a problem that needs to be protected, that anyone needs protection from. So, we're asking you to deny the variance. We think a compliant fence will achieve all their goals. We don't think this record supports the grant of any variance. So with that, I'd turn it over to Lorraine, and she has some comments she'd like to address to the Board. LORRAINE DAVIDSON MRS. DAVIDSON-Thank you, gentlemen. As John said, I'm Lorraine Davidson, and I know I've spoken to you before, and I really feel that if this were truly just to come to you people and say okay we would like a variance granted, and this is what the issue is, fine. The problem is this is not a variance for anything. It is for something illegally put up by the Gottliebs, knowing that it was illegal. We came upon our property in May. My husband and I, we said, you know, as neighbors you should be talking to each other. Well, this is how we found out about it. We came in May, looked down and there on the deck where there had been a four foot wooden bench built into the deck between the two properties, over 50 years ago, and this was always considered the dividing line of our properties. I remember when we moved in, Mr. Brown said, yes, that's where your property ends. That's where ours goes. We said okay. They sawed it down and put up this wall, not a fence. No discussion with us, no even talking to us about it. So the idea that,you know, this is something you can sit down and talk about, it kind of like took us aback, and we have had to endure this wall since May, and it's September. When our visitors, whether they're renters or whether they're our friends or us want to sit there, we sit and here's a wall right here, where normally, if you sit,you can see right up to the northwest bay. So why is this okay, and why was it, when we said to the Town Board,well your Code,which I can give you the number of, prohibits the privacy and opaque type of fence in the shoreline. My husband said, aren't you going to ask them to take it down in May? No, they're applying for a variance, so let's see what happens. So we as good, law abiding citizens said, okay, when's that going to come? All right, May, June, July was the first that the Gottliebs could get here to do it. Then at the July meeting it was, oh, let's discuss it some more. Well, the discussion some more has been unbelievable. My husband can tell you. They have been photographing us, our guests, their children's guests. They have even looked at, when they're putting up their boat on the boat lift,they come from their privacy fence and tell them, no, that doesn't go there, do this, do that. This is what they have been doing to us, with their privacy fence, okay. So the whole feeling is that these people are not about a regulation and about 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) something that,well, as neighbors,let's see,let's do something a little bit here, and then as John has brought up in the letter with Mr. Burke, we asked him, and he said the view is absolutely obstructed. It is not a fence by any means, it is a wall, and if you sit on a deck chair on that deck, you can't see. All you see is a wall. So, I'm sorry,the idea of sitting down and trying to work things out with neighbors who, I had never seen that police report that John refers to about the bird hitting their window, and when he said,yes, I read it and she accused you or Bill of shooting a pellet gun, I said, are you crazy? Who'd even think of such a thing. Who would think that we would own a gun and go shoot somebody's window? I said that thought, if something happens on a property, that thought never enters my mind that that's what one of our neighbors has done, but that's obviously their mindset, and I can't do anything about that, and I'm not here, I understand you're not here to settle anything about us, okay. As far as boundary lines, we have had our thing about surveyors, and we will settle that, and that's not an issue. The issue is the fence, and the fence is non-compliant with the Queensbury Town Law, and this, what they're proposing, is still non- compliant. It's still a wall. It's going to be a four foot wall and a five foot wall, and you're going to sit on a deck chair, and you still can't see up the lake, and that's what we object to, and all I ask for you is to not grant it. Do what the law says. If they really need a fence, a fence. Not a wall, and that would be fine. So that's where we stand,and thank you for your time. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. She said it all. BILL DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-I'll briefly make a few comments. The issue that the Gottliebs have raised is privacy, and I say, and their concern privacy for their children. Well, the Gottliebs do not respect our privacy. They take pictures of me, my guests frequently. They photograph my guest's little girls on the boat, and the adult sons of my guests as well. The guests ask why,why do they do this, and my wife and I ask why do they do this. They're concerned about privacy, and they're always photographing, frequently, photographing everything that we do. We respect their right, their privacy, and never take pictures of them or their guests. They do not need an opaque fence. Realtors have stated to me that granting this variance will open the door to numerous privacy fence variance applications for the lakefront properties in Queensbury, and finally I view the Queensbury law that Queensbury has done a very good job in developing this fence law. I'm sure they've had many public hearings on it when the zoning commission entertained putting this law to the Town Board to pass it, and a compliant fence will, my point of view is a compliant fence will accomplish separation of properties,which is the Gottlieb's goal. They don't need an opaque fence. I ask that you do not approve this variance. Do not diminish the value of my property by blocking the view up the lake from my deck. MR. WRIGHT-That's all we have, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if there are questions by the Davidsons. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there questions at this time for the Davidsons? They did speak a lot. Okay. Hearing none,thank you. MR.WRIGHT-Thank you for allowing us to speak. We appreciate it. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Mr. Borgos, the public comment period is still open. Would you like to address any of the public comment that you heard this evening? MR. BORGOS-I will keep my response limited to I told you so. They were very far apart, and that's what we've been working to try to bring together, but I don't want to go tit for tat and refute each other's allegations because it's irrelevant to the Board's consideration here. MR.JACKOSKI-I think one of the concerns I have,if you don't mind answering one question,is that if the boundary line dispute will impact at all the placement of the fence? MR. BORGOS-It will not because the Gottliebs have been careful to make sure its location is north of the pins of the surveyor hired by Davidsons. MR.JACKOSKI-And if you don't mind, Mr.Wright,does that seem? MR.WRIGHT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. We just don't want to get into a situation where we're going to be, okay. Anything else you want to add? Okay. So would the parties here mind if we took five to ten minutes here to just review this packet that has been provided to us by the Davidson family? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) If we could, we'll just take a break here until about twenty minutes to nine. Is that okay with everybody? We would like to just try to see if we can get a resolution here and try to get this to review. MRS. MOORE-You can make a motion to adjourn to review information then you'll re-adjourn at eight forty. MR. HENKEL-We can take a bathroom break until 8:40. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I mean, technically we can, and just leave the recording going. That's fine. I don't have a problem with leaving it going. We're not going to have any deliberations anyway. So we have a motion to adjourn for a ten minute break. Can I have a second? MR. GARRAND-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. All in favor? Aye. We'll start again. We'll unadjourn our unadjournment. MRS.MOORE-You'll reconvene? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,would you guys want to reconvene? We're ready. So what Maria can maybe do is stop the tape and start the tape. She knows how to do all that for the public record. We did un convene. MRS.MOORE-You're reconvening. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, but we did un convene. Okay. I'd like to make a motion to reconvene at 8:35. MR. GARRAND-I'll second it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. All those in favor? Aye. We're back. Okay. So do we have any further questions from Board members of the applicant, keeping in mind that the public comment period is open? Okay. Having no other questions, I'm going to poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I can definitely sympathize with the Gottliebs, but as was stated in the hearing tonight, this is a property dispute, plain and simple. We're being asked to grant relief for something we've never granted relief on before. It would be precedent setting. That,to me, makes it substantial and provides an undesirable change in character to the neighborhood,but like I said, I do see where they would want their privacy. When you have a situation where have tenants coming and going on one property next door, it makes it very uncomfortable for people that are there for any significant amount of time. That's where I stand on it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Although, well, I don't want to set a precedent with this, either, but as far as the Davidsons are concerned, their idea, and I realize you've been there 24 years. Just because you could look up the lake, I also live on a body of water, and I have a tree line going down mine that was on the neighbor's property, and after 13 years it's growing into my property, and I wanted to cut it down, so on top of my deck my wife could look down the lake, and the neighbor said please don't. I was going to pay for it myself and cut down six foot, and they said if you take any more than three you'll kill the plant. So that grows. The fact that you are now losing your view to the north, I don't think that that can be put on the table as an issue here. I'm sorry for that,but, I mean, your focus is off your property out on the lake, and the fact that you had a north view in previous y years, I think you're going to lose that either way. If they put up a four foot fence, when you sit down there, you're going to lose that view, but when you're in your boathouse you're still going to have it,but I, as a Board member here do not want to set a precedent here, and the four foot is what the Code says and that's where,so I'm against this as you present it, Mike. I'm sorry. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I took a look at this. When I considered does the fence block the view, a boat tied up at the dock blocks the view a lot more than the fence. I have no problem with granting the relief of one foot,but I do have a problem granting the opaque fence. I believe that will set a precedent, and I would not be in favor of that. So I would vote no. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. This is a tough one. Like Ron said before, it's too bad that neighbors can't get along and stuff when you're living that close together. Yes, I don't think we can really allow this to happen because then everybody else would be doing the same. It's too bad that you can't put some kind of see through fence there, but then also put maybe some small shrubs there to give it a little privacy. They both have boathouses that they can enjoy and get away from each other. So I feel that we really can't approve this as is. So I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I've looked at this in a bunch of ways, and I agree with landscaping you could easily create a wall, and that would be allowed, and that's the troubling,that's the balancing test for me. There is an alternative here. You could take up that decking on the Gottlieb side and you could actually put in a chain link fence so to speak that would be non-opaque,four feet high, and put shrubs that are six or seven feet tall, cedars or arborvitae,whatever would be allowed in the 30 feet of shoreline,and you basically have an aesthetically pleasing wall but it's still a wall. It's still a view blocker. So I had asked, in the past, I want to ask again. I can't because we've already closed the public comment. Because it is solid ground under that wharf or deck or whatever you want to call that, and there is no water under that area of the fence, I'm not excited about building a structure there out of man-made materials. I would rather see greenery, and I'd rather see a non-opaque barrier, I'll call it. That is allowed, and that's pretty easy for the applicant to do, versus constructing this particular kind of barrier and setting a precedent. I do think it changes the neighborhood. I spent a lot of time driving down and around the corner of Cleverdale and looking at that fence, and I know it's, as it sits tall, and I really didn't like it. It was too tall, too close to the water. I know it's going to be shrunk,but I do think that it's inherent,when you look on 60 and 100 foot lots on the lake, that you are going to see your neighbors. You can't help but be on your dock and see your neighbors. So I don't think it has to have a fence there. I think they can secure their privacy in other ways. So I would be against the application as it sits in front of the Board at this time. MRS.MOORE-Your public hearing is still open. MR. JACKOSKI-I did? Yes,that's right. We're polling the Board. Sorry. So I just, let me ask again to make sure, Mr. Borgos. There is no water under that structure that this fence is sitting on? MR. BORGOS-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, having polled the Board and hearing where the Board sits at this time with this application, I'm not sure what the applicant would like us to do. MR. BORGOS-Please vote on the application. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other comments that Board members want to make? MR. KUHL-I have a question. Will this existing fence be taken down now, Staff? MRS.MOORE-It will be required to be compliant. MR. KUHL-It'll be required to be compliant. MRS.MOORE-How they do that, I don't. MR. JACKOSKI-But isn't it the Town of Queensbury that when you file an Article 78 that everything just stays and remains as is until it's resolved? MRS.MOORE-Possibly. MR. GARRAND-That is if they file. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,if it's filed,correct. MR. KUHL-If no legal action is taken on this,the fence should come down. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct,but that's up to Zoning, Building and Codes to handle that. MR. KUHL-Okay. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) MRS. MOORE-The applicant has asked you to vote. The applicant could withdraw the application or the applicant could ask to be tabled,but at this time the applicant has asked you to vote. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MRS.MOORE-And you need to close your public hearing. MR.JACKOSKI-I haven't yet, I know. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So I just want to reiterate my thoughts on this as we all, I think, are in the same agreement. We do think the benefit of privacy and security can be achieved by other means by using plantings and non-opaque barriers. We do think an undesirable change will be created in the in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because there are no other opaque fences that we're aware of at this time, right down to the shoreline, at these heights in this configuration. We do think the request is substantial, given that it is the maximum relief, it's basically opaque or not opaque, and the height being that it is taller and it doesn't have to be that tall. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental impacts, I don't know that there'll be any environmental impacts, and is it self-created, it absolutely is self-created. The applicant was aware of the situation in the neighborhood in which they moved. MR. GARRAND-I second that motion. MR.JACKOSKI-No, I'm not going to do that, Rick. All right. So we're closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And can we seek a motion,please. RESOLUTION TO: Disapprove Area Variance No. 52-2014, Jason & Tricia Gottlieb , 389 Cleverdale Road,Tax Map No. 226.8-1-2 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jason & Tricia Gottlieb for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-070 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has revised privacy fence plans. Fence is proposed to be 5 ft. in height and 16 ft. in length, with a portion of the fence to have lateral openings at the top of the fence. Relief requested from restriction from type of fence placement within the shoreline setback (50 ft. from Mean High Water Mark). Also, relief request from maximum height restrictions for fences in the shoreline area. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 17,2014; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? An undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? The benefit can be sought by other means by the applicant. We believe the benefits sought can be achieved through other means as opposed to an opaque fence. You could do so with shrubbery and a non-opaque barrier. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It is substantial. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/17/2014) 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty is self-created. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO DENY Area Variance No. 52-2014, JASON & TRICIA GOTTLIEB , Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: Duly adopted this 17th day of September,2014,by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Can I ask you to clarify benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible? MR. MC CABE-We believe that the benefits can be sought through other means, as opposed to an opaque fence. MR. JACKOSKI-And the example that I gave was that you could do so with shrubbery and a non- opaque barrier. MRS.M00RE-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. BORGOS-Thank you for hearing it. We appreciate it. MR.JACKOSKI-Sorry. MR. BORGOS-Sorry it took so long. MR. JACKOSKI-That's okay. Any further business to be brought in front of the Board? May I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2014, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 30