Loading...
11-19-2014 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals R RST RB3LJLAR M EEn NG Wednesday, November 19, 2014 INDBC OLD BUSINESS PAGE Area Variance No.63-2014 William&Wendy Snith 2 Area Variance No. 64-2014 William G. Gedney 9 NEW BUSINESS Area Variance No. 78-2014 cute Enterprises 15 Area Variance No. 81-2014 S�hermerhorn Fbsidential Holdings 21 Area Variance No. 74-2014 David Hartman 25 1 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Zoning Board Members Present Rchard Garrand,Acting Chairman Fdoy Urrico, Secretary Michael McCabe Kyle Noonan Fdonald Kuhl ,bhn Henkel Alternate Member Andrew Allison sat in observance without participation(first meeting) Zoning Board Member(s)Absent Steven Jackoski, Chairman Harrison Freer,Alternate Member Department of Community Development Staff Present Laura Moore, Land Use Ranner Sae Hemingway, Office'-:p' eci al i st-Acting Stenographer Mr. Garrand: We have several items under new business. If you have any questions about the procedures or policies for tonight's meeting we have sheets on the back table here. First item on the agenda tonight is. William and Wendy Smith, Area Variance 63-2014. Rease step up to the table. Good evening. Mr. Smith: Good Evening M r. Garrand: For the purpose of the record could you identify yourself, please. Mr. Smith: My name is William Snith and this is Melody. They have my name wrong on there but that's okay. Mr. Garrand: SDrry Melody Smith: That's okay, I'll be Wendy. William 9rith: Our purpose today istojust go over the different options that we may have available for us for the fence on 1 9onehurst, on the corner. The first option, I wanted to talk to you about; the height elevation was one of the major problems and, I actually took a laser level and put it on the road and as it shined across on the fence, it was 6 foot 2 feet of high on the fence meaning the elevation of the fence that was actually higher than the road was only 2 foot 10. That was one of the reasons for 2 building the fence as high as we did. I wanted to, you know, make a proposal that we take and plant some foliage around the fence to mask, you know, the height within the fence. That was the option that I wanted to propose to you guys first; just to help camouflage the area or, you know, just to make the fence appearance look better. The fence has never been completed so it is still kind of in a raw stage now. And, we feel that once we get a go-ahead to move forward on finishing the construction of the fence and staining and painting of the fence, that it will be a lot more appealing. Second option that I wanted to bring to the Board is lowering the height of the fence; if we had to, down to 6 foot and cutting that across at 6 foot even. It's definitely going to pull us below where we want to be with it. And I would want that to be kind of a last scenario, if possible. If need be, we could also plant some evergreens or whatever around that fence line to dress that up a little bit also; to help conceal just the fact that there's a fence there. We are willing to do those things in steps in order to try to keep our fence. Mr. Garrand: The public hearing was left open at the last hearing; is anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this variance? Board members, any questions? M r. Henkel: Yeah,that's not really, isn't it supposed to be the finished side, it's supposed to be towards people's view. Is that the finished side that looks like you've got 4 by 4's on the outside? William Smith: The 4 by 4's are actually part of the fence structure. M r. Henkel: okay,you've got 4 by 4's on the inside too? William Smith: It's the same,4 by 4. Mr. Henkel: Is it? William Smith: Yeah. M r. Henkel: 'Cause it looks like it's the finished side; looks like it's almost in the inside;the finished side. William Smith: No, it's 4 by 4 and the panel is built within the 4 by 4; so the 4 by 4 is actually part of the etched,you know,the visual view with the cross boards going across. M r. Noonan: So it's the same on both sides? William Smith: No, it still looks different on the outside. You can see the 4 by 4 on both sides but the trim pieces are on the outside that kind of go with the 4 by 4's;that's the look we were tryingto create. Mr. Henkel: Like I said before, you did a really nice job of cleaning up that house; it was a mess but looking at that fence now; all you see now is kind of wavy and it just doesn't look right. I mean it actually takes away from the look of the house. Like I said, you've done a nice job a nice job of fixing the house up; it looks great. William Smith: The thing with that is, I mean we stopped construction on that. There would be few braces in there keeping the fence straight. 3 Melody Smith: If we stained and have trim pieces it would have nice hardware; again we were planning on planting foliage in front of that fence as it stands now. M r. Henkel: Now, how long has that fence been up? Melody Smith: It's been up; it started construction last fall. But we stopped finishing it because the Town came to us; I'm not sure exactly when they came to us last year. Even on the back side, well you can't see it in this picture but on the backside there are a couple of boards missing. I mean it's not making it any bigger, but there's a couple of board's that are missing in the construction of the fence. It's just not finished. I mean it's going to be stained to match the house;the trim pieces, you know. William Smith: The last thing we want to have is something in our yard that's not going to look right. S) that's not our intentions to leave the fence the way that it is. We want to finish the project as proposed; get the foliage around there. We actually had an idea of building flower pots in the panels and plant flowers in there too. I mean,there's definitely an unfinished product. M r. Henkel: I know that onetime you said that you used that to hide some of the materials because of your work and that you have a picture of 10/9/2014 and it looks like there's some pretty good sized truck there and some other work vehicles. William Smith: That stuff's all have been taken care of; our work trucks go home with all the employees now; all that stuff that has been involved in that; it's been that way for about a year now. Melody Smith: And 10/9/2013 we were still in the process of working on our house; I mean, this summer to the fall of 2013 we resided that whole house; we rocked the face of the house. Yes, our employees did do the work. And, they were there. There was a lot of construction going on. Mr. Kuhl: I have one question for you Mr. Smith. Isn't this the way you presented it the first time? To me it looks like you haven't changed anything. Am I understanding that correctly? William Smith: For what now? Melody9mith: To present this? M r. Kuhl: The way you came to us previously and we tabled it, correct? We didn't vote on it. William Smith: Yes, it's been tabled. Mr. Kuhl: This isthe way you brought it the first time, correct? William Smith: But,we didn't talk about the foliage, evergreens, that we could be planting around... M r. M cCabe: That was my understanding, is that, they were going to comeback to us with a plan for shrubbery to disguise the fence, so to speak. Melody Smith: We came back with the shrubbery and we also came back with the second option in this, you know, as it was being tabled for November. 4 Mr. Garrand: Any other Board members have any other questions, comments? I know one of the Board members, last time, did suggest reducing the height to 6-feet, which would still be a 2-foot variance on the relief requested. I can't remember who suggested that; was that you John? M r. McCabe: It was somebody from the other end there. The problem is as they discussed, you know the road is up higher and so to achieve the goal that they are looking for, they really need the extra height on the fence. So, lowering the fence, of course, doesn't really, you know,fit their needs. But, on the other hand, if you put in, like arborvitae, that was 7 to 8 feet high, then you wouldn't even have to come to us; no fence, just put up the shrubs. You've already got a lot of money in your fence, so you'd like to keep the fence up. I think if you did disguise the fence, so to speak, with proper shrubs, I really have no problem with it. Mr. Garrand: I'd just like to remind Board members that we're tasked with granting the least variance necessary also. Any other Board members, anything? Mr. Kuhl: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little confused, because I don't what Mr. Smith is suggesting. It sounds to me like he's coming out with I'll give you Option A and I'll give you Option B. I don't know what you are saying. I don't know what you are suggesting. You haven't shown us a picture of what you'd like to do. I don't know and I was not in favor of this before. Whatever you have said from the time you came in, you have not changed my mind; I'm sorry sir. But that's the way I see it. William 9rith: We did supply a picture showing some locations of the type of greenery we would plant around the fence area. Melody Smith: We've also taken, I mean, we've gone around our whole neighborhood; every neighbor that's around us that can even see us plus other ones that drive by it every day. And, every one of them has signed this petition. Mr. Kuhl: I see that. Mr. Garrand: As per one of the suggestions, would you be willing to reduce the height to 6-feet? It would only require 2-feet of relief. Melody 9rith: If that's what we had to do,wewould do that. Mr. Garrand: Board members? M r. Noonan: I wasn't in attendance at the last meeting but I was able to read the minutes from the last meeting. It was zero and six against this and among my thoughts today was certainly 2-foot relief, I might be okay with that. I did happen drive by the property and it is a nice fence; well-constructed, but it gives the idea of, almost a fort. There's a fortress behind that; it's too high. But a six foot fence, typically wouldn't need a front yard fence where you need the variance and I would be okay, personally with that, as it would fall in line with other fences in the neighborhood that are in the back yard. But, you are on a corner, so it's a difficult spot. I would be okay with 2-foot of relief. 5 Mr. Garrand: Okay, at this time, if nobody else has any comments, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to poll the Board. Mr. Noonan has already made his opinion known. Mr. Urrico. M r. Urrico: Well, I also hoped that there would more room for negotiation on this one, and when you came back, that there would actually be an alternative. And the only other alternative we have that's really on the table is, reducing it to 6-feet. Putting up some bushes to hide the fact that you, well over what is allowed, to me, is not an alternative. It's a disguise. The only thing that I would move in favor of would be stabiliang everything at 6-feet. Mr. Garrand: Okay, Mr. McCabe. Mr. McCabe: With proper shrubbery, I would go along with disguising the fence. I don't think it's really out of line for that particular area. M r. Garrand: M r. Henkel. Mr. Henkel: Yeah, I would definitely be in favor of a six-foot fence only and also putting shrubbery in front of it; that would be one of the stipulations. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Kuhl. M r. Kuhl: I think you're asking for too much relief, so I think 8-foot is a bad precedent to start. I think 6- foot is even a lot, but if you put plantings in front of the 6-foot fence, I would be in favor of it. M r. Garrand: Okay, at this time, I would seek a motion from somebody with any conditions they feel pertain to this application. Mrs. Moore: Prior to your motion, can you discuss the landscaping requirements. The applicant has identified eight evergreens proposed as alternative one and shrubs; if you could provide that information as part of your condition, I would appreciate that, so that it can be specific. Mr. Garrand: Whoever would like to make a motion, please include that in the resolution? 9x feet all the way around; no greater than and eight evergreens. And, can I get a motion? It's going to be asking for 2-feet of relief on the height. Melody Smith: I'm sorry, is that around just the front, or around the whole fence? Do you want eight, you know, road side to East &Annyside, is that what? M r. Garrand: Six feet, anything that's considered front facing fence. Melody Smith: No, I'm talking about the evergreens. You're saying you want 8 evergreens, do you want eight across East &Annyside or eight around the whole fence total? Mr. Noonan: That's based on the plan that was submitted. Staff are you looking at the picture where the trees are drawn-in? 6 Mrs. Moore: If you wanted to utilize this as the one that includes the shrubbery,that's up to the Board. Do you want additional shrubbery along with the 6-foot or would you approve the plan as presented with the 6-foot shrubbery that's shown on this particular drawing? M r. Noonan: What it looks like is two giant trees in the front. Mr. Henkel: We've got specify how many. Mr. Noonan: unintelligible...in 25 years they will grow taller than the fence. And, my thought was that the 2-foot relief was for the 6-foot fence. I didn't think about the evergreen part, but again, we're amending an application that didn't come in with a full plan. While I'm in favor of a 6 foot fence, it's very difficult to say that we can say okay to 8 evergreens, I mean everyone knows how big an evergreen is when you buy it. We're coming up with that plan and I feel that the applicant should have come in with what he wanted to do. William Smith: I mean, eight-evergreen's, I mean I could give you five, six foot evergreen each one of them could be a mandatory five or sixfeet high to begin with for starting purposes. M r. Noonan: And,that's great, I just feel like this should have all been in the plan. William Smith: The only thing I didn't really specify is the height of the evergreens. I've got eight evergreens... Melody 9mith: ...in the plans William Smith: I mean that's the only thing I wasn't specific on. Melody Smith: When we met with the Town of Queensbury to re-do this, they requested that we give you guys' options. M r. Henkel: Fight, and how many feet did they say, how tall they were? Melody Smith: No, I'm saying, the option of the plan of either the fence staying at 9 feet with the evergreens or the 6-foot, cutting it down, or the 6-foot with the evergreens. I'm sorry, you guys, we weren't trying to do something, you know, that was wrong. We were trying to give you guys the options. M r. Garrand: You werejust looking for concrete parameters. Melody Smith: Fight, I understand. M r. Garrand: We can go with 8 evergreens. Mr. Kuhl: Can I make a suggestion? Melody Smith: Sire M r. Kuhl: Maybe 2 in front to the left of the drive, 5 of the side, and one on the 45... unintelligible 7 M elody Smith: We're totally fine with that. William Smith: I kind of drew them in there, it's kind of almost what you said anyways, if you looked at that one picture. It's kind of roughly,this one's going to be 5-foot from this one. R®OW-WON Area Variance 63-2014 William& M elody Smith Mr. Noonan: I'd like to make a motion to Approve, Area Variance No. 63-2014, William and Melody Smith, 1 Stonehurst Drive. The applicant has begun construction of a privacy fence in the front yards of a residence located on a corner lot. Fencing panels range in size from 5 ft. to 9 ft. in height. In allocation the required height is 4 ft. on the front and in the architectural front yards. They are proposing 6 ft. height, asking for relief of 2 ft. In making this determination the Board shall consider: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance? It is determined that minor impacts maybe anticipated. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives may be available to lower the fence to a compliant height. The applicant has decided to maintain the height at 6 ft. all around and plant evergreens Whether the requested area variance is substantial? The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relative to the Code. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? M inorto no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has provided information to the neighbors supporting the fence as constructed. And,whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? Thisdifficulty may consider self-created. I'd like to add the stipulation that if this were to be approved the entire fence should be 6 ft. in height and 8 evergreens must be planted around the 6 ft. fence, 2 in the front by the driveway, 5 down the side and 1 in the back corner of the yard. At this time I recommend we approve area variance or I make a motion to approve Area Variance No. 63-2014, M r. Henkel: We're not going to specify the height at all then? It can be seedlings? William Smith: No, I won't do that anyway. M r. Henkel: But there's no height. It's no big deal. Mr. Garrand: Can I get a second? Mr. McCabe: I'll second. 8 Mr. Garrand: Call the roll. Laura Moore: Before you call your roll; I want a discussion on item number 2 where the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method - you actually read what was presented. However, it's part of a resolution so you should be specific in this in saying that you, as part of this feasibility is at the minimum that the applicant is proposing and you're willing to take is 6 feet in this verses lowering the height. Make it specific so that you give them 6 feet or 2 feet of relief. Mr. Noonan: I'm going to amend my motion. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the area variance in addition to what I have stated earlier. I would also like to state that the applicant has decided to maintain the height at 6 feet, however, and plant evergreens. At this point I'd like to make a motion to approve area variance number 63-2014. Mr. McCabe: I'll second Duly adopted this 19th day of November 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Urri co, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand NOES None Absent: Mr.Jadcoski Mr. Garrand: Thank you. William Smith: Thank you. Mr. Henkel: Good Ludt. William 9rith: One question I did have though is the planting of evergreens; is that something that we can do in the springtime. M r. Garrand: I would,they'd probably be dead by spring if you plant them now. William Smith: Alright, okay-thank you. M elody 9rith: Thank you very much. M r. Garrand: Next on the agenda tonight isArea Variance 64-2014, name: Gedney. William Gedney: Good evening everyone M r. Garrand: Mr. Urrico is there any new information to read into the record on this? M r. Urrico: I'm not sure what it is. I think I'm going to have the applicant's fill us in. 9 M r. Garrand: Thank you and for the purpose of the record please state your name. Will Gedney: Absolutely, my name is Will Gedney, I reside at 33 SAIlivan; this is my father George Gedney. Mr. Garrand: Okay. Will Gedney: And, we're here tonight to discuss the garage or proposed garage to be built on my property. This was originally tabled and we're bringing it back to you guys with some proposed changes and some actions that I've taken since the last meeting, which I unfortunately wasn't present for, I work out of town. S), as soon aswe can get some pictures up, I can kind of explain what's going on. George Gedney: First, if we could just update; we did go ahead and there was some several items discussed. And, we did submit the deed; there's evidence in the pictures there receipted from the County, so of the lots are now, which we termed, co-joined. There was discussions about the two wood sheds;the junky one Will took apart; it's closed-up and then fixed the nice one. Will Gedney: And, you'll see we have a picture of the documentation, when it comes up. But there's originally a shed on the extra lot behind my house that was in the area where I was going to build a garage. That one I had moved, relocated closer to the house and then the wood shed that was in less than par condition I removed myself and cleaned it all up. Those pictures are on there somewhere. George Gedney: Just for clarification on the drawing that was submitted, the woodshed is on the side away from the house, after we actually put it closer to the house. Wejust swapped it; it looks better. Will Gedney: You can kind of see in this picture the flat roof is the original wood shed that was there and I moved it, squared it up with the property and then the roof that is just past that, was a shed that was in the back lot which I relocated closer to the house. There's a concrete wall there as you see in the right hand side of the picture. I had a retention wall put in and then fill brought in to kind of maximize the space of the back property. It wasjust brushes and briers and poison ivy and stuff like that, that I was separating myself in the adjoining property. I had all that cleaned up and filled-in. Now, it hasjust taken place within the last couple of weeks since I've been home from work. I did a lot to clean up that back property and then we made some changes to the original plans for the garage to bring the height down a little bit. I understand that I'm waterfront residential property and the height restrictions that you guys put on waterfront residential, I dearly, would be, not have big tall garages right by the waterline obstruction at people's view of the lake. My property is, I'm sure you guys know and everyone who has driven past the property to look at the project is in the very back of the development. The only thing behind me is a wood lot all the way to Route 149. As far as the height goes, it's obstructing nobody but the squirrels in the trees. S), all of our neighbors I have spoken to about the project; I haven't showed any reservations towards it. The height, you know, is obviously over the 16 feet required but we've brought it down to 22 feet and we've gone with an offset peaked design. It matches the roofline of the house and of one of the sheds as you can see. S) , you know it all will be matching, all the buildings on the piece of property will be matching and still meet the required snow load and snow shed and stuff like that to make sure that it's going to be structurally sound. 10 George Gedney: Also, too, as a comment, we worked with Paul Shambo, next door to get the lot straightened out back there. I don't know who visited the site prior to the application but it was a disaster. S)we have been able to work with the neighbor to make something nice there. Will Gedney: And, Paul's putting in a big pool, kind of thing back there too, so it's worked out really well as far as timing goes. We were kind of able to coordinate with some stuff and really turn that back lot that was mostly left unmaintained. I cleaned up all the wood bins, everything back there, took it all out, graded it and made it smooth and then worked with Paul to come up with something so that both our backyards look good, look like it was put together, not just left to grow. It looks much better now. Mr. Henkel: Now, that last picture with the roof, I mean that's different than what we've got in our packet here,this is the one we've got. George Gedney: Originally, when we put it in we wanted mansard style. And, after talking to some folks and to our draftsman; this is going to look terrible on this property. It's not going to match the house; it's going to be very intrusive with the amount of roof line that's going to be seen and it just looked out of place. S),we went back and came up with a design that is basically almost a mirror image of the house. And, it has a very small area of 22 feet roof height with an eave height of 15 and we were able to go with a smaller door on the entrance. S) if you see the actual road view of this, it just looks a lot more attractive tucked into the corner over there than to go with the mason style. M r. Henkel: So, what's the height of that biggest door? George Gedney: We can go with 12 or 14 because the eave height on this is going to be 15 feet, obviously, we're probably going to need a little relief there just for style. We're really super critical about this because obviously this isn't going to his house for the rest of his life. So, we're trying to make sure that this thing looks like it should be there. And, to go with the barn style, it just looks so out of place. And, also most folks go with the mansard roof so they can have an upstairs; like the last one that was done over there. We're not even allowed to do that, so the idea being as kind of utilizing it more as a straight garage as opposed to having living space. Will Gedney: I mean, Randy has that, Randy Rvette who is living and right against Glen Lake Fbad, almost adjoining it. He has that barn style and when I saw that, that was one of the first things I wanted to get away from because I don't really want a barn in my yard. I'm not really intending to do that, that's not something that's going to match, not something that's really going to look good, so he offered up a lot of advice and stuff like that asfar as getting a project like that done which is a 24 foot peak. He has his thing, I just don't think I'd really want a barn in my back yard. Although, he has been very kind in helping me to try to come up with something if I could get away from the mansard style roof; that would be very good. He built it that way just because he has an upstairs too which is irrelevant tome. M r. Henkel: The footprint is still staying the same-the 30 by 36. George Gedney: We strictly went off the notes from the last hearing and just are really addressing the peak height. And, we're trying to make it less obtrusive. And, to be able to get the door to be able to fit 11 with the minimum height door, we needed an eave of 15. And, then to do the math on it and to have 3 and %on 12 pitch which is pushing the limit for a shingled roof the math comes to 22 to make it look similar in style, so that's trying to be aesthetically pleasing, trying to match everything that we're doing. This iswhat we Came up with to work. Now the other style, that's why we submitted the drawings for this one we're doing. M r. Garrand: Board members have any questions? M r. Kuhl: Are you going to put electric in it?Water? Will Gadney: Not water,just probably electric for outlets and stuff. Mr. Kuhl: Okay Will Gedney: The idea mostly for the garage is,with myjob, I'm gone for 2 months at a time and I rent this space in South Glens Falls to store all my stuff and it's, you know just my pick up and stuff like that I'd rather not leave outside, exposed to the elements so it's primarily just a storage thing for when I go to work. It's kind of tough, I mean last year I came home and my truck was frozen in the driveway so I'd like to avoid that and this is the idea this is for storage and if I'd like to get a camper so I can store it inside and keep it out of the elements and preserve my investments. M r. Kuhl: If you want I can park my camper in there just to show you how it fits. Will GedneV: You know I've spent some time I've gone. M r. Kuhl: No it's not deep enough sorry. Will Gedney: It must be a big camper. I've spent some time I've toured a couple garages that my friends have had so I'm seen how they've done the construction and stuff like that and I think we've come up with a pretty solid and straightforward way to get it done with the minimal amount of invasiveness or eyesore or anything like that. Talking to the neighbors they really, it didn't really matter it seemed to what I brought to them but I certainly like my father said, this is not a piece of property that I'm going to hold onto for the rest of my like, this is my first home so I going to avoid building a barn that going to make it look like a cow corral, that would not be so good in Queensbury. M r. Noonan: Are there any pictures of the garage and the house together or any drawings of the garage and house together front view? Will Gedney: Yes, it's turned 90 . . . Mr. Kuhl: I was surprised you didn't mirror the house in the design of this but that was just me. I understand you're doing the front, the back I was surprised you didn't do this. Because if you did that you could have gotten it down to 20 or maybe even 16. There is a place over on F;bdmond Fdoad in S)uth Glens Falls and they store a camper and they did that roof and I just thought it would have matched your house but I mean I see what you're doing, I understand it. 12 M r. Gedney: Now it does match. Mr. Kuhl. The piece of property fits what you're doing, I mean it's a good fit. George Gedney: Yeah, I came with the same conclusion after going back with the draftsman in our office, I just created something real ugly here with going with the mansard roof and it just looks like house thisway. M r. Garrand: Any other board members? Hearing none the public hearing was left open. Anybody in the audience like to speak on this? Seeing nobody I'll close the public hearing. Poll the board. Mr. McCabe. Mr. McCabe: We've had quite a bit of discussion about this project the last time it was here and the main thing that we were interested in was to reduce the height and I feel that you've a pretty good job there and got it down it to a more feasible relief requirement and therefore I would support the project. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Henkel? Mr. Henkel: Yeah, I'd also support it, I think we've made a compromise here even though I'd like to see it a little bit lower I'd go for it. Mr. Garrand: M. Kuhl? Mr. Kuhl: Yes I'm in favor. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Noonan M r. Noonan: I'm in favor of it. Mr. Urrico: Me too. M r. Garrand: And somebody make a motion R®OW-nON Area Vari ance 64-2014 William C Gedney Ft®OW-nON TO: Approve Area Variance No. 64-2014, William G Gedney, 33-%Ilivan Road, Tax M ap Numbers 289.9-1-23 and 22 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William G. Gedney for a variance from S�ction(s): 179-4-030; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,080 sq. ft. detached garage with a revised height of 22 ft. The parcels have been combined. Relief requested from minimum front and rear yard setback requirements. The requirements on the front are 30 ft.; the proposal is 5 ft., so the relief requested is25 ft. And the rear,what is required is 30 ft.; what is proposed is 25 ft. The relief requested is 5 ft. On the height, the required is 16 ft. max; the proposed is 22 ft., so the relief requested is6 ft. 13 S QRType II-no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, September 11, 2014 and Wednesday, November 19,2014; 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 NYSTown 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? Upon review,we feel not. The applicant is building it in the same style as the home is and the character of the neighborhood won't be adversely affected at all by this garage. It is considered the Waterfront Residential district but it is at the very edge of the Waterfront Residential district. It is quite far up away from Glen Lake which is Oitical Environmental Area. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? We have looked at lot of different proposals and we feel that we have reached a compromise that is beneficial to the applicant and the Board. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It could be considered substantial but not out of line. 4. Wi1I the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. 5. Isthe alleged difficulty self-created? Certainly it isself-created. 6. The Board also findsthat the variance request under consideration isthe minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 64-2014, WIWAM G®NEY, Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for itsadoption, seconded by Ron Kuhl: 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. 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; 14 C Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans, D. 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 Ranning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 19th day of November 2014, by the following vote: AYES M r. Noonan, M r. Henkel, M r. Urrico, M r. M cCabe, M r. Kuhl, M r. Garrand NOES None ABSENT: Mr. hckoski M r. Garrand: Do you want any of these drawings back? Will Gedney: Thank you very much, appreciate it. Mr. Kuhl: What do you do?You're a captain. Will Gedney: Going back to work in a week. Mr. Kuhl: Good luck with that. M r. Garrand: Next item on the agenda for tonight is Area Variance 78-2014 Clute Enterprises. Mr. Urrico: Staff Notes on file M r. Garrand: Thank you M r. Urrico. M r. a ute, good evening Mr. Qute: How are you tonight? Mr. Garrand: Good thank you. Mr. Qute: Larry cute representing this. My buyers have asked me and they are actually the third interested buyers this is the one this client actually was willing to understand the code and the regulation that Queensbury has about the two garages and they still wanted the home. They understand the situation that it is but it would make them extremely happy if they could keep that building, that shed, storage building. So hence here we are to represent that. Any questions I can answer? Mr. Henkel: When you were approved to build this house was that garage supposed to come down before? Mr. Qute: It was contingent. When I went for the permit it was a pretty straightforward fact I mean it just, if this action is denied then the shed no longer exists. And they get their attached garage. The 15 client want's the attached garage more than they want the shed. They'd very much appreciate keeping the shed but the client's for the new home the attached garage is more important to them so if indeed this action fails the shed gets removed and it's a moot issue. M r. Garrand: They can still put up a ten by twelve shed. Mr. Qute: Well they could have a shed, yeah, this is a pretty substantial building and I wasn't even aware of it until we did start to construct this one here. It's a solid solid building and it is kind of an asset. M r. M cCabe: So the only thing that makes it a garage is the size of the doors? Mr. Qute: Even with the size of the doors the size of the doors in the regulations being that they are an eight foot swing but it's more of a barn to me than it is a garage. I can't imagine it being used as a garage because they are the old style barn swing doors then they are a car access door. M r. M cCabe: But if I put a smaller door on there Mr. Qute: Untelligible. . M r. Henkel: And you could ask us for a setback variance Mr. Qute: You secure four foot of the swing so really you've got an operating 4 foot swing door so it solves the issue and still maintains the character the look of the building to. M r. Henkel: Is there a reason you wanted to keep the garage, store vehicles in there or something? Mr. Qute: No, it's an older couple and the way its divided I don't know if anybody went up in to the property but the back side of it is sectioned off and she'd like it for cold storage, root cellar kind of stuff. She does stuff like that, he wants it as the front side his part would be a shop of sorts. M r. Henkel: Why don't you just change to doors on it? M r. Noonan: So j ust change the doors. Mr. Qute: No absolutely. Mr. Kuhl: Well that goeswith my question M r. cute. Will this structure stay the way it is pictured here or are you going to improve it at all during the construction on the house, yes. Mr. Qute: I'm not going to. M r. Kuhl: It's going to stay just the way it is. M r. Qute: When I dose, if indeed you approve this when I dose on it the building is staying the same, it its approved Rchard is going to put new stucco to the outside and the roof has to be redone. It is obviously leaking so he has, my company would not be doing it. He has the intent of doing it himself. 16 M r. Kuhl: Okay, as the structure is today there is no water no electric? Mr. Cute: No sir. Mr. Kuhl: And is it going to have water and electric? M r. Cute: He would like electric out there. It did have electric if you've seen it there is a riser on the building but its old, a very old service so if he did it he'd had to put a new service to it. Mr. Kuhl: I've got to go back to my original question because we've been dancing here. Is he going to fix it up or is it going to stay ugly? Mr. Cute: No he's going to fix it up. They'd be very happy to keep this building,this couple would love to have this building. Mr. Kuhl: Staff should is that something we should make contingent if this gets approved that it gets improved or we can't do that because all that this is for is a second structure, a second garage. M rs. Moore: You could. Mr. Kuhl: Mr. Clute is presenting it as it is and if we approve it they don't have to do anything to it, correct? M rs. Moore: Correct. Mr. Kuhl: Okay. Mr. Garrand: Question for staff so honestly they can change the size of the door and they can throw out the relief for a second garage. Mrs. Moore: I guess my concern is that can you truly change that door size and still not and never convert it back to a garage size door? M r. Garrand: So they'd need a variance if they change, if they change the door size Mr. Henkel: To a garage that Mr. Cute: You can always change a door, not just this shed but to be honest with you . . . M rs. M oore: But in this case there is already pre I guess the cut out for the doors are there now. How do I secure, how do I confirm that it's going to be secure that it's not going to be a, that width of that door is ever going to change. Mr. Cute: We can't do that other than stipulation. I would have to go back to what would change to the, I would secure those doors, I'd make they had a four foot opening not an eight foot opening. Mr. Kuhl: Because you're presenting it for them you can't guarantee us they're not going to run a businessout it. 17 Mr. Qute: No, I can't, honestly I can't no. Mr. Kuhl: So you're coming with half of piece of pie again Mr. Qute: Yeah Mr. McCabe: What are the dimension of the building? Mr. cute: I honestly don't know, it's a sizable building thought, it's definitely is a sizable building. M r. M cCabe: I don't even know the dimensions. Mr. qute: I can't imagine them building out of it though Ron, it's out in the back. M r. Kuhl: No I hear you Mr. Qute: I understand completely Mr. Kuhl: You're here representing them and you can represent them so far and I have all, my belief is that they have all good intentions but just in case. Mr. Qute: If we were to put stipulations on it even though it's me representing it they can't be held accountable is that what you're saying. M r. M cCabe: It goes with the property doesn't it? M m M core: It goes with the property. Mr. Qute: I would think it would so they could be held accountable. Mr. Garrand: Any other board members have any questions? Anybody in the audience questions comments? Mr. Urrico any correspondence? M r. Urrico: Yes, the City of Glens Falls—letter on file. M r. Garrand: Is the silt fencing installed. M r. Clute: It was, it's no longer no. It was on the front half when we were doing the house construction but not it's all traffic, the driveways are in so the silt fence has all been moved and that's the only areas that have been cut grade wise where the silt fencing was,was necessary. M r. Garrand: Do the board members feel necessary to condition this on that they reduce the opening of the doors? Mr. McCabe: Well if we're going to, I would propose that we just give them dimensional relief on the side and not give them the second garage and make a condition with the relief that they reduce the size of the doors. M r. Henkel: Convert it into a shed. 18 Mr. Kuhl: No, Mr. Chairman I'm not in favor of that. I mean the structure the way it is the people could use it just the way it is without additional cost if they didn't want to do it. I mean, Mr. Cute is representing it for the structure now you're going to put contingency on it where you're going to have to close up the garage doors and put regular doors or put a 36 inch door. I don't think that's our task. WelI I mean. M r. Garrand: It would need the relief for the second garage, and basically we need to grant minimum relief, this neighborhood doesn't have second garages, it's got sheds. Mr. Henkel: Plus we're only talking about a property of 0.6, it's a little over a half acre, we haven't been too kind in giving second garages on property that size. Mr. Garrand: I feel very reluctant to award a second garage in a neighborhood that doesn't have a second garages. M r. Urrico: So if we turn down the second garage then it's up to them to decide what they do with it so if they want to try to reduce the door size it has to pass our planning department. M r. Garrand: Building and Codeswould have to go M r. Urrico: And they probably won't go for it. M rs. M oore: If you check the code I just wanted to confirm two structures of no more than 500 square feet so this already exceeds that, it's a 24 by 32 structure as a shed and so that it exceeds the dimensions so that would be a different variance relief request. M r. M cCabe: But they could still get a variance for a shed right? M rs. M oore: But it would have to come back. M r. Urrico: They'd have to comeback to here because its(unintelligible) side shed. Mr. Garrand: So the board is in favor of granting dimensional relief but nothing for a second garage at this point. You'd have to comeback for the relief for the size of the building. M r. Kuhl: I guess you'll have to poll the board. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Noonan. M r. Noonan: I'm okay with the setback but I'm not okay with the second garage. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Kuhl. M r. Kuhl: I'm actually in favor of the garage. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Henkel. M r. Henkel: I'm also not in favor of the second garage but I'd be in favor of a shed or reduced doors. 19 M r. M cCabe: I agree with my colleagues. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Urri co. M r. Urrico: My suggestion was going to be to reduce size of the doors and make that a requirement and then condition the approval that there would not be a second garage there. M r. Garrand: They'd still have to come back for relief for the size, correct? M rs. M oore: Correct, if that's the board's feeling maybe the applicant would table the application to do that or ask the board to move forward. Mr. Qute: If we can get an approval reduce the garage door size but then a stipulation that I have to come back for a shed I'd rather do it that way. M rs. M oore: I don't see how the board can do that because it hasn't been advertised for that. Mr. Garrand: The only approval we can give you tonight is south side relief dimensional setback. No garage relief, correct. - M rs. M oore: I don't know how you can give them dimensional relief. M r. Garrand: We're not approving the building we're just approving the setbacks. M rs. Moore: It doesn't M r. M cCabe: So to your benefit you'd like to have it tabled? Mr. Qute: I'd going to do that not that I'm questioning this but I'm questioning this in a way I'm almost wondering why I'm sitting here. If that makes sense. If I come to a pre-construction meeting these kind of ideas could have been presented at that time and we could have avoided the second meeting. But this is the dialogue has been very favorable so I'm assuming that because it's not going to be me coming back, that's another issue I've got to is my CO is dependent on this right here and these people are due to dose the second week of December. S) how do I work around that? We were prepared to level the building. They would rather very much not do that. And I understand where we are with this but it does create an issue on the 00 the stipulation that the Zoning Administrator put on this permit. How do I deal with that or can you help mewith that? Mr. Garrand: And they probably can't get a CO without. Mr. Qute: No and without a CO they can't own a home. M r. M cCabe: That December meeting is not until the third week in December anyway. Mrs. Moore: You do have the option, there is a second Zoning Board meeting it actually happens on December 3 d if the board were to table it to December 3 d re-advertise it for a larger shed its potential the board could table it because our next meeting on December 3,d, it's possible to table it. 20 M r. M cCabe: When would the paperwork have to be in? Mrs. Moore: I think the paperwork is just a narrative describing that it's now a shed, it's a narrative versus a new R®OLU11ON TABLEAREA VARIANCE78-2014 CWTEMTERPR,%S R®OW-nON TG: Table, Area Variance No. 78-2014, Qute Enterprises, Old Forge Road, Tax M ap Number: 302.13-1-18. Introduced by Michael McCabe, seconded by Kyle Noonan: To the second November meeting which is December 3 d with paperwork to be submitted by; in the next week. Duly adopted this 19th day of November 2014 by the following vote: AYES M r. Urrico, M r. Kuhl, M r. Noonan, M r. Henkel, M r. M cCabe, M r. Garrand NOES None ABSENT Mr.Jackoski Discussion before the vote: Mr. McCabe: Is that all right Mr. Qute: If I've got this right it's December P, but at that point we have a yea or a nay and then I can get a00directly, yes. M r. Garrand: Next item on the agenda isArea Variance 81-2014 S:hermerhorn Residential Holdings. Mr. Urrico: Staff Notes on file Mr. Garrand: Thank you Mr. Urrico. Gentlemen M r. Lapper: Good everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Rch S:hermerhorn and Tom Nace. I know you're all familiar with the project. The existing 60 unit building is fully leased so this is the Phase 11. It's a really pretty site the way its set back with mature trees, traffic wise when you drive by which I do frequently you hardly ever any cars pulling out of here because the senior projects and Rch has a number of them now are really off peak for traffic so it's just a quiet project for the seniors and this is an opportunity when we had this approved there was always a Phase 11 to come back and do another building. The variance that we're here seeking is rally somewhat of a technicality because of the way Queensbury measure height of a building. You go from the lower of either pre-existing or post construction and in this case the building is 240 feet long, it's only a 40 foot high building but the idea of finding a 240 foot long piece of property in Queensbury that is exactly the same grade is pretty difficult so it's really just because the slope on the south side of the building that's where it has to be filled in with the retaining wall but when the building is really 40 feet tall and technically it will measure at the 21 highest part just at that southern end, the additional 3.5 feet and it is a 40 foot long building and that said it's set back behind the existing trees it's going to be buffered the whole is nicely landscaped as this building will be. We've submitted a pretty extensive landscaping plan so this wouldn't be visible and it's just that very southern edge of the building because of the grade the way it's measured. So we hope you'll grant the relief. Mr. Garrand: That's it? Mr. Lapper: Yes M r. Garrand: Board members any questions? M r. Kuhl: Well Mr. Lapper, I was pondering over this before your presentation and I was saying that Mr. S�hermerhorn is the primary builder of these kind of buildings in this whole community and if you couldn't make it happen for three feet but your discussion about finding level ground you're kind of winning me over. Because I haven't been here for that many years but when we were building down on Bay Fbad when you did the seniors down there you came in and you had a discussion about not enough parking spaces and you said well seniors regular for apartments you have 1 plus something with younger people. But with seniors it's .something. And I got that but you know your discussion about the retaining wall is kind of like a shame that you're here, that you're really spending the money and we're spending the town's money when it really isn't necessary. But I'm just trying to build your, thank you, you explained it well. Mr. Garrand: Other board members? No questions? Anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this? Rease come up sir and identify yourself for the record. M r. Facet: I live at 1260 West Mountain Fbad and my only question iswhere is the front of the building, is it going to face the existing building or is it going to face the highway? M r. Henkel: First of all, he's got to identify himself, you have to state your name? M r. Kuhl: You know building the building, you're going to face the building M r. Schermerhom. Yes it's going to face the existing building M r. Facet: Okay, that was my question so. M r. Garrand: Come on back to the table M r. Henkel: You're leaving quite a buffer there anyway so you're really not even going to see it. M r. Garrand: The parking lot is never full. M r. Henkel: As like I said Igo by there all the time,there is very little traffic. Mr. Garrand: Yeah, it's empty. 22 M r. Urrico: Is it the same height as the existing building more or less? Mr. SJvrmerhorn: It's the same height and it's going to have the same elevation as the existing building aswell. Mr. Urrico: Okay Mr. Garrand: Hearing no other comments I will dose the public hearing. Can I get a motion from someone? IRE90LU11CNV Area Variance 81-2014 SJvrmerhorn Residential Holdings, LP The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, LP for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a three-story, 16,530 sq. ft. 35-unit senior apartment building identified as Phase 2 of Westbrook Apartments. The parcel will require an Area Variance as per Section 179-30-040. Height required 40 ft.; proposed 43.7 ft. Relief requied is 3.7 i nches. A publ i c heari ng was advert i sed and held on Wednesday, November 19, 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 NYSTown 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? M inor impactsto 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? Feasible alternatives may be available to relocate the building on the parcel. 3. Isthe requested area variance substantial? I would suggest that it is not; it's minimal and is relevant to the Code. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't see any; really minimal. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Although it may seem self-created, I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 81-2014. 7. The Board also findsthat the variance request under consideration isthe minimum necessary; 23 Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TOAPPROVEArea Variance No. 81-2014, Schermerhom Residential Holdings, LP Introduced by Ron 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. 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; C Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans, D. 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 19th day of November, 2014 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES None ABSENT Mr.Jac koski RESOW-nON 9BQR-Area Variance 81-2014&hermerhorn Residential Holding M r. Garrand: Okay,we still have to SEOR Motion by Rchard Garrand, Area Variance 81-2014 SJvrmerhom Residential Holding, Seconded by Michael McCabe. The applicant proposes 16,530 sq. ft. 35-unit senior apartment building. The ZBA has determined that proposed project and the Zoning Board action is subject to review under the SEQRA. Proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted and the DEC Figs implementing the State Environmental Quality Review and regulations of the Town of Queensbury, no federal agencies are involved. We have reviewed the short EAFby the applicant and upon review of information recorded on this EAFas noted and the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board as Lead Agency for this project will result in 24 no significant adverse environmental impacts and therefore an Environmental Statement need not be prepared; accordingly this is a Negative Declaration, so I move we give this a Negative Dec., Duly adopted this 19th day of November 2014 by the following vote: AYES M r. Urrico, M r. Henkel, M r. Kuhl, M r. Noonan, M r. M cCabe, M r. Garrand NOES None ABSENT Mr. Jackoski Mr. Garrand: And can I get a second for Mr. Kuhl's motion. Mr. McCabe: I'll second it. Mr. Lapper: Thanks everybody. M r. Garrand: Next item on the agenda is Area Variance 74-2014 David Hartman. M r. Urrico could you read that into record. Mr. Urrico: Staff Notes on file. Mr. Garrand: Thank you Mr. Urrico Mr. Hartman: Hi, my name is David Hartman of 51 Assembly Point Road. I've been working on this awhile so thank you very much for your time. The home is extremely poor condition basically a lot to do with the way it was originally built and designed and structure being a cottage and built in 1900 and then it's just been uncared for the 10 years prior to my purchase of it. The thought is to try and repair and basically I would have to put a foundation underneath the home rebuild all the floors and all the structure. To try and repair that house it would be very costly, time consuming as I suspect a larger impact to the environment. The setbacks I'm seeking the setback variances I'm seeking are in line with the pre-existing non-conforming home. The height variance is really just due to the grade, it's about a 3 foot drop over the course of the from the road towards the lake and by switching the gable direction to run more less east west it makes the front part of the gable exceed the height limit with the 5/12 pitch roof. Then basically that roof will make a more attractive home I think it also benefits stormwater. The Roor Area Ratio is really solely based on the fact that I intend this to be my permanent my home a year round home and that's why I'm here today. Mr. Kuhl: I have to acknowledge that I know Mr. Hartman by business but it will not affect anything I plan on saying. Mr. Hartman, Dave, how come you just don't move it back the five feet so you don't need a shoreline variance. Mr. Hartman: It's really interesting how that's measured. A couple of feet would be okay if I go back farther than that then there will be a view obstruction. I think and not only that I don't know, if you were to draw a straight line across the front of the tree homes, my home and the two next to me they are almost all even, it's the shoreline that changes. So the view would change if I got set back, if it was 25 five feet would certainly be a significant amount, it would effect, it would basically a flat plane right now between those three homes. It's the shore that changes the front not the, no one home is sticking out more than the other. You could argue possibly mine afoot. But being that it will be a more or less open porch on the front it's not an obstruction to the neighbor. All my neighbors are aware, well I don't know about neighbors on the other side of the road but my neighbors two to the north and three to the south are aware of the project and all are supportive and I've been able to walk through the drawings with a couple of them. Most of them are Dave we're happy to see something happen with this house. Mr. Kuhl: It's an improvement Mr. Hartman: It's a major improvement. Mr. Kuhl: And your entrance on the street side on the road side do you have a long entrance is that going to be like a mudroom Mr. Hartman: So right now the long entrance you see is the existing part it's a very weird sort of a building. I basically want to take it as a 10 x 20 foot structure on the building right now. I basically to the footprint change all I'm doing is changing that 90 degrees and making it a 20 x 10 structure so it would be, it walksthrough,there will be a bathroom for the first floor on one side and actually the other Side is the bathroom for a master bedroom. The intention is to put a master bedroom on the first floor and on the second floor. I plan to stay there until, I have trouble getting upstairs and I learned that from my mother's reasons for moving. M r. Garrand: Did I miss where the garage is on this house? Mr. Hartman: There is no garage on the house. There is a little cottage, what they call a cottage, bunkhouse when they sold it to me but it's a scary little building, it's a shed. Mr. Garrand: It's getting removed? Mr. Hartman: It'll get removed yes. Mr. Garrand: Nothing will go in its place? Mr. Hartman: Well I think eventually I'll need like a shed for lawnmowers and such. Right not that cottage thing has maybe a 6 x 10 spot where I keep my yard tools. But then it's got,the rest of it is like4 bunk beds in this little building. No there is only one shed. Any other shed would be on the neighbor's property and if I were to put a regular like a garden shed I would put it next to on the opposite side which butted up against a neighbor's shed view. Mr. Garrand: One thing I've got an issue with this is we're required to grant minimum variance, your proposal is going to 85%of it, you're supposed to have, you are required to have 75%permeability? M r. Hartman: Permeability is going to be I'm not anywhere near my permeability. Mr. Garrand: You can't very well put a garage in there pretty much ever. 26 Mr. Hartman: The permeability I'm only at 15%. Mr. Garrand: But down the road you're going to be living there year round, wintertime, I'm thinking somewhere you're probably want a garage there. With a house this big you're never going to be able to put a garage there. M r. Hartman: Due to permeability,what's the permeability ratio? M r. Garrand: I'm figuring if you have a garage on there, let's say 30 feet long you'll probably never get a garage in there plus your FARis over. Your FARisat 310/c, M r. Hartman: The FARis the big, I think is probably most significant variance and it's that's probably the biggest reason I'm here. M r. Garrand: Everything we usually see somebody wants a garage somewhere down the road and I'm just concerned that. Mr. Hartman: With, well if it wasn't, if there was no basement I believe it should be able to handle a 500 sq. ft. garage on both permeability and FAR Mr. Garrand: Probably, but it's got a garage that now counts against your FAR or a basement that counts against your FAR Mr. Hartman: Fight. M r. Garrand: I'm just concerned down the road you're going to come back and want a garage here and. Mr. Hartman: Well, I said, I don't, it makes sense, I don't have the plans or the funding but I understand what you're saying. The basement to me it's really a situation I grew up in the northeast we have basement. For storage I actually like to put a little workshop in the basement, it's intended to be a year round home and as opposed to putting five feet of the exact same space is, it's new to me this floor ratio area is something I'm not familiar with. I mean I look at it as a 2300 sq. ft. house but this I don't have much to say except for to me it's a lot more practical to maximize the space you're not hurting the permeability, you're increasing the value of the home making the home more functional. Storing stuff, maintenance stuff, mechanical room situations. Mr. Urrioo: You said you'd be willing to move the house back or would you be willing to reduce the size by several feet you said. Mr. Hartman: It's I'm open to listen. The moving the house back is certainly if that's a big issue I would tend to keep footprint as it is short of straightening it out a little bit but I could do. M r. Urrico: What we're trying to do is reduce the number of variances that you need. We can take Mr. Hartman: I can shorten the house by two feet. I know, I didn't originally design it but I know through the sketching I've done to it I knew I could shorten the house by two feet which would cut its floor area by I guess 6 x 35 whatever that number is. 27 M r. Henkel: Because you have quite a bit of property there you could bring it back farther and actually make the house a little bit narrower M r. Hartman: If I was looking at narrower would really a bigger issue for me. If it was narrower I would want to do something very different. I would have to completely redo it. Mr. Henkel: I kind of agree with Rick probably when you're building this it would probably be a good idea to include the garage and not include the workshop area or the cellar area, build over the garage including that in your, it would probably smart to do that if you're going to do it because like Rick is saying later on you're not going to have so if I were you and you are going to be there for a long time you're going to want a garage, especially if you're going to spend your winters there a garage would be very good to incorporate with that. That's what I would do. M r. Hartman: Well if I took the 225 feet off the floor area ratio does that help the situation at all? M rs. M oore: Just so you,the proposal moves it two feet further from the shore making that 50.3 Mr. Hartman: I wasn't necessarily going to move that I was just going to shorten the house. By shortening the house two feet there is basement first and second floor by moving two feet of each one and the house if 35 feet wide. It's 6 x 35. M rs. M core:That's 210 sq.ft. Mr. Hartman: I don't have a calculator Mr. Urrico: The existing floor area is2,299. Mr. Hartman: Yes M r. M cCabe: S)if you subtracted the 210 from the 1,077 what does that change the relief for the?? Mr. Hartman: 585 sq. ft., 3,585 1 would be where it would be at, I don't know what that percentage would be. M r. Henkel: He's got like 9% permeability to work with so M r. Hartman: I have plenty of permeability to work with. M r. Henkel: But I'm saying to work so could actually like I said M r. Hartman: The issue with the garage is Mr. Henkel: I would incorporate that into the house and narrow the house a little bit I don't have any problem with the shore front that's 50 feet already. M r. Garrand: Board members any other comments? 28 Mr. Noonan: I just wanted to mention that Mr. Hartman is here to discuss the plan as proposed not these other things and I want to focus on what you're here for I understand the future thought but you have that right to come bads in the future not us decide on the future of the building today in terms of some of those other things that have been brought up. So that's my thought these three or the north side south side and shoreline, the FAR and the height, that's what you're here for. Not future development for other things. Mr. Henkel: Good option. M r. Noonan: No it's good to have the option but I don't want to get muddled up here. M r. Henkel: No,you're right but Rick was just saying that just in case down the future the garage. Mr. Hartman: Well I guess what it comes to is the and you guys aren't necessarily the board in the future it's the 210 feet that I have available by shortening the house is that going to make a difference. Mr. Urrico: We're working on it. M rs. M core: So we've removed 210 sq. ft. of floor are so that brings you down to 3,585.5 which would be your 29%floor area. M r. Kuhl: Which would mean he would be asking for 7%relief. M rs. M oore: Yes Mr. Hartman: I guess, I know I can easily make that change to the drawings the only thing is it's that's more or less it's still if the garage variance will be a garage variance but I guess hopefully at least a goodwill. M r. Urrico: It reduces the floor area ratio, it reduces the minimum shoreline aswell. Mr. Hartman: No, that would not be my intention, if it was a floor area thing I would take it from the bads I would like to make the house straight across. M r. Urrico: You would take it from the bads you would not take it from the shoreline M r. Hartman: If that was a condition of this approval I would. I would rather not do that it changes all, like I said all three houses are basically on the same plane. Mr. Urrico: Two feet is going to make a big difference to lining up the houses M r. Hartman: Well on that particular side I'm very dose to that neighbor Mr. Urrico: Because we are dealing with a substantial number of variances here so we're trying to help by redudng as many as we can. 29 M r. Hartman: I would not get into a fight about that, if that was a condition that the board thought was important you know, moving it back would be something I could do. It's not ideal just because of the like I said the nature of the house as being flat acrossthe front. M r. Kuhl: I think that would be a good concession. M r. Hartman: S) I would have no issue with doing that. M rs. M oore: S)that would move the house to 52.3 feet from the shoreline versus 50.3 Mr. Hartman: Correct. Mr. Henkel: Everything else is staying the same except for your change to FAR And he is asking for what 700 and some odd feet now? M rs. M oore: No it 29%relief and 3,585.5. Mr. Garrand: 29%rel i ef? MM Moore: Not 29%relief it's 7%relief the FAR proposes 29%. M r. Hartman: I'd be more than happy to make both of those changes to the design to make that part of the rebuild. Mr. Garrand: With that said board members anything else right now. I'm going to open up the public heari ng. Mr. Navitsky: Thank you, good evening. Chris Navitsky Lake George Waterkeeper. We don't have problems with the side yard setbacks and trying to fit in with the existing footprint and we recognized there are proposed improvements. The replacement of the septic system and incorporation of some minor stormwater, however, we do have a concern about the excessive variance request for the floor area ratio which indicates that the proposal is exceeding the ability of the land to support the intensity of development. We also had concerns about the no reduction of the existing shoreline setback or reduction of what they are encroaching into and recognize that there has been discussions on that. We feel the benefit can be achieved through other means feasible such as reducing the size of the structure and providing the proper setback. The additional living area it is in the basement you are limiting the footprint, he's trying to match that existing but you really are taking a lot of area in volume from the soils which are important aspects for the filtration along the lake so I think that is a consideration. Furthermore, we wonder if this does go forward that the Zoning Board consider that the applicant comply with stormwater for new construction which would basically be for about 2.5 inches of rainfall on the impervious cover, he's proposing to require for 1 inch of cover so we suggested that an alternative plan come up and be proposed and it appears there some discussion on that. Thank you. Mr. Garrand: Thank you. 30 Mr. Hartman: Yeah, I can just add a couple of comments, one is so it's very clear another point for moving it back a couple of feet again I'm fine with that. As far as I'm a lifelong visitor to the lake and I'm all for making sure it has, that we're protecting the lake and no issue making a more properly sized rain garden. Actually when I did that I'd actually met with Chris maybe years ago when I was looking at a different property but this time I did not have the resources to I spent a lot of time trying to figure out out to even size the rain garden so it would be something I'd be more than happy to reach out and accommodate for a higher rain volume. I understand the aspect of the soil but it's, it'd be three feet, five feet of crawl space or three feet I realize that's significant but it's for a proper home as opposed to building cottages, it seems important to have a proper basement. M r. Garrand: Okay board members so the applicant has agreed to propose 52.3 foot setback from the lake, in addition to reduce the FAR to 7%as opposed to 9%and increase stormwater controls. Mr. Navitsky did you have anything specific in mind about that? Mr. Navitsky: I would just suggest the, with the regulations are 1.5 gallons per square foot. That's for a standard construction. M r. Garrand: Board members, how do you feel about that? Mr. Henkel: So we're not going to have any change on the height, right because he's dropping you're taking some square footage off the east side. Mr. Hartman: It will be less but if I keep the ridgeline going that way with the property line if you do two eight foot, if you do eight foot ceiling and then you have a 5/12 pitch that's 28 feet so it's tough. By moving the property back two feet and shortening yes it'll be less M r. Henkel: It's going to be about that. M r. Hartman: it'll be five feet or three feet, it'll be an estimate of what the grade is. M r. Henkel: so at least it's not going to increase it's going to decrease so it's less of a relief again. M r. Kuhl: I think that with the changes I'd be in favor of the project. M r. Garrand: M r. Noonan how do you feel? M r. Noonan: I'd be in favor of the project. Mr. Garrand: Mr. Henkel? Mr. Henkel: Yes I think e's made some good changes there. The only problem is that we don't have exact numbers though, that's the only problem right we're not going to have exact numbers with the maximum height of the roof and thiswould all be approximate. Isthat all right? Mr. Garrand: Less than 3.8 feet whoever makes a resolution can you please stipulate that the height must be less than 3.8 feet above code. Mr. McCabe? 31 Mr. McCabe: I was concerned with the FAR initially. I'm happy with the concessions that have been made there. To me the seven percent is more palatable than the nine percent and so I would be in favor of this project. I think that the gains that we make from the new septic system and basically the improvement to the neighborhood are acceptable. Mr. Urrico: These are good compromises we eliminated a shoreline setback, I mean a variance, we lowered the house slightly and we reduced the FAR and the side yard setbacks are the same as they were before so I think it'll be good. M r. Hartman: I probably shouldn't comment at this time but just for clarification it's not a, by moving it two feet it's still a three foot so it is an improvement. Mr. Garrand: Can whoever makes a resolution also add in that it comply with the stormwater of 1.5 gallons per square foot for stormwater control. Anybody want to make a resolution? M r. Kuhl: I would love the make a resolution. AREA VARIANCE 74-2014 DAVID HARTM AN The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Hartmann for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,448 sq. ft. cottage and construction of a new year-round single-family dwelling. The new home will be 3,585.5 sq. ft. The variances required; minimum side on the north side: 15 ft. is required, 6.2 ft. is proposed, 8.8 ft. of relief. The south side: 15 ft. is required, proposed is 13.1 ft., relief requested is 1.9 ft. The shoreline: 55 ft. on average for a house setback; proposed is 52.3 ft.; the relief requested is 2.7 ft. Roor Area Ratio: 22 percent is required, proposing 29 percent; requesting 7 percent relief. On the height: maximum height 28 ft. required; proposed is plus or minus 31.8 ft. and it will be less than 3.8 ft. And, that the stormwater - the rain gardens will comply with 1.5 gallons per square foot. SMR Type II-no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 19,2014; 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 NYSTown 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? M inor impactsto the neighborhood. 32 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Due to the size of the property and demolishing the e)asting dwelling and wanted to building on that footprint;very few alternatives are available. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We could say it is substantial but again, it's an improvement to the property. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The septic system is going in and with rain gardens we should have better land-stormwater controls 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Although it is considered self-created, I recommend we approve the Area Variance. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 74-2014, DAVID HARTMANN, Introduced by Fdon Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: 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. 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; C Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans, D. 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 Ranning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 19th day of November, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Urri co, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand NOES None ABSENT Mr.Jac koski M r. Henkel: Did you want some of these? 33 M r. Hartman: I wouldn't mind one or two to give to my neighbors if they ask. M r. Garrand: Can I get a motion to adjourn Mr. McCabe: We didn't approve the minutes from the last meeting? Ms Hemingway. It's on the top of the agenda here M r. Urrico: I make a motion that we approve the meeting minutes of October 22, 2014. Can I get a second? Fbll called. Approved unanimously. M r. Garrand: Motion that we adjourn. M r. Kuhl: I send that motion. F;b11 called, approved unanimously. On a motion the meeting was adjourned. L\&Ae Hem i ngway\2014 Year ZBA\ZBA November 2014\Minutesof November 19 2014 DRAFT.docx 34