Loading...
05-27-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice H. Combs 1. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Area Variance No. 18-2015 William J. Stiles 10. Tax Map No. 252.00-1-61 Area Variance No. 19-2015 Michael F. & Pamela M. Riley 15. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-30 Area Variance No. 20-2015 Robert& Elizabeth Hogan 19. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-27.2 Area Variance No. 23-2015 Jonathan R. & Kaelyn J. Brennan 22. 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 27, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call this evening's meeting to order for the Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's quite a simple process. We will call each application up to the table here. The applicants can join us at the table, and their representatives. We'll have the application read into the record by Roy. We'll seek comment from the applicants. We'll open the public comment period when the public comment period has been advertised, and we'll take action accordingly, usually by calling a roll call vote of the Board first and then deciding what action we're going to take depending on favorability or not for the project. We do have the public comment period and we do have a time limit of about three minutes and we ask you that if you make public comment, that's perfectly fine, but please don't already duplicate what's been spoken of in the past. We've already heard it so you don't need to repeat it again, and if there's written comment we'll ask Roy to read it into the record as well. So we'll start with Old Business right away here, Maurice Combs. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015 SEQRA TYPE I MAURICE H. COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) MAURICE H. COMBS ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 7-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOT SIZES RANGING FROM 1.01 ACRES TO 1.45 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB 6-2015; UV 71-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2015 LOT SIZE 9.09 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MAURICE COMBS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2015, Maurice H. Combs, Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 "Project Location: 636 Corinth Road "Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45 acres. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts Moderate Density Residential lot size requirements. Lot size-MDR Required 2.0 acres Proposed 1.45, 1.18, 1.21, 1.14, 1.04, 1.01, 1.02 Relief .55, .82, .79, .86, .96, .99, .98 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) 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. The lots border the Bedford Close housing with lots ranging from less than 0.5 ac and not more than 2.0 ac for some lots. 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 available to reduce the number of lots so lots can be a more compliant size. The applicant has indicated the number of lots due to the surrounding areas of Bedford Close and Hudson Pointe. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The requested relief varies from almost acre to a half an acre. 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental impacts. The plans included clearing areas, rain gardens on each parcel, and drywells for the proposed town road. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 7 lot subdivision with a proposed town road on Corinth Road. The applicant is requesting relief to create lots less than 2 acres. The zoning code requires lots in this zone to be a minimum of 2 acres if not connected to town sewer and water. The parcels are proposed to be connected to the Town water system and will have on-site septic systems. The plans show the proposed arrangement of each parcel in the subdivision. The Planning Board had tabled the application at the April 21St meeting pending test pits of the site to be completed. The applicant has completed those and information has been forwarded to the Planning Board. The test pits were witnessed by Chazen. There were 7 test pits completed -were the first test pit was at 140 inches with coarse sand, no mottling and no groundwater. The Planning Board is anticipated to conduct the environmental review (SEAR) at the May 21St meeting and may provide recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the relief requested." MRS. MOORE-So the Planning Board did make a recommendation at their May 21St meeting, and the Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. URRICO-Did they conduct a SEAR? MRS. MOORE-They did. It was a Negative Declaration. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Just for clarification for Staff, the MDR zone two acre requirement with water and septic? MRS. MOORE-And sewer, yes, correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And if they had water and septic, what would the lot sizes be required to be? MRS. MOORE-One acre. MR. JACKOSKI-One acre, correct. MR. PHILLIPS-Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm a lawyer in Glens Falls, and Mr. Combs, Maurice Combs, is to my left. He's the applicant, and I think you all know Mr. Hutchins to my right, and so our presentation is going to cover some of the findings that we need to make in terms of this application, and I thought that I would begin with the last one first, in the sense of the self-creation of the hardship. Mr. Combs has owned this property going back to the 1950's. It was owned by his wife at that time, and he and his wife owned the property together going back to the 1950's. His wife passed away approximately seven years ago, and so now he's the sole owner of the property. As far as his ownership is concerned, it's been so 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) long that that zoning in the Town has changed from a regular basis. As you well know, the Zoning Ordinance came into being 1967, and in 1967 this was an R-3 zone, where a 12,000 square foot requirement was necessary. In 1982 the Zoning Ordinance was amended, and that lot size went up to 30,000 square feet. In 1988 the Zoning Ordinance was amended again. The lot size went up to one acre. In 2002 it stayed at one acre, and then in 2009 it was zoned for this MDR zoning that you currently have, and in talking with Mr. Hutchins on that, he basically called that a two one zone, in the sense that if you don't have water and sewer, it's two acres. If you do have water and sewer it's one acre. So as we come to the Board tonight, we have been in contact with the Town Board, and although we do not have water for the entire subdivision, the Town Board has indicated that a water district amendment would be in order, and that would be favorably received by the Town Board. So we are assuming, for purposes of this application, that we would have Town water. So as far as getting us from two to one, we would satisfy one of the conditions, but we're not all the way there, but because of the soils in this area, they're very deep soils, and because of the Negative Declaration of the Planning Board relative to the environmental conditions of the property, we feel that we have satisfied the philosophy of the Zoning Ordinance in the sense that we presumably have satisfied the water requirement. From an environmental point of view, we have satisfied the sewage disposal requirement, and so within the philosophy we think that that gets us down to one acre, philosophically. It doesn't get us down there, it doesn't get us to one acre legally, but it gets us there philosophically. So we feel like we can be within the philosophy of this particular zone. As we designed this subdivision, we looked at the surrounding area, and of course we are adjoining the Bedford Close area and we're very close to the Hudson Pointe area. We looked at the lot sizes in those two areas, in particular the Bedford Close subdivision, and we wanted this to be a Bedford Close compatible subdivision, and so as we did our analysis, in terms of where these lots are compared to the lots, the adjoining lots in Bedford Close, on Lot One, which you see up on the screen, Lot One adjoins a lot in Bedford Close that has a lot size of 1.53 acres. Our Lot One is 1.45 acres. So relative to Lot One on a 1 to 1 comparison, we're at 95% of the Bedford Close lot. On Lot Two, the proposed lot is 1.18 acres. The Bedford Close lot that's immediately adjoining it, is .64 acres. So on that comparison, we are 1.84 times larger than the Bedford Lots and basically 184% of that lot. Lot Three adjoins two lots in Bedford Close. Lot Three is 1.21 acres. The two lots in Bedford Close are .69 acres apiece. So looking at those two lots, it's not two for one, but we are 175% of those lots, or 1.75 of those lots. On Lot Four, the Lot Four lot is 1.14 acres. The adjoining Bedford Close lot is .69 acres, and it works out to be 1.62 times, or 162%. Lot Five is the only other lot in this proposed subdivision that is less than the adjoining Bedford Close lot. Our Lot Five is 1.04 acres. The adjoining lot is 1.16 acres. So our Lot Five is 90% of the size of the adjoining lot, but when you look at that absolute acre value, 1.4 versus 1.16, you know, as far as the math is concerned, we're .12 apart on that, although we are smaller. Lot Six is one of the back lots, the back Lot Six and Seven are the back lots, and three lots, two lots adjoin Lot Six, one is, two of them are .75 acres. So in comparison with those two lots, on one we are 135% or 1.35 times bigger. Another one, because of a little difference lot size, it's 1.44, and then Lot Seven, which is our last lot, adjoining a Bedford Close lot, that size is 1.02 versus .84. So we are 1.21% larger. So with the exception of two lots, all of the lots that are proposed in this subdivision are larger than the Bedford Close lots which are immediately adjoining, and that's why we are referring to this as a Bedford Close compatible proposal that we are making. So that goes to the, I think the substantiality question that needs to be answered, and we realize that relative to the two acre zoning we do have some substantial differences, but when we look at one on one comparisons, we're actually better than most of the adjoining lots in Bedford Close, and then if we looked at the philosophy of the Zoning Ordinance, where we will actually satisfy the water, and environmentally satisfy the sewage disposal, then we're probably in an area where substantial may be more of a relative term, as opposed to just a mathematical term. So we've asked that you take that into consideration. So as far as the neighborhood is concerned, we think that the value is in making this like the neighborhood. That's what we've tried to do. In terms of Mr. Combs, he has lived long enough that he can't keep up with the changes to the Zoning Ordinance, but he's owned this property for a long time, for the purpose of doing something with it at some point in his retirement, although he's not retired now, and so with that, I'll let Tom talk about some of the environmental aspects of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Tom, I think the biggest concern would be some of the test pits and the percability and stuff of the soil and septic. TOM HUTCHINS MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we did. When we originally presented this, or put this design together, it was during the winter, and when your submission went in, and I believe it went in in March or February, we had not done the soil test holes. We did go back on April 28th, accompanied by your engineer. We did seven test holes. I can show you the locations, and I don't know if, the yellow areas are the locations that we hit, but I don't know if, did Chazen's letter get into their packet? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MRS. MOORE-It didn't go into their packet. It did go into the Planning Board packet. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. To summarize we found deep, well drained sands. We did not find evidence of a groundwater problem, and I do have the, I would like to enter into the record Chazen's letter that summarized out test pits that they presented to the Town. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're comfortable that they can design septic systems that will satisfy the requirements of the Town for each of the lots? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I am. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else you want to add? MR. HUTCHINS-No, I'll just touch on the geometry. There's 415 plus or minus feet of road frontage. There's a 100 foot road frontage requirement. As an alternative, you'd be looking at four strip type lots, front to back, with shared driveways, that's not really an attractive, to me it's not really an attractive approach. In order to justify a Town road there has to be a certain number of lots in order to afford a Town road. Town roads are expensive to construct. We think we're at the minimum that can support this where we may be a little in the gray area on that, but we think it makes for a nicer project than four strip lots or some other kind of alternative, and again, I am very comfortable with soils conditions. MR. NOONAN-Who owns Lot Eight? MR. HUTCHINS-Lot Eight? We don't have a Lot Eight. MRS. MOORE-It would be the Town. MR. HUTCHINS-The Town would own it, the Town would own the right of way, the turn around. I'm sorry. It would be a Town road. I have met with the Town Highway Department and they're receptive to our layout. Actually we've discussed with them narrowing the roadway up a little bit in order to make it a little more low impact type project, and they're also responsive to that. It's laid out to the Town standards for a new road, which, if you drive through a recent subdivision, it's a 28 foot strip of asphalt, and we have talked with them about decreasing the width of that for a Town road that's going to serve seven lots, and they're receptive to that. We haven't done that at this point, but we're going to work that way, if we get through this process and we have a project. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. Do we have any Board member questions at this time before I open the public comment period? MR. URRICO-Yes, I do. How many of the lots have Town water? MR. HUTCHINS-Right now the water district goes back 200 feet from the edge of Corinth Road. So the water district splits this parcel. The house that's on this parcel right now has Town water and it's in the district. So what will be required is a district extension to incorporate the rear portion of this parcel into the water district. That has been reviewed with the water superintendent. He's indicated that he would be supportive. He's indicated in writing that we have capacity, we have water capacity to serve this subdivision. The concept has been presented to the Town Board who would have to act to modify the water district, and so that would be another step in the process, provided we receive this variance, but in the end, every lot in the subdivision would have Town water. There'd be a water line running up the road with hydrants. MR. KUHL-That's assuming that they give you that water on those back lots, that they extend the water district? MR. HUTCHINS-That's assuming that. MR. KUHL-That has not happened yet. MR. HUTCHINS-That has not happened yet. It's been before them and they've seen it and they've gone as far as to agree that the Planning Board is the Lead Agency in the SEAR process. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-Which they had to do because they are an involved agency. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and we can make it conditional that that happen, if we grant the subdivision? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes that would have to happen. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public comment period? I'll open the public comment period. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "We the residents of the adjacent Bedford Close neighborhood are not opposed to the development of the parcel at 636 Corinth Road as a residential subdivision but `are opposed to the development as proposed'. The property is zoned as an MDR district and requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres because the lots would not be connected to Town or municipal sewers. As proposed the lots would have on-site septic systems. The current zoning ordinance was developed with the purpose of protecting the environment of the Town by establishing density limits for residential development based upon the availability of municipal sewers. As stated in the environmental assessment form which was submitted for the proposed subdivision, this property and the majority of the Town is located over a principal aquifer. The intent of the 2 acre requirement is to protect the principal aquifer from the introduction of pollutants from on-site septic systems in areas of fast draining soils. The soils in this proposed development are considered to be fast draining soils. In making a determination for approval or denial of the proposed application the Zoning Board of Appeals must review the information as submitted by the applicant and weigh it against the zoning requirements for the parcel as well as the criteria established for granting this type of variance. The applicant has stated that no undesirable change will take place in the adjoining neighborhoods or properties because the character of the neighborhood has been defined by the lot sizes of the adjoining Bedford Close subdivision and the lot sizes for the most part exceed the sizes of those in Bedford Close. This may be true but one must realize that Bedford Close was approved and ultimately developed over thirty years ago under entirely different zoning requirements. At that time all of the potential impacts from the density of residential developments in areas of the Town without Town or municipal sewers was not fully understood and few if any realized the impacts that it could have on the principal aquifer located under the Town. We agree that the best use of the property is for residential development. The applicant could develop the property as a residential development with the density as allowed by the zoning ordinance without requesting a variance. The requested variance should be considered substantial in nature because by current zoning only 4 lots would be allowed. The variance is requesting an approval for 7 lots, which would be an increase of 75%. Most of the proposed lots are slightly over 1 acre, which is nearly a 50% request that again should be considered substantial. The variance as requested would have an impact on the adjoining neighborhoods and district as the adjoining Bedford Close neighborhood has been plagued by a seasonal high water table in the early spring and some relief was provided several years ago when the Town installed additional stormwater devices. The seasonal high water level is approximately 7 to 8 feet below grade throughout the Bedford Close development. The proposed stormwater management plan for the proposed development indicates that nearly 30% of the storm water will be controlled and infiltrated by the use of rain gardens on each proposed residential lot. The plans indicate that each lot has 2 rain gardens and also indicates that each lot owner is to provide the maintenance needed in order to ensure continuous and effective operation of the storm water control practices. It is our belief that these rain gardens will fail to be maintained properly and will result in additional uncontrolled storm water runoff that will impact the adjoining neighborhoods. The additional on- site septic systems will also have a long-term impact on the principal aquifer, which ultimately will impact the entire district and Town. The alleged difficulty is self-created. The applicant indicates that the property has been under their family ownership for over 50 years during which the zoning laws have changed many times. Each time that Town proposed changes to the zoning ordinance public hearings were held prior to the adoption of new regulations. The property owner has had ample opportunity to attend the public hearings and voice their exceptions to any revisions in zoning that were proposed that would impact their property. The applicant as the developer assumes all of the financial risk with the development of the property as a residential subdivision and the increase in density from 4 to 7 lots as a way to achieve a reasonable rate of return is not an acceptable reason for the approval of the requested variance. In summation the zoning ordinance as currently adopted is very explicit with the requirements for lot size and the resulting density for residential developments in an MDR zone. The requirement for lot sizes of a 2 acre minimum must be adhered to. Even though the environmental impacts from a 7 lot subdivision may be considered minimal the cumulative effect of continued approvals of variances to increase the density of residential development will ultimately have a major impact on the quality of the environment in the Town. Additionally the fact that the applicant indicates that the proposed development is comparable with the adjoining Bedford Close neighborhood is not sufficient reason for approval of the requested variance. An approval of this variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals will set a very dangerous precedent for 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) future residential developments proposed in the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Concerned residents of Bedford Close" And there is about a dozen signatures here. I'm not going to read them all, and on the back. So there's about three dozen, I would say. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further written comment? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application on matters that have not been addressed in the written comments? Welcome. RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-Thank you. Good evening. For the record, I'm Richard Jones, and I reside at 33 Honey Hollow Road, and I believe it's Lot Six that backs up to the back of our property. Basically, we the residents in Bedford Close put that letter together to basically let the Board know our position on this development. The basic development itself we have no objection to. It's the development as they're proposing that we're basically opposed to. We feel that the property can be developed with two acre lots. Unfortunately he only is allowed to put four on there with the requirements for the roadway, but I think that the long term impacts for the Town, and especially the Zoning Board, is the continued approval of residential developments that require two acre parcels and they're being allowed to be approved with less than two acres. At some point, there's going to be a major impact on the aquifer under the Town, and one of the rationales for the Zoning Ordinance for lots without municipal sewers was a two acre requirement, and it's there for a reason, and we the citizens that live in Bedford Close really feel that it's time that the Zoning Board take a stand and not approve this application as they propose. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Please? CATHERINE LA BOMBARD MRS. LA BOMBARD-My name is Catherine LaBombard and I live at 31 Honey Hollow. I have a question for the engineer of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-You actually have to address us, if you wouldn't mind, and then they can answer it accordingly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. My question is. He said that, he stated that there would be sufficient technology in building, those weren't his words, in building the septic systems, and I would like to know what kind of septic systems would be proposed for a project that needs to mitigate the water that's going to go into the aquifer and so forth, and would the people that would be building the homes want to go, want to pay that extra amount of money to put in a high tech type of septic system, and my other question, or my other concern is the fact that the readings that were taken were very, you know, said that the water table was really low. Well, we all know that we've kind of been experiencing a drought, and the water table is probably very low, but I can attest that we were in line of the underground river that is off Honey Hollow, or in that area, and the Town spent an awful lot of money about five or six years ago, to fix the sewer system so that when people were pumping out their cellars that were full of water that at least it would have a place to go and not go back into their already soaked up front lawns and then back into their cellars. I'm not complaining. Fortunately at the time that we built our house, my contractor caught it and said, yes, the water table's high, and we won't go down as far. We're putting in some fill. So they only went down four feet. So I've never had any problem, but I'll tell you, there's been a lot of issues in that whole area, and I think that maybe the readings that were taken this year might be a little bit skewed because of the fact that we haven't had a lot of rain. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board before we close the public comment period? KATHY NAATZ MRS. NAATZ-Hi. My name is Kathy Naatz. I own the property on 658 Corinth Road and 660 Corinth Road, and the land around it. I border Maurice Combs' property. I have a point going down at my house and I'm 30 feet down before we struck water, and it's quite sandy. I've never had a problem with my basement. We've never had any, I've never had water in my basement. So I know when I first bought the land in 1968 the people that, the gentleman, Earl Taft, that owned the property, that went out to, actually I owned the two houses in back of, in Bedford Close on that strip. I owned the strip all the way out to West Mountain Road. He put a ditch 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) around his property. At that time there was a problem, but since, I've owned it for 47 years and I haven't had a problem in probably 30 years with water. The back of the property used to look like a lake in the back of the field, but I haven't had a problem like that in 30 years. MR. JACKOSKI-How many acres do you still have? MRS. NAATZ-1 have about six acres, with two houses on it, and it's on the west side of Maurice Combs' property, that one right there, that house and that house, and the back land to it, yes, I own that, and then the one next to that going up, I own that also. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MRS. NAATZ-That's all I needed to, and I do approve of the development. I think it would be a nice little development. That's all I've got to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MRS. NAATZ-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else? Okay. We'll leave the public comment period open for now. We'll ask the applicants to re-join the Board, and if I could ask Tom a few questions. So, Tom, the septic system technology that is proposed given the soil conditions is? MR. HUTCH INS-Conventional septic systems with amended soils, due to high percolation rate, actually. The same concept that was used at Hudson Pointe. I did happen to work on that many years ago, and put a number of them in over there. MR. JACKOSKI-But you're not needing systems like we're putting up on Rockhurst or any of the Iakesides? MR. HUTCHINS-That's correct. They are conventional, although we do amend the soils where the percolation rate is under a minute, which these soils are. MR. JACKOSKI-And you said you saw no mottling or anything of the soils? MR. HUTCHINS-We saw no evidence of groundwater. We did seven holes. We did them very deep because there was concern about groundwater and because our stormwater controls along the road go down to a depth of six or seven feet. So we went to 10, 11 feet. There was absolutely no water. There was deep root penetration which is evidence of no seasonal water because roots won't go into a regular seasonal high water table, and I saw no evidence of mottling. I went in two or three of the holes. I'm a little careful about going into a 10 foot deep hole. You have to dig a very big hole in this material because bad things can happen. I did go in and do a detailed examination on two of the holes, and I find no mottling in either of the soils. So I'm comfortable with the septic systems. They do need amended soils, but there's plenty of space. There's reserve areas shown on each property, and I hope that answers your question. MR. HENKEL-That was done on the 28th of April? Right? MR. HUTCHINS-The 28th, I believe. MR. HENKEL-That was still in a wet time. We were not in a drought at that time. MR. HUTCH INS-That's correct. We waited until the snow was gone. MR. HENKEL-And no frost. MR. JACKOSKI-So if there's no further questions or comments from Board members, I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's a lot of issues here. One of my concerns is the high perc rate in this area. Also the removal of trees and the addition of impermeable areas on these properties may exacerbate some of the problems in this neighborhood. Trees soak up a lot of water, driveways don't. The Town has spent a lot of money in the Bedford Close area. I remember when we had the fire departments in there pumping people's basements out, and the Town spent a lot of money to mitigate some of the flooding concerns in there. I don't think it's realistic to ask the applicant to go down to four lots in this zone, but also we've got to keep in mind zoning is dynamic, just like the Town is. The zoning changes to keep pace with the changes in the Town. This is one of those instances where it might be kind of first come, first serve. They packed all those houses in there in Bedford Close, and now we're forced, in some 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) of these other areas, to have larger lots to mitigate some of the damage we've done as far as contaminating the groundwater. Having all these septic systems so close together in an area with a high percolation rate, I would be in favor of something more slimmed down. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-The same as last week. No, the rest of the group doesn't understand. No, I'm against this. This is zoned two acre lots, and the biggest lot proposed doesn't reach one and a half. I understand the argument that they're very similar to the lots around them, and basically what that argument's saying is that this was zoned improperly. So in my mind, the relief is from the Town to change the zoning, but from my point of view, the relief requested is too substantial for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I wouldn't approve it until the water was in, but I think that Mr. Combs, it's not a hardship to do it to the way the zoning should be, which is two acres. I don't think you made enough of an attempt to even get close to what the two acre zone was, but for me straightaway, I wouldn't even address this until the water is there. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I would support a, certainly support a subdivision, but maybe with fewer lots and a few larger than what you have. I would approve less than two acre lots, I would say not two acre lots, but make an attempt to have something close. So I'd say no as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I've just got a few questions, though. Is everyone in Bedford, they have, they're hooked up to Town water? MR. HUTCHINS-I believe that's the case, yes. MR. HENKEL-Of course when that development was built, the developer wasn't required to really put the drainage in like they do today. So the problems that they had with their water is not really everybody else's fault. Yes, I would think I'd have to kind of almost wait on this also, to make sure that they're going to be hooked up to water, but I would make it contingent based on that. I think it would be kind of hard to be feasible to put that much, like you said, to put the Town road in there with less than seven lots. I guess you could probably, would it be feasible to put six lots in there with that Town road, I mean, the cost of the Town road? Is that something that could be done? MR. HUTCHINS-We think we're right at the minimum with, in order to support the Town road. I mean, I think an alternative probably doesn't involve a Town road, which means your frontage is along Corinth Road, which means you've got long narrow lots. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I guess I would have to say I wouldn't be in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think it's a bad idea to approve variances based on a zoning code that existed 30 years ago, which is what we'd be doing. I think the current Code, you've been given a substantial amount of time to adjust the project. The Code changed something like five or six years ago. This has been put together more recently. There are changes or adjustments that should have been made in the project design to accommodate what the current regulations require. At best, if you meet the water requirement, you're still only halfway there. You're not meeting the sewer requirement. The water requirement's not there. I don't think we can base our decisions on philosophy. I think we have to base it on actual facts and adjust from there. So I would not be in favor of this project as proposed. I think we need to slim down the project. Four lots seems to be what would be acceptable and I think that's what we need to approve. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I looked at this slightly different, and I looked at it that because we did have water, and I know when we looked at the Code, I mean, one lots are allowed in this neighborhood. So it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood, or the MDR district, I should say. Provided they have both sewer and water, and we have one, and I suspect the intent was that it's harder to place a well on a lot with a septic system. So they went to the two acres, knowing that they could have better separation of the two systems, the water system and the septic system. So once they got the water system, I think our Code is a little bit ambiguous because to me there was no need to have the two acres. So I agree that I don't like the 1.01., the 1.02 and the 1.04. A smaller subdivision is probably where I was going 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) to lead to. Maybe six lots out of seven, but I understand perfectly that that last lot is what pays for the road. Regardless, we have six noes at this time, so I'm not sure what the applicant would like the Board to do. We certainly could close the public hearing and take a vote, or we certainly are looking for your guidance. That's what I thought. MR. PHILLIPS-Mr. Chairman, in light of the sense of what we're hearing from the Board, at this time we would request that this application be tabled so we can do some further thinking about the comments that we have heard, not only from the Board but from the public as well, and possibly look at a return. MR. JACKOSKI-Tom, can I just ask. Is there any way, legally, to utilize that 1.18 acres that is being transferred to the Town for each of these lots. MR. HUTCHINS-No, it goes into the overall density, overall density, but no, that property gets transferred to the Town. MR. JACKOSKI-And if you did a private right of way instead and then they all owned into the road? It increases your lot sizes. MR. HUTCHINS-We thought about it, but then you're looking at a private road, and there's a number of ownership issues that go along with a private road. MR. JACKOSKI-But you wouldn't have the cost of the Town road. MR. HUTCHINS-But you wouldn't have the cost of the Town road, and that's something that we may consider. MR. JACKOSKI-My fellow Board members have chastised me in the past for coming up with solutions. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, private roads are, there's a lot of issues with private roads when you get over two or three lots. MR. JACKOSKI-So we do have a request for a tabling motion. It is a Type I SEAR. The Planning Board has done SEAR. We don't need to do SEAR. So could I get a motion, please, to accept the request from the applicant? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Maurice H. Combs. Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. SEAR Type 1; Planning Board has done SEAR A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 and left open; 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: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015, at the request of the applicant Maurice H. Combs, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: To an August, 2015 meeting with information to be submitted by the deadline in July. Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2015 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-When would you like to come back? MR. PHILLIPS-Two months. MR. JACKOSKI-Tabled to the August meeting with a July normal submission deadline. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-And it is nice to see that the neighbors understand that development is probable and that they're willing to find something to work with. So thank you for doing that. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2015 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM J. STILES OWNER(S) WILLIAM J. STILES ZONING RR-5A OLD YR. 2002, APRIL 9 LOCATION 24 WOODCHUCK HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 896 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH A 280 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-5A ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION OF GREGORY WHITE. CROSS REF SB 5- 2005; BP 92-758 RES. ADDITION; AV 105-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2015 LOT SIZE 0.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 252.00-1-61 SECTION 179-3-040 WILLIAM STILES, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2015, William J. Stiles, Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 "Project Location: 24 Woodchuck Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 896 sq. ft. residential addition with a 280 sq. ft. deck. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance as follows: Relief requested from the side yard setback requirements for the RR-5A zoning district within the Planning Board approved subdivision of Gregory White. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts area requirements. Front Side setback-North Side Setback- South Required 100 ft. 75 ft. 75 feet Proposed 58.4 ft. 21.2 ft. 63.9 ft. deck and 67.8 ft. addition Relief 41.6 ft. 53.8 ft. 11.1 ft. deck, 7.2 ft. addition 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 the lot configuration being pie shaped and the pre-existing lot in a RR-3A zone. 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. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 32 ft. x 28 ft. addition and a 10 ft. x 28 ft. deck to an existing home. The relief requested is for setback relief for a pre-existing lot that at 0.66 acres is less than the required 3 acre in the RR3A zone. The plans show the location of the addition and deck as well as the elevation drawings." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. It's a very straightforward application, but if you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. STILES-I'm William Stiles. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mr. Stiles, if you want to add anything or would you just like the Board to ask questions? MR. STILES-Well, the addition that I had it drawn for me. The reason it's laid out the way it is is because it completely avoids the existing well, the existing septic. We would have to make a dirt gravel driveway around to the side, to the garage underneath the addition. This disturbs the property in the front and the existing infrastructure the least. So that's why we went this way. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions at this time? Rick? MR. GARRAND-Those outbuildings on site, are you going to remove those? MR. STILES-Yes, well, we're going to keep one shed. We purchased a new one and there's a few old ones we want to get rid of. That's why we need the garage. MR. GARRAND-How old is that house, the original house? MR. STILES-The original property was granted to the Town, I believe, in 1820. I don't think that building is from 1820. 1 believe it's, due to the architecture, it's probably civil war era, so, and then the Town sold it and it went up on Aviation Road. MR. HENKEL-So it's not registered historical or anything? MR. STILES-1 probably should have, but no. MR. HENKEL-You're better off not. MR. STILES-If I ever want to use it for anything, I'm better off not. MR. HENKEL-Now I don't see any septic system. MR. STILES-It's the existing system so it was going to be enhanced. MR. HENKEL-And how old? MR. STILES-1 believe that was 1980. MR. HENKEL-You're going to be adding some more living space and more people. MR. STILES-Not more people. No more bathrooms. No more fixtures. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no other questions from Board members, is it okay to open the public comment period? I'll open the public comment period at this time, and, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Welcome. BRIAN CARR MR. CARR-Good evening. My name is Brian Carr. I am the immediate adjacent at 28 Woodchuck Hill Road, which you can see kind of a gray blob there, the middle going down through the center there. My father Edward Carr here in the audience who will probably speak next owns the property, but as I plan to purchase it from him in the near future, I'm here this evening to hear proposed as we just really kind of found out this last week what was going on and everything with it, and in my family's best interest and property and the community as well, North Queensbury, came to speak. I've known Bill Stiles for a long time. Grew up there. He's owned that property for quite a long time, and so we're not against it. We're just not necessarily for it as it is proposed. My concerns are primarily to retain the existing natural buffer of privacy we currently have. The proposed setback of just over 20 feet from our property line has raised my awareness that the property between the two Rural Residential properties may become scarce. That being said, I understand that Bill, Mr. Stiles, and his wife have been there every weekend working and developing a site for this project, and seeing them working hard and stuff, I don't want to squash their dreams of growth in our neighborhood as I believe that they're there for the natural beauty and to be able to enjoy it as the rest of us do. Though with any development, being an aspiring young design professional in the area within the last nine years 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) or so, I believe it should be done properly and with consideration to all relevant codes and such, and as well, you know, with that, you guys have mentioned and raised the fact that, you know, the septic system as it's shown on the drawings and being a design professional you know, you add bedrooms, you add stuff, you know, what if he sells in five years and we have a big huge family come in and they're going to be increasing the use of that. So, again, I'm not against it just, you know, the way it sits right now. I'd like to see a little bit of consideration towards some of the setbacks and stuff which I know it's a tough site, but, you know, maybe we could work it out a little bit and work through it. So that's it. That's all I have. MR. GARRAND-Did you see these? MR. CARR-Yes, I did. That's all I have. Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? EDWARD CARR MR. CARR-Can I just pass these out? MR. JACKOSKI-Usually we ask you to give them to the secretary. MR. CARR-Okay. For the record, I'm Edward Carr. I own the adjoining property at 28 Woodchuck Hill Road. Actually from 1974 until 1981 1 lived in the pool house that Bill owns, and living there for that length of time I knew that, you know, the last addition that he put on was drastically needed. The original bedroom was a woodshed from the school. It was jacked up and pushed over next to the schoolhouse and that was it. I believe, for the record, the septic dates back to 1970 when the renovations were done. I moved in in '74 and there were people that lived there for two years prior to my moving in. Bill and Cathy have worked hard on the property. They're excellent neighbors. My concern is the, I guess purely financial, how it affects my property. Because the Photo Number One is what we look at now, and if you go to Photo Two, you'll see how close that is to the fence line. He doesn't have much of a setback there. Same thing with Photo Three. Photos Four and Five would be looking in that direction from where our house presently is. Right now, with the leaves on the trees, it's pretty good, but I think if you look at the plans of what's proposed, it's going to be a two and a half story wall there. I'm a little bit concerned that if something could be done to mitigate it, if that would lessen the visual impact from our side of the fence, you know, I'd rather see that happen. Unfortunately we received notification last Tuesday. We just got down to the Town on Friday on a holiday weekend. So we didn't even get to see the plans until about 6:30 last night. We were able to get the information off the Town website this morning. The website wasn't to par yesterday so we couldn't get the written application. As I said, my feeling is that, yes, I want them as neighbors. I want them to be able to, you know, have a place that they can enjoy, but I'd like to see some type of dialogue or compromise that would lessen the effect on me. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Carr. Anyone else in the audience who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public comment period open. If you could re-join us at the table, please. Are there any comments or questions from Board members at this time? MR. MC CABE-1 guess the obvious thing would be to ask Mr. Stiles, would you be willing to work with your neighbor to put up some? MR. STILES-Certainly we would, certainly we would. Once the fill is put up against the foundation where the garage is, we'll then start putting in trees, probably evergreen type along the property line there because, you know, no offense, but we don't want to look out the windows either, and see, you know. MR. MC CABE-Would that satisfy, could I direct? MR. JACKOSKI-Not really, but you're going to anyway. I think we know what you're getting at and I think it's up to the Board to decide if that satisfies that, but, I mean, it's clear that the neighbors don't want to offend the neighbors. So we've got to find some solution. MR. STILES-We're definitely going to have a buffer of some, you know, evergreen trees, some type. MR. MC CABE-What about the septic? How do we answer that? MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that's a Town matter. That's building permit, Building Codes. We're here just to look at the overall dimensional relief. We're not the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-That's all the questions I had. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else? So at this time I'll poll the Board on this application. Roy, I'll start with you. MR. URRICO-Well, I would like to see it written into the variance contingent upon buffering being put in, specific buffering, not just a couple of trees here and there, but I think I'd like to see something that would pretty much block the view. MR. JACKOSKI-Native evergreens? MR. URRICO-Yes. Otherwise, I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, is this project going to Planning Board review? MRS. MOORE-No, it is not. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just making sure that it's on the record that it's not. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Roy. I think the buffering would be a good idea, and there's no doubt this addition is not going to be, it wasn't like it was going to be in line with the other house and be just as close like the 8.9 and the 10.6 setbacks. At least it's going to be a greater setback. So I'd be in favor of the project, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 would be in favor of the project if there was some condition with the evergreens or some sort of privacy planting that goes in there. In terms of the distance from the side setback, the current stone structure is, what, eight feet or nine feet off it, so you've got at least 20, 21 feet with the new. So make it come up somewhere in that area, and put some trees in there to cover your new structure, I think I'd be for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think the lot doesn't allow for very much. I think he'd need a variance if he wanted to do any addition on the building. So the fact that he's asking for relief, I understand. I also I assume, I assume, Staff, that it's not over 28 feet high, the house. I don't have to worry about 28 feet because it's RR-3? The addition. There's no dimensions on here as to the height of the buildings. MR. JACKOSKI-So you've got the exposed garage and then the addition. MRS. MOORE-It's more than 28 feet. MR. KUHL-Talking about height. MRS. MOORE-1 know, but he's not requesting height relief. MR. KUHL-That's what I mean. It's not on this drawing. I don't know, but you're saying it's not needed because it's within specs? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. KUHL-So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 would be in favor of the project with a condition that some buffering material be installed. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I would also agree that buffering between him and the north property are definitely necessary, but I think we should also put in the condition that it's contingent upon removal of the other out structures, with the exception of the one new lone shed. MR. JACKOSKI-So while all members have suggested buffering, are we suggesting buffering of evergreen planting is the quote unquote length of the house, from the front of the house to the back of the deck? I mean, we're not expecting him to plant the whole entire row. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. GARRAND-There is some trees already there. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's the big old question is how many, how big, how often? When they all die next year, does he get to re-plant them? And all that good stuff that nobody ever maintains. What do we want to require? Does the applicant have any suggestions as to what they'd like to see to begin with? MR. STILES-All I can say is, you know, whatever, you know, hemlock or whatever we can plant there that will give a pretty fairly solid screen there. In fact, I would go further than the end of the house, just to make it a little more, taper it off and make it a little more natural like anything, but I'm not a gardener. My wife's the gardener. MR. JACKOSKI-So would everybody feel comfortable if we required at least 10 minimally high eight feet tall evergreens of some sort? MR. MC CABE-Well, what's the length of the? MR. STILES-Thirty-two feet is the addition. MR. JACKOSKI-They could go forward and backward, roughly 10 plantings, and is six to eight feet tall okay, to start with? Okay. So if someone could make a motion. I'll close the public comment period. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. MRS. MOORE-Before you make your motion, are you saying that it needs to be on the south property line? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, of course. MR. GARRAND-North property line. MR. JACKOSKI-North property line. All along there. MR. STILES-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William J. Stiles. Applicant proposes construction of 896 sq. ft. residential addition with a 280 sq. ft. deck. Relief requested on the front is 41.6 ft.; side setback on the north is 53.8 ft.; side setback on the south is 11.1 ft. on the deck, with a 7.2 ft. addition. Two conditions: 1. Contingent upon removal of other outbuildings on site except for the new shed that is on site. 2. That the applicant will plant evergreen buffering on the north property line, minimum of 10 evergreens, eight feet tall along that north property line. SEAR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 27, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Whether the benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? The applicant is constrained by the lot configuration as well as the position of the septic. 3. Relative to the Code it may be considered substantial. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) 4. Whether this request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood? We cannot foresee any adverse effect on the neighborhood. 5. Is this request for relief self-created? I actually don't believe so. He has got to work with the existing building that he has there. I think as far as moving the septic or reconfiguring this out towards Woodchuck Hill Road; he would probably need relief there if he tried that, so one way or another he is going to need relief for any type of expansion on this property. So I don't believe it is self-created. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2015, William J. Stiles, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: 24 Woodchuck Hill Road. Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2015 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Clarification from six foot to eight foot, or eight foot? MR. JACKOSKI-No, six to eight feet. MRS. MOORE-And then the length of that is from the proposed addition to the proposed deck, which would be the minimum of 42 feet. Correct? Okay. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck to all the neighbors. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL F. & PAMELA M. RILEY AGENT(S) MATT STEVES -VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) MICHAEL F. & PAMELA M. RILEY ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 52 HALL ROAD - SHERWOOD ACRES APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,250 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR AN OVERSIZED GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 2009-503 SFD W/ATTACHED GARAGE: SB 8-2007; BP 96-504 BARN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.11 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-30 SECTION 179-5-020 MICHAEL RILEY, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2015, Michael F. & Pamela M. Riley, Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 "Project Location; 52 Hall Road Sherwood Acres Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,250 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance as follows: Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. Also, relief requested for an oversized garage. Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures specifically a garage. 2nd Garage Oversized Garage Required 1 Allowed 1100 sq. ft. Proposed 2 1250 sq. ft. Relief 1 150 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) 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 available to reduce the size of the garage to a compliant size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial where only one garage is allowed per code and the applicant proposes two. 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental impacts. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage that is 1,250 sq. ft. The code allows for one garage and maximum size not to exceed 1,100 sq. ft. for lots less than five acres. The applicant has include the survey showing the proposed garage location and the photos of the existing site. One photo shows the existing garage and the applicant has indicated it is small garage. Where the other photos indicate the location is behind a small hill area with many trees along the existing driveway." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a fairly straightforward application, but if you wouldn't mind identifying yourself for the record. MR. RILEY-Michael Riley. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I assume you just want us to ask questions, right? Any questions from Board members at this time? I have a couple myself. I'll start. Utilities in the garage? Water, sewer? So there will be no toilets, no sinks? MR. RILEY-No. There will be no upstairs. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there trusses? MR. RILEY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-How tall will the garage be? MR. RILEY-How tall will it be? I thought that was on the information I put in there. MR. KUHL-Are you going to do a regular garage? Are you going to use upstairs or just the first level? MR. RILEY-No, no upstairs. MR. KUHL-So you're going to do trusses upstairs. So they'll probably be just 16 foot. MR. RILEY-Right. The same height as my other garage. It's a normal average garage. MR. KUHL-Yes, 16 foot. Any reason why you didn't stay within the 1100, why the 1250 square feet? MR. RILEY-There is no reason. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. RILEY-When we drew it out, after everything was drawn out by the engineer, then when I brought it to the Town, now you're going for a variance, now you're 100 square feet over, on top of that, which I didn't know that when we were drawing it out. MR. KUHL-What's the front going to look like? Are you going to do two doors? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. RILEY-No, it will be a three car garage. MR. KUHL-Three car garage. Okay. MR. RILEY-What it is, is a 4,000 square foot house with one garage, and between my son's car and my daughter's car, motorcycles. MR. KUHL-Yes, but the more you build, the more they're going to stay. You really don't want to do that. MR. RILEY-Well, that's true. I already own a business. Sometimes people have concerns about businesses run out of a garage. We own Riley's T-Shirts in Lake George, Lake George Village. We have a store. So I don't need any storage to run a business out of. I'm not making a garage to run a business out of or live in. Basically it's more space to put more of my stuff away. The garage you won't be able to see from the road. There's no neighbors that will be able to see it from behind me because it's kind of into a hill. One of my neighbors in the back, Mr. Schadwill, he came down and looked at the property two days ago, and I showed him where it's going to go and his concerns were as long as he didn't see the rooftop, and once he saw that he realized, it's kind of in a cove hidden. So no one from the road will see it. The only person who will ever see it is if you drive up my driveway to my house, and I'm putting it back a little further so we'll keep the grass area. I like the looks of the grass. We're not going to pave to the garage door, and I'll probably do those pavers where the grass comes through it, because I just like looking at the grass and I don't want a garage to take over a lot of the, it's going to go more towards the woods. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public comment period open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I go down that road a lot, and I believe what you're trying to do, it's not going to be seen from the street, but on a personal basis I wouldn't build a garage just for the kids. It's up to you, of course they may never leave the house, but I think it's a good project and I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1, too, would also be in favor of it. Typically you're under the five acre lot size where we would start considering a second garage, but because no one will see this, I don't have a problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'd like to see it scaled back a little bit. I'd be in favor of it if it was a little bit smaller, if it met the criteria there. I think it could be a little bit smaller, but I'm not in favor of the project as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm against the project. I think it's 100% relief for a garage that's oversized. So that's two big variances, and I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 agree that nobody can see it, but the fact that we're approving a second garage is one thing, and then for that second garage to be oversized is, you know, a big deal. Sol guess I would be in favor of the project if the garage could be reduced to the 1100. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-This is very substantial. I would not be in favor of it. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-So you're hearing from the Board that there's concern, and we have to look to you at this point. Because you can obviously tell they're not in favor of it with the size of the garage being over the allowed 1150. MR. GARRAND-1100 according to our notes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I think what the Board might be suggesting is that if it were 1100 or less square feet that there probably would be an approval of its location and the fact that it's a second garage, but as it's presented right now, there would be a denial of the application. MR. RILEY-The question is, so it would be approved if I made it 1100 square feet, then? MR. JACKOSKI-I would be in favor and Mr. Henkel suggested he would be in favor, and so did Mike. MR. RILEY-Yes, that's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-We just have to have the request from you. So you would like to amend your application to remove the square footage relief and only have the requested relief for a second garage on the property? MR. RILEY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The applicant has requested that amendment to his application that is a reduction in relief as advertised. We're allowed to do that. Is it necessary to poll the Board again? MR. URRICO-I'm still against the project. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. MR. KUHL-It's going to be 22 by 50? You've got it at 25 x 50. If you want to do 1100 you could do 22 foot deep by 50 wide, and that would give you 1100 square feet. Is that, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm asking. MR. RILEY-That would probably have to be the way to go because the garage doors are an amount of feet wide and the space between the garage doors. MR. HENKEL-Twenty-two feet, I think you've got to be careful, though. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it's not very deep. MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's not very deep. You better really figure it out. MR. KUHL-My garage is 22. MRS. MOORE-A compliant garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so I think we're emphasizing it's a compliant garage to the square footage requirements of the Town Code. Is that okay, Ron? Okay. I'm going to close the public comment period and, Mike, seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael F. and Pamela M. Riley. Applicant proposes construction of second garage being compliant (1,100 sq. ft.) with Town requirements. Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. SEAR Type 11 - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 27, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the garage is essentially hidden. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) 2. Feasible alternatives are non-existent because the applicant requires additional room for his vehicles. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. We've approved second garages in the past. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant requires additional space for storage of his vehicles. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2015, Michael F. and Pamela M. Riley, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2015 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 want to just clarify that it's for the size of the structure to be compliant, the size of the garage needs to be Code compliant. MR. MC CABE-Yes, did I say 1100 square feet? I meant to say 1100 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's overkill because it's got to be compliant otherwise they'd have to come back to the Board for a variance anyway, but that's okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you very much. MR. RILEY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2015 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT & ELIZABETH HOGAN OWNER(S) ROBERT & ELIZABETH HOGAN ZONING WR LOCATION 105 FITZGERALD ROAD - CHRISTINE MOZAL SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 256 SQ. FT. DECK ATTACHED TO EXISTING GARAGE STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2013-463 DECK W/LAND BASED STAIRCASE; BP 2013-457 256 SQ. FT. DECK; SB 8-2008 MOZAL; BP 2013-226 DOCK; BP 2013-144 RES. ALTERATION W/SEPTIC SYSTEM AND CONVERSION OF GARAGE TO CAMP WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2015 LOT SIZE 2.42 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-27.2 SECTION 179-3-040 ELIZABETH LITTLE HOGAN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2015, Robert & Elizabeth Hogan, Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 "Project Location: 105 Fitzgerald Road - Christine Mozal Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 256 sq. ft. deck attached to existing garage structure. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance as follows: Relief requested from minimum side yard setback requirements in the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts area requirements. Minimum Side yard setback/WR zone Required 20 ft. Proposed 11.78 ft. Relief 8.22 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) 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 main structure is already constructed and the deck addition allowed for additional use of the building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested 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 variance may have minimal physical or environmental impact on the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self -created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests relief for an already constructed deck addition to an existing garage structure. The applicant placed the deck on the east side due to the steep slopes on the site. The plans show the location of the deck and the existing garage structure. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything else you'd like to add for the record, and if you could state your name for the record, please? MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-Elizabeth Little Hogan. I think it's really better if you ask questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. GARRAND-Yes. When was it constructed? MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-Last year, I think. MR. GARRAND-Was a building permit issued for it? MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-We got the building permit, this is our three car garage that we've been slowly converting to a camp, which we did get the CO recently, and at the time we started the deck, I didn't know a building permit was required. We had one to put the septic, it's a three layers, you know there's the water. MR. GARRAND-I'm very familiar with this project. It's grown. MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-The most expensive toilet in Queensbury. MR. GARRAND-It's grown throughout the years, this project. MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Back when it was sold from Christine and it's just been going on and on. MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-Right. So at first we were trying to just put a flagstone deck off the side, but it was so uneven that my husband and the boys put some trusses. I did take pictures of the actual deck today which I should have submitted them earlier if you want to see them. I mean it's not very high off the ground. I guess I didn't realize it was a structure at the time. MR. KUHL-What did you put it in when you put the stairs in? MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-No, it was before the stairs. We scaled a rock wall for a good year. That was a sight. MR. KUHL-It just surprises me how anybody even saw it. You're at the end of the road. MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-Well, I showed it to the building inspector. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. GARRAND-Nobody blew you in? MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-No. I mean, you can't see it. Our neighbors, where their house is, they're 30 feet down, you know, the property line ends. I showed it to them, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions? There is a public comment period scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience, while we have this open public comment period, who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 was looking at the balancing test on this and I was trying to figure out how they could attain this by other feasible means, and I couldn't figure it out. It's a small lot and it requires a variance. Where the building is, there isn't a lot they can do off that building. Even if you look at the septic system on that, when they put that septic system in, I mean, that had to be fun. Whether it'll be produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I can't figure out how it's going to make any undesirable change in the neighborhood. Substantial? No. Adverse physical or environmental effects? No. Self-created? Yes. So they're four out of five. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 have nothing to add to Rick's comments. So I would be in favor of it as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'd be in favor of the project the way it is. I guess you could have put it on the side towards the lake and then you wouldn't have needed a variance, you'd be 20 feet in, but it's there. You did it. The property that backs up to it, they're not going to be bothered because they're garage is looking the other way. Right? So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's only got one small side setback so it doesn't hinder anybody's view. It doesn't pollute the lake. It's a good project. MR. JACKOSKI-I support the project as well. The next time maybe you can seek the counsel of Mr. O'Connor and he might be able to tell you whether it's a structure or not. So I've got to get a motion. So we're going to close the public comment period. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Robert and Elizabeth Hogan. Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 256 sq. ft. deck attached to existing garage structure. Relief requested from minimum side yard setback requirements in the WR zoning district. The requirement is 20 ft. and the proposed is 11.78 feet. Relief requested is 8.22 ft. SEAR Type 11 - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 27, 2015; 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) 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: A minor impact to the neighborhood can be anticipated and whether the benefit that is sought by the applicant could have been achieved by other methods and there might have been feasible alternatives but they made it- added on to the main structure because of this location. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial; the request could be considered moderate, at best. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; very minimal. Although the alleged difficulty is self-created. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2015, Robert and Elizabeth Hogan, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MRS. LITTLE HOGAN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2015 SEQRA TYPE II JONATHAN R. & KAELYN J. BRENNAN OWNER(S) JONATHAN R. & KAELYN J. BRENNAN ZONING MDR LOCATION 21 TWIN MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2014-580 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.9-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040 JONATHAN & KAELYN BRENNAN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2015, Jonathan R. & Kaelyn J. Brennan, Meeting Date: May 27, 2015 "Project Location: 21 Twin Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 576 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance as follows: Relief requested from minimum side yard setback requirements. Section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures a garage and Section 179-3- 040 Establishment of districts area requirements. Minimum Side yard setback/ MDR zone Required 25 feet Proposed/ Existing 11.3 ft. Relief 13.7 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. The aerial imagery indicates a few homes in the area have detached garages. 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 available to locate the garage in a more compliant location although a variance may still be required. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The required setback is 25 ft. and the applicant proposes 11.3 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The variance may have minimal physical or environmental impact on the site. The new garage is located to align with the existing home. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a 24 ft. by 24 ft. garage. The garage does not meet the side line setback where 25 ft. is required and the closest corner is proposed to be 11.3 ft. The applicant has indicated that the current location of the septic does not allow the garage to be located in a more compliant location. The applicant has submitted elevation drawings and a survey showing details of the proposed garage." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. It's a pretty straightforward application. Would you like to add anything to the record, but would you also state your name for the record. MR. BRENNAN-Jonathan Brennan. MRS. BRENNAN-Kaelyn Brennan. MR. JACKOSKI-Questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-You don't have any children, so you don't need a bigger garage. Right? MRS. BRENNAN-We just had one. That's why we need a garage. MR. HENKEL-The shed that you have on the property there, that's not in this, whereabouts is that? How far is that from the property line? MR. BRENNAN-I just had the survey done about eight weeks ago. He did not place corner pins yet. So I don't know exactly how far. MR. HENKEL-That looks pretty close to about where your property line would be. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, and he had, I just spoke to him on the phone. I never met with him in person. I was never there when he was there at the same time. He said the front of the shed is pretty much right down the back of my property line. So, of course I have no problem moving my shed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Again, that's a Town Code compliant matter. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Yes. Your septic tank, wouldn't you prefer to have the garage a little bit closer to the house so you don't have a long walk to actually get into your house? I mean, you could be even more Code compliant by bringing it closer to your house. The septic tank is probably a little bit off of the house. To scale, this drawing that you've provided us tells me that it's, your house is going to be about 24 feet from where your garage is going to be, as far as the provided scale. MR. BRENNAN-I think the garage is 14 feet from the house. MR. GARRAND-Fourteen feet? MR. BRENNAN-Yes, and right now I am about six feet from my septic tank with the garage. MR. GARRAND-So with footings and everything else, you just don't want to get any closer. MR. BRENNAN-Exactly. MR. HENKEL-So the septic system's not in the backyard, it's on the side? MR. BRENNAN-It leaches out into the backyard. The actual septic tank is about halfway down the house. From the front of the house to the septic tank. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. HENKEL-So it's the south of your house there. MR. BRENNAN-Right, and that's where, originally, I had planned on putting it, and I started, I thought the septic tank was towards the back of the house, and I had started hand digging, just because I wanted to be sure, and I found where it was. So I uncovered the entire top of the tank. MR. HENKEL-Well, it's good you know where it is if you need a clean out. So it's a good idea. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, we had it pumped when we had purchased the house, but again, I wasn't there. I just saw the one little hole where he accessed the cover. So I exposed it all. I basically got as close as I felt comfortable to it. I toyed with the idea of coming closer to the road, but the elevation comes up. So aesthetically and functionally it's ideal being parallel with the house. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? There is a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public comment period. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "Today we received notice of the above Town Meeting. We are unable to attend tonight's meeting as my wife and I are out of town for medical reasons. I would like to state that, as a neighbor across the street from Mr. & Mrs. Brennan, we are opposed to their request for a 576 square foot detached garage. Since Mr. & Mrs. Brennan purchased their home, there have been several vehicles parked in their driveway or on their lawn, at any given time; usually four or five of them. Two vehicles do not appear to be used and they are parked near the back of the property. There is also a large boat parked on the front lawn of the house. It does not have a "for sale" sign on it so we assume this is simply where it is stored. Our concern is that this garage, which is nearly the size of the residence, will be used as an auto repair garage bringing traffic and even more vehicles parked on a residential street. Last fall, a large "pit" was excavated in the driveway and remains as such. At various times, an extremely large car-hauler trailer has been parked in the driveway. These multiple vehicles do not present any "curb appeal" at all and is concerning. Thank you for your consideration. Very sincerely, Susan and Ralph Brown, 28 Twin Mountain Drive, Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? CHRISTINE DI BENEDETTO MRS. DI BENEDETTO-I also have a copy of that letter you just read. There's also some pictures here. I don't know who wants them. I have nothing against Jonathan or Kaelyn. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you state your name for the record, please? MRS. DI BENEDETTO-My name is Christine DiBenedetto. I live right next door to them, 29 Twin Mountain Drive. I have no objections to them. They're quiet neighbors, but their property leaves a lot to be desired. There is a big pit on the lawn, and we don't know if he's going to use it as a commercial or private garage. If he's using it as a personal garage, fine. But we don't want a residential garage next to us. He does do work on other cars, and that's all I have to say. MR. JACKOSKI-So you did not want a commercial garage next to you? MRS. DI BENEDETTO-Pardon? MR. JACKOSKI-You had said you didn't want a residential garage, what I think you meant is you don't want a commercial garage. MRS. DI BENEDETTO-We don't want a commercial garage. We'd want a residential. If he's taking all his trucks and everything and putting them in there, fine. We have no object, but if it's going to be a commercial, we don't want it. GASPER DI BENEDETTO MR. DI BENEDETTO-The only objection I have is 576 square foot detached garage, some distance from the house, which is not even 900 square feet, or somewhere thereabouts, is going to look awful odd. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, unfortunately today's garages are typically 24 by 24. MRS. DI BENEDETTO-I know. We happen to have an extra-large garage, too, but it was there when we bought the house, and we only use it for tractors and, you know, yard equipment and stuff like that. MR. DI BENEDETTO-It's in proportion of the house. MRS. DI BENEDETTO-And it's a detached garage. So I am the last one to talk about a big sized garage, but it happened to be there when we bought the house, which is 13 years ago. MR. DI BENEDETTO-You could structure it a little different and we would have no objection to the garage. MRS. DI BENEDETTO-Maybe he can put the entrance to his yard and put it on my side, you know, he's got a stockade fence there. Maybe he could go in through the back that way and put a garage back there, but other than that, that's all we have to say. MR. JACKOSKI-That sounds like you're being very reasonable. Thank you. MRS. DI BENEDETTO-You're welcome. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one else in the audience, if you could join us back at the table, please. If you would be able to address some of the neighbor comments and some of the comments in the letter form, please. MR. BRENNAN-As far as commercial auto body or auto mechanics work, I do none. I work on my own vehicles. Unfortunately I have very back luck with my vehicles and they seem to break about once a month. I don't have a garage at this point so I'm forced to work on it in the driveway. There's been times where it's been jacked up with the tires off it for two to three days while I'm waiting for parts to come. As far as the pit is concerned that's dug, it's my forms for this garage. I spent a lot of money on a survey and I wanted just to have the forms there so he could plot exact points and give exact locations for it, but there's no concrete poured. There's nothing more than two by fours laid around on the ground. I don't work on anybody else's vehicles other than my own. MR. JACKOSKI-Car haulers? MR. BRENNAN-I have an equipment trailer. Yes. I'm in construction. I have a super duty Dooley and an equipment trailer that usually sits empty, but from time to time I rent a tractor and move it or when one of my vehicles breaks down I go and pick it up and bring it home. The trailer's my father-in-law's and he's nice enough to let me borrow it. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have any businesses that are addressed at that location? MR. BRENNAN-I don't conduct any business from that location. As far as my business banking account address, where I get my business mail is at my current address, but I never meet with customers there. I answer phone calls on my cellphone there and I do some paperwork there. MR. JACKOSKI-What kind of business is it? MR. BRENNAN-It's a carpentry. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. BRENNAN-And as far as the aesthetics of the house, no one but us would like more than to live in a beautiful home. We've done a lot to the property since we've had it, and the garage is only going to help the aesthetics of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be opposed to the Board having a condition of not storing any vehicles or any equipment on the front lawn? MR. BRENNAN-I don't store anything in the front lawn now, with the exception of the boat. MRS. BRENNAN-Which is for sale. MR. BRENNAN-Which is for sale. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. HENKEL-Is there any way of making that garage compliant, like bringing it up forward and attaching it to the side of the house on the south side? Couldn't you just bring it up forward so there's no, like a doorway going into the house? Because whereabouts is that tank that you're talking about? Is that towards the back corner? MR. BRENNAN-I thought it was right on the survey. MR. HENKEL-No, there's no septic tank. MRS. BRENNAN-It's on the drawing. MR. HENKEL-Where is that? This drawing, and the tank is literally off the front corner. MR. JACKOSKI-It's at the front corner. MRS. BRENNAN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Isn't there a way they could simply, because of the way the leach, I don't know how far away your leach fields are. They couldn't just move the tank? You're already excavating for your footings and everything. How hard would it be, and that tank is only, you know, dropped in with a crane. How hard would it be to just, or a bucket, actually. How hard would it be to just move it? MR. BRENNAN-That's a good question. I'm not sure. I know it's not very deep and my backyard runs uphill. So maybe if we move it back we might not have pitch on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, and you can't be too close to your leach fields where they start, either. MR. BRENNAN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-How old a house is it? MR. BRENNAN-1986. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So it's fairly new. So it's got to have the right septic tank, then. It's not one of these ones they piece together, like the old days. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the public comment period is still open. Are there any other questions from Board members before I poll the Board? I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-1 have no questions. I'll be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think a garage to keep vehicles in enhances the looks of the property. So therefore I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I guess there's no other alternative. I'd be in favor of the project, too. Like Mike says, it's going to enhance the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'd be in favor with a condition, as you stated, no commercial activity on the premises. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. If it's still for personal use, I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 have no problem with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public comment period. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. MR. URRICO-I'm sorry, what was the condition that Rick said? MR. JACKOSKI-No commercial activity. MR. URRICO-But he conducts carpentry business out of there. Wouldn't that include that? He can't conduct business from his home? MR. JACKOSKI-You shouldn't be able to, if you're conducting business. It's not a commercial district. MRS. MOORE-The garage is not commercial. MR. JACKOSKI-Activity. We don't expect him to be building things. MRS. MOORE-There's two, I believe there are two things. He can still conduct his business, yes, but his garage that he's proposing, there's no commercial operation on it. MR. JACKOSKI-So in other words we're not expecting him to, I don't know what you do as carpentry is a wide scope, but we're not expecting him to get lumber deliveries and pre-cut all his lumber in his garage and then take it to the job. MR. URRICO-He can take phone calls and do what he's doing. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. Phone calls, you know, quick books accounting, that kind of thing, but, you know, not meeting customers there. That would be conducting business on site. Is that fair? MR. BRENNAN-Yes, absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-And thoughts on whether we have vehicles stored out in front of the building or not? They may not need it. Are all the vehicles that are on the property right now registered? MR. BRENNAN-There's two that are parked behind where the garage would be, and they're, it's a hobby of mine to restore things and lift trucks up. MR. HENKEL-Isn't there a Town Ordinance as to how many vehicles you can have unregistered on a piece of property? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a compliance issue, again. I just, you know, your neighbors are suggesting that that might not be a great thing for the neighborhood. MR. BRENNAN-I want nothing but to appease everyone in my neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members before we get a motion? The public hearing is closed. Can I have a motion? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jonathan R. and Kaelyn J. Brennan. Applicant proposes construction of 576 sq. ft. detached garage. This approval is contingent upon the applicant not using this garage for commercial purposes. Required setback is 25 ft.; proposed is 11.3 ft. which is a relief of 13.7 ft. SEAR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 27, 2015; 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: 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/27/2015) Whether the benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? If we asked the applicant to move this garage to the other side of the house and tear up the driveway - relocating the driveway; this financially, probably, is not feasible for the applicant. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? This Board finds that it will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? I would say this is a moderate request; I agree with staff on that. Adverse, physical, or environmental effects on the neighborhood; none-what-so-ever that we can find. Is this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed as self-created because it is the applicant who does, need, want a new garage. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2015, Jonathan R. and Kaelyn J. Brennan, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further Board activity? MRS. MOORE-I have two survey waiver requests. I don't know if you want me to talk to Steve after the meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'll talk to you right now. All right, could I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 27, 2015, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 27th day of May, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 29