Loading...
08-26-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 45-2015 Mark D. Collyer 1. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-1 Area Variance No. 31-2015 Wassey Family, Inc. 8. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-14 Area Variance No. 41-2015 David Miner 14. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-1.21 Area Variance No. 43-2015 Michele Niedermeyer 19. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-17 Area Variance No. 44-2015 Michael J. O'Connor 21. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-15 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) AUGUST 26, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN JOHN HENKEL RICHARD GARRAND LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals here in the Queensbury Center. For those of you who haven't been here before, it is actually a very easy process. We'll call each application to the small table. The applicant's going to join us here at the table. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll allow the applicants to speak to us and address anything further. We may ask questions. We'll open the public comment period when there is a public comment period advertised. We may poll the Board to decide where we're going to go, and take action accordingly. So it's a fairly speedy process, if all goes well, and fortunately for all of you in the audience we don't have any Old Business to deal with or any housekeeping. So we're going to start right away with New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MARK D. COLLYER OWNER(S) MARK D. COLLYER ZONING MDR R-3 (1967-FRANKLYN MANOR) LOCATION 32 BONNER DRIVE FRANKLYN MANOR SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 288 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF BP 2015-255 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GARAGE) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-1 SECTION 179-5-020 MARK COLLYER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2015, Mark D. Collyer, Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 "Project Location: 32 Bonner Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 288 sq. ft. second garage. Relief required Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts— (Subdivision Franklyn Manor...1967), 179-5-020 Accessory structures—Garages. Parcel will require an area variance as follows: 2 nd Garage Side setback Required 1 5 ft. Proposed 2 2 ft. Relief 1 3 ft. CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE PURSUANT 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 maybe 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 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) may be possible to locate to a more compliant location —the project would still be proposed as a second garage due to the door width. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code for setbacks. The request for a second garage may be considered substantial. The applicant has indicated that it will be used for storage as there is no basement. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. There are existing storage buildings on adjacent properties that are visible on aerial photo. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes to install a 288 sq. ft. garage on the rear portion of the property. The building is considered a garage as the doors are to be greater than 6 ft. The building will be 2 ft. from the property line where a 5 ft. setback is required. The applicant has indicated the neighbor is in agreement with the location of the shed. The applicant does not propose any tree removal or new impermeable surface. The applicant has indicated there is no basement for the existing home. The applicants request for a second garage is for storage and with the larger doors allows for easier access. The information submitted shows the location of the new building, photos of the lot, and the cut sheet of the building to be purchased." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, and if you'd like to add anything to the record, please feel free. MR. COLLYER-My name is Mark Collyer, 32 Bonner Drive, and as already discussed, I'm just looking for a second variance because I need the storage. I have no basement in my home. Therefore I have no place to store all of my toys. I have kayaks. I have ladders, I have all kinds of things. Half of my garage, which is actually very similar to a raised ranch, is actually part of my house. It's not really a separate garage, but half of it is unusable due to the things that I have in there right now. I can only fit one car in. So the second garage is basically for storage. As far as the setback requirements, I spent a lot of time figuring out where I would like to put the garage, and where I'm putting it, where I'd like to put it, makes the most sense to me. It's out of the way. It's near other storage units, shed's right in that corner of my property. It doesn't seem to impact anyone really. I've talked to both of my neighbors on both sides. The neighbor to my right, Keith Crist, has no objection at all because his shed is a few feet from the property line right in front of where mine was going to be, and the neighbor on the other side actually is letting me use his side yard to get the shed onto my property because there is no easy way to get to my backyard with the trees. So in looking at it, I have it exactly where I would like it. The eight foot door does make it easier to get things in and out of. It's actually a shed with eight foot doors on it, but according to Code it's considered a garage because it's larger than six feet, and I have just a lot of things to store and I just need the storage space. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any questions at this time from Board members? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. You said that the other sheds are close to the property lines, too. The next door neighbor, Crist, there, how far is that shed? It looks like according to our map here it might be at least in compliance with the Code. MR. COLLYER-Well, it's probably around eight feet I'm guessing from the corner, his corner to the property line. MR. HENKEL-And your neighbor also is at 7.2. So they're both in compliance with the Code. MR. COLLYER-Right. Well, the reason I'm asking it closer is because if you move it out, it kind of sticks into my backyard. If you look at my property from the road or from the side yard and you look back to the corner, it'll look like it's sticking right into the yard, which is another reason why I wanted to put it off to the side as much as possible, but not on the line, obviously, but enough so that I could get around and maintain it if I have to. MR. HENKEL-You're only talking three feet, though, to comply. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. COLLYER-Right, that's from the side. I'm also asking for a little bit from the rear. I believe I'm only 27 feet from the rear. So I think I need three feet there also. It's seven feet. MR. HENKEL-You only need five feet from the side. Move it three feet, and then you're compliant, and then you're really only looking for one variance here, right? MR. COLLYER-Right, but if you look at the property, I don't know if you've been out there to look at it, yet. If you move that out you'll see that it looks like it's going to stick out more than it really should, which is the reason why I just want to get a little bit closer to the line. MR. HENKEL-Three feet. That canopy's not yours, right, that canopy that's on the other property? MR. COLLYER-The canopy? It is my canopy, which is another reason why I need the garage. I have my fishing boat in there. I'm going to move that into this new garage that we're calling it, which is why I needed the doors to be eight feet instead of six feet to make it easier to get it in. MR. HENKEL-The same, your lean-to for your wood is over on someone else's property, too, right? MR. COLLYER-That's a little bit impinging on the woods that are out back. That's correct, but that was only a temporary lean-to because I got wood one year and I got a wood stove. So I was in a hurry when I erected that. So I really didn't know where anything was, but that is going to be re-built and moved so that it is on my property. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you're going to have basically three out buildings. MR. COLLYER-Yes, I'm trying to make this compliant. MR. NOONAN-Are you going to get rid of the tarp? MR. COLLYER-That's my plan, yes, because once I get this new garage in, that tarp's going to be gone, because it's not on my property, obviously. MR. KUHL-Is there going to be water and electric in the new structure? MR. COLLYER-There may be electric in the proposed new structure so I can see, but no water, unless the wife moves me out there and then. MR. KUHL-Well, then you'll have to come for another variance. Is the shed going to stay? MR. COLLYER-The shed's going to stay, yes. MR. KUHL-If three feet were the only way, or five feet off the property line, that you could get this approved, would you move it those three feet? MR. COLLYER-1 don't really, if you looked at the property. MR. KUHL-I'm just looking for a yes or no. I'm just looking for yes or no. MR. COLLYER-1 don't know. I can't give you an answer. I'd have to think about it. MR. URRICO-While you're thinking about that, would you consider a smaller door so it wouldn't be considered a second garage? MR. COLLYER-You mean like, oh, like go to a six foot door? Well, my boat is four feet six. Have you ever tried backing a boat in anywhere? That only leaves me a foot and a half. MR. URRICO-It's still a second garage. MR. COLLYER-What was your question? MR. URRICO-Would you consider smaller doors, so it wouldn't be considered a second garage? MR. COLLYER-No, you mean a shed, is that what you mean? Would I consider smaller doors? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. URRICO-Well, it's the doors that are making it into a second garage. MR. HENKEL-If it was a shed, you wouldn't need a variance. MR. COLLYER-Right. It is a second shed, though, and I don't know how many square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the size of the door that determines that it becomes a garage? MRS. MOORE-Greater than six feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So six feet or less is no longer a garage. So is the Board suggesting that he get a six foot door and this became a shed and we eliminated the second garage variance that they would be willing to grant the setback variance? Is that what I'm hearing from people? MR. KUHL-Not me. MR. COLLYER-Okay. Well, that was my reason for the eight foot door, to be able to get the boat out of the shed easier. Because it actually really is a shed. MR. JACKOSKI-If you put a boat in it, what other room do you have for all your other stuff that you have? MR. COLLYER-Well, it's 24 feet long. MR. JACKOSKI-How long is the boat and trailer? MR. COLLYER-The boat and trailer is 14 feet plus a foot, so it's 15 feet with the trailer. It doesn't stick out the back at all. It sticks out a foot in the front. Plus I need room to actually get in and out. Like if I do that and park my lawnmower, my riding lawnmower in front of it, I can just drive in through that door and park it right there. If you make the door smaller on me, I may not be able to get around it or get it in. MR. HENKEL-So you're going to eliminate your garden, then, right? MR. COLLYER-Yes. It's just a small temporary garden. That's gone at the end of the season anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing and we hear from the public? There is a public comment period scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-I do not see any. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public comment period. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? If you could state your name for the record, please, and your address. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEITH CRIST MR. CRIST-Keith Crist from 34 Bonner Drive. I'm on the other, east side of the property, and the property needs some relief. I don't have any problem if he needs three feet of relief. Whatever, the Collyers are great neighbors. You're lucky to have good neighbors today. It's a great neighborhood. Mark's not trying to do anything to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. The way the alignment the way he wants to do it would actually make it line up so it would hide the other shed in the back from the road probably better. So I can see where his idea of actually moving it more to the right, over towards my side, would make more sense, and whether it's an eight foot door or a six foot door, I have a self-storage facility. My doors are eight feet eight inches, and they are a pain in the neck to back any kind of camper, trailer, you know, six foot would make it tough. I know from experience. MR. JACKOSKI-And we appreciate that, unfortunately we're tasked with granting the least amount of relief required for the request. So it's a difficulty balancing act for the Board, and we understand you're trying to be a good neighbor. Thank you. MR. CRIST-All right. Thank you. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else in the audience who'd like to address the Board? Hello, welcome. SANDY SHERMAN MS. SHERMAN-Hi. I'm Sandy Sherman, 38 Glen Lake Road. I have absolutely nothing, it doesn't bother me, obviously, one way or the other, but I am trying to understand one thing from the Board, and it may be that I just didn't hear the whole explanation. It seems to me that this gentleman is trying to do something that would help the appearance of his property, as opposed to hinder it, and both neighbors are in agreement with what he wants to do. I'm trying to understand, again, I've only been in my Glen Lake Road house for two years. I'm trying to understand the Board's concern about this three feet or four feet that he's discussing. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be ignorant about it, but I do want to understand. MR. JACKOSKI-And as we continue to deliberate hopefully that'll all come to fruition when we start talking about it as a Board, and you can probably better understand what our concerns are. MS. SHERMAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Is there anyone else? I'm going to leave the public comment period open. Mark, if you could come back to the table. So I'm going to poll the Board, Mark, unless there's anything you want to add. Nothing controversial came up in the public comment period. MR. KUHL-Could I ask him one other question? Mark, when you restructure your wood lean-to, are you going to then take that wood and put it alongside the new garage? MR. COLLYER-No, it'll probably come straight out into my yard. MR. KUHL-It's going to be a standalone? MR. COLLYER-Yes. MR. NOONAN-My question is very similar to Mr. Kuhl's about the lean-to. Would you ever consider building something like off the back side of the existing shed that's there or the new proposed garage, to stick your wood in there? MR. COLLYER-You really can't. The reason the distance is there between the two is for snowfall off that shed that's in the back. So I really don't want to stack wood there. It would be wet all the time, and then never get any sunshine, and the other end of the garage is where the door is going to be, of the new garage. I can't put the wood there, and I'd rather have it next to the woods rather than between properties as another obstruction between properties. Because the back of my yard is all woods. MR. NOONAN-1 was just looking at it from the perspective of there's a lot going on on this small piece of property, and if there was a way to clear up some of the structures. I know you're going to move one car canopy. If there was a way to clean up the other structures, out of sight, you know, that might look like a lot less on the property. MR. COLLYER-It gets the most sun right there, too, which is what I need to dry the wood out before I burn it. MR. NOONAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. COLLYER-You're welcome. MR. JACKOSKI-Mark, I have a question. If you went to a 15 by 24 foot building, and you placed it, basically moved it back to be where the back of the current shed is, and you got rid of your wood lean-to apparatus and you got rid of the shed and you had a much larger, one single building in the back corner of that property, would that be appealing to you at all? MR. COLLYER-No, it would be a problem because I don't have the space. It doesn't show the pine trees that are there. There's a pine tree on either side of that lean-to, and I thought about putting the shed in the back, where the lean-to is, but there's two pine trees right there. So now I'd have to take down a couple more trees to get it to fit there, plus I would still need a setback of, what is it, 30 feet to the rear for Franklyn Manor? I mean, that's one thing I definitely don't want to do because it would be in the middle of my backyard. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-So I see the shed. I don't see where there are pine trees. I don't see where the pine trees are on either side of the shed. Can you point them out? MR. COLLYER-Are you talking about the shed in the corner or are you talking about the lean- to? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm saying remove the lean-to, remove the shed, and replace it with one building in the corner that the shed is currently. It solves the Board's problem, having multiple buildings on a very small parcel, which we have consistently tried to avoid setting a precedent on. MR. COLLYER-Right. Obviously it would be a greater expense to me to do that. Because then I would have to get a bigger building because what's in that shed in the corner now has stuff in it. It has a lot of my lawn stuff in there, and things that I normally would keep in the basement, which I don't have. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I poll the Board? Okay. I've randomly selected. We'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, this is the second week in a row that we've had requests for a second garage on less than an acre, and I have a hard time approving that kind of a variance. I think when you look at the balancing test there are five criteria. It says minor impacts to the neighborhood. I agree with that, but there are feasible alternatives, to not only locating the garage, but regarding the doorway so that we don't need to grant the variance. The relief may be considered minimal in terms of the setbacks, but a second garage is not minimal. It changes, in essence it changes the code for that community, and when we talk about community, we talk about the entire Queensbury community. It's not just the neighborhood. Your neighbors may agree with it, but the variance stays with your property forever after this, and the difficulty is sort of self-created. It is self-created. So I would be on the negative on this. We're charged with providing the minimum relief, and this doesn't seem minimum to me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't think 280 sq. ft. necessarily constitutes a garage, but the size of the doors does. I'd be in favor of it if he reduced the size of the doors, thereby making this a shed. I support his effort to clean up his property a little bit and keep stuff off his neighbor's property. I can also understand that without a basement it's very difficult to store all the stuff you have to store. Basement space is definitely valuable to have, and if you don't have it, you've got to do something with all your gear, but I would be in favor of it if he did reduce the size of the doors. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Well, I kind of agree with everybody what they've said so far. It's tough. I guess, like Rick says, it really doesn't constitute a second garage just because of the doors, but in the Code it does. I'd like to see it comply, as far as the setback, with the five feet and I would probably go along with the project, if that was the case. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think your discussion about basement, you're not going to put your boat in the basement. I understand we have a lot of stuff, but I think in granting minimal relief, I don't think that three feet would make a big difference. If you're suggesting that it stay right where it is, then I'm against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-When I took a look at this, the first thing that struck me was that a new structure would certainly allow the applicant to consolidate some of his material, and I was hoping that both the shed and the temporary structure would disappear, but the shed is going to stay. I suppose we could put a condition that the temporary structure disappear, but again, a second garage on a half-acre property is very dangerous for us to go along with. So I would say if you reduce the door size, I would go along with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 obviously posed some questions which mirrored my concerns with too many structures on that small piece of property. Thinking about it, listening to the deliberations, hearing what you had to share with us, the location of it, essentially the idea would be to hide 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) the other shed. I hear that's a good idea. My question regarding the lean-to earlier, either removal of that, because there's not just wood in that right now. There's other things in it. MR. COLLYER-That would end up in the new shed. MR. NOONAN-Right. Fair enough. I had similar thoughts as Mr. McCabe, that maybe if this was an approved a second garage, maybe not as a garage, but as a large shed, that the other structure would be also removed. When I looked around the rest of the properties on Bonner Drive, nobody had this many extra structures in their backyard. To try and keep it in keeping with the neighborhood, I wanted to hear that the others were going to be consolidated or removed. I know the tarp is going away. I'm not overly concerned, necessarily, with the distance off the line, as your neighbors are not concerned about that. I guess I'm concerned with the additional structures, as proposed. I guess right now if you're not willing to amend the plans, I guess a pre-built structure, I would not be in favor either, but there's wiggle room, I think. As proposed right now I'm against it. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So, Mark, a smattering of different opinions, but there is no support for the project as currently presented to the Board. You, certainly, as the applicant, can modify your request for less relief. You can ask for a tabling. You can withdraw your application. You have some choices. We can't necessarily direct you what to do. That's not our responsibility. So we kind of have to look back to you as to how you would request to proceed, now that you've had a chance to hear from the Board members. MR. COLLYER-1 don't know at this point. I just don't know. I just, one thing I don't agree with is the fact that you're calling it a garage. Because it's a shed. You can't park a vehicle in it. It's a shed. Just because of the door size. That's the one big issue I have. MR. JACKOSKI-But you're parking a boat and the trailer is going in there. That's the issue. So you can table it. MR. COLLYER-Why don't we just table it for now, because I've got to think about this, and then I don't know if I can afford to build a whole brand new structure. So why don't we table it for now and then I'll try to figure out what I want to do. MR. JACKOSKI-So the applicant has requested that we have a tabling of this particular application to the next available agenda. That's November? MRS. MOORE-That would be October. MR. JACKOSKI-But we have a submission deadline. MRS. MOORE-Of September 15th for October's agenda. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Does that work for you? MR. COLLYER-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark D. Collyer. Applicant proposes a 288 sq. ft. second garage. Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 and left OPEN; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2015 MARK D. COLLYER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Tabled to the October meeting with data to be submitted by the deadline date in September. For the applicant re-think his application and possibly provide additional alternatives. Duly adopted 26th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 would suggest your tabling to include why you're tabling the application. You're tabling it possibly for the applicant to provide alternatives to the proposed plan that you have in front of you. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. MC CABE-Tabled for the applicant to re-think his application and possibly provide additional alternatives. The resolution will be to table until October with data to be submitted by the September deadline date. MRS. MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mark. MR. COLLYER-You're welcome. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2015 SEQRA TYPE II WASSEY FAMILY, INC. AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 62 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 460 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO INCLUDE A SECOND FLOOR AND LOFT AREA FOR STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS, MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, PERMEABILITY, AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF BP 09-54, BP 90-802, BP 90-255, BP 89-283, BP 474 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA LOT SIZE 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-14 SECTION 179-5-029 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2015, Wassey Family, Inc., Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 "Project Location: 62 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 460 sq. ft. garage addition to include a 2nd floor and loft area story for storage. Relief required Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —Waterfront Residential Zone and 179-13-010 Expansion of a non-conforming structure. Parcel will require area variances as follows: Minimum Property line setbacks Maximum Height Permeability Required 12 ft. 16 ft. 75 % Proposed 51" Southside 28 ft. 64.4% Relief 6' 11" Southside 12 ft. in excess 10.6% CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE PURSUANT 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 maybe 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 possible to reduce the height of the building. The lot size and configuration may require variances for new development on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to 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 as proposed may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. The new structure is taller than the existing home. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff Comments The applicant proposes to construct a new 460 sq. ft. garage with a game and storage area on two additional floors. The garage footprint will be the same where the upper floors will cantilever over the garage area. The applicant has indicated there will be no plumbing in the proposed building." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Herbert Wassey, the building owner. It is an existing one car garage. It is cut back into the existing slope, coming down from Reardon Road. Over time the soil has washed kind of around the building and the way the roof rips off there's not a lot of overhang on the roof. It's starting to rot away the siding and some of the silt plates inside the building. The idea here is that we take down the existing structure to its foundation, build masonry up higher to keep it protected from the elements coming off the roof, coming around the building, and then build a second floor on top of the existing structure. The footprint of the building actually doesn't change, except for the cantilever that would be over the front to protect the front doors. The upstairs is just a wide open space. It does have some lofted storage space towards the back, which is over the office area that we have in the back, which kind of a quiet area for guests. The reason for doing this is that there's not a lot of family room space in the existing one story camp, and rather than add to the camp down on the waterfront, they felt this was a better alternative to add away from it and have guests that would be utilizing that space if somebody was trying to sleep in the camp or something along that line. MR. JACKOSKI-Straightforward application. MR. HALL-That's where we are. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions at this time? MR. GARRAND-Yes. Staff Notes say there'll be no plumbing in this building. MR. HALL-That's correct. MR. GARRAND-If people are staying there overnight, what are they going to use? MR. HALL-They don't stay in this building overnight. The camp itself is where the bedrooms are, and this is just for, like game room space for a pool table, ping pong table, something like that. MR. GARRAND-At 28 feet it's going to be a little obtrusive on that. MR. HALL-I thought so as well, but because it's cut back into the bank, the obtrusive part would be on the lakeside. It's only looking at it from their property, from Reardon Road, it actually sits, and this drops fairly steep going down in there. So, I mean, we felt it would be better because it's cut back into it to add to that, rather than trying to do anything down by the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you explain on the application on Page Six it says applicant proposes 460 sq. ft. upgrading of previous garage area with a second story storage area with bathroom. MR. HALL-We took that out. That was the original, that was part of the original application and we took that out. It was easier to take it out than to modify the septic system. The existing septic system, we started, we dug some hand holes to try and figure out exactly what was there. That was a requirement of Staff, and in order to get in there and actually figure out, we have to get in there with a piece of equipment and dig it up, and if we do that we destroy it. So it's easier to leave it as it is, take the plumbing out of the building all together. It is a pump up system and the system is right behind the garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public comment period? MR. URRICO-So if in the future plumbing is brought into the structure, it could be used as a second unit. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. HALL-It's not the intent to bring any plumbing into it. In order to do that, the septic system itself would have to be upgraded. That would have to go through the whole Staff process. MR. URRICO-It still could be done. MR. HALL-We'd have to come back here. MR. URRICO-Is there any way to bring the roof down, because I think the height's way too high. MR. HALL-We looked at dropping it down. What it does is it takes away from the lofted storage space below, or above the back part of the area, and that is kind of the crux of this whole thing. It's not accessed from inside the garage. It's accessed from outside. MR. URRICO-But it's not just a foot too high. It's 12 feet too high. HERB WASSEY MR. WASSEY-I think that was the last one, but it actually won't be that high. It's actually only going to be eight feet high. MR. URRICO-It's still eight feet. So it's eight feet and not twelve feet? MR. WASSEY-It would only be eight feet. From the street side you actually will not see that because the walk out, the garage will retain, the retaining wall, that hillside will be filled in. So from the street side that wall will be less than 16 feet. MR. HENKEL-But it's going to be 28 feet on that? MR. HALL-No, on the front. MR. HENKEL-On the lakeside. MR. HALL-On the lakeside. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, I always consider the lakeside the front of the house. MR. HALL-As you can see from the pictures that Laura's got up now, this slopes down fairly steeply, and it's flat, a little bit flat behind it, and then where those trees are, that's where the grade gets brought up. You can see that the bottom part of the boards are all rotted out along the side of the building, and the roof is in bad shape as well. That was the idea was to bring the foundation wall up higher to allow that to be backfilled against it so it wouldn't rot that area out and then it would just be wood from there up. MR. KUHL-So your intentions are to completely demolish the existing building? MR. HALL-Down to the existing block. You can see just below the edge, there's two courses of block at the front, and then as you come back it steps up to three and then four, as it wraps up and around the back of the existing garage. So we're going to be building up off of that existing block. MR. JACKOSKI-To me this application is five feet six inches over the requirement at the roadside and it's twelve feet over the requirement at the house side. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Where the structure has the platform to enter the second floor, there's a post holding up the platform more or less. So it's kind of in the middle of the building, so to speak, between the front and the back. How tall is the building at that, off of the current grade? MR. HALL-Off of the current grade? MR. WASS EY-Actual ly, with the way it would be built, because it would be a slight retaining wall that would be there, there would actually be no platform. So at that doorway, would probably be only a foot and a half from grade. MR. JACKOSKI-So we don't have the final plans showing the retaining walls and whether or not there are? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. HALL-Exactly how that retaining structure works coming around there, we have to figure that going out because the driveway pitches away. You want to come kind of straight in and out at it. So that there's only a couple of steps. MR. HENKEL-Is this considered a garage? MR. HALL-The downstairs portion of it. MR. HENKEL-Because you've got, it looks like you've got a stairway coming down inside the garage. MR. HALL-No, it's outside, and then there's a ship's ladder that goes up to the storage room above. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public comment period? There's a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public comment period. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. Somebody is here to read the written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We'll hold that off. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board? If you could, please, come to the table. Welcome. PATRICIA PIETROPAOLO MS. PIETROPAOLO-Thank you. Chairman Jackoski and Board members. I have a prepared statement and your secretary has copies of it for you. My name is Patricia Pietropaolo. I live at 60 Reardon Road. In 2004 we bought our home on Glen Lake. At about the same time the Wassey Family bought a 2-family bedroom 1-bath home with a detached 3-bay garage on the north side of our property. That's at 58 Reardon Road. They required a variance to build an additional bedroom and bath to that house. We supported their request at that time even though the building would be closer to us than the required setback. The property at 62 Reardon Road which they also own is a rental and abuts our south side of our property. They are requesting that you approve numerous variances to create another living space on the same 1/3 acre of land as the existing rental. This is not in keeping with the concept of protecting Glen Lake and limiting density. The original application, as you were discussing earlier, submitted by the Wassey family spells out the intent of the applicant to renovate an existing garage into living space. The revised application contains all the original living space and has removed only the plumbing connection. The revision was submitted after the Queensbury Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown in a May 28, 2015 memo requested certification from an engineer regarding the compliance of the septic system on the parcel in order for the plumbing variance to be considered. Mr. Brown also requested in a May 12, 2015 memo to the Wassey family that they "....confirm that the proposed building modifications/addition will not result in the creation of a separate living unit on the property where only one such structure is allowed." Our concern is that the water supply will be connected sometime in the future creating 2-dwellings on the 1/3 acre property. The correspondence from Queensbury indicates the Town's Zoning Law permits one living unit on the property. This limitation was applied to another resident prior to building a new dwelling on 40 Reardon a few years ago and should be applied here. Approval of the current application to convert a garage into living and storage space there's no garage included in that, in the diagrams. What that does, it sets the stage for a future request for plumbing to convert the building into a dwelling. The modified application removes some of the need for variances but does not change the original intent. History shows that when individuals are granted a portion of their original requests, they return later asking for another variance so they can complete their original plan. The plan you are asked to approve creates living space on two levels. It kind of goes back to their original intent. Thank you for considering my concerns and your time. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board? Yes, sir, and being that you're the second commenter and I really haven't mentioned this, that if you can keep your comments to new information that hasn't already been addressed, that would be greatly appreciated. JOHN BUCHANAN 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. BUCHANAN-My name is John Buchanan. I represent my parents, Jacklyn and John Buchanan who live at 66 Reardon Road, right on the other side. I'm not as prepared as the previous person, and with your caveat, I guess I would simply say that a structure of this sort would change the character of the neighborhood. No objection at all to rebuilding a very similar building in the same footprint for a garage. I spent 20 minutes going through the paperwork and trying to study it. It does seem like it's a step to a building space. I apologize for repeating that. I wonder if the interior is finished, insulated, if it's going to be heated. The gentleman with Mr. Wassey said something to the effect of, and I'm paraphrasing, an office area in the back where Mr. Wassey could put his desk. It does appear that this property is rental property, or at least there's a pretty good turnover. Great folks, you know, no objection on that, and needing extra storage space for a three bedroom apparently rental property when there's an existing garage and then three more garages kind of right across the adjacent driveway, it just makes me scratch my head a little bit. I think that's it. So again, just to clarify, no objection at all to rebuilding the dilapidated structure. The height and the purpose behind it I'm not so sure that it's storage space. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Buchanan. MR. BUCHANAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, I'd leave the public comment period open. Ethan, if you could re- join us at the table. MR. WASSEY-It's basically designed as a man cave. I have two teenage sons. The current situation is that it is a rental, but my wife and I are retiring and we're going to move here full time. So I have teenage boys. One's in college, the other one is going to go to college. When he goes into college we will be retiring there full time, my wife and myself. We're looking for a man cave, basically. Originally the plan was that we would have some exercise equipment and we would be able to take a shower there, and maybe a wet bar, a pool table, just an entertainment area for my sons and myself and my wife. However, with the variance, we took out the notion of putting any type of plumbing in there. It's basically storage. Again, it's renovation of an existing garage with additional one feet, additional eight feet for an additional floor. It's for storage and entertainment. Pool table. MR. JACKOSKI-There was mention of a desk and an office space. Is this going to be used for commercial purposes? MR. WASSEY-No. No, I'm a dentist. No commercial. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I poll the Board? Okay. I'm going to start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a chance to visit the property and having had one neighbor come by, one immediate neighbor and talk about her concerns, I thought, you know, I looked around and I said is there going to be a change in the character of the neighborhood, and it looks like there are large garages all the way around, but maybe one of them already does belong to the applicant anyway, but I didn't think it would be out of character with the neighborhood. I take the applicant at his word that there will be no plumbing in here, in the proposed building, and I would go on record to say that, if they were to come back for plumbing I would say, no, no, no The height, again, being concerned with the view, but behind Reardon Road that's all woods there. There wouldn't be much of a blocked view as a result of the structure. So given the plans and the discussion that we've had, I would be in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I took a look at it and I agree that there's quite a grade there, but I still, we've been pretty stringent about granting height relief, and this is just a little bit too much for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I applaud you for re-building a structure that's old. In terms of a man cave I think that could be accomplished by utilizing the space you have once you re-build it. Twenty-eight feet on that size lot is asking too much. So I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. HENKEL-I agree the project needs to be re-built. It's pretty off shape there around the edge there with the floor, but I would not be in favor of the height and a second story living area kind of or storage whatever you want to call it. I can see you put some added trusses in there and not making it, you could drop the height that way. So I would not be in favor of the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think this would be a beautiful house, but the problem here is it's not a house it's a garage. The relief requested, as per Staff Notes, I agree, it's substantial. Any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? I don't think so. Is it out of character? I do believe so. I believe it gives the appearance of a second living quarters on the property. Can benefits be achieved by other means feasible? Yes, height could be reduced. As far as the permeability goes, we can't really do anything about that. It's a small lot. The only way to really increase that is to get rid of the garage all together, and I wouldn't suggest that at this point. So I wouldn't be in favor of the height variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in agreement with exactly what Rick said. I agree that the height is way too much. The relief would be excessive. So I would not be in favor of granting the relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Ethan. So you've heard the majority of the Board is there's no one in favor of the application as presented. There's similar opportunities for you in your corner. MR. HALL-We've discussed the opportunity to perhaps drop the roof. As far as the room over attic truss, it is only one car wide garage So the room over attic truss would only be about a six or an eight foot wide room, making a room over attic truss space. We might, we could get rid of the loft space, get rid of that storage area and bring it down. It's going to drop it about four and a half feet. So that's going to put the ridge down at 24 on the front and about four and a half higher than what it is on the back right now. MR. JACKOSKI-But you could utilize, you know, six foot knee walls on the outside. MR. HALL-We can't get in. The door is on that side. We could do that, build an over frame dormer, and stick frame in that, and we could get an additional two feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately we don't have all that data in front of us. MR. HALL-Exactly. Exactly. I don't know how you feel about tabling and re-designing that new system. MR. JACKOSKI-We've heard a lot of the discussion before. MR. HALL-I think we can get ourselves down so that we're down maybe asking for four or five feet higher than what the existing ridge is now. It's going to put it about 22 feet, I believe, on the very front portion. From the back it would be less than 16 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think what you heard from some Board members is they were glad you were re-building the structure. They didn't seem to have concerns with permeability. MR. HALL-The downstairs, I just want to stress the downstairs portion of it is staying as garage. I mean, that is the whole point of this is to keep, it maintains the overhead doors. It does make, there is no access from that portion to the upstairs. MR. JACKOSKI-is there a reason you didn't come off the gable end instead? MR. HALL-That's where the septic is. MR. JACKOSKI-The septic can't be that close to the. MR. HALL-No, we can possibly re-design it and come off of that end. We wouldn't need as much, we wouldn't need the overhang. We can take a look at re-designing it, bringing the roof down, possibly dropping the pitch a little bit on the roof. MR. JACKOSKI-In my personal opinion, five feet of relief on the maximum height is a lot. But that's just my opinion. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. HALL-All right. We would request to table and get it back to you in September. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mike. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Wassey Family, Inc. Applicant proposes construction of a 460 sq. ft. garage addition to include a second floor and loft area for storage. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks, maximum allowable height restrictions, permeability and for expansion of a non-conforming structure. A public hearing was advertised and Opened for comment on Wednesday, August 26, 2015; and left Open. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2015 WASSEY FAMILY, INC., Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: For the purpose of reconsidering options. It will be tabled to the October meeting with data to be submitted by the September deadline date. Duly adopted this 26th day of August, 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. MR. HALL-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, we just want to clarify. Are we filling our September agenda, or October agenda? We've got to be careful how much we push into October with all the. MRS. MOORE-1 have five items pending for October as of right now, including these. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Fine. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2015 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID MINER AGENT(S) KRISTINE WHEELER OWNER(S) DAVID MINER & GINETTE MINER ZONING MDR LOCATION 590 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 787.11 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWABLE. CROSS REF BP 2015-181 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE; AV 64-08, AD 4-04, BP 07-276, BP 09-320 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 9.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-1.21 SECTION 179-5-020 KRISTINE WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2015, David Miner, Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 "Project Location: 590 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 787.11 sq. ft. second garage. Relief required Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-5-020 Accessory structures—Garages. Parcel will require an area variance as follows: 2 nd Garage Required 1 Proposed 2 Relief 1 CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 267 OF TOWN LAW 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) 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 maybe 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 for addition to the existing home due to the configuration of the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts are anticipated from the proposed project. The applicant's parcel is over 9 acres and the additional garage will allow for lawn equipment storage to maintain the property. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes to construct a 787.11 sq. ft. second garage on a 9.16 acre parcel. The applicant has indicated the building will be used to store lawn equipment for maintain the property. The proposed building will be located so no tree removal is required. The applicant has also indicated the building will be consistent with the existing home. The plans submitted show the location of the garage and elevations." MS. WHEELER-My name is Kristine Wheeler. I'm representing David & Ginette Minor of 590 Luzerne Road, Queensbury. The applicant wishes to construct a second garage, as the Staff Notes accurately convey what we'd like to do. It's primarily for the storage of lawn equipment and mostly a small farm tractor that they use for snow blowing during the wintertime. The garage door itself is why we're here. The applicant wants a nine foot garage door so he can get the tractor in and out without causing any damage. MR. JACKOSKI-What kind of a tractor is it that requires a nine foot wide door? MS. WHEELER-I think it's mostly so that other equipment can be moved in and out and it's the fact that it goes up and down because of the roll bar for the safety of the people on the tractor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So it's not a typical lawn tractor like you see being sold at Home Depot or Lowes. MR. GARRAND-It's got a bucket. MS. WHEELER-That's correct. It does have a roll bar on it. So he would have to lower that and raise that every time he had to snow blow the driveway. MR. GARRAND-This property is over nine acres. MS. WHEELER-That's correct. MR. GARRAND-I understand where you'd need so much equipment to maintain this property. Would the applicant be agreeable to not ever subdividing it? MS. WHEELER-I think that's a pretty large request to have somebody's retirement donated in exchange for a garage door. I don't think that that would be amenable to the applicant. MR. GARRAND-Because we've seen applications where somebody builds something and then all of a sudden it gets subdivided and we end up with multiple buildings on a piece of property. I mean, if he's not going to have a big piece of property ten years from now we don't want to see second garages. MS. WHEELER-Well, if I'm not mistaken, and Laura can correct me, I think we're in three acre zoning at this point. So he would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for any, or Planning Board. So there would be a considerable review. That could be addressed at that 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) time. Again, I don't think that he's in a position to sacrifice what could be a valuable piece of property in exchange for really what's a garage door. So the building itself could be there with a different style door. MR. JACKOSKI-Would he be willing to remove it should he decide to subdivide the property? MR. HENKEL-It's got footings and everything. MS. WHEELER-Yes, I think you're going to have to put footings in. It would require considerable demolition. I don't think he would be willing to do that. MR. HENKEL-He's built all those three houses right there in a row. MS. WHEELER-That's correct. MR. HENKEL-He does a beautiful job. It's professional. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before we open the public comment period? MR. KUHL-This building, this garage is for lawn mowers? MS. WHEELER-It's for primarily a small farm style tractor and some lawnmowers that he uses to maintain the property. MR. KUHL-And it's going to have water and electric in it? MS. WHEELER-No water, but electric so we can plug in a block heater. MR. NOONAN-Is there any chance that he's going to run a business out of this garage? MS. WHEELER-No. He is retired and he doesn't plan on going back to work. MR. HENKEL-Is he going to remove the other shed? MS. WHEELER-No, that also has footings. MR. HENKEL-So he's going to have two sheds on that property, well, a second garage and a shed. MS. WHEELER-Correct. MR. HENKEL-He also has a temporary building there, too, right? MS. WHEELER-There is a temporary building, and this is to replace the temporary building. MR. HENKEL-That's for his tractor. So he's going to eliminate that. MS. WHEELER-That's his plan, but after this is built. MR. JACKOSKI-So, hearing no other questions, I'll open the public comment period. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I'll poll the Board at this time. And we'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-I would be in favor of this if they get rid of the other shed. I think one additional building is enough. I like the design, but I don't see any reason why the other shed couldn't be incorporated into this. So the way it stands, without the removal of the shed, I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree also. He has to do away with the other shed and also the temporary building, and he could have my okay on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I guess if the other shed, the 10 by 12 is removed, it would reduce the amount of extra structures on the property, I certainly would be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-He's got nine acres. I would support this project with the condition that the temporary building be removed. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm not totally against second garages, since nine acres, it can hold a second garage very easily and I'd be in favor of it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I would be in favor of this, provided it doesn't ever get subdivided below three acres for the size of the property. That's the only way I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, in the past we've had some parcels in the Town that we've limited to no further subdivision, but it's gone to Article 78's and the judges have told us that we have to look at them at the time the application comes forward. We can't arbitrarily decide right now that it can never be subdivided again forever and ever because things change in the world. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. GARRAND-They can subdivide. It's nine acres right now. It doesn't prohibit them from subdividing, but I want to see a piece of property, if you're going to have a building this size, a second garage of this size on the property, I think it should be a significant piece of property. They can also say we're not going to go below the zoning requirement. MRS. MOORE-This particular property is in an MDR zone. MR. GARRAND-It's in the MDR? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Which is, what, 20,000 sq. ft.? MRS. MOORE-It's two acres if it has sewer and water. MR. HENKEL-It doesn't have sewer. It has water. MR. GARRAND-My concern is we're going to get to a point where we're going to have like three properties on Luzerne Road and then we're going to have another nine or eight properties out back. I mean, it's their option to subdivide if it's MDR. I think MDR is something like 20,000 sq. ft. required or something. MR. HENKEL-Laurel Lane comes right back into that property. That was the initial easement, because Al Cerrone tried to sell it to me. That's the initial, he was going to subdivide it. MR. GARRAND-Yes, if they cut these properties off right at, you know, right in that one area, I mean, right along the same line along the back it's going to look like clutter on this property. I don't think it would consistent with the neighborhood either. I don't want to forgive them from subdividing, but I also don't want to see all this on that one piece of property, down the road, plus houses built behind it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to re-poll the Board and ask each Board member simply yes or no on the existing application? Ron? MR. KUHL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-John? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. HENKEL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm going to say yes at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-No. MR. JACKOSKI-I am going to say yes because of with three acre zoning that I know we're going to have to go back to the Planning Board. I'd like to seriously suggest that we condition a yes that this parcel, with the house and the garage, should have a minimum acreage, should the lands ever be subdivided. MR. GARRAND-Three acres. MR. JACKOSKI-Without variances, right? Does that make sense? MS. WHEELER-It makes sense, although that is a pretty large concession for what is essentially a garage door, since the building can be put on the property within the existing Code. MR. JACKOSKI-It really is a garage. A vehicle's really going in there. It really is a garage. MS. WHEELER-No, I understand that, but, you know, we can go back and we can build this building, pretty much as it's shown here, but with a different door. So I think to limit it to three acres of zoning, I think is a large concession. So I request to table the project, if that is the condition. MR. JACKOSKI-You can ask for members to put forth a different motion. MS. WHEELER-I mean, again, because even if we were going to subdivide the property, if we were to sell the property on anything other than nine acres, we would have to come back to the Board for approval, for either the Zoning Board or the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I don't hear a motion. MR. MC CABE-So, you want to table it? MS. WHEELER-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Miner. Applicant proposes construction of a 787.11 sq. ft. second garage. Relief requested from a second garage where only one is allowable. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 and left OPEN; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2015 DAVID MINER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: For the applicant to consider some of the alternatives proposed by the Board. We'll table until October with data to be submitted by the September deadline date. Duly adopted this 26th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Please let the builder know that we really appreciate the amount of effort that they put into developing those properties. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MICHELE NIEDERMEYER OWNER(S) MICHELE NIEDERMEYER ZONING LC-42A LOCATION 18 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING PORCH REA TO CONSTRUCT 315 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE LC-42A ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2015-301; BP 94-332 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2015 LOT SIZE 0.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHELE NIEDERMEYER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2015, Michele Niedermeyer, Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 "Project Location: 18 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of an existing porch area to construct a 315 sq. ft. of additional living space. Relief required Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —Land Conservation 42a Zone and 179-13-010 Expansion of a non-conforming structure Parcel will require area variance as follows: Setback relief Required 100 ft. Proposed 50 ft. west, 38 ft. east Relief 50 ft. west, 62 ft. east CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE PURSUANT 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 as the original home was built/placed in the 1920's on the current parcel prior to zoning. 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 project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood where the area has mixed use including commercial —Blue Moose, recreational —Great Escape, municipal —Warren County, and residential—neighboring homes and Courthouse estates 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created where any development on this parcel will trigger review. Staff Comments The applicant proposes to construct a 14X24 ft. addition to an existing home. The new addition will replace an existing deck and be over the existing garage. The main floor living space will be expanded with a family room and eating area. The applicant proposes to site changes. The information submitted shows the existing home, proposed addition, and the new building elevations." 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MS. NIEDERMEYER-Good evening. My name is Michele Niedermeyer and I'm a homeowner at 18 Glen Lake Road. Basically what the plan is is to make my house fit the foundation. The house was built in the 1920's. It was moved to its current location about 60 years ago. I haven't found much information on that, but unfortunately when they moved it, the foundation was 14 feet longer than the house. So they put up kind of a little porch and a flat decking area, which over the years has leaked. Flat roof, winter, and I need to repair and replace some issues, and so I'm hoping to enlarge my home to just fit the foundation. The footprint is not changing and the height of the house is not, the height of the addition is not exceeding the existing height of the house. Just so that it fits, I don't have any more issues with leaking and flat roofs and everything else. MR. JACKOSKI-Straightforward application. Any Board member questions at this time? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have one, Mr. Chairman. Did you have the existing concrete looked at, the footings that they would handle the structure that you're proposing? MS. NIEDERMEYER-Yes, and actually my father, Robert Niedermeyer, is back here. He can answer any of those types of. MR. KUHL-Your father. Is he going to build this? MS. NIEDERMEYER-No, but he is the architect. MR. KUHL-You're basing your future on the man in the back row. MS. NIEDERMEYER-1 am. MR. KUHL-Can you answer that question? ROBERT NIEDERMEYER MR. NIEDERMEYER-Yes, they're fine. They were built, but the foundation was built, but the house, for some reason there was an area, they moved it, it was in Storytown, originally owned by Charlie Wood, and then he gave it to his daughters and they moved it up there, and when they built the foundation for it, they apparently took off a room. Yes, all we're doing is, you know. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So what the audience member has suggested is, yes, the foundations will accommodate the construction. Okay. Any other discussions from Board members before I open the public comment period? We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment, as I open the public comment period? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here in the audience this evening that would like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I will poll the Board, and I will start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-Anything you do on this property is going to require a variance pretty much. This pre-dates our zoning. There isn't a whole lot the customer can do. They don't really have any feasible alternatives except to apply for a variance. I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think it'll make an improvement to the neighborhood. I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm very familiar with this property. I think it would be an improvement. I'm in favor of it. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of the project. It's a good project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I think we have a fairly unanimous Board at this point. So I'm going to close the public comment period and I'm going to seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michele Niedermeyer. Applicant proposes a removal of an existing porch area to construct 315 sq. ft. of additional living space. Relief requested from the following Sections of the Zoning Ordinance: 179-3-040, Establishment of Districts Land Conservation 42A zone, and 179-13-010, Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure. The requested relief is for 50 feet on the west and 62 feet on the east side. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 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. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and are not possible. 3. The requested Variance is minor. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because the applicant didn't put this house here originally, and the applicant's not responsible for the zoning in this area. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2015, MICHELE NIEDERMEYER, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MS. NIEDERMEYER-Thank you, gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR OWNER(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR ZONING WR LOCATION 15 PIONEER POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES A 480 SQ. FT. +/- RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AND A 384 SQ. FT. +/- GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, MINIMUM SIDE SETBACKS, FAR, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2015-216 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2012-326 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2015 APA, CEA, OTHER GLEN LAKE CEA, NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-15 SECTION 179-4- 050, 179-13-060, 179 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2015, Michael J. O'Connor, Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 "Project Location: 15 Pioneer Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 480 sq. ft. residential addition and a 384 sq. ft. +/- garage addition. Relief required Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —Waterfront Residential Zone and 179-13-010 Expansion of a non-conforming structure Parcel will require area variances as follows: Minimum side FAR Permeability setbacks Required 15 ft. 0.22 75 % Proposed 6.48 South, 7.62 North 0.24 63.56% Relief 8.52 South, 7.38 North .02 in excess 11.44% CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE PURSUANT 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 maybe 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 configuration of the existing home. The parcel size and shape may trigger variances with any new development on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal to moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have little to no impact on the neighborhood. A portion of the area is already a gravel parking area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes an 864 sq. ft. residential garage addition to an existing 1319 sq. ft. (footprint) home. The new height for the addition is 23 feet. The interior space is to be used for an expansion of the master bedroom and the garage area for storage. The addition also includes crawl space area for the basement and for the attic area. The applicant has indicated a septic system has been recently installed that includes a 1000 gallon tank for the applicant's property. The relief requested is for setbacks floor area permeability and expansion of a non- conforming structure. The new addition is not within the CEA and no planning board review is required. The plans show the location of the addition, floor plans, and elevations." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm Mike O'Connor representing myself. I apologize for giving you new drawings. From the time that we submitted this application to the time, tonight, in fact I received these drawings this afternoon. I've been looking for them for a couple of weeks. It doesn't change any of the dimensional requests that I have, but when the builders looked at this, they said that if I were going to put my storage, my five foot storage underneath the bedroom area, which is what I had planned, in order to do that I had to jack the house up so that they could do new walls along the back portion of the house and the side portions of the house that I'm going to attach to do it. So instead of doing that, I'm going to build on a slab. So when I build on a slab I want to put the five foot storage area above the garage 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) and the new addition. It doesn't change the side line setbacks. It doesn't change the FAR. It doesn't change the permeability or anything of that nature. It does mean that I probably will have to have the roof structure stick built because they won't be able to use joists or trusses that they typically use, because if you take a look at it, I still want to have an eight foot wide area in the attic area, if you will, so that when I go up a set of stairs I will have head room to get up there, but on the two sides I will build it so that it will be five feet. It will be a waste of space, but it makes it compliant, or doesn't make it excessively non-compliant. Recently we replaced the septic system. It's a joint septic system with my sister Betty who is immediately to the south of me, my house, and then the Hughes house which is over on the Point that Robbie Little has bought and he will probably be before you very shortly, as he's going to demolish that house and build a new house. So we have a joint septic system that three families use, and it's in the back of my lot. It's actually mostly on my lot. By way of information, the other two homes on the Point also put in brand new septic systems. So all five homes on the Point now have compliant septic systems. It's the septic system that's the flavor of the Town. Our system cost about $90,000, but it's going to last for years. I had a three bedroom home. I'm still going to have a three bedroom home. I'm trying to make my bedroom a little bit larger. I'm trying to put a second bath in there so that when I have my kids there, we have two baths, as opposed to one, and I need a garage because I'm not going to be there during the winter months much more than I used to be. That's basically it. The actual square footage, and it's funny that I am above the floor area ratio, but the existing house is 939 sq. ft. I have a wraparound porch that is like a three season porch, but it's not insulated. That's 380 sq. ft., and I have a, the house is on a crawl space right now. That's why the walls have to be replaced if I don't build on a slab. I have a footing and I have like three layer of blocks, but through the center of the house, the space is probably seven feet wide by twenty feet wide, twenty feet long where I have my furnace, my oil tank, there is more than five foot headroom. I argued with Craig that pre-existing non-living space shouldn't be counted by floor area ratio. He didn't agree with me and I'm not going to appeal on that basis, because I think it's 140 feet. Access to that 140 feet is through an opening underneath my front porch that's probably 30 feet high and maybe, or 30 inches high and probably four feet wide. So it's never going to be living space. The other, so I have a total, right now, of 1459 sq. ft. The addition itself is 786 sq. ft., but I counted the eight foot area wide that's going to be in the center of the upstairs, and that's 192 feet, which gives me a total of 2437 feet, and that turns out to be .2358, which is why I asked for relief of 24 feet. That's basically it. Well, I would say this. In setting up the house, I maintain the same setback on the south side, which is my sister Betty's house. The house is already that distance. I did not increase the setback or the intrusion into her side yard buffer area. Her house is about the same distance from the line, or about equal, and on the north side, I made it a little bit less than the front of the house actually is toward Bartons. So I'm not increasing the intrusions, if you will, on the 15 foot that's required. I'm maintaining those, and basically both, I have two sisters, MaryLois and Ruthie who own two down from me, wanted to come and say they have no objection. I said it wasn't necessary. Betty said she would come to say she had no object. I said it wasn't necessary. Bartons also said that they had no objection. We've worked together on the septic systems, and we've all been on that Point since the early 1955 or something like that, 1960. So we're all very friendly with each other, and now Betty's son is going to buy one of the stranger houses, if you will, or non-family houses. We've got two more to buy before we get to own the whole Point. MR. JACKOSKI-So do we have to take your word that your family is in support of this project? MR. O'CONNOR-You can or you cannot, but I hope that you would. MR. HENKEL-And did you say anything about the permeability? Because you must be getting a little, you decreased the size of the house. You went from a 38 to a 36 feet wide now, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I realized that the 38 feet increased the setback. So I decided not to do that. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that also helps you with permeability. Wouldn't it? It's a very small amount. MR. O'CONNOR-It does, and we removed the shed. It was more than a typical shed. It was like 270 sq. ft. It was on the back part of the lot. So that helped decrease it. MR. HENKEL-How big were the doors? Were they a garage? MR. O'CONNOR-You know they weren't. MR. JACKOSKI-He would be the first applicant to give up a second garage. All right. Any further questions from Board members? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. GARRAND-So that's where you gain the eight percent permeability is removal of that shed? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and some of the areas that we're going to put, when I get the construction done, I'm going to define the driveway, the roadway that goes through. So that the rest of the area will not be road. That will also be, it won't be used for road. MR. GARRAND-Are there going to be any modifications to the original house itself? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Well, no I don't believe so. The main modification will be the bedroom that's, my bedroom right now is attached to what would be the extended master bedroom. I will remove the wall, or a portion of that back wall, so that it's all one room, and the bathroom, which is the small room in the middle of the existing bathroom, we will block out the window that's in the back of that window area. I believe we will have to block that window up and remove it. The bedroom on the left stays the same, and I may internally change my closets. Right now my room, I have half of that closet space, and I'm thinking that I'll wall it off to my room because I will have a walk in closet and make that one closet to the other bedroom that sits next to it. That's about the changes. MR. KUHL-The stairs is going to be accessed from the garage? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There's supposed to be, I believe they're going to be an accordion stairs. It's not going to be one of those rickety fold down type things. It's supposed to be a better staircase that will fold back up, not fold back up but will press itself. I will have to give up part of that mud room so that the angle, they can do the angle. So that mud room won't be, actually it won't be all be over five feet because a part of that corner is going to be slanted so the stairs can go up at an angle, but the stairs will access from the garage. I think you have to have three foot six stairs to be Code compliant. That leaves me about 20 feet for my car. So I mean, that's why I want to use the accordion stairs so that I have a little bit more room for my car. I have no storage. This is the biggest problem I have is I have no storage presently. I have stuff in a storage unit. I have stuff at Mikey's house, at my son's house. I came from a 4,400 sq. ft. house to this 939 sq. ft. house. MR. GARRAND-The house on Glen Street was beautiful. MR. O'CONNOR-It was. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? There is 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 the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public comment period open. I'll poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-No matter what he did he was going to have to come to us because it's a nonconforming structure. I don't see any variances here that are excessive, and so I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-You're removing the other shed. That's good. Whether or not we can do something with the permeability, you're saying you're just going to put in a single drive for your garage. That's it. MR. O'CONNOR-It's a drive that goes through my lot that serves Barton, Clark, and the other house. MR. KUHL-I'd be in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Normally I'd be concerned because of the permeability, but it sounds like you're addressing that, and I agree the project's a good project. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I see minimal relief at every criteria. I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I agree with John. I think that the permeability here is a big step. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion for approval of the variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael J. O'Connor. Applicant proposes a 480 sq. ft. residential addition and a 384 sq. ft. +/- garage addition. Relief requested from expansion of a non-conforming structure, minimum side setbacks, FAR, and permeability requirements for the WR zone. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 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. Feasible alternatives are not necessary as this plan has been well thought out. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created as this is a nonconforming structure. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2015, MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-1 did ask for waivers, but I think because I withdrew the deck, I don't think the waivers, okay. One thing I'd ask you to think about. You should not use the lot width as mathematically determined for the whole lot, and if you notice my maps, it says that I have 53 feet, although that's at an angle, and 50 feet at the rear. At the place where the structure is going, it's probably 50 feet, and that would require a 12 foot setback instead of a 15 foot 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2015) setback. So I think you ought to consider whether or not you look at side line setbacks, particularly in the Waterfront Residential zone, of where the structure is going, the width that's actually there, somehow, as opposed to trying to do an average of the lot. Particularly if you have a pie-shaped lot. You can get killed on those things. MR. JACKOSKI-I thought Craig had analyzed the variance at where the width of the lot, where it's being built is, but we'll talk to Craig about that. MR. O'CONNOR-It creates unnecessary applications. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Can I have a motion to adjourn, please? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 26th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 27