Loading...
06-22-2016 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2016 INDEX Area Variance PZ 0144-2016 Daniel Hunt 1. Tax Map No. 308.18-2-2 Area Variance PZ-0059-2016 Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 7. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-33 Area Variance PZ-0160-2016 Chong S. Conway 13. Tax Map No. 296.7-1-11 Area Variance PZ-0156-2016 Anne & Ben Campbell 16. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-8 Area Variance PZ-0155-2016 John M. Hughes Trust 19. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-7 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. ,I (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 22, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL MICHAEL MC CABE KYLE NOONAN RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Today is Wednesday, June 22nd here at the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's actually a very easy process. There are agendas on the back table. There is also a brief document explaining our process and procedure. What we'll do here is we'll call each application to the floor. The applicants will join us here at the small table. Any housekeeping that we have we will, of course, do first. We'll ask Roy to read the application into the record, then we will ask the applicant for any additional information they may want to provide us or if we simply have the Board ask questions of the applicant. At some point if there is a public hearing scheduled, and for every item this evening there is a public hearing scheduled, I will open the public hearing. We will listen to public comment. We will possibly close the public hearing depending on where things go this evening. Once we poll the Board and decide where the Board's going to go with each of the applications. So we'll get started and we will need to do approval of the meeting minutes for May 18th, 2016. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 18, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18, 2016, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next item we'll do is the minutes for May 25th May 25, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 25, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Any further housekeeping by anyone? Seeing nothing, we'll go right to the agenda. June 22nd. The first item is new business. Daniel Hunt. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ 0144-2016 SEQRA TYPE II DANIEL HUNT OWNER(S) DANIEL HUNT ZONING R-3 ZONING YEAR 1967 ORDINANCE; CURRENT MDR LOCATION 2 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) LOT 90, HOUSE NO. 13 BRICKOVEN ROAD BEDFORD CLOSE, SECTION 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 1,500 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GARAGE AS IT EXCEEDS THE 1,100 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED FOR A PARCEL LESS THAN 5 ACRES. CROSS REF. SB 5-72 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE 1.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-2 SECTION 179-5-020 DANIEL HUNT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Area Variance No. PZ 0144-2016, Daniel Hunt, Meeting Date: June 22, 2016 "Project Location: Lot 90, House No. 13 Brickoven Road — Bedford Close Section 3 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of single-family dwelling with a 1,500 sq. ft. attached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for the construction of the garage as it exceeds the 1,100 sq. ft. maximum square footage allowed for a parcel less than 5 acres. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage, R-3 Zoninq 1972 —existing zoning Moderate Density Residential MDR Applicant proposes a 1,500 sq. ft. garage where maximum allowed is 1,100 sq. ft. for parcels less than 5 acres. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the garage to the maximum allowed for the parcel size as it is part of a proposed new home construction. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief is 400 sq. ft. greater than allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home with a garage that is to be 1,500 sq. ft. that is 300 sq. ft. more than allowed. The plans show the garage attached to the proposed home with 3 bays. The applicant has indicated the home and the garage would be consistent with neighboring homes and would allow for additional storage. The real property records indicate garage sizes in the neighborhood range from 500 sq. ft. to 900 sq. ft." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything you'd like to add this evening or would you just simply like to have Board members ask you questions? It's a pretty straightforward application. MR. HUNT-Yes. One thing I would like to say is I have a statement signed by several of the neighbors in the immediate vicinity all in favor of the project. I've shown the plans. Everybody's in favor of it. So they have a hard copy here of all the signatures. 3 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Would you give that to Roy our secretary so he can have a copy of it? And are they all the adjoining property owners? MR. HUNT-Absolutely, yes. They're all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. HENKEL-Aren't the side setbacks 30 feet not 12 in that area, the side setbacks? MRS. MOORE-The side setbacks are different for R-3 zoning. So the setbacks for that zone are applicable, that he's shown. It's the fact that the garage is larger than proposed than the building code is today. MR. HENKEL-So he's not creating another variance there. MRS. MOORE-No, he is not. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. KUHL-On this application it talks about House Number 13 Brickoven. I couldn't find Number 13. 1 may be wrong. MR. JACKOSKI-It's Lot. MR. KUHL-No, Lot 90. 1 think that's the one on the turn, right? MR. HUNT-It's a vacant lot, yes. MR. KUHL-Okay, and it's on the even side of the street. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-A 1500 square foot garage is bigger than my house. So, I mean, it is substantial. MR. HUNT-Correct, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So can you kind of give us an idea why you can't live within the terms of the 1100 square feet that is allowed? MR. HUNT-Well, if you saw my truck, I didn't drive it here tonight, but it's a GMC 3500 Duly Crew Cab. So that's huge, and then our other two vehicles are also large. One's an SUV and one's a car, and then of course we've got all the kids' bikes and scooters and all the lawnmowers and the ride-on equipment and everything that's got to go in there, by the time you try to put everything in the one garage, we find that we're, you know, kids are bumping the bikes into the cars and stuff and all that kind of stuff. We're trying to keep things separated to get more room. MR. HENKEL-The other problem is that there are a few houses in that zone that have their houses facing the road, but the majority of them are facing the side, not facing the road. So that's the other problem where it would not fit into the neighborhood. MR. KUHL-What's going over the top of the garage? MR. HUNT-What's going on? MR. KUHL-What's going to be built over it? MR. HUNT-Living space on most of it and then storage on the rest. MR. KUHL-If you couldn't get this variance, would you reduce it to 1100 square feet? MR. HUNT-I'm not sure what I'm going to do, to be honest with you. MR. KUHL-You're asking for an awful lot. I mean, just because you have a Duly is no big deal. You've got room on both sides of the door where, I assume the third one to the right is where you're going to park your Duly? MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. 4 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. KUHL-Okay, and you have space on both sides of it. You could reduce that and give us some footage back. Couldn't you? MR. HENKEL-You're talking 50' by 32'. Isn't it roughly 50' by 32'? MR. HUNT-That's correct, yes. The whole house is 32 feet. We're trying to keep it consistent and keep the roof line the same. MR. KUHL-I'm saying that you suggested you have a lot of toys and stuff for the children. You could put that in front of your cars. I personally think you're asking for an awful lot and you have a raw piece of property and you can't fit the house into it. You could if you. MR. HUNT-There's plenty of room. It's a huge lot. There's over an acre. There's absolutely no problem there at all. Plenty of side line room. MR. MC CABE-Would you consider a limitation to no accessory structures if we allowed the larger garage? MR. HUNT-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-There would be no sheds, no lean-tos. MR. HUNT-Sure, absolutely. Plenty of room. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Board members, you know, one of the things I have to ask Staff is if this particular applicant did away with the garage doors that are circled there, so to speak, that you see there, to create that storage for the toys and had a dividing wall there, would that still be part of the garage, or would that be considered storage and not part of the garage? I understand that he wants to build living space above the current garage, and therefore if we had him shrink the garage somehow that living space would get reduced as well which would affect his floor plans on the second floor, but how would the Town treat it if it was a storage room? MRS. MOORE-This space here, closest to the door? MR. JACKOSKI-The space that's circled, if those two garage doors were technically eliminated, no longer a garage, they would be a storage room, that would be considered a garage because it's on the slab and it's got all that criterion, too? MRS. MOORE-My understanding it's the door width. MR. JACKOSKI-It's just the door width. MRS. MOORE-The door width triggers it's garage space. MR. JACKOSKI-And that's over six feet. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So my concern is that if he can reduce these doors down to six feet, put up a dividing wall so that he gets his toys in, which would not be a Duly obviously, then he wouldn't be here for a variance. MR. KUHL-If he had a regular door. Right. But his intention, am I not correct in understanding, your intentions are to park three vehicles under cover. Right? MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. Yes, we actually have more than three vehicles, but, you know, I understand. MR. KUHL-I have more than three myself. MR. HUNT-And if you were to drive through the neighborhood over there, or maybe some of you probably live there, I don't know, it's very consistent with what's in the neighborhood there. MR. KUHL-You have a lot of room in front of your cars, you've got a 32 foot deep garage. Normal garages are 22. So you have plenty of room to store everything in front of your two cars, and yet you have width from the second garage to the third door. Shrink the other one down. 5 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. HUNT-1 know it seems like that, but believe me, there's just not enough room. There's not. MR. KUHL-Well, as I say, if the variance, if it depended on your shrinking the size of the garage, that would be your choice to then say, you know, table it or, as I personally, I think you could shrink that third garage where your truck is going in. I do believe you could get, make it narrower and probably get back 200, 300 square feet. Anyway, this is what you're asking for, so that's what we'll decide on. Thank you. MR. HUNT-You're welcome. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. NOONAN-Was there any consideration to turning the whole garage so that you would come in and then turn into the doors, so that you're not seeing three garage doors facing the street? To me it looks like that, and I'm sure you put a lot of time and effort into it, and if looks like the garage that's at your house now, and if you turned it, and worked the roof line in a way that was consistent with the other part of the living space, it wouldn't look so wide and so long and so awkward and I think that's what part of the issue is, being brought up on the Board with the overall length with the size of the garage. If it turned, and you turned into your garage doors and your garage doors faced Lot 89 there, I don't know how the Board would respond, but it would certainly look different and it would present a different view from the road. More consistency, you'd still have a giant garage which I think is probably, every man would love to have a garage that big, but we have an obligation to maintain consistency in the neighborhood and in the Town. I don't know, again, so my question originally before I went off on my tangent was would you consider or have you considered turning that living space and then figuring out that connection between the main house and the living space above the garage because you could still have all of this living space on the second floor, just how you enter it from that second floor level would be a little bit different. My thoughts. MR. KUHL-You're suggesting turn the whole three garages? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, turn all three garages around, side entrance, and then bridge between the two. MR. HUNT-That's what we, honestly we weren't crazy about that to pull and in half to make a 90 degree turn to get in and out of the garage, we just weren't comfortable with that. We did think about it and we tossed it around, but we were more comfortable with just a straight shot. I have a full size picture of the house if you want to see what, aesthetically, it's going to look like. MR. NOONAN-Are the pictures that we have to scale? The pictures we have aren't to scale, correct? MR. HUNT-1 believe so, but they were only on a piece of paper. MR. NOONAN-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here who would like to address this Board on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment other than the signatures that were received from the applicant this evening? MR. URRICO-No, just the signatures that were just received. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I'm going to poll the Board at this moment and see what the Board would like to do. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'd like to see if there's any way, how serious you could possibly be about possibly changing the orientation. I don't think, I'm going to sit here and tell you to cut down on the square footage and change the orientation. So the project as proposed, I would say no right now as proposed. MR. HUNT-Can I just say that if you drive through the neighborhood there's several homes. 6 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-We know Bedford Close quite well. Most of us have been on this Board a long time. We're aware of it. Harrison? MR. FREER-I think it's excessive. It doesn't meet the criteria of the minimum variances necessary, and that it needs to be shrunk. I'm not sure whether, I think a minimum for me would be a 1400, which means he has to find 100 square feet. I'd be much more comfortable with a 1300 foot. I don't support giving him a 400 foot variance which is like 30%. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think Mr. Hunt is asking for an awful lot and I think that there's room to reduce it. To me it looks like it's too wide. I'm against it at this time the way it's laid out. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also, driving through that development, it definitely does not fit into the neighborhood and I would not be happy with the 1500. I'd definitely be happy with the 1110 which fits into the Code. So not as it's presented, no. I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm impressed that he did solicit his neighbors and that they okayed it, but on the other hand, I can't remember okaying a garage on a lot like this that was a full 1500 square feet. I remember doing a 1300 square feet, but the 1500 is a little beyond my comfort even with conditions that there be no auxiliary structures. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think feasible alternatives exist to reduce this to a size that is to the maximum allowed for this type of lot, and so I would be against the proposal as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-So I did some quick math here to bring to the attention of the Board members. The applicant could actually keep the aesthetics of the elevation of the house as is by reducing the overall depth of the garage to 24 feet then there would be no variance required. So the character of the neighborhood, because of the visual appearance of a garage, a house attached to that garage, technically we won't have any control over if he reduces the overall depth of that garage to 24 feet. MR. URRICO-And that's a feasible alternative. MR. JACKOSKI-That is a feasible alternative because you can still get a car into 24 feet. So 24 feet would be a little bit extra and you'd get your three cars under cover. Unfortunately what we have to do is grant you the minimum relief to get the general overall use of the property, and to get three cars under cover with a little bit of extra space, which clearly that space, keeping in character with the neighborhood, meeting the five criterion that we have, you've got six no votes. You need at least four yeses. So at this point in time you have a couple of alternatives. The public hearing has been left open for the moment. You can leave the application as is, go back and re-think and request a tabling of the application. You can force us to vote on the application, which I think you know the answer to, or you can withdraw the application. Most applicants in your position would probably table it, but we can't tell you what to do. MR. HUNT-Okay, and then when do I do that? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so if you ask for a tabling this evening, we'll table it to the next available meeting for you to re-think things and take into consideration what the Board has suggested to you, try to come back to us. If you come back to us with the same application, while Mr. Underwood is down there as an alternate, you only need seven of us of the eight of us here, it looks like it's going to be seven of the eight of us here. Sometimes it's a split vote very close and maybe an alternate would vote one way or the other, but in this case we'll have enough votes. So the Board's talked about turning it. The Board's talked about not even having a variance, just simply going to a 24 foot deep garage and get your three bays and call it a day. MR. HUNT-The problem with that, it's not really a problem, but then I still have the same aesthetic look on the front. MR. JACKOSKI-You do, and the Board members are aware of that. So I believe the applicant's requested a tabling to the next available agenda. 7 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. HUNT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-With a re-submission date of any pertinent materials by the July deadline. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNT-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mike, I assume you'll make that motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Daniel Hunt. Applicant proposes construction of single-family dwelling with a 1,500 sq. ft. attached garage. Relief requested for the construction of the garage as it exceeds the 1,100 sq. ft. maximum square footage allowed for a parcel less than 5 acres. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 2016 and left open; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE PZ 144-2016 DANIEL HUNT, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the August 17, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with pertinent materials to be submitted by the middle of July. Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-And so the applicant is aware you can work with Staff and I can guide you through that information that you'll be needing. MR. HUNT-Okay. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And just so you know, these things do take time. This is not abnormal. You've got to go through the process, and you can actually go ahead and build this structure with the 24 foot garage without a variance. Best of luck. MR. HUNT-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0059-2016 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; LITTLE & O'CONNOR OWNER(S) RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK ZONING WR LOCATION 9 GLEN HALL DRIVE, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 440 SQ. FT. 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 15 FT. 10 IN. WITH ELECTRICAL CONNECTION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED AND SETBACK RELIEF. SITE PLAN: PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF SP PZ-0057-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.81 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0059-2016, Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak, Meeting Date: June 22, 2016 "Project Location: 9 Glen Hall Drive, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 440 sq. ft. 2-car detached garage with proposed height of 16 ft. 8 in. height with water and electric connection. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed, setback relief and height relief. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, —Waterfront Residential Zone-WR 8 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) The new garage is to be located 6.6 ft. on the north and 8.1 ft. on the south side where a 20 ft. setback is required. The garage height is proposed to be 16 ft. 8 in where the maximum height allowed is 16 ft. for accessory structures in the waterfront zone. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage, A detached second garage is proposed, where only one garage is allowed Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. A few neighboring properties also have 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 considered limited due to the configuration of the parcel and the existing home on the site. Possible alternatives could be considered to renovate the garage storing boat items although ease of access to the home would be limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Where relief is requested for having two garages and only one is allowed. The relief requested on the north 13.4 ft. of relief and on the south 11.9 ft. of relief is requested. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The plans include stormwater measures gutter downspout and infiltration; also shown is a boulder wall along the north side of the building. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 440 sq. ft. second garage on a 0.81 acre parcel that has an existing home. The applicant proposes to maintain the portable garage structure on the site for storage of the boat. The applicant intends to remove canvas shed as part of the project as shown on the plans. The project is also subject to site plan review due to the location of steeps slopes near the site." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. So in our write up, Staff, we have the height at 15 feet 10 inches. Roy read into the record 16 feet 8 inches. Which one's correct? MRS. MOORE-16, 8. So the applicant provided revised information, which you received. MR. JACKOSKI-Sixteen feet eight instead of fifteen feet ten. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And if you would identify yourselves for the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O 'Connor. I represent the applicants. With me at the table is Ronald Mackowiak, one of the two applicants. His wife Cindy is not here, and also Lucas Dobie who is the engineer from Hutchins Engineering, the engineering consultants for the project. Basically you're dealing with a 50 foot lot on Glen Lake which is very difficult to deal with. Almost any structure on this lot would require a variance. We're talking about a modest drive. It's 20 feet wide, 22 feet deep. It's 440 feet. It's a two car garage. The shed, as was noted, that's on the upper part of the property, is going to be removed. The reason that we've asked for a variance for a second garage is that there is a boat storage building on the lower part, down, 10 by 22, or 10 by 24. It's where he stores his pontoon boat. If you actually add the two garages, you're talking two as 9 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) opposed to one, you're talking 680 square feet. So if he wanted to he could build, I guess, the garage on the lower land and put it all under one roof. The problem is there that during the winter that would not be a very practical garage for the residential use of the property. The property has a new house on it. It's year round, and they want to have storage of a vehicle near the house that is practical, and if you've been up to the site, and I think some of you have been up to the site, not all of you, to store the garage under a roof down in this lower unit is not really a practical circumstance. So I think you're talking about impact, as I sometimes do, not necessarily a mathematical formula, but even the mathematical formula here I think is in their favor, where you're talking 660 square feet total of under roof storage for a vehicle and for the boat. The boat storage, in fact, is a canvas operation and he has to take part of the canvas off to get the boat into it. So I don't know if we could ever get to a point where we somehow say that there is no door on that and we just put the boat in this metal frame then put the canvas back over the top of it. Do something to the zipper so that they're not in excess of six square feet, but I mean practically speaking there's not much here that you're talking about. As to the sidelines, again we're dealing with the 50 foot lot. On the north is McKasty. Their lot is substantially lower than our present lot. We've dealt with Mr. McKasty for probably three years. We, in fact, entered into a boundary line agreement with him that benefitted him and benefitted us. We have been negotiating for the last year with him for a right of first refusal to buy that property and it's a very dilapidated home that's on there. I don't the McKasty's have been to the property in the last, mid-80's, I was going to say the last 20 years. When we deal with the fellow he just says he doesn't have time. It was his mother's property. It took us forever to get him to sign a boundary line agreement, which took a line from going partially right through his cabin and right through one of our, our dock and make it so that neither one had a problem, but we are hopefully that we will be able to negotiate with him and actually end up owning that property. We're asking for relief of 13.4 feet on the north side of the lot. On the south side of the lot we're asking for relief of 11.1 feet. Again, what we're dealing with is a 20 foot wide garage. There is no place on that upper portion that we can place that garage and have it a two car garage, have it 20 feet wide, that we wouldn't require those setbacks. So the real practical difficulty, there's not a great deal of alternatives that are viable. The height is 16 feet 8 inches, and I'll ask Lucas to explain that. If you were standing on the south side of the garage, you would look at a 15 foot building in total, that's the total height. It's when you look, when you go down in McKasty's lot, and you're looking up at the garage is where you get that extra footage because of the foundation. We go to the natural grade of the property, as opposed to, the other three sides comply, but that side does not comply. Do you want to explain that better to them maybe? MR. DOBIE-Yes. Good evening, Board. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins. We're, like Mr. O'Connor said, from the south side, you're looking at an eaves height which is well below the 16. On the east side the garage doors are, that's where the 15, 8 comes into it. So there's a little bit of confusion there. It confused me when we were doing the application. The same thing on the west side. If you were to drop a tape measure from the ridge to the previous grade from a few years ago, we're slightly over the 16. Right now it's been leveled out for the parking area where our control elevation is the northwest corner, where if you were at the edge of our eaves, you drop a tape measure down to native grade, 16 feet 8 inches. So we have to, we'll be able to dig that out, pour a little taller wall there, and then set some boulders to bring grade back up. We have to measure to the existing grade. That's wherever it's called out on the height. So to look at it from the other three sides it looks like a compliant 16 foot garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything else you'd like to add before we ask questions? MR. O'CONNOR-The only thing I'd add that this garage is not going to have water. Somehow or other it's advertised that we're going to have water and electricity. The intention is not to have water in the garage, just electricity for the door opener and the light and that's all. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. MC CABE-First I need to disclose that on my visit to the property I ran into the applicant and we discussed there was a variance but no discussion of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. KUHL-I have an interesting question. This second garage, Mr. O'Connor, what, the second, you say that this is a second garage. What is the first garage? MR. O'CONNOR-It's on the lower part. It's the canvas shed of 290 square feet. 10 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. KUHL-Yes. Now I don't know how you passed this up, because a canvas shed is not a garage. RONALD MACKOWIAK MR. MACKOWIAK-It's got six foot doors. MR. KUHL-That's fine. I have no problem with that. Okay, but if we start stipulating those canvas enclosures as garages we're in trouble. If you take a look at our specs, right, 179-5- 050 sub paragraph D, Garages, only one garage, right? 179-2-010, Garage, Private Parking An auxiliary building or structure toward residential use, attached or detached, use primarily for storage, one or three vehicles. Now if you go to Structure, Structure says any object constructed, installed or permanently placed, permanently placed on land and it says Buildings. If you go to Buildings it says any structure which is permanently affixed to the land, is covered by a roof, columns or by walls. A canvas structure is not permanently, both of those, the Structure and a Building, talk about permanently placed. When you have a canvas building, excuse me, it is my opinion by reading our regulations, that this applicant cannot ask for a second garage because he doesn't have a first garage. This is a primary, one garage. Now how did you miss that, Mr. O'Connor? It just boggles my mind. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm a later comer to the, but I think there is a letter from Craig Brown that says that there is a requirement for a variance because of a second garage. MR. KUHL-If we set this precedent now, it's going to just snowball. By our own regulations they do not have a first garage on this property, I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-So what I would propose, Mr. O'Connor, is if we get to the point where we are discussing whether or not to grant this variance application, I would note in it, to satisfy Ron, that it is subject to review by our Zoning Administrator to confirm that the second garage designation was corrected based on the Code, but at least we would get through the height and the setback variances. MR. O'CONNOR-After listening to Mr. Kuhl, I'm almost ready to say we'd withdraw that portion of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Mr. Mackowiak I know you're paying by the minute and by the hour and by the word for Mr. O'Connor. So we're trying to move it along for you, but he's going to stall it, believe me. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public comment period? We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'll open it. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. There's one letter sent in. It says, "Ron, I have no issue with the proposed garage layout. Regards, David McKasty" And you had mentioned earlier what his address was. I don't see it here. MR. O'CONNOR-McKasty is Rochester or some place. MR. MACKOWIAK-He lives down near Long Island. I can get you the exact. MR. URRICO-But I mean in relation to your. MR. MACKOWIAK-He's Reardon Road, the end of. MR. O'CONNOR-He is the immediate owner to the north of the property. MR. URRICO-Okay, and the second letter is, "We are writing this letter regarding the pending approval of a proposed garage to be constructed at 9 Glen Hall Dr. which is adjacent to our own property at 7 Glen Hall Dr. We are the 'southerly neighbor'. Earlier this year our neighbor Ron Mackowiak approached us seeking placement of the proposed garage. At that time, we gave our support via an e-mail to him. We have since become concerned about the placement of the proposed garage. Our issues involve access to and from the garage as it will impact current traffic patterns along Right of Way/Easement Pathways/Access Points across our property. We understand that these are civil matters and do not concern the Zoning Board. Therefore, we prefer to remain moot on the pending proposal for the Mackowiak garage and asked Mr. Mackowiak to remove our earlier email endorsement from his notes. When we last checked the records in your office, we found that our note of support was still contained within ,I ,I (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) the Mackowiak files. If that is the case, we would like our note expunged from the records. Thank you so much for your time and attention. William G. Hannan Frances B. Hannan" And that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one I'm going to leave the public hearing open and at this time seek a polling of the Board if that's okay. MR. NOONAN-Can I ask a question? So where do you drive your car now to access, where do you park your car? Is that going to change? MR. O'CONNOR-No. There's a right of way. MR. NOONAN-That garage is partially shown on the map. MR. O'CONNOR-It's partially shown on the map, and we had some discussions, I don't think it's with regard to the right of way itself, the discussions, which are probably not jurisdictional or not germane to this Board. If you look at the right of way they were talking about and the right of way that the fellow who wrote the letter spoke of, it actually begins on property and it's a right of way by use. It's not terribly defined in any document that I've seen to date, but they all have a general right of way, and it's something that we will work out. I did not think it was appropriate to try and work it out as consideration for the neighbor's approval of our application. He actually wrote a letter. I have it. I personally didn't mention the neighbor when I talked through my presentation, but we have a letter that says if we would agree to a 12 foot right of way he would have no objection to our garage. I don't think it's appropriate to ask us to give up our vested rights for his approval if what we're asking for approval does not, in fact, impact. What we are talking about is a setback and we're talking about the existence of the garage. We understand that we've got to abide by and recognize his rights and we can't violate them simply because we get a permit from the Town of Queensbury to build this garage. We think that we can get on the site and get into the garage and out of the garage without having a problem. If you go back, I don't know what this Board has seen, because as I said before, I just got involved with it. I know initially the access driveway, the access doors were on the south side, which would have had us backing out onto the right of way, and then exiting the property. As an accommodation for some of the discussions that we have had, we've changed it so that the access doors are on the, if you call it the back of the garage, the east side of the garage, as opposed to the south side of the garage. We do not have to back onto this fellow's property to get out of the garage. We back into our own site and then we can exit by the right of way that we have. MR. JACKOSKI-But as you mentioned before, and I'm very familiar with that property because I own part of the land down there that you have access to get to your property. So know all about those rights of uses as far as I was concerned as a landowner over there. It doesn't matter, as far as we're concerned, with this garage. As long as you can build it, if you can't get to it, that's your problem. MR. O'CONNOR-We understand that we'd be at risk. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? I'll poll the Board. I'll start at the other end this time. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I really don't have a problem with the structure. I think the height is minimally over what 16 feet would be the allowable height, and as far as the setbacks, I think it's placed as well as it can be. In terms of a second garage, I'm with Ron on this. I don't think this is a second garage in a true sense of a garage, and per our Town requirements. There seems to be some ambiguity in terms of what is and what isn't a garage, and I just don't think this falls into that realm. So I'd be in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-And we will try to utilize that language when we get to that point. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I took a look at this and I would support this new garage, be it primary or a second garage because the property topographically is pretty sloped and in the wintertime I want to see as much protection as possible just so nobody gets hurt. I think the setbacks and the height are minimal and so I would approve this also. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Didn't they come to us originally on this project? They were going to build it closer to the house on that slope? 12 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. KUHL-That was tabled twice, John. We never saw it. MR. HENKEL-Right, but I'm just saying. So actually he's made improvements and he's built on a better location. So I'm definitely for the project the way it is. MR. O'CONNOR-It's much different than what we originally had. MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's a great project. I have no problem with it. MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no problem. You heard my issue, Mr. O'Connor. You astound me with your professional performance tonight, but I did think your presentation was excellent and I'd be in favor of it. I mean, the fact that your applicant here is turning the garage because of the neighbor, that's just crazy, but it's good. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I can support this project as presented. I'm sort of trying to absorb the conversation from what the Board said, but it meets the criteria and you're keeping it as small as practical. So I would support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Having six out of the seven of us, I have a couple of questions if you don't mind. Number One, couldn't you just build the garage down by the canvas garage? MR. O'CONNOR-But then we wouldn't be able to use it practically during the winter. MR. MACKOWIAK-It's a steep hill between the two, and I personally don't want to have my wife be walking down to get a car and it's risky to do that. Even when it's plowed, there's a lot of ice there, and I don't think it's a good idea. MR. JACKOSKI-So I will close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to give this a try and you guys can step in if you think I need some help here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak. Applicant proposes construction of a 440 sq. ft. 2-car detached garage with proposed height of 16 ft. 8 in. height with electric connection. Relief requested for a second garage, if our investigation proves that this is indeed a second garage, where only one is allowed as well as setback and height relief. Site Plan: project occurs within 50 ft. 15% slopes. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016; and Wednesday, June 22, 2016; 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 because the area isn't easily viewed from nearby properties and we believe that the garage will actually make this a safer installation in the wintertime. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but because of the topographical condition of the property, they're really not reasonable. 3. The requested variance may or may not be substantial depending on the determination of whether this is indeed a second garage. 13 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 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. PZ-0059-2016 RONALD & CYNTHIA MACKOWIAK, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 22"d day of June 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck, Mr. Mackowiak, and I just had to ask that question to make sure we got it on the record. MR. MAC KOWIAK-Understood, and I thank you so much. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Board. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0160-2016 SEQRA TYPE II CHONG S. CONWAY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, EDP OWNER(S) CHONG S. CONWAY ZONING OFFICE LOCATION 633 BAY ROAD KAREN WITTE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING GARAGE/STORAGE STRUCTURE OF A 627 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR AN OFFICE AND PERSONAL SERVICE; WHERE OFFICE IS 358 SQ. FT. AND SERVICES ARE 269 SQ. FT. AN EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE PARCEL WILL BE MAINTAINED. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A 139 SQ. FT. ACCESSIBLE RAMP TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS NAD SHORELINE SETBACKS. SITE PLAN & FWW: NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND BOUNDARY. CROSS REF SP PZ-0147-2016 AND FWW PZ-0148-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2016 LOT SIZE 1.52 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040, CHAPTER 94 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0160-2016, Chong S. Conway, Meeting Date: June 22, 2016 "Project Location: 633 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to update an existing garage/storage structure of a 627 sq. ft. building for an office and personal service; where office is 358 sq. ft. and services are 269 sq. ft. An existing residence on the parcel will be maintained. Project includes installation of a 139 sq. ft. accessible ramp to the front of the building. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested minimum front yard setback requirements and shoreline setbacks. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements —Office Zone-O, The proposed construction of the access ramp at the front of the building is to be located 2.4 ft. from the front setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. The ramp is also proposed to be 43 ft. from the shoreline setback of the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 14 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) 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 due to the location of the existing building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is 72.6 ft. from the front property line and 32 ft. from the shoreline. 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 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 renovate an existing building for an office and personal service nail salon. The plans show the ramp location, and a rendition of the building shows the exterior and interior layout of the building." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Dennis. Obviously it's a very complicated site, but a simple application. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Thank you. Yes, I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design Partnership representing the owner and applicant, Chong Conway. Mrs. Conway is with us in the audience. This is a proposal, the overall project proposal is the renovation or conversion of an existing accessory structure on a 1.6 acre lot in the Office zoning district. It's a pre-existing residential use associated with that. It's at 633 Bay Road, just south of here, west side of Bay Road opposite SUNY Adirondack, not far from the Howard Insurance building as well. Mrs. Conway would like to convert that, what is now currently a garage/storage space and make use of it for office space and personal services. By Code the office space needs to be a greater floor area than the personal services. Williams & Williams has designed the floor plan of this conversion. As you see in the packet, I would note that there's no additional floor area or changes to the building other than the interior modifications and improvements to allow for the two uses. Now the variance that's requested is related to a handicap accessible ramp which is required by Code. It's to be located on the front side of the building that would provide the access into the personal services portion of the building. The grade is such that we need a ramp. The handicap ramp, the ADA standards are specific as far as shape and size and slope and what not. So we've proposed that structure on the road side of the building. In doing so we go further into the setback, and as I have indicated, these are pre-existing structures in a zone that requires a 75 foot setback. So we can't come close to meeting that standard. With the addition of the ramp and the Code requirement puts us out within two and a half feet, roughly, of the property line. On the back side there happens to be a stream that runs through the property, and associated wetlands, and we've had those wetlands delineated and that 75 foot, what's referred to in the Code as a shoreline setback, is the setback to the edge of the wetland as identified, and we're at 43 feet as opposed to 75. So there's two different variances we're seeking, again, simply related to the handicap accessible ramp that's required for this use. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Dennis. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? Having none, is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application as I open the public hearing? Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and after listening to the explanation that Dennis provided us, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes, I think this is a good utilization of that building. It's been empty for a long, long time. I assume, by all of this work, that it's going to open up as a business? 15 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. KUHL-So it's going to be a hairdresser? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-That's the personal services. The other will be an office space for that use that meets that requirement. It could be a gallery. It could be a small office. MR. KUHL-It could end up being two separate businesses? MR. MAC ELROY-Two uses, correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Yes, I have no problem. I think it's a good use of the building. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Ron. I think what they're asking to build isn't creating more hard surface there or anything. It's just a ramp that is needed. So I agree with the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I support this project. It's sort of a catch-22. They've got conflicting rules and regulations and then trying to fit within them. So I have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chong S. Conway. Applicant proposes to update an existing garage/storage structure of a 627 sq. ft. building for an office and personal service; where office is 358 sq. ft. and services are 269 sq. ft. An existing residence on the east will be maintained. Project includes installation of a 139 sq. ft. accessible ramp to the front of the building. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements and shoreline setbacks. Site Plan & FWW: new commercial use and project occurs within 100 ft. of a wetland boundary. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 2016; 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. What it is is a good use of a vacant building. 16 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) 2. Feasible alternatives are really not possible because of the existing structure and the existing wetlands. 3. The requested variance is not substantial in the situation with the Bay Road corridor and the wetlands. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created because of the existing building being built close to Bay Road and also the wetlands. 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 PZ-0160-2016, Chong S. Conway, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0156-2016 SEQRA TYPE II ANNE & BEN CAMPBELL OWNER(S) ANNE & BEN CAMPBELL ZONING WR LOCATION 28 HILLMAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 288 SQ. FT. SCREENED-PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PORCH. ALSO, APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN PRE-EXISTING 96 SQ. FT. SHED IN A NONCOMPLIANT LOCATION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2011-095 SFD; BP 2009-386 TEST PIT, BP 2011-094 DEMO OF SFD; BP 2004-336 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 ANNE & BEN CAMPBELL, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0156-2016, Anne & Ben Campbell, Meeting Date: June 22, 2016 "Project Location: 28 Hillman Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 288 sq. ft. screened-porch and to maintain preexisting 96 sq. ft. shed in current location. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum rear yard setback requirements for the porch. Also, applicant proposes to maintain pre-existing 96 sq. ft. shed in a noncompliant location; relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements —Waterfront Residential Zone -WR, The porch addition is to be 18.8 ft. and 20.8 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required from the North property line. Relief is also requested for an existing 96 sq. ft. shed located 18.4 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: '17 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) 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 due to the lot shape and the floor plan of the house. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested 11.2 ft. and 9.2 ft. from the north property line. The shed relief 11.6 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 project will have minimal 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 a 288 sq. ft. screen porch addition to the rear property of the existing home. The information submitted shows the location of the addition and elevations. The applicant has included photos of the exterior where the porch addition is partially framed on the back of the home." MR. JACKOSKI-And for disclosure I live, not within 500 feet I guess because I don't think I got a notice, but I drive by the house every single day to get to my house. So, just so everybody knows. I'm not recusing myself on this one. Anyway, welcome. It's a pretty straightforward application. Do you want to add anything at the moment or just take questions from the Board members? MR. CAMPBELL-Just that everything from the neighbors, so far, has been positive. MRS. CAMPBELL-And there is a letter. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-All that open land behind you that's, I mean, it just seems strange that you have to come for a variance, but anyway, but that's owned by people that are not going to build. MRS. CAMPBELL-I don't think they can build. MR. CAMPBELL-They can't. MR. KUHL-I mean, you have a nice piece of property. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members? So the question is from Board members concerning, do you have those two sheds on the corner, are those yours? MR. CAMPBELL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Are they on your property? MR. CAMPBELL-It's questionable. Very close. MRS. CAMPBELL-No, that was our neighbor that dropped those there, without our permission, or yours. MR. HENKEL-It looks like some kind of generator in between them, too. MR. CAMPBELL-It's two sheds with a generator in between. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I was going to say, it's kind of different. 18 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, could you follow up with me, please, concerning the, I don't know if you've heard the most recent discussions. So John asked about the two sheds that are in the southwest corner of the property, and we need to follow up with Building and Codes concerning the location of those two sheds. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. FREER-So I have a question about the shed that you're asking for a variance for. Did you build that or was that part of what you purchased? MR. CAMPBELL-We built it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is. "I am the adjacent property owner to Anne and Ben Campbell to the rear of their property, Tax Map No. 227.17-1-3. I'm aware of the proposed screened porch addition they would like to add to the rear of their house located at 28 Hillman Road. I understand they need a variance as this porch would be within the 30 foot rear yard setback. I have no objection to their porch addition and the variance required. Thank you, John Mason, 11 Heron Hollow." MR. JACKOSKI-So Mr. Mason is immediately to the north, right on the top of that screen that you're looking at. Any other comments? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is still open. I'll poll the Board. I'll do it in reverse order this time. John? MR. HENKEL-I don't really see any problem with it. I think it's nice to be able to kind of enjoy a little bit of the view of the lake from there because they're not on the lake. I don't see any big problems hindering anybody else's view. So I'd come out definitely for the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 have no problem with it. You've probably waited a long time to do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 have no problem, but what if it turns out those two sheds are on their property? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, the Zoning Administrator will have to make that determination. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Or even a portion of those sheds, according to the Code. Correct? One accessory structure. MR. HENKEL-But if they didn't put them there, it's not their fault. \ MR. JACKOSKI-They won't have an issue with this application, but that'll just have to get resolved. That'll be a civil matter, not a Zoning Board matter. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I support the project. 10 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-So, having polled the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NOONAN-I'll make the motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Anne & Ben Campbell. Applicant proposes construction of a 288 sq. ft. screened-porch. Relief requested from minimum rear yard setback requirements for the porch. Also, applicant proposes to maintain pre-existing 96 sq. ft. shed in a noncompliant location; relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 2016; 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. There may not be feasible alternatives at this point in time. 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 could be considered self-created. 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 PZ-0156-2016, ANNE & BEN CAMPBELL, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And now that you have this deck, hopefully you won't be bothering the neighbors anymore. So great. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0155-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JOHN M. HUGHES TRUST ZONING RR-3A LOCATION OXBOW HILL ROAD, GLEN LAKE ROAD, AND STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 19.73 ACRE VACANT PARCEL INTO 5-LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. LOT 1: 3.3 ACRES; LOT 2 — 3.2 ACRES; LOT 3: 3.6 ACRES; LOT 4: 4.2 ACRES; LOT 5: 5.5 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, PRIVATE ROAD, INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC AND WELLS, LOT CLEARING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY, ROAD FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH AND LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB PZ-0079-2016 SKETCH; SB PZ-0154-2016 PRELIM. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 19.73 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040 20 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0155-2016, John M. Hughes Trust, Meeting Date: June 22, 2016 "Project Location: Oxbow Hill Road, Glen Lake Road, and State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.73 acre vacant parcel into 5-lots for single-family homes. Lot 1: 3.3 acres; Lot 2: 3.2 acres; Lot 3: 3.6 acres; Lot 4: 4.1 acres; Lot 5: 5.5 acres. Project includes associated site work, private road, installation of septic and wells, lot clearing and stormwater management. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from density, road frontage, lot width, and lot size requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements — Rural Residential Three Acres RR-3A, • The project as proposed requires relief from density where the parcel contains steep slopes and 10.41 ac of the 19.73 ac site is a buildable area; • Three of the parcels require lot width relief where 400 ft. is required and Lot 1 is proposed to have 255 ft., Lot 2 proposed to have 245 ft., and Lot 3 proposed to have 257 ft. Section 179-4-010 Residential Design Requirements Frontage • Frontage required is 400 ft. where on the private drive proposed for Lot 2 is 306.3 ft. and Lot 3 proposed is 336.7 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of proposed lots. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. o Relief requested is 4.59 acres where 15 ac of buildable density. o Relief for lot width: Lot 1 145 ft., Lot 2 155 ft., Lot 3 143 ft. o Relief for road frontage: Lot 2 93.7 ft., Lot 3 63.3 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 project will have minimal impact on the physical or environmental impacts. The applicant proposes a grading and clearing plan for each individual lot as part of the subdivision plan. In addition a stormwater pollution prevention plan has been prepared and under review. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of a 19.73 ac parcel located in the Rural Residential Three Acre zoning. The plans submitted show the location and access off of Oxbow Hill Rd. The arrangement of lots includes a private drive to access all five lots." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record please and add anything you'd like into the record. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, and good evening, Board, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, and with me in the audience is Mr. John Hughes, and I don't see anybody else in the audience. So that's a good thing, at least none that I can see yet. Just real 21 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) briefly we're bounded on three sides by roads, 149 to the north, Oxbow Hill Road to the east, and Glen Lake Road to the south. We propose a five lot residential subdivision with one curb cut onto Oxbow Hill Road and the narrower than a Town road private road, which would be maintained by the HOA, similar in design to a project off of Tee Hill Road called Mark Drive, with 18 foot asphalt lift to reduce environmental impacts and the clearing and grading and such forth and if we were a flat site, density would be no issue. We're almost 20 acres, however, where the glacier moved through or the back slope of when they built Glen Lake Road, created a bunch of steep slopes to the south, which we're staying off of. Unfortunately we have to deduct that from our density calculations and we also have to deduct our road right of way, our easement area, so we come up short on our density. The building locations are on the high flat portion of the site and when you walk it it feels like there's tons of space and really comfortable with the building sites and the spacing of the houses. We're not asking for any setback relief, not lot size relief. We come up short a little bit on our lot width and road frontage of 400 feet which is extremely difficult to do. I think probably the logic or the intention when that was re- done in the 2009 Code was if we were along a major thoroughfare and we didn't want to lop up a bunch of narrower lots with a bunch of road cuts. That's not the case here as we're tucked into the woods. Access with one road cut and would be largely invisible. So we were at the Sketch Plan with the Planning Board in March. Had a favorable report there and our referral last night at the Planning Board and I'll keep it as simple as that. We're trying to maintain a 75 foot buffer along 149 and the two lots in particular to the west are quite spectacular, nice panoramic views. They're significantly higher than 149. So they're nice and quiet up there, and I'll leave it at that and ask for your questions and hopefully get your support on the project. Thank you, Board. MR. JACKOSKI-I just had a couple of questions if you don't mind. You said the 75 feet, is that a no cut zone? MR. DOBIE-That is, yes, my clearing limit is keeping it as tight to the road as I can. The narrowest part is Lot Two which is right at the 70 to 75 feet, that's with the intention of absolutely leaving it as existing buffer. MR. JACKOSKI-And as it relates down to Glen Lake Road, will the future homeowners be able to clear those areas? One of the things I hate about Country Club Road is some of the folks in Orchard Park, I think that's what it's called, whatever it's called there, Twicwood, whatever, you know, they've accessed the back of their lots with their campers and their driveways and all that other stuff and the back of the house just looks awful. Are we going to have curb cuts along Glen Lake Road as well in the future or would you be willing to eliminate the possibility of those as well? MR. DOBIE-Absolutely. Our clearing limits on our subdivision plan is what we're required by Site Plan Review and subdivisions to hold to, and the terrain is unsuitable along there. MR. JACKOSKI-But there are some spots where you could pull a vehicle off, you could put a canvas garage. You could do some of that. MR. DOBIE-I'm sure Mr. Hughes and I would agree to absolutely none of that action and I'm sure that when someone, the first time they fire up a chainsaw that Bruce Frank will be getting a call. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, those lots have wicked slopes. We understand that, but when you really look at Lot Three, Lot Two and Lot One, that corner in particular, there's a decent ability to pull off and up into there, so I just want to make sure that doesn't happen. I think the layout is great, from my perspective. I think you would utilize the land well. You can hide these houses from 149 and Glen Lake Road and you've only got that one access coming in off of Oxbow Hill. I, personally, in the wintertime, wouldn't want to be trying to pull out of there onto Oxbow Hill, but. MR. DOBIE-Yes, I think most of the time they'll be coming down for sure, and I live around the corner, too, so as long as I'm there I'm going to keep an eye on things.. I don't want the property massacred either. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address this Board concerning this application? I know Mr. Hughes does not. So I will turn it over to Roy. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 22 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) MR. URRICO-There are no written comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comments, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll seek a polling of the Board. At this time I will start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-1 approve this project. I eyed this land for a long time. I think that the plan is solid and I welcome development of this area and therefore I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-It seems like a good plan to me. I think it satisfies the criteria and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, as long as the private road is wide enough for emergency vehicles, which I'm sure will happen, I have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's a good utilization of this property. I guess the only question I didn't ask, the road is going to be made to the specs that the Town would be, it's going to be a Town road, that would be 24 feet wide? MR. DOBIE-No. It will not. It will have the 18 foot paved width and then for Fire Code every 500 feet you have to kick it up to 20 feet wide. So we have that significantly less, same sub base, similar pavement. MR. KUHL-But it'll never become a Town road? It'll always be an HOA private right of way. MR. DOBIE-That is the intention, yes, sir. MR. KUHL-All right. Thank you. No, I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-If you haven't named that road yet, Jackoski Road sounds good. All right, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval of this application. I'm sorry, Harrison. MR. FREER-I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Now can I close the public hearing and seek a motion? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John M. Hughes, Trust. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.73 acre vacant parcel into 5-lots for single-family homes. Lot 1: 3.3 acres; Lot 2: 3.2 acres; Lot 3: 3.6 acres; Lot 4: 4.1 acres; Lot 5: 5.5 acres. Project includes associated site work, private road, installation of septic and wells, lot clearing and stormwater management. Relief requested from density, road frontage, lot width, and lot size requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 2016; 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 because in essence this will become the neighborhood. 2 (Queen lbuiry 213A IMee ing 06/22/2016) 2. Feasible alternatives are limited. The land is severely sloped in sections and therefore there's not a lot of other ways that this could be done. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because again it's isolated and it will certainly make best use of this land. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 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 PZ-0155-2016 JOHN M. HUGHES, TRUST, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much, Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other business Board members would like to bring to the Board? MR. KUHL-I'm really serious about that garage thing. MR. JACKOSKI-Talk to Craig about that. MR. KUHL-I'd like to see something in writing. MR. JACKOSKI-I have no problem if the Town is going to start considering those structures as fitting into the permanent. MR. KUHL-But the wording suggests even a shed isn't permanent. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll find out. MR. HENKEL-I make a motion we adjourn. MR. MC CABE-1 second it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 22, 2016, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 24