Loading...
11-16-2016 Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4":0 16) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2016 INDEX Area Variance No. 74-2014 David Hartman 1. REQUEST FOR EXT. OF APPROVAL Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Area Variance PZ 246-2016 Lisa Daigle 2. Tax Map No. 253.3-1-32.1 Area Variance PZ 241-2016 Justin Reyes 7. Tax Map No. 301.7-1-52 Area Variance PZ 240-2016 Jack Schultz 11. Tax Map No. 290.6-1-49 Area Variance PZ 247-2016 Sigh Monger 14. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-14 Area Variance PZ 249-2016 David Bogue 16. Tax Map No. 315.8-1-4 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 MINTUES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING "I Board of ApIl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) NOVEMBER 16, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals on today, Wednesday, November 16th here at 7 o'clock at the Queensbury Activities Center. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's actually a very easy process. There is an agenda on the back table with some of our guidelines on how we conduct our meetings. We will first attend to some housekeeping and administrative items, followed by Old Business, then New Business. What will happen is we'll call each applicant up to the small table here, with any of the agents that may be representing the applicants. Roy will be kind enough to read the application or changes to the application into the record. After he's completed that, we'll ask for introductions of the applicants and begin our process of deliberating on the actual application in front of us. There are public hearings scheduled for this evening for every one of these items, and after we have a public hearing I'll poll the Board and ask them where they think they're leaning on the application and we'll take action accordingly, whether it's a denial, passing, or maybe even a tabling at the request of the applicant. So, first things first. Let's start with housekeeping and I need a motion for approval of the meeting minutes of October 19th APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next, an administrative item we have this evening is a request for an extension for approval of Area Variance No. 74-2014, the David Hartman property at 51 Assembly Point Road. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL: AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2014 DAVID HARTMAN 51 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, can you fill us in a little? MRS. MOORE-Yes. The applicant provided a letter indicating that they were still working on our construction drawings and didn't have them ready as of the expiration of this year, and so they asked for an additional extension. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a letter from David Hartman, dated October 31, 2016 requesting further extension of approval from original approval by the ZBA on November 18, 2014 and from the first extension of approval by the ZBA on November 18, 2015. 2 Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) The applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,448 sq. ft. cottage and construction of a new year-round single-family dwelling. The new home will be 3,585.5 sq. ft. The variances required; minimum side on the north side: 15 ft. is required, 6.2 ft. is proposed, 8.8 ft. of relief. The south side: 15 ft. is required, proposed is 13.1 ft., relief requested is 1.9 ft. The shoreline: 55 ft. on average for a house setback; proposed is 52.3 ft.; the relief requested is 2.7 ft. Floor Area Ratio: 22 percent is required, proposing 29 percent; requesting 7 percent relief. On the height: maximum height 28 ft. required; proposed is plus or minus 31.8 ft. and it will be less than 3.8 ft. And, that the stormwater —the rain gardens will comply with 1.5 gallons per square foot. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SECOND REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2016, David Hartmann, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next item this evening is Lisa Daigle. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ 246-2016 SEQRA TYPE II LISA DAIGLE OWNER(S) LISA DAIGLE ZONING RR-5A — PORTION IN CEA LOCATION 1903 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BARN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,640 SQ. FT. BUILDING. (1,343 +/- SQ. FT. GARAGE; 1,342 +/- SQ. FT. STORAGE; 519 +/- SQ. FT. STORAGE; 275 +/- SQ. FT. UTILITY SPACE). PROJECT SITE HAS 3 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS — THIS WOULD BE THE 4T". RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE COMBINED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON THE PARCEL, NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND FOR MORE THAN ONE GARAGE BUILDING. CROSS REF BOTH 601-2016 DEMOLITION BARN; BOTH 650-2016 DETACHED GARAGE; BP 1374 YR. 1971 COVERED PARCEL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 19.36 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-32.1 LISA DAIGLE, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 246-2016, Lisa Daigle, Meeting Date: November 16, 2016 "Project Location: 1903 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing barn and construction of a 3,640 sq. ft. building. (1,343 +/- sq. ft. garage; 1,342 +/- sq. ft. storage; 519 +/- sq. ft. storage; 275 +/- sq. ft. utility space). Project site has 3 accessory buildings — this would be the 4th Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable square footage of the combined accessory structures on the parcel, number of allowable accessory structures, and for more than one garage building. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage The code allows for one garage at 2,200 sq. ft. on parcels greater than 5 acres and cannot exceed the principal structure square footage. The applicant proposes a 3,640 sq. ft. building that would contain 1,343 sq. ft. garage where there are existing buildings on the site that meet the definition of a garage due to door width. In addition, there are three accessory structures where there are only allowed three for lots greater than 3 ac where this is the fourth accessory structure. The maximum size allowed is 750 sq. ft. for total of accessory structures where proposed for building is 794 sq. ft. The parcel is 19.36 ac. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: of IBoai° d of Apw:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce the door width. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested for accessory structure total square footage 44 sq. ft. in excess of the amount allowed at 750 sq. ft. Relief requested for more than one garage and four accessory structures. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a 70' by 60' new building and has taken down a 42'x33' cow barn building. The applicant has indicated the new structure will allow for equipment storage for property maintenance and a hobby work area. The applicant has provided background information about the property and buildings being used for farming. The submission includes a survey, drawings of the proposed building with elevations and floor plan." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. MRS. DAIGLE-My name is Lisa Daigle. MR. JACKOSKI-Hi, Lisa. The Board will just ask you some questions, if that's okay. MRS. DAIGLE-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board members have questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-When I checked the property I noticed that there was another little, is that the chicken coop that you moved to the other side of the building closer to the road? MRS. DAIGLE-No, that was the old spring house where they used to store the cans of milk. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So actually then there's four buildings, right? Would that be considered the fourth building? MRS. DAIGLE-There's four, well, MR. HENKEL-So you're asking for a fifth building now? MRS. MOORE-Isn't it less than? MR. HENKEL-It looks like it's less than 10 by 10. MRS. DAIGLE-It is less than 10 by 10. j� IBoai° d of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MR. HENKEL-Yes, okay. MRS. DAIGLE-I mean, picked it up and moved it. I didn't want it demolished. I wanted it saved. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-If anyone else has any questions, or I can open up the public hearing. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening so I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? If you could come up to the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DONNA PERRY MS. PERRY-Hi, I'm Donna Perry. I live directly across the street. So I have a couple of concerns. One is what is being stored in this building. If the building is going to affect the amount of use of my road, which if you can see on the map, I live directly on Stevenson Road, and there's a large piece of, I don't know what you're farming on that back piece of property. MRS. DAIGLE-We are. MS. PERRY-And what is being farmed and whether my road. MRS. DAIGLE-The same thing that's been farmed for years. MS. PERRY-Okay. So you're not adding any more. MR. JACKOSKI-Actually you have to address us. MS. PERRY-I'm sorry. So my concern is whether or not they're adding more machinery or anything like that because it will directly affect my area. MR. JACKOSKI-And how will that do that? MS. PERRY-Because the area across the street that she has. MR. JACKOSKI-I drive it every day so I'm familiar. MS. PERRY-Is for farming use. I guess that she'll be farming. I don't know if she's just keeping it the same as it is. I have no idea, and my other question is, since they do not live on the premises, why do they need it? That's the only question I have. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MS. PERRY-So those are just a few concerns that I have, whether it's going to affect my area. That's about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you with MRS. DAIGLE? RICH COMBS MR. COMBS-Yes, I'm the neighbor on the east. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. If you could join us at the table. I apologize. I thought you were part of the same property. 5 Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MR. COMBS-On the other side of the property. Yes. My name is Rich Combs and I own 150 acres on the back along their line, on that east side, and I believe the garage doors are facing that way. Most of the woods are almost right up to the building. So if you came to see the barn, the building as it is right now because we're up there hunting, not shooting that way of course, but you can't hardly even see the building because the doors are on that side, the wooded side of the farm. So I guess to make a long story short, these guys make great neighbors. They're new. They're great neighbors and they've been good to us, and they run a class act. So if they do anything it'll look better than it does now when they get done. So I would be sure of that. And so we as the Combs on the east side have no objection to what they're doing there. It all looks good, whatever we can see. There's not much. So anyway, that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We appreciate it. I'll just double check again. Is there anyone else? Okay. Mrs. Daigle, if you could join us back at the table. So I guess the first question that came up during public comment was what is it that you plan to store in those buildings? MRS. DAIGLE-Well, right at the moment, the one barn we took down was not feasible to keep. It had been severely infested with beetles, and it had been neglected, simply because the person who owned it was just, it was his Prozac. He would look out and he would see this familiar site and so nothing was done to maintain the barns in a proper manner. One of my caveats was that if I had to take it down because I couldn't save it, at least some of it was to be re-used in a proper manner and restoring other barns, or something of that nature, and it has actually been taken down and it was almost 40% infested with beetles and it was also the structure that was infested. So it meant that we really couldn't afford to keep it, to re-build it back to what it needed to be done. MR. JACKOSKI-So the stuff that was in that barn will go in this new storage area. MRS. DAIGLE-Yes. Some of what was in that barn will go in there. The hay we actually are keeping off site at the moment because the other lower barn that is next to where it was has some structural things that need to be addressed so as soon as I can afford to do that, after I move over there, we will be addressing that, and then the red barn also has to be structurally attended to. MR. JACKOSKI-And tell me just briefly what is it, as was brought up in public comment, that you'll be farming, so to speak, on the other side of the road? MRS. DAIGLE-The back 43 acres, there's about 12 acres of corn that has been back there for a while. It's been harvested, and when I inherited the property I made sure that the impact on my neighbors was at a minimum. I make sure that their property is not touched or damaged in any way, and then the other roughly 30 acres is hay. It's all very low impact for the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-And do you have any issues within impact. MRS. DAIGLE-Impact to the neighbors? MR. JACKOSKI-Impact, especially with Stevenson Drive there. MRS. DAIGLE-No. As a matter of fact, nothing will change from what's been done there for decades. If anything the people that are leasing my fields from me right at the moment are very good and listened to me and my request to keep the impact to the neighbors at a minimum. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other questions from Board members? Seeing none, the public hearing is still open. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm satisfied that I think that it's going to continue at the same functional level as currently exists, and I don't see that it's any grand change. It seems to me the lower profile on the barn is going to be not really viewable. It's not going to be that great. MRS. DAIGLE-And that was the purpose to make whatever we're replacing it with less structurally visible. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. DAIGLE-That's why it's long and low. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, so I would have no problem approving it. 6 Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's an improvement to what was there, I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, ditto. I support this request. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I don't see any undesirable change to the neighborhood, and I'd agree with the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. There's a lot of verbiage that basically said we're replacing one building with another and so I think that's going to make an improvement to that overall ambience, and so I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lisa Daigle. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing barn and construction of a 3,640 sq. ft. building. (1,343 +/- sq. ft. garage; 1,342 +/- sq. ft. storage; 519 +/- sq. ft. storage; 275 +/- sq. ft. utility space). Project site has 3 accessory buildings —this would be the 4th The applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable square footage of the combined accessory structures on the parcel, number of allowable accessory structures, and for more than one garage building. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage The code allows for one garage at 2,200 sq. ft. on parcels greater than 5 acres and cannot exceed the principal structure square footage. The applicant proposes a 3,640 sq. ft. building that would contain 1,343 sq. ft. garage where there are existing buildings on the site that meet the definition of a garage due to door width. In addition, there are three accessory structures where there are only allowed three for lots greater than 3 ac where this is the fourth accessory structure. The maximum size allowed is 750 sq. ft. for total of accessory structures where proposed for building is 794 sq. ft. The parcel is 19.36 ac. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 16, 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 barn will continue at its current functioning level. 2. Feasible alternatives would be to construct a smaller structure but this one is slightly larger than what's allowed by Town code. 3. The requested variance is not considered to be substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We do not anticipate any because it's just going to continue the function as a barn. Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they do want to have a new structure but as explained by the owners the old structure was infested by beetles and unusable. 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; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 246-2016 LISA DAIGLE, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MRS. DAIGLE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ 241-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JUSTIN REYES OWNER(S) RICARDO REYES ZONING MDR LOCATION 29 BUENA VISTA AVENUE WESTLAND SUBDIVISION, SECTION 12 APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL TO COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF A 6 FT. HIGH STOCKADE FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD (POTTER ROAD) OF THE PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF POTTER ROAD AND BUENA VISTA AVENUE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ANDD TYPE OF ALLOWABLE FENCE FOR THE PARCEL. CROSS REF. BP 2015-175 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 96-382 PORCH OVER EXISTING SLAB; BP 1899 YR. 1972 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.7-1-52 SECTION 179-5-070 JUSTIN REYES, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 241-2016, Justin Reyes, Meeting Date: November 16, 2016 "Project Location: 29 Buena Vista Avenue Westland Subdivision, Section 12 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant seeks approval to complete installation of a 6 ft. high stockade fence in the front yard (Potter Road) of the property on the corner of Potter Road and Buena Vista Avenue. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions and type of allowable fence. Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 6 ft. stockade and will be located on Potter Road, where the property is located at the corner of Potter Rd and Buena Vista Ave. 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 to no 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 for a compliant fence height. 8 Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2 ft. in excess of the allowed fence height and stockade. 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 complete installation of 6 ft. fence for 106 ft. +/- section that will be along Potter Rd. The applicant has indicated the need for the fence includes privacy, security and children safety. The applicant has indicated the fence will be located behind a row of trees. The plans show the location of the fence on the property with the section on Potter Rd 56 ft. then 25 ft. from the house to Potter Rd and then 25 ft. to connect to the existing fence." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. REYES-Yes. My name is Justin Reyes. MR. JACKOSKI-Hi, Justin, and if you could maybe just give a little history of how this all came about. MR. REYES-I was interested in creating this fence for the safety of my kids, safety and privacy. We got a contractor to come out, install the fence. He got to the end of my house, where I guess you can't have anything past the structural line, largely four foot and stockade. At that point he told me that I needed to try to petition for a variance. So I submitted the paperwork. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any Board members have questions at this time? MR. KUHL-Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. So the fence that's up there now is six foot, correct? MR. REYES-Yes, it is. MR. KUHL-Did you ever get approval for that? MR. REYES-I was told I didn't have to after the fact because it does follow the architectural line of my house. MR. KUHL-So that's a no. MR. REYES-No, that's a yes. MR. KUHL-That's a yes. MR. URRICO-You said after the fact you were told? MR. REYES-After, yes. MR. URRICO-By the Planning Department? MR. REYES-Yes, after reading the sections, yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Do you want me to clarify that? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So there's a point where the contractor installed it and that's considered compliant, and then when he got to the corner where it's beyond the architectural front, that's where it becomes non-compliant, and that's when the contractor notified him and said, hey, you need to come for a variance because he had a conversation with our office. So the contractor stopped. So there's nothing built there yet. So now he'd like to complete the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-He wants an extension over what's there. i Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MR. HENKEL-He wants to go beyond the house. MR. KUHL-So the contractor that installed the existing fence did come to the Town and get a building permit. Is that right? MR. REYES-I'm not sure how that went. MR. JACKOSKI-You don't need a permit for a fence. MR. KUHL-You don't? I'm not in Clifton Park I guess. I'm sorry. MR. REYES-Yes, from what I read it has to be four foot on the front part of the property which I'm looking for a relief for. I want a six foot privacy. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. FREER-So you said part of the rationale for us giving this is safety of your children. MR. REYES-Yes. MR. FREER-How old are your children? Can they climb a four foot fence? MR. REYES-1 have a seven year old and twin five year olds. All boys. MR. FREER-So you don't think a four foot fence would be secure? MR. REYES-No, sir, and at this point right now, I was told that I could end the four foot fence right where that white downspout is. If I were to do that and stay compliant, that would be right over my leach field, and if I had any problems further on down the road, everything would have to come up. MR. JACKOSKI-You mean the post and the rails? MR. REYES-Yes, and as you can see I already have trees in that area. So I don't believe it would be any kind of aesthetic displeasure. MR. JACKOSKI-How much distance is there between the road, the line, to where your property ends and the road begins and where you're going to put the fence and where you're going to plant trees? MR. REYES-The trees are noted as the green marks. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm asking how many feet that is. MR. REYES-That's 25 feet from the end of the house to where I want to put the fence right along the trees, and it's 56 feet long to connect the two. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? I'm opening the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. Jeff Taylor, 20 Buena Vista Avenue "States that the hedge which is presently there is too high - 12 to 14 feet high — which causes a sight distance problem when pulling out onto Potter Rd. If a privacy fence is being installed in place of the hedge then the fence is too close to the road. Thereby impeding sight to pull out onto Potter Rd." MR. JACKOSKI-Anything other? MR. URRICO-That's it. That's all I have. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board at this time. I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-1 took a look at this. I don't see it as any different from a couple of his neighbors further west on Potter Road there. So we'd be affording him essentially the same 1() Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) privileges that other neighbors further to the west have been already granted. So I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm concerned about the precedent that we're setting here with regard to, question in my mind, you know, a four foot fence sort of complies with one of his rationales of keeping the area fenced. I mean, to say you need a six foot fence is a stretch in my mind from the safety standpoint. So I'd like to hear what the rest of our Board says before I decide. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-In a practical sense I think we have to look at what's been done previously in the area, and I think we have allowed six foot tall fences along that roadway in other instances also, keeping in mind that it's a major arterial road with plenty of traffic on it, and so I think the public concern, I mean, the personal concern with family about family safety, the fence is going to be screened by those trees which will be there between the road and the fence if it's allowed to be completed as wanted here by the applicant. So I don't really have a problem with it. I think that it's, the vegetation mitigates the height of the fence and I think that the six foot tall fence isn't really unpractical. In a sense I think it makes more sense to keep it uniform along the whole way. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to have to come down on the negative side. I believe it's not allowable and it shouldn't be allowed. I think that we're changing the Code because the other neighbors have been allowed the fence that we're changing, then we are, in effect, changing the Code, which is not what we're here to do. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree that Potter Road is a heavily traveled road. I've been on it a lot, and I think that the trees will hide it. Even if he were to change the type of fence and put a little lattice work on the top, it still would be a six foot fence and he'd have to come for a variance. So I would be in favor of this project the way it is. I don't think we're setting a precedent. This is a heavily traveled road. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I can understand for the safety and the privacy for family. The only thing I don't really like is a six foot fence so close to the road, even though it's going to be hidden behind the trees. I would be okay with a six foot fence to the edge of the house, but I would be a little bit happier with a four foot fence coming out that far towards the road. So I'm kind of negative on it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm negative on it, too, at the moment. Harrison? MR. FREER-Well, I guess listening to my colleagues, and I've been on Potter Road a lot, too, so I guess I can support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Justin Reyes. Applicant seeks approval to complete installation of a 6 ft. high stockade fence in the front yard (Potter Road) of the property on the corner of Potter Road and Buena Vista Avenue. The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions and type of allowable fence. Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 6 ft. stockade and will be located on Potter Road, where the property is located at the corner of Potter Rd and Buena Vista Ave. SEQR Type II — no further review required; ml ml Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 16, 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 similar fences exist farther down the road to the west. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but do not provide the safety and privacy requested by the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial again because there are similar properties down the road. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is not 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 NO. PZ 241-2016, JUSTIN REYES, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2016 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Should there be any conditions that the trees should always be there? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think we can do that because we don't know what salt's going to do over the years and, you know, I mean, I don't think you have any intention of taking them down, do you? MR. REYES-No, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. You're all set. MR. REYES-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ 240-2016 SEQRA TYPE 11 JACK SCHULTZ OWNER(S) JACK SCHULTZ ZONING MDR LOCATION 27 GLENMAR DRIVE — STONEHURST SECTION 1 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 624 SQ. FT. SHED TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY WHERE AN EXISTINIG 120 SQ. FT. SHED EXISTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR SHEDS. CROSS REF BP 99-077 CRAWL FOUNDATION; BP 88-101 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2016 LOT SIZE 1.36 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.6-1-49 SECTION 179-5-020 JACK SCHULTZ, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 240-2016, Jack Schultz, Meeting Date: November 16, 2016 "Project Location: 27 Glenmar Drive — Stonehurst Section 1 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. shed to be placed on the property where an existing 120 sq. ft. shed exists. 12 Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable square footage for sheds. 179-5-020 Accessory sheds—no more than 500 sq. ft. in total on parcels less than 3 acres. The code allows for two residential sheds with a total no greater than 500 sq. ft. The applicant proposes a new shed of 624 sq. ft. and to maintain an existing shed 120 sq. 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to have a smaller shed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested is 244 in excess of the amount allowed at 500 sq. 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 as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 624 sq. ft. shed on the rear portion of the property. The total number of sheds would be two where the total square footage would be more than 500 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated the need for the shed is to have better access for storage and woodworking hobby. The applicant has explained the existing basement is difficult to access and has a low height clearance. The information submitted shows the location of the sheds, photo of the existing shed, and the cut sheet of the shed to be purchased." MR. JACKOSKI-If you could just identify yourself for the record and then we'll ask you some questions. MR. SCHULTZ-Jack Schultz. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Did you consider putting the shed where the original shed was? MR. SCHULTZ-No. MR. HENKEL-It's kind of more hidden there. MR. SCHULTZ-Well, I already had that one full. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to open the public hearing at this time for this application. Roy, is there any public comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'm going to poll the Board. Harrison? 13 Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MR. FREER-Yes. I guess I don't see why we should approve such a big shed. I think he should comply with the zoning requirements for what kind of sheds are allowed. Right now I'm not in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I'd much rather see, I would approve one large shed, but not an over- sized shed with another one already existing. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we need to shrink the sheds. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'd also be in favor of the one shed if we removed the other one. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think that that's not unrealistic to have just one shed, even though this one is larger than most, but I would approve one only, not two. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think taking into account the comments of the Board members, I think at this point in time we might want to withdraw the application. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll get to that, Jim. Are you looking to approve it or deny it, please? MR. UNDERWOOD-At this point I wouldn't approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-So, listening to what the Board has suggested regarding this current application, what I'm hearing them say is they'd be okay with 744 square feet of shed, one building, but not split into two. MR. SCHULTZ-Why would that be? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, because the Code is there. MR. SCHULTZ-Have you looked at my property? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I have. MR. SCHULTZ-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So the question for you becomes, you can, again, because we were here this evening to grant you relief of 244 square feet, we can grant that relief provided you can go to one shed instead of two, or you can ask, you can offer to eliminate one of the sheds and just go with the larger one that you've depicted, or you could withdraw your application, or, finally, you could simply ask us to table your application. MR. SCHULTZ-Table it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I have a request from the applicant to table the application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jack Schultz. Applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. shed to be placed on the property where an existing 120 sq. ft. shed exists. The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable square footage for sheds. Section 179-5-020 Accessory sheds — no more than 500 sq. ft. in total on parcels less than 3 acres. The Code allows for two residential sheds with a total no greater than 500 sq. ft. The applicant proposes a new shed of 624 sq. ft. and to maintain an existing shed 120 sq. ft. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 16, 2016 and left open; 14 Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 240-2016 JACK SCHULTZ, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled until the first meeting in January with paperwork to be submitted by the deadline date in December. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. SCHULTZ-1 am Mrs. Schultz, and I just wanted to ask, did you have an opportunity to read the health issues that we both have? As to why we needed more space? MR. JACKOSKI-We've read the application. MRS. SCHULTZ-Thanks. Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-For the students if you choose you can be dismissed unless you all want to stay here and continue with the Board. So it's up to you. If you want to stay, stay, but at any time you can leave if you'd like to leave. AREA VARIANCE PZ 247-2016 SEQRA TYPE II SIGH MONGER OWNER(S) SIGH & PATRICIA MONGER ZONING MDR LOCATION 43 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 144 SQ. FT. ROOF COVERING OVER AN EXISTING WALKWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF RC 473-2016 RES. ALTERATION; BP 2015-331 SOLAR PANELS ROOF UPGRADES; BP 2013-215 RES. ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-14 SECTION 179-3-040 SIGH MONGER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 247-2016, Sigh Monger, Meeting Date: November 16, 2016 Project Location: 43 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 144 sq. ft. roof covering over an existing walkway. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum side setback requirements of the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts The applicant proposes a 144 sq. ft. roof over an existing walkway. The new roof is to be 20 ft. from the north side yard where a 25 ft. setback is required. No relief is needed for the front setback. 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 to no 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 applicant proposes to cover an existing walkway to access the house without being exposed to the weather. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested is 5 ft. Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to cover an existing walkway to access the existing home. The applicant has explained the new roof will make the walkway safer from inclement weather. The submission includes the survey and drawings." MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. MONGER-I'm Sigh Monger. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Monger, and we'll just ask you a couple of questions if we have any. Okay? Any questions from Board members? Seeing no questions from Board members, I'll open up the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? I'll leave the public hearing open while I poll the Board, and I'll start with Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I don't see any problem with this application. I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I don't see any problem. It's a little close to the road, but you can't help that area. So, yes, I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no objection to this request. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a practical solution to the problem. So it's good. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board in a favorable way, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sigh Monger. Applicant proposes construction of a 144 sq. ft. roof covering over an existing walkway. The applicant requests relief from minimum side setback requirements of the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts The applicant proposes a 144 sq. ft. roof over an existing walkway. The new roof is to be 20 ft. from the north side yard where a 25 ft. setback is required. No relief is needed for the front setback. 16 Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 16, 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. Feasible alternatives are limited, basically because the applicant wants to provide some coverage, particularly during inclement weather, and there's not many other ways to do that. 3. The requested variance is certainly minimal, less than 10%. 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 NO. PZ 247-2016, SIGH MONGER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. You're all set. MR. MONGER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ 249-2016 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID BOGUE AGENT(S) TOM HUTCHINS — HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) DAVID BOGUE AND BRIAN BOGUE ZONING WR LOCATION 145 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE A 2-STORY 620 SQ. FT. ; 1,240 SQ. FT. LIVING SPACE FROM WEST PROPERTY "EDWARDS". THE PROJECT IS LOCATED 184 FT. FROM THE SHORELINE WHERE 320 FT. WOULD BE REQUIRED BASED ON TWO HOUSES ON ADJOINING LOTS. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC AND NEW WELL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BP 2006-563 DEMOLITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2016 LOT SIZE 1.43 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 315.8-1-4 SECTION 179-3- 040, 179-4-030 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 249-2016, David Bogue, Meeting Date: November 16, 2016 "Project Location: 145 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to relocate a 2-story 620 sq. ft.; 1,240 sq. ft. living space from west property "Edwards". The project is located 184 ft. from the shoreline where 320 ft. would be required based on two houses on adjoining lots. Project includes new septic and new well. Relief Required: 1 Board of Apl:reaII^,: I I/1 61'4`:0 16) The applicant requests relief from shoreline setback requirements. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement The project relocates a two story camp from the west property to the applicant's property. The location does not meet the required shoreline setback of the two adjoin homes where 320 ft. would be required (west property home is 508 ft. and east property home is 131 ft.) and 184 ft. is proposed. 179-4-050 road frontage Relief is requested for not having physical access to a public road. 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 to no 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 applicant proposes to locate the camp in a similar location as the original camp and to locate the septic and well to not interfere with adjoining neighbors. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested is 136 ft. The access relief is for 50 ft. as this is an existing condition where access is from a right-of way. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to relocate a 620 sq. ft. 2 story camp with a 1,240 sq. ft. floor area to an adjacent property. The applicant has indicated the project site had an existing camp that has since been removed. The applicant has had the neighbors camp evaluated and determined it can be moved. The project includes installation of a new well and septic system. The plans show an edge of woods area and it would appear some vegetation will be removed for the installation of the well. The property has access from right of way off of Eagan Rd. The plans show the location of the existing camp and relocation." MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record and then the Board will ask you some questions. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, I'm Tom Hutchins, and with the owner/applicant, Dave Bogue. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Bogue, welcome. I mean, basically this is simply because of the orientation with the camps that are adjoining you as to why we are dealing with the differential in the setback on the shoreline. Correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and the one adjoiner that that cabin is under that has a demolition permit has now with the adverse has built a new residence up on High Rock. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. FREER-Full disclosure, I did talk briefly today with Mr. Bogue when I was down looking at the property, but I don't see a conflict of interest. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no questions from Board members at this time, the application is pretty straightforward. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ml t'i Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MR. URRICO-There's one. Alicia Constantino of 135 Eagan Road supports the application for David Bogue. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? All right. So no public comment either from the audience. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I don't see any major problem that close to the water. It's a good application. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I can remember at least two other instances where we've had similar requests down here at the end of Eagan Road down on the waterfront down there for re-dos or re-builds, and I think that with no opposition to this, I think everybody recognizes when those huge setbacks exist of 300 plus feet, you know, in a practical sense you're doing a lateral move with this cabin onto the next lot. So it's not any big deal. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. It was interesting to see what happened with the next door neighbor who built an ice house 500 feet up, and this is a small house in size, so I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I took a look at it and the Town gains here by granting the permit. It gains an up to date septic system, and I think the net gain is worth it and so I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm also in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-I hope you're not paying Mr. Hutchins by the word. I'm going to close the public hearing, please, 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 David Bogue. Applicant proposes to relocate a 2-story 620 sq. ft.; 1,240 sq. ft. living space from west property "Edwards". The project is located 184 ft. from the shoreline where 320 ft. would be required based on two houses on adjoining lots. Project includes new septic and new well. The applicant requests relief from shoreline setback requirements. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement The project relocates a two story camp from the west property to the applicant's property. The location does not meet the required shoreline setback of the two adjoin homes where 320 ft. would be required (west property home is 508 ft. and east property home is 131 ft.) and 184 ft. is proposed. 179-4-050 road frontage Relief is requested for not having physical access to a public road. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 16, 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�k Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. As stated earlier, we're gaining a new septic system. 2. Feasible alternatives would be limited. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial because of the distance needed off of the Hudson River. 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 NO. PZ 249-2016, DAVID BOGUE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And it's always a pleasure to work on your projects. They're always very detailed. So thank you very much. DAVID BOGUE MR. BOGUE-Thank you all. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further discussion in front of the Board? Yes, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So one of the items on tonight's, that you should, for resolution, is your calendar for 2017, and then follow up on the conversation about the number of items on next month's agenda. MR. JACKOSKI-Fine. The Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) of the Town of Queensbury has received from Community Development Staff the ZBA Schedule of Meeting Dates for the year 2017. MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZBA SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES FOR THE YEAR 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-So going to the draft agenda for December, being that the meeting dates would be the 14th, the 21St, and the 28th, with concerns about the 28th being between the holiday and the New Year's Eve. My thoughts were, after I reviewed the agenda with Staff today at their office and we went through all of the items and tried to basically determine about how much time each would take, if we can be on par with a 50 minute meeting with these five items that we had this evening, next December's, there's a couple of tough ones on there, but I think we could get it done in less than two hours. So there's a lot of them. There's how many, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Nine. 21) Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4`:0 16) MR. JACKOSKI-There are a lot of them, but it's up to the Board to decide whether we want to hold two meetings and if we want to hold the second one on the 14th or the 28th. So we're asking for one or two meetings. Roy? MR. URRICO-1 don't have a problem with two meetings next month, and I would prefer the 28th MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm not going to be available on the 14th, and I would support all the meetings on one night. So I would do a one night. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I'm flexible either way. It doesn't matter for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Harrison? MR. FREER-Unfortunately I'm not sure that I'll be at the one meeting right now, in terms of plans. MR. JACKOSKI-On the 21St? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we'll ask Michelle in your absence. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think we can get it all done in one meeting on the 21St MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 say go to one. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of one. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I have a vote for one meeting on the 21St MR. URRICO-1 will not be available on the 21St MR. JACKOSKI-There's two out on the 21St MRS. MOORE-Okay. So that's two down. You'll be short one. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle, can you make the 21St? We'll be down one. Do 1 need a vote for that? No, right? Okay. We're all set. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 had one more item for discussion. On the shed thing because we seem to be getting a whole bunch of requests for these giant sheds, and maybe we should ask the Town Board to review the shed regulations because we don't have the regulatory authority to do that ourselves, but I'm thinking, if this is the trend, you know, it creates a lot of variance requests. So maybe they should review the size and slightly increase the size of the sheds by 100. My recommendation would be to increase it by 100 square feet. It might make it more practical. MR. HENKEL-Rather than two or three sheds. I agree with that. MR. JACKOSKI-Look, we gave that applicant the option of increasing the size of one shed, knocking out one, and we did offer more options. MR. URRICO-And the third option was to decrease the size of the second shed. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think, you know, like everybody seems to be going for more stuff, more crap, and it's a practical situation, you know, from their viewpoint, you know, should we have the Town Board review it and have them increase the size slightly. MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll ask Staff to follow up with Craig to see if he can bring that up to the Board regarding sheds. 21 Board of ApIl:reaIIs I I/1 61'4":0 16) MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Did we already adjourn the meeting? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 22