Loading...
11-15-2017 REVISED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2017 INDEX Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017 Errol Silverberg 1. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 252.-1-38.1 Area Variance Z-AV-59-2017 Errol Silverberg 2. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No. 252.-1-38.1 Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017 Robert Fulmer 3. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-49 Area Variance Z-AV-71-2017 Beth & Tom Portuese 9. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-27.1 Area Variance Z-AV-72-2017 Craig Zarzycki 15. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-48 Area Variance Z-AV-74-2017 Michael J. Badera 18. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-20 Area Variance Z-AV-73-2017 Mike Weber 21. Tax Map No. 278.-1-31 Area Variance Z-AV-75-2017 Richard Kukuk 25. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-29 Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017 Joe Orlow 33. Tax Map No. 290.5-1-21 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) NOVEMBER 15, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY HARRISON FREER JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE FILLED IN FOR S. JACKOSKI ON FULMER APPLICATION LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello everyone. Welcome. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals on November 15th. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there is an agenda on the back table, some Staff Notes with a general description of how we conduct ourselves, but it's actually quite simple. We have an agenda. We'll call the applicants forward to the small table here. I'll ask Roy to read into the record the application as necessary. We'll ask the applicants some questions. We do have a public hearing scheduled for every one of the applications for this evening. Quite frankly we have a long agenda this evening so we're going to be here a while. We'll continue to talk to the applicants after the public hearing. We will then poll the Board here and ask where they think they're leaning and then take action accordingly. So we'll get started right away with some housekeeping unfortunately. So bear with us while we do this. We do have approval of the meeting minutes of October 18th APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 18, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 18 , 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and I'll do it again for the October 25th meeting. October 25, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25 TH, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Moving right along. We have some Administrative Items. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FURTHER TABLING REQUEST: USE VARIANCE Z-UV-3-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG MR. JACKOSKI-We are going to table Use Variance Z-UV-3-2017 Errol Silverberg. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MRS. MOORE-Prior to you doing that, I'm sorry. Originally I was going to have you table them until December's meeting, but today was our deadline date and they did not submit any additional information for their project. So at this time I would suggest further tabling it out to January or February, and right now I don't know what January or February's agenda is like. So it's up to you. MR. JACKOSKI-So as long as we do it for the first January meeting with the appropriate submission deadline in December you're okay? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-There you go, Mike. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Errol Silverberg for a variance of Section(s) 179-3-040 and 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Relief is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where a principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Additionally, an area variance is required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE Z-UV-3-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled until the first January 2018 meeting with the appropriate information to be submitted by mid-December 2017. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Great, and, Mike, go ahead and do the next one. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-59-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Errol Silverberg. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,304 sq. ft. addition to the existing 8,400 sq. ft. garage. Use Variance is required as the construction of the addition to the private garage is on a parcel where principal use (single-family dwelling) does not exist. Relief required as the structure is proposed to be in excess of the maximum allowable square footage for a private garage and to have an accessory without a principle. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a private garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-59-2017 ERROL SILVERBERG, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled until the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in January 2018 with the appropriate information to be submitted by mid-December. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Great. We'll move on to the last thing we have under some housekeeping here is the approval of the 2018 Calendar Year Zoning Board of Appeals meeting calendar. So you all have that in front of you. Does anyone see any problems with the calendar as stated? Of course as we know it ties into the Planning Board calendar. Seeing that there are no concerns with it, can I have a motion to adopt this calendar? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) 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 2018. MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZBA SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES FOR THE YEAR 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-All right, everyone. We're finally done with housekeeping. We'll finally get into a project. So for the students that are here, we don't expect you to stay until midnight or so. So hopefully you can probably scoot out of here around eight o'clock. Under Old Business, Robert Fulmer. Curt Dybas is an agent, along with Jonathan Lapper. Area Variance number Z-AV-29-2017. A Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening after the one in April, and I'll turn it over to Mike to lead the meeting as I have a conflict of interest with the project. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT FULMER AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(S) ROBERT FULMER ZONING MDR LOCATION 54 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (COUNTRY CLUB MANOR) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 750 SQ. FT. 2-DOOR DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SITE WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WETLAND. CROSS REF P- SP-31-2017; P-FWW 3-2017; BP 2007-084 2-CAR ATT. GAR./RES. ADD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 3.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-49 SECTION 179-5-020 CURT DYBAS & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So we've sat down a couple of times with this so I think this is our third effort. So I see where you've submitted a petition. Are there other things that are different from our last meeting? MR. LAPPER-So, for the record Jon Lapper and Curt Dybas. Obviously the applicant's been here twice and hasn't received support, but what we're here with this time is 750 square feet, which is essentially what's permitted as a shed on this property, and therefore, you know, I know you have a big agenda and you've hashed through this a few times. So just to be brief, we look at this, we're really looking at whether he can have two garage doors on the front of the building, because he can have a 750 square foot shed, you know, without requesting a variance. We're here to argue that the benefit to him versus impact on the neighborhood. In order to put his boat, which is just sitting out in his yard, and his tractor, in this 750 square foot shed he really needs to have the garage doors. Really important to him to make this usable, and to put stuff away, but virtually no impact on his neighbors and the neighbors who have all signed the petition in support are neighbors who are right around him, in front of Country Club Road. The neighbors who are concerned are on the other side of the bike path in the back. I think it's already been established because of the vegetation, the dense vegetation and evergreens to the rear of this, that there's very good screening between this structure and the bike path and the neighbors in the back. So none of those people would even really see this, but certainly wouldn't see that there are two garage doors facing the front and on a three acre parcel 750 square foot is not a big structure. So he and his wife really need this to put their stuff away and they can do this anyway. We're really here just to hope that you'll grant them the right to put two garage doors on. MR. MC CABE-I guess I'll back up a little bit here. I really should have approached Roy to read into the record the highlights of what's going on right now. So, Roy, if you can do that. MR. URRICO-I'm going to read in the relief required. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-29-2017, Robert Fulmer, Meeting Date: November 15, 2017 "Project Location: 54 Country Club Road (Country Club Manor) Description of Proposed Project: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) Applicant proposes construction of a 750 sq. ft. 2-door detached garage. Relief requested for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for site work within 100 ft. of a wetland. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. The applicant has indicated the garage will be located in an existing small clearing on the property and has trees surrounding a majority of the proposed building location. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the applicant would like to use the building for storage of lawn equipment and recreational vehicles. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has revised the plans showing a 750 sq. ft. garage, the 1800 sq. ft. black top area has been removed and that area has been seeded. The plans show the garage to have 2- garage doors and an open floor plan. The garage is to be 20 +/- ft. in height and the area in front of the garage is to remain lawn no drive is to be installed. The applicant has included photos of the existing and proposed conditions where the garage is to be located including locations from the bike trail. The applicant has indicated there will be no stairs or pull down stairs and the rear of the building is to be the same as the front without doors. The plans also show a regular door on the south side of the building. The applicant has indicated the garage is to be used for the storage of recreational vehicles and lawn equipment for yard maintenance." MR. MC CABE-So are you guys done with your presentation? MR. DYBAS-1 think what Roy's read into the record pretty much covers everything that's changed on the project. It's fairly straightforward at this point, and unless you have any questions we'll step away for a second. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Just a second. Who are these gentlemen? They never identified themselves. MR. MC CABE-Yes, they did. Mr. Lapper identified himself for the record as did Mr. Dybas. MR. DYBAS-Curt Dybas. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So at this point a public meeting is advertised and so the public meeting I believe was closed after the last meeting. So I believe that I'll re-open the public meeting. Would that be the correct procedure here? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MRS. MOORE-The public hearing has been left open. MR. MC CABE-Okay. It was left open. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So whoever's interested in speaking now they can be called up to the table. MR. MC CABE-So at this time is there anybody in the audience who would like to address this Board on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JAMES P. TWYMAN MR. TWYMAN-Hello again. My name is James P. Twyman. I live on 15 Edgewood Drive, and first of all, I'm the person that lives behind him and the vegetation isn't that thick, first of all, if you're there, but anyway, here we go. My name is James P. Twyman. I live on 15 Edgewood Drive in Queensbury, NY. I live in the house directly behind the property on 54 Country Club Road on the opposite side of the bike trail. I'm in opposition to building a 2 bay garage, 750 square foot adjacent to the Warren County Bike Trail on this property. I'm also representing the homeowners listed on the previous petition. In my opinion this garage will have an adverse effect on the aesthetics and characteristics of the property as well as the other properties on Edgewood Drive. This will also alter the aesthetics and characteristics of the bike trail, Warren County Bike Trail, that is used by thousands of residents to get their piece of the woods without having to go a long distance. Reason One, Two, and Three to disallow the variance. Will granting this variance produce an undesirable change in the character or a detriment to the neighborhood? Will the relief requested have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? And will the variance have a substantial effect in the area mentioned? The answer is yes on all three questions. The variance requested for 54 Country Club Road should be disallowed and not given a further extension. An effort has finally been made to drop the size of the garage. Still a 750 square foot two-bay garage is an extremely large structure. There's been a proposal to do different things to get the variance. Nothing has been done to change the location and still the proposed structure is extremely large. The location and the size of the garage is the real issue. As stated in a prior zoning meeting, the garage could be placed next to the house on 54 Country Club Road, up against the woods, and the neighbors to the north or south who Mr. Fulmer said didn't have an objection with the garage would be the only ones that see it. So therefore place this garage next to Mr. Fulmer's house. The only ones who would be effected are the ones who said they didn't have an issue with it. This is Reason Number Three to disallow the variance. Can the benefit sought by this applicant be gained by another feasible alternative? The answer is yes. I've never been through something like this before so I don't know the process, but I did see a letter on the Queensbury website addressed to Sue from Mr. Fulmer stating, after talking to Craig, I'm going to postpone the meeting to another month. I asked Sue, a member of the Planning Board, about this, and she gave me an answer which I really didn't understand. And I see Mr. Brown isn't here because maybe he could better understand this, but if there were changes to the location of the building, I could understand the Planning Board helping out this matter, but there's no changes to the blueprint of the property. It was also stated that if allowed to build this garage it would not be necessary to build a road to it. I've never been on the property on 54 Country Club Road, but I know how wet the lower portion of my property is. If I were to back a boat down the back side of my property I would get stuck without building a road. Again, I can only inform you what it's like in my yard. Also would this road have an effect on building this garage with or without a variance? Has the Planning Board addressed this potential issue? A 750 square foot garage is an extremely large garage. The main reason for this garage is to store a boat. This does not qualify for a hardship. This is no more than an inconvenience. Reason Number Five to disallow the variance. I have two classic cars which I have to find place to store in the winter time. How many boat owners are there in Queensbury? How many car collectors are there in Queensbury? Is storing our hobbies a reason to allow a building like this to clutter up our community? I don't think so. I do not know for sure what the size of the structure is. These gentlemen said it was 750 square feet. I thought 725 was the biggest they could build without a variance. So I do not know for sure the size of the garage. Maybe you could straighten this out for me afterwards, but if you don't think, 25 square feet actually doesn't seem like much until you attach it to another 725 square foot building. The facts are the numbers. One household wants the garage. The majority in the area oppose it. This variance request does not meet any of the five criteria to allow a variance. In closing I'd like to reiterate that a variance is an exception not a rule, so it needs to be ruled on a case by case basis process, no matter how simple the cases are in Queensbury. Thank you very much. Is it 725 or 750? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. MC CABE-750. Is 750 the correct number? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. TWYMAN-Well why is there a variance? MR. MC CABE-The variance is if he had a six foot door then he could build it without a variance, but he's asking for an eight foot door. So it becomes a garage as opposed to a shed. MR. TWYMAN-That's a moot point, then. It's a moot point. I thought it was 725 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address? BOB DAWSON MR. DAWSON-My name is Bob Dawson. I am Bob's northern neighbor on the same side of the road. I'm here to support Bob and what he's looking to accomplish. I can guarantee you when Bob builds something it's going to be a quality building. I think the person that's going to see this the most, the family that's going to see this the most will be myself and my wife. It appears that Bob's only looking for a garage door change. He's calling it a garage and that's what the whole variance seems to be about, where if he called it a shed then he wouldn't need any variance at all, other than just garage doors. So I think that's the only relief that Bob is looking for. That's all I have to say. MR. MC CABE-Okay. ROBERT WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name's Robert Williams and I'm on Country Club Road. I'm across the street from Mr. Fulmer and I'm in support of his shed with a garage door for his boat. I mean, he has a really nice boat and there's nothing wrong with wanting to have that, a place to have it. And he also has a tractor and some lawn equipment. He's got some nice cars. They should be in the garage. So he needs a place for his equipment. I don't see the big deal in that. A couple of years ago I was here for a Cottage Hill project, and they put 165 townhomes behind my house, 40 feet in height. So I think a 20 foot garage, he should feel very fortunate that he doesn't have what I have behind me, and there's woods there but the leaves fall off the tree and now I can see all these townhomes, and that's all I have. I just wanted to let you know I'm here for Mr. Fulmer. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Was there anybody else? TOM ROSS MR. ROSS-My name's Tom Ross. I live two doors from Mr. Fulmer. Our address is actually Sweet Road, but we face Country Club Road. We're on the corner of Country Club and Sweet Road. I've talked with Mr. Fulmer. He's come to our house and explained his project. He's shown me the details of the project. My wife and I, she actually owns the house, she probably ought to be speaking, we look at it. We're here in support of Mr. Fulmer, and we think it's a quality project. You have to forgive me I'm a retired CPA, but I think people should be allowed to do what they want with their property unless it's something really awful, and this is not that, and we would support Mr. Fulmer, and I would disagree with Mr. Twyman. My understanding is that everybody, our little development there is about six houses, and my understanding is that everybody in that little subdivision signed a petition in favor of this. So I don't know where the majority of neighbors are that are not in favor of it, but anyway I'm here in support. I don't want to take up your time. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address this Board on this matter? So, Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Thanks. We really don't have anything to add. If there are any questions? MR. FREER-Yes. So one of the things has been, you know, why can't you move it further up on the lot, and I read your note. It sounded like there are constraints with regard to septics. MR. DYBAS-There are constraints if you try to move it around the house. To the south the setback is 30 feet and there's no place that you could put it adjacent to the house there. The previous owners of this residence obtained a variance to put an addition on this house because of the wetlands on the north. So it cannot go there. There's just no room with the wetlands to 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) the north because there are wetlands that run right along that property. The front of the house is all septic field. So there's really, there's opening in the back, but if you plunk it in the middle of the backyard, now everyone sees it. North or south you look at both. MR. FREER-Yes. I've got it. You answered my question. Thank you. MR. DYBAS-Okay. MR. HENKEL-The building's going to be 25 by 30. Now how far is that going to be from the wetlands and from the backyard now? The one I have here says it's a 33 by 33. So it's going to be 61 feet from the back and 59 from the water. MR. DYBAS-You obviously have a previous. From the back wetlands we're 70 feet. MR. HENKEL-From the wetlands in the back it's 70 feet now? MR. DYBAS-Seventy feet from the property line. It's 80 feet from the north property line, and we're 130 feet from the south property line. And there is a natural indentation in the woods back there that we would place it and I've walked the bike trail and I don't see where this would be visible from the bike trail. MR. LAPPER-And it's tucked in a spot where trees don't have to be removed. MR. DYBAS-Yes, there's no tree removal with this project. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Other questions? Thanks. Just a formal issue. A question was raised about the petition. So I think I'll have Roy read the petition in favor of the project. The petition against was announced in a previous meeting, and to answer Mr. Ross's question, it's all the people that live on Edgewood behind you. MR. ROSS-In favor of it? MR. MC CABE-No, they're all opposed. So the neighbors to your west are opposed. MR. URRICO-The petition is "We support Bob and Sue Fulmer's application for a storage garage in their back yard at 54 Country Club Road, Queensbury, NY in accordance with the Queensbury Comprehensive Plan." And there are 20 signatures on this petition. There's also another letter. "To Whom It May Concern: The Fulmer's have been neighbors of ours for nearly 2 years. We find that they are not only a great family friend, but a great asset to the community. I am writing this letter in support of Bob and Sue Fulmer's desire to build an additional garage at their residence. Not only do we fully support their project, we think it will add additional value to our home and the surrounding homes in our area. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or concerns. Regards, Matthew & Elizabeth Murphy 50 Country Club Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So just, you know, there's a couple of questions here. The real issue here is if this proposed building had six foot doors, then there'd be no issue. It could be built without a variance. So to the Edgewood people, they could build this building if they put six foot doors on it, which is all that you'd see. The issue is, by putting eight foot doors, then this auxiliary structure becomes a second garage, and that's against Queensbury zoning laws, particularly for this area. So that's the difference that we're trying to deal with here, the six foot doors versus the eight foot doors. The applicant has stated that the eight foot doors won't do the job for him. And so that's basically what, the decision that we have to make. MR. DYBAS-The correction is they are a 10 by 10 door, to get the boat in. The boat is nine foot two inches high and the trailer. So it's a 10 foot high door by 10 foot wide because with the wheels you're over 8' 6". That's the reason to give you that space. MR. LAPPER-The Chairman's point is the same. You can't see it from the rear. MR. DYBAS-The doors will only be visible to the Fulmer's and possibly the neighbors to the north and the south. The back of the building will be the same. It's a shed with a garage. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I'm going to close the, unless, is there anybody else that wants to speak on this matter? At this point I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to poll the Board to see how we feel on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well it's interesting that on both the petition and the letter supporting the applicant, they both refer to this as a garage, and that's what we're talking about here is a garage, and the relief that we're supposed to look over and discuss and grant is for a second garage, and as long as we're calling it a second garage, then I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it's an interesting aspect here because, you know, we're looking at two possibilities. You could build a shed out here the same size tomorrow, no questions asked, and I think that, you know, if someone were going to build a shed out there, the shed would appear to be essentially what you propose on the plots here, and that is that the people on Edgewood who seem to be the ones that have a problem with this building, you know, would be looking at the back of a shed. They're going to be instead looking at the back of a garage here. The only thing that kicks it into the realm of being a garage is the 10 by 10 foot doors on the front, and I think that in this instance here, you know, it's pretty well hidden in the woods. I've ridden by on my bicycle numerous times this past year looking at the site. I frankly do not see that this will have any negative effects on the bike trail or the neighborhood nearby in the back, people on Edgewood either. I disagree with that viewpoint. I suppose you could say that anything built back there would be a detriment if you wanted to be that technical about it, but in this instance here I can look the other way and I can support this. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in support of the project, including all of the work Mr. Fulmer's put into this. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I, too, ride on the bike path a lot, and I don't see it as a substantial detraction from the recreational use there, and I don't think it will be as much of an eyesore most of the time over onto the Edgewood Drive people. So given the criteria, I support the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I'm in support of the project as stated. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I think he's done a nice job. He's taken away the basketball court that was there and made the permeability better. He also made, he downsized the original size of the garage to make it a better project and I've ridden the bike trail, too, and it's 70 feet from the bike trail. He's not going to be able to see it. So it won't be a hazard to the neighborhood or a detriment so I'd be in support of it. MR. MC CABE-So it appears like you've got the votes. So I think I'd ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, then, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Applicant proposes construction of a 750 sq. ft. 2-door detached garage. Relief requested for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for site work within 100 ft. of a wetland. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 and tabled to July 19, 2017; and tabled to November 15, 2017. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) 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 as it is in the rear of the property and there are foliage and trees around it. 2. Feasible alternatives would be really a smaller door and then they wouldn't even be here, but we considered the feasible alternatives and we believe that this is the minimum request we're giving them. 3. The requested variance really is not substantial. The location of the structure is in the back and it's well situated within the property lines. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that it is self-created because they wanted the second garage. 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: a) b) c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-29-2017, ROBERT FULMER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 15th day of November 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. Have a nice Thanksgiving. MR. MC CABE-So our next variance is 271 Big Bay Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-71-2017 SEQRA TYPE II BETH & TOM PORTUESE OWNER(S) BETH & TOM PORTUESE ZONING WR LOCATION 271 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,850 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL UNIT THAT INVOLVES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO THE FIRST FLOOR OF A PRE-EXISTING DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND DWELLING (APARTMENT) ON A PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE SUCH STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT ALSO RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIZE RESTRICTION OF 800 SQ. FT. FOR SUCH DWELLING. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 1.21 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-27.1 SECTION 179-3-040 BETH & TOM PORTUESE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. MRS. PORTUESE-I'm Beth Portuese. MR. JACKOSKI-So maybe you could just give us a little bit of a description of your project. It's pretty straightforward or do we want to read it into the record? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. URRICO-Are we changing the rules? MR. JACKOSKI-No, I didn't know what Mike did. I was outside talking. Sorry. Go ahead and read it into the record, Roy. Sorry. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-71-2017, Beth & Tom Portuese, Meeting Date: November 15, 2017 "Project Location: 271 Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 5,850 sq. ft. residential unit that involves interior alterations to the first floor of a pre-existing dwelling. Relief requested for a second dwelling (apartment) on a parcel where only one such structure is allowed in the WR zoning district. Also relief requested from the minimum size restriction of 800 sq. ft. for such dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second dwelling (apartment) on a parcel where only one such structure is allowed in the WR zoning district. Also relief requested from the minimum size restriction of 800 sq. ft. for such dwelling. 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements—number of residence on a parcel, 179-5-090 dwelling unit size The applicant proposes to have a second dwelling unit included within the main home where only one dwelling unit is allowed per lot in the WR zone and the minimum dwelling size is 800 and proposed is 540 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the space is internal to the main home and allows for the caring of a relative. 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 applicants request to have an in-law apartment where the WR zone allows only one unit per parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for having two units on one parcel. Relief also requested for having 260 sq. ft. less than the minimum of 800 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 may be considered to have minimal impact. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to finish housing renovations to include a 540 sq. ft. in law apartment in an existing home. The plans show the in-law apartment to be located on the side of the home with the garage. The floor plans show the arrangement and access to the in-law apartment." MR. JACKOSKI-A long complicated description of the project, but relatively straightforward. So I assume you just want Board members to ask you questions at this point since he just read all of that. MRS. PORTUESE-Sure. Additionally we did get letters of support from our neighbors here and just, if you'd like I'll read what they signed. MR. JACKOSKI-You don't have to read that, actually. If you can give it to the secretary he'll read it into the record. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MRS. PORTUESE-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-So Board members do you have any questions for the applicant at this time before we open up the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Yes, I do. You're going to add an in-law apartment? MR. PORTUESE-With your permission. MR. KUHL-Is it going to have its own septic, or is it going to be on your septic? MRS. PORTUESE-Our septic right now is for six bedrooms, and we have a five bedroom home. MR. PORTUESE-So it would be connected to our existing septic. MRS. PORTUESE-Right. MR. PORTUESE-We intentionally over-built it. MR. KUHL-Okay. And the septic has been verified to be suitable for six bedrooms? MRS. PORTUESE-It's a brand new septic. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. PORTUESE-Which we did bring that, we brought the septic records if anyone wants to see them. MR. KUHL-Staff, do you know that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-You can verify what the? Thank you. MR. HENKEL-There's not going to be separate utilities or anything? It's going to be all one utility? MRS. PORTUESE-Just all one utility. MR. HENKEL-Which would make it a second dwelling. Okay. MR. FREER-I thought we decided a kitchen makes it a second dwelling. MR. KUHL-I don't know why they call it an in-law apartment. Somebody's going to be an in-law and somebody's going to be an out-law, right? MRS. PORTUESE-We've been together 16 years so they're my parents, too. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. FREER-So would you be willing to accept some kind of time? I mean, last time we approved this variance we set a sunset clause on the second dwelling. Is that acceptable for you? MRS. PORTUESE-What is reasonable? I'm not sure. MR. HENKEL-I think it was 20, wasn't it? MR. FREER-I think we did 25. MR. PORTUESE-1 think I understand what that means. MR. JACKOSKI-When you no longer use it or need it, if you do need it for a longer amount of time, you just have to come back to the Board and talk about it. That's all. MR. FREER-What we're trying to prevent is it turning into a rental apartment, multi-family apartment, which is not allowed. That's sort of our job is to not put, you know, multiple unit families in this zone. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. PORTUESE-That's reasonable. My parents are 70 and 71, and my dad now is going through cancer. So they're trying to figure out what's the long term game plan. My mom's going to live to 94 or something. So while his health is going down, hers is very good. So we're trying to find a housing option. MR. JACKOSKI-And we understand. The goal would be, if we set a time limit. If you need to extend it you have to come back and talk to us, but the goal would be to make sure that someone doesn't buy the house when you decide to sell it and realize it's a two family, create a separate entrance. You no longer have control over it. Where if we had this timeframe built into it then at least the Town has some authority to say, hey wait a minute, that was never the intent. That's what we're trying to do. MR. PORTUESE-I think that we're amenable to that. MR. HENKEL-But would the project stick to just that family's name. If they did sell it it would have to be re-approved? MR. FREER-No, because the variance goes with the property. MR. HENKEL-But I mean we could make that condition that it stays with this family. MR. MC CABE-I'm not sure we can do that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm not sure we can do that either. If we put a time on it and let the new Board decide on that. MR. CROWE-Yes, it would stick with the property. It wouldn't be just granted to the homeowners. MR. JACKOSKI-I think we're okay. If we have a time line on it, we're okay, unless the Board decides otherwise. You're okay if we possibly discuss a time limit. MRS. PORTUESE-I think it's great. If she lives an extra 25 years then. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know if we'll approve 25 years, but it's just a logistics thing. MR. HENKEL-What did we do the last time? MR. JACKOSKI-Staff is concerned that we really should have done five to ten-ish at most, that it come back. That's all. Okay. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open it. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board? No one. I do see that we've received quite a few letters. Roy might have just had a chance to scan through them quickly. Are you able to para-phrase them, or do you have to read all of them? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, I'll just read one. They're all the same after that. MR. JACKOSKI-There you go. MR. URRICO-"I am writing to share that I am in support of my neighbors, Beth and Tom Portuese, at 271 Big Bay Road having a kitchenette constructed for Tom's mother and father in their space by the garage. This in-law apartment for Tom's parents is the best way for Tom and Beth to care for Tom's parents as they continue into their golden years. Tom's father has been battling cancer and is trying to secure a safe and reasonable place for his wife so she is not by herself. Having Beth and Tom available to care for her right there but granting her autonomy preserves her dignity and sense of safety. I am aware that an Area Variance would need to be approved by you for Tom and Beth to proceed. I greatly support you approving the variance so there will be a place for Tom's Mom where she will not be alone and get the very best of care. Having this place for Tom's Mom is a reasonable use of their property and does not impact the essential character of the neighborhood." And there are, I'm counting 12 letters here. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Those letters are in the file for the record for anyone who would like to see them. Any other Board member questions at this time before I close the public hearing and take a poll? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll poll the Board and see where they're leaning as to approving the project as applied for. I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-I'll have to say that I really am opposed to the idea of having a second property within the property, but I understand the situation here. I'm impressed that you've approached your neighbors and they've supported you on this matter, and if we put conditions on the approval of this variance, in the order of 10 years, then I would go along with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Fine. Thank you. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support the project and I do think we would likely put a constraint. We can go for 20 and negotiate that down, but, yes, I'd support it with the constraint of the time limit. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm definitely for it. I think we're going to see more of this. The cost of putting family up in other facilities is getting pretty expensive and I think it's nice to have the families on the property with the grandkids and that. So I'm in support of it. I'm definitely not in support of a second dwelling, but I guess that's what it's called. So I'd be in support of it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think your property supports what you're doing. My mother-in-law was with me for six and a half years, but that's a whole other story. No, I think your property supports it and I think you're doing the right thing giving them their own living area, and I'm impressed that when you did the septic you figured it in. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm fine with the project even without the time line on it. I think my recommendation to the Town is they look at revising the Code to accommodate this type of dwelling, because as us baby boomers age, we're going to need a place to stay and I think we're going to see this more and more. So I think there needs to be a specific definition for this type of apartment, separate from a regular apartment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm happy with getting rid of baby boomer, but whatever. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Under the Code right now this is special circumstances that we're granting here and I think that, you know, the Code needs to be re-looked at again because everyone ages out at some point. What constitutes family? All those things come into play here, too, but at the same time, it makes perfect sense for you to be able to take care of your family members, and I would think that everybody else would be, if we're in that same situation someday, we would all appreciate the same variance. So I'd be all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So after polling the Board, there's some Board members that think it's great as is. There's some Board members who want to go out 20 years. There's some Board members who want to go out 10 years. So I'm going to suggest, based on what Mike suggested, if we can put forth a motion as Mike suggested and see where we are as far as a vote is concerned. Would everybody be okay with a 10 year? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think you want to do something that short, because number one who are we to say what's a limited amount of time? MR. JACKOSKI-Because it's not an allowed use. For me I will only do 10 years. So I'll be a no vote if it's not 10 years or less. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think that we need to put any constraints on it. I think the thing that trips us in is having a fridge and having a stove in that unit. I think that that would be something that's probably going to be used very irregularly, you know, if you're living in a family situation you're going to be cooking meals and eating together 99% of the time. So I think at this point it's one of those situations it doesn't make sense, the rules and regulations, as it exists. MRS. PORTUESE-His mom actually cooks. MR. PORTUESE-I'd just like you to keep the average life expectancy in mind. It's going to be 85. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-All it means is that you would have to come back to the Board, just like now, and say, hey, we're approaching that time. I can't imagine somebody's going to turn around and say no, but it allows just to have a checks and balances. MR. HENKEL-It's probably a good idea because this follows the property. So if they sold it within, so a 10 year period is probably better than a 20 or 25. It's a simple fix to come back and see us in 10 years. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. HENKEL-So I'd agree with the 10 years. I think it's a good idea. Because otherwise it follows the property. MR. JACKOSKI-I was okay with what Mike suggested. So let's go ahead and try for a motion. MRS. PORTUESE-With any time restraint, does it start from the time it's completed? MR. JACKOSKI-I believe so, yes. MRS. PORTUESE-So it wouldn't start until the fall or next winter. MR. JACKOSKI-When you get the CO. MRS. PORTUESE-When we get the CO, that's when the time would start? MR. JACKOSKI-That's what we'll say, so that you know that's fair. MRS. PORTUESE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion from Mike. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Beth and Tom Portuese. Applicant proposes a 5,850 sq. ft. residential unit that involves interior alterations to the first floor of a pre-existing dwelling. Relief requested for a second dwelling (apartment) on a parcel where only one such structure is allowed in the WR zoning district. Also relief requested from the minimum size restriction of 800 sq. ft. for such dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second dwelling (apartment) on a parcel where only one such structure is allowed in the WR zoning district. Also relief requested from the minimum size restriction of 800 sq. ft. for such dwelling. 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements—number of residence on a parcel, 179-5-090 dwelling unit size The applicant proposes to have a second dwelling unit included within the main home where only one dwelling unit is allowed per lot in the WR zone and the minimum dwelling size is 800 and proposed is 540 sq. ft. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 15, 2017; 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because these changes are all internal to the existing structure. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are deemed not reasonable at this particular time. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial but it's really a technicality because of a kitchen really. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the applicant has made previous design considerations. 5. Is 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; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That the second unit have a life and that life would be 10 years and it would begin upon the issuance of the CO. b) , c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-71-2017 BETH AND TOM PORTUESE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 15th day of November 2017 by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-Subject to renewal at 10 year intervals. MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. MR. UNDERWOOD-You could put it in that way, too. MR. JACKOSKI-I think what Mike said was fine. Instead of house we'll say unit. MR. MC CABE-Unit. That's fine. That's what I meant to say. MR. JACKOSKI-So thank you, Mike. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-You're all approved. The next item on this evening's agenda is Z-AV-72-2017. A Type II SEQR for 328 Ridge Road, Craig Zarzycki. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-72-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 CRAIG ZARZYCKI OWNER(S) JESSICA LA FAVE ZONING MDR LOCATION 328 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A 350 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY TO AN EXISTING 2,974 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040 JESSICA LA FAVE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CRAIG ZARZYCKI, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-72-2017, Craig Zarzycki, Meeting Date: November 15, 2017 "Project Location: 328 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete construction of a 350 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,974 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant has under construction a 350 sq. ft. addition that is located 12.8 ft. on the north side property line where a 25 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: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home and the portion of the addition that is already constructed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 12.2 ft. to the side setback. 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 has proposed to complete construction of a residential addition that does not meet the north side setback. The applicant was informed a building permit and variance were required as part of the project. The plans show the location of the addition on the home in relation to the property lines." MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. If you could introduce yourself for the record. MS. LA FAVE-Jessica LaFave. MR. ZARZYCKI-Craig Zarzycki. MR. JACKOSKI-So obviously we're kind of concerned as to why the project was started without having a building permit. (Problem with recording — lots of static— lost some conversation) MR. JACKOSKI-So it's a second story addition in a footprint that is existing. So straightforward application. I'm just going to have Board members ask you questions if that's okay. MR. ZARZYCKI-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess nobody has any questions. So, given that, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and having no public comment, I'll turn it over to the Board members for comment. I'll start with Harrison. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. FREER-Yes, I think this is a reasonable request and kind of what our charter is to look at the reasonable requests, and I can support this. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I mean he's already too close to the edge of the property. I don't see it doing any more harm. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We're looking at a home that already exists that's going to have an addition put on. It's not going to be any closer to the property line than what it is. No one seems to object to this. I don't see this being a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. They're only looking for the north side variance of 12, relief of 12.2 feet. He's not changing the footprint, just going up. So, yes, it's a very reasonable request. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in favor of it the way it's presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Straightforward. I'll close the public hearing and I'll seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Craig Zarzycki. Applicant proposes to complete construction of a 350 sq. ft. second story to an existing 2,974 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant has under construction a 350 sq. ft. addition that is located 12.8 ft. on the north side property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 15, 2017; 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 this is just a raising of the roof and adding a third bedroom. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited with adding the third bedroom upstairs. 3. We could say that the variance is really not substantial at all. It's just raising the roof and adding a bedroom. This house is on a sewer system so you don't have to worry about a septic. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) 5. We might suggest that it 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; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-72-2017 CRAIG ZARZYCKI, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 15th day of November 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Before we continue I just want to clarify, because the record does suggest that you're looking to finish the project as it's already underway. So I just want to make sure the project has not been started. I don't know where it is. MR. ZARZYCKI-Maybe it says that because it's a livable room now. It's basically an attic room, and they can use it. I mean it's not heated or anything so they don't use it, but maybe because it could be used? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know. Because the application says the applicant has under construction a 350 square foot addition. MR. KUHL-Proposes to complete construction. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, which means it's already started. It doesn't say applicant proposes to construct. It says to complete construction. So I just want to make sure that it hasn't been started. MR. ZARZYCKI- It hasn't been started. MR. JACKOSKI-The building permit has not been issued. Staff's okay with that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Good. We do have a motion for approval. I do have a second. Call the vote. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. HENKEL-Good luck. MR ZARZYCKI-Thank you so much. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda, we're finally on Page Two, for the students, if you guys want to leave, go ahead and leave. We'll make sure we've told everybody you were here for a while. Okay. But if you want to stay because it's riveting, by all means stay. The next item on the agenda is Michael Badera. Area Variance Number Z-AV- 74-2017. It is a SEQR Type II. It is 55 Mason Road up on Cleverdale. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-74-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL J. BADERA OWNER(S) M DREAM, LLC MICHAEL BADERA ZONING WR LOCATION 55 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 85 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 569 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK OF AN EXISTING 6,611 SQ. FT. HOME. PROJECT INCLUDES 95 SQ. FT. OF NEW DECK TO NORTH SIDE OF DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF P-SP-66-2017; P-SP- 50-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.45 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-20 SECTION 179-3- 040; 179-13-010 MICHAEL BADERA, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-74-2017, Michael J. Badera, Meeting Date: November 15, 2017 "Project Location: 55 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 85 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing 569 sq. ft. open deck of an existing 6,611 sq. ft. home. Project includes 95 sq. ft. of new deck to north side of deck. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements/ 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks. The applicant proposes an 85 sq. ft. addition to the south side of an existing 569 sq. ft. open deck where it is to be 44 ft. 11.5 in from the shoreline where a 50 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: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing deck in relation to the beach area on the property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5 ft. 6 into the shoreline setback. 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 an 85 sq. ft. deck addition on the south side of the deck and a 95 sq. ft. addition to the north side of the deck. The applicant has indicated the additions will allow for more useable space on the deck. The plans show the location of the deck and the supports needed for the additions. The south side addition does not meet the shoreline as the site has a pre-existing beach area where the shoreline boundary is taken from where the north side addition does not require a variance due to the location of the shoreline." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review passed a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on November 14, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. Would you like to add anything at this time before Board members ask you questions? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. BADERA-1 suppose a few things. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. BADERA-I'm sorry. Mike Badera. The owner of the property. I did talk to the neighbors on both sides. Neither one has any issue with it. Both properties to the north and the south of me are 20 or 30 feet closer to the lake than my deck is. So the small addition I'm putting on is kind of irrelevant compared to what's already there. We're not doing any major demolition or construction. We're not disrupting much in the ground other than putting in posts to support the deck. It's level at that area. So any additional runoff is going into that first terraced landscaped area, and after that there's a second level terraced area. So we're not expecting there to be any issues with any additional runoff because I put an 85 foot addition on, and it's only about half of the addition that's within that 50 foot line. That probably covers it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any Board members who'd like to ask questions at this time? MR. KUHL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no Board members, is there anyone in the audience, as I open the public hearing, who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think in this instance here this is an example of a dwelling that's been constructed properly. It pretty much meets what we expect for the setbacks from the water. I think the minimal intrusion of the deck addition as you're proposing here is only five feet six inches into that 50 foot setback. I don't think there's going to be any negative effects on the lake whether you build it or not. So I'd be all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I don't think this work effects the neighborhood either. I think if I remember right the neighbor to the south is closer to the lake than you are. MR. BADERA-Both the south and north. MR. KUHL-Yes. No, I would say this is minimal relief. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I agree that this is pretty minimal in terms of what's proposed. It's almost created by the cut out of the deep property there on the lake, but I walked it this morning and it makes sense that it makes it more livable and I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I was there on Monday and I think in order to enjoy your deck there you have to increase it and that makes sense and you have a nice, I like how you've landscaped the front there by the water to catch a lot of the stormwater and that. So I'd definitely be in favor of this structure as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with the project. I think the requested variance is minimal. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm okay with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board successfully, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael J. Badera. Applicant proposes construction of an 85 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing 569 sq. ft. open deck of an existing 6,611 sq. ft. home. Project includes 95 sq. ft. of new deck to north side of deck. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements/ 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks. The applicant proposes an 85 sq. ft. addition to the south side of an existing 569 sq. ft. open deck where it is to be 44 ft. 11.5 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 15, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. I guess we could deny this application but at this point we feel that it's close enough to the 50 foot setback and it's much more than what you have on the adjoining two properties on either side. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's only five feet six inches. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We don't feel that the slight change will negatively impact the waters of Lake George. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to add this small addition onto the deck. 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: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-74-2017, MICHAEL J. BADERA, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 15th day of November 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Congratulations. MR. BADERA-Thank you all. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Next is Mike Weber. It is Area Variance Number Z-AV-73-2017. 519 State Route 149. It is a Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-73-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MIKE WEBER OWNER(S) MIKE WEBER ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 519 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 260 SQ. FT. DECK WITH STAIRS AT THE FRONT OF THE 1,232 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 278.1-31 SECTION 179-3-040 MIKE WEBER, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-73-2017, Mike Weber, Meeting Date: November 15, 2017 "Project Location: 519 State Route 149, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 260 sq. ft. deck with stairs at the front of the 1,232 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks for the RR-3A zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum property line setbacks for the RR-3A zoning district. 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks. The existing deck is currently 10.1 ft. from the steps to the front property line, 17 ft. from the deck to the front property line and 17.5 ft. from the deck to the side property line. The setbacks for the RR-3A zone to the front is 100 ft. and to the side is 75 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 limited due to the location of the existing home on a parcel less than 3 ac. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback to the steps is 89.9 ft., and 83 ft. to the deck, relief for the side setback to the deck is 57.5 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 may be considered to have minimal impact. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has constructed a 260 sq. ft. open deck addition to the front of the home. The applicant was informed by building and codes to complete a building permit application and the zoning office of the compliance for the setbacks in the RR-3A zone. The applicant had a survey completed and submitted the applications for the building permit and area variance for review." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. WEBER-Hi. My name is Mike Weber and the deck is existing. It's there. It kind of got away from us when we were. Well, it's my fault there. So there's nothing else to say. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-So let me see where the Board goes with it and we'll ask you some questions. If that's okay. MR. WEBER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from Board members at this time given we can see exactly what's there? MR. KUHL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no questions from Board members. MR. FREER-Well. So you built it? MR. WEBER-No, I had people build it, construction guys. MR. FREER-And they didn't know that you needed a permit? MR. WEBER-Like I said, we didn't know how, I wanted it to be a certain size and it got a little bit big. We couldn't dig. We couldn't get, so that kind of held up. Yes, they knew it, yes. But it's my fault. I should have had that stuff taken care of. So I take responsibility for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Normally we would look at this project as if the person came with clean hands and I would have some problems with this, but I think in this circumstance I would be okay with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. The problem is it's a pretty small lot but that building probably existed long before the zoning codes were created. So no matter what you did you were going to have to come before us. You were just kind of forced to do it, and I guess I understand. So I'll be forgiving. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, when you look at the survey it looks awful close, but if you go out actually to the project and looked at it, you can't even tell it's there until you ride up the driveway a little bit. It makes the house look complete. It's a nice project. I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Well, I think that if we allow the already built to influence our decisions we're not doing what we're supposed to do. So I think that this is substantial, you know, there's not really much going on on 149. That's my only hesitancy to not accept it, but people need to be getting building permits. They need to be constructing things per the Code or coming before us before they do it. So I right now don't support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to superimpose the three acre zoning onto a .4 acre lot, and I think the other thing that we have to keep in mind is the fact that you also have the State right of way up on there, on the road, so that really sets it back, even though it's overbuilt on this lot. It's an older building. I think the use of the deck and the stairs really has no impact on 149, which would be the nearest thing affected, and in this case here I think we can look the other way on it. I don't think it's an unreasonable project as constructed. I think you probably could have gotten a building permit for it, you know, with a 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) variance, and I think we would have given you a variance to do exactly what you did. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, the property supports what has been done. The frustration here is if you use a real contractor with a real license and he didn't see to get a building permit, that's the negative issue on this, and, you know, if we collect that name maybe that company shouldn't be allowed to work, I don't know. I'm in favor. Your lot supports it but it's just frustrating that you would pay somebody to do this and that they wouldn't go through the right process. MR. JACKOSKI-Who was the contractor? MR. WEBER-He wasn't a contractor, but he worked at the mill with me where I work. He's no longer in that, but he was a professional builder. MR. JACKOSKI-Who was it? MR. WEBER-You actually want his name. Frank Dontric was his name. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I haven't heard of him. MR. WEBER-Yes, he was from down south, from down in Albany. MR. JACKOSKI-Quite frankly, given the location of it and where it is and how it isn't easily viewable from the stuff from 149, but it is pretty clear that you tried to get away with something. I get it. So, having said that, I wouldn't have been in favor of it as presented on paper, but as Mr. Kuhl suggested when you take a look at everything involved, it's going to get approved. So 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 Mike Weber. Applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 260 sq. ft. deck with stairs at the front of the 1,232 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks for the RR-3A zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum property line setbacks for the RR-3A zoning district. 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks. The existing deck is currently 10.1 ft. from the steps to the front property line, 17 ft. from the deck to the front property line and 17.5 ft. from the deck to the side property line. The setbacks for the RR3A zone to the front is 100 ft. and to the side is 75 ft. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 15, 2017; 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 deck enhances the appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but deemed not reasonable. 3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, is really not because of the size of the property. 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. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) 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: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-73-2017, MIKE WEBER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 15th day of November 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-You're all set. MR. WEBER-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Richard Kukuk. Area Variance Number Z-AV-75-2017. It is a Type II SEAR. Dennis MacElroy is the agent this evening for 155 Assembly Point Road. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-75-2017 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD KUKUK AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE ENV. DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) RICHARD KUKUK ZONING WR LOCATION 155 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,409 SQ. FT. DWELLING AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 4,265 SQ. FT. SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING AND MAINTAIN A 783 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.78 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-29 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-75-2017, Richard Kukuk, Meeting Date: November 15, 2017 "Project Location: 155 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,409 sq. ft. dwelling and construct a new 4,265 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and maintain 783 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from minimum property line setback requirements and from maximum height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum property line setback requirements and from maximum height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Section 179-4-010 Design requirements WR —setback and Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The new home is to be located 101 ft. setback where the average setback for the two adjoining homes is 182 ft. setback. The new home is also to be 30.5 ft. where a 28 ft. height is maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) 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 new home in a similar location as the existing home in regards to setbacks. The height adjustment may also be limited due to the location and slight grade change in that area of the property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the shoreline setback is 81 ft. and height relief is 2.5 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. The applicant has included in the plans the location of the new septic system on the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home to construct a new 4,265 sq. ft. home. The new home does not meet shoreline setback because the average of the two adjoining homes is 182 ft. and the home is to be located 101 ft. setback. The plans show the location of the home on the site, site conditions, and elevations of the home." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Dennis. How are you? MR. MAC ELROY-Hi again. Fine, thank you. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design with Mr. Kukuk here to present this application for an Area Variance for property at 155 Assembly Point Road as described. This is on the Harris Bay basin section of Assembly Point Road. (Problems with recording — much static — roughly two minutes). So there's a significant number in terms of the math of it, the relief, 781 feet. This is basically in the same location of the existing house, and typical of the way the rest of the houses are along that stretch, it's just that this house to the south is so far back. The other issue is building height. Before we made an application, I suggested and encouraged the owner and architect to keep that height down, and there's been adjustments based on ceiling height, two different times adjusting the roof pitch. We've graded it in in the back to keep it down. Nonetheless there's still a relief requested, and part of the package shows that view of the house, the highlighted in red that shows the area, that's the way it is. We've done, designed efforts to bring that down from what it might have originally been, but that's where we're at at this point in time. So, along with this teardown and re-build is a new wastewater system and stormwater management system which has not existed formally in the past as it was. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Your rooflines all kind of match, you know, your one, two three setback to the main part of the house. Are they 9/12 pitches on there? MR. MAC ELROY-We're down at 8/12. MR. UNDERWOOD-And if you go lower than that, he's not a short guy. MR. MAC ELROY-It started I think at 10/12. It's come down incrementally and now we're at eight, and it is important. You can't just flatten the upper one because you've got those other rooflines in front. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're trying to match it. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. KUHL-If, in fact, the approval was based on having to be 28 feet, what would you say to that? MR. MAC ELROY-I'd have to redesign the house. It would be more of a significant change to the design of the house. MR. JACKOSKI-Did the architect not understand that? I mean you're the one sitting in front of us, Dennis. I have great respect for you and what you do in our Town, but the reality is you're coming in front of us with somebody else's problem. MR. HENKEL-I know in the past we've worked with projects where people have built a house not connected to the garage and in later years they say well we've gotten older now and we want to go from the house to the garage. Because you're going to keep that existing garage. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I don't think physically that's a, there won't be a. MR. HENKEL-I'm just saying later on you're going to come to us with a garage project that will need another variance. Did you think about connecting that house to the garage now? RICHARD KUKUK MR. KUKUK-No, mainly because of that footprint. The garage that we have is sufficient. Right now it's a seasonal home. The plan is to make it our permanent home. I recently retired a year ago. If this project goes through we would sell our home in Clifton Park and this would be a year round residence. MR. HENKEL-You don't mind walking from the garage in the bad weather? Because that would push your whole project back if you did. MR. KUKUK-No. The winter will be different, but looking at the plot plan, where the wastewater treatment will be, the garage is there. We didn't want to move that. I tried to minimize the footprint from what it is now to what it will be, to use it that way. We will have to get back to the garage in the wintertime to keep it plowed, but rather than add that to the footprint of the proposed home we'll keep the garage as it is. MR. HENKEL-After a few winters you might be re-thinking that. MR. MAC ELROY-One of the differences here, and maybe that's not the total picture. It's a relatively flat grade from the house. Some of these other situations where people want to get that attached garage, you're dealing with, you know, slopes and steps and what not that makes it a little more challenging. MR. JACKOSKI-And there's no way to push the house back any further? I mean, I realize you're 100 feet off. I mean that is significant. So, Staff, if this weren't in the WR district, what would the maximum height of the house be allowed at before a variance was required? MRS. MOORE-Forty feet. MR. MAC ELROY-I think actually 35 feet in the Park. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's actually 40 feet in the APA regulation. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, but the Queensbury standard in the Park, but not Waterfront Residential, is 35. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, if this were 50 feet off the shore, Dennis, you know I'd be kicking and screaming and saying 28 feet, but I get it. You're across the road. I drive down that road all the time. I see it. I know the house. You're 100 feet off. I'm still struggling with it because it's not the Code, but let's see where the other Board members are and where the public is and we'll go from there. I'm going to open the public hearing unless Board members have other questions. Seeing that they don't, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper views the subject application as an opportunity for balance between the desires of the applicant with harmony of the Town Code's protective measures for the shoreline and its 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) community. The Water Keeper could support the requested relief for the shoreline setback based on the greater than usual applicable dimension and the proposed site improvements. However, it is our opinion that the building height request does not warrant the same consideration for relief based on the balance test and overall increased volume in excess of the Town standards, which are much more relaxed than the more restrictive interpretation of the Adirondack Park Agency. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-14-080 Criteria for Granting an Area Variance, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The area variance will result in an undesirable change in the character of the shoreline neighborhood. The granting of the area variance for building height along Assembly Point will change the character of the neighborhood, especially from the lake. The variance will be even more pronounced with the elevation difference to the road and lake compounded by the Town's less restrictive interpretation of building height. The actual building height on the lakeside will be 31'-6" from final grade to the ridgeline, which is permitted as the lower final grade along the front of the building is not "adjacent" to the ridge. This additional height is not accurately depicted on Sheet 1 of the Elevations, which does not show the exposed foundation visible below the deck. There are alternatives available for the applicant other than an area variance. The applicant can achieve the goal of constructing a residential dwelling without a variance through architectural modifications lowering the proposed building height. The requested variance for building height is substantial. The actual building height variance is minimized throughout the application by claiming it is only a limited section of the ridgeline when actually the entire ridgeline of the structure requires the height variance. Additionally, it is stated the height variance is justified "due to the sloping topography" when the actual structure from first floor to ridgeline exceeds the allowable building height. Finally, it is our opinion the building height should be based on how the Adirondack Park Agency would determine the building height, which is clearly in conflict with the less restrictive height interpretation by the Town. APA Handout is attached. The variance can be considered substantial since it applies to the entire structure and will appear more substantial with greater visual impact based on the elevation of the parcel. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appels grant relief for the requested setback variance but deny the requested building height variance. The Lake George Water Keeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper" MR. JACKOSKI-Is that the only letter? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there any public here this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, so we've heard what the Water Keeper has said. How wide, Dennis, is that triangular point identified in red on Elevations Sheet One? How wide is the bottom? Is that about 8 six or seven feet? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. If it's an 8/12 pitch and it's 2.5 feet. Do some quick math and what's that come out to? MR. UNDERWOOD-What is your celling height on your living floors in there right now? Are you over eight feet on those? I don't have anything on the plots. MR. MAC ELROY-I don't have that in that architectural package. If you have that, yes, please. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the other question is, can you identify the issue that the Water Keeper has brought up that the grade, clearly, under the deck isn't identified. So how far up is this? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I don't know where he gets that other than there could be some confusion. On our sheet that shows that red lines we've indicated, and this came from the architects, this depiction of the site. He's focused on the building, some sort of grade and what not, but we've indicated the depicted grade is not accurate. We've referred to the site plan for the proposed topography. So whether Chris is confused by that, but he's just stating something that it's 31.6 but it's 30.6. We're in the lowest adjacent grade related to the highest point of the house, 30.6, 30.5, 30 feet 6 inches. MR. JACKOSKI-So where the chimney is on the side elevation, where the chimney is on the side elevation, I look at the ridgeline there. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, to the grade. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-And it says it's 29.5 feet to the 327.80 elevation. Correct? MR. MAC ELROY-Where are you reading from? MR. JACKOSKI-The back, I'm reading the numbers off the side elevation sheet one. I have 29.8 feet to the ridgeline down to the elevation point of 327.8. Is that not correct? Right here, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it's from the ridgeline down to the finished floor is 28.6. And then two feet from the finished floor elevation to the lowest adjacent grade at 327. MR. JACKOSKI-.8. MR. MAC ELROY-So that takes it to a 30 feet 6 inch height differential from the ridgeline. MR. JACKOSKI-How far is it from the bottom of that, at the 327, how far is it down to the grade that is showing on this map or this picture? MR. MAC ELROY-On this architect's? MR. JACKOSKI-No, I want to know how far it is from that 327 down to the grade that's depicted on this sheet. MR. MAC ELROY-The red line sheet. MR. JACKOSKI-It clearly looks like the topography is below that line. That's what the Water Keeper's suggesting. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and again, depicted grade is not accurate. We just took this depiction right here. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. That's what I think the Water Keeper is saying is I don't think that this is correct based on what we're seeing here. He's just talking about the grade underneath the deck, and as you look at this picture it does look like we're missing. MR. MAC ELROY-The grade under the deck is not the lowest adjacent grade location. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're going to ramp up the grade under the deck? MR. MAC ELROY-No, because you can't, changing the grade of the deck, that doesn't get you. MR. UNDERWOOD-From the natural grade you can't raise it. MR. JACKOSKI-I agree. I'm just trying to understand what the intent is here. That's all. I'm trying to figure it out. MR. MAC ELROY-It's the lowest adjacent existing grade, 327, and the highest point of the house, that ridgeline, at 30.6, 30 feet 6 inches higher. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well let's see where the Board is at this point and we'll go from there. MR. MAC ELROY-And not to complicate things, but his last comment about the APA interpretation of where policy and building height. I'm not sure where the APA building height is 40 feet, and they take, the difference with the APA is that they'll take from lowest adjacent area anywhere around the house to the highest point of the house. It's not the immediate adjacent difference like Queensbury says. So I'm not sure why he's even saying that the Town's. MR. HENKEL-It's his viewpoint anyway, because we've got to go by the Town. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't disagree, but let's poll the Board and see where we're at before we close the public hearing. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Well, when I take a look at, and I have to say, I'm really pretty firm on height, and I don't like to give away height, but then I look at what are we going to get for giving away height here. One, the existing building isn't looking so hot, and so I think that, you know, an improvement to the property is a big deal here. The other thing is I suspect that the septic system for the existing building is totally inadequate, and so by granting this variance we will 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) improve the environment because we'll be getting a new septic system. So what we're getting for what we're giving, I think is a good deal. So I basically would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think when we look at these we have to look at each one on an individual basis and one of the things that trips it in favor of this project's applicant in this case here is the fact that it's set back 101 feet from the lake, you know. If this was 20 feet from the lake, 40 feet from the lake, I think we would have second thoughts, but I think on the scale, when you look at it from the lake, when it's set back that extra distance from the water negates the fact that it's sticking up the extra two feet in the air there, and I think if the design of the house is realistic with an eight twelve pitch on that roof, if you went down to a seven twelve pitch, I don't think you'd gain more than a foot, would you? A foot and two inches or something. So I mean, that would lower it down a little bit, but it would change the whole dynamics of what the design looks like with that steeper pitch, and I think that's in keeping with what they want. So the over height variance as far as this being two and a half feet, I mean that is substantial from what we normally do, but I think the fact that it's set back from the water negates that and I don't think that we have to worry about the 101 feet not being adequate because most places as we know on the waterfront are much closer than, not even a third of that. It's not sitting on a bluff. It's sitting on a flat, adjacent flat area. It's not sitting on top of a hill. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, I think this house could have been designed for the right height, and I feel based on that, I said I like the fact that it's back so far. It's kind of odd that you have to come in 100 feet off, but, no, I think your architect could have designed this house to fit in the height. So I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I think that granting height variances on this lakefront stuff is something we have to be very cautious about. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-They're not asking for a whole lot, two small variances, but I agree with Harrison. I think we've got to be a little tougher on the height variance. The shoreline setback is not a big deal. I'd be against it as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. (Too much static to transcribe) neighboring properties since it's substantially removed from the lake, but I think in the case of the height there are feasible alternatives and I think this is self-created. I think there's an option to lower the height so it's conforming with what's required. So I would be in favor of the shoreline setback but against the height. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. That's certainly not unexpected as far as what the possibilities were coming before you, and I have posed this question, and I guess I've tried to, pardon this expression, but squeeze the architect to see what else could be done about the significant overhaul of the design, and some indication I thought was that we could get another half a foot down without modifying things, and it may be related to ceiling height is what it comes down to. So I don't know the ability to move on the fly here. I know you can't obviously make a significant change to a variance request on the fly. I know you can grant me less. MR. JACKOSKI-We can grant you less relief, but my instinct is that six inches isn't going to do it as far as the overall 2.5 feet that you need. My instinct maybe if you needed a foot they'd probably move on something like that, but no more than a foot, but we can't redesign things for you. MR. MAC ELROY-1 understand. MR. JACKOSKI-Given the situation, I can suggest to the Board members if we approve this variance with one foot of relief on the 28 feet, and I know many of the Board members here are very focused as I am on nothing over 28 feet. Is there an extenuating circumstance here given the road and the 100 feet off the lake versus being 50 feet off the lake? Is that fair, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-So you're saying from a 28 foot building height or 29 foot building height. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not sure Board members would agree to that, but I'm saying I doubt they're going to agree to 30 feet instead of 30.5. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you already at a knee wall height on that upper story on those upper bedrooms up there? MR. MAC ELROY-No. There's an issue there with window placement. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks like they're low to the eaves already. Like the eaves barely. MR. MAC ELROY-I'm not suggesting or I'm not trying to confuse the issue because I don't totally understand that building code element, but you may be aware that in October of 2016 there were some changes to the New York State Building Code, and one of the responses that the architect has given, and this in general may come into play with bumping into that 28 foot height in general in other projects is something related to insulations in those requirements are going to make it that much more difficult because certain space is needed to be compliant with insulation requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you're stacking a beam on top of a. MR. KUKUK-They call it the raised heel or energy heel part of the Energy Code that in order for it to maintain the R-14 insulation factor the truss has to be 14 inches above the headwall. So of that 28 feet, this last 14 inches of usable space, that's what the Code for here now. In looking at the architect's plans, yes, the first floor between the floor and ceiling is nine feet one inch, and the second floor is eight feet one inch. So I suppose we could lower the ceiling on the first floor and reduce it by one foot. I mean that's the architect, and the insulation is very important and the roof, the roof pitch is very important to me. I know you start at the grade it's, if we have to go down we can reduce it y a foot I can see, by lowering the ceiling on the first floor. There's not much more we can do with the roof. We could make it less steep, but as you pointed out, then it becomes more. MR. UNDERWOOD-Then it's going to be driving in at your head. MR. FREER-Okay. Well you make a good point to me that New York State just added 14 inches, is what you're claiming, and I don't have any way. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think they took 14 inches out. We always had some height there for windows. MR. MAC ELROY-There was something related to the Energy Code requirements, and that was the explanation as Rick explained better than I could, but I was saying that in general that's a situation where Building Code requirements advance and it makes it, has an effect on building height standards. So should then the Town react to that and recognize so maybe everything should be up some? I'm not suggesting that's going to happen anytime soon. MR. JACKOSKI-We approved a project down the road for the Perrotta family, I call it the castle on the hill, and we had a similar situation where the applicants showed us visually the little area of that particular house that was going to be above the 28 feet, and quite frankly it was a similar, and correct me if I'm wrong, Staff, but it was quite frankly a similar little triangle that you have on this one, and that house of course is significantly far off of the lake, but it is elevated significantly above the lake, and I'm struggling with the reality of balancing all these things. It's just that little triangle that's in violation of the Code. I know as you go back it's the whole ridgeline. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's how much it's sticking up. MR. JACKOSKI-That little bit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I get the ridgeline is all the way back, and I know you're 100 something feet of the lake. So I'm struggling with it because I do, I hold very firm to that 28 feet off the lake, but in this situation being it's across the road, and I know that we did the Perrotta house down the street and it's going to be, it's way up high. I think it's at 352 or something is the elevation. I mean it's way up off of the lake. I'm struggling with why we couldn't approve this one as is, but. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. UNDERWOOD-If you took that foot out of the lower story and went from nine foot down to eight foot, that would lower you a foot so then you'd be looking at one and a half feet of relief, which to me is not necessarily. MR. FREER-Staff, do you know what height variance we gave to the Ends there on the other side of Rockhurst? MRS. MOORE-1 don't have that off the top of my head. MR. MAC ELROY-On Seelye Road? 29 9. MR. HENKEL-We dropped them down, too, didn't we? MR. MAC ELROY-No, that's what we got. I mean, I happen to know about that one. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's Rockhurst. MR. KUHL-He can table it and he can go back and re-design it and come back. I mean are we going to go out and engineer it here? MR. HENKEL-I'd be for it if they dropped that foot down on the first floor. That's reasonable. It would be different if he was 50 feet from the lake, but I think it's reasonable what he's asking for. MR. JACKOSKI-`m going to go back and poll the Board and suggest instead of at two and a half foot relief, the applicant has modified the request one and a half feet of relief. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm confused, because earlier it was suggested that they could only knock off six inches, and now it's down to a foot. So I'm wondering if there's more than can be given. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. MR. MAC ELROY-1 said six based on ceiling height and Rick, being the owner, he's the one that has to be satisfied with that design. If he's saying one foot then that trumps my six inches here MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but right now we're at one and a half feet of relief. Roy is a no vote. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 supported it at 30 and a half. I'll continue to do that. MR. HENKEL-I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support that. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll support it. MR. JACKOSKI-We have enough votes for an approval at this point. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval of a relief request of one and a half feet modified from the original two and a half feet. Mike, can you make the motion? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard Kukuk. Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,409 sq. ft. dwelling and construct a new 4,265 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and maintain 783 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from minimum property line setback requirements and from maximum height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Granting relief for setbacks and increased final height of 29.5 which will be a foot and a half above the maximum height allowed. Relief Required: 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) The applicant requests relief from minimum property line setback requirements and from maximum height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Section 179-4-010 Design requirements WR —setback and Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The new home is to be located 101 ft. setback where the average setback for the two adjoining homes is 182 ft. setback. The new home is also to be 30.5 ft. where a 28 ft. height is maximum allowed. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 15, 2017; 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 new house will be a considerable improvement visually from the existing structure. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are deemed not reasonable because the applicant has to have at least some room to move around in the rooms of his house. 3. The requested variance is not substantial primarily because of the setback of the house compared to the shoreline. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we believe that there'll be an improvement in the environmental conditions because of the new septic system. 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; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-75-2017, RICHARD KUKUK, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 15th day of November 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You're all set. Good luck. MR. KUKUK-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item this evening is our last item on the agenda. Joe Orlow. Garry Robinson is the agent. It is 11 Wagon Trail, Area Variance Number Z-AV-76-2017. It is a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 SEQRA TYPE II JOE ORLOW AGENT(S) GARRY ROBINSON OWNER(S) JOE ORLOW AND MICHAEL ALUND ZONING WR LOCATION 11 WAGON TRAIL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 891 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THE HOME WILL HAVE TWO OPEN DECKS; ONE IS 144 SQ. FT. AND THE OTHER IS 36 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AN ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 0.07 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050; 179-5-090 GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017, Joe Orlow, Meeting Date: November 15, 2017 "Project Location: 11 Wagon Trail Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain and complete construction of a 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The home will have two open decks; one is 144 sq. ft. and the other is 36 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to complete construction of a home on a .07 ac pre-existing parcel. The building under construction is 24.9 ft. from Sunnyside North, 6.2 ft. from Wagon Trail, 4.6 ft. from the rear east property line, and 6.8 ft. from the rear south property line. The zone requires a 30 ft. setback from the front property lines and rear property lines as the lot is a corner lot. Relief is requested for permeability where 67.4% is requested where 75% permeability is required and a floor area of 29.6 % is proposed where a 22% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the project is currently incomplete and will be completed as presented. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size of the parcel, the location of the existing home and location of the septic area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5.1 ft. from Sunnyside North, 23.8 ft. from Wagon Trail, 25.4 ft. from the rear east property line, and 23.2 ft. from the rear south property line. Relief is requested for permeability -7.6% in excess and floor area of 7.6 % in excess. 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 construction of an 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The home will have two open decks; one is 144 sq. ft. and the other is 36 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the home on the parcel with the deck areas. The elevations show the exterior and interior of the home including a storage loft area. The applicant has received a Local Board of Health septic variance. The applicant had been informed a building permit and variance application were required for the project." 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Hi, Garry. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. ROBINSON-I'm Garry Robinson. I'm a consulting engineer, and I represent Joe Orlow. MR. JACKOSKI-I assume you just want the Board to ask you questions at this time. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Board members do you have any questions on this project? MR. KUHL-Could you give me the history of this project, please. MR. ROBINSON-I'll give you the history that I have. Joe or his family has owned this property for some time. There is a camp that was there, and it was falling into disrepair and the Building Department informed them that they, under the Property Maintenance Code, that they needed to do some work on this site. Joe started doing that and did not have a building permit so he was issued a Stop Work Order. Subsequent to that, things that I wasn't involved with, but I know that he didn't do anything right away. The Town took him to court. He went to court a couple of times. They came up with a settlement and we then got involved and we were told that we needed a septic variance and that we needed variances on the lots and we needed to get a building permit to perform the work. So that's where we are in terms of what's happened. There's actually a shell that's on site. It has plywood on it. The roof has plastic over it, and it's been sitting that way since the Stop Work Order was put in place. MR. KUHL-Is this the original structure that was there, or was it torn down and re-built? MR. ROBINSON-Again, I never saw the original. I don't know what original means. When I was there, this was the structure that was there. From what I understand when he started to do some maintenance on it, they found that the walls were rotted so they started replacing walls. So they replaced the walls. Nobody realized that they were doing wall replacement without a permit until the walls were replaced I guess. I believe the footprint is the same as it was on the building that I hadn't seen. I understand the roof might be a little taller than the roof used to be, but that's what I know. MR. KUHL-Well because there's a foundation there and the house is not on a complete foundation. MR. ROBINSON-There's a little foundation in the back that was, I don't remember where it was. I think it was part of the original building and he didn't replace those walls. It was, he had a Stop Work Order before he got to that point. We do proposed that, if you look at the plans, to just use part of that area in the back for a laundry and a closet. MR. KUHL-I mean that's what confuses me, because to me it looks like this was not old to new. It was almost like new to new, and, I mean, even the sill plate on the south side, I built three houses in my 54 years of owning houses, and the sill plate is beyond the vertical. It doesn't look like there's a 2 by 6 sill plate on the thing. You've got about two and a half inches of cement block that's showing. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. I mean that was something, he did have a contractor that worked on that. I'm not familiar with his work, but he needs a building permit to go forward. So, I mean, to me I started when they called me then. I think that whatever he needs to do now, we've been hired to do plans for him so we'll be completing the structural part of the plans. MR. KUHL-You're an architect or an engineer? MR. ROBINSON-1 am an engineer. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Staff. Does this have a septic variance for this holding tank? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it does. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that's been granted by the Board of Health? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it has. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it's in the packet. MR. KUHL-I mean what are you going to do with the east side? There's no foundation underneath. MR. ROBINSON-Well he'll be building a foundation underneath it. I don't know where he stopped, when he stopped. I don't think they were leaving it like that. I think it got to a point where Dave Hatin came over and said, hey, look you've got to stop. You have to get a permit. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. HENKEL-I was there Monday and walked around. That's nothing to do with us, that's Hatin, but the cement foundation's cracked. I mean the blocks are cracked and some are sticking out in front of the others. I mean that's crazy. MR. ROBINSON-1 think it's been there a couple of years. Nobody's done anything to finish it. MR. HENKEL-It's got structural problems. MR. ROBINSON-That's what I saw, too, but that's why Dave Hatin said stop the clock here. Let's not do anything until you get a building permit and we know what you're going to do to make sure you do it right. MR. JACKOSKI-So regardless of what we may know or not know as to what's safe or not safe as it relates to Building Code, we're tasked here this evening to look at setbacks. MR. ROBINSON-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-And significant setback relief on a very small lot. Regardless of what the placement of the current structure is on its foundation. Are there any more questions for Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. ROBINSON-Well, can I just add a couple of things? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. ROBINSON-When you're saying it doesn't matter where it is on the lot, as I understand when he was given the task of doing some maintenance on the building that that was the location on the lot. He did not change that. That's as I understand it. So I think that that lot is small. It's a lot that's existed for 50 plus years. The camp was there I understand for almost all of those years and I think it's been in his family for at least 30 years. So, I mean, I think what we're looking for is just, we're not asking for anything beyond what was there. MR. HENKEL-Other than the porches, because the porches were not there. That was non- existent. MR. ROBINSON-There's a porch, as you're looking from the road, that exists on the left side and what they're doing is they're changing the location of the entrance to the right side so that porch kind of moved from one to the other, but there is a deck that's out on the front in addition to the building itself. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions for Board members before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-There is no written comment. Is there anyone here who would like to address this Board on this application? So if you could please come to the table for us. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record. PAT SORESINO MRS. SORESINO-Pat Soresino. MR. JACKOSKI-And Pat, where are you in the picture of things? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MRS. SORESINO-Okay. I'm right on the corner straight across from him. MR. ROBINSON-She's right here. MR. JACKOSKI-So on the other side of Wagon Trail. MRS. SORESINO-It seems that same builder that did our house, or started to do it and then vandalized it because, it's a long story. MR. JACKOSKI-That's okay. Let's focus on this one. MRS. SORESINO-That's who started this job. Okay. So this house was a 400 square foot house, 464 square foot house. The whole front of it was a porch, half of the house was a porch, and the height wasn't anywhere near where it is now, and he didn't get a permit and just did this. He didn't build it. Russell Thomas put a tarp over it and was working on it with a tarp so nobody could see what was going on during pretty much the whole building of it. So somebody complained, then the work order came in and stopped and that's where we are, but the whole, this is all rotting. MR. JACKOSKI-What we have to focus on is the siting of the house right now, where it's sited, and the addition of the decks and whether or not we are willing to grant them the relief of the setbacks and the siting of the house. The way it was constructed, who was involved before or after or in the future. MRS. SORESINO-Or even what it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Or even what it is, again, we don't have purview, we don't have authority over the construction of it. We only have the authority to grant measurement relief on the lot. Unfortunately, that's what we have been tasked with, before they can even get a building permit. They're going to have to follow Building Code. MRS. SORESINO-We followed our Codes for three years, we did. MR. JACKOSKI-We're not disagreeing. MRS. SORESINO-1 understand, but he wants to have this, we own half the street. It's a right of way but our peg is right in the middle of the road. He wants to build his deck four feet from the street, the larger deck on the side. MR. JACKOSKI-I believe it's 6.2 feet from the side, yes. MRS. SORESINO-Okay. Where does the snow go? How does the plow move down the road? This is a very hard neighborhood as far, it's a dirt road. My husband gravels it, and there's only two people that take care of that road. There's nobody else really helps out. The other person owns several cabins and my husband just added the gravel to the street, but there is a problem there except for the very last house, which has been sort of abandoned for the last 10 years, and the snow ends up that you can't go down the road, but there's a huge water problem. You know what happens with the snow. MR. FREER-So are you opposed to us granting this variance? MRS. SORESINO-1 am. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. SORESINO-And it's on a corner and having multiple decks with no basement, what is it going to look like? It's not going to be pretty. MR. JACKOSKI-Most decks don't have a basement. MRS. SORESINO-Most people have, well what happens is that you have all your lawn furniture, then where does it go in the winter and everything. It sits on the street. It's on a corner. So on the main side, this is the entrance to Lake Sunnyside, this house. When you come down Sunnyside that's pretty much the first house you see because the other house has a fence around it. So this is the first house, and then my house is the next house you see, and there's beautiful homes that people do take care of. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I guess I'm struggling a little bit because I want to understand your concerns. So if he doesn't have a deck to put his lawn furniture on but he puts his lawn furniture on his grounds, on his lawn, that's okay. I'm trying to understand. MRS. SORESINO-Well I could show you a picture of the house next door that has a deck and what happens to the decks around there. I mean, because nobody has a garage or a shed. How many houses do you know that have decks in the front of the house and like on a corner, would be right there on the corner? Usually you have your deck in the back of the house. It's not like he's got lake frontage. The lake is, you have lake view, but you don't need a deck to go sit in front of a lake, although you would want a lake, so why don't you stick it in the back of your house, or I don't even know if there is a back of the house, because the property size is 0.07, and there's something a little strange because half of his yard has a fence on it that I don't think it's even his fence. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but I get it. You believe that the decks will change the character of the neighborhood. MRS. SORESINO-1 do and I believe that there is not going to be room enough to plow the street. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It looks to me like it's about a 10 to 12 foot right of way, based on the scaling from the tax map. That's certainly a valid concern that we should address. I mean I tried to scale it and it looks to me like it's 10 to 12 feet. Again, we don't have pins, so we can't tell. MRS. SORESINO-Where this paper is was about six feet, and I was there today and it was measured for the wrong deck. This was for the front deck, but it's really 10 feet. So I don't know if you can see the road. Can you see the road? MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. MRS. SORESINO-So you understand me. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other concern besides the right of way for Wagon Trail, snow removal, the appearance of the deck? Is there anything else you want to talk to us about? MRS. SORESINO-Well, I'm just saying that the house did have a porch right here. The floor plan did change drastically. He said it was the same footprint. Here's the footprint. It was 21 by 16 and now it's 24 by 24. So I don't know what happened. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but again, what we're tasked with is, is the 24 by 24 unreasonable for the lot and the amount of. MRS. SORESINO-Yes, I think it is because the porch where it was on the side where he wants to put that big deck was where it should be, but he made it house. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That's a valid point. MRS. SORESINO-Without a permit. With no permit for any of it. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. There is no one else in the audience, I believe, who wants to address this. Correct? Seeing no one else, if you could come back to the table, Garry. So the issue at hand is, even without the decks, Staff, the house as constructed requires setback relief. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have those numbers without the decks? Can we figure out what they are? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm going to make the suggestions to you that we look at the records from the Assessor's Office because at last re-vat this house would have still been there in its original form, and that plot would be on file. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't disagree, but I guess the Board is tasked with, okay, regardless of what was there, here's what the applicant's asking for. MR. UNDERWOOD-Now there's this new one that's appeared. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-And I get it, and here's what the new one's asking for. Are we okay with the new one, and if not well then they're going to have to do something about it. Is that fair? So I'm trying to understand, without the decks, what the relief is, and I'm thinking I can just subtract six feet on the. MR. HENKEL-It has to be 12 2, right? MR. JACKOSKI-Can they get into the back of the house without the porch and stairs by four foot nine? They have to have some kind of a stoop/stair system, right? And then the 4.7 feet that we're off of the eastern line, we're granting all that relief. Correct? MR. HENKEL-4.6 and 4.7. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, let's see where Board members want to go with this because it is quite complex. MR. URRICO-1 want to ask one question. Garry, the relief you're requesting is that to finished what was already started or are we starting a new project to redo some of the areas that obviously need replacing? Where are you with the project and what are you presenting? MR. ROBINSON-The only thing we've done is we've done what you see here. We sat down with the owner. We came up with a floor plan he wants to have in the building. The size of the existing that came off the survey. It's 24 by 24. We're going to do the next part of it, which would be the structural part, if we get these variances to move forward with it, but I don't think there's, other than there may be some repair to something that wasn't done right, there's not going to be any, you know, for the building itself, there won't be any addition on the building itself besides the deck and the porch. Well, I say that, but in the back we are going out. There's an existing foundation in the back. If you look on the survey it's in the back where the building is, and we're going to use that for a laundry and a closet, but other than that, yes, if something's not done right, he's going to get it done right. I don't know if he's going to use the same contractor or not. I haven't gotten that far with him, but he has to go to Dave. We have to prepare plans. He has to get a building permit, and then he would move forward and do some work, and that's been his problem. He can't move forward to make it look better, to do any work because he can't get a permit until we get through this process. MR. JACKOSKI-Let me poll the Board, because my instinct is really that there's so much relief requested on this small lot, we're trying to deal with someone who it appears as suggested in the public record that expanded the footprint above what it was, without a building permit, without going through the process, and with all due respect, I think Board members are trying to say, hey, let's see where we were, let's see what we're willing to grant. So let me see where they are and then you'll know. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'm uncomfortable with this in its present form because it looks to me like it was all contrived to be 24 by 24, and if it was originally 16 by 24, that would seem to be more suitable for the size of this lot, you know, when we're talking permeability and things like that. It's way over the top. I think the deck on the side, the six by twenty-four foot long deck, I mean, that's a long deck, but I think that could be cut down somewhat and that would change some of the relief necessary on that side. MR. JACKOSKI-So as presented you're not in favor? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm not in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, you're asking for too much relief. Even if that deck as shown on the drawing, how do you get out to it? He's got two windows, he doesn't have a door. So I think he's asking for too much. I think he's asking for a blank check, and I would not be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Ditto, yes, I think it's way too much and it's not in line with any of the criteria that we're supposed to be doing. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. URRICO-Yes, I think we're trying to fix something through variances that may need more repair that our variances should allow. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-In general I would be sympathetic because of the miniature size of the lot, and, you know, I believe that it has existed in this form for quite a period of time, but I guess I'd need a little bit more assurance of what was actually there before, before I could grant the variances here. So if I had some more definitive proof of what was there before, I'd be a little bit more sympathetic, but, you know, it appears like there's a lot of questions right now. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I don't know if I have this right or not, but he's got 228 feet above what's allowed, that's without the decks. Right? So that's a lot of relief, and plus, you know, being that close to the lake, I mean, I know it's only six or seven percent of relief on permeability, but that's still way too much being so close to the lake and the shape of the property. It doesn't look good. I walked around and the foundation, well, that has nothing to do with us, but I would not be for it at all the way it is. MR. ROBINSON-Can you just clarify? When you said it's 200 and some feet above what's allowed. MR. HENKEL-The allowable floor ratio. It's 228 feet above what's allowed. Right? MR. JACKOSKI-The FAR. MRS. MOORE-228 square feet. MR. HENKEL-Sorry, 228 square feet above what it should be. That's without your six by twenty-four deck, plus the four by nine. That's a lot of square footage there. I know you've got the Board of Health that accepted it, but I would not be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, when I went there I didn't even get out of the car because I didn't want to deal with it. (Too much static to transcribe). It's not going to be likely that they're going to grant more variance for the decks. MR. ROBINSON-Is it something you'd like to go out and visit the sit with me. MR. JACKOSKI-We don't have to. You have to come back to us and say here's what was here. Here's how we're going to make it better, whatever, but I think you're going to get the minimum amount of relief to replace. MR. URRICO-A corner lot, so two frontages is going to be. MR. JACKOSKI-Here's the tricky part. Wagon Trail is a private right of way. Correct? It's not an actual Queensbury maintained road. It's a private right of way. Right? MR. HENKEL-Wagon Trail is. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but my understanding is that it's still a front way, and I'll have to confirm that with Craig. MR. JACKOSKI-We need to. MRS. MOORE-Thirty feet for all the entire site basically. MR. JACKOSKI-All the way around, but could you confirm that with Craig for us, please? Can you blow that up for us, just so that Board members are aware now, before we adjourn for the evening? That says the site was 21 by 24. With a seven foot by twenty-four foot porch on the front, and what we're being requested to do right now is a 30 by 24. Correct? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're talking 28 by 24 versus 30 by 24. So there's a two foot expansion somewhere. All right. The applicant has requested that we table the matter to our January meeting with a December submission deadline. Is that okay, Garry, a January meeting with a December submission deadline? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/15/2017) MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike, can you make that motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joe Orlow. Applicant proposes to maintain and complete construction of an 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The home will have two open decks; one is 144 sq. ft. and the other is 36 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 JOSEPH ORLOW, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled to the first meeting in January 2018 with sufficient materials to be submitted by the middle of December. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and, Board members with that application, please also remember we have an 800 square foot minimum dwelling code requirement as well. So to go back to the 21 by 24. Cold I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 2