Loading...
05-16-2018 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 16, 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -58, & -61 Area Variance Z-AV-19-2018 Diana & Matthew Suders 2. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-9 Area Variance Z-AV-34-2018 Faden Enterprises 3. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-49 Area Variance Z-AV-35-2018 Faden Enterprises 4. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-47 Area Variance Z-AV-21-2018 Richard & Sharon Bapp 4. Tax Map No. 308.19-1-29.1 Area Variance Z-AV-27-2018 Scott Rowland 8. Tax Map No. 301.5-1-3 Area Variance Z-AV-28-2018 Community Chapel of West GF 12. Tax Map No. 309.10-2-69 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 MAY 16, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, ACTING SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL BRENT MCDEVITT, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-Good evening and welcome to the Zoning Board meeting for May 16th, 2018. We're here at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road. For those who haven't been here in the past, there's an agenda on the back table and some further information about how things go, including Staff Notes. It's a quite simple process. We'll take care of some housekeeping. I think we have some tabling motions to go through, and do we have a? APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 18, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FURTHER TABLE: Z-AV-28-2017 SEATON 308 & 310 CORINTH ROAD The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A-1 Tree Works). Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive. Project includes already in use new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc). Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company. The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size required for a sawmill, wood product operations, and firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. 179-10-010 Special Use Permit Criteria for Commercial light industrial zone. The applicant proposes a wood product operations (Defined as SAWMILL, CHIPPING and PALLET MILL-Any building, site or place used for the cutting or milling of raw timber into dimensional lumber, pallets, chips or other wood products.) where 100 ac is required and the existing site is 9.4 ac. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 and Left Open; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-28-2017, SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Until the first August meeting with pertinent information to be submitted by July 15th. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: MR. FREER-This is the Seaton? MR. MC CABE-Yes. Can I ask a question? Whose fault is it that this is being tabled? Is it theirs? MRS. MOORE-They're working out the details between the applicant and the Town about the specific language. It hasn't been ironed out yet. MR. MC CABE-This has been tabled a few times without any new information. MRS. MOORE-It's not information for us. Right now they're working out the Zoning Code language. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. FREER-We don't have to open a public hearing for that one. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. It's already opened. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Okay. Now the next three I'm going to table but we'll need to open a public hearing for them. MR. FREER-Okay. Well let me just started, Mike, and make a couple of opening remarks and then we'll go through that. Okay. So just so that folks know that we have several tablings since they were advertised for a public hearing if you came for one of those to make your input to the Board, you're welcome to do so, even though that's not going to the Board this evening. So the public hearing will be opened and if somebody's here because you saw the announcement you're welcome to speak to the Board about the topic. We have the information and there may be additional information but that's all in your purview, and we'll leave the public hearing open so that when the applicant does approach the Board and explain people from the public can make input as well. I want to make a couple of other quick remarks because I got some feedback that I certainly appreciated that when we're discussing amongst ourselves at the Board and debating our ideas, I'm going to be insistent that the applicant not join that conversation. It fell on me and I'll be better at that. So then also there's a time limit that we'll keep track of, and we haven't had a big problem with that as far as I know, and then I've been asked to go last as the Chairperson so that I don't unduly influence any of the younger or newer Board members. So we'll do that tonight. So that's sort of a little change to what we've been doing for the last couple of months but I wanted to give that a try and see where it goes. Any questions from the Board about that? Okay. So I think now we're ready to table and open public hearings, Mike. Thanks. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-19-2018 SEQRA TYPE II DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. OWNER(S) DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS ZONING MDR LOCATION 42 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 792 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE THE GARAGE AND 352 SQ. FT. THIRD BAY ON THE EXISTING GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,000 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. FREER-So we'll open the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-Open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. FREER-And we'll leave it open. Is there anybody here in the audience that wants to speak to the Suders application, AV 19-2018? Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diana & Matthew Suders. Applicant proposes (revised) construction of a 792 sq. ft. second story addition above the garage and 352 sq. ft. third bay on the existing garage. The existing home is 2,000 sq. ft. with an attached garage. Relief requested for a duplex structure on a lot that does not meet the lot size requirements in the MDR zoning district Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from a density requirement for a duplex in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density residential zone The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home converting the home where 4 ac is required per dwelling and existing is 0.77 ac. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-19-2018 DIANA & MATTHEW SUDERS, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Until the May 23d meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-34-2018 SEQRA TYPE II FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(S) 894 REALTY, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 894 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT AN 11,400 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING. PROJECT SITE WORK INCLUDES MAJOR GRADING AND FILLING, NEW RIGHT IN LIGHT ONLY, INTERCONNECT TO ADJOINING RESTAURANT. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR SETBACK ON MONTRAY ROAD AND SOME PARKING NOT HAVING ACCESS ON PROJECT SITE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. CROSS REF P-SP-36-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2018 LOT SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. FREER-This is the Faden Enterprises. And now we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wants to make a comment on that application? Okay. Seeing no one we'll keep the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing building to construct an 11,400 sq. ft. single-story multi-tenant commercial building. Project site work includes major grading and filling, new access, and interconnect to adjoining restaurant. Relief sought for setback on Montray Road and parking requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for new commercial development. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-34-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Until the first meeting in June with any new information to be submitted by the end of May 2018. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So you tabled it to the first June meeting? p.. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I apologize. You asked for new information and I wanted to make sure that it was part of this, that it was tabled until just the June meeting. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. FREER-So he said new information by the end of this month. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-1 don't think there's going to be any new information. That's sufficient. I don't think there's going to be any new information relevant to the Board's review. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2018 SEQRA TYPE II FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(S) EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 900 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW PARKING IMPROVEMENTS AND AN INTERCONNECT WITHIN A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING EXCEEDS SITE PERMEABILITY. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY LESS THAN 30 PERCENT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW SITE DEVELOPMENT. CROSS REF P-SP-37-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 ZONING CM LOT SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-47 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. FREER-And the same thing, Faden Enterprises. We're opening the public hearing AV 35- 2018. Is there anybody here who wants to speak to that application? Seeing no one, we'll keep the public hearing open. Thank you for your patience, folks. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes new parking improvements and an interconnect within a neighboring property to the south. Additional hard surfacing exceeds site permeability. Relief sought for permeability less than 30 percent. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for new site development. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled until the June meeting with any new data to be submitted by the end of May 2018. Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. So we're on to Old Business. AV 21-2018 Richard & Sharon Bapp. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-21-2018 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD & SHARON BAPP AGENT(S) STEPHEN L. PERKINS, MCPHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, LLP OWNER(S) RICHARD & SHARON BAPP ZONING MDR LOCATION 45 OGDEN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.37 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.92 ACRES AND 0.46 ACRES. THE EXISTING HOME IS TO REMAIN ON THE LARGER PARCEL AND THE SMALLER PARCEL IS TO BE SOLD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY, CREATING TWO PARCELS LESS THAN 2 ACRES AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING HOME ON THE LARGER PARCEL (LOT 1). CROSS REF P-SB-3-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-29.1 SECTION 179-3-040 5 STEPHEN PERKINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Mike, would you read that into the record please. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-21-2018, Richard & Sharon Bapp, Meeting Date: May 16, 2018 "Project Location: 45 Ogden Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots of 0.92 acres and 0.46 acres. The existing home is to remain on the larger parcel and the smaller parcel is to be sold. Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to create two lots of 0.92 ac (existing house to remain) and 0.46 ac (lot to be sold) in the MDR zoning district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. Relief is also requested for side setbacks for the existing home that is 18.5 ft. setback on the south property line and a 25 ft. setback is required then front setback where the home is 29 ft. setback and 30 ft. 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 1.08 ac for Lot 1 0.92 ac and is 1.54 ac for Lot 2 0.46 ac. Relief is also requested for the south side of the home of 6.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has shown a compliant septic system can be installed on the site along with the placement of the home. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 ac parcel into two parcels. One lot is to be 0.92 ac and to maintain an existing home. The second lot is to be 0.46 ac and is to be marketed for sale for a single family home. The applicant has submitted new information from an older tax map showing the lot configuration in the area." MR. FREER-Okay. If you could identify yourself for the record and make any remarks, additions that you'd like. MR. PERKINS-I'm Steve Perkins. I'm here on behalf of the Bapps. They wanted to be here but they're in Florida for the winter. I guess some folks are still considering it winter up here so they're still in Florida. Yes, so to address, I just want to further some things that were said. I a"; know the big hold up the last time I was here was creating two substandard lots from an already substandard lot. If you look at this tax map, considering the surrounding lots, this lot is by far the biggest lot in that neighborhood, and basically it's, you know, by granting the variances it would allow and permit for development that's consistent with the substandard character of the neighborhood. I think the actual, the variances as far as density goes is somewhat substantial mathematically, but if you consider in light of all of the circumstances including the character of the neighborhood, then it could be considered insubstantial. I also wanted to add that last time I was here none of the neighbors were objecting to this, and I think the possibility for development for more moderately priced housing in Queensbury is somewhat needed and this is an opportunity for that. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a public hearing open. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Mike, is there any additional written? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MC CABE-1 see no additional written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. I must have been in China when this came up the last time. Okay. Any questions from the Board members? MR. HENKEL-Is there a way to maybe re-shape that so that you could eliminate the south side setback and actually increase the size of the property? I mean you could actually angle that a little bit, that line. I mean I know it would be an odd shaped property, but you'd eliminate one of the setbacks. You can't eliminate the front setback, whatever you do, but the side setback on the south side you could eliminate. MR. PERKINS-Are you talking on Lot One? MR. HENKEL-Yes, that's the only place where there's a house. MR. PERKINS-1 think as far as this, the way they drew this is this line here, I guess that could be moved over a little bit here, but then it would just increase the density variance. MR. HENKEL-If you did it more at an angle, yes it would make it more of an odd shape, but you could eliminate and actually increase the property, too on Lot Two. It's just a thought. One way of eliminating one of the setbacks and increase the size of the property. Eliminate the south side setback and increase the size of the property so now you're asking for less relief. MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We'll close the public hearing and I would entertain Board member thoughts on how they view this application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think you have to look at the historic record of the neighborhood and whether you're on Division, Pinello, or Ogden Road down there. You've got a wide variety of lot sizes. The original intention was tiny lots, you know, which were much smaller than what this is requesting here, and I think as far as impacts, even though you don't have sewer down there, it's very fast perc soils down on that end of Town. It's just pure sand, probably over 100 feet of it until you hit down to hardpan down below. So I don't think there's any issue as far as that goes. So as far as the impacts, even though it is, in a sense, a lot of relief that's being requested here, I think it's negligible relief and I think that we can create, it's one request. We've not had 50 requests similar, and I think in this situation here we can be accommodating. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron, thoughts? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with Jim and I don't think we're setting any precedents and I think it blends in with the character of the neighborhood. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm still on the fence. My concern is density in the whole neighborhood, and I agree with my fellow Board members as far as precedent which is also a concern. So at this point I'm going to say a reluctant yes. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, if the neighborhood had a lot of pieces of property that were about an acre or bigger, I think it would be more of a concern, but they're all similar in size. The only problem I had was with the one side setback I think you could eliminate, but I would not deny the project because of that. So I'd be in favor of it as is. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-When I look at it there's no doubt that in the neighborhood there are smaller places, but it is zoned MDR, and the intent was to increase the distance between houses so to speak or reduce the density and so I guess I can't support this because if you continue to use the argument well the other places did it, then you'd never make a change. So I think what the Town is trying to do is to make a change here and so I guess I'm going to go along with the Town's argument. You've got to take a stand someplace. And so I wouldn't support this. MR. FREER-Okay. Brent? MR. MCDEVITT-Thanks, Harrison. I believe, I hearing my fellow Board members, I'm going to actually be in favor of it. I am cognizant of what was just said. I do follow that. However, in looking at Division, Ogden, Pinello, I believe the relief is actually reasonably negligible. I believe it fits with the character of the overall neighborhood being similar in size, I believe the impact is in fact minor in the big picture. So I'll actually be in favor of this. MR. FREER-Okay. I guess we have enough votes. I'm going to say that I guess I side with Mike that the sewer situation on, the reason that we got that MDR stuff started was worrying about sewer and water and wells and all that stuff. The fact that they have water is certainly mitigating, but it doesn't totally relieve the fact that we're going to have more septic there on a less than half acre lot, and that to me is not where we want to be heading. So I'm going to vote against it, but with that I believe you have enough yeses. So I will accept a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard & Sharon Bapp. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots of 0.92 acres and 0.46 acres. The existing home is to remain on the larger parcel and the smaller parcel is to be sold. Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to create two lots of 0.92 ac (existing house to remain) and 0.46 ac (lot to be sold) in the MDR zoning district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. Relief is also requested for side setbacks for the existing home that is 18.5 ft. setback on the south property line and a 25 ft. setback is required, which is seven feet of relief plus or minus; then front setback where the home is 29 ft. setback and 30 ft. is required. So it's only one foot of relief required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., March 21, 2018; Wed., May 16, 2018 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. The neighborhood was apprised of this. No one has commented negatively or positively to support the project. So in that case we would vote positively. IX„p 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. The request could possibly be changed to be a little bit different with the lot line adjustment that's been proposed, but most of the Board members feel happy with what's been proposed. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's been advertised as substantial by Staff, but the majority of the Board feels it's insubstantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We recognize that the Town provides water to all these dwellings in the immediate neighborhood and though there is no sewer there there's not really an issue because of the fast sandy soils that are present on site. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to subdivide and sell off a part of their property. 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 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-21-2018, RICHARD & SHARON BAPP, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of May 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer MR. FREER-Good luck. Thanks. MR. PERKINS-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Next applicant Scott Rowland, AV 27-2018. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-27-2018 SEQRA TYPE II SCOTT ROWLAND OWNER(S) ERIN MILLER ZONING MDR LOCATION 749 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.37 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 TO BE 2.01 ACRES AND LOT 2 TO BE 2.36 ACRES; EACH LOT TO HAVE 180 FT. OF ROAD FRONTAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEW LOTS CREATED IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF P-SB-5-2018 PRELIM; P-SB-6-2018 FINAL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2018 LOT SIZE 4.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.5-1-3 SECTION 179-4-050 SCOTT ROWLAND, PRESENT MR. FREER-Mike, do you want to read it? STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-27-2018, Scott Rowland, Meeting Date: May 16, 2018 "Project Location: 749 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision of a 4.37 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 2.01 acres and Lot 2 to be 2.36 acres; each lot to have 180 ft. of road frontage. Relief requested from minimum road frontage/ lot width requirements for the new lots created in the MDR zoning district and for a second garage (maintaining existing and proposing an attached new to house). Planning Board: Subdivision Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the new lots created in the MDR zoning district and for a second garage (maintaining existing and proposing an attached new to house). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts and Section 179-19-020 Access management The applicant proposes a two lots with 180 ft. of road frontage where 200 ft. is required and an average lot width of less than 200 ft. Section 179-5-020 —Garage The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where an existing building will be located on Lot 2 where a new home with an attached garage is proposed. Relief requested for a second garage. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered due to the existing road frontage for the main parcel. The project site is required double the road frontage due to West Mtn. Road being an arterial road. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for frontage and width is 20 ft. The applicant also request relief for a second garage where only one 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions. The applicant proposes a new home and septic in accordance with the Town's requirements. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where the existing home and pool will remain on the 2.01 ac parcel and the 2.36 ac parcel will contain an existing barn structure and a new home. The plans show the location of the existing buildings and the new home proposed." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Could you identify yourself, please? MR. ROWLAND-Yes. My name's Scott Rowland. My wife Jodie. MR. FREER-Any additional information that you want to supply or ready for questions from the Board members? MR. ROWLAND-It's pretty self-explanatory I think. We're trying to build a home up on West Mountain Road. We live in Queensbury. I'm 54. I've lived here my whole life. I just want a little place up on the hill. The only thing we're asking for really is 20 feet of road frontage. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 was just curious about the history of the lot. It's such a weird oddball flag lot on there. MR. ROWLAND-He's giving it to his daughters. So on and so forth. He ended up with what he's got left there and he's actually passed since then. His daughter Erin owns it now, and that's what he ended up with after 77 years, well, it was before him. MR. KUHL-Could you survive without the second garage? MR. ROWLAND-The snowplow is in there. It plows four homes right there. JODIE ROWLAND MRS. ROWLAND-It's more like a shed. MR. ROWLAND-It's more of a shed for our wood because we all burn wood. I mean, it's not. MR. KUHL-It has a wide opening so that qualifies it as a garage. MR. ROWLAND-Yes. MR. KUHL-Gotcha. MR. ROWLAND-1 mean it's going to get painted, yes. It's not been painted in quite a few years, but it's been there for years. MR. FREER-John, you had a question? MR. HENKEL-No, it makes sense. I understand why the strange shape of the property is because they're trying to squeeze two acres. MR. ROWLAND-Exactly. MR. HENKEL-It'd odd how you've got a narrow path in back there. MR. ROWLAND-It's all woods that are in back there. It really does not matter who owns it. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anybody here who would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Mike, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-1 have no written comment. MR. FREER-With that I'll close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes. It's a good project. I mean, you know, it could be arranged a little different, but, you know, it kind of makes sense, and in doing what we do, I would suggest it's minimum relief and it's a good use for the property, and I just want to be invited to the first barbecue. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project myself. I think it would improve the neighborhood quite a bit and I agree that the garage would be necessary for your equipment to maintain the property. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I have no problem either. The only problem I have is I think in the conditions maybe there should be no other outbuildings allowed. I think you've already got the large shed, the attached garage. MR. FREER-But they would have to come back if they added any larger outbuildings. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I would have no problem with it. It's a good project. MR. FREER-Good. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I have no problem with the project. Initially before I went to look I didn't like the idea of the second garage, but it's existing. I don't see any good reason to turn it down. I'll support the project as is. MR. FREER-Brent? MR. MCDEVITT-I have no problem, Harrison, with the project. I believe it's minimum. It's a good project. I can follow wood, etc., the plow, it's things you need to live and live a decent reasonable life. I see no problem with it at all. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, with 20 feet of deficiency on the road frontage is like the length of a pickup truck. So who would even know if you said here's 180 feet. MR. FREER-Hopefully our Building Inspector. Right? MR. UNDERWOOD-But I mean realistically speaking there's no other question. I mean that's the only issue that's in front of us, that's negligible. MR. FREER-Okay. 1, too, find this project to be allowable, supportable and it makes sense, and it meets the criteria that we're charged with reviewing as we grant these variances. So with that said, I'll seek a motion for approval. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Scott Rowland. Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision of a 4.37 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 2.01 acres and Lot 2 to be 2.36 acres; each lot to have 180 ft. of road frontage. Relief requested from minimum road frontage/ lot width requirements for the new lots created in the MDR zoning district and for a second garage (maintaining existing and proposing an attached new to house). Planning Board: Subdivision Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the new lots created in the MDR zoning district and for a second garage (maintaining existing and proposing an attached new to house). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts and Section 179-19-020 Access management The applicant proposes a two lots with 180 ft. of road frontage where 200 ft. is required and an average lot width of less than 200 ft. Section 179-5-020 —Garage The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where an existing building will be located on Lot 2 where a new home with an attached garage is proposed. Relief requested for a second garage. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 16, 2018; 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 blends in with the existing properties. 2. Feasible alternatives could be said to be limited, but they are reasonable and it really is minimal. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it blends in to the neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty you could say is self-created, but really it's a good use of the existing property. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-27-2018 SCOTT ROWLAND, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. ROWLAND-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. The next application is Community Chapel WGF, Area Variance 28-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-28-2018 SEQRA TYPE II COMMUNITY CHAPEL OF WEST GF OWNER(S) COMMUNITY CHAPEL OF WEST GF ZONING MS LOCATION 55 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE THE 400 SQ. FT. AWNING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING CHURCH ENTRANCE ON NEWCOMB STREET SIDE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING IN MAIN STREET ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2018 LOT SIZE 0.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-69 SECTION 179-3-040 DAPHNE COMBS & MIKE BARBONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-28-2018, Community Chapel of West GF, Meeting Date: May 16, 2018 "Project Location: 55 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete the 400 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing church entrance on Newcomb Street side. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the Main Street zoning district. Planning Board: Addition to existing building in Main Street zone requires Site Plan Review. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirements for the Main Street zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to finish an already constructed 400 sq. ft. car port that is 1.0 ft. from Newcomb Street where a 20 ft. setback is required and 1.6 ft. from the rear property line where a 10 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 considered limited due to the location of the existing building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for Newcomb Street Front setback is 19 ft. and the rear property line setback is 8.4 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 complete a 400 sq. ft. carport area to allow Church patrons and staff to park closer to the church and to get out of the elements when entering the church. The plans show the location of the carport and the elevations of the carport." MR. FREER-Welcome. If you could please identify yourself and then make any comments you want or clarification. MS. COMBS-I'm Daphne Combs. I'm the Treasurer of the Chapel. MR. BARBONE-Mike Barbone, maintenance of the church. MS. COMBS-We mainly want the carport because a lot of our parishioners and our minister are 80 plus years old and I would like our minister not to have to tromp through the snow that kind of the Town throws there because when they come around the corner there that's where it all goes, into our little alcove. So if at least some of it was covered and he was able to shovel it, he would at least be able to get out. He's 86 years old. There will be two handicap entrances that will be underneath it as well. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-Historically speaking, how long has the church been there now? MS. COMBS-1886. MR. FREER-So the whole church is also close to the road. Right? MS. COMBS-It's pretty much on the road. MR. BARBONE-We get a ton of water that comes off of both roads, from Main Street and Newcomb. MS. COMBS-Yes, so it pools right there so it's hard for them to get over it. So if like Miss Carol, who's our little church mouse, she's there a lot. If she could park there rather than, because our parking lot is across the street in the back of our old manse property we kept a right of way so we could have a parking lot. They have to walk across the street, across this big puddle. I've been trying to get Tommy Vanness to do us a drain and if he could help me with that that would be great, and hopefully when that subsides it'll be a nice easy path right into the church without a lot of debris from snow and rain. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a question. What is the roof material on the carport? MR. BARBONE-It's going to be tin. MRS. HAYWARD-And the reason I ask. It's such a small setback. Where is the snow and rain going to shed? MR. BARBONE-We have one foot six inches of setback from the building so it'll drop there. We had put gutters preparing, so we could get rid of some water that was falling. So we eliminated what came off the roof into one location. We put it into a drywell. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. MR. BARBONE-So whatever's left would be the snow that would come off the roof. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening on this application. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-There's no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. We'll close the public hearing and we'll poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And we'll start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Well, as you can imagine my concern is where the snow was going to go on the neighboring property, but I think that can be ameliorated by someone shoveling it. MS. COMBS-There's not much back there. MRS. HAYWARD-No, there isn't, and it's very congested. MR. BARBONE-Originally the fence had gone directly to the building. We moved it where the property line is now. MRS. HAYWARD-1 see. Good idea. So with that being said, I'm in favor of the project. MR. BARBONE-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes there's no doubt it's close to the road. That's the only concern I have, but since the church has been there before the road probably I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 fear that I'd be struck down if I wasn't in favor of this. So I'll be in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Brent? MR. MCDEVITT-I fear as Mike does. I've got enough problems in my life. So I'm going to err on the side of caution here. This is, I cut down Newcomb. My office is across the street. I cut down this a couple of times a week and it's a very tight area. Okay, so when you look at kind of the numbers that we're dealing with here, it's not really reflective of, you've got to drive by it and kind of see what's going on. So we've got an aging population of church parishioners, of folks. MS. COMBS-We're the young ones. MR. MCDEVITT-Yes, you're the young ones, right. People that need to be close, handicap aging population. As Ron indicated, this may very well have been there before zoning, okay, probably was. So these are the situations where we're going to do the right thing. We're going to be good neighbors and good stewards and I'm in favor. I wish you guys all the best. MR. BARBONE-Thank you. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. There's no substantial issues that have been raised about traffic or anything like that. Church services are on Sunday. There's not a whole lot of traffic on Main Street on those days of the week. It's not like it's a Monday morning, crazy out there, and I think the only issue would be clearance for the snowplow, you know, those big trucks come through and like you said they toss the snow a long ways. So I guess you just have to grin and bear it when it does pile up underneath the roofline there, but I'd be all in favor of it. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think we could say that it's a good project for minimum relief. MR. FREER-So I had a hunch the Board would look at, or I wouldn't have made that snide comment to begin with, and I too support the project. It passes, in my mind, both the letter and the spirit of what we're charged to do in terms of reviewing criteria. Obviously this has been long before we thought of Main Street overlay with Queensbury zoning and so I support this relief, and with that I already closed the public hearing, so I will seek a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Community Chapel of West GF. Applicant proposes to complete the 400 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing church entrance on Newcomb Street side. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the Main Street zoning district. Planning Board: Addition to existing building in Main Street zone requires Site Plan Review. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirements for the Main Street zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to finish an already constructed 400 sq. ft. car port that is 1.0 ft. from Newcomb Street where a 20 ft. setback is required and 1.6 ft. from the rear property line where a 10 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 16, 2018; 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 this is a good use for the space, and again for the inclement weather to protect the aging people. 2. Feasible alternatives really would be almost limited. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial because of the area and the fact that the church has been there so long. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty you could say is self-created, but it's not really. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-28-2018 COMMUNITY CHAPEL OF WEST GF, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE it a"; MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much. Any other business, Laura? Good luck. MS. COMBS-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. So do we need a motion to adjourn? MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MR. FREER-I second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 16, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of May, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman