Loading...
06-19-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) QUEENSBURYZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING .TUNE 19, 2019 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-14-2019 Alex & Michelle Wilcox 2. Tax Map No. 278.20-1-3 Area Variance No. 20-2019 Reece Rudolph 12. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-34 Area Variance No. 22-2019 Cathy Sweet 16. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-5.3 Area Variance No. 23-2019 Marc Garvey 21. Tax Map No. 289.16-1-10 Area Variance No. 27-2019 Angio Dynamics, Inc. 26. 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. FREER-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to open tonight's June 19" Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. For those who aren't familiar with the process and haven't been here it's actually quite simple. There's some documentation on the back table with information on each application. I will call each applicant to the small table upfront. They'll make a presentation. We'll ask questions. We'll open a public hearing if there's a public hearing scheduled, and then I'll poll the Board, and we have a couple of housekeeping items to get started with this evening. So, Mike, do you want to? MR. MC CABE-Sure. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 17, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-I have to abstain. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe April 24, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE May 22, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 22ND, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Henkel May 30, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 30t", 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-Ron, you weren't here. That was the Thursday. MR. KUHL-The Thursday. Yes, I have to abstain. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. The first applicant is Area Variance 14-2019 for Alex & Michelle Wilcox. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-14-2019 SEQRA TYPE II ALEX & MICHELLE WILCOX OWNER(S) THOMAS DUBOIS ZONING RR-3A LOCATION CORNER WALKUP ROAD & MOON HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,616 REVISED FROM A 3,320 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS LOCATED WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. THE SITE INCLUDES GRADING, LOT CLEARING FOR HOUSE, SEPTIC AND WELL. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR SETBACKS IN AN RR-3A ZONE FOR A LOT SIZE OF 1.93 ACRES. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OCCURRING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF SP 16- 2019; AV 32-2018 (VOIDED); DISC 1-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2019 LOT SIZE 1.93 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-3 SECTION 179-3-040 MELISSA LESCAULT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-14-2019, Alex & Michelle Wilcox, Meeting Date: June 19, 2019 "Project Location: Corner Walkup & Moon Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,616 sq. ft. revised from a 3,320 sq. ft. single-family home with associated site work. The house to be constructed is located within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The site includes grading, lot clearing for house, septic and well. Relief is sought for setbacks in a RR 3A zone for a lot size of 1.93 acres. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for construction occurring within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in a Rural Residential 3 acre zone for a lot size of 1.93 acres. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to locate a home 57.60 ft. from Walkup Road, 64.78 ft. from Moon Hill Road, and 75 ft. from the West property line where a 100 ft. setback is required for each. 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 character 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 lot size of 1.93 ac parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for setback on Walkup Road of 42.4 ft. on Moon Hill Road of 35.22 ft. and on the West property line of 25 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 project includes stormwater management for the site and a waste water system. The applicant has located the home at the top of the slope. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home and associated site work. The applicant has submitted information on the site conditions of the parcel -topographic survey. The plans show the grading, stormwater management and a septic system. The applicant has removed the construction access on Walkup Road and all construction activities will be from Moon Hill Road. The house location and new driveway are also shown to have the access from Moon Hill Road." 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Would you please identify yourself and add anything you'd like to the record. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. My name is Melissa Lescault and I'm an attorney at McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, and I'm here on behalf of Alex and Michelle Wilcox. Alex and Michelle are here present as well. If I can just pass out, I have a written submission that I'm also going to go over for you. So my client wanted me to thank you very much for last April's meeting. They took into consideration all the comments that were made by the Board members as well as the neighbors and they modified their original plan. The three things that they modified are listed on my written submission. One, they've removed that temporary access driveway that I know was causing a lot of concern for the neighbors on Walkup Road. So that's been removed. They also have reduced the size of the garage, and then the third revision that they made was that they positioned the house further away from the east boundary pursuant to Dr. Dimick's request. So now the house is 75 feet from that boundary line and I believe that Dr. Dimick is in agreement and has given his blessing now to the new side, to the movement of it so to speak. To be clear, the project requires three variances. I put together a little chart there just so you can go over it with us. I know that your Board members just went over everything but there are, because the property is a corner lot they are required to have front setbacks from both roads, from Moon Hill as well as from Walkup. So it's required to be 100 feet. The proposed project is 64.78 feet from Moon Hill Road which is a 35% variance request. The front setback for Walkup Road is, legally from the property line to the garage, is 57.69 feet, which is a 42% variance, but if you look at the property and where the road is, it's actually 145 feet from separation distance. If you go to the next page, you can see I marked 145 feet. So, yes, legally they do need a variance for 57 because the measurement is from the boundary of the property line, but there's nothing in between the boundary line and where the actual street is. So they're above and beyond the 100 foot side setback that is required by the Code. The side setback on the east, if you could just take a moment, I just want to explain this to you because this was very confusing for me. So when you have a corner lot, the way your Code interprets it, you have to have the rear of your, there's no side setbacks. You basically have all front setbacks and a rear setback. So that east boundary line is considered a rear setback, which triggers a 100 foot setback from the adjoining lot. Everyone else in that neighborhood has a 75 foot side setback, but just because this is a corner lot, this parcel is required to have a 100 foot setback. I believe the purpose of that is if the house was shifted and faced Walkup Road, the Town did not want the back of a house to only be required to 75 feet. So they wanted it to be interpreted to have that 100 foot buffer, but our house is actually oriented in the same fashion that everyone else is on Moon Hill Road and they actually do have 75 feet from their house structure to the boundary of the east line. So legally they need 100 feet which is a 25 foot variance. Practically they have 75 which is in compliance with everything else, with all the other side setbacks in that zone. So I just wanted to point that out to you. I do want to go over some of the, I know that you've heard from a lot of the neighbors with respect to this area. If you could just bear with me I want to go over some of the Findings of Fact with respect to the history of this parcel. So in 1988 Island View Enterprises lawfully subdivided this area into 4 lots fronting on Moon Hill Road and Walkup Road. The subdivision map was filed on September 16, 1988 in the County Clerk's Office. On May 19, 1989, Patricia Collard, who was your Queensbury Zoning Administrator back then, stated in a letter, which is on Page Three, that the four, these were lots from this subdivision, are pre-existing, non-conforming and a building permit may be issued for each parcel. Basically what that means is the lot itself and the size is non-conforming. You're still required to meet the dimensional requirements for the setbacks, which is why we're here tonight to get the three variances. A year after the 1989 subdivision, Thomas and Ellen Dubois purchased the subject lot. They're the current owners of this property. So for 30 years they paid taxes on this property with the intent to eventually build a home. If you continue on to Page Four. In 2014, as life happens, their plans changed and they listed the parcel for sale. There are For Sale signs on both Moon Hill Road as well as on Walkup Road by Davies & Davies. All the properties on Walkup Road 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) had a direct sight of these For Sale signs. Not one of them approached Davies & Davies or Mr. and Mrs. Dubois. No one made an offer to buy this property. No one made an offer to purchase a scenic easement so that they could keep the view the way it exists. So no one made an offer and for four years nothing happened until my clients made an offer to purchase this property and build a home on it. Many comments were made last April at the meeting that my clients were intending to clear cut the property. As he stated that's certainly not their intentions. Legally they cannot clear cut this property, regardless of your zoning restrictions which we know he can't clear cut, but in addition to that, Island View Enterprises actually have come into restrictions that they made when they subdivided this property. So any owner of one of those four lots is restricted to no clear cutting, and they have to have a 20 foot buffer of trees between the lots where they currently and naturally are wooded. Those are private restrictions. So should anyone violate them, the four owners could actually sue each other or the developer could sue them. So there certainly is going to be no clear cutting of the parcel by any means. If you could just bear with me for a few more moments, I just want to go through the balancing test. MR. FREER-We just went through that. MS. LESCAULT-I know, but I have different factors, if you don't mind. I apologize. So on Page Four I'd really just like to go over the character of this neighborhood to layout the setbacks. So you understand that this house and where it's positioned actually is similar to the other homes on Walkup Road, on Moon Hill Road, I'm sorry, not Walkup. So on the north side of Moon Hill Road the front setbacks were each for the houses. On Lot 2 it's 50, 4 is 40, Lot One is 60, 5.1 is 100, 5.2 is 230, and then on the south of Moon Hill Road, 45 is 90 foot front setback, 43 has a 100 foot setback, 42.1 has a 70 and 41 has 40. Our client is proposing, on Moon Hill Road, a 64.78 foot setback. One hundred feet is required. Only three out of nine homes on Moon Hill Road actually satisfy that 100 foot setback. So 67% of them do not comply. With respect to the side setback, you can look through the chart. Their requirement is 25. So I'm basing this on a 75 foot setback, not the 100 that my client has to abide by. Only two are completely in compliance with the side setback. So 88 do not comply. The reason why I mention this is because I just want you to know that the neighborhood itself is very similar to my client's project, what he's proposing, and again as I mentioned before Dr. Dimick is in agreement with the 75 feet and to my knowledge he's not objecting to the application. There are no feasible alternatives to the three variances that we're requesting. The proposed house cannot be moved further back from Moon Hill Road because the slope starts to get greater as you go north on the lot, and certainly based on the comments that were made in April we wouldn't want to put the house any further closer to Walkup Road because it would open up the trees in that area and I believe the neighbors on that side certainly would object to that, and again, this house location is in conformance with all the other homes on the north end of Moon Hill Road. I did put a picture on Page Five where you can see the placement of the home, and if you've already driven through there you've seen that, but this is a Google map where you can see how the houses on Moon Hill Road are all pretty much along or close to the front of Moon Hill Road. I don't believe that the variances that we're requesting are substantial. Mainly because the setback from Walkup Road to the garage is really 145 feet. So there is that buffer that is the intent of a setback. The setback on Moon Hill Road is only a 35% variance which is not considered substantial, and then the side setback of 75 feet which really satisfies the true zoning setback for that zone is also not substantial. I don't believe that there are any physical or environmental negative effects that would be adverse to the neighborhood or to the district. The applicant has designed a fully compliant stormwater management plan and a wastewater system and although it can be considered that this project is self-created, the difficulty was self-created, I just would like the Board to take into consideration that when the owner of this property purchased this lot, he could have put a home in here that would have been completely in compliance. As of right now the building envelope, in order to be in compliance without any variance at all, is so narrow I don't even think you could put a mobile home on this property without having some sort of variance to build a house. So with that I'm hoping 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) you consider that the two out of three variances that we're requiring, the intent of the buffer is there, and we've satisfied the request of Dr. Dimick. So hopefully that's taken into consideration. Again the front setback on Moon Hill Road is further back than the three adjoining parcels. So, again, characteristic is not going to be negatively affected and we're hoping that you approve the three variances that we're requesting tonight. MR. FREER-Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-I've got Staff questions. Do you need a variance for two curb cuts or no, in this case you don't? MRS. MOORE-That's dependent on DOT or the County, but the applicant has already had discussions with the highway entity that controls that. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. KUHL-Yes. Do you have a document stating that Dr. Dimick is in favor of this or are you just saying you hope? AUDIENCE MEMBERS-Here's here tonight. MR. KUHL-He's here tonight. How about the guardrails. You're cutting the guardrails for your access, right? ALEX WILCOX MR. WILCOX-Yes. I contacted the County and they said upon approval from the Area Variance when the land is actually ours then we can set up a plan to go out and meet with them and they do their site analysis is what I was told. MR. KUHL-You'll leave the one in between the two driveways? MR. WILCOX-It's all dependent I think on, the supervisor there said yes, they do their own tests and figure out what I can or cannot leave. MR. HENKEL-It's a kind of tough curve there. The speed limit's, what, 45 there? MR. WILCOX-It's only 30. MR. HENKEL-Really. MR. WILCOX-Yes. I think people think it's 45. MR. FREER-We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this application? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DR. RICH DIMICK DR. DIMICK-Good evening. I'm Dr. Rich Dimick and I live in the house that is directly, if you're looking at the lot in question, I live just to the immediate right. I actually have a question to start off with, and I hope that's appropriate for this setting. I was going to point at the map. The lot that actually is at the true corner of Moon Hill and Walkup, I 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) know that this has been called, the Wilcox' lot has been called a corner lot. What is that other lot, it is actually the true corner, is it a utility lot? MS. LESCAULT-It's not assessed to anyone. It's a right of way. DR. DIMICK-I just wanted to clarify that. So the Wilcox' lot is technically a corner lot. I have reviewed with the Wilcox' their strategy from the last plans to the current plans to move the footprint of the house approximately additionally 20 foot away further from our lot and we've gone out there and looked at those angles and looked at the distances and yes that is a definite improvement. The house that they're proposing, it's still a pretty good sized house for the size of that lot. I'm not a building expert, but it's definitely an improvement to move it over, plus to mention tonight that the by-laws under Island View are 20 feet of trees being left. We actually were going to ask for that. It's already on those by-laws that the existing trees within 20 feet of the line would be left for buffering and that would definitely help for our houses. We're happy then to hear that they intend to leave as many trees as possible especially along the Walkup side of the line which is the north side, to leave as much of a buffer between their facility and that house. One thing I wanted to mention is that we were talking about the access from Moon Hill. That road, as you may know, is pretty dangerous in ice storms. There are usually three or four accidents a year. It may or may not complicate their plans, but having two driveways out there, the cars usually crash into my lot rather than further down. They usually don't, you know, they crash before they get to the corner. I don't know if that's a consideration. I just wanted to mention the Town has been doing a better and better job over the years of salting it, but it still remains a pretty dicey downward curving road. So I don't know if that plays into your consideration. MR. FREER-Thank you. This gentleman in the back. EDWARD HAYES MR. HAYES-Evening. I spoke last time back in April. Edward Hayes, I live on Walkup Road, 55 Walkup Road, and I did speak back then in April. Mainly what I'm here tonight to say is none of this would be a matter, I guess, you're asking for three variances, if the home was scaled back. It's a huge home for that particular lot. I remember about a year, year and a half ago we were in here looking for a variance for my son-in-law's house. He asked for an extra 10 feet due to a mistake he made on his planning, and we had to go through this whole adventure for 10 feet, side to side where we had probably 300 feet. Now we're asking for three different variances, you know, huge, and as their lawyer said, you have 40%, 50% variances. The other homes up there have been granted variances, but a lot of those homes are on bigger lots. This is a three acre zoning area and they do have a, they're a 1.9 acre lot right there. Now I have no problem with people building there, but build within your confines, don't build a huge. Again, I would say I have no problem with them coming in building a home. It is what it is. That's a building lot. It's an approved building lot, but perhaps they should think about, if they want such a big home, putting it someplace else. So three variances just seems a little bit out of character. And going back to the curve, I've lived there for 30 years. We've seen, as Dr. Dimick said, tons of accidents coming down that road. Think about the buses that would perhaps stop there, flashing lights, etc. Another two driveways going in. MR. FREER-Not our. MR. HAYES-I know. It's not your thing to consider, but it is a thought. Basically that's it. Just that I'm against that multitude of variances. It's a little bit overboard. Okay. MR. FREER-Anybody else want to make a comment on this application? Roy, do we have any written comments? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. URRICO-Yes, we do. I want to get a clarification from Staff. We have two letters from Phillip Robertson, should I read both of them? One's from April and one's from June. MRS. MOORE-Just the April one. Correct. I think there's just one, the current one. MR. URRICO-Just the current one. "In 1979 I purchased the land I currently own on Walkup Road. My home is to the North and directly across from this proposed building site. I have spent the last 40 years designing, building and working on my rural country homestead at 37 Walkup Road. I recently retired so that I could finally enjoy the fruits of my labor and spend my retirement years at this rural home in our quiet peaceful neighborhood. I originally chose this particular area because of the rural feel and seclusion that Walkup Road offers. I was able to purchase nearly 20 acres and situate my modest home 185 ft. from the road and 105 ft. from neighbors land to the East so that it was not within the view of any of my surrounding neighbors. The setback rules were not as strict as they are presently, however, I felt it was the neighborly thing to do at that time. I consulted with my neighbors before I began construction and both Dave Dutra & Harold Rathburn were receptive to my vision of the small country home I was planning. I did not take down any trees when my original home was constructed back in 1980/81, nor did I remove any trees when I built my 2 bay Carriage Shed Garage in 1990. In 2001 my wife and I constructed an addition and took great pains to marry that to the West side of the original home so that it was the least intrusive to the landscape or viewscapes. I can count on one hand the total number of trees that were required to be removed for this project. In fact the beavers in Glen Lake Brook took down more trees than I did that year. Each construction project was within the building code rules of the time and no variances were ever required as I played by the Town Of Queensbury rules of the day. I have endured the construction of several homes close to my place since I originally built my dream home next to the brook down in the hollow of Walkup Road. Most have abided by the Queensbury Codes and Comprehensive Plan for Rural Residential Neighborhoods. Each of these building projects took one to more than two years to complete and the nature of the landscape makes for many noisy months or years while the construction drags on, echoing thru this normally quiet valley. I would welcome a modest structure that is more befitting to this area, however, this proposed structure does not. This proposed project will not only be intrusive & a detriment to the neighborhood but will likely take years due to its scope. The relief requested is quite substantial to the Ordinance requirements. It does not comply with current RR3 codes, setbacks or grade requirements and the "2616" sq. ft. building along with 988 sq. ft. garage has already been denied by Craig Brown. In actuality the original proposed project was 4683 sq. ft. with 1120 sq. ft. garage and is not appropriate for this non-conforming lot size. The revised application has a few little concessions however the main structure and setbacks appear virtually unchanged so the house is still 4683sq. ft. with a reduced garage size of 896 sq. ft., still making it a 5579 sq. ft. structure at the top of a newly cleared hill. This proposed project is counter to almost everything that the Queensbury Comprehensive Plan for Rural Residential Neighborhoods clearly spells out! The building is located at the very top of a steep hill. The removal of almost all of the 90' tall pines would be required in order to shoehorn the proposed 82' wide 3 story structure which is situated on the 210' wide non-conforming piece of property with the tall side facing Walkup road and my home. This will most certainly impact the viewscapes we all currently enjoy. The proposed site work and construction alters the essential Character of the neighborhood. This will all have a negative impact on my life. It will have a long term negative impact on not only me but all my neighbors, both emotionally and physically not to mention financially as our property values will be impacted as our rural neighborhood turns into another Queensbury development. In addition the site work and subsequent proposed buildings will be detrimental to the Glen Lake Brook Eco system at the bottom edge of this property for years to come. I play by the Town of Queensbury rules and always have. For 4 decades I have faithfully paid my taxes, which are substantial on 20 acres. I am asking that Queensbury play by their established rules and deny these variances on this subject property that the applicant still does not even own! It 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) does not fit in this area despite his claims of like homes. The zoning board is here to protect us and should not consider this 82' structure at the top of that ridge as it will have an adverse effect and most certainly impact the physical and environmental conditions in this neighborhood. If anything, a much smaller structure would be in order so it has less of an impact here, both visually and environmentally. I value what I have built and paid for over my lifetime and intend to do my best to keep any construction to a reasonable level in order to keep this still beautiful rural area of Queensbury, rural. It appears the applicant has hired an attorney so maybe it is time for the folks in our neighborhood to do the same should litigation become necessary to stop this proposed construction. Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Philip Robertson" MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-I have one more which was handed to me tonight. "Good evening Zoning Board Members of the Town of Queensbury Our names are Kevin & Lynsey Whiting and we reside at 49 Walkup Road, Lake George. We feel this project is still too large for this corner lot of land that borders wetlands. This project we feel goes against our Town's Comprehensive Plan. Given the natural environment no variances should be granted. Our rural residential codes are written with great intentions, we must honor and maintain the preservation of its rural character and protect the natural environment. This project we believe will have a negative impact on this rural residential neighborhood. Thank you for your time, Kevin & Lynsey Whiting. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. You guys can come back up and respond to any of the public comments you just heard. MS. LESCAULT-Everyone made comment about the size of this lot and how the parcels on Walkup Road are so much larger and therefore the other homes in this neighborhood do not need variances. If you actually look at the size of all the homes that were part of this four lot subdivision, the width of all four of them is pretty much the same. So any one of those four homes would have required variances under today's dimensional requirements. In addition to that, four out of the five homes on Moon Hill Road are over 2500 square feet. This is 2600. One of them's actually 3600 and the other ones are like 2900. So it's really in compliance. It mirrors all the other homes that are on Walkup Road. So, yes, I understand that, you know, people are concerned that they want to build on this lot. It is a buildable lot, and again I highlighted, I just pulled this up. You can see this in pink. That's what they have to build in to do this without a variance. You couldn't put a house in that pink. So variances are needed in order to build a house on this property. That was my only comment. If you have any questions for us, I'd be more than happy to answer them. MR. URRICO-I do have a question. You said they have to build. They don't have to build. MS. LESCAULT-Correct, but they do have a right to build. It is a buildable lot. It's non- conforming based on. MR. URRICO-They have the opportunity to build but not necessarily with the size house that they're proposing. MS. LESCAULT-Correct. Without a variance, you're absolutely correct. My point was that you couldn't build anything here unless you got a variance. MR. URRICO-So the right really is not there. What you're saying is it's not a right. It's an opportunity. MS. LESCAULT-Yes. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-I have a question first, if you don't mind. You've got two cuts in the road. Why? MR. WILCOX-The main road's. MR. KUHL-Yes, I know. I travel it all the time. MR. WILCOX-So basically I thought, as we were coming down the hill, you could kind of swoop in and then you would kind of swoop out. You never take a left out and go up Moon Hill. I felt like it was going to be safer. Again,talking with the County Highway Department there, if for some reason we have to take a different, whatever the recommendation is, we'd definitely explore that option. MR. KUHL-If you were only allowed one cut, would you still build the house? MR. WILCOX-If that's what it came down to then most definitely. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron, do you want to start? MR. KUHL-You know it's interesting. When I looked at this and I looked at the map, and, you know, the true measurements of this property, I mean with the, between the end of the property and Walkup is a lot more than the 57 feet that they're building to the end of it. Now is this a buildable lot? Yes, I think it's a buildable lot. I don't think what they're asking for is too much. It appears to me that they're doing it in the right vein. Safety wise I think you could make it with one cut, but I'm not going to go against the two cuts. I would be in favor of this project only because of the area from Moon Hill Road to their property line and from Walkup Road to their property line gives them a lot more distance than what they're asking. The variances are to their property line and not to the asphalt. So for those two I would be in favor of it that way. I don't think you made much of an effort to downsize your house. You're looking for three garages. I think you're on the edge of a lot of house and a little bit too much, but with those reservations, I am in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I think this is too substantial for the lot. I do appreciate the work that was put in between April and now, but the sum total of these three variances for me, I have to say no at this time. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-The Town of Queensbury is saying it's a buildable lot. I think it should be allowed to be built on. I think what they're asking for house wise, I think it's acceptable. There's other houses basically across the street that are a lot closer to the road and I would say bigger. It puts it in an awkward position because of it being a corner lot, considered a corner lot. It's really unfair with that setback because there's two fronts there. Yes, I guess I'd have a little concern with maybe the two curb cuts because that's going to play a little more danger in there. That's up to the Town or the County to decide there. So I'd be in favor of this as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Mike? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. MC CABE-Yes. It's a non-conforming lot so no matter what they did they were going to require variances. I'm impressed that the applicant worked with the neighbor to scale down the original plan. By today's standard a 2600 square foot house isn't real big. You're going to spend a lot more per square foot if you tried to reduce that, and I don't think that what they're asking for is substantial by any means. So I'd be in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I have to say something before I go on. I just want to make sure everybody understands that the Code exists, it does exists, but the Zoning Board exists because there are exceptions to the Code, and that's why we're here to weigh what can be used, what can be done and what can't be done. We give leeway. We give the violations breathing room. Because there are violations. A variance is a violation. In this case I still think this is too substantial a project for this size property. It's 1.93 acres. It's supposed to be zoned for RR 3 Acres, and I think the project has to reflect the property it's on, and I don't think it does. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I too have significant concerns about the aspect of the property, where it's going to be proposed to be built. I think that if you're on Walkup Road and you drive along Walkup Road and you look back at the ridge from Walkup, it's an unbroken ridge of trees and greenery, and this house where it's being proposed here will be at the very top of the hill. It'll stick out like a sore thumb. To make matters worse, the septic field is going to be clear cut down below there. So basically that whole aspect along that hillside there is going to be open now, and you don't see that anywhere along the whole ridge all the way out to Bay Road. None of those other houses out there show at the top of the ridge. So I think that, you know, the assumption that this has no impact and it fits in, it may be the right size house, but it's not the right size house for this lot because of the aspect of the lot and because it's going to greatly alter the neighborhood and the aspect of looking at that ridge from Walkup Road. So I'm not in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. So I do support the project. I think that it's right on the edge, but as people try to conform to Code we have a two acre lot and it's now coded as three. They bought it as two, and then to put a house that's commensurate with the house range and market that is in that area and to look at the cooperation that was proposed in terms of trying to move it and the elevation challenges that they have, I think that they've been conscientious in that manner and I would support this application. Okay. So with that I'd like to see if we can get a motion, please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application for Alex & Michelle Wilcox. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,616 sq. ft. revised from a 3,320 sq. ft. single-family home with associated site work. The house to be constructed is located within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. The site includes grading, lot clearing for house, septic and well. Relief is sought for setbacks in a RR 3A zone for a lot size of 1.93 acres. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for construction occurring within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in a Rural Residential 3 acre zone for a lot size of 1.93 acres. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) The applicant proposes to locate a home 57.60 ft. from Walkup Road, 64.78 ft. from Moon Hill Road, and 75 ft. from the East property line where a 100 ft. setback is required for each. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on April 17, 2019 and re-advertised on June 19, 2019; 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 proposed structure is similar to other houses in the area. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are considered not reasonable at this particular time, particularly because of the topography of the area. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. We feel that at worst it's moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 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-14-2019 ALEX& MICHELLE WILCOX, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of June 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Okay. We're on to Area Variance 20-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2019 REECE RUDOLPH AGENT(S) DAVID HUTCHINSON OWNER(S) REECE RUDOLPH ZONING WR LOCATION 24 NACY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING Y2 STORY ROOF AREA OF 392 SQ. FT. AND TO CONSTRUCT A 715 SQ. FT. SECOND-STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 29-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-34 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVID HUTCHINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2019, Reece Rudolph, Meeting Date: June 19, 2019 "Project Location: 24 Nacy Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing 1/2 story roof area of 392 sq. ft. and to construct a 715 sq. ft. second-story addition to the existing home. Relief requested from Floor Area Ratio and permeability requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks, Floor Area Ratio and permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040-dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to remove the existing %second story to construct a new full second story. The new second story is to be located 1 ft. 5 inches from the south property line were a 12 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is proposed to be 70.6% where 75% is required. The floor area proposed is 3,184 sq. ft. (30.5%) where 2,300 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 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 due to the location of the existing home and lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 11 ft. 8 inches and the floor area is 8.46% in excess of the maximum 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 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 proposes to add 715 sq. ft. second story addition to the existing 973 sq. ft. (footprint) home of living space to the first floor 738 sq. ft. home for additional living space. The plans show the location of the addition to the home. The elevations and floor plans show the arrangement of the home. There are no changes to the site. The application was tabled previously pending a septic certification." 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that was adopted June 18t", 2019 by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Welcome. If you'd like to identify yourself and add anything you'd like to what was just read in. MR. HUTCHINSON-My David Hutchinson and I represent Reece Rudolph. He apologizes he couldn't be here tonight. Essentially what we're doing on this project is right now as it indicates it's sort of a half story where it's a lower roof and the central part of the second floor is living space, bedroom, two bedrooms, and we want to remove that roof and extend the walls to the outside of the original footprint then put a new roof on, because it has like eave storage, that little triangular space you get in the eaves for storage. We want to capture that square footage to enlarge the bedrooms a little bit. So we're not adding to the footprint. We're kind of not adding to the square footage in that it's already space that's used for storage but it adds to the space that can be occupied. We're asking for a one percent decrease in the existing permeability, but it's mostly due to the, you have to include that deck that we're building on the second floor, and then like a roughly a 2.4% reduction in the floor area by capturing that 250 feet of storage area, that space that can be occupied brings that square footage up two and a half percent over what it is now, the non-conforming, the existing space that it is now, the floor area ratio. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Any questions from the Board for the applicant? MR. HENKEL-You're saying that second story deck is really changing the permeability that much? MR. HUTCHINSON-It's probably less than the one percent, and we're not adding anything to the footprint other than that deck. When you run the number it comes to over .5 I think. So we round it up to one percent. MR. FREER-Okay. Would anybody here in the audience like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is none. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'm going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I'll start with our Glen Lake expert Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess it's going to be compatible with a septic system that's going to be functional for what's being proposed here, but I think at the same time we should be concerned with the amount of square footage versus the floor area ratio. We're talking 22% versus over 30%. That's almost 33% more than is granted, which I think is pretty substantial. I mean I think it's been, we all recognize the fact that you're going to have two more usable bedrooms upstairs as opposed to what's currently being used, but I still have concerns. I want to listen to what the rest of the Board has to say. MR. FREER-Ron? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. KUHL-This is a pre-existing, non-conforming house. I understand you want to make, want to improve it. I guess the only question I didn't ask you, and I don't know these people. Are they going to go from a seasonal use to a twelve month use? MR. HUTCHINSON-I believe it's a 12 month use now. MR. KUHL-I mean the fact that they had to go and have the septic certified that it would handle this addition, I hear what Jim is saying and I agree that, you know, raising the floor area ratio, but I think it's a good project and the fact that they're good stewards of the lake, I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I think it's too substantial, the floor area ratio. I do appreciate the fact that, you know, it's a pre-existing footprint and I like the look of the project, I have to admit, but I just think it's just too much for that lot. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? MR. HENKEL-I'd agree with Michelle. I think it would definitely bean improvement to the lot, and there's nothing you can do about that 1.5 feet from the south side there. There's nothing really you can do about that, but I think also if you can maybe downsize the square footage a little bit I'd be on board with it. MR. HUTCHINS-Can I respond to that, is that okay? MR. FREER-Let us go through. MR. HENKEL-I can't vote on it as is with the same square footage, though. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I mean this is about a fifth of an acre and, you know, we're ending up with quite a few square feet here. It's bigger than what I'm comfortable with. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm also not on board with the footage being proposed and the problems it presents. MR. FREER-Nor do I support this application. I think it's just too much and it's too close to the lake and it's something that given our test criteria that we should approve. So, Jim, do you want to weigh in any further? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think the Board has said it quite well. I think, you know, if we had an empty lot here and you were considering new construction of the lot, what would be reasonable, and I don't think that we would go 33% greater than what's allowed. I think that we have to be cognizant that even on these small lots on the lake you don't get all the bells and whistles like you would on a bigger lot. MR. FREER-Okay. So you've heard the Board's sense. You know what your alternatives are. MR. HUTCHINSON-I think when we look at the numbers, there's sort of a misnomer in what was applied for. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. FREER-Then I recommend you table it and come back with a clearer description, because right now if we vote on it we're going to turn it down and you're going to start from zero. MR. HUTCHINSON-Can we just talk about it and then we can table it. MR. FREER-We're not going to design it for you here this evening. MR. HUTCHINSON-I'm certainly not asking for that. I just don't think that the numbers you have in front of you are correct. MR. FREER-Well we got them from you. So do you want us to vote or table it? MR. HUTCHINSON-You can table it. MR. FREER-All right. Can I get a motion to table this? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reece Rudolph. Applicant proposes to remove existing % story roof area of 392 sq. ft. and to construct a 715 sq. ft. second-story addition to the existing home. Relief requested from Floor Area Ratio and permeability requirements. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-20-2019, Reece Rudolph, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Hayward: Tabled to the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in August with corrected data to be submitted to the Town by the middle of July. Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2019 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Our July agenda is full at this time. So it would have to bean August agenda. MR. MC CABE-So until the first meeting in August with corrected data to be submitted to the Town by the middle of July. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. We'll see you in August. MR. HUTCHINSON-Thank you. MR. FREER-The next application is Area Variance 22-2019, Cathy Sweet. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2019 SEQRA TYPE II CATHY SWEET AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) CATHY SWEET ZONING MDR LOCATION 177 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN EXISTING 786 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SB 7-1995; BP 97-172 SFD; BP 98-408 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2019 LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-5.3 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2019, Cathy Sweet, Meeting Date: June 19, 2019, "Project Location: 177 Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to an existing 786 sq. ft. footprint home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the SR-1A zone. Section 179-5-020 -Garage The applicant proposes a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to an existing home. The garage is located 7.5 ft. from the north property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. The parcel is located in Subdivision Richard Schermerhorn 7-1995 and parcel was zoned SR-1A where side setbacks were 15 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. The proposed garage may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood area. 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 existing home location on the site and the driveway. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief request may be considered to be minimal relevant to the code. The relief is requested 7.5 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 requested variance may have minimal to no adverse impact of the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered to be self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 24 ft. x 24 ft. garage addition to an existing home. The plans show the garage addition is to be placed over existing pavement and to be attached to the north side of the home." MR. FREER-Please identify yourselves and add anything you'd like to the application. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves from VanDusen and Steves, representing Wes and Cathy Sweet who are obviously at the table with me. Briefly this is property on the west side of Meadowbrook Road, just north of Cronin Road. They're the raised ranches, as you were saying, that were built by Schermerhorn back in the early 90's, and one of the requirements of that subdivision was shared driveway locations because of the double the lot width requirement at the time. Hence why we're proposing the garage on the house where the current driveway is and also the lot just to the north you see is Lot Three, Lands of Stone. They obtained a variance I believe about four years ago to put their garage on, and we're aligning the Sweet's garage to be right opposite their garage. So it's a garage use 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) against a garage use and I believe the Stone's also wrote a letter to this Board in support of this application. Very straightforward. The garage would be a two bay garage, 24 by 24. Nothing oversized. Enough to get their cars in in the wintertime and we're putting a storage area above it. It'll obviously match the siding. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant from the Board? MR. HENKEL-You have two sheds there. You're not going to need them anymore? You've got the one right on the property line. WES SWEET MR. SWEET-Yes, I mean one's a utility shed for our mowers and what not and the other one's for our normal storage. So we plan to retain those. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. KUHL-Is there going to be water and electric in that garage, or just electric? MR. SWEET-Just electric. MR. KUHL-You're not going to run your commercial business out of there? MR. SWEET-No. MR. STEVES-He better not. He works for me. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Steves. MR. FREER-Any other questions? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's one letter. "We are submitting this letter of support for our neighbor's construction project. Our neighbors, Cathy and Weston Sweet are applying for a zoning variance to build a garage on property that adjoins with ours at 177 Meadowbrook Rd, Queensbury. We have no concerns regarding this and encourage you to grant the variance needed in order for them to improve their property and enhance their lives by building a garage. Thank you for your time and consideration on this variance. We appreciate all that you give of yourselves to help our town be responsible in areas of development. If you have any questions please feel free to callus." And that's Jamon Stone and Tina Stone, 183 Meadowbrook Road. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. I'm going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I'll start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I think it's a worthwhile project. Everyone else has a garage. My only concern would be the number of sheds, should there be any storage over the garage. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. HENKEL-Yes, the only other place you could put the garage would be on the south side because you would need a variance, but it's such a slope there that it doesn't make sense to put it there. I would be on Board with Michelle also about eliminating the shed there, especially the one that's on the line. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think it's a worthwhile project. The applicant isn't asking for a whole lot. The applicant has the favor of his neighbors which I think is very important. So I would support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I don't care about the sheds. We just approved a shed that was five feet from the property line. So I'm okay. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I can't think of any negative impacts from what's being proposed here. I guess if you wanted to look at feasible alternatives you could move the driveway to the other side, re-configure the universe to make it acceptable, but it doesn't make sense to do that. It is what it is. MR. FREER-Where are you with the sheds? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm for it. MR. FREER-You're okay with the sheds. Two so far have constrained their approval with eliminating one of the two sheds. You're okay with the two sheds. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't have a problem with it. It's a pretty good sized lot and it's all green space out there which is what we want in the Town. We don't want to start build all over helter skelter. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. I'm in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay, I, too, can support this project. It's nice to see you guys work with your neighbor. However our legal counsel says that's not one of the criteria that we're not supposed to consider it, but then again this is a job where we try to take all that into consideration. So I support the project and I'll look for a motion, please. MRS. MOORE-Prior to your motion could you just confirm whether the sheds are still considered part of the motion or not? MR. FREER-I think that there's enough people who don't want to constrain it to eliminate a shed. So those people who want the shed can vote no, but it'll still pass. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion? MR. FREER-Please. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cathy Sweet. Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to an existing 786 sq. ft. footprint home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the SR-1A zone. Section 179-5-020 -Garage The applicant proposes a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to an existing home. The garage is located 7.5 ft. from the north property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. The parcel is located in Subdivision Richard Schermerhorn 7-1995 and parcel was zoned SR-1A where side setbacks were 15 ft. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on June 19, 2019; 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 the neighboring houses all have garages and this house was built without one. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited. You could suggest, as Jim said, to build it on the other side and re-invent the world, but this seems to be the better alternative. 3. The requested variance really is not substantial. It's a good addition to a house that has no garage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest it's self-created but that's even minimal. 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 NO. 22-2019 CATHY SWEET, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 19" day of June 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) Mr. Freer NOES: NONE CATHY SWEET MRS. SWEET-Thank you all so much and thank you for what you do for our Town. MR. KUHL-You're welcome. MR. MC CABE-I've got to take issue with this you can't take the feelings of the neighbors into consideration. Doesn't that go towards character of the neighborhood? MRS. MOORE-Character of the neighborhood, but if you were to evaluate that, you would add a little more information on what character of the neighborhood you meant. MR. STEVES-Or which character of the neighborhood. MRS. SWEET-Thank you all very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Next application is Area Variance 23-2019, Marc Garvey. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2019 SEQRA TYPE II MARC GARVEY AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) STACEY GARVEY ZONING PUD LOCATION 57 GRAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 9, HILAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH 2 ATTACHED GARAGES. THE GARAGES ARE 576 SQ. FT. AND 624 SQ. FT. WITH A HALLWAY CONNECTION OF 161 SQ. FT. FOR A TOTAL OF 1,361 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE GARAGES PER RESIDENCE/PARCEL. CROSS REF RC 179-2019 SFD; SB 7-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.59 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.16-1-10 SECTION 179-5-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING, PRESENT; MARC GARVEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-209, Marc Garvey, Meeting Date: June 19, 2019 "Project Location: 57 Grand View Drive, Lot 9, Hiland Estates Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling with 2 attached garages. The garages are 576 sq. ft. and 624 sq. ft. with a hallway connection of 161 sq. ft. for a total of 1,361 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable garages per residence/parcel. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable garages. Section 179-5-020 -Garage The applicant proposes to construct two garages attached to a single-family home under construction where only one garage per dwelling is allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) 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 to reduce the number of garages. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be substantial 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. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to have two garages attached to a single family that is currently under construction. The plans show the location of the two garages and a hallway that will connect them. The project is considered two garages as the connecting hallway is not accessible by a vehicle. The applicant has received a building permit for each of the spaces to be constructed as the one considered storage is being proposed as the second garage." MR. FREER-Okay. Would you like to add anything to that? Please identify yourself. MR. LAPPER-Very little, thank you. For the record Jon Lapper with Marc Garvey on behalf of Marc's wife Stacey who is the property owner. As Roy said the house is already in construction. It was designed by Marc's architect and after they got the building plans in they called me and said hey we just heard from Dave Hatin there were problems and nobody anticipated it when it was designed. That's why they built it as a storage shed. So we're coming here after the fact, but just the way it was designed, it's very unique because it's a garage in front of a garage tucked behind. So it really doesn't look like a four bay garage. Virtually not visible from the road. The only two properties that can really see a second garage, Stephanie and Rich we have letters from both of them saying that they support it. It's an interesting pie shaped lot because there's a wetland stream in the back. So Marc designed this so we didn't need any wetland buffer, permission to go into that. Everything is where it's supposed to be, and it just came in at a unique design with one garage tucked behind another. I think that minimizes the impact. He's obviously a car guy and needs to have four bays and if you saw it in my application if this was five acres, he would be able to have much more garage than he has now, 2200 square feet. With that connecting walkway it's 1361 square feet versus 1100 which is allowed. So it's slightly more than the 1100 and he almost has a five acre lot which would allow him 2200. So with those considerations it's minor with the design. We're here to answer any questions. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions? MR. URRICO-I have a question. Is it true that they have to have two garages because one's a KIA and one's a Volkswagen and they have to be separated? MR. FREER-I think that was a rhetorical question. MR. GARVEY-It was for Genesis and Nissan. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. HENKEL-Yes, what do the neighbors say? MR. LAPPER-So I submitted letters from two of the neighbors. So I was the first one in the subdivision 13 years ago. It was one lonely house and Marc and Stacia will be ten. So I'm thrilled to everybody landscaped and finished. So it's very nice. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. HENKEL-The only concern, which I'm sure it's been addressed, is the shedding of the water, because that's kind of a lot of clay in there. He's going to have a driveway right up to the property line. MR. LAPPER-There's not a lot of clay anymore because they've been filling for the last three weeks with dump truck after dump truck. MR. HENKEL-The only concern I would have is your shedding water over on your neighbors, erosion. MR. LAPPER-That's a good question. On the side next to Stephanie, they're putting in a small retaining wall so that the grade works and it's going to be backfilled behind it with gravel so that'll take the water and keep it on his property. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a public comment on this? Seeing no one, Roy, it sounds like we have a couple of letters. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, "I am a neighbor of the Garveys and I've reviewed the building plans and I am fully supportive of their application for variance for two 2-bay attached garages. The home will be beautiful and will be an attractive addition to the other homes in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Richard Schemerhorn" 43 Grandview Drive. "It is to our knowledge that Marc and Stacey Garvey, who are my direct neighbor, are seeking a variance for an additional garage totaling four stalls, at 57 Grand View Drive. Being his neighbor and having looked at the plans, I have no objection to this plan. We actually think the home is beautiful and the garages are a great addition to the neighborhood. Any questions please contact me. Thank you. Steph Kocher 53 Grand View Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike, do you want to start? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I have no problem with it. I think that architecturally they can make the two garages very attractive and they have, and as Mr. Lapper pointed out, it's almost five acres. So that I think warrants a second garage, and so I'll approve the project. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, do you want to close the public hearing? MR. FREER-I'm sorry. Yes, I'd like to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-Thank you, and Roy? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. URRICO-Yes I'm in favor of the project. I think it's a kind of unique situation. They really haven't abused the sizes to the extent that it would be a concern. I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-These are substantial lots and I think the only question would be the, because everything's being built at the apex of those narrow lots, the main concern would be what the neighbors say, but everybody's signed off on it. So it's not an issue as far as I'm concerned. I think it's not something we usually see, the extra garage built on the opposite end, but I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes the homes in this community support this size, as my other Board members have said. It's a good thing. I'd be in favor of it. It's fine. I'm in support of the project. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I appreciate the lengths you've gone to to make sure this property, this building fits the property and I think the garage that's going to be built will maintain the character of the neighborhood. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and I think the whole notion, I'm trying to get my head around my last comment about the importance of what the neighbors say has to go toward criteria of character of the neighborhood, and I say that because Schachner's still made at me for not handling the Caffry thing properly, but I support the application. So I'd like to be in favor. MR. HENKEL-Yes, the only alternative would be to push it back and then you're going to infringe on the wetlands and that would be more of a problem than what you're asking for. So I'd be on board with it as it is. MR. FREER-Thank you. Okay. Could I get a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Marc Garvey. Applicant proposes construction of a single-family dwelling with 2 attached garages. The garages are 576 sq. ft. and 624 sq. ft. with a hallway connection of 161 sq. ft. for a total of 1,361 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable garages per residence/parcel. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable garages. Section 179-5-020 -Garage The applicant proposes to construct two garages attached to a single-family home under construction where only one garage per dwelling is allowed. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on June 19, 2019; 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: 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the proposed dwelling fits the character of the other houses around it. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time because of the location of the property. 3. The requested variance, while it may appear on paper to be substantial, is at worst moderate, again because of the architectural design. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 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 NO. 23-2019 MARC GARVEY, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 19" day of June 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-My only comment is, is there something that we, the Town, need to do to make sure people know this rule. MRS. MOORE-That you need permission for two garages? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. GARVEY-Ethan Hall knows it now. MRS. MOORE-When they submit their building permit, the building permit is reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. So that's when it comes up. That's where it came up in this case. It's the normal review process. MR. FREER-Okay. I was just thinking of educating people ahead of time so that, you know. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. GARVEY-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. One more. AngioDynamics, Area Variance 27-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2019 SEQRA TYPE II ANGIO DYNAMICS, INC. AGENT(S) DANIEL W. RYAN,PE OWNER(S) ANGIO DYNAMICS,INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION 603 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A PORTION OF THE EXISTING MAIN BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,586 SQ. FT. 2-STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING OFFICE. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,500 SQ. FT. PAVILION FOR COMPANY EVENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 17-2010; AV 25-2008; SP 33-2007; SP 37-2006; SP 20-2006; AV 52-2006; AV 26-2002; SP 19-2002; SP 19-2002 MOD.; SP 15-92 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2019 LOT SIZE ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10 SECTION 179-4-040 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2019, AngioDynamics, Inc., Meeting Date: June 19, 2019 "Project Location: 603 Queensbury Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of a portion of the existing main building and construction of a 8,586 sq. ft. 2-story addition to existing office. Project includes construction of a 1,500 sq. ft. pavilion for company events. Relief requested from minimum setback and shoreline setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 -Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a 1,500 sq. ft. pavilion to be located 25.3 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 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 due to the existing configuration of the parking and buildings on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is 25 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) Staff comments: The applicant proposes a pavilion for employee events. The plans show the location of the pavilion." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted on June 18t", 2019 by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Welcome. If you could identify yourself and add anything you'd like. MR. RYAN-Good evening. Dan Ryan. I'm here on behalf of AngioDynamics. I'll give you a brief summary of the project just so you understand why I'm here today. Ultimately the project is, the variance is related to a larger overall project which is to demolish portions of the existing one story office building in order to construct a newer state of the art two story office building to meet the demands and needs of the facility. So that area of the project is Code compliant. The area, the one area that is non-compliant requiring the variance is the setback for the proposed detached outdoor pavilion. Basically currently they use that area for a small picnic area or employee break space and if you're familiar with the property, you've driven by and seen a tent in the area that is often present, that is for administrative and employee functions. They do that frequently for their employees. They want a more permanent solution. So this gives them the ability to provide an attractive pavilion structure that also meets the demands for the break space as well as the regular events that they hold. There are a very limited number of locations on the property. It's an industrial park. The facility's fairly large in terms of manufacturing and distribution space. There's a lot of maneuvering and fire safety space around the perimeter of the manufacturing area in addition to the required parking. So this is really the only location on the property that has enough green space and area adjacent to all the other essential needs where the pavilion can be located. It is also a nice setting for this type of structure the way they utilize it, and so they're hoping to be able to put this there to kind of mimic what they currently do for operations. A small structure, slab on grade. We are mitigating stormwater runoff and the issue is not the property line setback. It's the shoreline setback to the adjacent pond I guess along the road there, I think that's Hicks Road. This is as close as we can get to the driveway and the parking lot area with impeding any closer on the pond itself. MR. FREER-Okay. So any questions from the Board? So my only question is they must have some kind of rule about no smoking because people who want to smoke have to go across the road. MR. RYAN-I wish I was familiar with that. I don't know what they currently do. MR. KUHL-They actually go off the property towards the Airport. I have seen them across Hicks Road, but most of them go towards the Airport. Are you interested in smoking? MR. FREER-I'm not. I just don't want to run them over. MR. RYAN-I'd like to say I'm familiar with that. Of course I can't answer that for you. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? We have a public hearing. I'd like to open it. I don't see anybody in the audience. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comments. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MR. FREER-I'll close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes I don't have any problems or issues with the project. I think the pond is a nice, it looks nice. I don't think this is going to affect it at all. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I think it'll enhance general operations out there. It gives employees a place to go out on their lunch hour and breaks. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I mean you're replacing the tent that's been there a long time. I have no problem. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I support the project. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-They're only asking for one variance. They're considering the employees that work thereto have functions. I'd be on board definitely. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I think the applicant's done a very nice job keeping that property up. It's always very attractive and I'm impressed that they'd think about providing a structure for company events other than, you know, strictly working. So I certainly would support the project. MR. FREER-I too support the project. I think it matches well against all of our criteria and with that I'll seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Angio Dynamics, Inc. Applicant proposes demolition of a portion of the existing main building and construction of a 8,586 sq. ft. 2-story addition to existing office. Project includes construction of a 1,500 sq. ft. pavilion for company events. Relief requested from minimum setback and shoreline setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Section 179-3-040 -Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a 1,500 sq. ft. pavilion to be located 25.3 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on June 19, 2019; 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) 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. For many years they've maintained temporary tents. They wish a more substantial permanent structure. 2. Feasible alternatives are I guess you could move this further away but it's in them most practical location as proposed near the pond and away from the parking. 3. The requested variance would be deemed substantial because it's close to the pond, but again it's a manmade pond. I don't think it was ever a natural pond. It was created and I think it serves a useful function and there will be no detriment by the structure. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of where they wish to locate the new structure. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary based on the constraints on the lot; 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 NO. 27-2019, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this June 19, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. MC CABE-I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MR. FREER-Second. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/19/2019) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 19, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 19" day of June, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 31