Loading...
2008.06.25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 2008 INDEX Area Variance No. 9-2008 Gregg Brown 1. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 Area Variance No. 31-2008 Joseph Marcelletti 2. Tax Map No. 301.5-1-53 Area Variance No. 33-2008 Albert Alden 9. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-21; 20 Area Variance No. 34-2008 Dwight L. Campney 15. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-46 Area Variance No. 35-2008 Todd Jorgensen 17. Tax Map No. 316.13-1-3 Area Variance No. 36-2008 Tom and Dusty Putnam 21. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-7 Area Variance No. 37-2008 Darren Boecher 29. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-70 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. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 25, 2008 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOAN JENKIN RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS GEORGE DRELLOS ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll call the June 25, 2008 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order. Starting off I want to quickly go through our procedures once again for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application, I’ll call the application by it’s name and number. The Secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, the Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the Board members make a wise decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will then allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if, after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present and, Board members, I’d suggest because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather, we should wait until a speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity react and respond to the public comment. Then Board members will discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open, depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate, a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II GREGG BROWN AGENT(S): STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S): GREGG BROWN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 31 KNOX ROAD & 29 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO TRANSFER 180.88 SQ. FT. OF PROPERTY TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. TABLED FOR RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING BOARD. TO DATE NO RECOMMENDATION HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE PLANNING BOARD . CROSS REF.: SUBD. NO. 11- 1991 SUNSET HILL FARM/MODIFICATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: MARCH 12, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.63 AC.; 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7; 239.7-1-6 SECTION: 179-4-030 MR. UNDERWOOD-The first item on tonight’s agenda was Gregg Brown, and that’s Area Variance No. 9-2008, and we did receive a letter, and I’ll read that into the record. It’s addressed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. “Dear Chairman Underwood: On Friday, June 20, 2008, my partner, Stephanie Bitter, sent you a letter requesting that the pending variance application be tabled until July. However, after reviewing your suggested reconfiguration of the driveway with Mr. Brown, we hereby request that the matter be tabled until August, so that we can work with the adjoining property owner, David Brown, to see whether the suggested alternative will be acceptable.” And that’s signed Jon Lapper. So I guess I’ll make a motion to table them. Do we want to go the second one? 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. DRELLOS-Second. MR. UNDERWOOD-The second meeting in August. th MR. BROWN-That’s the 27. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2008 GREGG BROWN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th 31 Knox Road & 29 Knox Road. Tabled to the second meeting of August, August 27. th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-And hopefully they’ll get back to us prior to that with the information that was pending. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II JOSEPH MARCELLETTI OWNER(S): JOSEPH MARCELLETTI ZONING: SFR-1A LOCATION: 7 NOBLE WAY, KINGS COURT SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FT. HIGH FENCE IN THE YARD WHICH FACES WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR PLACEMENT OF A FENCE IN A NON-ARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 11, 2008 LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.5-1-53 SECTION: 179-5-060 JOSEPH MARCELLETTI, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And this, again, is due to the fact that they have their front yard on Noble Way, and that also the back yard abuts on a major arterial road on the west side, West Mountain Road. MR. MARCELLETTI-Correct. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2008, Joseph Marcelletti, Meeting Date: June 25, 2008 “Project Location: 7 Noble Way, Kings Court Subdivision, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant wishes to erect a 6 ft stockade fence in non architectural front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from placement and height restrictions per 179-5-060: No stockade fence in architectural front yard and no fence over 5 feet in front yard. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to erect fence to upgrade privacy. 2. Feasible alternatives: With two front yards, any type of privacy fence would require relief. Has an open 5 foot fence been considered by the applicant? 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The relief is an increase of 1 foot or 16.7% in height. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal adverse impact may be anticipated in neighborhood. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. In addition, the difficulty may be attributed to the lot configuration which has resulted in this property having no rear yard. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2005-0913 Building Permit for house dated 12/02/05 Staff comments: The proposed western run of fence is located adjacent to the tree line along West Mountain Road, a local arterial road. The approximate distance from West Mountain Road is 30 feet. Recent approvals for this neighborhood regarding fencing in the non architectural front yard have been rendered by this board. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11, 2008 Project Name: Marcelletti, Joseph Owner(s): Joseph Marcelletti ID Number: QBY-08- AV-31 County Project#: June08-27 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 6 ft. high fence in the yard which faces West Mountain Road. Relief requested from requirements for placement of a fence in a non-architectural front yard. Site Location: 7 Noble Way, Kings Court Subdivision Tax Map Number(s): 301.5-1-53 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 6 ft. high fence in the non-architectural front yard. The information submitted shows the fence location back yard area. The applicant information indicated the fence is to be stockade. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill Warren County Planning Board 6/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Marcelletti. MR. MARCELLETTI-Yes. Hi. Good evening, everybody. Thank you for reviewing this. Basically, as you guys are aware, our house adjoins West Mountain Road to the rear, and actually to our side yard is Potter Road. Our house sits right on Noble Way. Basically what we’re doing is proposing to put up a six foot white, high end vinyl fence around our property. We have three young boys that are very active, and on any given night, if you were to sit in my back yard, you could hear those cars screaming up and down West Mountain and so forth, you know, on Potter Road there. Noise is a big concern to us, but most of all the safety of our children is the biggest. Me being a parent of these three boys, you know, and I have to do anything I can do to ensure their safety. In terms of looking at a five foot fence, like you guys had discussed, we did look at that, but basically the way our lot configuration is, is we have a big huge swing set for the kids and everything. With the higher fence, it kind of keeps all the kids’ stuff hidden back there. Plus, boys being boys, I guarantee you at some point in time they’re going to climb over a five foot fence easily, more easily than they would a six foot fence. The last concern that I have, too, is a couple of friends of ours are State troopers, and they’re always passing along information in terms of the New York State Sex Offender Registry. Within a two and a half mile radius from us, starting to go over towards Prospect School, we have two Level Three sex offenders in this area. I’m not saying the worst here, but granted, you know what, somebody could easily snatch a kid, you know, on Potter and West Mountain Road. So that’s another big concern to us. Anything that we can possibly do to ensure the safety of our kids is something that we really would like to take care of. Basically that’s about all we wanted to do. One other thing, too. Our neighbor, Dan Ryan, was in front of the Board last month for the same type of approval there. Dan had done more of a wooden type of stockade fence. What we’re proposing is a high end 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) white vinyl fence that actually is in our tree line. So we wouldn’t be cutting any existing shrubbery or anything. It would basically be sitting about 30 feet off the West Mountain side, and the nice part about it is during the summertime and the Fall, when the bush is real thick, it’s not relatively seen very easily. It’s just in early Spring and late Fall, when everything is gone, that we have the real concerns. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. URRICO-Is your neighbor, Mr. Ryan, the one that had his trees trimmed by the Highway Department? MR. MARCELLETTI-Yes, that’s the one where the Town had come in and trimmed the trees close to the road. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions? MR. GARRAND-White doesn’t fit in with the character of that neighborhood at all. I mean, it would be pretty much the most obvious fence along the entire stretch of Potter Road. Why aren’t you using wood? MR. MARCELLETTI-First of all maintenance. Particularly, as much as I work, I’m hardly ever home. So I would prefer something that was very easily maintained. The other aspect of it is, too, it’s really not that vibrantly seen by everybody, because we do have the shrub row and everything in there. It’s getting tucked into that area. MR. GARRAND-It’s a pretty rural area, and, you know, anything like that’s really going to stick out. MR. MARCELLETTI-Have you been up and down Potter Road lately? MR. GARRAND-Many times. MR. MARCELLETTI-Have you seen the white ones that were placed right on the road there? MR. GARRAND-I saw one white fence on the entire Potter Road. MR. MARCELLETTI-Okay. Well, there’s another one. I don’t even know if they came for a site variance, but if you go halfway down Potter Road, right after Sullivan Drive there, Sullivan, there was another white fence that was adjoined to it. I mean, they clear cut everything through there. MR. GARRAND-And every other fence down through there is either wooden or it’s a compliant, four foot chain link fence. MR. MARCELLETTI-Yes, well, like I said, there’s a couple of white vinyl’s there. I mean, you know what, I mean, realistically, I mean, we could look into a wood fence, but personally I don’t really want to take care of it. I want something that’s very easy maintenance. I mean, all of our homes in there are high end vinyl for easy maintenance. Nobody has wood siding in there, you know, so that’s why we wanted to go with the white vinyl. Have you ever painted the wood fencing? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. MARCELLETTI-It’s a nightmare. MR. UNDERWOOD-On the plot that you provided us, with the no cut buffer, is that something that you have in your Association, or is that the road no cut buffer? MR. MARCELLETTI-The no cut buffer came from the Town of Queensbury. When BH Group put in this development, the Town of Queensbury, I don’t know, there was some type of set amount where nothing could be taken down to the road, unless it was a damaged tree or scrub or anything. We haven’t touched anything in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that’s for noise abatement, too. MR. MARCELLETTI-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Instead of opening it up that much. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. MARCELLETTI-Yes, but if you were to come by there early Spring, that, I mean, it’s like vines and everything. I mean, it really doesn’t start to grow until this time of year. Now once again, with three young boys, those kids are all over the place. MRS. JENKIN-Would you plan on that front yard that is on Noble Way, would you plan to, or would you consider putting shrubs along that white fence on both sides of the home to kind of soften it? MR. MARCELLETTI-Yes. What we planned on doing is, yes, we were planning on putting like a little bit of the one foot mound up there with some nice shrubbery and stuff in there, maybe some small pines, just something that this way when you were driving by there’s some flowers and stuff so it wouldn’t be obtrusive as soon as you drove into that development. Believe me, we’re not looking to have something that stands out. We just need something that fits our family, in terms of maintenance, and safety for our kids. A lot of these wooden fences that I’ve seen out there, even if they’re a high end fence, after a while they start bowing and you can start seeing through the cracks and stuff, and if we’re going to spend a ton of money on fence, I want to make sure it’s something that’s going to last, and it’s going to be easy to maintain. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other Board members have anything they want to ask at this point? MR. DRELLOS-The 20 foot side restriction, that’s just for building isn’t it? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s just for building. MR. DRELLOS-Building and stuff like that. MR. MARCELLETTI-And I think on the one side to the north, okay, we’re about 10 foot off that line, and to the south on Potter Road, we’ve got at least 15 to 20 feet before we hit our property line in there. So we’re not trying to take up our entire property line. We’re just trying to, the section of yard that was put in by our developer, that’s what we’re trying to fence in for the kids. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions from Board members, I’ll open up the public hearing at this time. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLES BAKER MR. BAKER-Good evening. I’m Charles Baker, 749 West Mountain Road. I’m the only house that does face the property that was just mentioned. First off, is there a possibility that I could ask the Board some questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. MR. BAKER-All right. I don’t know whether I’m wrong in this or not, but there is a, West Mountain Road is a County road. There is a setback, or a right of way, I should say, for the County road. Could you tell me what the right of way is? MR. UNDERWOOD-I believe that’s reflective of that 30 foot setback. I know you go from, measure from the centerline. I know the different roads in Town have different setbacks depending upon whether they’re, that’s an arterial road. So it would probably be a major one. MR. BAKER-Potter Road is a Town road. West Mountain Road is a County road. So if the Town right of way is 30 feet, is that what you’re saying? MR. BROWN-No, no. West Mountain Road’s out here, it’s a County highway, and where the planned fence in the back is, starts 30 feet back from there in the woods, from the right of way. MR. BAKER-From the center of the road? MR. BROWN-From the right of way, 30 feet further back. Okay. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. BAKER-That was my question of where the line starts, or where you can put your fence. No cut zone on both sides. In my estimation, it’s been violated on the Potter Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely. MR. BAKER-Very, very much. Dan Ryan is the fence he was talking about is the wooden, I would call it a stockade to keep the Indians out or the Indians in. I don’t know which, but it’s a hell of a looking thing, and he’s the Town Engineer. I went over and tried to talk to him about it and he said he was going to put it to the very limit of his property, and he has, and it looks like hell up there. This proposition, I would say this, whatever is proposed tonight here, what I just heard, I would go along with it, but something like what Dan Ryan did, and the man on the corner did, he asked to have a tree that was going to fall on his house, it was a dead tree, wanted it cut, okay, they cut the tree and they also limbed a hell of a lot of other stuff and cut a lot of brush out through there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just for your own information, Mr. Ryan was in last month before this Board here, and his explanation for all the cutting that occurred there was that the Town came through, the Town Highway Department, came through and did all that cutting. That was his explanation. MR. BAKER-I went over it with your enforcement officer, and I was very upset, and there was no Town came through and cut anything there. That was cut by Mr. Ryan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. BAKER-And it was green, and it had laid on the side of the road for two to three weeks, so it browned up, so by the time your enforcement officer got there, it looked like it was dead, but it wasn’t. I’ve lived there for 57 years. My wife has lived there for 74, and, you know, these people, when they buy these properties, and they move into an area, they know what the restrictions are when they buy the property. This gentleman, I believe, is going to do the right thing, but what’s to prevent the next one next door doing the same thing? And he’s not going to stay back whatever this gentleman is going to do. The next guy might want to go out to the very end of his property, like Mr. Ryan did, and it’s an eyesore when you’re sitting across the road from him. MR. URRICO-Did you get notification when Mr. Ryan’s variance came forward? MR. BAKER-I got notification, but I’d already been over there with the enforcement officer and he told me there was nothing I could do, outside of a lawsuit. MR. URRICO-We would have been interested in hearing what you had to say the night we heard the variance. MR. BAKER-Well, I went over and met with Mr. Ryan and the enforcement officer, and Mr. Ryan’s wife came out and was very verbal, which I don’t blame her, but by the same token, I was there to find out what was happening to the property, and apparently your enforcement people make a decision, whether you say that there’s a restriction or a Board says there’s a restriction. He goes over and says yes you can do it, and that’s exactly what happened at that time. Now, the Town Engineer, that doesn’t look good, to do something like that, and I don’t want to see it happen on West Mountain Road. There is no egress or ingress on the West Mountain Road, but I’ve lived there long enough, and I’ve seen kids, he’s talking about small kids, that grow, and pretty soon they’ve got a moped or they’ve got a trail bike or they’ve got a snow mobile, and zingo, they’re right out on the road, fence or no fence. They go to the neighbor’s lot, and if they’ve got a roadway in there, that’s where they come out through there. We, in the past, I don’t right now, but we, in the past, owned several hundred acres down through there, all of that side of the road, my side of the road, mountain side of the road, from Baker Road up north of West Mountain Road, from there all the way to Frank Bronk’s property, which is the apple house, was in my family for hundreds of years, and the property’s been sold off. Like I said, people know what they’re buying when they buy a piece of property. They know the restrictions, and if they can’t abide by it, I don’t know why they even bother buying the property. I wouldn’t be against this fellow’s fence, if, in fact, this is where he’s going to put it, and what he’s going to put there. I don’t blame him for wanting to protect his kids. I raised three daughters there, and I’ve got five grandchildren, and the youngest one is only three and she is wild as a hawk and there’s no fence in my front yard, and they stay away from the road. You’ve got to teach your children to stay away from the roads. It’s not up to somebody fencing them in or your 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) neighbors, you know, whatever, but that’s all well and good. My point is, that up until this point, I didn’t know about any line that they’re set. Is there a rule and regulation? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know what the rule is for the Town itself. That subdivision had a regulation that the Planning Board placed on it. MR. BAKER-I was at the meeting when that regulation was made, and it was definitely no cut zone. What’s happened on the Potter Road? And then it’s left up to the enforcement officer to go to the property, when it’s being done, and say, yes, it’s all right for them to do it. Who is one man to say that it can be done? MR. UNDERWOOD-Dan Ryan’s suggestion, I think, Craig, was that they, the next time that a project like this is reviewed by the Planning Board, that that they consider establishing greater buffers than what they have now on some of these subdivisions. I think that was one of the suggestions. MR. BAKER-Yes, but like he did, he could have done the same thing that this man proposes, he could have stayed back, and if that, whatever, brush or whatever grew up in front of it to hide it, or if he wanted to plant something there, that’s all well and good, but he’s cut the stuff out here. He’s opened it up. Now supposing he gets transferred or moves away, sells his piece of property. The next person in there is going to say, I want my fence out there further. I want it out, because I own out there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think that there is a restriction to keep it at that parameter where the fence is proposed. That’s as close as it could be to West Mountain Road, preserving that 30 feet, that setback, you know, out to the road. So that is a no cut zone. All you can hope for is that, like you said, people follow the rules. We can’t enforce the rules. MR. BAKER-Well, like your enforcement officer said, call the police, or whatever and I didn’t call the police, but I went over to see what was going on and I was more or less told to rub salt. MR. GARRAND-Take pictures next time. MR. BAKER-You don’t have to have pictures. Just look at it now. It’s a hell of an eyesore going down through there, and there are some nice looking fences further down the Potter Road, and there’s some awful looking fences further up the West Mountain Road, too, way up above, up towards Gurney Lane. There’s some real rotten looking fences up that way. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you for bringing it to our attention, though, we appreciate it. MR. BAKER-That was my main concern. Like I said, there’s already a buffer, if that’s the argument, they want a buffer, there’s already a buffer there with no cut zone if they would enforce it and keep it the way it is. I really don’t have any objections to this man’s proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m sorry, but your five minutes is up. Thank you. MR. BAKER-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Any correspondence at all? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-None. Okay. Do you want to come back up. MR. MARCELLETTI-I can certainly see where Mr. Baker’s coming from, you know, what I understand, I mean, living there all these years, and, you know, Mr. Baker, like I said, I’m not looking to disturb anything other than what my buffer’s been. I mean, if you want to come over and see exactly where I’m going to put it, I have no problems with that, and I know you’re upset with Mr. Ryan, but that’s between you and Mr. Ryan. Basically, all I’m looking to do is what I’m allowed to do, not touch that buffer zone and put some safety in for my kids. I think, way back when, it was a lot easier to discipline your kid as it is these days, you know, certainly, believe me, we try to tell our kids to stay out of the front yard and stuff, but I can’t watch them all the time. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, anymore questions, or shall I poll the Board? MR. CLEMENTS-I just had one for Craig. In the relief requested in your, in the Staff Notes, it says the applicant requests relief from placement and height restrictions. Is the placement the one on the north side? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think that’s relative to the fact that it’s on, that’s what’s considered an architectural front yard because it’s two main, he’s got, basically, two front yards, in essence. MR. CLEMENTS-Right. So the placement is against West Mountain Road? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, that’s the one they’re requiring relief from. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. That answered my question. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. Then I’ll poll the Board. I’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-As a rule, I think what’s happening there is definitely a detriment to the neighborhood. I think the fortresses that are being erected because of the fences doesn’t make for a welcoming neighborhood. It doesn’t make for an architecturally appealing neighborhood, but I think most of the damage has been done already. I don’t think this fence is going to add to that problem. I think the application is a reasonable one, and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. With that 30 foot buffer, and I can understand your wanting a fence, a solid fence, for noise abatement as well as for safety. I have no problem with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I also have no problem. I think that there’s going to be a lot of things in front of the fence so that you’re not going to be able to see it as well. One of the things is, though, and I see on the vinyl fencing here, if they had another color other than white that would blend in a little bit more, I think that that would be better, although I don’t see that here, but, other than that, I’d be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think there are a lot of issues, being on West Mountain Road. I agree with Mr. Urrico in that if everybody starts putting a fence up, it’s going to change the character of the whole neighborhood considerably, but I also understand that there’s all these factors of safety and noise control and everything. So I would be for the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-George? MR. DRELLOS-I’d be in favor, too. I like the idea there is quite a bit of brush and trees in front of the fence that would hide most of that fence, as long as that buffer stays there. MR. MARCELLETTI-And I’d have no problems, too, I mean, if the Code Enforcement wanted to come out. MR. DRELLOS-We’re going to leave it up to you for that, to leave that buffer there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-As long as the fence wasn’t visible from the road, I’d agree with this proposal, but I think there are alternatives. This whole neighborhood is going to, like Mr. Urrico said, look like a fortress, and that, in and of itself, changes the character of the neighborhood. I think a feasible alternative also is, like I said before, a wooden fence. I think it would fit a lot more nicely into the neighborhood. So I’m going to take a contrary view and say I’m not in favor of this application. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that the majority of the Board has pointed out the fact that, you know, in general they’re not, there’s no real concern with that extra one foot that you’re going to require to have that six foot fence erected back there. I, too, would agree with Rich. I think a white fence is maintenance free. It’s vinyl. It’s too bad they don’t make them in other colors of the rainbow like brown or green or something like that, just to make them fit in a little bit better with what you have over on the west side there. MR. MARCELLETTI-Actually they do, but, I mean, the cost is double. I mean, we’re looking at about $15,000 to fence that backyard in, versus about $25,000 to go to a color. So that’s a big strain right there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Nonetheless, though, I think that you do have that 30 foot buffer zone there. I think that the Town needs to pretty strictly adhere to the no cut, you know, reliance, and, you know, that’s incumbent upon you, I mean, you’ve agreed to that. I can’t vouch for your neighbors, as other people in the subdivision come in and ask for their fences, but we can put the caveat on here, when someone does the resolution here, that we would request no additional cutting between the road and your fence, okay, and that’s a condition that we can put on there. I think if we were in an open situation here, we could require re-vegetation, but it’s awful hard to grow vegetation in the understory of mature forest back there in the pines that you have predominating over on that side there. So I’m going to recommend that we approve the variance, also. So does somebody want to make the resolution? MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2008 JOSEPH MARCELLETTI, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 7 Noble Way, Kings Court Subdivision. The applicant wishes to erect a six foot stockade fence in a non-architectural front yard. The relief required, the applicant requests relief from placement and height restrictions per 179-5-060, no stockade fence in architectural front yard and no fence over five feet in front yard. The criteria for considering the Area Variance, that we must approve. The benefit to the applicant. The applicant would be permitted to erect a fence to upgrade the privacy. Feasible alternatives. With two front yards, any type of privacy fence would require relief. Considering the factors of safety, the noise control, the ease of maintenance, there really doesn’t appear to be very many feasible alternatives. Is the relief substantial? The relief is an increase of one foot, or 16.7% in height. The effects on the neighborhood or community. Minimal adverse impact may be anticipated and, the adverse impact would be mitigated if the shrubs and greenery are planted to offset the stark whiteness of the fence, and I would recommend, because there’s a lot of natural shrubs that you can, that really you can dig them in the woods even, and even plant them along the back and the sides of the fence if you possibly could, just to take away from the appearance of this stark, six foot whiteness. I mean, that would make a big difference if you could do that. Is the difficulty self-created? It may be interpreted as self-created. It may be attributed to the lot configuration, which has resulted in this property having no rear yard, and with the condition, there will be one condition, that you require no additional cutting between the road and the fence. So I would move to approve this variance. th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MR. MARCELLETTI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II ALBERT ALDEN OWNER(S): ALBERT ALDEN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 10 IRONGATE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 456 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) PLANNING: JUNE 11, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES; 0.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-21; 20 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-10 ALBERT ALDEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2008, Albert Alden, Meeting Date: June 25, 2008 “Project Location: 10 Irongate Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish a portion of residence and construct a 456 sq. ft. residential addition with basement. Relief Required: The applicant requests 13.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot side yard setback requirements per 179-4-030. Additionally, relief is request for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed 456 sq. ft. addition. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due to the location of the house in relation to the side property line. However, construction in a compliant or more compliant location may be achieved. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 13.7 feet or 68.5% of relief from the minimum 20 foot side setback could be considered moderate to substantial relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. However, the location of the existing home may be a contributing factor to the difficulty. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): P 2005-907: Septic alteration dated 11/29/05 Staff comments: The property is relatively flat and consists of Oakville loamy fine sand soils with high permeability. This is mentioned due to the proximity to the Hudson River. The depth of the seasonal high water table is greater than 6 feet and as such, the proposed basement expansion should pose little problem with concerns to water. Possible alternative location for an addition may be out the North West portion of the rear. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11, 2008 Project Name: Alden, Albert Owner(s): Albert Alden ID Number: QBY-08-AV-33 County Project#: June08-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 456 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief requested from front and side yard setback requirements. Additionally, relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Site Location: 10 Irongate Drive Tax Map Number(s): 316.9-1-21; 20 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 456 sq. ft. addition to an existing home. The addition is to be located 6.3 ft. from the side property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. The 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) information submitted shows the location of the existing home with the addition and other site plan details. The application indicates the existing home is 1,250 sq. ft. The plans show the new area to allow for a bedroom extension and a sitting room area. The applicant also included a certificate of compliance for septic alterations in 2005. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria NYS General Municipal Law Section 239L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 6/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Alden? MR. ALDEN-Good evening. Are there any questions on? MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you wish to add? MR. ALDEN-No. That’s pretty cut and dry with what was said on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions at this point in time? MRS. JENKIN-I have one comment. It’s very, very close to your neighbor’s lot line. MR. ALDEN-My neighbor’s here, too. MRS. JENKIN-Good. Because I would like to hear from them. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. During the public hearing I think we’ll ask for some commentary. MR. ALDEN-That’s what I figured you would do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody have any specific questions? MR. URRICO-Do you have any response to the Staff comments that there might be another location possible? MR. ALDEN-Well, Mr. Clements just left the place there and he pretty much looked it over. That’s actually the only place I can actually do it, because I want to add on to the bedroom on the back and enlarge my bathroom and enlarge my dining room. I’m just basically making it, you know, it’s actually coming up 12 foot and there’s no, if you look right at the house here, I can’t go over anymore that way because of my garage, and my kitchen’s already there, and on the backside I’m getting too close to Ralph’s property over there, but I have plenty of room out in the back, going off the back of the house, and feasibly that’s the only way I can actually put it. I actually had Bean Designs designed it, and this is really the only place it would really go, but you’ll see on the blueprints that he had drawn up there. MR. DRELLOS-Once this is put on, do you have access to the back at all? MR. ALDEN-Yes. It’s all open right there. Right here in the back of the house, that’s where it’s coming right off, 12 foot off the back of that for the length of the house. MR. GARRAND-Are you going to re-route your septic pipe? MR. ALDEN-It’s going to be above. I just had a new septic put in, and it’s above the thing. I don’t have to re-route it. I made provisions for it, to extend it out past the house. I just put the septic in last year, and I knew I was proposing to do this addition. So we’ve moved the septic farther on out and we put the new septic in. The pipe will actually run through 12 feet of the basement underneath, but I’ll have the proper support and hangers for it. MR. GARRAND-Okay, and also it lists two lots here, .41 acres and .82 acres. MR. ALDEN-That’s correct. MR. GARRAND-On the same, two different deeds or? MR. ALDEN-Well, when I built the house originally, and then this old woman that lived there died. I bought that property off here. Now Mr. Clements asked me, I don’t know if 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) I’m paying the taxes on the both of them the same or the one lot parcel, but I own both parcels. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Come on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ALFRED DIMOLA, JR. MR. DIMOLA-Good evening. Although I have no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could you just identify yourself. MR. DEMOLA-I’m sorry. My name’s Alfred Dimola, Jr., 4 Irongate Road, Queensbury. I have no problem with the six foot off the property line, as it appears, but at the present time there seems to be a dispute about going across the property line of an encroached area, and although I don’t have any problem with it, I think that we can, that me and Mr. Alden can resolve this in a well done fashion. So what I’d like to do is possibly table this until the next meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to look at the map, I can show you? MR. DIMOLA-I agree with the way the property line is on the map. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. DIMOLA-But the actual property, there seems to be contention by walking in the backyard, because there’s been a slow encroachment across the property over a period of time. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re talking a boundary line issue along the whole length of the? MR. DIMOLA-I have a drawing here of where, of approximately, of the disputed area. This is the line that’s on the survey. Your tax map line agrees with the survey, agrees with previous surveys. There’s no contention that the property line here is, but there’s this encroached area here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. DIMOLA-And I wanted to try and. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would that be an issue for us, Craig, or is that an issue? MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s definitely a private property owner dispute, and any request to table an application, you know, comes from the applicant. It’s their application, or at the request of the Board, if you have some concerns. It’s kind of unconventional to have a member of the public ask for a tabling. That’s not really. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is what we show as the line. This is the line he’s saying they’re encroaching on. MR. BROWN-Kind of like the line of possession. That’s where they’re kind of occupying. They mow the grass over there. MR. DIMOLA-Gradually over time sliding over. MR. BROWN-That’s definitely a private property owner dispute that’s really not the function of this Board to address. MR. URRICO-Wouldn’t that change the side setback, though? MR. BROWN-Only if there’s some legal change to the property line. If there’s a dispute and they say the line’s over there and he says it, you know, if the line gets moved away from what the survey shows, it would change the setback. MR. URRICO-How would that affect the variance if we approved it? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. BROWN-It would be less of a variance, if the line gets moved to where they’re occupying to, but that’s not likely to happen. MRS. JENKIN-Where is the encroachment? I don’t understand. MR. DIMOLA-May I show you on the map? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, please. MR. DIMOLA-It would be a line going up this way almost straight back to this point, right along between these tree lines, a triangle like that, this property in here. MR. GARRAND-But you have no problem with his house six feet from your property line? MR. DIMOLA-I have no problem with it six feet from my property line. We don’t have a fence up. We don’t intend to put a fence up. So their access to their rear yard, I have no problem ever, you know, giving them access to the rear yard. I just want to, you know, get down the fact that, you know, we’re going on this and we’re working it out, and I’m sure we will work it out, but with the short timeframe, because after I received the th variance paperwork, I looked at the survey that was filed, that was done May 8, and I strung the line just to see where it was, just because I got the variance, I wanted to see what it would look like, where the property line was, just to get an eyeball of it, and I put it down there, and there seemed to be a contention that maybe that that wasn’t where it was, but I was agreeing with the survey that was submitted, and I still agree with the survey, and Mr. Alden agrees with the survey, but we just want to make sure that that dispute is straightened out. MRS. JENKIN-Well, are you saying that Mr. Alden is encroaching on your property right now by cutting the grass or something, or what? MR. DIMOLA-Yes, clearing trees over a period of time. MRS. JENKIN-Onto your property. I see. MR. DIMOLA-Right, but not where that line is, where that line shows on your tax map right there, that line is the same line that shows up on the survey. MRS. JENKIN-Right. So if we granted the variance, then you could continue to talk about the encroachment between the two of you. MR. DIMOLA-Yes, we could. MR. CLEMENTS-It sounds like Mr. Alden and you both believe that the line that’s on the map that we have right here is the line that you both agree on. Right? MR. DIMOLA-Yes. We both agree with the tax maps and the surveys. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, and then, but my question was, and I think you said it before, you have no problem with it being that close to your house, the addition being that close to your house. MR. DIMOLA-Yes. I have no problem because the addition actually comes closer to the back of my garage, which is a detached structure, the amount of impact towards the house, and the salability of the property, I think is minimal or non-existent, based on where the structure sits today. MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Thanks. Do you want to come back up? I would assume, as a point of contention, that you’re going to work out these differences about this? MR. DIMOLA-Yes. It’s my wife, I think, she more or less, she’s the only one in opposition of it, but I’m sure she’ll come around. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume, for the sake of the fact that he’s willing to agree to sign off that he’s not disagreeable with the six foot setback off the property line, as presented on the survey. MR. DIMOLA-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can move on from that point, and allow you to work out your differences with him on your own. MR. DIMOLA-That’ll be fine with me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members, any other concerns or questions? Okay. All right. Then I’ll survey the Board. I’ll start with you, Rich. MR. GARRAND-I think the most affected party here, Mr. Dimola, is in favor of this. He’s the one who would invariably suffer any long term impacts if this was to be approved. While I do think that the amount of relief required here, or requested here is probably significant, I can’t find any other justification for denying this variance. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-I’d agree with Rich. I think that with the neighbor being here and agreeing to letting it be built that close to his line, I’d be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I’d be in favor of it, too, for those arguments. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d agree with the rest of the Board members. I’d be in favor, also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. It’s a modest addition and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I can’t see any reason to be against it. I think if there’s any adjustment here, as Mr. Brown said, it would be less of a variance. I think the issue, once it’s resolved, won’t affect the variance that we’re granting, but we may want to put that language in there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m just going to ask fellow Board members, I’m going to agree, also. I think that the, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And that the 12 foot that you’re going to add on to this building doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. It’s a straightforward deal, going 12 feet out from the edge of that building, and you’re coming off square from the old corner of the back side anyway. So it should be pretty straightforward. The amount of relief would be considered to be moderately substantial here because of the encroachment on the property line of your next door neighbor, but Mr. Dimola seems to be amenable to your doing this construction. It’s going to give you more room and give you a more usable home. So I guess we can agree with that, too. Does somebody want to make the motion, and I guess on the motion I want to make sure that you include the fact that it will be six feet from the line, as shown on the survey map that was provided to us. MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2008 ALBERT ALDEN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 10 Irongate Drive. The applicant proposes to demolish a portion of residence and construct a 456 square foot residential addition with basement. The applicant requests 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) 13.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot side yard setback requirements per Section 179-4-030. Additionally, relief is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Whether this benefit could be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant, and I think Mr. Alden has shown us that that is the best place for the addition, and it is a modest addition. An undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. It would probably be an upgrade to their house. The request could be considered moderate to substantial, but part of it’s due to the placement of the house on the property. I don’t think the request will have any adverse physical or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty is only self-created because he wishes to enlarge his home. That six foot will be measured off the property line as shown on the survey map. th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. ALDEN-Okay. Thank you for your time. AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II DWIGHT L. CAMPNEY OWNER(S): DWIGHT L. CAMPNEY ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 20 SULLIVAN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 123 SQ. FT. PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-46 SECTION: 179- 4-030; 179-13-10 DWIGHT CAMPNEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2008, Dwight L. Campney, Meeting Date: June 25, 2008 “Project Location: 20 Sullivan Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 123 sq. ft. porch. Relief Required: The applicant requests 3-feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum side set back and 3.8 feet of relief from the 30 foot front yard at road setback per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone. Further relief is required for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed 123 sq. ft. porch. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 3 feet of relief or 20% from the minimum 15 foot side setback and the request for 3.8 feet of relief or 12.7% from the minimum 30 foot front setback per 179-4- 030 could be considered minimal relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Permit 2007-0600 residential alteration dated 10/12/07 Staff comments: The applicant has rebuilt his foundation and apparently the previous porch was noticed to be rotted beyond repair when house was raised (see picture). The porch was removed and is now in need of replacement. SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any comments you want to add or? It’s pretty self- explanatory. It looks to me like you had an old porch. You want to replace exactly what was there. MR. CAMPNEY-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-With new construction, and the previous porch had the same setback deal. So no big changes occurring here. Board members have any questions, or is everybody pretty clear as to what they’re asking for on this one? It looks pretty straightforward to me. Do you guys feel any need to comment on this one, or do you think it’s? MR. URRICO-A need? No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Seeing that there’s nobody here, any letters? MR. URRICO-There is two copies of the same letter. I have, “Dear Mr. Wood, This letter is in response to your Public Hearing Notice dated June 18, 2008 regarding the above captioned property. Unfortunately, we will be unable to attend the public hearing, but would like it on record that we are not opposed to the issuance of the variance to Mr. Campney. We own the property that is immediately adjacent to 20 Sullivan Drive and have watched as Mr. Campney has attempted to make improvements to that property. We are in favor of the porch addition and proposed expansion of the structure. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Walter K. Quillinan Nancy S. Quillinan” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to close with? I think we’re all pretty squared away on this one. I guess I’ll poll the Board quickly. Is there anybody on the Board who’s opposed to this, or is everybody pretty much? I’ll summarize, then, and just say that it’s essentially a replacement for an old, deteriorated porch that needs to be replaced, obviously. So, as far as the setbacks, those setbacks were pre-existing from the original location of this structure. It’s an attempt to upgrade that structure and bring it into conformance so it fits in better with the neighborhood and nobody in that neighborhood seems to be opposed to what you’re doing here. MR. CAMPNEY-No, they love what I’m doing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does somebody want to make a resolution on this? MR. GARRAND-I’ll make a motion. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2008 DWIGHT L. CAMPNEY, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 20 Sullivan Drive. The applicant is proposing the construction of a 123 square foot porch. The applicant is requesting relief of three feet from the 15 foot minimum side setback and 3.8 feet of relief from the 30 foot front yard at road setback as per Section 179-4-030, for the Waterfront Residential One Acre zone. Further relief is required for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Now with the balancing test. Can the benefits be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? Basically, no. It’s replacing an existing porch. Will this cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood or change to the character of the nearby properties? No, it won’t. It’s just replacing what was already there existing. The request is not substantial. It might be deemed as minimal. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts? I don’t believe the old porch had any adverse physical or environmental impacts. I don’t think the new porch will either. This difficulty might be interpreted as self-created in that the applicant is requesting to replace a porch that has previously existed. So I make a motion we approve Area Variance No. 34-2008. th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. CAMPNEY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II TODD JORGENSEN OWNER(S): TODD JORGENSEN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 141 BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,600 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE GARAGES AND FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR SUCH STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 11, 2008 LOT SIZE: 5.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.13-1-3 SECTION: 179-5-030 TODD JORGENSEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2008, Todd Jorgensen, Meeting Date: June 25, 2008 “Project Location: 141 Big Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to build a 1,600 sq. ft. garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable garages and from maximum allowable square footage per 179-5-020(D). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a 1,600 sq. ft. third garage. 2. Feasible alternatives: A feasible alternative would include building a garage that meets the 900 sq. ft. threshold and possible expansion of existing garage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for a 700 square foot or 78% increase over the 900 sq. ft. maximum per code may be interpreted as substantial relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2005-0409 / 2 Car detached garage dated 7/05/05 BP 2003-0340 / Deck dated 5/28/03 BP 2001-0619 / Single Family Home dated 08/22/01 Staff comments: Have alternatives, such as the expansion of the existing garage been explored? It should be noted that a building this size may be used for commercial purposes and as such should be noted on the final plans that no activities of that nature be allowed on said property. Furthermore the proposed structure is to be used primarily as a gym/workshop. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11, 2008 Project Name: Jorgensen, Todd Owner(s): Todd Jorgensen ID Number: QBY-08-AV- 35 County Project#: June08-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,600 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from number of allowable garages and from the maximum allowable square footage for such structure. Site Location: 141 Big Bay Road Tax Map Number(s): 316.13-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct an accessory structure on the property. The structure is to be 1,600 sq. ft. and is to be used as a gym/workshop area for the applicant. The structure is considered a garage where there is an existing garage on the site and only one garage is allowed on the property. In addition, the new garage exceeds the required 900 sq. ft. size allowed for a garage. The information submitted shows the location of the proposed building and other site details. Relief is also requested from the height where 16 ft. is the maximum allowed and 25 ft. is proposed. The building design is to accommodate solar panels on the roof and an indoor basketball court. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 6/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Jorgensen. Probably the first question from Board members is going to be, what type of business are you in presently? MR. JORGENSEN-I’m actually a physician, and I’m obviously not a sign maker. I didn’t realize that was going to, so there’s no commercial use intended for this, and I’d be happy to make that stipulated on a proposal that this never be used commercial. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume you’re an avid basketball addict and you need this for your own, blowing off steam at the end of the day? MR. JORGENSEN-It’s partially that, and if my children inherit my basketball skills, then they’re going to need a lot of practice if they ever want to make the Queensbury team. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. The area over the workshop, you have stairs going up there. What is the height of that area over there? MR. JORGENSEN-I believe it’s about nine feet, maybe eight feet. MRS. HUNT-What do you plan to do there? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. JORGENSEN-That’s just for storage. It’s just that I didn’t need this high a ceiling over the workshop as I did for the court area. So I said, well, why would I waste that space, I might as well make storage. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Have you considered expanding on the existing garage? MR. JORGENSEN-Yes. We certainly looked at that. Our existing garage, obviously, wasn’t built with that in mind, a basketball court. So I’d have to tear the roof off and then go up higher and expand much larger, and I think it would come out to be much more expensive. The other benefit of this is, where it’s set on the property, I’ve been trying to go solar, and it would allow me a big wall of roof that would be south facing. Near the house I have some trees that would block any solar from the south side. So we tried to push it back so we got the max solar coverage, and that’s where the experts that came and consulted us said that was the best spot to put it. MRS. JENKIN-The basketball court, are you just going to have one basket? MR. JORGENSEN-Yes, it’s just a half court. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So what is underneath the workshop area? MR. JORGENSEN-Well, the workshop’s the bottom floor, and then above that is storage. MRS. JENKIN-I see. You have a workshop. All right. So that’s a solid wall, then, separating the basketball court from the basketball court, or the basketball court from the workshop, and then above that. MR. JORGENSEN-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So that’s just a half court. MR. JORGENSEN-Right. MRS. JENKIN-All right. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MR. JORGENSEN-Can I mention that I had a petition signed by all my neighbors. It’s not, there’s only one neighbor that actually would be able to see it, but I have copies of other signatures. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I can read it in. Thanks. MR. JORGENSEN-The one son is very anxious that I get this approved, and he’ll go on record saying that. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read this in. It’s “Proposed accessory structure for Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Todd and Laurie Jorgensen of 141 Big Bay Road are proposing a 1600 square foot accessory structure on their property. The proposed structure will be 25 ft. high and 40 ft. by 40 ft. The accessory structure will be used for a workshop and indoor play area with an upstairs storage area. The structure will meet all set-back requirements. The proposal is currently on the agenda for the zoning board of appeals on June 25, 2008. We are seeking relief from the restrictions on the number of allowed accessory structures. We currently have a 480 square foot storage shed and this proposal is for a second structure. We are also seeking relief from height restrictions of 16 ft. for waterfront residential zoned property. This petition is to inform our neighbors of our request and to notify the town of support for the project. By signing this petition, I am aware of the proposal by Todd and Laurie Jorgensen and do not feel the proposed structure will have a negative impact on the community.” And that’s signed by pretty much everybody on Big Bay Road, Bardin Road, and that looks like about it, but it looks like just about everybody who’s an adjoining neighbor, as far as the eye can see. Any other comments from the Board members? MRS. JENKIN-I have one more question. Once you put the building up, that’ll be an indoor court. Are you going to maintain the outdoor court as well? MR. JORGENSEN-Yes, that would be my hope, yes. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll poll Board members. We’ll start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, at first when I saw the 1600 square foot garage, I got kind of shook up, but you certainly have made a good case for this, and I like the idea that you’re going solar. I think that’s a plus. So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I must admit, this is not your typical variance application for a third garage. Normally I would never be in favor of something like this, but this does not seem to be your typical project. I see the reasoning for it, and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-The only way I’d be in favor of this is if we could add a stipulation that this never, for the life of this property, be used for commercial purposes whatsoever. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George? MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I would agree with Rich on that one, and the size of the lot is what swayed me. It’s such a big lot, the five acres. Normally, if it was a half acre or an acre, I don’t think I would have been in favor, but, being that it’s five acre, that’s a big piece of property. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think, because of the location of your house, it’s extremely private, and you’re really not going to encroach on any of your neighbor’s privacy, or they’re not going to see anything, as you’ve said in your application, because you’re just sort of out there all by yourselves, except for the river. So I would be in favor of it. I think it’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I’d be in favor also. I think the same way Joan does. You drive in there and it’s a long way in. There’s five acres of land there. I like the idea of alternative energy sources, with gasoline the way it is right now. So, I’d be in favor of this application. MR. UNDERWOOD-I, too, would be in agreement. I think it’s essentially a rural residential area, and we have granted excess garages prior to this, to other people with larger pieces of property, and I really don’t see that this is going to be any detriment to the community, or set some new standard that allows everybody in the world to build one of these, but your explanation seems reasonable. I don’t think there’s any question that you’re going to not use this for commercial purposes or property in the future, and, you know, we will put that stipulation in there when we do the resolution here. So, hopefully you’ll enjoy it and get to play hoops all year round now. Does somebody want to make the resolution? Okay. I’ll do it, I guess. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2008 TODD JORGENSEN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 141 Big Bay Road. He has proposed to build a 1,600 square foot garage, and under the relief required, the applicant is requesting relief from the number of allowable garages and from the maximum allowable square footage per Section 179-5-020. Under the benefit to the applicant, he has explained that, by constructing this third garage here, in essence he’s going to be using this garage for a half basketball court with a workshop on the ground floor, with storage space up above. Under feasible alternatives, it was discussed that he could possibly build this structure attached to his other garage, but he’s explained that he wants to use it for solar energy purposes, and I guess he’s going to use that for his home, too, I would assume, at that point. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, there doesn’t seem to be any opinion as far as the Board goes that there’ll be any effects on the community, or negative effects on the neighborhood either. All the near neighbors and further away neighbors, too, have 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) signed off on this as being something they can all agree to, as is reasonable. As far as the difficulty self-created, it would be self-created, but, as explained, he wants to use this for solar energy purposes, as well as for recreational purposes and his own hobbies. The only stipulation we will put on here is that for the purposes of this structure going forward, that it not be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever in the future. Other than that, I think we can grant the amount of relief that he’s requesting here. It’s just a 1,600 square foot third garage. So instead of the 900 square feet, he’s requesting 700 square feet of relief, I guess, in addition to what would be permitted for a garage. th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. JORGENSEN-Thank you. MRS. JENKIN-Mrs. Jorgensen, you may have to start playing basketball, in self-defense. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2008 SEQRA TYPE: II TOM AND DUSTY PUTNAM AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S): TOM AND DUSTY PUTNAM ZONING: WR-3A LOCATION: 21 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 220 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH AND REPLACE WITH 2 SCREEN PORCHES. TOTALING 180 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT ALSO SEEKS TO CONSTRUCT A 620 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND A 440 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORLINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF TO ALLOW STORMWATER INFILTRATION DEVICES WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE SHORELINE OF LAKE GEORGE. CROSS REF.: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE 11, 2008 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 1.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15- 1-7 SECTION: 179-4-030 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-As far as the stormwater infiltration devices, we were in receipt of a resolution from the Planning Board regarding this project, and that was Site Plan No. 27- 08. This Site Plan application was made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following, and that was the addition of 450 square feet of living space, a new two car garage, and new wastewater system. Planning Board review is required for any hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline, and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure in a Critical Environmental Area. Also review is required as the project has been classified as a Major stormwater project. They did hold a hearing last evening, and a motion was done by the Planning Board at that time, and the motion reads as follows: “MOTION REGARDING SITE PLAN NO. 27-2008 TOM & DUSTY PUTNAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAFT RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF. MOTION TO PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2008. THE PLANNING BOARD IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER INFILTRATION DEVICES, PROVIDED THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OTHERWISE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 147. THESE REQUIREMENTS CAN BE ADDRESSED DURING THE NORMAL COURSE OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.,”. So I would assume you’re still going to do more Site Plan Review with them into the future. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2008, Tom and Dusty Putnam, Meeting Date: June 25, 2008 “Project Location: 21 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes the removal of a 220 sq. ft. screened porch in order to facilitate a 440 sq. ft. addition to existing house. The applicant also proposes to construct a 620 sq. ft. attached garage and a 180 sq. ft. foyer and covered porch. Relief Required: 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) The applicant requests 8 feet of relief from the minimum 50 foot shoreline setback requirements per 179-4-030 and relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Additionally, the applicant requests 71 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for the west storm water infiltration devices and 35feet of relief for the east stormwater infiltration device. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct a 620 sq. ft. attached garage along with a 440 sq. ft. addition and a 180 sq. ft. foyer/ covered porch to existing house. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternative could include situating the addition further from the shoreline so as to conform to the code. Concerning the infiltration devices, feasible alternative appear to be limited due to the location of the house and slopes beyond the 100 foot setback. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 71-feet of relief or 71% from the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback for the storm water infiltration devices could be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 8 feet or 16% relief from the 50 foot minimum shoreline setback per 179-4-030 for the proposed 440 sq. ft. addition may be considered minimal. The request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure to include a 620 sq. ft. attached garage, 440 sq. ft. addition, and a 120 sq. ft. foyer/covered porch may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. . 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minor effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): No recent history since 1951. Staff comments: The proposed expansion would have minimal aesthetic effect on the neighborhood as most houses are well screened. Staff recommends any spoils from the project be immediately stabilized or removed due to runoff from adjoining slopes, especially in the area to the rear of the proposed garage. Consideration may be given to seeking a recommendation from the Planning Board regarding stormwater infiltration devices prior to issuing a decision. A proposed new wastewater system is to be installed as part of the overall project. SEQR Status: Type II” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 11, 2008 Project Name: Putnam, Tom & Dusty Owner(s): Tom & Dusty Putnam ID Number: QBY-08-AV-36 County Project#: June08-29 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove a 220 sq. ft. screen porch and replace with 2 screen porches totaling 180 sq. ft. The applicant also seeks to construct a 620 sq. ft. attached garage and a 440 sq. ft. addition to existing house. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief to allow stormwater management infiltration devices within 100 ft. of the shoreline of Lake George. Site Location: 21 Wild Turkey Lane Tax Map Number(s): 239.15-1-7 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to alter a pre-existing structure by removing a screen porch then replacing it with new living space and to construct a 2-car garage. The construction does not meet the required setback of 75 ft. from the shoreline where 42 ft. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) is proposed and a side yard setback of 20 ft. where 13.9 ft. is proposed. The applicant has indicated the screen porch to be removed was closer to the shoreline than the proposed structure and this project will include installation of a new septic system. The information submitted shows the addition of the new living space, the garage, stormwater and erosion control measures and other site details. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 6/12/08. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything you want to add? I mean, looking at the project, it looks to me like your setbacks are going to increase. Currently, that screened porch is at 29.32 feet from the lake. You’re going to go back to the setback to the house, which is 44.15. I would assume that’s going to be a little bit closer if you add that addition on the end. MR. MAC ELROY-The new setback, yes, and first of all, I’m sorry, I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, and the Putnams had planned to be here, and they apologize. They’re in Atlanta. Their daughter gave birth to their first grandchild just the other day. So they had other priorities, I guess, this week. So thank you. Don Schermerhorn, who is the project manager for the Putnams, is here with me. Now to get to your point, Jim, the proposed addition, in its closest location, is approximately 42 feet from the shoreline, that, thus, requiring the shoreline setback variance, but the existing screen porch, which currently exists at 29 feet will be removed. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think everybody’s aware, because of Waterfront Residential Three Acre, you’re at the 75 foot setback, as opposed to the normal 50 foot on Waterfront Residential One Acre. So that’s the difference, why you guys end up needing the extra on that. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members have any questions as to what’s proposed here? MRS. JENKIN-I have a question about the garage. Will that be on a higher level than? MR. MAC ELROY-Slightly, within a foot or so. MRS. JENKIN-Than the regular house. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-So then you’d be blasting or getting? MR. MAC ELROY-It’s possible that there will be rock removal, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-As the Planning Board has sort of signed off on the infiltration devices, presently I assume there’s nothing up there, as most of the old camps, none of them really had (lost words). MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. There’s nothing formal in terms of any previous permitting. Obviously every property takes care of runoff in their own way, and this house is no different. There are certain drip edge infiltration that they’ve accommodated over the years to try to lessen any impact on the foundation and what not, from runoff. MR. UNDERWOOD-But this’ll be a major improvement. MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Putting these in, compared to what’s available. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, and I said it last night to the Planning Board. I’ll say it here. When those regulations were enacted, or when they were created, I’m not sure how much forethought was given to the fact that stormwater certainly is created within 100 feet of the lake. Structures are allowed to be within 100 feet of the lake. Runoff comes from those structures within 100 feet of the lake. To properly manage them and infiltrate them into the ground, that’s going to take place within 100 feet of the lake. Therefore you automatically will need a variance. So, here we are. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. GARRAND-Basically looking at this, a large part of your property is on the other side of the road. You’re taking every little spot that’s on the lakeside of the road and you’re trying to congest it with. MR. MAC ELROY-That’s a private drive. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I know, but the Kasselmans and everybody else are down there, too. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. GARRAND-Most of your property is non-buildable, and basically what you’re trying to do here is fill up what is buildable. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, we’re providing additional living space within the area adjacent to the house. That’s where you would naturally put the. MR. GARRAND-Yes. You couldn’t cut back on living space a bit and make it more compliant? MR. MAC ELROY-More compliant? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-It doesn’t exceed any Floor Area Ratio or anything in those terms. MR. GARRAND-Well, as far as the setbacks go? MR. MAC ELROY-Setback is the one. The one condition, obviously, we’re here for a variance, which is 75 feet in this area because it’s 3A. These houses were all in existence prior to zoning ever coming in place, and now zoning is enforced. There’s a 75 foot setback. So it didn’t really bear relationship to what existed when zoning was created in that area. So I think that’s my, you know, response to that. The houses were all there in place. Zoning came along and created conditions that made all these houses along here nonconforming. So that’s what we’re, you know, dealing with at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Looking at the map, looking at the projection up on the wall there, too, the other adjoining properties, they’re all pretty much much closer than yours, I would assume? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Actually the one to the west, the property, I have had some experience with. I worked with that owner. That house is six feet from the lake, actually. So, yes, there are other conditions that are. MR. UNDERWOOD-Much more extreme than yours. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I think, again, you know, the point, and you can’t, zoning is in place. There’s no question about it, but all these houses, or this house specifically, was in place before zoning came along. The enactment of zoning, and the standards for this zone, WR-3A, automatically made a nonconforming situation. What’s an owner to do but seek a variance if they need to add to that section of the property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, the WR-3 zone here, is that a reflection of the site, because of the steepness of the site, or? MR. BROWN-Yes. I can only imagine that’s why it came about, in the late 80’s when zoning was changed. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know on Glen Lake it’s the same way. There’s steep areas of three acre, you know, and lesser sloped areas are one acre. MR. MAC ELROY-Not to argue the point. I’ve always been curious about that. There are areas, the east shore of Dunham’s Bay, that is more extreme than this area along here. This was an area that was left out of the Warren County Sewer Project as well, strangely enough. So I don’t know exactly what the character of this that justifies that, but nonetheless, this is WR-3A. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you anticipate any problems with the proposed septic system that you guys have got? Or is that? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. MAC ELROY-No. It actually, you know, we’re proposing an advanced treatment system. I’m not sure how familiar this Board is, but there is technology that’s available, on a residential scale, that can improve the quality of the effluent that you’re putting back in the ground. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it an aerobic system? MR. MAC ELROY-No. This isn’t aerobic. This is a media filter. In this particular case it’s peet, and I actually designed and had approved the first system like this in the Town of Queensbury, over on Cleverdale, and it’s just an additional step of treatment before you discharge effluent to the soil. So it makes that soil have to work a little less, particularly in areas that you might have marginal soil conditions, which I think this, you know, qualifies as, and that’s why I had proposed it to the owners, and the owners were, you know, willing, they were interested in doing a better job. I think a conventional or an Eljen system, for instance, could be designed and sited there, but this goes a little step further, so, to the owner’s credit, they want to advance that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re building out with this, you said it’s peet? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. There actually, there is a certain amount of fill that would be provided, and then the peet modules that are contained within a fiberglass chamber, and the effluent is filtered through that, and then it weeps out the bottom of the chamber to the soils, and in this case we’re also supplementing the native soil with some fill soil. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have any questions? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see anybody. Any letters, Roy? MR. URRICO-There’s one letter. This is “Dear Mr. Underwood: My name is Chris Mackey and I reside at 15 Wild Turkey Lane, the contiguous property west of the subject property seeking relief from the Town zoning ordinance. I have had the opportunity to discuss the project with Tom Putnam and his engineer and as a result I would offer the following for the Board’s consideration. The primary variance required involves the addition to the westerly end of the existing single story residence. In conjunction with this proposed addition will be the removal of an existing screened porch which is even closer to the lake (29’) then the addition (42’). I feel this is an improvement to the site. I am also in support of the proposed improvements to the wastewater system as the existing septic system must be the original and a new system will be brought up to current standards. It is my understanding that some existing vegetation will be removed as a result of the planned addition and wastewater system replacement. I have had discussions with Mr. Putnam regarding the re-vegetation of the area adjacent to my property, and he has assured me that a suitable landscaping plan will be developed to help buffer the visibility of the new structure. With that being assured I am in support of the Putnam’s project and wish them well as they move forward through the permit process. Sincerely, C. Christopher Mackey” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll start with you, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-I think the variance that is asked for, there is an improvement in the distance from the lake. So I have no problem with that. I have a problem with just changing the lay of the land to make the house more adaptable. I just wondered if it was possible to put the two car garage somewhere else, so that you aren’t going to be blasting and changing what’s there now. It just seems there are steep slopes. I just don’t like the idea of blasting, and you never know what results are going to come from the blasting and what kind of changes are going to be to your neighbors because of blasting and reducing the level at that area. It’ll make the back part much steeper, and so you might get a lot more runoff there because it is steeper because you’re cutting away from it and you’ll have it coming down. You might have some answers to my 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) questions, but it just seems that you won’t have, I don’t see anything around the garage that you’re going to have, or maybe I do. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. There is stormwater management that’s planned there in the proposed project that is that isn’t there now. So any concern about, there won’t be additional runoff as a result of the blasting. There’s additional runoff related to the new impervious surface, but that’s controlled and managed through the stormwater management plan. MRS. JENKIN-I’m wondering with snow, though. If the snow builds up behind the garage and then it melts in the Spring, what are you going to do then? What’s going to happen then? Where will the water go? Will it go into the driveway? Will it go into the side yard, into the neighbor’s property, if you have a lot of melt? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, again, it would be, as any snow cover in a graded site situation, it will follow the grading. MRS. JENKIN-Well, how far away is the garage going to be from the rock bluff that you’re creating at the back? Because if you’re blasting away to get a level area, then you’re going to have. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, the up gradient side of the garage, the garage wall, will be, in effect a retaining wall. MRS. JENKIN-I see. So the garage will abut right to the rock? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s built into the hill, so to speak. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-It’s built into the hill. I see, okay. DON SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s a solid wall as you come up, retaining wall on site. It’s part of the structure. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s fairly common. Very similar, actually, to the situation right next door, if you were on the property. MR. DRELLOS-Which one, Kasselman or? MR. MAC ELROY-No, Mackey. MR. DRELLOS-Mackey. Okay. Does he have the garage that’s on top, Dennis? Is that his? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, that’s an accessory structure or whatever, but he has a garage closer to his house that is constructed that way. MR. DRELLOS-Yes, well, I’ve never been down there. MRS. JENKIN-So how far up the wall of the garage will that retaining wall? MR. MAC ELROY-About four feet or so. MRS. JENKIN-And then it’ll go. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Natural grade. MRS. JENKIN-The natural grade will go after that. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s actually going to act as a deflector, pushing the stuff over the side to that infiltrator on that side. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Yes. The grading, then, will accommodate that. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Normally we don’t have this banter going on, but I think that probably addresses your concerns. Do you have any other concerns? MRS. JENKIN-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George, we’ll go to you next. MR. DRELLOS-Yes. There’s not much of other places you can put these structures on this site. As far as the septic systems, you could always put in holding tanks, too, if they don’t go for this. Right? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That’s a. MR. DRELLOS-Well, without the Town Board. I mean, do you need Town Board approval for this? MR. MAC ELROY-No. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-In fact, well, this Board might not have seen it, but I have met, Craig had advised that I discuss this with Dave, just to be sure, and I have a letter that was written related to our discussions, indicating that he does not see, well, there’s not a need for a variance, and permitting would be done through his office. MR. DRELLOS-But, I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’s a good plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I’m going to look back in the notes here and refer to a few things. Proposed expansion is located within a Critical Environmental Area. Site Plan Review is required. Additionally, the project is considered a major project with regards to stormwater management. Like I said before, this project is divided by a road. The topography of this road, this land, does not support a house this size. Runoff is a huge problem down there. If anybody’s been down there in a rainstorm, you’d know, it’s just a nightmare down there, and to remove permeable area, I think, is a mistake. If anything, you know, this property should be scaled back. There’s just not enough buildable property here for a house of this size. So I’d be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to agree with Rich on this one. I think there’s, yes, the goal is to be 100% away from the need for a setback. I know that’s impossible. I know this is an improvement, but I think there’s some room here, some wiggle room, and I don’t think we’re pursuing that. I’d like to see an attempt made to seek less relief, and I don’t see that. So I’d be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’m kind of torn here, too. I really hate to see properties on the lake have more impermeable area. However, I think that there’s a tradeoff here, when the improvement in the stormwater management and the improvement in the septic, I think that I would, I guess I would reluctantly be in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. Well, I noted that there’s no recent history since 1951. So that’s 59 years ago, and I think what you’ll be doing with the stormwater infiltration devices and the rest of the improvements I think mitigate the problem, and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at the project, I think we have to balance, also, what the improvements might be on the lot with what’s being proposed here, and I, you know, I think we would all agree that the setbacks have been increased from what currently is there with that screened porch on there. Obviously, if you weren’t doing that proposed addition out on the lake there, you would only gain an extra two feet of relief without that addition on that end of the building. So I don’t really consider that the amount of relief that you’re requesting for that proposed addition on that side is going to be anything that triggers, in my mind, a negative on this one. I think the addition of the stormwater 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) infiltration devices, as the Planning Board has signed off on, basically saying that’s going to be a definite great improvement. I think the fact that the garage isn’t going to be sticking out way up high into the air where you’re going to see it from the lake is built into the hillside. You’re not going to see that. The foyer over on the backside, no one’s even going to notice that. It’s more of an infill on that corner, in that little notch that you’ve got in the back there. The addition of the new septic system, you know, and again, it’s not something that’s normal. It’s more State of the Art that we would suggest up there on the lake. These are all improvements. I would agree that, you know, when you look at the fact that the acreage down there, if it were one acre zoning here, I don’t think we would trigger anything, as far as Floor Area Ratio, even with this addition on here. It would seem that you still have adequate area to do this, and I would agree with Roy and Rich that, you know, we would prefer that people not add on, but it’s not like you’ve done a bunch of massive add ons over the years, one after another after another, in a segmented fashion. So, in this instance here, I think that we can, I can signoff on what you’re proposing here, and the relief is from the stormwater relief devices to the lake. The relief is based upon that three acre zoning for the 75 foot setback that’s needed. So we’ve certainly granted many additions, as well as re-dos of property that are much closer to the water than 42 feet. So, in this instance here, I don’t have a problem with it. So, I guess, looking at what we’re going to do here, I’ll ask somebody to do a resolution. MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2008 TOM AND DUSTY PUTNAM, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 21 Wild Turkey Lane. The applicant proposes the removal of a 220 square foot screen porch in order to facilitate a 440 square foot addition to the existing house. The applicant also proposes to construct a 620 square foot attached garage and a 180 square foot foyer and covered porch. Relief required. The applicant requests eight feet of relief from the minimum 50 foot shoreline setback requirements per Section 179-4-030, and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Additionally, the applicant requests 71 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum setback requirement for the west stormwater infiltration devices and 35 feet of relief from the east stormwater infiltration device. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to construct a 620 square foot attached garage along with a 440 square foot addition and 180 square foot foyer/covered porch to existing house, and actually there would be a benefit that the porch was 28 feet from the lake and the new addition will be 42 feet from the lake. Would there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. Actually, looking at the neighboring homes, this home is further from the lake. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The request for 71 feet of relief or 71% from the minimum 100 foot shoreline setback for the stormwater infiltration devices could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. The request for eight feet, or sixteen percent of relief from the fifty foot minimum shoreline setback per Section 179-4-030 for the proposed 440 square foot addition may be considered minimal. The request for the expansion of a nonconforming structure to include a 620 square foot attached garage, 440 square foot addition, and a 120 square foot foyer/covered porch may be considered moderate compared to the Ordinance. Will there be any adverse effects on the neighborhood? I don’t think so. They would be minor, and the difficulty would be self-created only because the applicants want to improve their property. So I propose that we pass Area Variance No. 36-2008. Much of what’s going to be constructed here is within that 75 foot setback from the lake, which is reflective of the Waterfront Residential Three Acre zone, but the majority of the Board feels that that’s reasonable, what he’s done here, based on the stormwater management plan that’s been proposed, that the Planning Board also has reached an understanding with them by unanimous decision that those infiltration devices will be an improvement and will be able to handle what’s generated by the new structure. th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2008 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED DARREN BOECHER OWNER(S): DARREN BOECHER ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 348 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2 OPEN DECK ADDITIONS TOTALLING 528.6 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE AND SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE; AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-111 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-70 SECTION: 179-4-030; 179-13-10 DEAN & LYNN BOECHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2008, Darren Boecher, Meeting Date: June 25, 2008 “Project Location: 348 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct two open deck additions totaling 528 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests shoreline relief of 19.8 ft for the lower deck and 2.5 feet for the upper deck. The applicant also requests 6.8 feet of sideline relief for the lower deck. The permeability without the new decks is 67.1% and with the proposed addition the permeability drops to 59.1% or 5.9% below the minimum of 65%. Both setback and permeability requirements are per 179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the proposed decks and gain addition outdoor recreation area. 2. Feasible alternative Feasible alternatives may include smaller decks and construction in a more compliant area. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: The request for 6.8 ft or 56% of the 12 foot side setback and the request for 19.8 feet or 39.6% of relief from the shoreline setback for the bottom deck may be considered moderate. The request for 2.5 feet or 5% relief of the 50 ft setback for the proposed upper 12x12 deck may be considered minimal. Concerning the permeability, a request for 5.9% below the minimum 65% permeability for the WR-1 zone will require Zoning Board approval. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated. However, will the granting of such a variance create similar requests for significant relief. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None recent Staff comments: The property is located on Glen Lake and as such resides partially in a CEA. The possibility of reworking the configuration of the decks as well as the overall square footage should be pursued. The potential for stormwater runoff is increased due to the size of the hard surfacing proposed. There is also concern with the location of the septic in relation to the lower deck and clarification may need to be asked for. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) SEQR Status: Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Good evening. MR. BOECHER-Good evening. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add to your explanation? I would think the Board would primarily be interested as to why you’re proposing that very large deck down in front there. MR. BOECHER-We just need a little bit more space, and to enhance the property. MR. BROWN-Yes. If we could identify for the record. Come right up to the mic there, because we have to record this. MR. BOECHER-I’m Dean Boecher. This is my wife, Lynn. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MRS. BOECHER-We’re Darren Boecher’s parents, the silent partners. Darren is our son who is currently at work in Atlanta and unable to be here. I think one of the key things that I would ask the Board to take under consideration is the fact that we have five grandchildren currently under five. The property is terraced, and it has been terraced very nicely, but terraced very roughly for the last 50 years. As such, it’s a safety feature with the children, and also with elderly and aging parents, and our parents, and that type, and so we are looking not to enlarge the house in any way, but the outdoor area, which would be the deck, to make it safer for the children and elderly parents, and to give that, it would increase the living space, and it would also have guard rails which would be somewhat preventative access to the lake easily. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you planning on modifying all those terraces as you go down now, then? That’s going to remain as is? MR. BOECHER-No, no, actually you can see the, this is the top part, here, and it’s just, that’s the small section for the deck there, actually where the grill is. So that would be just a small deck because it’s very rough grass land through there, and then here you’ve got a stone wall where the deck would come out to where the stone wall is already. So that’s where the six foot variance is coming on that one side, and that’s a stone walkway going down to actually there’s another level below that, as you can see. MRS. BOECHER-One of the landscaping that’s there, with the terracing, we want to keep, and we would be able to keep. We think, aesthetically, it looks nice. MR. BOECHER-Yes, and we don’t want to endanger the lake floor or any take anything away from the lake. That’s why we’re looking for relatively small area there, and then an extension of the upper level down to it. MRS. BOECHER-So we actually just would like to, we’re proposing not a new deck, but deck extensions. Now our neighbor immediately to the right of the property has indicated that she has absolutely no problem with it, and the neighbor to the left is a tenant, and basically doesn’t have a problem either with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Board members have any questions? MR. URRICO-The concern is with the permeability, and the potential runoff, additional runoff into the lake. Is there any way that we can mitigate that, reduce the size somehow? MR. BOECHER-We could certainly look at it. MRS. BOECHER-Basically, the architect who went over this with us, with the proposal, indicated that, for the safety and for basically what we want to do, and safety, is, I’m going to be very honest, is the key factor there. It was not going to make much of an impact, whether it was eight feet, nine feet, or ten feet. It was basically going to be the same, and so what we were looking for is to have it aesthetically go with our existing landscaping, and so that it would fit and look good from the lake. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. BOECHER-And actually, the way the property is set up, there’s the shoreline, which is one level, then it comes to a second level and the proposed is on the third level up. So there’s a lot of distance between the lake now, and where the deck would go. MR. GARRAND-Have you given any consideration to smaller decks? I think Staff made a great observation here. Construction of the decks in a more compliant area. This is one of the smallest parcels of property I’ve ever seen come before us. MR. BOECHER-There’s actually really no other place to put it, that I can think of. MR. GARRAND-Yes, because it’s a lot of relief here. I mean, you’re asking for a whole ton of relief here. MR. BOECHER-It’s two and a half feet from the lakeside, and then it’s six feet from the wall on the one side. MRS. JENKIN-Is it possible to put a fence up, or some sort of a barrier up, and then the base of the proposed deck, especially the 16 by 24 foot one, make that a permeable type deck, and I don’t know whether there’s anything possible. MRS. BOECHER-And then, actually, in talking with Craig, who has been very helpful, he indicated to us that if we were to explore that function, pretty much what you’re saying, put that down there, then that’s not even something that we would have to get a variance for, that we could do, but once again, because of the terrain, and aesthetically, we thought it would look terrible. MRS. JENKIN-Well, you’re talking about the grassy area. MRS. BOECHER-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-All right. MR. BOECHER-We could put it right down to that level. MRS. BOECHER-But then we’d still have, it’s not terraced, you know, there’d still be four or five steps this way. What we’re trying to do is make it very gradual, so it would come down. MR. DRELLOS-Have you found the septic system at all? MRS. BOECHER-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-You have found it? You know where it is? MR. BOECHER-Yes. MRS. BOECHER-Yes, absolutely. MR. BOECHER-Yes. It’s right next to the stairs. It would actually be to the left on the screen there. MRS. BOECHER-And we’ve had it inspected. MR. BOECHER-Yes. We’ve only been there for two years. We’ve had it pumped each year. MRS. BOECHER-And we were told it’s in fine shape, it’s okay. MR. DRELLOS-The leach fields, they don’t go underneath where the decking or anything is? MRS. BOECHER-No. MR. BOECHER-No, that’s actually, it’s up on the third level. Actually, it would be right there on the corner where Craig has, that’s it, Craig. Where the steps are right on the side. MR. DRELLOS-You’re talking up here more, is that what you’re saying, it’s up here? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MRS. BOECHER-No, no. MR. DRELLOS-This isn’t it, right? These are the two new decks? MR. BOECHER-These are the two new, right. This is up where the grill is, in that little tiny spot there, and the septic’s over here. MR. DRELLOS-Right here? MR. BOECHER-Right next to the water. MR. DRELLOS-So where does it leach? I mean, it’s got to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Into the lake. MRS. BOECHER-No, it’s not. We’ve checked that. MR. DRELLOS-Well, I mean, is the deck, this part going over? It’s got to go over it? MRS. BOECHER-No. That’s why we’re intentionally not doing that. MRS. JENKIN-Well, where’s the leach field? MRS. BOECHER-To the right of where the second level deck will be. MR. DRELLOS-What is it, just a pit? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just a pit, I’m sure, like a lot of the old ones over there. MRS. BOECHER-Well, they’re pumping it each year. We’ve done that, and he’s saying to us you don’t have to do it, and it’s fine, and we’re going, no, we’re going to do it. MR. BOECHER-Yes, because certainly our concern is to protect the lake as well. MR. CLEMENTS-I have a couple of questions. The deck that you have there now, the decking is tight, right tight, right? You can’t go through it? MR. BOECHER-Yes, I believe it is. MR. CLEMENTS-What do you, the deck that you’re proposing, the additional decking that you’re proposing here, were you going to have that, those right up tight, or were you going to, is water going to be able to drip down through? MR. BOECHER-I don’t know. We can do whatever you wish. MR. CLEMENTS-Well, my second question would be what are your plans for underneath that deck? I mean, there’s grass there now. It would be difficult to leave that there and mow it. MR. BOECHER-Yes, well, there seems to be a lot of concern as far as fertilizing that area, because of other runoff. So I don’t know that we would be concerned with the grass part. MRS. BOECHER-We’d probably fill it with gravel or fill it with something that would be approved. I mean, I don’t want to go in there and mow it anymore. MR. CLEMENTS-So you’d be putting something over the top of that grass? MR. BOECHER-We certainly could. There’s a lot of concern with runoff into the lake for fertilizing. We’d prefer not to have grass there, I don’t think. MR. CLEMENTS-What I’m looking for is more, is permeability. Now we had another piece of property that we looked at that had a bunch of stairs going down, if you recall, and one of the things was the permeability wasn’t an issue because the decking that they used was, had space in between it and there would have been water falling on the ground there anyway. MRS. BOECHER-Underneath the existing deck is, when we purchased the house. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. CLEMENTS-No, I’m just talking about having, if you have the decking, you know, butted right up against it, it’s going to be like a roof. It’s going to runoff. Whereas if you have spaces between it, it’s going to run down to where the grass is now. MR. BOECHER-Certainly we could. MR. CLEMENTS-And you have more, I mean, that’s the way I’m looking at it. So what’s why my question was, what are your plans for underneath it, and what are your plans for how you’re going to put that decking on there? MR. BOECHER-We could certainly space it an we could certainly do whatever it would take, whatever would be the best for the property. MRS. BOECHER-There’s a sprinkler system in it now. That sprinkler would have to be moved. MRS. JENKIN-Really? On the grassy area? MR. BOECHER-So we have not hooked it up this year, and it would be taken out, and frankly, we are very conscious of the Glen Lake Association, and their discussion where grass is concerned and where fertilizing and that type of thing, and as such have somewhat changed our posture to follow their suggested package. MRS. JENKIN-Do you fertilize now? MR. BOECHER-We haven’t, no. MRS. BOECHER-No, we haven’t. MRS. JENKIN-But the thing is, too, if you have crushed stone underneath this deck, and allow the water to run through, is that going to be more of a stress on your septic system that is off to the side? MR. BOECHER-I don’t think there would be any more than there is now, with the rainfall. MRS. JENKIN-Well, the water is absorbed into the grass. Now it would runoff. MR. BOECHER-What would you suggest? We’re open for suggestions. We want to do it the right way. MR. CLEMENTS-Could I ask a question? Craig, from the things that I’ve said, you know, what do you have for comments? How do you feel about that? MR. BROWN-Well, the way the Code reads, any decks are considered impermeable surfaces, certainly, and when you do your reasoning and rationale, how big of an impact is this deck going to have on the impermeability, you probably do want to consider are there slots in the deck for the rainwater to get through. Again, the Code says you have to count it as impermeable surface. Is it really all that impervious like a roof? Probably not like a roof, but that’s the way the Code says you have to calculate it (lost words) it’s constructed that way, exactly what you were saying. So, you know, if the design says that, you know, there’s a certain spacing or we’re going to do something to allow the water to get through the deck in a more natural state where it’s not going to concentrate on one side or the other. That’s probably about as close as you’re going to get to what’s there now. MR. BOECHER-So would that be a half inch or a quarter inch, or is there any? MR. BROWN-I don’t know what the magic number is. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know when I do my decks I usually use like a pen or something like that. MRS. BOECHER-I was going to say, that’s how they’ve done a deck at our house. MR. UNDERWOOD-You use like a magic marker, so you’ve got some drainage going through there. That’s pretty normal, or the width of a nail or, you know, everybody’s got their own little take on it, but if you make it too narrow, it usually just plugs up with stuff that blows in and off the roof and moss and leaves and everything else, which will plug it up completely. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. BOECHER-Okay. MRS. BOECHER-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other comments from the Board? I guess I’ll open the public hearing. I don’t see anybody here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any comments, any letters? MR. URRICO-I do not see any letters. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, then, any final questions from Board members? Otherwise I’m going to poll the Board at this point. I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll start with you, George. MR. DRELLOS-Well, just commonsense tells me that’s a massive deck. Covers up a lot of square feet there, and, I don’t know, I really would like to see it scaled down a little bit myself. I just think it’s just too large for the lot. I really do. If we could just scale it down to something more manageable. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you comfortable with the upper one, the 12 by 12 one? Because there’s two decks actually proposed here. There’s the proposed 12 by 12 one up top, and then the 24 by 16 down below. MR. DRELLOS-Well, yes, I mean, obviously the way it’s designed is they get to one and to get to the other. So, I mean, if you’re going to keep some of the bottom, you’d have to do something with that up there. I guess you could make a walkway and narrow it down. There’s designs, obviously, how they could design it to shrink it down a little bit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-All the way around, given the size of this property, the amount of relief requested, this is substantial. Runoff, I’ve got all kinds of concerns with this. I wouldn’t approve anything even close to this. So I wouldn’t be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I gave my opinion before, that I feel that the lower deck is now a permeable area, and to protect the lake, I feel that that should stay a permeable area. I don’t think it should be covered with a deck. I think that the variance is considerable, and I would be against this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I guess that I would be against it as it stands right now. What I would like to see, I guess, is maybe more specifics on the decks and the runoff and what they may do with, you know, managing the runoff. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’d like to see the applicant come back with a newer proposal that features less intensive decking than you currently have. I think we need to see some scaling back of what you’re proposing. Specifically, more importantly the bottom, the lower level. MR. BOECHER-We’re brand new to this. So, please, bear with us. What would be? I’m sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got to poll the Board first, and then we’ll come back to you with some alternatives of what you might consider. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have a concern with the with the size, the 528 square feet. I would be in favor if the bottom deck were like eight feet wide and maybe space it. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’m going to have serious concerns about this, too, and I think I think what really we have to look at is the reflection of the size of the lot and the size of the property, in relation to what the Waterfront Residential regulations reflect, and that is that, in a one acre zoning, I mean, we realize that this is a nonconforming, pre- existing structure that you’ve been living in, I assume for quite some time now. MR. BOECHER-A couple of years. MR. UNDERWOOD-A couple of years. My concerns had to do with this. You go and build a great big deck there. You’ve got a pretty modest home right now that basically fills out that site. I don’t think you can build anything bigger on the site of that property there, and I think by proposing that very large deck down there, two things are going to happen. I think it encourages more people to show up and have a party or cookout or something like that, recognizing the fact that you have a very old, antiquated, probably, you know, performing at its maximum even with two people living at the house, with that septic system there, I think that’s going to put a major stress and strain on that, if we were to allow you to construct this, and that’s to assume, going into the future, too, you know, you may not be there forever. With the large family gatherings and things like that, it’s something that we have to be concerned with. I think that the decking, whatever’s proposed in its final form for you, because it looks like you’re going to have to go back to the drawing board and propose something more modest much more modest than what you proposed here, I don’t think that that lower, there’s any justification for the 24 by 16 deck on there. I think, based upon the size of the house, if we allowed you to add a 12 by 12 deck onto there, you could do it at the same height, it wouldn’t have to step down. That would give you more than enough space to have outdoor gatherings and things like that, but I think, due to the fact that you’re on such a very small lot, you’re in close proximity to your neighbors, you’ve got the Critical Environmental Area right down in front, with the lakefront very nearby, and I understand your concerns about safety, but this house has existed for many years in its shape and form, and it’s, the modification of that hillside was done many years ago. That’s something you’re just going to have to live with, and adding more impermeable surface on there is going to be a negative for the lake. You’re way over the top as far as the permeability on that lot there. So I think we have to be concerned with that, and I think you just have to keep it in perspective as to what’s reasonable, what’s going a little bit too far, and this one kind of went way around the bend I think with that lower deck. So I think if you come back to us with the smaller deck only, or if you want even propose that to the Board members right now, the 12 by 12 deck, that’s something we might be able to consider because it’s on the table, but it doesn’t look like anybody’s happy with that big deck down below. MRS. BOECHER-So you’re saying that the smaller one, where we’re currently, can you show that, where the grill is? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that 12 by 12 one you wanted to add. I think I could reasonably buy into that, and I think probably everybody else would, too, you know, and that, in addition to what you have up there, you may not want to step it down to that deck, but if you wanted to keep it one level all the way across to give you more space up there, I would be amenable to that. I don’t know, you’d have to go back and ask the Board members what they think. MRS. BOECHER-I appreciate your forthrightness in offering us an alterative like that, I do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that something you want to think about, or do you want us to act? MRS. BOECHER-No, we’re going to ask you for it right now. MR. GARRAND-I’d like Staff to let us know what amount of relief would be required. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, will we need relief on that 12 by 12? I think we’re all set with the setbacks on that, right? MR. BROWN-We’ll pull the plan out and see what the numbers are. MR. UNDERWOOD-We would take off the 24 by 16 one. MRS. BOECHER-So we would be able to? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would think we would give you a landing coming down off of there, off the front, as you have those stairs there. So you could still get down onto your access to the waterfront at that point. MR. BOECHER-Okay. Thank you. Would you consider a smaller deck on the outsides, too, on the lower part? MRS. JENKIN-I wouldn’t. MR. BOECHER-I don’t mean at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so. MR. GARRAND-No. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MRS. BOECHER-So in essence, don’t come back, and I don’t mean that in a negative standpoint. I mean in a realistic standpoint. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Just keep it in perspective. Like if everybody else along your way there wanted the same thing, it would just look like it was one big, giant mega deck, you know, from side to side going across. I mean, St. Mary’s Bay, that’s the way it is. There’s nothing you can do about it. MR. BOECHER-Yes, because many of them are much closer than we are to the water. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. BOECHER-It’s really just a summer property. I mean, we don’t live there. It’s really small, and the stairs are what. MRS. HUNT-What is the size of the existing deck? MR. BROWN-Twenty-three fifteen is the maximum impermeable. MR. URRICO-So they would be six feet over. What they’re figuring on over there, folks, is the new calculations it would come out to 2,321 feet, and what they would be allowed would be 2315. So they would be six feet over. Only six feet over. MRS. JENKIN-How much over would it be, Roy? MR. URRICO-Six feet. MR. GARRAND-Of side setback? MR. URRICO-No, we’re talking about the permeability, the maximum permeability. MRS. JENKIN-Now, if you added that 12 by 12 on the same level, you’d have a nice working area in there. MRS. BOECHER-Could we drop it a little? MR. UNDERWOOD-I talking to Staff, I think one thing that Staff does not want is the stairs coming off the front from that 12 by 12 deck. I mean, you’ve got stairs in the back there anyway. MR. BOECHER-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s kind of redundant to have two sets of stairs here. Just keep the back ones as they are. That would make more sense, and just bring the 12 by 12 across, straight across, in line with what you already have there, you know, that would be simple to do that. MR. BOECHER-That would be fine. We’d appreciate that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-You’re still going to need four feet of relief, though. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to need four and a half feet of side setback relief. MR. OBORNE-Approximately. MR. UNDERWOOD-On that 12 by 12 deck, and then, does everybody understand that? MRS. JENKIN-Four and a half feet, for side setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-So this is just going to come straight across like this, all the way across. MRS. JENKIN-And they’ve got this already. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re going to bring this all up to the same level so it’s the same level as here. They’re going to use this stairs to go down, okay. So none of this down in front. MRS. JENKIN-That’ll make it a lot safer for you, for kids. MR. BOECHER-That would be fine. MRS. JENKIN-It would be much safer, because you’ve got fence, then, all around. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we would add the 12 by 12 deck, at 144 square feet, and that deck’s going to come back up to the same level as the existing deck up there, so it’s all one level across, and the amount of relief required is going to be 4.5 feet of relief to the side property line. MR. OBORNE-And a reminder that you’re going to need four feet of relief from the shoreline. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, as well as four feet of relief from the shoreline. MR. OBORNE-And six square feet of permeability relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So six square feet, that’s pretty reasonable. Right? Does everybody agree that’s pretty reasonable? MR. CLEMENTS-I could live with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Has anybody got a problem with that? MRS. JENKIN-No, that’s fine. MR. URRICO-We put down the percentage? MR. UNDERWOOD-For six square feet of relief is, on the permeability is not very much. It’s going to be like .0. MR. OBORNE-Less than a percent. MR. UNDERWOOD-Don’t even, just say negligible. Okay. Does somebody want to make this resolution, or do you want me to do it? I can do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2008 DARREN BOECHER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 348 Glen Lake Road. They’re proposing a single deck of 144 square feet, and that would be an addition built on to the existing deck that’s there. It’s probably actually going to be a little less than 144 square feet because that looks like in the picture pushes out past the, but we’ll be continuing that across the front from the existing deck and adding on. It’s probably going to be less than 144 square feet, looking at the picture, but we’ll make it a maximum of 144 square feet. This deck will require 4.5 feet of side setback relief from that side, and it will also require four feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot setback from the WR-1A zone, shoreline regulation. In addition, the permeability requirements, it will require six square feet of relief from that. So it’s going to be slightly over by a very negligible margin that we can all live with, at that point, and all these are per Section 179-4-030. As far as the feasible alternative, I guess we could say no deck 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/25/08) could have been built here, but this 12 by 12 deck will give them a little bit more area for their largely expanding family with the grandchildren. Is the relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance? The amount of relief, at 4.5 feet for the side setback, could be determined as moderate relief, but I think everybody’s basically signed off on that on the Board. As far as the relief from the Waterfront Residential requirements of 50 feet, four feet of relief from that seems very minimal, and as far as the permeability requirements, we essentially agree that six square feet over from the 22% Floor Area Ratio seems quite reasonable. As far as effects on the neighborhood or community, this modification to their original proposal seems to be much more reasonable. All Board members basically did not agree with the original proposal for the very large deck down below, and that’s been taken off the board here. It seems to address our problems with the Critical Environmental Area of Glen Lake, and the additional hard surfacing, we would recommend that the new deck be constructed in a manner so there’s at least the width of a pen on those boards on the deck there, so there is some, when it rains, that the precipitation runoff will be able to go through down underneath onto crushed stone or whatever you have to place underneath it. th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. BOECHER-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We do have a couple of ZBA minutes to approve. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 21, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: th Duly adopted this 25 day of June 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE May 28, 2008 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 28, 2008, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 25 day of June, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess that’s a wrap. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 38