Loading...
10-16-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2019 INDEX Area Variance No. 42-2019 David & Diane Howard 1. Tax Map No. 301.17-3-70 Area Variance No. 43-2019 CKT Enterprises, LLC 5. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-25 Area Variance No. 47-2019 James Keller 10. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-39 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. FREER-I’ll call to order the meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who are not familiar with the meeting procedures there is information on the back table. It’s pretty simple. We’ll call applicants up to the table. First we’ll read the applicant into the record, then we’ll ask some questions. Open a public hearing. I think we have three public hearings tonight. We’ll poll the Board and move forward on a motion as applicable and then we’ll go on to the next application. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 18, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF TH SEPTEMBER 18, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. So we’re ready for the first applicant, AV 42-2019, David & Diane Howard. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. AV 42-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID & DIANE HOWARD AGENT(S) RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DAVID & DIANE HOWARD ZONING MDR LOCATION 470 WEST MOUNTAIN RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT EXISTING GARAGE TO LIVING SPACE AND CONSTRUCT A 426 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,853 SQ. FT. AND WITH THE ADDITION WILL BE 2,279 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITEWORK, NO OTHER CHANGES PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID HOWARD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. AV 42-2019, David & Diane Howard, Meeting Date: October 16, 2019 “Project Location: 470 West Mountain Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert existing garage to living space and construct a 426 sq. ft. attached garage. The existing home is 1,853 sq. ft. and with the addition will be 2,279 sq. ft. (footprint). Project includes associated site work, no other changes proposed. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the moderate density zone. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) Section 179-3-040 –dimensional requirements The new garage addition is to be located 20 ft. 3 inches from the side property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location and orientation of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief is for 4 feet and 9 inches. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage to living space and construct a new garage that does not meet the setback. The home is on a 1.5 ac parcel and there are no other changes proposed to the home or site.” MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Could you identify yourself. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your record, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Dave and Diane Howard. They’re the owners of the property at 470 West Mountain Road. As Roy read into the record we are seeking an Area Variance setback variance. The original house was built in that zone and it was a 20 foot setback at that time and that’s what’s indicated on the survey that we got. We made the application for the building permit and Craig reviewed it and said they made a change to the zoning in that area, changed it from 20 foot to a 25 foot setback. That’s why we had kept it at 20 feet. So it’s the change in the zone that’s kind of created this for us. We’ve kept it, we actually clipped the corners of the garage so that it was, we’re trying to keep it within the 20 feet and then it went to 25 and so we’re caught. We’re stuck. So we do need an Area Variance of four feet nine inches to make that. MR. FREER-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant from the Board? So I have a question. (static on recording – inaudible) Okay. That’s the only question I had. Any other questions? MR. HENKEL-That property basically over a period of time was basically fill. Right? A lot of it was, on the south side there you did a lot of fill. MR. HOWARD-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is here anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. With that, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) MR. FREER-And poll the Board and start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with the application. As Mr. Hall indicated the original house was built at 20 feet. Things kind of changed to 25. So it’s four feet nine inches and I don’t believe it has any kind of detrimental effect on things. So I’m in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree. I think we should approve four feet 9 inches. It’s not any big deal and it’s certainly not something you would have done yourself. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor of the project. I agree it’s minimal and you’ve already considered feasible alternatives by clipping the corners of the garage. I mean you could fit into that 20 feet. For that reason I’m in favor. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’m also in favor. I’d be in favor even if he didn’t clip the corners there. There’s really no value in that, there’s no neighbors to the north of him there and it fits in the neighborhood perfect. So I would be in favor of it as it is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I have no problem. The request is minimal. So I’ll support it. MR. FREER-And, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think it satisfies the test. I’d be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay, and, I, too, will support this variance, and with that, I’d like to get a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David & Diane Howard. Applicant proposes to convert existing garage to living space and construct a 426 sq. ft. attached garage. The existing home is 1,853 sq. ft. and with the addition will be 2,279 sq. ft. (footprint). Project includes associated site work, no other changes proposed. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the moderate density zone. Section 179-3-040 –dimensional requirements The new garage addition is to be located 20 ft. 3 inches from the side property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 16, 2019; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We believe that the new addition will enhance the look of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time that fit the applicant’s requirements. 3. The requested variance is minimal. It’s less than 20%. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2019 DAVID & DIANE HOWARD, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 16 Day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. HENKEL-What happened to the water to the rock, your front yard? MR. HOWARD-We made adjustments. The fill over the years it settled. MR. HENKEL-I was going to have to approve it just based on that. To get the water going through that rock. MR. HOWARD-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We’re on to CKT Enterprises, Area Variance 43-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC AGENT(S) RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 4 GLENDALE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE AN 8 X 12 FT. FRONT DECK AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 22 X 8 FT. REAR DECK, BOTH TO BE OPEN. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF STAIRS ON EAST SIDE AND PORCH ON WEST SIDE. PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW DORMER ON SECOND FLOOR. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 535-2019; AST 536-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2019 LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-25 SECTION 179-4-080 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STARR MOWRY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. AV 43-2019, CKT Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: October 16, 2019 “Project Location: 4 Glendale Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace an 8 x 12 ft. front deck and construct a new 22 x 8 sq. ft. rear deck, both to be open. Project includes removal of stairs on east side and porch on west side. Project includes a new dormer on second floor. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the commercial intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) The applicant has started a project where the front deck is proposed to be 12 ft. from the front property line, the rear porch is 44 ft. 6 inches from the front property line and the dormer is 33.5 ft. +/- from the front property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. Side setback relief is also requested: the location of the front porch is 19 ft. and the rear porch is 16 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for front porch is 63 ft., rear porch is 30 ft. 6 inches, and porch is 41.5 ft. for the front setback. Relief for the side setback for the front porch is 1 ft. and the rear porch is 4 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self- created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has begun construction on an existing home for a front and rear porch and a second story dormer. The project also involves removing access stairs. The plans show the location of the existing home and additions. The applicant was notified to stop work and apply for appropriate review. “ MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. Again for your record, Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Starr Mowry who is the owner of the property with CKT Enterprises. Yes, the project was started. A building permit was filed for the project and the contractor started work. They were doing siding on the building anyway, putting in new windows. They were doing some interior renovations and things of that nature. The front porch that’s on the building was basically falling off. I don’t know if you have the existing pictures of what it was before we got everything started. That’s as it is right now. As it was, there it is originally. It had a little overhang over the front door and then a front porch with some stairs that came down and they kind of flared out as they went down. They were basically a hazard. So the idea was to replace that front porch with a newer front porch that has better stairs and better railings on it. The stairs that come down from the upper floor come down and wrap around the backside of the building, came down and wrapped around the backside of the building and again they were in pretty tough shape. So the idea was get rid of those. There’s no need for them, and put a real deck across the back of the building. The need for the dormer upstairs is the headroom that’s in the bathroom was almost non-existent. So we wanted to open that up and get a window to get light into the inside. So we applied for the building permit. The contractor started working thinking that the building permit would be approved right off and then Craig came back and said, wait a minute, you’re in the CI. Because it’s a Commercial Intensive zone you have a 75 foot front yard setback. The whole house is in the 75 foot setback. We can’t really meet any of that. So that’s the need for us to be here. So here we are. MR. FREER-Okay, Questions from the Board? MR. URRICO-So the current location of the home, without any work, doesn’t meet the setback. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. URRICO-Okay. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) MR. HALL-So the 75 foot setback is the dotted line that’s behind the porch, that line that Laura has her, that’s the 75 foot front yard setback from Glendale. So the entire house and the garage that’s associated with it are in the 75 foot setback pre-existing. MR. HENKEL-It obviously at one time was probably a two family. Right? MR. HALL-No, it’s a very small ranch. MS. MOWRY-It was upstairs, because I mean whoever had it before did like a little annex apartment upstairs, separate from downstairs and share the kitchen from what I understand. MR. HENKEL-Gotcha. MS. MOWRY-From like the 60’s, 70’s. MR. HENKEL-Because I was going to say it’s definitely better to have the single family dwelling than the two family. That’s what it looked like at one time. MR. HALL-One of Starr’s employee’s is going to be living there. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is none. MR. FREER-Okay. I’ll poll the Board and start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think given the circumstances of knowing the past history of the property it’s a logical thing that you would want to upgrade it and make it more modern than what it once was. I don’t think anything’s going to change dramatically with the issues with the 75 foot setback. You can’t, no matter what you do. MS. MOWRY-Even by taking off those double funky stairs in the front we’re actually in further from the road than we were before. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. You’re not on the main road. You’re off on that back street. So it’s never been an issue previously and I’d be in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor of the project. Although it is very substantial from the outset, but when you realize it’s really the same footprint and it’s a dramatic improvement to the neighborhood and for safety as well. So for those reasons I’d be in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Michelle. There’s no doubt it’s a drastic improvement to the whole area there and it’s kind of not even a neighborhood I wouldn’t call it but a dead end there. So, yes, I’d be on board with what you’re doing there. MS. MOWRY-Thank you. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I have no problems with it. It seems like a safe, reasonable thing to do. So I will support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of it. This is a highly unusual situation and highly unusual location. I’d be in favor of it. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Due to the past history of the property, you can’t meet the 75 anyway no matter what you do. So just kind of looking at it in total, being a dead end street, cleaning out the property, I think you’re doing the right thing. MR. FREER-Okay. I, too, support this variance. It meets the criteria and it’s sort of a grandfathered issue that we come in contact with a lot. So, did I close the public hearing? I want to. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-Okay. So can I get a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from CKT Enterprises, LLC. Applicant proposes to replace an 8 x 12 ft. front deck and construct a new 22 x 8 sq. ft. rear deck, both to be open. Project includes removal of stairs on east side and porch on west side. Project includes a new dormer on second floor. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the commercial intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant has started a project where the front deck is proposed to be 12 ft. from the front property line, the rear porch is 44 ft. 6 inches from the front property line and the dormer is 33.5 ft. +/- from the front property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. Side setback relief is also requested: the location of the front porch is 19 ft. and the rear porch is 16 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 16, 2019; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We feel that the upgrade of this home will add significant value to the neighborhood in general. Even though it’s in a commercial zone, it’s not really located out in front of the property. It’s set back so it’s kind of its own little entity back there. 2. Under feasible alternatives, the whole building is within the 75 foot setback and would need relief for anything to be done on it. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, even though it appears substantial in the numbers, because the building pre-exists and dates back to the 60’s, late 70’s. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We feel this upgrade will be an improvement to the neighborhood. 5. In a way the alleged difficulty is self-created, but it’s also reflective of the zone being a commercial zone, there’s larger setbacks and it really can’t meet any of the setbacks no matter what’s done on the building as far as improvements. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2019 CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 16 Day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. You’re all set. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MS. MOWRY-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Next we have James Keller, Area Variance 47-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. AV 47-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JAMES KELLER OWNER(S) JAMES KELLER ZONING WR LOCATION 17 FERNWOOD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND COMPLETE A 540 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK WITH STAIRS TO SHORELINE AND TO COMPLETE RAILING, STAIRWAY AN FOOTINGS. THE SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING 3,408 SQ. FT. HOME (FLOOR AREA) AND TWO SHEDS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN – HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. CROSS REF SP 66-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 AC. TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-39 SECTION 179-4-080 CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES KELLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. AV 47-2019, James Keller, Meeting Date: October 16, 2019 “Project Location: 17 Fernwood Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain and complete a 540 sq. ft. open deck with stairs to shoreline and to complete railing, stairway, and footings. The site contains an existing 3,408 sq. ft. home (floor area) and two sheds. Relief requested for setback and permeability. Site Plan – hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback and permeability in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-4-080 –Decks The deck addition is 7 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for the east setback where proposed is 16 ft. 2 inches and 20 ft. is required, permeability is proposed to be 62.13% where 62.95% is existing and 75% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the existing house location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 43 ft. to the shoreline, 3 ft. 10 inches to the east side and 12.05% for permeable. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is to complete an existing 540 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing home. The project replaces a platform area on the retaining wall area closest to the house. The applicant has indicated to complete the project the following will need to be done: add a stairway, railing on the deck and stairs, footings – existing is wooden columns to support deck, and plantings. The plans do indicate a tree has been removed from 2017 to present, which is to be addressed at the planning board review. The applicant was issued a stop work order to complete the review process with the Town. The applicant has indicated the deck addition allows for safe use of the area near the shoreline and access to the shoreline.” MR. URRICO-Then the Queensbury Planning Board issued a recommendation and they said the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: 1. The stairway design and, 2. The ground cover and plantings for runoff mitigation. And that was adopted unanimously on th October 15, 2019. MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. DR. KELLER-Good evening. I’m James Keller, owner of 15 Fernwood Road in Lake George. I have Cullen Fuller from Rucinski Hall also with me here tonight. When I purchased the property, I closed on the nd property March 22, this property had been on the market for two years and rundown quite considerably at that time. My first concern when I purchased the property that the platform that existed on the upper level was quite unsafe. I have three young children and the drop from that top platform was somewhere between 15 to 20 feet depending on what level you fell to. So at the time I removed the platform and I started construction on a deck. I did not realize I needed a permit. I’ve done a number of projects here in Queensbury and I’ve permitted all of them. I felt like I was removing something and replacing. That was my own fault. So I received a stop work order on the deck as I started to build it, and we’re here tonight. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I just wanted to point out a couple of things. If you guys will go to your data sheets there, I think there’s some significant errors on there, and I don’t know what the reason for that would be, but as far as the shoreline setbacks, you have it listed as 10 feet, 10 inches. That would be the one on the retaining walls I assume. It’s actually 21 feet back to the house, which is correct on this plot plan. So when you’re looking at the relief that’s being asked for for the deck, the deck’s attached to the house. It’s not attached to the retaining wall. MRS. MOORE-But the deck itself is seven feet from the shoreline. So that’s the request. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, from the water. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just saying it originates 21 feet back. DR. KELLER-Correct. See the house itself sits approximately 21 feet from the shoreline. So that’s already a non-conforming, pre-existing condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment regarding this application? Okay. Identify yourself and say your peace. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) KATE BRASS MRS. BRASS-Hi. I’m Kate Brass, 9 Mary Lane. I live about four houses to the east of this structure. Since he’s bought the house, yes, things have changed a little and he’s trying to make it more livable than it was in the past, which I think affected the way it sat on the market. Now that’s he’s taken over the property I think everything that he’s trying to do is beneficial to what we would consider to be the neighborhood. He’s definitely not making it look worse. The deck is a hazard the way it was or whatever they were calling the platform. The new structure he’s trying to put in looks good, looks safe. It’s certainly better, we have grandchildren, too and there’s no way you could have used the home the way it was. So I think it’s important that we continue to try to make these homes more usable and more attractive as people take over and try to give purpose to them. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, you asked me that already. There is none, whether you asked me or not. MR. HENKEL-Last time he asked you. MR. FREER-Okay. Seeing none, you guys probably don’t need to make any comments about that, or rebut that. So I’ll poll the Board and start with John. MR. HENKEL-This is a tough one. It doesn’t really bother me too much that they’re building the deck that close to the lake really because water does go through it, but the permeability, to get that permeability. DR. KELLER-Can I make a comment about that? MR. FULLER-The permeability is mainly going to remain the same. If you look higher up on the page, he has removed a part of the actual pavement area on that property. That had just been done. So unfortunately I wasn’t going to take the liberty to just estimate how many square foot that would be. That means that he does own the property behind which is over an acre which would by all means make it 100%, you know, within the permeability. It just so happens that it is split up at this time, but for that matter it would actually, if we did take into account the removal of the paved area in the back there it would most likely either be less or match that permeability. MR. FREER-Okay. Well in the future when you’re asking for a waiver for permeability that’s the kind of information we want you to add before I poll the Board, because is don’t want to start a dialogue like this. You had your chance to make that statement and then he made the comment. That’s okay. MR. FULLER-It was just done, updating. DR. KELLER-Yes, like three days ago. I have just one other comment, too. MR. FREER-No, you’re done. You had your chance. DR. KELLER-Okay. MR. FREER-I’m polling the Board now. MR. HENKEL-I’m going to listen to some of the other Board members to see what they have to say before I can say yes or no. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-When I consider the project overall, first of all it’s kind of handicapped in terms of permeability which is really the big issue here because it’s such a small lot, and so there’s really not a lot of options for improving permeability. I think on the positive side, one, you had to have at least have your septic system certified. Two you’ve removed a potential safety hazard, and, Three, you’re improving the appearance of the property which is going to be a positive to the neighborhood. So given that I would support this project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Mike. Roy? MR. URRICO-The difficulty with a project like this is you come to us after the project began. So we like you to come to us earlier than that. What I try to think about is if you came to us with clean hands so to 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) speak, and I think we would probably have granted you the variance as you presented it to us here if you came to us originally. So I’m going to go with my gut on this and say I’d be in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project. Permeability is what was standing out to me as you discuss things here, but I do believe we have to look at things kind of in a total perspective, and when I say that I’m looking at one thing that’s always concerned me with a lot of properties in this area over time and still concerns me are issues as it relates to septic systems and things like that. So you get a check mark in that column and you get a check mark in the safety column as well as the neighbor’s feeling, you know, the way they do. So with that said I’m in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’re being premature in our approvals here. The reason I say that is I think that we have a chance here to do something significant to improve the situation. You have two retaining walls down in the front here that really have an urban look to them and I think it would take some significant thought process to involve removing them and returning it to a more natural shoreline there, and you’re the only one along that shoreline that has that look that’s really over the top and I think that that really is a detriment to the neighborhood as far as the look of what’s there. I know that’s not something you created yourself. As far as the deck goes, I don’t have a problem. There’s plenty of decks that are closer to the water along that shoreline there. I don’t think that’s an issue, but I think at the same time, those walls, if you look at the upper wall it’s kind of leaning out almost against your post on the west end of the deck there, and I think it’s something for you to think about, rather than doing just some quick get it done job and have a deck. I understand the safety issues and I think that’s responsible on your part for choosing to proceed with the deck, but, you know, under full review by the Planning Board I think you could do a better job and make it look more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. I think you’ve got the money and the time and the effort that you could put in to the project to make it work to your benefit and everyone’s benefit, but I don’t think at this time I would approve it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I just feel that this project is far too substantial in relationship to the shoreline setback and the permeability for me to be in favor of it. So at this point I’m not in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Back to you, John. MR. HENKEL-I definitely agree with Jim. I would agree with what Jim says and I would not be in favor of this. MR. FREER-So I guess my comment is if permeability is the issue you could actually take some of your other lot and put it in this lot and not have that as an issue, and I appreciate Jim’s insight into the landscaping since he lives on the lake as well and that’s a continuing challenge for it seems like many of our waterfront residential properties. However, you’ve made a good argument about safety and I think I agree with Roy in terms of the clean hands that I’m glad you said you’ve done other work and permitted them because we don’t want people to be building stuff and then finding out with a stop work order. That doesn’t make the Town happy at all. That said, I can support this and I urge you to take Jim’s advice and see what else could be done as you go back to the Planning Board for their review. MRS. MOORE-Can I just add some information? So as you noticed the Planning Board gave you some areas of concern and the applicant had provided an updated plan, not as detailed as we usually see, because it was put together yesterday, or last night, or this morning. So the applicant is proposing additional plantings around where the deck is. The stairway is not going directly down to the shoreline. There’s a stairway that’s a wooden stairway and then potentially permeable pavers that are going to the shoreline. Last night with the Planning Board we did discuss the screening effect that could take place with the retaining wall and, Jim, you’re not the only one. I had another Board member that said you could potentially remove them and return it to a natural vegetative state. So I don’t know what direction the Planning Board will also take, but I know the applicant is making an effort to try to come up with some alternatives to address stormwater and erosion control so that we’re not sending sediment into the lake and also looking at the appearance. So you’re on the right track. I just want to make sure you’re aware how the applicant is trying to get there as well. MR. HENKEL-Okay. With that information I would definitely change my vote, then, which doesn’t matter. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, if I haven’t already. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I’ll call for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Keller. Applicant proposes to maintain and complete a 540 sq. ft. open deck with stairs to shoreline and to complete railing, stairway, and footings. The site contains an existing 3,408 sq. ft. home (floor area) and two sheds. Relief requested for setback and permeability. Site Plan – hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback and permeability in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-4-080 –Decks The deck addition is 7 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for the east setback where proposed is 16 ft. 2 inches and 20 ft. is required, permeability is proposed to be 62.13% where 62.95% is existing and 75% is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 16, 2019; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the improvements sought by the applicant will definitely improve the appearance and safety of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are deemed not possible at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is substantial but much of this is because of the position of the house originally. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact, we think that this will be an improvement to the environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. _47-2019 JAMES KELLER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 16 Day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. FULLER-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Just for the Board’s sake, we had a couple of applications that got withdrawn. Otherwise we would have probably have done all the applications in one sitting, but because of the uncertainty if they were on. MR. UNDERWOOD-Will they come back next time? MRS. MOORE-I’ll answer that. The one application in reference to the second garage, that applicant has withdrawn and doing an addition to the house. The second one in regards to the pool variance, she is looking to find a surveyor to help her with the distances to the front property line and to the rear and side. So she’s working on that right now. So you should see the pool back sometime. MRS. HAYWARD-Just not next week. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. FREER-Okay. So unless there’s disagreement, I motion that we adjourn. MRS. MOORE-So I’ll just add another one. In reference to Dunham’s Bay, you had packets that we asked you to keep and hopefully you’ve all kept them. If you haven’t then let us know. We’ll see if we can find you an extra copy and what they have submitted for this month is revised plan sets and there is a narrative that goes with that. So the information and the data sheets. So they didn’t revise every piece of information but they revised components of it. So my hope is that you kept your packets. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2019, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 16 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Thanks. We’ll see you next week. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 14