Loading...
10-23-2019 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2019 INDEX Area Variance No. 40-2019 Richard Hackett 1. Tax Map No. 301.8-2-37 Area Variance No. 44-2019 Stephen & Sabrina Hitchcock 6. Tax Map No. 278.-1-34 Area Variance No. 46-2019 Robert Mason 19. Tax Map No. 297.7-1-2 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 SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 23, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT 1 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. FREER-Welcome, everyone to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for October 23, 2019. For those who haven’t been here before it’s actually a quite simple process. On the back table there’s some information about the applications and the manner of process. We’ll call each applicant to the small table here for a presentation on each application. The application we’ll be read into the record. We’ll ask questions, open a public hearing, I think we have a public hearing for each of the items this evening. Then we’ll poll the Board and make the appropriate motions. So I don’t think we’re going to do the minutes this evening. So I guess we’re ready for Area Variance 40-2019, Richard Hackett. Come on up to the table, please. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. AV 40-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RICHARD HACKETT OWNER(S) RICHARD HACKETT ZONING NR LOCATION 416 AVIATION RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 45 SQ. FT. PRIVACY FENCE, 4 FT. IN HEIGHT, AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY, INTENDING TO ALIGN WITH NEIGHBOR’S SHRUBS ON EAST AND FENCE ON WEST. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR TYPE OF FENCE IN FRONT YARD. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.16 AC. TAX MAP NO. 301.8- 2-37 SECTION 179-5-070 RICHARD & TERRI HACKETT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. AV 40-2019, Richard Hackett, Meeting Date: October 23, 2019 “Project Location: 416 Aviation Rd. Description of Proposed Project Applicant proposes to install a 45 ft. privacy fence, 4 ft. in height, at the front of the property; intending to align with neighbor’s shrubs on east and fence on west. Relief requested for type of fence in front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for type of fence in front yard. Section 179 -5-070- Fences The applicant proposes a 4 ft. high privacy fence in the front yard where a privacy fence is not allowed in the front yard. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The proposed fence may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood area. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the purpose of the proposed fence. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief request may be considered to be substantial relevant to the code. The relief is for an opaque fence. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The requested variance may have minimal to no adverse impact of the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 2 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered to be self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a four foot privacy fence to be located in the front yard. The plans show location of the fence with the intent to align with the neighbors’ shrubs and fence on either side. The applicant has explained the fence would assist blocking views from stopped cars at a new traffic light that has been installed at the school intersection. In addition, the applicant has indicated it would assist to minimize traffic noise.” MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like to what was just read into the record. MR. HACKETT-My name’s Rick Hackett. That pretty well says it. It’s largely because of the new light that was installed at the corner of Aviation and Cottage Hill. The cars are stopped in front of our house quite frequently. You’ve all been stopped there probably once or twice. And the other thing that we noticed is that when the snowbanks are about three feet high the noise, the tire noise is substantially reduced. So a fence would also help reduce the noise. Another thing with the new construction at the school, because of the way the driveway is, the lights shine right into our house three different times as they come out of the school. So the fence is really to provide a little privacy from the cars being parked in front of us and to prevent the lights from coming in and to reduce the noise. MRS. HACKETT-I’m Terri Hackett, and also the school’s parking lot was enlarged and it’s moved the first row of cars about 20 feet closer to our house with those pointing towards us and again the light. Somebody inevitably leaves their lights on and so that would also, with the light issue from the cars. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HACKETT-And I guess the variance we’re asking for is we need a solid fence versus a picket fence. MR. FREER-Correct. So any questions from the Board? Okay. It makes sense to me, but we have a public hearing. So I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s 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’s no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And poll the Board, and I think I’ll start with John. MR. HENKEL-This project does fail the Area Variance criteria, but in this case I think it’s definitely needed. I don’t blame them. Years ago when that house was built a lot of that school wasn’t there and I can see where it could create a problem with their quality of life. So I would definitely be on board with the solid fence instead of a picket fence. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I’ve got a problem with it. I think generally we’ve been pretty tough on fences, particularly in a front yard, and I think the same thing could be achieved with vegetation, arborvitae, spruce, boxwood. They’d provide a barrier. They’d provide noise insulation and it wouldn’t be as intrusive as a solid fence. So I won’t support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Although we’ve been stringent with these types of fences in the past, I think it’s not without precedent that we allow this fence in certain circumstances, and I think this fence is only four feet high. It may be opaque but it’s not really tall, and I think in this situation it’s warranted. I’d be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? 3 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) MR. UNDERWOOD-I agree with Roy fully on this one. I think it’s a corner lot. Given the circumstances of the school constantly altering the traffic patterns and the amount of traffic that’s generated by the school, it’s understandable why anybody would need a privacy fence. So I would be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with three of the Board members. The other Board member talking about planting things only results in a lot, a lot of work and as we get older work is a little difficult. So I would be in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Okay, and Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I, too, am in favor. I grew up in that neighborhood and I know the traffic has changed dramatically since I graduated from Queensbury High School, but I think even though I agree with some of my Board members, we should be stringent on fences, under these circumstances I don’t think it would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. So I’m in favor. MR. FREER-So I wish all those kids at Queensbury High School rode their bikes to school instead of using their cars, or walked, but, I, too, can support this variance. You’ve made a good case for change in the environment and you deserve to have lights not shining in your house at all different times. MR. HACKETT-Thank you. MR. FREER-With that I’ll seek a motion. MRS. HAYWARD-I’ll make that motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard Hackett. Applicant proposes to install a 45 ft. privacy fence, 4 ft. in height, at the front of the property; intending to align with neighbor’s shrubs on east and fence on west. Relief requested for type of fence in front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for type of fence in front yard. Section 179 -5-070- Fences The applicant proposes a 4 ft. high privacy fence in the front yard where a privacy fence is not allowed in the front yard. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23, 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 it’s going to be a four-foot fence even though it is opaque and it will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. It will blend in with the neighbor’s fence. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance, although it is substantial, based on deliberation of the Board we decided that under the circumstances the results can be mitigated with the size of the fence. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty, although it is self-created, it doesn’t have bearing on the process tonight. 4 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) 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. _40-2019 RICHARD HACKETT, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. McCabe MR. FREER-And I’d like to make a comment for the audience as well. It looks like there was some confusion that it took such a process to go through. We do that because if we don’t and somebody challenges it in court it tends not to stand up as well. So that deliberation that Michelle went through we’ve found effective in protecting our decisions on appeal in the court. So a little civics lesson for the back row and smile. You have your variance. Enjoy your fence. MRS. HACKETT-Can I just ask one question? Did you say that it was self-created? MRS. HAYWARD-Technically yes. MRS. HACKETT-Can you explain? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, first of all the self-created portion doesn’t have any legal bearing on our decision, but it can be considered. MRS. HACKETT-Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-Technically it’s self-created, I’m trying to figure out how to articulate that. MR. FREER-Well there are some situations where say a zoning law changed and the person had no control over it. You have control over your request for this variance. You don’t have to do it. MRS. HACKETT-The request is self-created. MR. FREER-Correct. MRS. HACKETT-I thought you were saying that the problem was self-created. MR. FREER-No, no, no. The variance. MRS. HACKETT-Okay. Thank you. MR. HACKETT-Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. So just another word that there’s an additional process that you have to go through with the Town, not tonight, but there’s an official process that Laura will help you with to make sure we dot all the I’s and cross all the T’s. MRS. HACKETT-Okay. Thank you. MR. HACKETT-Okay. Thanks. MR. FREER-Okay. Onto Area Variance 44-2019, Stephen and Sabrina Hitchcock. 5 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) AREA VARIANCE NO. AV 44-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEPHEN & SABRINA HITCHCOCK OWNER(S) ESTATE OF GWEN PERRY ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 537 STATE RTE. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,118 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 33,500 SQ. FT. LOT IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRES. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF NEW SEPTIC AND WELL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2019 LOT SIZE 0.81 AC. TAX MAP NO. 278.-1-34 SECTION 179-3-040 STEPHEN & SABRINA HITCHCOCK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. AV 44-2019, Stephen & Sabrina Hitchcock, Meeting Date: October 23, 2019 “Project Location: 537 State Rte. 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 3,118 sq. ft. single family home on a 33,500 sq. ft. lot in Rural Residential 3 acres. Project includes installation of new septic and well. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in Rural Residential 3 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to construct a home that is to be 50 ft. 7 inches to the front property line, 50 ft. 5 inches to the west property line and 50 ft. 5 inches to the east property line and 100 ft. 7 inches to the rear where setbacks to the sides are required to be 75 ft. and then 100 ft. to the front and rear are required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the lot size of 0.81 ac in a Rural Residential zone 3 acres. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal moderate relevant to the code. The relief for the sides is 20 ft. 7 inches and for the front setback is 49 ft. 5 inches. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes a new septic system and a new well. The plans indicate a 2 ft. stone drip edge to be installed for roof runoff. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home on a parcel less than 1 acre in a rural residential 3-acre zone. The house is 3,118 sq. ft. and the interior floor plans where provided. The site drawings show the location of the home on the parcel.” MR. FREER-Okay. Could you please identify yourself and add anything you’d like to what was just read into the record. MR. HITCHCOCK-My name is Stephen Hitchcock. This is my wife Sabrina. Basically all we really wanted to add, we kind of did a little bit of a study on the area, too, kind of looking at a mile stretch of the road of what the other houses in the area have, not that that’s a guarantee, but just seeing if it would fit into the area. In that mile stretch of road there’s 30 houses. There’s only three houses of those that actually meet the setback requirements, and of those 30 there’s only five houses that actually are set back as far as we would like to do. Immediately on either side of us, the closest houses are all closer to the road than we would like to be and closer to the side setbacks as well. 6 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-Is there a problem with the DOT? Has that been settled yet? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So there’s a drawing that I have up and that you also have that there’s only one curb cut. So there’s a set of plans so you can see what they did. Both sets of plans were included in your packet so you have a plan that shows two curb cuts on 149. They got a response from DOT that says that’s not a good idea. So they developed a plan that you have in your packet that is only one curb cut. MR. HENKEL-And that’s acceptable by DOT. MR. HITCHCOCK-I’m a contractor. I have large trailers that I bring home sometimes. So because of it being such a fast road I need a way to actually turn them around. So that’s why originally we wanted a “U”, but then we figured that would kind of solve the problem with only having the one entry at least. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We do 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, is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there’s a long letter. It’s from Joseph Biss, III. And he lives at 553 State Route 149. He says, “The following is a list of points as to why my family and I do not want the variances approved on the parcel of land 278.-1-34 proposed by the Hitchcock’s. I want it to be known that we do not know the Hitchcock’s or Gary Perry and the reasons we do not want these variances to be allow or solely to protect our own properties, their value and keep the local traffic as safe as possible: 1) The lot is zoned RR3A – 3 acres necessary to build on and there isn’t even one acre – it is against the zoned use of the land. Zoning is here to protect the property owner and property values of present and future sale of land. Part of that is to prevent over-crowding and requiring a minimum of three acre building lots in this area. § 179-3-040. Establishment of zoning districts. \[Amended 3-18-2013 by L.L. No. 2-2013\] (1) Rural residential. The Rural Residential (RR) Districts are intended to preserve an natural open space and rural character of the Town by limiting development to low densities are warranted in this area of the Town due to natural features (such a wetlands, and limiting soils) as well as marginal access to populated areas. This area is described in the "Neighborhoods" section of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted 2007. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, this is the land area of the Town the important to the preservation of its rural character. As such, the district is intend open spaces and rural design. (a) Uses allowed. The uses allowed in this district are set forth in Table 2 of this chapter (b) Dimensional requirements. All uses in this district must comply with the require 1 of this chapter 15 and as follows (Note that all are minimum requirements exc building height which are maximum restrictions.): \[1\] Density. \[a\] RR-5A: five acres per dwelling unit. \[b\] RR-3A: three acres per dwelling unit. \[2\] Front yard setback: 100 feet. \[3\] Side yard setback: 75 feet. \[4\] Rear yard setback: 100 feet. 2) The application to build has already been denied, this application/ proposal does not come up to the required specifications for the building of a building in the two of Queensbury. 3) I have to question the validity of the original sub-division of this property in three parcels which of course includes the one I bought from Gwen Perry. She approached me saying she wanted to sell it to generate some cash. I bought what was supposed to be 1.08 acres but now some of the tax maps show it as 0.94 A(C). The oldest deed I could find was from 1987 which was before I moved here from Wilton, I have to wonder what the zoning for this area was then, was it already RR3A? 4) In part of the paperwork summited for this proposal there was a letter to DOT that states as follows: 7 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) “We are planning the u-shaped driveway for safety concerns. My husband is a contractor and drives a 3500 Dodge ram and he has some pretty large trailers that he uses for work. There will be times that he will need to bring them home. It would not be safe to back out onto 149 in this case. Also, it is not practical to have an area large enough to turn the trailer around on property. This section of State Route 149 is still set up as a 55-mph speed limit and after the renovations to the road several years back, the road was not made safer in my opinion. The tractor trailers and other vehicles seem to drive even faster in this area because they straightened and smooth out the highway here and took the dip out. My point is if a few Champlain Oil Co. or other tractor trailers are coming from Route 9, like they do, traveling into this area on Route 149 heading East there is a blind spot (Pictures #1 & 2) (Picture #1 – Driving East - the new driveway would be behind the red car over the hilltop) (Picture #2 – taken from my lot driveway – you can’t see what’s coming over the hill) until they come over the ridge in the road. Right in the area where these large pickups and “pretty large trailers” would be pulling onto the highway. With the guard rail system the state install on the road’s 8 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) should in that area, there is no way to swerve onto the shoulder to avoid a slow vehicle that just entered into traffic without going into the opposite lane. 5) My land downhill is not a vacant lot, it is a building lot and I have been paying taxes on it as such and it has recently been partially cleared with the anticipation of building a storage building and in the future possible a rental income house. I was told in an e-mail from Mr. Bigelow in 2014 that he had talked to Craig Brown and wrote to me the following: ……. 1.) Mr. Brown indicated that it would be a challenge to meet the current zoning's set back requirements as was your ascertain. He felt this could be overcome due to the fact that you own the adjoining property and the property lines could be reconfigured or a variance could be sought and obtained inasmuch as it is a pre-existing lot I certainly don’t want problems building on my own lot by someone saying my well it too close to someone else septic because they were given a variance infringing on my setback and safe distance from as septic system to a well especially sloping downhill in a rocky/outcrop area. The following few pictures will show my lot and the slope involved here. Picture #3 – Looking in my lot from 149 – slope downhill across my lot – Left to Right 9 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) Picture 4 My lot from the back of the cleared area towards 149 – sloping – Right to Left Picture 5 – Second shot of my lot – showing sloping 10 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) Picture 6 – Existing roadway we will use to access our lot without going on 149 6) The site plans original or new suggest the leach field would have one leg 12 foot plus a few inches from my property line and 12 foot plus a few inches from the front line. I’m not even finding this written up in the proposal just on the site maps. A well to be safe has to be 100 foot from a leech field and 150 feet is better and they want to put the end of the field 12 feet and a few inches from my property line. The 100 to 150 feet is assuming there is healthy “soil” between them. The area here is rocky loam and very often has bed rock at the surface, one cannot assume the soil will filter the effluent. It is entirely possible that the septic leech field will have bedrock below it and the effluent will run directly downhill into my lot or even further to the shallow well of my small house. Bare minimum if a system were installed on this lot they would have to install monitoring wells on the edge of their property and have them tested routinely for bacterial and chemical contamination to be able to find any leakage within their 12 feet plus before it is allowed to contaminate my land. The other possibility is that they use holding tanks and have them pump regularly rather than installing a leach field within 12 feet of the property lines. Have any perk test or test digs looking for bedrock been done here? 7) I also want to say I don’t think it was very fair to my family and I to notify us amount this variance meeting less than a week before it is to be held. Obviously, we are not going to want a house built with a septic system 12 feet plus off the edge of our property downhill. As an environmental scientist and a water testing lab owner I see these septic/well contaminations dozens of times every year, so it worries me greatly. It would have been nice to have more time to collect my data, images, history and so on to compose this letter. I e-mailed back and forth with Kristi Owen, the real estate person listing this parcel and told her it was too small to build on and I would not go along with any variances that could lead to the contamination of my land. Did she tell these folks that before they invested all the time and money on plans? I feel like they have been lead on too, to make a sale. 8) Partially clear? My land is partially cleared, I don’t see where this lot is cleared at all. Are we sure they are looking on the correct lot? Pictures 7, 8, 9 and 10 while parked on my lot, I’m not seeing where this lot is partially cleared. Any clearing and building would have to take into account no damage from erosion and so on can be done to my property. Erosion fencing would have to be used. 11 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) Figure 7 Figure 8 12 (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 10/23/2019) Figure 9 Figure 10 8) In the forms, as I mentioned before, they mention large construction trailers being brought there. I am assuming they will have machinery or construction materials on them. This does not sound like a residential use of the property. Also, the sight of such trailers and the possible leaking of fuel or construction chemicals worries me and I am sure would reduce my properties value. 9) If this project is allowed to go forward, I will have to move forward with my concerns, I am sure I will be talking with Dave Hatin during any construction in addition to talking to people in the NYSDOH office in Glens Falls and DEC. I will need their help to make sure there is no septic contamination of my ground and water table and to make sure there is no chemical leakage, run off, or erosion from this parcel onto my lands (3 parcels) below. 10) I have contacted the last two real estate people listing this land explaining to them that the land isn’t big enough to build on and asking them to ask the owner if he would take an reasonable offer on vacant land and no one has ever answered me.” Joseph Biss, III. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) MR. FREER-Thank you, Roy. Would you like to make any responses to any of those issues that were brought up by the adjacent property? MR. HITCHCOCK-I mean just as far as the location of the septic, I know Code says 10 feet, so, you know, again there is limited room. So it’s not that we want to push everything to that side. The way that, there is a natural slope to that land a little bit. So that is, it kind of makes the most sense to put it there. We couldn’t put, originally we wanted to put our well kind of on the left there but that’s where the neighbor’s septic is and they’re pretty close to the property line with that as well. I would kind of, I’d move it if it were an easy solution to do so besides pumping stuff uphill which just starts more problems that I really don’t want to get into, and as far as the location for a well on that property, I mean he’s, I’m not sure exactly what that is. I’m sure it’s over 300 foot of road frontage that he has. So I don’t see why his well could not go farther down the road or up in the back corner up by my well. I mean his property goes right up that same line. So he could put his well up in that same corner. MR. HENKEL-Does he have two separate pieces of property or is it just one? MR. FREER-Yes, help us. MRS. MOORE-This is his house, okay. He owns this one and he owns this one, and this is the one that he’s talking about. MR. HENKEL-That’s the one he just bought recently? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know if it’s recently, but. MR. HENKEL-That’s what it sounded like in the letter. MR. FREER-So how did this subdivision come to be? MRS. MOORE-It’s not a subdivision. It’s old. They’re very old huts. MR. FREER-These were old lots. Were they created before we had RR-3? MRS. MOORE-They’re original lots. Usually when you see a subdivision you have a point after it, like 34.1. These existed prior to. MR. HITCHCOCK-Before zoning. MR. HENKEL-It sounded like he bought it in ’87, right? The Perrys bought it in ’87, or is that when they subdivided it maybe? MRS. MOORE-I don’t think it was subdivided. I think Gwen owned these lots. MR. HENKEL-Okay. There’s a bunch of Perrys around there. MRS. MOORE-So a Perry owned them. I don’t know. MRS. HITCHCOCK-She owned, like our lot, the lot on this side and the lot on this side originally. She owned like three in a row. MR. HENKEL-Well it sounded like this became a lot in 1987. MRS. MOORE-I’m not so sure that’s the case. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. HITCHCOCK-It’s at least that old because that’s, I think, when the survey is is 1987. MR. URRICO-And so just for the record because it’s pre-existing the Code. MRS. MOORE-Not that it’s pre-existing the Code. I’m just saying there was no subdivision of land. MR. HENKEL-So it’s always been a lot. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) MRS. MOORE-It’s always been a lot. MR. URRICO-But it doesn’t need a variance for the size of the lot because. MRS. MOORE-It’s pre-existing, nonconforming. MR. URRICO-It’s pre-existing. MRS. MOORE-Just the way it is. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-Just for my information, what’s the distance from the end of your property line and the road? MR. HITCHCOCK-That was kind of part of it, too. There’s about 55 feet there. It kind of changes a little bit, but that, for some reason as the road comes through there, it’s not much for a while then it just gets wider for that one section. So our goal there, why we kind of pushed it forward and keeping the 100 foot in the back is just because of it being such a fast road, with kids and everything, we want to have them in the backyard, not the front yard. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. With that I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And poll the Board and start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Basically as the applicant has pointed out, he’s no different than a whole bunch of other properties in this area, and in fact I think it was about nine months ago we okayed the same type of variance just a little bit further to the west. So to be fair, to be consistent, I would have to support this project. MR. FREER-Thanks, Mike. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Mike. Just remember that we’re considering the setbacks and not anything else. So in this instance I would say they satisfy the test. I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-The septic is not our deal. That’s somebody else’s deal. MR. HITCHCOCK-Right. We checked with Dave Hatin and he said that was acceptable. So I don’t know if there’s anything else we have to do. MR. MC CABE-Well the Town Board has to pass judgment on it. That’s not us. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. It’s not necessarily the Town Board, but Dave Hatin is the gentleman that they would see first. MR. HENKEL-The Board of Health. MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily the Board of Health. Dave handles the septic. MR. HENKEL-Not us. MR. FREER-Unless it needs a variance. MRS. MOORE-If it needs a variance, correct. MR. MC CABE-We’re not being asked for that variance. All we’re being asked for is setbacks. MR. URRICO-In the case of the distance between a well and a septic we would be involved, but we’re not doing that today. MR. FREER-No, the Board of Health would. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FREER-The Zoning Board wouldn’t. We don’t have jurisdiction over that. MRS. MOORE-Anything to do with the septic this Board typically does not see. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would agree with the two Board members’ previous comments. I think, too, that we have to consider there’s not going to be any real change in rural character here. It’s the same situation that’s been before us previously on that section of road there, and I think the big issue is always traffic on the road, and speed of the road. I agree with your commentary about your kids and safety and siting the house where it is makes sense. You also have that 50 foot patch in front so that doubles down in that, as far as that one. That one goes away in my book. I don’t see that that’s a major big deal. So I’d be in favor of the project as proposed. MR. FREER-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with what everybody said and I think it’s a good utilization of the property. I’d be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I, too, am in agreement. I think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It’s a very busy highway as you spelled out, and I really don’t think there’d be a major impact on the neighborhood. I’m in agreement. MR. FREER-So I also can support this. I just would comment that part of the reason that we created these three acre things and two acres elsewhere in the zones were we didn’t want wells and septics co-existing on small lots. Right? But in this case it’s pre-existing and that’s not our job as the Zoning Board is to make sure that the setbacks that you’re asking for pass the commonsense test or the sniff test. The Board of Health and/or Mr. Hatin will have to be convinced that the septic and well situation is healthy and makes sense. MR. HENKEL-I’d also be in favor of this variance. MR. FREER-John. MR. HENKEL-I agree with you. It’s all good. MR. FREER-Okay. Do we have a motion? MR. MC CABE-I’ll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen & Sabrina Hitchcock. Applicant proposes a 3,118 sq. ft. single family home on a 33,500 sq. ft. lot in Rural Residential 3 acres. Project includes installation of new septic and well. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in Rural Residential 3 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to construct a home that is to be 50 ft. 7 inches to the front property line, 50 ft. 5 inches to the west property line and 50 ft. 5 inches to the east property line and 100 ft. 7 inches to the rear where setbacks to the sides are required to be 75 ft. and then 100 ft. to the front and rear are required SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23, 2019; 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) 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 many properties could be found along this section of 149 that have exactly the same situation. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time because of the size of the lot. 3. The requested variance, although it may appear substantial, is not really substantial since this situation has existed for many years in this particular area. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district is not really affected. 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. _44-2019 STEPHEN & SABRINA HITCHCOCK, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MRS. HITCHCOCK-Thank you. MR. HITCHCOCK-Thanks. MR. FREER-Okay. Let’s get on to Area Variance 46-2019, Robert Mason. AREA VARIANCE NO. AV 46-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROBERT MASON OWNER(S) ROBERT MASON ZONING MDR LOCATION 5 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A 72 SQ. FT. MUDROOM. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A PORTION OF THE PATIO FOR THE MUDROOM, NO OTHER CHANGES PROPOSED. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,056 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 605-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2019 LOT SIZE: .97 AC. TAX MAP NO. 297.7-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040 ROB & JAMIE MASON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. AV 46-2019, Robert Mason, Meeting Date: October 23, 2019 “Project Location: 5 Chestnut Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a 72 sq. ft. mudroom. Project includes removal of a portion of the patio for the mudroom, no other changes proposed. The existing home is 1,056 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to complete an already started 72 sq. ft. mudroom. The addition is 29 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the existing house location and orientation of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal. Relief requested is 1 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has provided plans that show the location of the mudroom under construction. The applicant has indicated the mudroom would reduce the door being removed by the wind and allow for a useable space for entry into the home.” MR. FREER-Thank you. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like to what was read into the record. MR. MASON-Hi. I’m Rob Mason. This is my wife, Jamie, and just like I said, we’re trying to build a mudroom on the end of our house. It’s a little difficult, the position of that thing, because of the orientation of our house on the lot. As you can see it’s kind of like at an angle there, and we have, we’re up on the top of the ridge. We’re the first house on that road and right across the street is a nice wide open area, coming across from West Mountain. The wind comes across that valley and just blasts our house. So in a short amount of time, a few months, we’ve had two doors ripped off, they’re storm doors that go ripped off because of the way that they open and all that stuff. So we’d like to re-orient, put the door our towards the driveway, and then have that mudroom just for a little extra usable space. We have a new baby. So we need a little extra closet, we’re going to put a closet in there. So that’s part of it, and then just a little extra space to throw a stroller or something that’ll help us out. Basically that’s it. MRS. MASON-And also to keep us from tracking dirt into the house. We have hardwood floors and I’m constantly cleaning. MR. FREER-What year was your house built? MRS. MASON-’67. MR. MASON-It has a lot of repairs. We’re working on it. MRS. MASON-When we bought the house the door was broken and we replaced it and within a couple of months with one bad storm it was moving around and got ripped off. MR. HENKEL-You sure that’s as big as you want to make it? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) MR. MASON-We’d like to make it larger. I mean, we’re not, we’re modest people and we don’t make a huge living. So we have to live within our means. MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. URRICO-There’s two letters. MR. FREER-Okay. Let me first see if there’s anybody in the audience. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? So if you guys would let him have the table and make his comment and we’ll call you back up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROGER RUEL MR. RUEL-My name is Roger Ruel. I represent myself and my wife. I live right across the street from the Masons at 748 Ridge. I don’t see this as an objection at all. We really appreciate the cleanup that these kids have done on their property. That’s all I have to say. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much. And there’s two written comments? MR. URRICO-Yes. “I am writing to voice support for my neighbors, Robert and Jamie Mason, and their request for variance (ref. AV 46-2019). The Masons are recent additions to the community and in their relatively short tenure here have made significant improvements to their property and, in turn, our neighborhood. It is gratifying to see young couples taking on some of the older homes in the area. The enthusiasm and energy the Masons have brought to the corner that serves as the entrance to Chestnut Ridge has been remarkable, as has been the transformation that is the result. The original siting of their home on its corner lot is, I believe, a bit awkward and the root cause necessitating a setback variance to accommodate the modest addition to the entranceway of their home. I am familiar with their plans and as a neighbor in close proximity whole heartedly believe that the granting of this variance will result in an attractive addition to their home and the community. Yours Truly, John D. Koskinas” 21 Chestnut Ridge Road. The second letter is, “My wife and I are neighbors of the Robert Mason family and have no objection to the applicants request for a setback variance to construct a 72 sq. ft. mudroom. The Masons have made a positive effect on the neighborhood and the described addition will improve the curb appeal of their home. We recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve their request for a variance.” And that’s Carolyn and Robert Rudolph, 749 Ridge Road. MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. And you’re first in the hopper. We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And poll the Board. I’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. It seems like a slam dunk to me. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Commonsense dictates that we ignore the one foot necessary. I think it probably could have been done administratively on the part of the Chairman or something. I would make that recommendation in the future like when we get these ones that are a single foot or something like that I think you could poll the Board by phone. MR. HENKEL-We still can’t do that. MRS. MOORE-Not at the moment. You can make that recommendation to the Town Board. MR. FREER-Maybe the Town Board will consider that. MR. HENKEL-There has to be a public hearing and all that, too, though. MRS. MOORE-Not if you amend the Zoning Code. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Jim. Ron? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) MR. KUHL-I think it’s a good project but it’s also good for the applicants to understand the process. A foot is a foot. So what are we going to do? Are we going to give them two feet or three feet? But there is a process in place. I think it’s a good project. Make sure you put indoor/outdoor carpeting for your muddy feet and put some cubbies for the shoes and I’d be in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Thanks. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-What else can I say? I’m in favor of the project as well. It’s a very minimal request and it will definitely improve the neighborhood. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’d be on board with this. It’s a very simple application. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I’ll go with the recommendations of the neighbors and approve the project. MR. FREER-Well I’m just happy that they’re not complaining about airplane noise. MR. MASON-I was a student pilot at one point so it doesn’t bother me one bit. MR. FREER-And I, too, support this recommendation, and with that I’ll look for a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert Mason. Applicant proposes to complete a 72 sq. ft. mudroom. Project includes removal of a portion of the patio for the mudroom, no other changes proposed. The existing home is 1,056 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to complete an already started 72 sq. ft. mudroom. The addition is 29 ft. from the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23, 2019; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this is just closing in an opening, a small mud room. 2. Feasible alternatives really have been considered and we believe that this request is the minimum request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s just one foot which is very minor. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2019) 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created only because they needed the foot, but it is minimal at best. 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. _46-2019 ROBERT MASON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. And is there any other discussion? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 23, 2019, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Do we have two next month, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I’m not certain yet. We might have two next month. I’m not sure yet, I’m still evaluating the agenda. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 21