Loading...
06-24-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2020 INDEX Area Variance No. 8-2020 Tina Foglietta 1. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-18 Area Variance No. 9-2020 Tina Foglietta 4. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-19 Area Variance No. 12-2020 Laura McNeice 7. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-22 Area Variance No. 17-2020 Elizabeth Miller 11. Tax Map No. 290.5-1-48 Area Variance No. 18-2020 Jacob Yellen 14. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-35.2 Area Variance No. 19-2020 Robert C. Kendall, Jr. 17. Tax Map No. 240.6-1-5 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DYWRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of th Appeals, Wednesday, June 24, 2020. If you haven’t been here before, the procedure is rather simple. There should be an agenda on the side table in the back. I’d like to point out that there’s exits on the north side here where most of you came in, on the south side in the far corner and in back of me on either side. Our procedure will be that we’ll call each application up to the table. We’ll read the application into the record, question the applicant. If a public hearing has advertised then we’ll open the public hearing, seek input from the public, close the public hearing, poll the Board to see what the feelings are and then we’ll proceed appropriately. So the first applicant is Area Variance 8-2020, Tina Foglietta, 178 Montray Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TINA FOGLIETTA AGENT(S) RUSSELL THOMAS OWNER(S) TINA FOGLIETTA ZONING MDR LOCATION 178 MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF AN EXISTING PARCEL OF 0.69 ACRES REDUCED TO 0.58 ACRES. CURRENT LOT HAS GRAVEL SURFACE OVER A PORTION OTHERWISE VACANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE. CROSS REF AV 1-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2020 LOT SIZE 0.76 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9- 1-18 SECTION 179-3-040 JOHN SHAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2020, Tina Foglietta, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project Location: 178 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.69 acres reduced to 0.58 acres. Current lot has gravel surface over a portion otherwise vacant. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential –MDR The applicant proposes to reduce a 0.69 ac parcel to 0.58 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. At this time both properties are vacant with gravel areas for previous buildings on the site. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the lots do not meet the required lot size currently. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is 1.42 ac. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to assist an adjoin parcel (296.9-1-17) for additional land and a preexisting garage on an adjoin parcel on the opposite side (296.9-1-19). The survey shows the lot line arrangement for the three lots. The parcel of 296.9-1-17 has an existing accessory structure where the door width has been reduced to less than 6ft. The intent is to remove the accessory structure at a later time.” MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask that just a single agent come up for each application. That agent, when they’re finished, I’m going to ask them to take a wipe that’s supplied up there and clean off the microphone and their area, throw the wipe in the wastebasket next to it and then you’re done. So is there an agent here for this application? MR. SHAY-My name’s John Shay. I’m an attorney in Saratoga Springs. My first question was since there are actually two parcels involved. MR. MC CABE-Well normally we’ll do each one separately. It just keeps it cleaner for us. MR. SHAY-Okay. I just didn’t know if it mattered. Basically all three of these parcels are under three acres as it is now. The applicant is looking to transfer portions of this one lot to Mr. Russell Thomas who owns the third lot that is right on the map right there. In essence Mr. Russell Thomas is looking to acquire that parcel. There’s an existing garage there which he would like to use for storage, with respect to that parcel. All of these parcels are fairly similar right now. All of their uses are fairly similar right now, and I don’t think there’s anything really to be lost by granting the application. If anyone has any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So, Laura, you said you had maybe some. MRS. MOORE-No, I think he’s addressed some of the issues that I thought might come up and so I think it’s fine, unless the Board members have questions. MR. MC CABE-So I guess I just have one question. Doesn’t a garage have to have a house to be on a lot? MRS. MOORE-So when this lot line adjustment occurs that garage will be associated with a wood frame house. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So no questions of the applicant? So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing for this application and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak, and I’d like to invite anybody that’s watching on t.v., if they want to input, call us at 518-761-8225 to provide us with your input. While we’re waiting, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is one. “I have seen no evidence on these lands that would indicate a survey has been done. Last fall, Ms. Foglietta or her agent posted private property signs along Twicwood Lane, land owned by other neighbors which many years ago was deeded forever green space. I ask that as part of your condition of approval of the lot line adjustments that a surveyor place flagging along the east and north lot lines of Ms. Foglietta’s property to deter disturbance of vegetation in space which currently buffers homes in Twicwood. I have no doubt that two new homes on Montray Road will be an improvement. I just ask that as a neighbor, our green space be respected and protected. Sincerely, Linda S. McNulty” And she lives at 14 Twicwood Lane. MR. MC CABE-Has our two minutes expired? So would you like to respond to the question of the neighbor there? MR. SHAY-Actually the question seems fairly basic and I don’t have any problem with making those adjustments that are suggested. I’d like to see something, I’d like to see a copy of that, just so that I can bring it back, but that doesn’t have to be done right now. That’s not a problem. MR. MC CABE-Can we e-mail that? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) MRS. MOORE-We can scan it and e-mail it. MR. SHAY-Okay. That would be fine. I don’t think there’s a problem there at all. MR. HENKEL-Wouldn’t the survey show that, if these are up to date? Wouldn’t it show that there’s supposed to be some green space that’s granted to the Twicwood area? MR. SHAY-But they’re talking about green space that’s on an adjacent parcel. Not on this parcel, these parcels. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. SHAY-So the survey would only cover the parcels we’re speaking about. MR. MC CABE-And that would probably be more applicable to when a structure was put up. So it’s really not part of our business right now. I wouldn’t think anyway. MR. HENKEL-So you’re saying this one parcel is .75 acres and the other one is .5 we’re going to change them to. That green space is not going to be part of any of these two parcels. That’s a total separate. MR. MC CABE-It sounds to me like it is. MR. SHAY-It sounds to me like the green space is on some other parcel, east, maybe, of the parcels you’re talking about. MRS. MOORE-So I’m looking at the aerial and it shows that parcel owned by Carl, that entire site is a green area, and so if Foglietta’s put a sign on the Twicwood side, that wasn’t their property. It would have to be a whole separate property. So I don’t quite know what occurred, but the Fogliettas are not on Twicwood. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody else that would like to provide input? So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing, and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-This is definitely a little bit of a weird lot line adjustment. I mean I’m not really big on decreasing the size of the property, but it does make sense somewhat, and the other properties in that whole area are generally that size. So I guess I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-So, Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with Mr. Henkel. So I would approve this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re minor adjustments up or down and I don’t see that there’s any negative effects. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I, too, don’t like seeing a reduction in size of already non-compliant lots, in addition to the weird shape that we’re creating. I would probably go along with the rest of the Board, but I hope that maybe before something is built the owner might consider merging the other two lots to make a more compliant lot. MR. SHAY-I haven’t discussed that with her. So I can’t answer that. Sorry. MRS. HAMLIN-It’s not part of the Board, but I’m just hoping she would consent to that. MR. SHAY-I understand. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I have no problem with the adjustment. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And nor do I. It kind of makes sense to me and I don’t see where it does any harm one way or another. So at this particular time, Ron, I’m going to ask for a motion here. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tina Foglietta. Applicant proposes lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.69 acres reduced to 0.58 acres. Current lot has gravel surface over a portion otherwise vacant. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential –MDR The applicant proposes to reduce a 0.69 ac parcel to 0.58 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020. 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 a minor adjustment. 2. Feasible alternatives are really, there really aren’t very many, and they have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it is just a minor lot line adjustment. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Although we could suggest that it is 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. 8-2020 TINA FOGLIETTA, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 9-2020, same applicant, 176 Montray Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TINA FOGLIETTA AGENT(S) RUSSELL THOMAS OWNER(S) TINA FOGLIETTA ZONING MDR LOCATION 176 MONTRAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OF AN EXISTING PARCEL OF 0.88 ACRES REDUCED TO 0.75 ACRES. THE EXISTING GARAGE WILL BE PART OF THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO BE LOCATED ON AN ADJOINING PARCEL (296.9-1-17). 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) PARCEL IS 0.92 AND WILL BE INCREASED TO 1.16 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2020 LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040 JOHN SHAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2020, Tina Foglietta, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project Location: 176 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.88 acres reduced to 0.75 acres. The existing garage will be part of the lot line adjustment to be located on an adjoining parcel (296.9-1-17). Parcel is 0.92 acres and will be increased to 1.16 acres. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential –MDR The applicant proposes to reduce 0.88 ac parcel to 0.75 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. At this time both properties are vacant with gravel areas for previous buildings on the site. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the lots do not meet the required lot size currently. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is 1.42 ac. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment to assist an adjoining parcel (296.9-1-17) for additional land and a preexisting garage. The survey shows the lot line arrangement for the three lots. The parcel of 296.9- 1-17 has an existing accessory structure where the door width has been reduced to less than 6 ft. The intent is to remove the accessory structure at a later time.” MR. MC CABE-So just for the record, state your name for the record again. MR. SHAY-Yes. My name is John Shay. I’m an attorney in Saratoga Springs representing the applicant. These two applications obviously go hand in hand. The lot line adjustment would affect two parcels at the rear of both. There isn’t much additional that wasn’t talked about in the previous application. So I’ll yield my time. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant? So at this particular time I’d like to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who’d like to speak on this particular application and invite anybody who’s watching on t.v. and wants to comment to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and, Roy, so we have that same letter. I suppose we should read it in again for this particular application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-“I have seen no evidence on these lands that would indicate a survey has been done. Last fall, Ms. Foglietta or her agent posted private property signs along Twicwood Lane, land owned by other neighbors which many years ago was deeded forever green space. I ask that as part of your condition of 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) approval of the lot line adjustments that a surveyor place flagging along the east and north lot lines of Ms. Foglietta’s property to deter disturbance of vegetation in space which currently buffers homes in Twicwood. I have no doubt that two new homes on Montray Road will be an improvement. I just ask that as a neighbor, our green space be respected and protected. Sincerely, Linda S. McNulty” 14 Twicwood Lane. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll just have to wait for two minutes to expire for anybody to give us a call in. MR. SHAY-That’s no problem. MR. HENKEL-The survey is a 2000 survey. When was that land granted to the Twicwood area? We don’t know. So there’s not an updated survey. So we wouldn’t be able to judge this, because like I said this is a 2000 survey. It’s too bad she doesn’t state that in her letter. MRS. MOORE-That’s not a 2000 survey. That’s a 2020 survey. MR. MC CABE-Is it? MR. SHAY-It doesn’t include the land she’s talking about. MR. HENKEL-It says November 24, 2000 on mine. MRS. MOORE-So on the right hand corner of that it says 2/10/2020, wood shop and storage building on it. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. SHAY-We were going to be here in March I think but something happened. MR. MC CABE-We were going to be here in March also. MR. SHAY-That’s what I’m saying. We were all going to be here in March. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Michelle. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor of the project. Per our discussion in the previous meeting we’re creating two even more undersized lots, but those lots are really very similar to area lots. So I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-These are pre-existing, non-conforming lots to begin with and all we’re doing is slightly altering the lot lines on the ones that are present there, and I think the big issue here is if we can get development on this property that’s long been neglected in the area and I think it would be an improvement to push them forward. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agreed with the previous one so I also would agree with this one. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members. I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of it also. MR. MC CABE-So I guess I’ve got to go along, too. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle to present a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tina Foglietta. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.88 acres reduced to 0.75 acres. The 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) existing garage will be part of the lot line adjustment to be located on an adjoining parcel (296.9-1-17). Parcel is 0.92 and will be increased to 1.16 acres. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential –MDR The applicant proposes to reduce 0.88 ac parcel to 0.75 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. The reduction in the size of this property will make it really congruent with other properties in the area. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it truly is in line with the other properties in the area. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 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. 9-2020 TINA FOGLIETTA, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 12-2020, Laura McNeice, 8 Chestnut Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LAURA MC NEICE AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LAURA MC NEICE ZONING WR LOCATION 8 CHESTNUT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION (INITIAL SITE WORK HAS STARTED). NEW HOME TO BE 1,650 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND 1,156 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. PROJECT INCLUDES GRADING AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT. CROSS REF RC 548- 2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY MARCH 2020 LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-22 SECTION 179-3-040.5.b.9 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2020, Laura Mc Neice, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project Location: 8 Chestnut Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a new single-family home currently under construction (initial site work has started). New home to be 1,650 sq. ft. floor area and 1,156 sq. ft. footprint. Project includes site work including grading. Relief requested for height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements – Waterfront residential zone WR The project is to construct a new home at 31.125 where a 28 ft. height is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 4. 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 grading necessary on the site to install a gravity underdrain beneath the basement. 5. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for 3 ft. in excess. 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 is in the process of preparing a parcel for the construction of a single-family home on a 0.17 acre parcel. The applicant has indicated the property is lower than the road elevation. The plans show the elevation and height of the new home.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. CENTER-Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As you can see from the plans we’re requesting three and a half feet of relief for this residence. It will allow the first floor to be closer to the same level as the road in front of it, and it will a lot better. The existing grade drops away. The location where we had to measure for the height variance is in the rear which is the lowest portion of the lot. We’re not going to be blocking any views with this structure. We’re not going to be above the tree line of the neighborhood. It’s going to be a fairly small house, sloped roof and it’s a crawl space, not a full basement, it’s only for utilities. It’s not usable floor area in the basement. Also to grade around the house better, along the lot and at the road. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question? MR. MC CABE-Sure, go ahead. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m curious about the two wells. MR. CENTER-The two wells? Yes. One well is for that house and the other well is for the house on the other side that’s under construction right now. There’s cross easements for the wells and for the septic systems for the two houses. MR. KUHL-If you couldn’t get the height variance, would you still build the house? MR. CENTER-Possibly. We’d have to re-think how we’d do it. Right now the way the utilities are designed, we need that crawl space underneath the floor area, and also, you know, having the first floor lower, you know, almost at below road elevation, it’s out in front. It would be a little more difficult to grade as we got into it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) MR. KUHL-What amazes me is how we’ve gotten along with these small lots on that road. Crazy. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I guess, why is there so much construction and now you’re coming to us? MR. CENTER-As we got into the soils we constructed the other house. Getting into the groundwater drainage around the lots, the owner requested it. First we were looking at possibly slab on grade, but the other house having that basement area and the utilities and everything, we have already got a very small house that fits into the floor area. It just would be a much better design to have, you know normally when we design a house, we have it, you know, a foot, two feet above the road, and then grade away, and then looking at this and looking at the height, we thought we could grade around it, but it’s becoming more of an issue drainage wise as we work on the other house and started to grade this lot. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-The only problem I have is I think because there are a lot of small houses in that area and, you know, there has been a lot of construction in that area, I’m just afraid that if we grant you the three feet in excess that it’s going to become a problem for other homes that don’t have that. MR. CENTER-This lot has unique features that the lot actually sits lower than the grade. This isn’t a process of trying to get more area above us for living space or anything. This is just trying to get it up for grading and drainage purposes underneath the residence and around the house. MR. URRICO-You haven’t finished construction yet, so you can adjust right now. MR. CENTER-It would be very difficult utility wise, plumbing, everything, being that the bathroom and everything is on the first floor because of the height of the roof area, it’s sloped so low. MR. URRICO-Can you bring it down somewhat? MR. CENTER-I can bring it down about a half a foot. That puts me pretty much at road grade, but on the middle of the lot, and then you’re in the grade as you go up the lot. What we’re trying to get, actually we’re just six inches above the road even at the high point at the corner. So we can grade around it. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from the public. If you’re watching on t.v. you can call in with your input at 518-761-8225, and while we’re waiting we’ll see if we have any written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, I didn’t see any comment. MR. MC CABE-IS there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? So we’ll just have to wait out the two minutes here. MR. HENKEL-How long ago were these small lots made? MR. CENTER-That’s the original subdivision for that Shore Colony subdivision. So that’s the, in the 70’s I believe. MR. HENKEL-Okay. And back in the 70’s they had height requirements and all that. Right? Or was that later on? MR. CENTER-I believe that was later on, and I’m also thinking the height requirement is more of a view issue when you become lakeside. We have no views. That’s so one person on the roadside, his view couldn’t be blocked by a 40 foot tall house on the lakeside, and that’s kind of why we went at this, because we have no shoreline here. We’re not affecting a view shed. We’re not going to be any higher than the trees that are already around us. We’re not affecting anyone’s view. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Board has been pretty adamant about shoreline restrictions and the height of buildings on shorelines, but in this instance here because it’s in the peninsula, Shore Colony we’ve had issues here previously at other Board meetings, not in recent history, but I think in this instance here we’re dealing with a substandard lot that dips below grade with that slope going backwards. The low point’s actually going to be in the back of the home as depicted on the plans. So I think in this instance here I think we can kind of look the other way. I agree with Roy. This does not set a precedent if we grant this variance because we’re only granting it for this one house, and I think it’s a unique situation. You have to look at each lot in regards to what it’s doing in the Waterfront Residential. I don’t see any negative impacts whatsoever. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-So I’m struggling with this whole topic of raising the height. We have denied similar requests for inland properties. Circumstances were different. This is currently under construction. So changes potentially could be made and I’m sure at great difficulty and great expense, but I’d like to, I’m going to say I’m not in favor at this time. I think we should stick with the 28 feet. I think that would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, you know, this lot is a very strange lot and it appears to me that it wouldn’t set a precedent. So I would be in favor of it as proposed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I kind of agree with Michelle and Ron and Jim, all of them, even though they’re different. When I viewed the property, there’s no doubt the other side of the street, the houses are quite a bit higher. So it really doesn’t cause any problems with the houses across the street, and after listening to Mr. Center, it does make sense what he’s trying to do there. So I’m definitely, I don’t like to see this height, but I would definitely be on board with this situation in this particular case. So I’ll be agreeing with the application. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think for most of the test here I would be in favor of it, but the height variance really bothers me. I just think we should not be granting relief for three feet in excess, especially during construction phase where we have an opportunity to bring it down. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree that three feet is quite a bit, but I think that area variances in particular are based on the individual lot. So I’m hoping we’re not setting a precedent for people who want higher houses. This is to accommodate the lot, and they did such a good job of meeting all the other setbacks. It’s a modest home and they’re doing the best they can on this. So I think I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am in favor. I think it would be doing a disservice to the homeowner to force him to be down low, although, you know, I am generally pretty stringent when it comes to granting height variances, but I feel that this is a legitimate exception, and so I will support the project. So at this time I’m going to ask Jim for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Laura McNeice. Applicant proposes a new single-family home currently under construction (initial site work has started). New home to be 1,650 sq. ft. floor area and 1,156 sq. ft. footprint. Project includes site work including grading. Relief requested for height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements – Waterfront residential zone WR The project is to construct a new home at 31.125 where a 28 ft. height is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020. 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: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. The Board recognizes that this is a major request because it’s three feet over the normal variance of 28 feet, but at the same time we recognize the nature of the problem. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. I guess you could do a knee wall on the second floor story and lower the building down slightly by that, but the building is under construction. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it’s three feet over the normally required allowance. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. This is a unique situation we recognize with a sunken lot and it by no means allows other houses to be built over height in the neighborhood without other review occurring first. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but the house as proposed is a modest home and we feel that this home fits in with the neighborhood and will not be noticed as an over height building. 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. 12-2020 LAURA MC NEICE, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 17-2020, Elizabeth Miller, 1099 Ridge Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ELIZABETH MILLER AGENT(S) CIFONE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. OWNER(S) ELIZABETH MILLER ZONING MDR LOCATION 1099 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING 521 SQ. FT. PRODUCE STAND THAT INCLUDES 300 SQ. FT. SALES AREA, AND 93 SQ. FT. OF ATTACHED COVERED BUILDING SECTION. THE PROJECT IS TO REMOVE AN EXISTING COVERED PORCH AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 128 SQ. FT. PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF PZ-SP58-2016; SP 54-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2020 LOT SIZE 9.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-3-080, 179-3- 030 MATT CIFONE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2020, Elizabeth Miller, Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 “Project Location: 1099 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to update an existing 521 sq. ft. produce stand that includes 300 sq. ft. sales area, and 93 sq. ft. of attached covered building section. The project is to remove an existing covered porch and to construct a new 128 sq. ft. porch. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the MDR zone and travel corridor overlay 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and 179-4-080 setback for porches and 179-4-030 travel corridor The applicant proposes to remove an existing covered porch area to replace it with a 128 sq. ft. porch. The project includes an update to the roof also to allow for overhead doors to be installed. The setback is proposed to be 27.3 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 placement of the existing building on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 47.7 ft. to the front property line. 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 upgrade an existing produce stand with a new roof, with new overhead doors and a new 128 sq. ft. porch. The site is an approved produce stand and has associated buildings with a garden facility. The plans show the existing conditions and an elevation plan shows the new porch area.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. CIFONE-I’m Matt Cifone, the builder. It started off as a little repair job and the roof is in rough shape. So we’re actually not building anything outside of what’s’ there. Just raising it up and making it safer. We had to come out front a little bit because it’s on a slab, and the slab is sitting on the ground. So we’re just going to put the posts on the drawing on the front side of them, dig them down four feet. We’re raising it up a minimal amount so you can walk under it and the section on the south side it’s already existing also. We’re just going to raise it up so you can walk in there. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. MR. KUHL-I have a question. You’re talking about garage doors. What are you going to do? MR. CIFONE-Nothing. We took the garage door out. It was broken. MR. KUHL-You did. MR. CIFONE-We put a man door in. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So there is a public hearing advertised and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from anybody in the audience and if you’re watching on t.v. you can call us at 518-761-8225 if you have input, and, Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll just have to wait a couple of minutes to see if anybody’s got interest that’s not present. Anybody present? MR. HENKEL-Do you know when that was originally built? MR. CIFONE-I don’t know. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) ELIZABETH MILLER MS. MILLER-The stand has been there since 1928. MR. HENKEL-Yes, my whole life. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing, and I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-Yes, I don’t see any problems with this application. I think it’s pretty much repairing what was there before, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s not a new project. It’s just updating maintenance to make it a little safer for people, and like they were saying, it’s from the 1920’s. It’s kind of a tradition to the Sunnyside and Queensbury area. So I don’t see any objection to it. So I’d be for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody who drives by knows what it is. It’s been there forever. So why would we change it at this point in time. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, it’s very minimal. MR. MC CABE-And I think it’s a good project and so I support it also. So, Cathy, I’m going to ask for a motion. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Elizabeth Miller. Applicant proposes to update an existing 521 sq. ft. produce stand that includes 300 sq. ft. sales area, and 93 sq. ft. of attached covered building section. The project is to remove an existing covered porch and to construct a new 128 sq. ft. porch. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the MDR zone and travel corridor overlay. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and 179-4-080 setback for porches and 179-4-030 travel corridor The applicant proposes to remove an existing covered porch area to replace it with a 128 sq. ft. porch. The project includes an update to the roof , removal of the overhead door to install a man door. The setback is proposed to be 27.3 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020. 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. It actually is part of the character of the neighborhood. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) 2. Feasible alternatives will be limited. Repairs are necessary. So alternatives are really not possible in this situation. 3. The requested variance is not substantial it’s less than or exactly one foot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty can be said to be 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. 17-2020 ELIZABETH MILLER, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So you’re all set. So our next application is AV 18-2020, Jacob Yellen, 14 Blackberry Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JACOB YELLEN OWNER(S) JACOB YELLEN ZONING RR-3A – BLACK BERRY CIRCLE SUBDIVISION 20-2003 LOCATION 14 BLACKBERRY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN THE BACK YARD OF THE PARCEL THAT IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE TWO FRONTS, BLACK BERRY CIRCLE AND BLIND ROCK ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN A FRONT YARD. CROSS REF SUB 20-2003, RC-115-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2020 LOT SIZE 1.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-35.2 SECTION 179-5-020-POOL MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2020, Jacob Yellen, Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 “Project Location: 14 Blackberry Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a pool in the back yard of the parcel that is considered to have two fronts, Black Berry Circle and Blind Rock Road. Relief requested for placement of a pool in a front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a pool in a front yard, Rural Residential 3 acres RR3A. Section 179-5-020- pools The applicant proposes installing a pool to the rear of his home but is considered a front yard. Pools are to be located in the rear yard of a parcel. The lot is considered to have two fronts –Blackberry Lane and Blind Rock Road. 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 limited due to the location of the home on a parcel with two fronts. The subdivision does not permit access to 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) the parcel from Blind Rock Road where the lot is accessed from Blackberry Lane and is not to change. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for a pool in a front yard where the applicant considers the use of the area to be the rear yard. 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 to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a pool in front yard of an existing lot with a single family home. The information submitted shows the lot configuration with the proposed pool. The project site is part of a subdivision Black Berry Circle Subdivision SUB20-2003.” MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little, O’Connor & Borie. I represent the applicant. The applicant is here with me tonight. I had a number of discussions with Craig Brown as to whether or not we actually needed a variance and I won’t go into those because I’d get sidetracked, but basically he concluded that we do need an Area Variance. He said it was a technicality and that’s why we’re here. This is a lot that has frontage on both Blackberry Lane and Blind Rock Road. However, I think what I’ve submitted to you shows that along Blind Rock Road which is really the backyard of this property there is a 60 foot wide no cut buffer zone. So you couldn’t establish a right of way or you couldn’t establish a driveway to Blind Rock Road through that no cut zone. So it doesn’t really have access to Blind Rock Road. When we talk about driveways and widths, our Ordinance says it has to be usable. Well I think you would, in fairness, apply the same standard to frontage, and this is not frontage on a highway because it’s not usable. You can’t put a driveway through that 60 foot. Also if you drive up Blind Rock Road you will see that the lot elevation rises sharply away from the road. So what we’re talking about as far as impact is very little because even the pool that’s up in the yard is not going to be visible. I also, or my client also obtained letters from the two adjoining neighbors to this particular lot, both of whom said that they have no objection to it and they didn’t think it would have any impact on them. Further I have submitted a drawing which demonstrates where or not there are any feasible alternatives. The prior owner installed thermal heat and you can see where it goes into the yard and then also where the septic system is. They both would interfere with trying to put the pool on the side yard to be on the side yard toward Blackberry Lane. Blackberry Lane actually comes up and then goes at a right angle over to this particular property. So what we’re proposing, and the Staff has agreed has very minimal impacts on anything. It is a technicality. We’ve got the consent of the two neighbors. We don’t have a feasible alternative. It is self-created. It’s substantial in the sense that no pool is allowed in a front yard. This could be considered a front yard because it has some frontage on a road, even though it’s not usable frontage for access, but if you look at the impacts, they’re so minimal it’s not substantial. I think that’s where we’ve always argued about whether or not something is substantial, who’s going to be impacted and is it going to be negative or not. This is not going to affect either the two side neighbors nor anybody on Blind Rock Road. So that’s our presentation. If you have questions we’d be glad to answer them. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? I think this is pretty straightforward and we’ve faced this situation on several other occasions. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from anybody in the audience, and if anybody’s watching on the outside I’d invite them to call us at 518-761-8225 with your input. So shall we read the letters into the record, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-“I am writing to advise the Town of Queensbury of my approval for the proposed addition of a pool at my neighbor, Jacob Yellen’s home at 14 Blackberry Lane. I feel that the proposed addition of a pool will not have any negative impact on the neighborhood which is known for its privacy and tranquility. As such, I and the entire Schell family of 10 Blackberry Lane fully endorse the proposed addition. Regards, Brian Schell 10 Blackberry Lane Queensbury, NY 12804” And then, “I, Ryan Wild, residing and owning the land at 18 Blackberry Ln directly next-door to Jake Yellen at 14 Blackberry Ln have no reservation or complaint whatsoever about Mr. Yellen putting his in-ground pool in his backyard that is being considered a “front yard” to Blind Rock Rd. We have sufficient no cut zones and buffering between the homes and roads, this pool will pose no issue. Regards, Ryan Wild” 18 Blackberry Lane. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I have the original of those letters, Laura, to give to you. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to close the public hearing, and I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Cathy. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. HAMLIN-I believe we’ve had a couple of double front yard pool situations before. So it’s very well buffered and wooded. So I would have no objection. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think even if it didn’t have these extenuating circumstances I would still be in favor of it because it’s two front yards, it’s generally viewed favorably by the Board, but even more so now because Blind Rock is not accessible. So I agree with Mr. O’Connor, and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with Mr. O’Connor’s explanation of the project and I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Do I have to mention Mr. O’Connor’s name? MR. MC CABE-You don’t have to mention his name. Just say yes. MR. KUHL-This, again, is one of those projects that because the property has two, is on two roads, they have to present and spend the money. I’d be in favor of course. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor of this. It’s based on a technicality and it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The Board has always accommodated these requests. As long as there’s no opposition, the neighbors are all in favor of it, I don’t think anybody doubts that Blackberry Circle is the front of this property. MR. MC CABE-And that’s the way I view it also. So I favor the project. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Ron for a motion. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jacob Yellen. Applicant proposes placement of a pool in the back yard of the parcel that is considered to have two fronts, Black Berry Circle and Blind Rock Road. Relief requested for placement of a pool in a front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a pool in a front yard, Rural Residential 3 acres RR3A. Section 179-5-020- pools The applicant proposes installing a pool to the rear of his home but is considered a front yard. Pools are to be located in the rear yard of a parcel. The lot is considered to have two fronts –Blackberry Lane and Blind Rock Road. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as the pool is really in the rear of the house. 2. Feasible alternatives, if any, are really none. There really aren’t any possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial due to the fact that the property is fronted on two roads. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because of the two roads. 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. 18-2020 JACOB YELLEN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 19-2020, Robert Kendall, Jr., 2469 Ridge Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROBERT KENDALL OWNER(S) ROBERT KENDALL ZONING LC-42 LOCATION 2469 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE A 225 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 93 SQ. FT. DECK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1506 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A 500 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH IN THE FRONT OF HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF BUILDING PERMIT 93-514, SP 1-94 AND SP 53-93, AV 93-1994 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-5 SECTION 179-4-080-DECKS ROBERT KENDALL, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2020, Robert Kendall, Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 Project Location: 2469 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. open deck addition to an existing 93 sq. ft. deck on the north side of the home. The existing home is 1506 sq. ft. footprint with a 500 sq. ft. covered porch in the front of home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Land Conservation 42 acres LC42A Section 179-3-040 –Dimensional requirements and Section 179-4-080- decks The applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. deck that does not meet the property setbacks. West side setback is to be 69.2 ft., north side is to be 26.5 ft.,, east side is to be 44.1 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required from all property lines. 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 limited due to the existing house location, the configuration of the lot, and the size of the lot of 0.52 acres in a 42 acre zone. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested; West side setback is to be 30.8 ft., North side is to be 73.5 ft.,, east side is to be 55.9 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact 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 deck addition. The applicant has indicated the addition is to an existing deck area to allow for additional space.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. KENDALL, JR.-My name is Robert Kendall, Robert C. Kendall, Jr. to be exact. MR. MC CABE-So do you have anything to add? MR. KENDALL, JR.-I don’t really think I can add any more than what’s on there. It’s a tiny little 10 by 10 deck in the back. You cannot actually see it because it’s so wild around my house and in the wintertime you might get a glimpse of it from Route 9 or Ridge Road, but other than that it’s in the confines of the existing house. MR. MC CABE-When was that house originally built? MR. KENDALL, JR.-I believe the original survey was 60’s possibly. I should know that, but I forgot now. It’s about the third or fourth generation house, and I think it was originally just that one season, you know, place, and then somebody else did something else and somebody else did something else. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m kind of curious. It’s very wooded all around. Is it Margaret Boland, there’s no structure there. Do you know what might go there in the future? I know you don’t know that, but that would be the only person that, and she’d have to build within the envelope. MR. KENDALL, JR.-Yes, the Bolands, it’s a cookie cutter, it’s a very interesting, but I’m actually in communication with actual Mr. Boland passed, but Tom is one of the kids and, Bob is one of the kids, and I was talking with Tom a lot, but I’m not sure how to answer the question because Ward Lane is kind of right behind me, as you can see, and there’s really not a whole lot I can do in any of that because. MRS. HAMLIN-Well as it stands right now it’s very wooded so you can’t see it from there, and I just wondered what the future development might be. MR. KENDALL, JR.-I like it that way. MRS. HAMLIN-That would be on them anyway. I mean they’d know it was there and they’d have to deal with it. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised, and so I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from anybody in the audience, and if you’re watching on t.v. I’ll invite you to call in at 518-761-8225 to make comment. Roy, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. There is one. “Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement about our Town and our processes. Due to another commitment, I cannot attend the Zoning meeting. I am writing in support of Robert Kendall’s application for a deck addition at 2469 Ridge Road. Mr. Kendall is a good neighbor that takes care of his property. I have never had any issues with him or his property. Therefore I believe he is a responsible and reasonable homeowner. His property has an odd shape and sits on a steep hill. The current small deck is in the only logical position to offer privacy. Another spot is not reasonable. I believe that a 225 square foot deck is also reasonable given our neighborhood. Based on what I know of him, I am sure that Mr. Kendall will make all necessary steps to construct a safe, secure, aesthetic and appropriate deck. I am happy to answer your questions. Thank you for your time. Keniston Sweet 8 Hanneford Rd. Queensbury” MR. HENKEL-Now this survey it says it’s .52 acres and of course we have 1.41 acres. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) MRS. MOORE-I would say the survey is more accurate than our description, our GIS description of it. MR. HENKEL-Okay, because I know on this sheet he’s given us it says .52 and of course our information says 1.4 acres. MRS. MOORE-And that’s what I’m saying is GIS is not as accurate. The survey is the most accurate. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to ask Michelle to make a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Do you want to poll the Board first? MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. That’s right. I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m going to poll the Board, and, Ron, I’m going to start with you. MR. KUHL-If this was, I mean it’s in a Land Conservancy 42 acres. If it were in any other normal housing development under, you know, it’s got 30 feet from one side and 73 from another and 55. So I’m in favor of the way it’s presented. It’s a shame you have to waste the time and money to come here. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor as well. It fits well in the character of the neighborhood and no environmental impacts. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s only the C-42 designation that triggers this whole meeting. So I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I think it’s a reasonable request. It’s certainly a way to enjoy his property. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application. It passes all the tests. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it’s a very small request. Any of those houses in the Land Conservation 42 acre would have to ask for request of any kind of addition. So I’d definitely be on board. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think it’s a minimal request really and I think a lot of the problem is just caused by the home was situated before we had the zoning. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert Kendall, Jr. Applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. open deck addition to an existing 93 sq. ft. deck on the north side of the home. The existing home is 1506 sq. ft. footprint with a 500 sq. ft. covered porch in the front of home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Land Conservation 42 acres LC42A. Section 179-3-040 –Dimensional requirements and Section 179-4-080- decks The applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. deck that does not meet the property setbacks. West side setback is to be 69.2 ft., north side is to be 26.5 ft., east side is to be 44.1 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required from all property lines. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) 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. This modest deck addition is going to fit perfectly in with the character of the neighborhood with the other houses in the area. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board are not deemed reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Again, it’s a modest sized deck, and the lines of the deck are in line with the house itself. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, this is a deck on an almost 1.5 acre parcel plan. 5. The alleged difficulty is 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. 19-2020 ROBERT C. KENDALL, JR., Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. KENDALL, JR.-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So Mr. O’Connor has asked for a couple of minutes to talk to us and I granted his request. So I’m going to wipe down the podium and then I’ll ask Mr. O’Connor to speak. MR. O'CONNOR-I have an interesting project I’m going to bring before you. I have a client who is buying a stump dump up on Sherman Avenue, it’s 49 acres. It’s owned by the City, Cerrone Builders. What he wants to do is build a subdivision like he has here off of Sweet Road. That’s called the Village at Sweet Road. This will be called Sherman Avenue Village so they don’t mix up the mail and all that stuff. The zoning on the property right now is. MRS. MOORE-Can I just interject? You do understand that it’s probably not appropriate for the Board to hear a potential proposal in the future. Usually it comes in as a Sketch Plan to the Planning Board, and I understand, Mr. O’Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-I’m not asking you to make any decision or comment. I’m just trying to say here’s what’s to come. I’d like to have you thinking about it. Maybe go out and look at the site. MRS. MOORE-I’m just giving you a heads up that it’s probably not appropriate. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The Supervisor’s been very supportive of it. They want to get rid of the stump dump. The present zoning is one acre with water and sewer, two acres without it. We are going to ask for a variance for lots within this subdivision to be a half acre. That’s why I wanted to talk about it a little bit ahead of time. It’s the same size lots that are in the Village at Sweet Road and it’ll be the same type quality subdivision that he built there that he would build here. I don’t anticipate any of the neighbors are going to have any objections to getting rid of the stump dump. It’s been there for a number of years. It’s got brush, trees, leaves and pavement that have been collected by the City and that’s where they’ve disposed of it every year. We’ve had engineering do a subsurface study of it. We’ve done, drilled holes and everything. There is no contamination in it. We’re probably going to have to remove some of that stuff, and the area where the concentration is is going to end up being a common area. It’s not going to be 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/24/2020) used for houses itself. So that’s what we’re going to do. I had the alternative of going to the Town Board and asking them to do a re-zoning or asking you for a variance. I’d prefer to do it by variance, and the reason we want to downsize the requirement is because then we’re going to go in with a PUD to the Town Board and you can’t increase your density when you have a PUD. You have to maintain the underlying then existing density. So this is something that is going to go maybe to you for an area variance and I’ve done it before. I did it on my own subdivision over on Lake Sunnyside and I did it in a couple of others, I can’t really think, where I came in and said this is all going to be undersized lots, can you approve the subdivision as it is, and we did that, had some history of doing that, and we’re going to go either for the variance or go to the Town Board for a re-zoning. Even if that happens, either of those happens, we’d have to go back to the Town Board and Planning Board for the PUD. So it’s going to have a lot of approvals, a lot of attention, a lot of looking. You’re going to have a lot of opportunity to look at it, but I just wanted you to think about it. If you go up there and drive by, I think they have the old road going in there chained off. MR. KUHL-And where is it, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Sherman Avenue. MR. HENKEL-Towards the end, almost to West Mountain. MR. O'CONNOR-Toward West Glens Falls. MR. HENKEL-You can’t miss it. They dump all the leaves there, the City of Glens Falls. MR. O'CONNOR-In fact they called me the other day and said they want to start dumping again and I said, no, we’re under contract, don’t put anymore crap in there that we’ve got to take out. MR. KUHL-And why don’t you want to go for re-zoning? MR. MC CABE-So I don’t think it’s appropriate to ask questions. I just agreed so that we could talk. MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thanks, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for allowing me to speak. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, unless there’s some objection, I’m going to end tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 24, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 22