Loading...
07-22-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2020 INDEX Sign Variance No. 5-2020 Saxton Sign 1. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-21 Area Variance No. 13-2020 Frederick & Linda McKinney 8. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-13 Area Variance No. 16-2020 Anne Walsh & Mary Harris 12. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-23 Area Variance No. 15-2020 David Hartmann 16. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Area Variance No. 20-2020 Margaret Wallace 16. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-48 Area Variance No. 21-2020 Greg Ball & Julie Austin 20. Tax Map No. 295.20-1-31 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 07/22/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 22, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD RONALD KUHL CATHERINE HAMLIN JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of nd Appeals, July 22, 2020. Just for safety’s sake, there are exits, the doors that you came in through. There are also two exits in back of me on the east side of the building, and also there’s an exit to the rear on the southwest side of the building. If you haven’t been to our meeting before, it’s actually kind of simple. There should have been an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each application up, read the application into the record, allow the applicant to present his case. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open the public hearing and seek input from either people on site here or people who want to call in remotely or we will accept letters also. After the public hearing, see how the case works, and then continue from there, and based on polling the Board we’ll proceed accordingly. So first off, though, we have some business to take care of and so we’ll need to approve the meeting minutes for June 2020. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 17, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE June 24, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first application is SV 5-2020, Saxton Signs. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2020 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGNS AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGNS OWNER(S) 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 ZONING CI LOCATION 1454 STATE ROUTE 9 (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES 3 WALL SIGNS: 1 STARBUCKS CIRCLE LOGO SIGN (19.62 SQ. FT.); 1 STARBUCKS WORD SIGN (21.75 SQ. FT.); AND 1 DRIVE-THRU SIGN (6.96 SQ. FT.). PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLING FREESTANDING DIGITAL SIGNS (PRE-MENU BOARD 1 PANEL AT 6.72 SQ. FT.) AND ORDER MENU BOARD WITH 3 PANELS (22.9 SQ. FT.). PROJECT INCLUDES DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 140. RELIEF FOR 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS AND NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 35- 2018; SP 65-2019; SV 3-2020; SV 5-2020; CC 23-2020, CC 80-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2020 LOT SIZE 17.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-21 SECTION 140 DARREN KATZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-2020, Saxton Signs, Meeting Date: July 22, 2020 “Project Location: 1454 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes 3 wall signs: 1 Starbucks circle logo sign (19.62 sq. ft.); 1 Starbucks word sign (21.75 sq. ft.); and 1 Drive-Thru sign (6.96 sq. ft.). Project includes installing freestanding digital signs (Pre-menu board 1 panel at 6.72 sq. ft.) and order menu board with 3 panels (22.9 sq. ft.). Project includes directional signage consistent with Chapter 140. Relief for number of wall signs and number of freestanding signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of wall signs and number of freestanding signs. Section 140- Signs in the Commercial Intensive zone CI The applicant is currently constructing a commercial building that proposes wall signs and free standing signs. The proposed business is allowed one wall sign and one free standing sign. The plans have reduced the wall signs from 5 to 3 walls signs where only one is allowed. The plans indicate 3 free standing signs are proposed and only one is allowed---note the applicant has a separate sign variance SV 3-2020 application for a free standing sign to include space for the hotel, Starbucks, and a future tenant. Relief for that sign had been granted for setbacks. The two additional free standing signs are related to the drive- thru digital signs where one is a pre menu board and the other is a menu board. (1 Starbucks circle logo sign (19.62 sq. ft.); 1 Starbucks word sign (21.75 sq. ft.); and 1 Drive-Thru sign (6.96 sq. ft.). Project includes installing freestanding digital signs (Pre-menu board 1 panel at 6.72 sq. ft.) and order menu board with 3 panels (22.9 sq. ft.).) Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of signs requested. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested to have 3 additional walls signs and 2 additional free standing signs. 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 have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has reduced the number of walls signs from 5 to 3. There is proposed to be 3 free standing signs for the new proposed Starbuck restaurant. The plans show wall signage on the north and west side of the building. The free standing signs include a pre-menu digital sign and a menu digital sign. The project site is within the Shopping Plaza Outlets and has an existing hotel building behind where Starbucks is to be located.” MR. MC CABE-Just before we get started, we’re going to ask that just a single person come up for each application at a time. When you’re done with your presentation or talk, please wipe down the podium and mic and then we’ll be ready for the next person. So you’re all set until you’re done. Go ahead. So we’ve talked about this quite a bit before. We need your name for the record. MR. KATZ-My name is Darren Katz. I’m with Saxton Sign Corporation. They’ve got a few signs. They’ve got the logo on the front, the drive thru sign right alongside of it on one side in channel letters and the other 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) side of the building. We’ve got a menu board, that’s on the side of the clearance bar, and the speaker where you place your order. Then you have your directional as well. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? Ron, I know that you were kind of vocal on this. MR. KUHL-Well, I felt that he could have put more things on the asphalt instead of signs, but I mean the way I understand it. The sign that has the clearance letters, is that considered a sign? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. KUHL-No? Okay. I’m quiet. I’m good. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else have questions? So at this time I’d like to open the public hearing. A public hearing has been advertised, and so if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to come up and anybody who wants to call in remotely, you can contact us at 518-761-8225. So we should have one person calling in here. Anybody in the audience want to speak on this application? Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So we have to wait for two minutes. (Phone ringing) This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Okay. So Joe from Hilton Displays. Is that okay for the record? MRS. MOORE-So you’re going to put it on speaker so he can announce himself. MRS. MOORE-Joe can you state your name for the record? JOE NOLASCO MR. NOLASCO-Yes, Joe Nolasco with Hilton Displays. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Go ahead. MR. NOLASCO-I just wanted to say that Starbuck’s originally proposed two other signs on this building, and we had a preliminary meeting. We agreed to reduce the sign package to get closer to conform to Code, and I’m also available to answer any questions the Board may have. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time we don’t have any questions. So anything else to add? MR. NOLASCO-Nothing to add, just to answer any questions if there are any. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So seeing no questions from the audience, seeing no questions from the Board, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-So you’re basically done at this point. MR. NOLASCO-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-He’s really part of the presentation because he is the actual Starbuck’s signage. MR. MC CABE-Okay. All right. So I can leave him on, then? MRS. MOORE-You can leave him on. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll just let you listen to the input from the Board. Is that okay? He hung up. Sorry. I didn’t understand. MRS. MOORE-I know, and I meant to explain that. MR. MC CABE-Sorry about that. So I’m going to start here with Ron. MR. KUHL-My understanding is this J monument panel, that’s the same one that’s going to have the motel on it, as well as Starbuck’s, or is that a standalone by Starbuck’s itself? I mean it’s my understanding it’s going to be the one that says motel and Starbuck’s. Is that correct? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. KATZ-The monument sign? MR. KUHL-Yes, as on your drawing Letter Number J. It’s out on the road. MR. KATZ-Yes, it’s going to say Starbuck’s on it. MR. KUHL-Okay. But that’s one, I think that’s one that has to come up under a separate approval, doesn’t it? (Phone Ringing) MR. HENKEL-You approved that one already. MR. KUHL-We already approved that. MRS. MOORE-You already approved it. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to leave you on here so you can listen to it. MR. KUHL-So I have no issues with it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I appreciate that you amended your proposal, but I’m still concerned about the number of signs. I think it’s too substantial. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I still think there’s too many signs. It’s too busy. I think we’ve been pretty adamant. In the case of the plazas up on the strip up there, you know, where we have multiple businesses, I think we’ve allowed extra wall signs on the front of the building. In this instance here, I think because it’s a standalone building I see no reason to have the extra wall sign. So I’m still against it. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I think this is close to what we asked for to come back. I agree I think there’s too many signs, but I’ll probably be in favor. MR. MC CABE-So you’re in favor? MRS. HAMLIN-I’ll be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I appreciate the changes they’ve made, but I also feel that there’s still an excess of signs on this property so I would not be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, unfortunately what makes it very busy with, I mean it’s got, you know, with the menu boards, the clearance boards. I mean, that’s a lot of signage. I also agree with it being a standalone building that it probably really doesn’t need to have that much signage. So I’d be against it as is. MR. MC CABE-So I basically support it. It’s a new business and I think it needs every opportunity that we can give it, and certainly in the areas that it’s in signs are everywhere. So I’m not as concerned with it, but unfortunately you don’ t have enough yes votes here. So I think we’ve got to give them a pretty clear indication of what’s acceptable and what’s not. So, John, what does he have to do? MRS. MOORE-I guess without designing their package, between the applicant and the individual that’s on the phone, if they’re willing to remove a sign, less signage, if they’re willing to do that at this moment, that might. MR. MC CABE-Well, let’s see what advice that we need to give them and maybe we can solve this right now. MRS. MOORE-We’re trying not to have you design this package. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. MC CABE-Well, I’ve got to get, you know, people just said he had too many signs, but they weren’t specific about which one I think. MR. HENKEL-I think I’d be happier if the signs were a little bit smaller. I mean, I think, I understand three walls signs is not a bad, they’ve definitely reduced it from the original which was five I’m pretty sure. So I think maybe a little bit smaller in size, they don’t need that big. Like Jim was saying it’s a standalone building. It’s on its own. So it’s going to stick out. People are going to see it. So I’d be all right with the amount of signs that they’re asking for, but a little bit smaller in size. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I would be okay with that, but I’m still thinking they still have too many signs, and I’m not going to re-design the package for them. I think we have a standard, and even though we’ve been pretty loose up there in terms of some of the signs that we’ve allowed, there is a similar business not too far from there, and I don’t think we were as liberal for them, and I think we need to be consistent. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-My issue is the number of signs, not necessarily the size. I agree as a freestanding building, it’s very visible from all directions and I agree with Mr. Urrico that I don’t design signage. I can appreciate the difficulty you have doing this job, but if we could lessen the variance, that’s my issue. I mean that’s my job as a Zoning Board member is to grant the minimum variance necessary, and I think you can achieve your goals with less signage. MR. MC CABE-How many? MRS. HAYWARD-I’d rather not say. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the internal signage as far as the menu boards go, I think everybody would approve those because we’ve approved those on almost all the fast food restaurants in Town, but I think the issue is the wall signs. You get one wall sign because you’re a standalone building. I don’t think you get three. I think that’s way over the top. MR. MC CABE-So, Joe, are you hearing this? MRS. MOORE-I think you need to put him back on speaker. MR. NOLASCO-The sign package was reduced. We took the signs off the rear elevation. I understand the menu boards are counted as signs, which makes that overall number look a lot higher, but they’re just for where people drive thru, but I understand they’re still advertising. MR. MC CABE-All right. So everybody agrees that there’s no problem with the ordering signs. It’s the building signs that’s the problem. MR. NOLASCO-Okay. Well, we have three building signs that two of those are basically one. The logo and drive thru sign are next to each other to show a single logo. They’re two different pieces. I understand they count as two different signs, which is fine, and we have the other sign on the side elevation, so you can see it southbound on Route 9. I don’t feel that’s excessive, but obviously that’s your decision I guess. MRS. MOORE-I guess does he understand that he could potentially reduce the number of signs? MR. MC CABE-So we could proceed tonight if you could drop one of those signs, or shrink the size of the signs, or you could take another look at it and we could table this and you could come back later. MR. NOLASCO-No, if we can get it approved tonight, that’s the goal. If we have to remove a sign, that’s what we’ll do. MR. MC CABE-So which sign would you drop? MR. NOLASCO-I guess we’d drop the Starbuck’s on the side of the building because the other ones over the front door that’s the main sign. MR. HENKEL-Is that the drive thru, is that the one he’s talking about? MR. MC CABE-He wants the Starbuck’s over the drive thru. He wants to drop that one? All right. So will that satisfy everybody’s requirement? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. HENKEL-I’d be good with that. MR. MC CABE-Okay. All right. So that’s what we’re going to do. MR. NOLASCO-All right. MRS. MOORE-So do you want to poll the Board again? MR. MC CABE-So we’ll poll the Board again with the Starbuck’s removed from the drive thru portion of the sign. So I’m going to start with Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-That satisfies me. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I’m still against it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I still think it’s too substantial. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I was for it before. I’ll be for it again. If he could take the directional sign off the front, that wouldn’t hurt anything, but anyway I’m for it. MR. MC CABE-And John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with a lot of my members here, too, that it is a lot of signage and it does look like a lot of signage because of the menu boards and all that, but I think if they take that Starbuck’s off the side there, that drive thru I think it’s a fair application. MR. MC CABE-So I think we have enough votes to go. So, Ron, I’m going to ask for a motion here. First we’ve got to do SEQRA. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2020. APPLICANT NAME: SAXTON SIGN, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of July 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-And then, Ron, would you make a motion for the variance. MR. KUHL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Saxton Sign (for Starbucks). (Revised) Applicant proposes 3 wall signs: 1 Starbucks circle logo sign (19.62 sq. ft.); 1 Starbucks word sign (21.75 sq. ft.); and 1 Drive-Thru sign (6.96 sq. ft.). Project includes installing freestanding digital signs (Pre-menu board 1 panel at 6.72 sq. ft.) and order menu board with 3 panels (22.9 sq. ft.). Project includes directional signage consistent with Chapter 140. Relief for number of wall signs and number of freestanding signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of wall signs and number of freestanding signs. Section 140- Signs in the Commercial Intensive zone CI The applicant is currently constructing a commercial building that proposes wall signs and free standing signs. The proposed business is allowed one wall sign and one free standing sign. The plans have reduced the wall signs from 5 to 3 walls signs where only one is allowed. The plans indicate 3 free standing signs are proposed and only one is allowed---note the applicant has a separate sign variance SV 3-2020 application for a free standing sign to include space for the hotel, Starbucks, and a future tenant. Relief for 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) that sign had been granted for setbacks. The two additional free standing signs are related to the drive- thru digital signs where one is a pre menu board and the other is a menu board. (1 Starbucks circle logo sign (19.62 sq. ft.); 1 Starbucks word sign (21.75 sq. ft.); and 1 Drive-Thru sign (6.96 sq. ft.). Project includes installing freestanding digital signs (Pre-menu board 1 panel at 6.72 sq. ft.) and order menu board with 3 panels (22.9 sq. ft.).) SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 5-2020. Applicant Name: Saxton Sign, based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of July 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 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. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance for three freestanding and two wall signs. Application approved with condition the Starbucks letter wall sign would be eliminated and only two wall signs approved –Starbucks round logo and the words “drive-thru” and three free standing signs –one at the road side and two digital drive-thru signs (a pre menu and menu order board). 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We really don’t think so. This is the minimum that we would approve. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It is not minimal but it’s acceptable. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We don’t believe it will as it’s showing the products that they have and the direction of the vehicles. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We can say it is. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 5- 2020, SAXTON SIGNS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 22nd Day of July 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico. Mr. Underwood MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 13-2020, Frederick & Linda McKinney. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2020 SEQRA TYPE II FREDERICK & LINDA MC KINNEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) FREDERICK & LINDA MC KINNEY ZONING WR LOCATION 23 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-STORY ADDITION OF 430 SQ. FT. THAT IS 860 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND TO RAISE THE ROOFLINE OF A PORTION OF THE HOME TO CREATE A FULL SECOND STORY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 5,940 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA AND PROPOSED IS 6,800 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 18-2020; AV 7-2000; SP 13-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040A; 179-13-010 (F) JON LAPPER & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2020, Frederick & Linda McKinney, Meeting Date: July 22, 2020 “Project Location: 23 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-story addition of 430 sq. ft. that is 860 sq. ft. floor area and to raise the roofline of a portion of the home to create a full second story. The existing home is 5,940 sq. ft. of floor area and proposed is 6,800 sq. ft. floor area. Relief requested for setback and permeability. Site plan for new floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback and permeability. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements – Waterfront Residential zone WR The project includes a two-story addition where the north side setback is to be 12.9 ft. and required is 20 ft. The second story addition on a portion of the building is to be 12.94 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to be 71.9% where a 75% permeability 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 location of the existing home on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code for setbacks. The side setback relief is 7.1 ft. and permeability is 3.1% under what is required. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two-story addition to an existing home and a second story addition to a portion of the existing home. The project includes a new garage area and new living space on the second story. A portion of the interior of the home is to be altered to accommodate the addition including a new fire place area and a new window scheme on the lake side of the home.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on July st 21 by a seven to zero margin. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Fred & Didi , the applicants, are here and Luke Dobie from Hutchins Engineering is here. He’ll come up after me, after I wipe everything down. So these are a series of relatively minor but really important changes to the applicants so that this can be their permanent home on the lake. They’ve owned it since ’96, for 24 years. It’s to address a whole bunch of problems. There’s a water problem with how it comes off the roof at the front door. So there’s a new porch area at the front door, new entry. The chimney is just to have a nicer sitting area inside and the main thing is that the upstairs, everything that we’re talking about is by the road or is not on the lakeside except replacing some windows. There’s a knee wall on the upstairs which is just not good space. So the variance is just to continue the wall where it is and not make the setback any worse, pre-existing location on the north side and there are neighbor letters in the file that the neighbors support this because everything is oriented towards the road in terms of what’s being done here, and then to get a better garage. One thing that’s deceptive is that the size of that house that’s listed which is correct based on it’s all on one lot that they own the lot on the other side of the street. So there’s a big boat garage just about 2,000 square feet that’s in that number. So it sounds like it’s a huge home if you include that, but that’s a totally separate structure. So I just wanted that on the record, and again, it’s just that they need these changes but it’s not anything that’s going to dramatically change how the house looks. Architecturally it should look better and it includes changing out the septic tank and a bunch of stormwater facilities that don’t exist now, and to that point when we were at the Planning Board last night they asked us to switch the concrete pavement for the walkways, the two walkways that are part of this proposal for permeable pavers which would eliminate 50% of the impermeability number for that. So Lucas will go over the exact numbers, but it goes up by just under one percent from what we have before you, and we agreed to do that with the Planning Board last night. Luke will go through that, but with that it’s an even smaller variance than what we asked for. So that sums it up and I’ll ask Luke to come up and give you the details and show you exactly where the variances are. MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. DOBIE-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and good evening, Board. Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, the project engineer, and again just a brief project overview is to add an 18 foot extension from where the garage is today, the same plane of the home. So it’ll stay the same width, 24 feet, just 18 feet closer to Mason Road with that addition, and just because of the way the house is slightly skewed towards the property line, we’re asking for two tenths of a foot more relief than what’s there today. So it’s a very, very minimal request in our opinion, and the second floor will be, the ridgeline will match the main north/south ridgeline of the home by adding knee walls and then a little bit of a flatter roof. So that’ll give them more functional second floor space to reconfigure some bedrooms, and we’re taking part of the existing garage today and turning that into first floor living space to add an elevator and some mechanical space, storage. So it’s a real nice architectural plan that we’re very happy with and then to re-locate the front porch further away from the house, away from that drip line of the garage and we’re proposing infiltration trenches along those eaves lines to provide some stormwater mitigation, and as Mr. Lapper said the break through with the Planning Board, we could take those concrete sidewalks that we propose, reconstruct them as concrete and turn them into permeable pavers. So that realized us a significant decrease in our permeability request. So just for the record our total impervious request, by changing out the concrete to permeable pavers is now 9,350 square feet. So that’s only 35 square feet more than exists today on the site, which equals one tenth of a percent, just for the record. So we’re asking to go a tenth of a percent more site coverage. MR. MC CABE-So that’s 72 instead of 71.9? MR. DOBIE-Seventy-two percent, 72.7 permeability as opposed to 72.8 existing. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-This really has nothing to do with it, but is there running water or a bathroom in the boat garage? MR. DOBIE-I don’t believe there is. Fred, is there plumbing in the boat storage building? FRED MC KINNEY 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. MC KINNEY-No, no. In the boat storage barn? Absolutely no plumbing. MR. DOBIE-For the record that’s Fred McKinney. He’s the owner. MR. MC KINNEY-Strictly a boat storage facility. MR. HENKEL-And obviously I know this is two different separate, you know, you have the square footage of both pieces of property on either side. Obviously this is one piece of property, deeded as one piece of property, not deeded as two pieces of property. Correct? MR. DOBIE-That’s correct, Mr. Henkel. MR. KUHL-What’s the square footage on your permeable pavers you’re putting in there, Lucas? MR. DOBIE-It is 615 square feet. MR. KUHL-And what’s your maintenance going to be on that? MR. DOBIE-They’re pretty straightforward. We like them a lot better than permeable pavement. The grout lines are a little bigger. So it’s generally just a nice sweep a couple of times a year to keep the water flowing to the. MR. KUHL-Yes, but, you know, in time the silt is going to block them up unless you have a maintenance schedule, isn’t it? MR. DOBIE-Well they’re not a drive surface. So that’s quite positive, just a walking surface. MR. KUHL-You’re not going to vacuum them every couple of years? I wanted to get a vacuum business just so that we can solve these problems. No, but very honestly you put permeable pavers in and it’s all good, but unless you keep them maintained. I mean they’ve got to be kept open. Excuse me, they should be kept open because you’re getting your approval today for permeability because you’re doing something about it, but these things will become useless unless you look into the future. That’s my take. Okay? MR. DOBIE-Understood. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-But, Laura, isn’t that part of management? Don’t they? MRS. MOORE-It’s something that’ll come up as a Planning Board item, and there’s a requirement about management. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and request that anybody on the outside who wants to call in on this application call us at 518-761-8225, and I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to talk about this application? Do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one letter. “Please let this letter serve as my approval for the proposed project at 23 Mason Road, Cleverdale, NY. We can see no adverse impacts to the lake or the local neighborhood, and in fact believe it will enhance our neighborhood by increasing the value and beauty of their property. The McKinney’s were kind enough to show us their proposed changes, and we think it’s an attractive project and would improve our and surrounding properties and make it a more interesting and beautiful place to live. We are in full support. Sincerely, MA FC 2012 Trust, by: Homa Kolahi, trustee” MR. MC CABE-So we have to wait just for a couple of minutes for anybody who wishes to call in. Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’ll poll the Board and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that, you know, in regards to this the proposed addition is at the back of the property. It’s not going to have any impact on the lake. Although we’re going to have a slight decrease in the amount of permeability, the project is being built over what’s already an asphalt driveway. So I don’t really see this as a major negative. So I would be in favor of the project. I think that the sidelines are going to stay the same as what they already are pre-existing. So it’s not going to have any further impact. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor of the project as Mr. Underwood has explained. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with the way it’s presented. I have no issue with it. I think it’s a good project. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-They’re a good steward of the lake. They’re keeping the property very nice. I mean there’s no doubt it’s a plus with the septic system across the road on the other side of the lake, on the other side away from the lake, and they’re asking very minimal variances there. So I’d be on board with the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with everybody else. I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I think the upgrades will improve the appearance of the property and the requests are very minimal. So I support this project also. So I’m going to close the public hearing at this particular time, and I’m going to ask Michelle for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frederick & Linda McKinney. Applicant proposes a two-story addition of 430 sq. ft. that is 860 sq. ft. floor area and to raise the roofline of a portion of the home to create a full second story. The existing home is 5,940 sq. ft. of floor area and proposed is 6,800 sq. ft. floor area. Relief requested for setback and permeability. Site plan for new floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback and permeability. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements – Waterfront Residential zone WR The project includes a two-story addition where the north side setback is to be 12.9 ft. and required is 20 ft. The second story addition on a portion of the building is to be 12.94 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to be 71.9% where a 75% permeability is required. Revised permeability due to the installation of permeable sidewalks proposed is 72.7%. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 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 request is minimal for the side yard setbacks and acceptable for the front yard setbacks because they’re placing the new addition over pavement. 2. Feasible alternatives have already been considered by the applicant and have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial; again, the request numerically, there is a very slight change in the north side setback and is acceptable in the front. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; it’s a nice improvement and they’re improving the permeability on the property. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) 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. 13-2020 FRED & LINDA MC KINNEY, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of July 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is Area Variance 16-2020, Ann Walsh & Mary Harris. AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ANNE WALSH & MARY HARRIS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ANNE WALSH & MARY HARRIS ZONING WR LOCATION 20 KNOX ROAD, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES A 585 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,875 SQ. FT. HOME. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 1,890 SQ. FT. (13.9%0; NEW FLOOR AREA 3,010 SQ. FT. (22.1%). PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 23-2020; P20150463-42349 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-23 SECTION 179-3-040(A)(5)(b); 179-13-010(F) LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; JOHN & GINNY HARRIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2020, Anne Walsh & Mary Harris, Meeting Date: July 22, 2020 “Project Location: 20 Knox Road, Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 585 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,875 sq. ft. home. Existing floor area is 1,890 sq. ft. (13.9%); new floor area 3,010 sq. ft. (22.1%). Project includes a new septic system and associated site work. Project subject to site plan for new floor area and construction in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements. The addition is to be located 18.1 ft. from the front setback where a 30 ft. setback is required. The side setback is to be 10.5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief from floor area is being requested where 3010 (22.1%) is proposed where 22% is the maximum allowed. Relief is also being requested for permeability where 67.6% is proposed and 75% is required existing is 71.8%. 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. A variance may be required for any addition to the home due to the house orientation. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief on the front is 11.9 ft., side setback is 9.5 ft., Floor area is 0.1%, and permeability is 7.4%. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 585 sq. ft. residential addition to the existing 1,875 sq. ft. footprint. The project includes adding a basement under the new addition. The plans show the details of the addition and the location to the home.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted st on July 21, 2020 by a seven zero margin. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board, again. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, the project engineer. With me are the applicants John and Ginny Harris. Mrs. Harris is co-owner of the property with her sister Anne Walsh who can’t be with us tonight because she lives in the mid-west. Their family’s owned the property since ’62. I believe they’re on their third or fourth generation of adjoining property, and the home was built around that time. It’s a ranch on piers. There’s no basement. So they’re struggling for space and storage with a lot of grandkids that love to come visit up at the lake, and their goal is to turn this into a permanent home. So to do that they plan to renovate the existing home, change around the interior, and we propose a 16 foot 3 by 36 foot long addition to the east side of the home. That will allow them a nice kitchen, stairs down into the basement, which they propose for the addition for storage reasons, and then a master suite with the addition as well, and then like I said the existing home will be reconfigured for office space and then a living room. Due to the nature of the lot, it’s a small lot. There’s no doubt about that. That’s why we’re already nonconforming with our permeability. So we’re asking to add 565 square feet more of new impervious area which is the addition. With the geometry there’s really not much to be had that we can take away. The driveway is modest and the turnaround is tight and we really feel it’s a fair proposal as the home is nonconforming and it’s sitting on its front setback. Any expansion to it would require an Area Variance. So again in summary we’re asking for the front and side setback variances, the 565 square feet permeability relief and then 15 square feet of floor area relief, and I don’t like to ask for that variance. I understand it can be a touchy subject. Why we’re asking for that is because the architecturals were advanced before they had their updated survey. They did some field measurements with the old description. With the modern survey they had a little bit less land than they anticipated. So in lieu of redesigning the architecturals, our logic was that we’re here. We’ll ask for that little bit of relief from you folks, and also the old deed description calls for the property to the center line of Knox Road which used to be called a farm road or something, but as it’s a road by use, the modern survey shows the property line with a right of way. So that’s why the front setbacks looks like we’re asking for a lot of relief, when in reality when you’ve owned the property for 70 years, if it was dimensioned to the center line of the road it wouldn’t need the variance, but that’s not how survey law works, my understanding. We feel it’s a nice project. We’re proposing a new septic and some updated grading and stormwater management around the house to provide some mitigation. I’m very comfortable with the design and would be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. MR. MC CABE-So, do we have questions of the applicant? Yes, we do. MR. HENKEL-I’m sure this has been looked at. You could do away with the variances if you built behind on the north side. Why couldn’t it have been built there by the breezeway and continued on the back of the house? I’m sure that was probably looked at, but is there a reason? Because then you wouldn’t have to have the variances. MR. DOBIE-We would still need our expansion of a nonconforming structure variance I believe. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. DOBIE-How the roof lines would work out and their utility room is where the septic line is showing taking off, and it’s just the flow of the house works a little better in our opinion, and Mr. Harris certainly could speak to that better than I can with having the southerly part of the home essentially a great room. So it’s living room, dining room, kitchen and the addition and that’s the design that they came up with. That’s the best I can speak to it. I think still if you went back 36 feet you might be tickling that easterly setback, but it’d be close. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well I was going to ask a very similar question. It does seem as though you’re still going to have the exposure you want if you were to move the addition like he said., You could even perhaps get some more floor area by enclosing the breezeway. Is it enclosed currently or is it still an existing breezeway? Eliminate that one substantial setback. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and I’m going to request anyone on the outside who has a question to give us a call at 518-761-8225 and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this particular application. Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one. “I reside at 30 Knox Road, one house separates me from both applicants, Mary Harris and Anne Walsh. I have known this family for decades I condone their application, including any variances this project might require. For many reasons, I’m sure all known to you, the Town of Queensbury plus New York State must do every single thing we can to keep anyone of near-retirement age in our great New York State. Thank you for your time. Jean Wanamaker 30 Knox Road” MR. MC CABE-So we’ll have to wait for a couple of minutes here. MR. DOBIE-Could I just ask a question on protocol, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. DOBIE-I just had another idea to address Mr. Henkel’s concern, but I want to say it at the appropriate time. MR. MC CABE-The public hearing is open. So you’re free to speak. MR. DOBIE-Okay. It just hit me that if we move the addition to the rear, I’m going to need a septic variance because that’s the most feasible spot to put the absorption field, right to the north of the property, and that requires a 20 foot setback to the dwelling, not to the garage, but the dwelling itself. So if we were to stick that box behind the building it would basically be right over where we’re showing the septic tank and our absorption field. We would be right next to the addition. MR. HENKEL-You could loop that around front. I’m just kidding. All good. MR. MC CABE-So hearing from nobody on the outside, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And at this time I’m going to poll the Board and I’m to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I think we have the overriding issue here that it’s 0.3 acres and whatever they do is going to require a variance of some sort. So I think they’ve done the best they can with what they have and I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-They’re not on the lake. That’s definitely a little side road. That’s not a main road. So that’s a plus. Plus they’ve got a new septic system going in. That’s going to be good for the neighborhood. It’s very minimal. You’ve got 14 feet over the floor area variance. The setbacks you really can’t help. All the old houses are pretty close there on that little side street. Permeability is not a huge thing because it’s not on the lake. So I think it’s a good project. I’d be for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-The house was a preexisting, nonconforming on the front setback. So really they’re only asking for the back. I think it’s a minimal request. I’d be in favor of the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Jim? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. UNDERWOOD-The plus side is the new septic system, although I don’t think they really have any impact on the lake basically at the present time either. I think the setbacks off Knox Road are going to remain essentially the same as what is existing now. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I think it’s old more than minimal, but still I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And the way I view it is what we’re getting is more than what we’re giving. We’re getting a new septic system, an improvement in the look of the property, and what we’re giving up is very minimal. So I support this project also. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion from Jim. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Anne Walsh & Mary Harris. Applicant proposes a 585 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,875 sq. ft. home. Existing floor area is 1,890 sq. ft. (13.9%); new floor area 3,010 sq. ft. (22.1%). Project includes a new septic system and associated site work. Project subject to site plan for new floor area and construction in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements. The addition is to be located 18.1 ft. from the front setback where a 30 ft. setback is required. The side setback is to be 10.5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief from floor area is being requested where 3010 (22.1%) is proposed where 22% is the maximum allowed. Relief is also being requested for permeability where 67.6% is proposed and 75% is required and existing is 71.8%. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 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 project is located on a very small .3 acre lot and it’s been well-engineered to work. 2. Feasible alternatives, the board did consider other alternatives, closing in the breezeway, but it was explained that the septic system would need a variance at that point so we don’t wish to go there at this point. 3. The requested variance is not really considered substantial, it’s slightly decreasing the permeability but we feel that the floor area ratio, even though it’s maximum for the lot size, is not unreasonable. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; we do not note any. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but it’s also created by the fact that this is a very small municipal lot. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance outweighs any denial we might make because we do not note any 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. 16-2020 ANNE WALSH & MARY HARRIS, Introduced by Mr. Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Hayward: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of July 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much for your time, Board. MR. MC CABE-So the next application on the schedule is AV 15-2020, David Hartmann. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID HARTMANN OWNER(S) DAVID HARTMANN ZONING WR LOCATION 51 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE 1,513.2 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A 1,771.5 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,474.5 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER, LANDSCAPING, AND SEPTIC. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK, HEIGHT, AND FLOOR AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOR AREA AND PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF SP 21-2020; SP 71-2014; RC 749-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-15 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. MC CABE-This particular application has been moved to the first meeting in September. There is a public hearing advertised. Is there anybody here for that public hearing? Because that public hearing will th be moved to, is it September 15? MRS. MOORE-It’ll actually be re-advertised because we don’t know if there’s going to be any changes and I’d rather be, I’d be more comfortable having the public hearing re-advertised. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So you will need to make a motion to move that application to the first September meeting. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Hartmann. Applicant proposes to remove 1,513.2 sq. ft. building to construct a 1,771.5 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a floor area of 3,474.5 sq. ft. Project includes sitework for stormwater, landscaping, and septic. Relief requested for setback, height, and floor area. Site plan for new floor area and project within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2020 DAVID HARTMANN, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Tabled to the first meeting in September with new information to be submitted to the Town by the August deadline date. Duly adopted this 22nd day of July 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 20-2020, Margaret Wallace. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MARGARET WALLACE OWNER(S) MARGARET WALLACE ZONING WR LOCATION 12 REARDON RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A ONE STORY 380 SQ. FT. ADDITION WHERE AN OPEN DECK AREA CURRENTLY EXISTS ON A CORNER LOT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,972 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH AN EXITING 2,300 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THE NEW FOOTPRINT IS TO BE 2,352 WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,688 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF PREVIOUS BUILDING PERMITS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040 MARGARET WALLACE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2020, Margaret Wallace, Meeting Date: July 22, 2020 “Project Location: 12 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a one story 380 sq. ft. addition where an open deck area currently exists on a corner lot. The existing home is 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) 1,972 sq. ft. footprint with an existing 2,300 sq. ft. floor area. The new footprint is to be 2,352 with a floor area of 2,688 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-4-030-Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to replace a patio area of 380 sq. ft. with a single story addition of 380 sq. ft. The addition is to be 25 ft. from the rear 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 considered limited due to the house location and that the parcel is a corner lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for the rear setback is 5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The 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 proposed to remove an existing deck area attached to the home and replace it with a single story addition for additional living space in the home. The plans show the existing survey with the setbacks of the deck area. The floor plan shows the layout of the home and where the addition is to be. Also included are photos of the deck.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MRS. WALLACE-Margaret Wallace, 12 Reardon Road. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add. MRS. WALLACE-Well, just the fact that it’s five feet at that particular corner, but then it slopes out and it’s 31 feet from the other corner. So it’s a right triangle that’s five feet by seventeen feet. It’s a very small part of the, the addition is going to be less than 30 feet in a very small triangle to the back of my property. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? Pretty straightforward. So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised, and so I’m going to open the public hearing, and invite anybody watching on the outside to call in at 518-761-8225, and is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter? We don’t have much of any audience left. Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So we just have to wait for two minutes for people to call in from the outside. MR. KUHL-Can we talk about the tabled one, Hartmann? MR. MC CABE-No. MRS. MOORE-I can give you a little feedback. What happened at the Planning Board level is they didn’t show up at that meeting. That’s probably what you’re asking. So I did have a conversation with him this 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) afternoon and he indicated that he misunderstood that he needed to attend the Planning Board meeting. So then he understood he wasn’t coming to tonight’s meeting. So I said in September we will see you. MR. KUHL-Well we approved that two years ago. MRS. MOORE-He has since changed the footprint. MR. KUHL-Really? Okay. MRS. MOORE-And there’s less relief requested, but it’s still really. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Did we approve that? MR. KUHL-Three years ago. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. KUHL-He came each year and he asked for extensions. He kept it current by coming for extensions each year, but what you’re saying, Laura, is he changed the footprint. MR. HENKEL-I remember that now. MR. HENKEL-So you said you’re doing some stormwater management on that, you’re doing some, like the plantings or anything like that? Are you doing any kind of increase? I mean I see you’re taking a deck off. MRS. WALLACE-Around the deck there’s already a four foot box. I don’t know what’s going to happen to it at this time. MR. HENKEL-I’m just saying your permeability is going to, you would think it would be getting worse if you’re putting a building there compared to. MRS. MOORE-It’s the same hard surfacing. That doesn’t change. MR. KUHL-The deck is impermeable. MRS. WALLACE-The stone around the deck is, I don’t know, probably going to remain, but, yes, I’m losing some permeability. MR. MC CABE-We’re not looking to approve. MR. HENKEL-No, I realize that, but I was just wondering. 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 Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I am in favor. I think t here’s very little change from what’s there. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a simple request. I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree. I think it will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. I think any alternatives are limited based on your lawn. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it’s a minimal request. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree also. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I am also in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I think it’s a nice little improvement, and therefore I will support the project also. So, with that being said, 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 Margaret Wallace. Applicant proposes to construct a one story 380 sq. ft. addition where an open deck area currently exists on a corner lot. The existing home is 1,972 sq. ft. footprint with an existing 2,300 sq. ft. floor area. The new footprint is to be 2,352 with a floor area of 2,688 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-4-030-Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to replace a patio area of 380 sq. ft. with a single story addition of 380 sq. ft. The addition is to be 25 ft. from the rear property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives are minimal and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, only 5 feet on one side, very little change to the existing footprint. 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. 20-2020 MARGARET WALLACE, Introduced by Mrs. Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Underwood: nd Duly adopted this 22 Day of July 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MRS. WALLACE-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Can I ask you a question, Margaret? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MRS. WALLACE-Sure. MR. KUHL-Why did you get this septic verification? Did they ask you for it or did you just do it? MRS. MOORE-With the new floor area it’s a requirement. MRS. WALLACE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Good. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 21-2020, Greg Ball & Julie Austin. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GREG BALL & JULIE AUSTIN AGENT(S) GREG BALL OWNER(S) JULIE AUSTIN ZONING PUD LOCATION 14 RUSH HOLLOW COURT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 720 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,440 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH AN ATTACHED 616 SQ. FT. GARAGE, A 616 SQ. FT. PORCH AND PATIO AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF P20010226-22862; P20020264-24373; P20020266-24375; P20020405-24572; P20020406-24573 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.20-1-31 SECTION 179-5-020 GREG BALL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2020, Greg Ball & Julie Austin, Meeting Date: July 22, 2020 “Project Location: 14 Rush Hollow Court Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. second garage on the property. The existing home is 1,440 sq. ft. (footprint) with an attached 616 sq. ft. garage, a 616 sq. ft. porch and patio area. Relief requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. 179-5-020 – accessory structure – garage The applicant proposes a second garage where only one garage is allowed. The garage is to be 720 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered to include construction of an addition to the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 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 to construct a detached 720 sq. ft. garage. The applicant has indicated there is an existing attached garage of 902 sq. ft. used for vehicle storage and house/lawn maintenance. The new garage is for storage of items that will not fit into the home and so they are stored on the interior instead of the yard area.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. BALL-Greg Ball. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add for the record? MR. BALL-I think it’s pretty self-explanatory. I think it would be better suited kind of tucked in the back versus adding on to the front where we’d lose parking spaces in the driveway. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of this particular applicant? MR. HENKEL-You have two sheds, right? You have a shed on the side of the building and one in the back. Right? MR. BALL-Yes. What do you mean? MR. HENKEL-Well isn’t there a shed in the front, too, kind of? Didn’t I see a little? MR. BALL-It’s just a little plastic thing for bicycles. MR. HENKEL-Okay, and of course you have that other one there. Are you willing to make a, I mean that’s a 24 by 30 plus you’re going to have storage on the top. MR. BALL-Yes. Just dry storage. MR. HENKEL-And what do you have, you said a 900 square foot garage attached to it now? MR. BALL-I don’t think it’s 900. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think it’s 900. MR. URRICO-It’s 616 square foot. MR. HENKEL-Okay, 616. MR. BALL-Yes, it’s just a regular, and it’s got stairs to the basement, too. So it’s kind of cut up in the existing garage. MR. HENKEL-Now do you know in your development area there, I mean I drove around. I really couldn’t see any other second garages. Do you know how many second garages are in your development? MR. BALL-There’s a couple of three car garages added on to the house. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I saw some have a three, but no one has a second garage in that area. MR. BALL-I don’t think in that immediate neighborhood, no. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I was going to say, I don’t think I saw any. Okay. MR. KUHL-Is there going to be any hard surfacing to this? I mean what are you putting in this building? MR. BALL-Woodworking tools and storage and any outdoor equipment, stuff like that. MR. KUHL-Are you going to do any hard surfacing to it or are you going to have lawn in front of it? MR. BALL-There’d be lawn in front of it as of now. MR. KUHL-Okay because your drawing doesn’t show any hard surfacing. So I assume. MR. BALL-No. MR. KUHL-Will you be putting any water or electric in there? MR. BALL-Electric I would like to put in there, but not water. MR. KUHL-Not water. Okay. You’re not going to use it for a business or anything? MR. BALL-No. MR. KUHL-Just personal storage. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. BALL-Yes. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I guess I have a question. The difference between a garage and an auxiliary structure would be the size of the door. If you could reduce your door to six feet, then you wouldn’t need a variance for a second garage. Would that be an option? MR. BALL-Reduce the size of the door to six feet? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. BALL-I mean I’d like to be able to put a vehicle in it if possible. MR. URRICO-So it’s going to be more than just a storage area. You’re talking about actually putting vehicles in there? MR. BALL-To work on or something like that, if we need to store it, a motorcycle. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAYWARD-I had a quick question. You said you were going to store woodworking equipment in there? MR. BALL-No. I want to be able to work on things. MRS. HAYWARD-Correct. So it’s going to be a workshop. MR. BALL-It would be a workshop as well. Correct. MRS. HAYWARD-All right. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. If anybody’s on the outside and wants to comment, give us a call at 518-761-8225. If there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter, come forward. Do we have any written input? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MRS. MOORE-Just a clarification on an accessory structure. They’re limited to two totaling no more than 500 square feet. So if the doors were to be shrunk it would be a variance for the size. MR. HENKEL-You’re not willing to do away with that shed? You’re going to keep that shed even if you build that big garage? MR. BALL-I would keep it. I mean if it needs to go, I mean I suppose it could. It’s always better if everything has a home versus being out if possible. MRS. HAYWARD-I have another question if you don’t mind. You have a full basement? MR. BALL-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Thanks. 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. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, you know, under normal circumstances we’re dealing with smaller lots here, but this is a pretty large lot compared to most of them we deal with in the suburban part of Queensbury. There seems to be a legitimate request for this space here. It’s a minimal request for what he needs for his needs for storage and for workshop space. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MRS. HAMLIN-I’m kind of torn on this one because I think in the past, and you’ve been on the Board longer so you’d be able to help me with this, when we’ve approved these second garages it’s been more like when they were like very large lots like five acres or ten acres, and this is just under one acre, and yet it’s wooded, you know, there would be some concealment and somewhere we’ve got to draw the line. I mean I don’t know what the intention of the Town Board was when they said no second garages, but I’d hate to see a precedent giving them, definitely if I would even consider it I think I’d ask him to get rid of that extra shed. MR. MC CABE-So are you no or are you yes with a condition? MRS. HAMLIN-I think I’m a no. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-Maybe a yes with conditions, but a no without conditions. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think this project is excessive. I look at the criteria here, I think it could have a detrimental impact on the neighboring properties. If they get a second garage I can see other properties maybe thinking about it. There seem to be some feasible alternatives to construction of the additional garage and the relief is substantial and the project as proposed is self-created. I think just wanting a second garage is not necessarily a good reason to have one, but this property is not, usually we consider sometimes excessive sizes of lots, but the Code really doesn’t specify size of lot. It just says one per property. So I’d be against it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’m having a little trouble with this one also. Like I said I drove around the properties and didn’t see any other second garages. I did see some three car garages which makes sense, but he’s also going to make it three accessory buildings basically you could say with the two sheds and that building. That’s a big garage too with the storage above it. So with it being less than an acre, I’d have a hard time approving this as is. So I’d be against it as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I like the fact that there’s no hard surfacing to it. To me it represents that the building is going to be used not as an everyday use but to take care of his shop and/or when he buys his corvette he can store his corvette in there in the wintertime. I think that giving up the shed would be the right thing to do because you’re building this big building. I understand that where we live in the great northeast, although he’s got two other garages, in the wintertime it gets crowded with the snow blower and the lawnmowers and stuff. I’m in favor of the project with one caveat which is get rid of the sheds. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m as torn as everyone else or most everyone else about this project. Ron, I hear what you’re saying about the pavement. A condition should be put in about a driveway in the future, no driveway in the future. I don’t know. MRS. MOORE-Again it’s just a policing issue. You can but it’s a Code Enforcement item. MRS. HAYWARD-I know. So ultimately, I don’t want to delay this any longer, I am reluctantly in favor because I know we all need storage. MR. BALL-Can I talk? MR. MC CABE-The public hearing is closed. So we’re just debating among ourselves here. So we’ve got three noes, two yeses, and a conditional yes, and so I’ve got a problem with this because if we okay a second garage, I spent time looking at the area also and there’s nobody else with a second garage. So it kind of puts us in a bind here if we try to not allow other people to put a second garage in. We’ve generally approved second garages for larger lots, you know, three, five, ten acres, but this is only a single lot and there isn’t anybody else around to support the second garage. What I would support would be a larger auxiliary building as opposed to a second garage. That would take us off the hook, give us a little bit more freedom. So I’m going to be a no as it stands. MRS. HAMLIN-I like that thinking and eliminating some sheds so that we don’t go too far beyond that 500 foot accessory structure. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) MR. MC CABE-So as it stands right now you don’t have enough yes votes. So you’ve got a couple of options here. You can force a vote, but you’re not going to do well. You can table your application, take and see, you know, what, you’ve got a couple of people that would support it if you got rid of your other shed, or you could re-consider the building to be a larger auxiliary building and go for a variance for a larger accessory structure. So the choice is up to you. MR. BALL-Okay. So if I were to say I’d agree to get rid of the shed and change the door size. MR. MC CABE-The door size is what makes it a garage. So if it’s less than eight feet then it’s an auxiliary structure. If it’s eight feet or more then it’s a garage. MR. HENKEL-Six feet isn’t it? MRS. MOORE-Six. It’s six. MR. MC CABE-It’s six. So larger than six feet, it’s a garage. Six feet or less it’s an auxiliary structure. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So I’ll just clarify. If you were to change the size of the door, you’d still have to come back for a variance because right now it’s advertised as a second garage. So if you table it tonight, you can consider either one of those opportunities, and then present that information in a way so it would be on a September meeting, not, it wouldn’t be on August, but it would be a September meeting. It gives you a month to think about it. You would work with Staff, myself or others, and just confirm how you want to move forward. MR. URRICO-Laura, what size accessory structure would be allowed without needing a variance? MRS. MOORE-He’s allowed 500 square feet total. You’re allowed two structures on the site, but you can have no more than 500 square feet. MR. URRICO-No matter what he has to come back for an accessory structure, because he already has. MR. HENKEL-One is 140 square feet, then whatever that little one on the side. MR. URRICO-You would be allowed another 360 square feet. MRS. MOORE-Right, and I don’t know if the side structure counts. MR. URRICO-If he put in a smaller door, then he wouldn’t have to come back. Right? MR. BALL-I mean I wouldn’t mind going with a smaller door, just, like I said I want to be able to get something I could work on. MR. URRICO-You’d have to come back, if it’s larger than 360 square feet you’d have to come back. MR. MC CABE-Actually your best option here is to table this and work with Staff a little bit. MR. BALL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So could I have a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Greg Ball & Julie Austin. Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. second garage on the property. The existing home is 1,440 sq. ft. (footprint) with an attached 616 sq. ft. garage, a 616 sq. ft. porch and patio area. Relief requested for a second garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2020 GREG BALL & JULIE AUSTIN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ron Kuhl: Tabled to the first meeting in September with new information to be submitted to the Town by the August deadline date. Duly adopted this 22nd day of July 2020, by the following vote: th MR. MC CABE-So you have to submit your new information to Laura by August 15. MR. BALL-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/22/2020) NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-We’ll see you in September. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 22, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: nd Duly adopted this 22 day of July, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 26