Loading...
08-19-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2020 INDEX Area Variance No. 6-2020 Kathy Sanders 1. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-42 Area Variance No. 14-2020 Brian Hayward 7. Tax Map No. 316.17-1-4 Area Variance No. 25-2020 Frank & Cindy Steciuk 12. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-51 Area Variance No. 24-2020 Benjamin L. Aronson 17. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-76 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 08/19/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD CATHERINE HAMLIN JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE 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 th Appeals, Wednesday August 19. If you’ve not been here before, our procedure is fairly simple. There should be a schedule on the back table there. We’ll call each case up, read the case into our record, have the applicant present his case. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open the public hearing and take input from the public. In our case tonight we also invite people to call in from the outside. The number is 518-761-8225. After the public hearing, then we’ll close the public hearing and poll the Board, see how they feel about the case, and then we’ll proceed from there. From a safety standpoint, I’d like to point out there are exits to the north there where you came in. There are two exits in back of me on either side to the east and there’s an exit to the south in the far corner over there. nd Before we get started, first I’d like to get a motion to approve the meeting minutes of July 22. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 22, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our first application is from Kathy Sanders, 119 Birdsall Road. It’s AV 6-2020. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KATHY SANDERS AGENT(S) REDBUD DESIGN LA (GEFF REDICK) OWNER(S) KATHY SANDERS ZONING WR LOCATION 119 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING 1,232 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A SECOND STORY AND AN OPEN DECK ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DECK. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 3,971 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,513 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR RETAINING WALLS ON LAND, REPAIRS OF SHORELINE RETAINING WALL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. REVISIONS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE AND A REDUCED BEDROOM SIZE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR FAR, SETBACK, AND PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. CROSS REF SP 9-2020; AV 26-2019; AST 458-2019; SEP 9-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-42 SECTION 179-3-040 GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-We’ve been here before. So we’re just going to read in the changes. STAFF INPUT 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2020, Kathy Sanders, Meeting Date: August 19, 2020 “Project Location: 119 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,232sq. ft. (footprint) home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,513 sq. ft. Project includes site work for retaining walls on land, repairs of shoreline retaining wall, landscaping, stormwater management and a new septic system. Revision includes additional green space and a reduced bedroom size on the second floor. Relief is sought for FAR, setback, and permeability. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard- surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for FAR and setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the Waterfront Residential Zone –WR The additions to the home require setback relief from both sides: proposed is 6 ft. on the north side and 10.8 ft. from the south side where a 15 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback proposed is 46 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area is proposed to be 5,513 sq. ft. (28%) where 4,312 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. The height request has been removed as the addition to the home is to have a hip roof reducing the height to 28 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 proposed project may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby 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. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the relief requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for floor area is 6 % in excess. The setbacks relief is 9 ft. on the north and 4.2 ft. on the south side then the shoreline is 4 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. A new septic system was approved by local board of health in January 2020. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project includes constructing a second story addition of 912 sq. ft. over existing living space, where the bedroom size has been reduced where a portion is no longer over the existing porch. The plans show a balcony area of 216 sq. ft. and 300 sq. ft. of new living space over an existing enclosed porch/sunroom. The existing main floor has modifications to the layout and encloses the porch facing the lake 216 sq. ft., the open deck is enlarged to 432 +/- sq. ft. from 300 +/- sq. ft., and a new front entry covered porch 144 sq. ft. is proposed. The plans show views of each addition and the site. The applicant has made revisions based on the June meeting with the Zoning Board removing hard-surface and shed area, increase the green space, reducing the height to 28 ft. and reducing the floor area request.” MR. MC CABE-So just one additional thing. We’d ask with each application only a single person come to the podium. When you’re done at the podium please, there should be some wipes up there, please wipe the podium down and the microphone. State your name for the record. MR. REDICK-My name is Geff Redick. I’m here from Redbud Design Architecture and I’m part of the team that’s representing Kathy Sanders. Clark Wilkinson from Environmental Design Partnership is here as well, and Pam Cembrook, who is Kathy Sanders’ neighbor, is also here. Unfortunately Kathy could not be here tonight because she has to travel upstate and has to extend her two week quarantine. So my goal right now is to present to you the overall changes, what we’ve done with the project, and then Clark is going to come up and explain in some more detail, the details of the project. So in essence yes we were here before the Board back in June and we listened at length to, we presented our project and then took 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) the feedback that you’d given us to say, hey, look, there’s some things we’d really like to see you change. With that the owner went back to Williams and Williams the designers and pulled together some changes to deal with our house, but before I get there, I’d like to explain a little bit of background on the property. The owner bought this property understanding this was already a pre-existing, non-conforming lot, had very limited overall green space with the road that cuts across it, the large asphalt driveway that’s already there, the two car garage, etc. Also a non-conforming dock, buried oil tank, retaining wall down to the lakeshore and then a detached third bay garage which one of those bays actually acts as a small business for a gentleman by the name of Richard Phillips who operates a small landscape business out of the building, and he has no relationship to the owner. There’s also no financial relationship that happens between either party. So she basically just lets him use this third bay of the garage for his purposes. In general the owners have always had a desire to renovate this property for two reasons. One to bring the family back to the property. She’s getting to the point where grandkids are coming and she really wants that property to be that space for her kids to come to. Two, she’s always had an interest in protecting the lake and protecting the environment. So from Day One we did combine some of those components into the project, which you’ll see as I continue the presentation, but her desire to protect the environment and build a house was a two part scenario. So in essence what she is creating right now is a second story house with a third bedroom where currently it’s a one bedroom house. The architectural style of the house is in keeping with the lakefront with the majority of the properties on the lake, and she’s doing some of these improvements, for instance removing some of the old excavated septic system. Obviously building a home up to current standards with fully insulated walls and windows, and the removing also an approximately 50 year old buried oil tank. This part of the project from the stormwater management perspective, we had maintained the design to be under a 5,000 square foot disturbance threshold, basically keeping us in a minor project, but still she wanted to do things to help protect the lake and the general environment. So we designed for a boulder retaining walls to replace the arsenic laden retaining walls that are currently there. We removed existing decking that actually extends onto the neighbor’s property to the north. We’ve incorporated plantings along the shorelines, rain gardens near the shoreline so we can back drain everything from the shore to that rain garden, but then also pitch everything from the upper lawn areas down into that rain garden as well, and we’ve introduced a lot of plant materials that are all appropriate for a rain garden, and for the general region. So in essence that’s the overall big picture of the project. Actually, I’m sorry, there’s one thing that I’d actually like to extend. As part of the project, we’ve increase the permeability by removing a significant portion of asphalt, taking it from 55% to 65%, basically a 10% increase over what’s existing now, and then the reduction of the architectural changes to the house. The owner works with Williams and Williams, the designers of the house, to remove the original variance, that height variance that we had originally requested. So at this point, I’d like to, unless you have any specific questions for me, I’d like to turn it over to Clark Wilkinson from Environmental Design Partnership to go through some of the details of all the variance requests that we’re asking for. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. REDICK-Thank you. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-Thank you, Geff. Again, for the record my name is Clark Wilkinson with Environmental Design Partnership, representing Kathy Sanders on this project. I wanted to go back through some of the variances that we discussed last month or actually two months ago now, and the Board had some very specific concerns about them, but first I wanted to touch on the fact that, as Geff said, this is an existing, nonconforming lot and I wanted to reiterate the fact that if we did nothing today, three variances exist on the property, and that is the side setbacks, both of them are less than required, the waterfront setback is at 47 feet which is three feet short of the requirement, and the green space is 55%, and that’s supposed to be 75%. So again, going in we already need three variances even if we do nothing. So with that in mind, again we presented the original variance on June 17rh, requested a height variance of between two and three feet, I don’t remember the exact number. We requested the FAR of 0.3 versus 0.22 that’s required. We kept the shoreline setback at 47. The side line setback we increased to six feet rather than nine and a half existing, and that was to get a deck to go around the side of the house to be able to access the shoreline, but I’d also like to say at that last meeting we also had I believe three or four letters from adjoining neighbors who were in favor of the project at that time. I believe that we listened to the Board and had some really good comments and we came back, again, we’ve increased that green space by 10%, which is I think doing very well. She’s eliminated the actual driveway up to the house. You now park in the garage and have to walk to the house which, again, most of the time spent here is going to be during the summer and in the wintertime you just make sure you’ve got clear paths and you should be able to get to the house without a problem. By eliminating that pavement and some additional items here and there, we were able to get that 10% up. So now we’re asking for the green space variance, but instead of being the existing 55%, it’s now 65%. So we feel that that’s a win for the neighborhood, for the Board and for the project. The shoreline setback, that is now increased to a 46 foot setback and again it’s because of the deck, which the deck and stairs are needed to eliminate an existing pathway that actually is on the adjoining neighbor’s property that you have to walk on to the adjoining neighbor’s property to get to the bottom of the stairs currently to be able to access this property’s waterfront. So what we did is we incorporated stairs into that so that they could go directly so that we could eliminate encroaching onto the 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) neighbor’s property to get the access on to our waterfront. So that’s the reason that’s increasing, because the waterfront curves, even though the deck is straight, it added one foot to the variance that we’re requesting. The last two are the sideline setbacks. Again, that same deck that we talked about, that made it go from a nine and a half foot to a six foot side setback on that neighbor’s side to the north, which is the Cembrooks who are here today, and then the sideline setback to the south actually we increased that by .2 feet, and from .10 and a half or 10.6 to 10.8 feet. The last one we’re asking for tonight is the FAR, floor area ratio. We did a reduction to the second floor bedroom. We listened to some of the things people were saying about that. We also investigated how else we could reduce this floor area ratio. One of the suggestions made by the Board members was maybe decrease that third floor somewhat, go to a pump type system. We looked at all those different options and based on the amount of money that would add cost to the pumping system to having backup generators and all that stuff, the decisions were made to decrease some of the floor area. We also took off the shed, are proposing to take the shed off of the back of the garage which counted as floor area ratio. We gained three or four hundred square feet there, and with the reduction in the second floor and that reduction we’re now down to a .28 from the .30 that we had two months ago. So the plan before you tonight reflects what we feel is a reasonable and well thought out plan encompassing this Board’s comments from two months ago, and our client has made some important, both financially and project specific decisions to reduce the overall impacts of the project. So we’re here tonight asking you and hoping that you will be in favor of this project to approve it based on the changes that we’ve made, and I’ll open it up to any questions you might have. MR. MC CABE-So was there another presenter or you’re the final one? MR. WILKINSON-I believe so. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing no questions, there is a public hearing advertised and at this time I’ll open the public hearing and invite anybody that’s watching on t.v., to call in at 518-761-8225, and if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN CEMBROOK MR. CEMBROOK-Thank you. Thank you to the Board. Thank you for your service, especially under the times of COVID. It’s most appreciated. My name is John Cembrook. I live in the house directly next door to Kathy and this proposed project. We’re at 121 Birdsall Road. My wife and I Pam have been on that property for about 20 years. She’s part of the Middleton family. She’s been on the lake her entire life. My entire adult life I’ve spent time on the lake so I know it very well like the back of my hand. Just a quick reminder, compared to the existing property, let me start with the following. I’m fully in support of this project. I know the design team has made a bunch of professional changes related to the feedback that they heard here a few months ago. I appreciate that. I want to remind the Board of the following facts. Compared to the existing property, there are numerous improvements, removing a 50 year old oil tank, the new septic system further away from my well, Kathy’s well and the lake, an improved side setback. There’s currently a walkway on our property leading down to the lake. That is now removed. Improved stormwater management. They’re exceeding what’s required to manage flow from the road, across the lawn, down an already existing poorly terraced property with a more modern terraced situation. Getting rid of railroad ties in favor of natural rock. So many improvements, things that we think are right for Glen Lake. The permeability is being improved dramatically. There’s a ton of blacktop on this property. There’s an old shed that spans a three car garage just about. That’s being removed, a net positive, and at the end of the day there will be a new structure, which is an improvement for both the neighborhood, the Town and the tax base, etc. As I see it the only ask, and it’s even a minor ask, is to the FAR, based on all, and I realize every time you guys look at a property it’s a unique property with a unique set of constraints and so forth, but we’re only really talking about a FAR in terms of material change here, and the height restriction’s been removed. This seems like, respectfully, this seems as close to a no-brainer as you can get when you look at what’s there and what’s being proposed. As a neighbor, and again I stand here representing the neighborhood perspective. There are four, five, six other letters that are on file. As a neighbor we feel that it is both fair and right to approve this project. It is fair to Kathy. There’s been an incredible amount of work. This is a great project. It’ll be great for the lake an frankly it’s right for the neighbors to see this improvement go forward. So if there are further questions, I’m happy to take them, but I really do feel like I’m representing the views of the letters and all the neighbors that sit on Birdsall Road and beyond on Glen Lake. MR. MC CABE-Thank you very much. MR. CEMBROOK-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? So we had some written correspondence before. Is there any additional? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. URRICO-There’s one additional letter but it was from Mrs. Cembrook. MR. CEMBROOK-That would be my wife. MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read this in as well? PAM CEMBROOK MRS. CEMBROOK-Yes, I would like it read in. MR. URRICO-“I am in full support of the building project of our neighbor and friend, Kathy Sanders. I live in the adjacent property at 121 Birdsall Road and encouraged her to buy that property so she could be next to us. She and her family have been coming to stay with us at Glen Lake for 30 years. It has been her dream to have a home close to us. We jokingly call it "The Grandparent Trap"! The modifications to the house are necessary to make the house comfortable for her family to come and visit. She is making significant improvements to the property by removing a 46 year old buried oil tank (significant risk to neighbors wells and drinking water), installing a new septic system, installing stormwater management including rain gardens that were not there before, and landscaping the lakefront to protect the lake environment . All of these are major improvements to the lake environment. As she is building on the existing foundation, two of the variances that are being required are due to existing circumstances. Kathy has eliminated the height variance by altering the plans for the addition and she is improving the FAR and permeability by eliminating a portion of the existing paved driveway and a large portion of the garage storage area on the back of the garage. Given that it is a non-conforming lot she is doing her best to improve the FAR. She has also improved another situation by eliminating an existing walkway that was over our property line by a few feet. The improvements she is making to this property are significant and we kindly ask that you approve this application and the necessary variances required. Many lake properties in Queensbury and on Glen Lake have unique characteristics and constraints. We appreciate all the work put forth by this board to protect both lake and town. In this proposal, we feel the project now meets all reasonable attempts to address prior board comments and will measurably improve the environment. Once again, we kindly ask that you approve this application and thank you for your service.” That’s Pamela Cembrook, 121 Birdsall Road. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? So we’ve had our two minutes. So at this 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 Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the way that this project is presented, it’s an improvement, and it benefits the lake. I don’t think they’re asking for all that much. I would be in favor the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MR. MC CABE-I appreciate the improvements you’ve made so far, but I’m still concerned about the Floor Area Ratio. I think it’s far too substantial still, and I think basically the lot is too small for this size project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the improvements that have been made since last time are substantial but at the same time the request for 1200 square feet of excessive build out to me is still way over the top and I think you’re still going to have to look at removing a bedroom or removing part of the sunroom and we’re combining some of the effects that you have in there between living, dining and entertaining. So I think you still have room to improve. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I was primarily concerned with height relief, and permeability has improved. So I think I’m in favor at this point. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m satisfied that the applicant’s made significant changes to this application, ,and I was also concerned about the height and that’s been eliminated. I’m happy with the permeability that’s been laid down right now so I’d be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-John? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. HENKEL-Yes, there’s no doubt there’s a hell of an improvement on that property with the oil tank removed and new stormwater, new septic. I don’t have any concerns with the setback. Permeability is definitely the best they can do there with the rain gardens and that, but I do have a concern a little bit with the FAR variance. They’re looking at 1201 feet above the allowable amount and I think they can do something there and still make it a very usable house. So I would not be in favor as is. MR. MC CABE-So the way I view this is that my main concern was the request for the height variance, and I’m impressed that the applicant made the changes required to eliminate that particular request. I think we gain quite a bit by okaying this particular project, and so I am in favor of it. So at this particular point, Ron, would you make a motion. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kathy Sanders. (Revised) Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,232sq. ft. (footprint) home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,513 sq. ft. Project includes site work for retaining walls on land, repairs of shoreline retaining wall, landscaping, stormwater management and a new septic system. Revision includes additional green space and a reduced bedroom size on the second floor. Relief is sought for FAR, setback, and permeability. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for FAR and setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the Waterfront Residential Zone –WR The additions to the home require setback relief from both sides: proposed is 6 ft. on the north side and 10.8 ft. from the south side where a 15 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback proposed is 46 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area is proposed to be 5,513 sq. ft. (28%) where 4,312 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. The height request has been removed as the addition to the home is to have a hip roof reducing the height to 28 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 19, 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 basically they’re building on the existing footprint. 2. Feasible alternatives to this we find are really limited. They have been considered and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial because of the small size of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could also suggest that the alleged difficulty is actually self-created as they want to double what they have now. 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. 6-2020 KATHY SANDERS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 19 Day of August 2020 by the following vote: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. REDICK-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Brian Hayward, Area Variance 14-2020, 5 Palmer Drive. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRIAN HAYWARD AGENT(S): HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) BRIAN HAYWARD ZONING WR LOCATION 5 PALMER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 671 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 1,536 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT NEW HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,072 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF SP 19-2020; SEP 67-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2020 LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.17- 1-4 SECTION 179-3-040(A)(5)(B)3&11 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BRIAN HAYWARD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2020, Brian Hayward, Meeting Date: August 19, 2020 “Project Location: 5 Palmer Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 671 sq. ft. home to construct a 1,536 sq. ft. footprint new home with a floor area of 3,072 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Site plan for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slope. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirement –WR The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. The new home is to be located 2.9 ft. from the side property line where a 15 ft. setback on the south side is required. The floor area proposed is 3,072 sq. ft. (27%) where 2,491.6 sq. ft. (22%) 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 character 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 to reduce the floor area to be compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for setback is 12.1 ft. and floor area relief is 5% 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. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a new home of 1,536 sq. ft. footprint with a floor area of 3,072 sq. ft. The project involves demo of an existing dwelling, installing a new septic system and a new well. The plans show the location of the new home, septic and well.” 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board met and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was th adopted on August 18, 2020 by a 7 to 0 margin. MR. CENTER-Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. Mr. Hayward is here in the audience. Before you is a teardown of an existing structure for a new year round structure. Mr. Hayward plans on living here year round and making this his permanent residence. As you can see by the existing site plan, the existing septic system that’s there in the neighborhood is within the distance of two point wells and a drilled well to the south. It’s within the 150 foot setback. We thought it would be an improvement for the neighbors’ wells as well as the well that we’re going to drill across the street which we have received a well variance for from the Town Board prior to coming here. We have a new compliant septic system to the rear of the structure. We’re looking at, we’re asking for a 2.5 foot setback to the south property. In discussions with the Planning Board last night they asked us if we would talk to the neighbor to the south, which we did. He took no exception to that. You will hear that. He did have a conversation with Staff today, but tonight we’re willing to actually increase that separation distance on the south side to five feet instead of the two and a half that we were requesting. That will keep the north side at 12.6 feet. We do have some concerns about trying to split the distance. That was a question last night. As you can see on the plan, there’s an existing seepage pit to the north, to the north property, that’s on the property line, over the property line. In lieu of construction to try to protect that system that’s there, we’re worried about going closer to try to split the distance, that you put the house in the middle and try to do construction, not knowing if it’s a seepage pit or a series of seepage pits. We did send a line through to locate that. So we have some concerns about going further to the north, but like I said, we are willing to increase that separation distance on the south to five feet instead of the two and a half, 2.5 that’s requested. In regards to the Floor Area Ratio, there is no basement to this structure. So the difference, the additional 500 square feet or so, really is for the garage and a small entryway and a storage area. Not having a basement, you don’t have any storage. This gives us some more area for the storage. Also the garage kind of acts in two ways. It gives us our single car parking space out front, and the garage underneath, inside the building reduces the impervious surface that we have to put out in the front, which we have a well to the north and our own well. So we’re kind of reducing the impervious area on the lot by having that garage, yet it’s included in the green space, which the stormwater is less of an issue because it doesn’t have traffic issues and oils and grease. So it kind of gives us a double purpose. If there’s any other questions from the Board, it’s a pretty straightforward project. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Yes, I do. So your side yard is going from 2.9 feet to 5 feet? MR. CENTER-The south side’s going from 2.5 to 5 feet. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-What’s the existing? MR. CENTER-2.5. MR. MC CABE-So it’s 2.5 right now? MR. CENTER-It’s 2.5 right now. As it is the neighbor to the south said he didn’t have, we went and talked to him before we even got involved in this project, and we said we were going to keep that wall. There was some thought to re-use the building at the time, re-use the foundation. We decided that, with the current Code we really can’t do that, but we’re willing to slide that an additional two and half feet so it’s going to be a total of five feet off that south property line. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll make that change then. MR. CENTER-I would propose that change tonight. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. KUHL-Would you tell me about the drywell that’s right down on the property line? MR. CENTER-We did camera it, or not camera it. We put a distance finder and tried to locate it. We were able to locate it. It’s on the center of the property line. We believe it’s a six or eight foot seepage pit that’s right there. We had discussions with Dave Hatin in the Town when we tried to do this. Dave’s been out there several times. We tried to work with the neighbor to the north to locate that. There is no much we can do about moving it, relocating it. That’s on the neighbor. I’m sure that if they are going to sell it they’ll have to re-locate it again and go before the Town before they can sell the property. So that will get fixed in the future. Our new well will have treatment on it because it’s within the 150 foot of the 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) seepage pit. So as part of the Board of Health variance that we received for the well, they’re requiring us to put treatment on that water system. MR. KUHL-Tell me about this large seating area. I find this intriguing. MR. CENTER-In the front. MR. KUHL-I think you had it listed here as the seating area on the second floor. MR. CENTER-MR. Hayward, if you want to address that. MR. KUHL-Well, then he can come up next time. I mean why only two bedrooms? MR. CENTER-Because the two bedrooms is the criteria for the well and the septic system, what we could put on the site. So we had to do that. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-That’s kind of a large house for two bedrooms. MR. CENTER-A storage area, no basement. They have no room. That includes the garage area. MR. HENKEL-It makes sense not to have a basement. MR. CENTER-I mean it’s 500 square feet is the difference, and that kind of makes up with the garage and the storage area. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised. So I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who wants to call in on this project. Call us at 518-761-8225. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Do we have any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-’There’s one. On 8/18/2020 Staff Laura Moore received a phone call from Kim Ott at 7 Palmer Drive. She explained that she and Harry Ott approve the Brian Hayward project as proposed. Note the neighbor is the one to the south of the project site. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So we still have to give people from the outside a couple of minutes to call in here. So there’ll be a slight delay. MR. KUHL-How about that question about the seating area. MR. MC CABE-So what you’ll have to do is wipe down. MR. HAYWARD-Brian Hayward. MR. MC CABE-So, Ron, ask your question. MR. KUHL-The size of the seating area intrigues me. MR. HAYWARD-With the garage on the first floor kind of makes a long, narrow space on the first floor, and the other part of the floor would be a kitchen, dining area. So that seating area would be a place for the t.v. and a place to sit and look at the river I guess. MR. HENKEL-It’ll give you a nice view of the river. MR. HAYWARD-Yes, just because the other half of the first floor is such a narrow space. It’s only nine foot wide I think, the first half of the house. MR. KUHL-That’s it. So the t.v.’s going up there? MR. HAYWARD-Yes. MR. KUHL-The pool table. Okay. MR. HAYWARD-And there’s big windows that would overlook the river also. MR. KUHL-All right. Thank you. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. HAYWARD-You’re welcome. MR. MC CABE-So, Brian, what you’ll do is wipe down the podium and the microphone. Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think unlike the first one that we dealt with here this evening, there aren’t really any feasible alternatives on this project. I think it’s a minimalist approach. I think that, you know, they’re trying to fit in on a very small lot and I think that the issue here is the floor area ratio as usual. I don’t really see that you could make the place any smaller. I don’t think it’s a grab to build something oversized. I think it fits the size of the lot as it’s proposed. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree, and I like that change that the Planning Board had requested. I was thinking along those lines myself. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think it’s a good request. I’d be happy with approving it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members, it’s definitely a very minimal request. I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be in favor as presented. MR. MC CABE-Brent? Are you going to differ from everybody else? MR. MC DEVITT-I wouldn’t dare. No, this is a well thought out project. It’s taking a relatively small area. I think it’s being considerate of a lot of factors and I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And the way I view it, it’s a huge improvement to the neighborhood and a huge improvement to the environment, and so I, too, will support the project. So at this time, I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brian Hayward. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 671 sq. ft. home to construct a 1,536 sq. ft. footprint new home with a floor area of 3,072 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Site plan for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slope. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirement –WR The applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling. The new home was to be located 2.9 ft. and is now to be located five feet from the side property line where a 12 ft. setback on the south side is required. Relief granted is 7 feet of relief. The floor area proposed is 3,072 sq. ft. (27%) where 2,491.6 sq. ft. (22%) is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 19, 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. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) 2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the size of the lot and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 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: b) 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. 14-2020 BRIAN HAYWARD, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 19th Day of August 2020 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Just make a comment that the relief on the one side moves from two and a half feet to five feet. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. I’ll go back and re-state that. In terms of the feasible alternatives, the applicant, in response to the Planning Board request, has made an adjustment to the side area variance to add to the other side reducing one by 2.5 feet and adding it to the other side. It comes closer to the required 12 feet. MR. HENKEL-So it’s seven feet. MR. CENTER-No, we’re going from 2.5 on the south side to a five foot setback. MR. HENKEL-Right. We have relief, so it’s 12 feet needed. So it’s a relief of seven feet. MR. MC DEVITT-That is correct. MR. MC CABE-So then, Cathy, now what you’ll do is make a recommendation that we approve this. MRS. HAMLIN-I recommend that we approve this. MR. MC CABE-So we have a motion. Can I have a second? MR. MC DEVITT-I’ll second it. MRS. MOORE-All right. So I’m going to interrupt you because that description is going to be very difficult to read that through. So my understanding is that that one side that would be from a 2.5, I had it listed as a 2.9 going to 5 feet, and the relief requested on that south side is simply 10 feet. Because it’s supposed to be 15 feet. MR. HENKEL-I thought it was 12 feet relief. MR. CENTER-It’s a 12 foot due to the width of the lot. The required is 54.12, 2.9. You know what, you’re correct. I’m sorry it was 2.9. That’s my fault. It should be five feet. Five feet it should have been 2.9. That was my fault. MRS. MOORE-So the description can be amended. You can either put it in the description or as part of the condition, and I don’t care which one you do. MR. MC CABE-So why don’t you just modify the description. MR. HENKEL-Because it says in our requirements 12 feet setback, the sides, the side setback is 12 feet. That’s what it says in our paperwork, but I mean. I mean it could be wrong in our paperwork. That’s all. MR. MC CABE-So are we square? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MRS. MOORE-So let me repeat that so it’s clear. The description changes from the new home is to be located 2.9 feet to, to be located five feet from the side setback line where a 10 foot setback is required, and so the relief is seven feet. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So next application is Frank and Cindy Steciuk, and it’s AV 25-2020, 62 Country Club Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRANK & CINDY STECIUK AGENT(S): DANIEL W. RYAN, PE OWNER(S) FRANK & CINDY STECIUK ZONING MDR LOCATION 62 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-STORY STRUCTURE OF 2,196 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE BUILDING USE INCLUDES A 2-VEHICLE GARAGE AND A LIVING SPACE WITH RECREATION AREA ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,898 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) 2-STORY HOME WITH AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT AND ATTACHED GARAGE. IN ADDITION, THE SITE HAS A 150 SQ. FT. +/- SHED TO BE REMOVED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND DWELLING TO A PROPERTY WHERE ONLY ONE DWELLING IS ALLOWED. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN AND A WETLANDS PERMIT. CROSS REF SP 32-2020; FWW 2-2020; FWW 2-2020; P20020200; P20030166; P20030178; P20150023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2020 LOT SIZE 2.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14- 1-51 SECTION 179-4-010 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2020, Frank & Cindy Steciuk, Meeting Date: August 19, 2020 “Project Location: 62 Country Club Road “Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2- story structure of 2,196 sq. ft. footprint. The building use includes a 2-vehicle garage and a living space with recreation area on the second floor. The site has an existing 2,898 sq. ft. (footprint) 2-story home with an unfinished basement and attached garage. Also the site has a 150 sq. ft. +/- shed to be removed. Relief requested for a second dwelling to a property where only one dwelling is allowed. Project is subject to Site Plan and a Wetlands permit. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second dwelling to a property where only one dwelling is allowed in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to construct a second dwelling where only one is 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. The project may be considered to have impact on the neighborhood where this would be the only site with two homes on one parcel. 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 construct an addition to the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief being requested is 100% to have an additional dwelling on a parcel 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 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. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second dwelling considered a pool house where a portion of the building is a two car garage, pool room changing area, the second floor contains a bedroom with a kitchen and sitting area. The plans show the location of the proposed dwelling in relation to the pool area and the existing dwelling. The project includes removing an existing shed and installation of a septic system with connection to municipal water.” MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern, 1. The applicant will reach out to DEC for clarification of wetlands. 2. Setting a practice of having two residences on one property. And that motion was passed by a seven zero margin. MR. RYAN-Good evening. I’m Dan Ryan. I’m representing the owners and applicant for this project. I’ll give you a brief description of the project and get you familiar with the game plan and the reason they’re requesting relief, and I’d be happy to answer any questions. This is in the MDR zoning district. It is an existing developed single family dwelling. The purpose of this project is somewhat solving several different problems that they would like to resolve through the development of this project and this addition, a pool house being one of the primary concerns, having a pool house for bathroom use and multi -use space for the pool deck is something that’s desired. In addition to the fact that they’d like to develop a larger garage space because their vehicles don’t currently fit in the existing garage. It’s not really suitable for like an F-350 truck. So the additional garage space, storage area is needed really for lawn tractors and larger vehicles. The third item is, in hopes of developing some living space, which, you know, obviously could be done with an addition, although it is limited where that could be done. With a pool in the back, the driveway on the north side and the septic in the front, the only alternative to do any kind of addition would be on the south side, which is relatively close to the property line and as well it isn’t really suitable to solve these other multitude of problems which is adding a pool house and a garage. So the reason they’re proposing a dwelling, it’s my understanding that if they were to build this project and have living space with a kitchen, it wouldn’t necessarily be classified as a second dwelling. I’d prefer to call this a pol house and garage structure with living space which is really the ultimate goal. The primary need for this living space is to serve a couple of purposes. One being they do have family and friends that do frequent, and it gives them independent space to stay. With these times with the virus one of the concerns is you don’t have to have your family come and stay in a public facility or a hotel and now they can stay home and provide less exposure. So now I know that times have changed and I think that’s something that needs to be considered here with an aging community and people that do have that type of concern. The second reason is living space is important as they do have a family member, an adult that has an adult disability that does require occasional supervision, and so this living space gives them the ability to have some sense of independence while being supervised, and so that’s the type of need and the reason we’re presenting this project because the Town Code does not really address that need. There are many opportunities in this community where people have aging parents and they want independence but they also need supervision, and so the Code doesn’t accommodate two dwellings, per se. Because this is classified as a dwelling we’re here asking for a second dwelling and for that variance. The MDR district does allow other similar uses. It allows multi-family , duplex, bed and breakfast. These are all types of uses that are permitted in the MDR district. I would somewhat say that this is similar to that, except that it’s just really for private use. There is zero intent to use this as a rental, to have it in any other way except used by family and friends as needed. The project has limited impact on the neighbors. It’s set almost 200, 208 feet off the road. So it’s quite a bit set off the property. If you’re familiar with the property it’s a deep narrow deep lot with approximately two acres. So the project I feel would be very limited in visibility, and it does allow t hem to build one project, solving a multitude of desires and needs that would help them utilize and maximize the use of the property. The Planning Board did send a recommendation regarding precedent. I guess I’m not a big fan of this precedent discussion. I don’t know that this Board has ever approved a project solely on precedent. If you were to do that you’d be disregarding any merits of the application and the particular need of the applicant. So to say that you can dismiss the application merely by worry of precedent when I don’t think this Board or the Planning Board has ever made a decision solely precedent, I don’t feel that’s a valid concern and I would rather you look at the merits of the application. I know each application stands on its own merits. So I would ask you to do that today. Ultimately this project could be built, a similar structure could be built without the living space. The Planning Board last night, one of the topics of discussion was that people do it anyway. Ultimately when people do this and they’re not getting Code oversight, they’re not getting Building Code inspections, they’re not getting building permits, the Planning Board has no say, this applicant has integrity, they’re here wanting to build the project with living space, with a kitchen, and so they want to present it, do it the right way. They want to get their building permits, proceed in accordance with the local laws, and so I hope that you’d consider all these facts when you’re discussing the project and I would be happy to answer any additional questions you’d have. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Staff. If you had a connecting covered walkway that went from this current building to the new proposed building, would that settle the question of a second dwelling? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. RYAN-I believe it would MR. KUHL-It wasn’t for you. MR. RYAN-I’m sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I’m just thinking in the sense of great camps in the Adirondacks oftentimes have walkways that connect buildings and you have a who series of buildings and on a two acre lot I think you’re looking at about 14,000 square feet of build out space, probably over 14,000 square feet of build out space. So I’m just wondering. MRS. MOORE-I understand the question. I’m not going to do the interpretation. MR. KUHL-I think the walkway would have to be heated. It would have to be heated space connecting them. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think so. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That’s why I’m not doing an interpretation. MRS. HAMLIN-I, too, have a Staff question. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MRS. HAMLIN-How does this not also fall into a second garage? Is that something in this district that’s required? MRS. MOORE-This is the only garage. MRS. HAMLIN-I thought there was an existing garage. MR. RYAN-There’s an existing garage in the existing home. MR. MC CABE-So it’s just the dwelling has a garage in it. MR. RYAN-Each dwelling gets one garage. If we have two dwellings, we get two garages. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. MR. RYAN-If we didn’t have the living space, then we would need a variance for two garages. So I guess it’s one or the other. MRS. HAMLIN-You’d have to get a variance for the garage if it wasn’t a living space anyway. MR. RYAN-Correct. Yes. That’s my understanding. I guess I don’t know if Laura would agree with that. MR. MC CABE-They have a finished basement in this house. MR. RYAN-I’ve only been in part of the basement. I know there’s a kitchen area in some of the lower levels, but I‘m not sure. MR. HENKEL-You’re talking about a 6,000 square foot house and with a finished basement. That’s a lot of space. They’re saying they don’t have enough space now for, that’s kind of hard to believe. MR. KUHL-Mr. Ryan, are you saying that there’s going to be a permanent resident upstairs? MR. RYAN-No. It is basically the occasional need. It is my understanding that there is a health issue with a family member and that they occasionally need supervision. I don’t know any of the details of that, and a secondary utilization would be for because they do have occasional gatherings with family. MR. KUHL-But the supervision, are you talking about like a maid living in these quarters while the mother’s in the main house? MR. RYAN-No. The actual family member with the disability. MR. KUHL-Okay. How come you didn’t put an elevator in? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. RYAN-It’s not like a physical disability. MR. KUHL-Well, as I get older the stairs get tougher. Okay. So you’re stating here that this is intimate in use. MR. RYAN-Personal, exactly. There is no intent for any other suspicious use in there. MR. KUHL-Okay. So if we were to only give you approval without the kitchen, would you go for that? MR. RYAN-I guess I’d have to discuss that with the owners. I believe if the variance was denied, and the kitchen removed the dwelling definition, they would probably pursue a project without a kitchen. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. RYAN-In speaking with the Planning Board last night, they don’t like that because they feel like people put kitchens in eventually anyway and so ultimately you end up with exactly what you’re trying to avoid. MR. KUHL-Okay. What is the wetlands issue that the Planning Board didn’t like? MR. RYAN-We did not have a, because of the virus issues where it’s difficult to get field delineations currently by the agencies. So what they’ve asked is for me to reach out to DEC to try to get some type of correspondence from them. Because we will be, the structure’s about 92 feet from the wetland area. So we’re not really close to the wetland in any way, but we would require a permit from DEC. MR. KUHL-The wetlands are west of the house, is that what it is? MR. HENKEL-It’s by the bike trail. MR. RYAN-It’s right along the edge of the bike trail. It’s basically the giant channel caused by the berm. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. So you have to call the DEC for that? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Well, Staff, Mr. Chairman, would this mean that our approval would be based on a DEC findings? MR. MC CABE-We’re not being asked to make any judgment in that particular area. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. 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. I’m going to invite anybody from the outside to give us a call who’s interested in this project at 518-761-8225, and is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter? So we’re just going to have to wait for a couple of minutes here. So at this particular time, I’m going to close the public hearing, and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I would not be interested in approving this You talked about setting a precedent. Well actually we have one criteria that specifically addresses undesirable changes in neighborhoods, and this would be not only undesirable but it would actually change the character of the neighborhood as well by allowing it. So a precedent is actually something that’s mandatory for us to look at. So it’s not just something we fly by the seat of our pants. We actually do have a set of criteria that we follow, and I’d also like to point out that if you come back with a different project and you change, you remove the kitchen, you’re probably going to need another variance for a second garage at that place. So I would be against this. MR. MC CABE-John? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. HENKEL-I agree with Roy. There’s no doubt these people have maintained the property very nice. It’s a nice piece of property, but if you look around the area, there’s no other second family dwellings on a piece of property. This could open a can of worms down the road because it could be an air b and b which would be no good or apartments and that would be no good. So I would not be on board with the project at all. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-This is a two acre lot. It’s an awful big house that they have, but it’s the second dwelling, and I think, I mean what are they trying to accomplish here? I mean if they’re trying to accomplish a pool house, well make a pool house. If you’re trying to accomplish a second garage, a bigger garage, make a bigger garage. What they would be asking for is an awful lot and too much and I would not be in favor of it. Sorry. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree. I think the request is far too substantial. I think your desires can be achieved using the space you already have in the house plus get a variance for the garage and the pool house which makes sense. My biggest concern is a variance like this, they run with the land and if we were to grant this with this second structure then someone else could come in and rent this property. So for those reasons I’m not in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I don’t think there’s any doubt that this would be precedent setting here. We’ve had numerous requests over the past few years for granting apartments, accommodation of relatives and things like that, and I think that’s something the Town probably should be looking at long term for Town wide consideration, but at this time, we’re supposed to grant minimal relief, and I think what you’re offering here is probably within reason on a two acre lot, but given the build out on that lot, with waterfront you could build a 22% floor area ratio which would give you nearly 20,000 square feet of building on this lot. The house that’s there now is a large home and I think that, you know, you’re going to have to go to the Town Board and see if the Town Board is amenable to something that is going to be such a great change that’s requested. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I think there’s a great need in the Town Code for a second dwelling for that very purpose for caring for elderly parents and things, but that’s not our purview, and we have denied them in the past for a second garage. MR. MC CABE-And from my standpoint I can’t support the project either. There’s a couple of problems. We’ve been pretty rigid in allowing second dwellings on a residential property. To the fact that, or to the point where we have approved them for a specific period of time for an elderly resident, and as Michelle pointed out, the variance goes with the land. So there’s no guarantee that the applicant is going to be there for any length of time. So we can’t just consider the desires of the applicant. We have to consider what happens long term if we do something like this. So you don’t have too many yeses on this. So you have a couple of choices. You can table the application, take a look at some other way to go here. You can force a vote, but that’s obviously not going to go well. MR. RYAN-What would the temperature of the Board be on the multiple garages if the living space was eliminated? MR. MC CABE-Well the neighbor has multiple garages, but that was a pretty big battle that they went through to get the second garage. We went round and round with that at Number 60, and it seems to me that that was a pretty good size second garage and we shrunk it considerably. MR. HENKEL-He removed a basketball court and a shed. MR. MC CABE-So a second garage is a possibility there, particularly because it’s’ a fairly deep lot and there is, you know, it wouldn’t be out of character for the neighborhood since the house next door has it, and two doors up you have a detached garage which kind of is almost like a second garage. So, you know, in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, that wouldn’t be out of line. Two thousand square foot would be pretty good. That would be not only a second garage, but it would be larger than a normal garage. MR. RYAN-I mean I guess I would ask for a tabling at this point. Because I need to take this information back, and maybe they’d want to propose a project amended in some way. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So how long do you want to consider this? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. RYAN-I think it would be. th MRS. MOORE-So your next deadline would be September 15 for October’s agenda. MR. RYAN-Okay. I don’t think that would be a problem if there’s going to be an easy change, you know, maybe a change of direction like two garages without living. If it’s something more substantial, then we would probably withdraw the application or re-submit something entirely different. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to look for a motion to table this application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank & Cindy Steciuk. Applicant proposes a 2-story structure of 2,196 sq. ft. footprint. The building use includes a 2- vehicle garage and a living space with recreation area on the second floor. The site has an existing 2,898 sq. ft. (footprint) 2-story home with an unfinished basement and attached garage. In addition, the site has a 150 sq. ft. +/- shed to be removed. Relief requested for a second dwelling to a property where only one dwelling is allowed. Project is subject to Site Plan and a Wetlands permit. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2020 FRANK & CINDY STECIUK, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Tabled to the first meeting in October with a submittal date of September 15. th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 24-2020, Benjamin Aronson Trust. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BENJAMIN L. ARONSON TRUST OWNER(S) BENJAMIN L. ARONSON TRUST ZONING MDR LOCATION 1516 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 10.29 ACRE PARCEL (LOT 1; 6.10 ACRES WITH A 5,434 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND SHED; LOT 2; 4.22 ACRES WITH A 3,720 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) GARAGE BUILDING). PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH PARCEL 266.3-1-77.11 FROM 1.18 ACRES TO REMAIN THE SAME SIZE OF 1.18 ACRES ALLOWING FOR LOT 2 TO HAVE ACCESS TO ROUTE 9l. THE ROAD FRONTAGE OF LOT 2 IS TO BE 100 FT. WHERE 200 FT. IS REQUIRED AS THE PROPERTY IS A RESIDENTIAL LOT ABUTTING COLLECTOR/ARTERIAL ROAD REQUIRING DOUBLE LOT WIDTH FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE. CROSS REF AV 62-2017; SP 68-2017; SUB 9-2020; SUB 10-2020; P20030740; P20090486 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 10.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-76 SECTION 179-19-020 B MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2020, Benjamin L. Aronson, Meeting Date: August 19, 2020 “Project Location: 1516 Ridge Road “Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 10.29 acre parcel (Lot 1: 6.10 acres; Lot 2: 4.22 acres). Project includes a lot line adjustment with parcel 266.3-1-77.11 from 1.18 acres to remain the same size of 1.18 acres allowing for Lot 2 to have access to Route 9L. The road frontage of Lot 2 is to be 100 ft. where 200 ft. is required as the property is a residential lot abutting collector/arterial road requiring double lot width for residential lots. Relief requested for road frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage for lot 2 of the proposed two lot subdivision. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements - MDR The proposed two lot subdivision where Lot 2 of 4.22 acres is to have 100 ft. of road frontage where 200 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the lot arrangement and the existing house and garage location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 100 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. There are no changes to the existing conditions of the property. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 10.29 acre into two lots of 6.10 and 4.22. The subdivision separates the existing home and the vehicle storage garage. There are no changes to the existing conditions on either proposed lots. The subdivision plan shows the lot arrangement.” MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury 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 approved unanimously seven zero. MR. MULLER-Good evening, members of the Board. My name is Michael Muller. I am the Trustee of the Benjamin Aronson Trust. Benjamin Aronson owns all of the property that’s the subject of tonight’s meeting. Our proposal is, for Zoning Board purposes, we hope to create a lot. Looking at the plan that’s on the board in front of me, the top lot has an existing residence on it and it presently, today, consists of approximately 10.4 acres, 10.3 acres. We’d like to take that lot and actually draw a subdivision line through it, just as depicted on that map, so that we would have a residential lot with the existing residence, the northerly lot that would consist of slightly around six acres of land. We’ve met all of the requirements of the zoning district. So there’s no relief required there. With respect to the southerly portion of that larger lot, once it’s subdivided, that would be 4.2 acres more or less, and presently it has a principle building on it, as identified by our Code, a 3,000 square foot garage. So it meets all of the requirements and criteria of the zone, with the exception of the fact that although the MDR zone has a minimum road frontage of 100 feet, indeed this parcel has that, you have a multiplier in your Code that says that if you are on an arterial or corridor, that it has to be double, and so Ridge Road happens to be an arterial, and so the requirement would be that it has to be double. We have to consider all feasible alternatives. I have used a ruler and gone around with that multiple times to try to find 200 feet that looks logical and could satisfy the Code and it can’t be done. I asked Matt Steves to draw me the highest best possible line. Quite frankly for access to the back you don’t need 100 feet, but if 100 feet will do it, that seems to be the most feasible alternative. So in drawing that line, what I did was I took the smaller house that’s out front that’s really not a subject of this request for a variance but it’s owned by Aronson like I said so it has flexibility. You can use it to reconfigure it and we did. We said the lot is a conforming lot in that it has existed and what we have done is we have achieved the identical area of the lot by taking some of its frontage an dropping it back so that it’s a deeper lot, and so that then creates the 100 feet on Ridge Road. I was driving here tonight and my wife said why are we going to a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, and I said because Ridge Road is an arterial road and she said what does that mean, and I said well you have to have twice the amount of road frontage. She said why, and then it occurred to me that what you want to do with an arterial road is to limit the amount of driveways that are coming out on that arterial road. Then it occurred to me that this driveway has been there since 1950. So it actually is a pre-existing circumstance, and all I want to do is utilize it to get to the back of the parcel. There’s no other way to get to the back of the parcel because it has no road frontage, and you consider the factors that are appropriate for an area variance. Whether an undesirable change could be produced in the character of the neighborhood if you were to grant this. There’s absolutely no changes whatsoever. That is that these buildings will exist as they are now. They’ll be utilized as they are now. The garage in question on the four acre parcel was actually built in about, between 2017 and 2018. So it met all the requirements that are imposed by the modern Code in the Town of Queensbury. It has the stormwater and erosion control. It has the plantings. It has all of the design features that were required by the Code. It has the downward shielded lighting. It’s all there. This is a neighborhood that is impacted by Toby’s truck stop. If you’ve ever been to Toby’s truck stop since that opened in about the last 18 months, what you would see on any night, summer or winter, is about 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) six or eight trucks parked right up against this common boundary line between the garage lot and Toby’s. It’s not a lot that’s conducive to residential development. It’s a perfect lo, as proposed here, to be a buffer for the nearby residences, and when it comes to changing the character of the neighborhood, I think that if we’re allowed to implement this plan it’ll actually improve the neighborhood. In this respect, I’m driving down Ridge Road to my own home which is about a mile north of this, for 45 years, and over the course of the 45 years, I have noticed that the school bus barely stops at any houses. I’ve got a buyer for that little house and I brought her here tonight so that you could see that she supports this plan. She has children. That’s a positive change for this neighborhood, and I’m excited about the opportunity to be able to sell that house, but I can only sell it to her if I can reconfigure the property because that property’s cheap because it doesn’t come with the back portion. Right now it doesn’t come with the back portion. It comes with Mr. Aronson’s principle dwelling. They have a buyer for that parcel, too, but he doesn’t want the whole. He wants basically six acres with a house and all the amenities that go with the principle house. So our proposal really is to reconfigure, as you see on this map, and if we can get the one small impact here it would be to allow us the area variance that will grant us the minimal relief which is, we’ll give you the 100 feet. We just can’t double it. I think that’s my proposal. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised and so I’m going to open the public hearing and invite anybody looking on t.v. to give us a call at 518-761-8225 if you have comment on this application, and if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to make comment, do so now. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEPH KOZATANSKI MS. KOZATANSKI-My name is and I live at 1508 Ridge Road and I’m in favor of the project. It doesn’t affect me. MR. MC CABE-Thank you very much. MR. HENKEL-When was that one shed put there, that’s on the setback? MR. MC CABE-We’ll wait for him to come back. RORY RUSSELL MR. RUSSELL-My name’s Rory Russell. I ‘m at 1516. I’m the new owner and I have no issue with what Mr. Muller is proposing. There’s plenty of land for everybody, and it’s a great idea. MR. MC CABE-Thank you very much. Anybody else? MR. MULLER-What was the question? MR. HENKEL-I noticed when I was going by there was a shed there, and it looks like it’s really a second garage because it’s got a larger opening than a regular. There was a shed that’s in the setback on Lot One. MR. MULLER-That tiny, tiny little thing? MR. HENKEL-What’s the size of the tiny, tiny thing? MR. MULLER-It looks like it’s a one car garage. You can’t put a car in it. It’s up on stilts. It was used by Mr. Aronson as a place for his lawn and garden tractor. Most recently it was inhabited by rats and squirrels. It’s nothing. There’s not too much to it at all. MR. HENKEL-It’s not that old. Come on. MR. MULLER-It is. Yes, it’s probably 50, 60 years old. MR. HENKEL-Not the building I saw. Okay. MR. MULLER-That little building, it’s right there where the line intersects. MR. HENKEL-The building that I looked back at, there’s a building there with a garage door opening. MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That’s not 50 some odd years old. Unless they vinyl sided it just recently. MR. MULLER-Yes, they did. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MULLER-That was built with the house in 1960. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Because when I looked at it it definitely had fairly new vinyl siding. MR. MULLER-Probably 15 years old. It was just power washed. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Well it looks good to me. Like I said, it looks like a second garage because of the opening of the door. MR. MULLER-It is a garage but you can’t park a vehicle in there. It’s up on stilts., MR. MC CABE-Was there anything written? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-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 Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor of the project. I’m familiar with the area. I drive by it several times a week. I think it’s not, even though it appears substantial, I don’t think it’s substantial in comparison to the area, driveways, the residential driveways there. So I am in favor and I think they’ve considered every alternative in making this a very well thought out plan. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with Michelle. I think it’s a good project. I’d approve it the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree. There’s quite a few homes up the street there that are 100 feet wide. So it’s not a problem. I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as well. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see any negligible changes as a result of this proposed project so I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I don’t think 100 feet is a big request, and I think it’s a good use of the property. So at this particular time, I’m going to ask Jim to make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Benjamin L. Aronson Trust. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 10.29 acre parcel (Lot 1: 6.10 acres; Lot 2: 4.22 acres). Project includes a lot line adjustment with parcel 266.3-1-77.11 from 1.18 acres to remain the same size of 1.18 acres allowing for Lot 2 to have access to Route 9L. The road frontage of Lot 2 is to be 100 ft. where 200 ft. is required as the property is a residential lot abutting collector/arterial road requiring double lot width for residential lots. Relief requested for road frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage for lot 2 of the proposed two lot subdivision. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements - MDR The proposed two lot subdivision where Lot 2 of 4.22 acres is to have 100 ft. of road frontage where 200 ft. is required. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2020) SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 19, 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. We do not note any because this is just a semantic change as far as we’re concerned. 2. There really don’t seem to be any feasible alternatives. There’s been reasonably great changes of this property in the neighborhood with the re-do of the gas station adjacent, and this project will not really create any undue hardships on anybody. 3. The requested variance is substantial. One hundred feet where two hundred feet is required is substantial, but it’s not caused by the applicant as the driveway has been there since the 1950’s. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We don’t note any real change in traffic patterns as a result of the creation of these two new lots. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It’s created more by the Code being applied for the arterial highway. We can’t really go back and change things, but they’re preserving the intent of the neighborhood which was larger lots. 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. 24-2020 BENJAMIN L. ARONSON TRUST, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th day of August 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MULLER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So I’ll make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TH AUGUST 19, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 19 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 22