Loading...
08-26-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 2020 INDEX Area Variance No. 26-2020 John & Cynthia Randall 1. Tax Map No. 309.6-1-25 Area Variance No. 22-2020 Laurie Ann Shope & Lynn P. MacCoun 4. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35 Area Variance No. 27-2020 MH Imperial Homes 18. Tax Map No. 279.17-1-63 Area Variance No. 23-2020 Gary Higley 22. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-14 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 08/26/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 26, 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 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, August 26, 2020. If you haven’t been here before, the procedure is fairly simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each case up. We’ll read the case into the record. We’ll allow the applicant to present additional information. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open the public hearing and seek input from the public and then we’ll close the public hearing and poll the Board to see what the feelings are about the project and then we’ll proceed from there. Just from a safety standpoint, there are two exits to the north here, generally where you came in. There’s two exits behind me to the east, and there’s one exit in the far corner there to the south. From a procedure standpoint we’re going to ask that just one person from each case come to the podium. When you’re done at the podium, there should be wipes there. We’re going to ask you to wipe the podium down, wipe the microphone down, and then the next person can come up. So the first case is Area Variance No. AV 26-2020, John & Cynthia Randall. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOHN & CYNTHIA RANDALL OWNER(S) JOHN & CYNTHIA RANDALL ZONING NR LOCATION 30 COLUMBIA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 114 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 770 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME. ADDITION IS FOR LAUNDRY ROOM WHERE A 20 FT. SETBACK IS REQUIRED AND 17.6 FT. IS PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF BOTH-258-2015; P20150278 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2020 LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES (CORNER LOT) TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-25 SECTION 179-3-040 JOHN RANDALL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2020, John & Cynthia Randall, Meeting Date: August 26, 2020 “Project Location: 30 Columbia Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 114 sq. ft. addition to an existing 770 sq. ft. footprint home. Addition is for laundry room where a 20 ft. setback is required and 17.6 ft. is proposed. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements in the Neighborhood Residential zone –NR The applicant has constructed a 114 sq. ft. residential addition that is 17.6 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) 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 property and it being 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 is 2.4 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 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 requests to maintain 114 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing home. The applicant had indicated the addition was built to align with the existing home and wasn’t aware of the review requirements. The applicant completed the application process and obtained an updated survey to be compliant with the requirements. The addition is to be used for the laundry room.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. RANDALL-My name’s John Randall. I live at 30 Columbia Avenue, Queensbury, New York. MR. MC CABE-So it’s pretty straightforward. Do you have anything to add? MR. RANDALL-Not really. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-When did you start the project? MR. RANDALL-I started the project about two and a half months ago, and before I finished it Mr. Hatin came by and said you don’t have a permit, and gave me a Stop Work Order. I stopped right then and went through the procedures that I needed to go through and he made a statement that it didn’t matter if I applied for a permit, I wasn’t going to get it anyway because of the zoning, the variance. I said, well, I’ll go through what I’ve got to go through. So I went through Building and Codes and then I proceeded to planning and they told me what I had to do and I had to get the survey maps, and the only thing they asked is I pay the fee for all the stuff. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. HENKEL-So you didn’t have a survey map because you just bought that property not too long ago, right? MR. RANDALL-No, me and my wife, I’m 69, she’s 71. This is the first time we’ve bought new property. MR. HENKEL-It’s too bad you had to get a survey for this little project. That’s a lot of money. MR. RANDALL-I had other survey maps, but they wouldn’t, and I had to have it re-surveyed, MR. MC CABE-Questions? So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and I’m going to invite anybody who’s watching from the outside who wants to comment on this application to give us a call at 518-761-8225. And I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to address the Board with respect to this particular project. Do we have any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There was a petition signed that asked the neighbors to sign this form if they had no objection to the addition and improvements that were made to the property, and 14 neighbors signed this. That’s all I’ve got. MR. MC CABE-So we’ve just got to wait a few minutes to give people on the outside time to call in. MR. HENKEL-Were you able to connect the two buildings at all? Because with that being on piers like that you’re going to get some shifting. That’s the only problem with that. I’d hate to see that cracking away. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. RANDALL-Well, I got as far as I cut it. I put the elephant feet down and the four by fours. I did have a leak in the roof, but I got permission to seal that up. That’s the only time I can touch it. MR. HENKEL-That’s the only problem with that being on piers, it’s going to shift differently than the rest. MR. RANDALL-Well, I plan on doing it different if I can get a permit. MR. HENKEL-Yes, because you only have that on the blocks. MR. RANDALL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So nobody’s gotten a hold of us here. So 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 Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I think it’s a very minimal request and I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-If this was a new request before us I think we would grant it with no questions asked. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with my fellow Board members and I’m in favor of your project. MR. MC CABE-Ron, how do you feel? MR. KUHL-This is a pre-existing, non-conforming with the distance off the property line, and I think it’s a minimal request. I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s only one very small variance of 2.4 feet of relief. So I would also be on Board with this project as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, this is a minimal request. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I think it’ll improve the property. I think you’ve done a nice job with the property, and I, too, approve the project. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion from Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John & Cynthia Randall. Applicant proposes to maintain a 114 sq. ft. addition to an existing 770 sq. ft. footprint home. Addition is for laundry room where a 20 ft. setback is required and 17.6 ft. is proposed. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements in the Neighborhood Residential zone –NR The applicant has constructed a 114 sq. ft. residential addition that is 17.6 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 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: 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this is just a slight addition onto a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited. Plus it is a corner lot and the existing building is the same distance off the property line, and the feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it is just a small addition for a laundry room. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created, but not really. 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. 26-2020 JOHN & CYNTHIA RANDALL, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 26th Day of August 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. RANDALL-My only question is, since you’ve approved this, do I have to wait a certain time for a building permit? MR. MC CABE-Somebody will get a hold of you. MRS. MOORE-We’ll talk tomorrow. I’ll try to give you a call. MR. RANDALL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So our next application is Area Variance 22-2020, Laurie Shope and Lynn MacCoun. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2020 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II. LAURIE ANN SHOPE & LYNN P. MAC COUN AGENT(S) MICHAEL O’CONNOR OWNER(S) LAURIE ANN SHOPE & LYNN P. MAC COUN ZONING: WR LOCATION 10 POLK DRIVE APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FROM AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION SUB 5- 1993M(1996) FOR TWO LOTS. LOT 2 OF 1.13 ACRES REQUIRES 50 FT. OF ROAD FRONTAGE WHERE ONLY 17.01 FT. EXISTS. LOT TWO HAS AN EXISTING 1,588 SQ. FT. +/- (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A DETACHED GARAGE. THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE. CROSS REF P20110614; SP 81-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35 SECTION 179-4-050 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2020, Laurie Ann Shope & Lynn P. MacCoun, Meeting Date: August 26, 2020 “Project Location: 10 Polk Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests relief from road frontage requirements from an existing subdivision SUB5-1993M(1996) for two lots. Lot 2 of 1.13 acres requires 50 ft. of road frontage where only 17.01 ft. exists. There is no construction proposed at this time. Relief requested for road frontage. Relief Required: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) The applicant requests relief for road frontage in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-4-050- road frontage The existing parcel has a 17.01 ft. of road frontage where 50 ft. is required. Access would be to Holly Lane. 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 an impact on the neighboring properties as this would be new driveway access to an existing road. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the parcel being an existing lot and would require a variance to access through an adjoining lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for 32.99 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 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 maintain the existing 17.01 ft. road frontage to have access to Holly Lane for Lot 2. The plans show the lot configuration and the existing buildings on the site. The applicant has indicated there is no site work proposed at this time.” MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little, O’Connor & Borie. I’m here representing Laurie Ann Shope and Lynn P. MacCoun. Their family has owned this property, believe it or not, since 1899. It was conveyed to these two girls by their father, Robert Polk, Jr. In the words of Craig Brown, this is a technical variance, and in my experience it’s like many of the variances that I have asked for around the lake or around the lakes because of the old road systems, they didn’t have the width that the current Code requires. In fact, this property has been approved in its configuration that we have twice by the Planning Board. They got permission to subdivide it and then t they got permission to modify the subdivision by changing the angle of the line that separates Lot One and Two. The variance won’t change the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties. This is a residential neighborhood and we’re not changing it. We’re going to have residences on the property. We’re going to have to go through site plan for the residence down the road, but it is going to be residential. It isn’t going to be anything but that. The existing road will not be changed in its width. We don’t own property on either side of the road going up to the boundary line. So we don’t have the ability or availability of doing something of that nature. The driveway that is going to run from the end of this road is going to be entirely on the property of the applicants. It’s not going to be on somebody else’s property. It’s going to be on their property, but it will be probably much shorter than the existing driveway that runs through their property and it has a loop at the end of it. We figured it’s going to be approximately 100 feet from that to where they’re going to build the house. They actually are going to tear down the existing house on Lot Two and then build a new structure there. The benefit can’t be obtained by any other method that’s feasible to the applicant. There are two lots, each of which needs its own private entrance road. The applicant does not own or control any land that would allow them to widen the road as it attaches to the applicant’s property. When you look at the map of the width of the road, you might think that this was a substantial variance, but if you actually look at the impacts, it is not. It impacts no one except themselves. They will have access to their own property. The driveway will be on their own property. It won’t impact anyone else. You need to look beyond just the simple math. Was the difficulty self-created? I say, no, the Town Planning Board has approved this subdivision twice with the width of the road shown on the prior subdivision maps, and they approved it in 1996 and they approved it in 1993, and also, this road was listed on the Donovan Road Inventory that was taken in the 1950’s, and it was in the configuration that it’s in now, and it’s the program that they have for the Town to apply for and qualify for CHIP’s money for repair of roads. This is Town road that runs up to that property. If anything this was created when the Town, I don’t know when, accepted that road as a Town road. It is not something that the applicants created. I’ve got the Donovan plan listing here if you need it for your record. I think you’ve got in your record letters from Craig Brown saying that this was a variance because of the technicalities of the changes of the road width requirements. So it really has no impact on anyone. The people that are purchasing this property, their new home will be an improvement to the existing home 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) that’s on Lot Number Two and an improvement to the neighborhood. If you have any questions, I’d be glad to try and answer them. MR. HENKEL-So you’re saying when they split these into two lots, obviously it was one lot, at that time there was no requirement of the width of the road? Because you would have thought that would have been a consideration. MR. O’CONNOR-If there was it was ignored by the Planning Board on two different occasions. MR. HENKEL-Because you’d think they would have, one of the concerns if you’re splitting up the property that has no exit road, you know, now you’re talking about landlocked, other than that easement road. MR. O'CONNOR-No, Lot One has actual frontage on Assembly Point Road. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. I know what you’re talking about. MR. O'CONNOR-And Lot Two, from history, has always been at the end of Polk Drive. So they had frontage on that. It was just a question of the width of the frontage. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-You talk about future development, Mr. O’Connor. That’s going to happen or? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it is. I represent the sellers of the property, not the buyer, but his intention, everything that he’s talked about it’s going forward. He’s actually added some additional topographical surveys done, and other things to get it ready to find out what he needs for Site Plan. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-But you’re saying the sale won’t go through without approval of that road. Basically that’s what you’re saying to us. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that is a condition, that was a condition of the sale. MR. KUHL-I would have done the same thing if I was buying that lot. Subject to, right. MR. HENKEL-It makes sense. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. At this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and invite anybody who’s watching on t.v. to give us a call at 518- 761-8225. If there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular issue, we’re going to invite you to come up in just a second here. So you’ll go first. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRIAN HOGAN MR. HOGAN-I actually brought a bunch of correspondence tonight. MR. MC CABE-So first we’re going to have you state your name for the record. MR. HOGAN-Sure. My name is Brian Hogan. I own both the properties that are seeking relief, and we’ve lived on Holly Lane for about 20 years. My family’s vacationed there for about 40 years prior to that, and we’re familiar with the area obviously. I had the opportunity to read the application and I noted that there’s a bunch of things, to me anyway, that look like inconsistencies, and I’d like to address each of those in turn. I have a document that I’ve created relative to that. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask that you, unless, Roy, do you have said document? MR. HOGAN-No. All this correspondence was just signed off on. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So make sure that the Secretary has a copy first there. So if I could I’d like to go through the application point by point. One of the, on Item One, which is on the document that you guys have, compliance with the Zoning Ordinance document, Item 1 indicates whether undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property. The applicant states that no; the condition already exists. Previously 2 tax lots from 1996 to 2009; we wish to put back 2 tax lots as it was prior to 2009. See filed map. What I think is it’s somewhat incorrect. The variance is for road frontage on the wooded southern border of the parcel in question. The condition does not already exist and would be a detriment to the residents of Holly Lane. The original subdivision or two lots has a 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) right of way called Polk Drive. Any access to Holly Lane was deliberately left out of the subdivision. The original subdivision request in 1993 and 1996 was done by Mr. Polk, purposely left out access to Holly Lane, and I can quote from that. He was represented by Mr. Auffredou at the time. "A leach field area, that maybe would present a problem for a driveway if it was extended to that town road, but at the present time Mr. Polk has no intention of putting a driveway in that area" Mr. Polk further responds, "My daughters and I will have this property, or whatever may be for someone else. However, we will maintain this road as we have for 90 years. So I want to clear that up. If at such time this that this property would change, these people do not want this easement here, we will come through here (planning board), if we have to". So Mr. Polk had never had any intention of connecting to Holly Lane. So it was not included in the subdivision, which is kind of weird because most people when they do a subdivision always want to have access to the closest road. In this particular case, he specifically left it out. He was asked several times during the Planning Board meeting if he wanted to include it, and he said no. Item 2 Where it says this is the only option, it’s a minimum variance. Polk Drive exists to serve both lots which is approved, in use and access over it would pass to any subsequent purchaser. You cannot land lock a piece of property. So in other words the existing road would pass to both users, and by the way, the application sort of states that there might be more than one person buying this. It’s the same person buying both lots as far as I know. Item 4, Whether proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions. The application says no, there will be no change. Again, this seems to be incorrect. It’s a matter of perception. The owners on Holly Lane do feel that this would have significant impact on them. It is already difficult with the number of vehicles that traverse up and down that road and no information has been provided by the applicant about the stated lack of impact. One of the other things that concerns me somewhat is that we’re mixing and matching. This is something that the current owners are providing, are requesting, and we’re stating things in this meeting that the future owners are going to do something. It actually has no bearing on the new, from my perspective you have to look at it from conditions on the ground as they currently exist, not as a possibility of what somebody might do in the future. Item Five, whether the difficulty was self-created. The application says, no, this is a circumstance created by the Town when they approved Polk Drive with at 17.1 feet. It’s not Polk Drive. It’s Holly Lane, and that’s how they get access, they want to give access to it. So they have a current road called Polk Drive which actually enters the property from Assembly Point Road. This would be a new access from Holly Lane. By definition I would think that that would be self-created. The next document in the application is a General Statement Narrative. They’re selling two lots. Buyer One, the 1.13 lot, has conditioned his purchase on being able to access said lot from Holly Lane. I’ve known the girls that are selling the property since high school, and they’ve joined both the tax lots for tax purposes and have enjoyed significant tax savings for years because of that. Now they wish to once again separate into two parcels and add road access. The paragraph would seem to indicate that there are two purchasers. In fact there is just one and he’s the developer. Paragraph Four, this is an existing condition and does not involve any construction on the subject lot which has an existing single-family home. The purchaser intends to use the lot for the same purpose. There’s no driveway or road in this location on same serviced by said existing road. It would by definition require construction for any access to the subject lot as well as by the Town to complete the road. As you can see from the diagram you show up there, there’s 34 feet of the road that’s not completed and not paved. Has anybody ever been to the property and looked at it? The 34 feet in question there is actually part of my driveway. I cleared that. I put the gravel in and I’ve actually maintained it for 20 years. The Town doesn’t do anything except pile snow on it. And Paragraph Five, indicates that there’d be no change to the neighborhood, and considering the fact that Holly Lane is a Town road and serves a single-family pre-existing residence does not serve that house. You are adding additional vehicles, deliveries and removing access for snow removal. Right now the Town piles all the snow at the end of that road. If you put a driveway at the end of that road, there’d be no place to put the snow. Paragraph Seven. MR. MC CABE-I’m going to have to, you’re only supposed to have three minutes here. Can you wrap this up a little bit. MR. HOGAN-You know what, I do apologize for that. You have to understand I’ve been asked to speak on behalf of everybody on Holly Lane, and some of the folks are older and they’ve asked me to speak on their behalf. MR. MC CABE-Because we have other cases tonight. MR. HOGAN-I understand. Paragraph Seven, Holly Lane was originally created from a right of way based upon deeded access by all the properties on the lane. The applicants subject property does not have any reference to this right of way in their deed. It is substantial to the residents of Holly Lane. There’s no physical change. Any construction or use of Holly Lane will certainly cause a change to both the physical and environmental conditions, and Paragraph Nine states that obviously this condition was not self- created. Holly Lane was shown on the 1950 Donovan Road Inventory. Holly Lane or any derivation of Holly Lane or Brayton Lane or Brayton Lane North is listed nowhere on the current New York State Local Highway Inventory. As Mr. O’Connor mentioned, that’s the funding for CHIP’s, and if you go and look at that document, the current one as of 2019, it has no reference whatsoever to Holly Lane. The applicant indicates the hardship is not self-created. I think we’ve already demonstrated that it is self-created. The last thing I’d like to go over, and most important to me, is the heirs to the current subdivision. If you look 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) at the subdivision map, the upper southern border on the right hand, you’ll see where my house is listed as having no well, that I get my water from the lake. That’s correct. On the other side you’ll see the camp I own on the other side of the road. That shows the camp and the well location. According to that survey, those two items, that camp and that well are 150 feet from that property line. That’s incorrect. The camp is actually about 44 feet from the property line, making the well considerably closer. . If you look at my survey, it’s accurate. I can assure you that the building and the well has not moved. At 150 feet my camp and that well would bisect that southern property. That is not the case. The survey is in error, and one of the concerns that I have associated with that is the fact that my well is so much closer it actually bisects the leach field for the two properties that are the two camps. The other part of this that always concerns me with these things is things are always piecemeal. We do one variance, we get that approved, you know, basically the end of this variance they would be able to drive through if they want. The Planning Board never looked at any of it because they didn’t have the ability to, if somebody says we’re building the road, we don’t want it, we don’t want access, of course the Planning Board’s not going to look at it. In any case, I think that this is a piecemeal approach and it doesn’t benefit anybody. I’m not saying that they can’t do what they want to do. That’s not my intent here. What I’d like to see be done is have it done right. I’d like to see the Town Board adopt Holly Lane as an official road, get it on that CHIP’s list that Mr. O’Connor pointed out. I’d like the submission to the Planning Board done so the applicant can update the subdivision to show that they do want road access now, not change that from not wanting road access as was done back in 1996. At that time we can all look at the due diligence associated with the construction of the road, what’s required, we need a turnaround and where’s the snow going to go and all of that kind of stuff, and once the Planning Board looks at that, then they come back and ask for the variances associated with that. I think there’s benefit to everyone. MR. MC CABE-So procedurally you have it just the opposite way around. The owners have to approach us for a variance before they can approach the Planning Board. That’s the way. MR. HOGAN-When I did it it had to go to the Planning Board first. MR. MC CABE-When you get to be king you can do that. MR. HOGAN-I guess I can. I have a couple of other pieces of correspondence here. MR. MC CABE-Make sure that Roy gets them. MR. HOGAN-Sure. This piece of correspondence is, this is a letter that was signed by almost everyone on Holly Lane that is affected by this. MR. URRICO-It’s essentially what you just gave us? MR. HOGAN-This is different. MR. URRICO-This is different. You mentioned you’re speaking for other people. Can you mention who those other people are. I’m talking about what he just presented. He said he was speaking for other people. MR. HOGAN-No, Landis actually wrote her own stuff. I was speaking for her, but she actually has this letter. I think you’re going to have to read this one because it’s sealed. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Laura, can you tell us anything about this road? MR. MC CABE-Well, we’re going to bring Mike back. MR. HENKEL-Laura being a Staff member would know more about that. MR. MC CABE-So are you all done? MR. HOGAN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So I need to have you wipe down the podium and the microphone. (Phone ringing) This is the Queensbury ZBA. PUBLIC CALLING IN-I very much oppose this extension of Holly Lane and I. MR. MC CABE-First of all you need to state your name for the record. PUBLIC CALLING IN-I’ll call back I guess when they’re asking if anybody else, but I’d like to hear what’s going on first. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. MC CABE-Okay. Because we do a have another person that’s going to speak on this. So you want to call back. So you would like to go next? FLORENCE CONNOR MRS. CONNOR-Florence Conner, 6 Holly Lane, Lake George, New York. I’m going to read mine so that I don’t get confused, and then I’ll give you the copy. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. CONNOR-First of all, these are the owners that are asking for this and they say no construction is expected from them. So I want to just make that clear. This letter refers to the request for a variance requested by Shope and MacCoun. It is in opposition. If you have made an on-site visit to this property, and if you, the people that are here, are familiar with Assembly Point, you will know how unique this property is. It is possibly the only natural shoreline still existing on the Point. Therefore you can see the significance of refusing this variance request. This property is for sale. This variance comes to you from the owners, however, without a doubt requested by the individual wishing to purchase the property. It seems like a small request until one realizes why this variance is requested. This request opens the door to something much bigger than an end of a road or a driveway., As you consider this variance requesting reduced road frontage, think beyond the 17+ feet. If accepted the door/driveway becomes open to the potential buyers who, once he buys it, must develop it to be worth more than the two million dollars he will have paid to purchase it. That is a given. I ask you to imagine this property, have you seen the property, and if you have, imagine it stripped clean with only lake shore buffers surrounding a multi- million dollar structure. (Phone ringing) MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. Can I ask you to just hold up for a second here. This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Hello? Sorry about that. Go ahead. MRS. CONNOR-That’s okay. Compare that picture to the property as we see it today. A natural waterfront with a cottage that’s over 100 years old still in use today. If frontage is forgiven, building will begin. First there will be demolition, then there will be multiple requirements involving setbacks, etc. There will be more – probably multiple, requests for further variances in order to build and landscape a multi-million dollar estate necessary to make a sizeable profit from the purchase of two million dollars plus of this once natural spot of land. The only thing protecting this parcel from complete transformation today is for Queensbury Board of Zoning Appeals, that’s you, to deny a variance requesting less road frontage. There are reasons Queensbury requires specific frontage. Today that reason becomes obvious. This property is valuable. It will sell. There is access to it without a variance. It is unique and it’s desirable. Queensbury has been setting an example of a Town that respects Lake George: septic transfers, reduced salt, modern plows, boat washing. We in Queensbury have been here a long time have been saying, “Enough is Enough”. This variance is one more spot where Queensbury, that’s you, can again say, “No, enough is enough.” This is one more step we should take to protect what is of most value, the lake and the property that surrounds it. I ask you to deny this variance for that reason. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So whoever’s calling in from the outside, if you have input, we’ll take it right now. (Phone ringing). This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. SUSAN O’HANLON MRS. O’HANLON-Yes. Susan O’Hanlon calling. I’d like to talk on this. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. O’HANLON-Susan O’Hanlon. I’m at 12 Holly Lane. I’ll tell you there has been a significant impact already to the residents on Holly Lane. I have a hard time sleeping at night. This variance is unnecessary in my opinion. There’s a road that gives access to both of these lots which apparently are being purchased by the same party. I feel that the variance requested is going to impact my neighbor that just spoke has talked about. This is a pristine piece of land that has been in existence for many years with a private road that has given it access, which makes it very unique and very desirable. It also is not necessary to connect to 12 Holly Lane unless they want to bring huge trucks in here for construction, which will impact all of the residents on Holly Lane. We have had a private dead end road here for many, many years. I’ve been here since 1968, my husband before me even longer who is deceased, and we have an impact as it is with garbage trucks and those kinds of vehicles already coming through here., I cannot imagine what would happen if we have all this construction taking place with the building of the homes, two homes from what I understand will be the future plan for this developer. We on Holly Lane have to cross this road all the time to get to our residences from our garage or wherever we park. This is unusual. This is not like the main Assembly Point Road where they only access across the road and have to cross it to get to their dock. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) We have to use this road constantly to walk across, to bring groceries, to mow the lawn, back and forth continually, and there is foot traffic consistently back and forth on this Holly Lane Road. It is already busy enough. We don’t need construction people coming through here for who knows how long. I know other homes in this area took two to three years to build the mansions that they seem to be putting on the lake now when they tear these old beautiful places down. That’s all I really want to say, other than my neighbors at the end of the road, the Hogans, who first spoke, have a beautiful piece of property. They bought that property and my understanding is the beauty of it was that it was at the very end of a private road. Their home, one of the two homes that they own, is very close to the road. I can’t imagine what impact that would have on them when trucks and so forth come through here and people that aren’t familiar with how important it is to go very slowly and this still happens, with guests and people. We have to remind our guests, please go drive very, very slowly. This would be a huge impact on everyone on Holly Lane and I’m very much opposed. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you very much for your input. Okay. WILLIAM CROWELL MR. CROWELL-Thank you. My name is William Crowell. I reside at 20 Holly Lane. I have a couple of comments on this application. First, it’s not very transparent. The first I’ve heard anything about what is going to happen here was I think Mr. O’Connor said they were planning a 100 foot driveway. There’s nothing in the application to indicate that. MR. MC CABE-Also that’s not what we’re passing judgement on. MR. CROWELL-Well, but my point is, as a resident of Holly Lane, I’d like to know what we’re passing judgment on. I’d like to know, is it going to be 100 feet? Are they going to connect it to the existing right of way, Polk Drive? Are we going to have not just one residence, but two additional residences using Holly Lane? There’s no description here. We don’t know that. You don’t know that at this point. That’s my problem, one of the problems with this. There’s no transparency. There’s no clarity. As Mr. Hogan said, what we have here is. You’re going to provide this variance, if you do, tonight, That opens up a whole flow of other variances and other actions. None of which we have any control over or understanding of what’s going to happen. So I think that is a lot of people’s on Holly Lane concern. This is an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and it also has an adverse impact on the environment and the physical conditions. As has been noted, it’s a dead end street. When you bought, you were buying in to a dead end street. It has a beautiful forest there. You’re eliminating a part of the view shed. You’re going to have a lot of trees that are going to have to come down if they’re going to put in this driveway, in addition to which, since the road, Holly Lane, ends, and you can see it on the map, the line, there’s about 34 feet, I think somebody said 32.3 or whatever, but there’s a significant piece of the lane that is not maintained. It’s not, it’s on the map, but there’s no pavement. So what’s going to happen to that? Is there going to be a situation where you’re going to have impervious surfaces added to the existing property and what impact is that going to have in stormwater? We don’t know. You don’t know whether they’re going to put, what they’re going to put down or are they just going to put stone? We have no idea. This is a pig in a poke. Congestion is a real problem on Holly Lane. We have 15 residences and 3 lots that can be made into residences at some point. It’s effectively, it says 17.1 in the description. That’s 17.1 as you enter. It narrows. It goes to 13 feet and at the end of the road it’s about 11 plus a few inches. As was mentioned by Mr. Hogan, it is not on the list of roads in New York State, Local Road Listing for Queensbury as published by the New York State Department of Transportation. Holly Lane is not on it. It can’t be on it because it’s too narrow, and to be on it you need to be an accepted road. Maybe at one point they were accepted. I don’t know, but I’m thinking at this point that this road is a road that the only obligation that the Town has is it’s a use road. So they maintain it. They maintain it as little as possible. I’ve never seen, ion the 19 years that I’ve lived there, I’ve never seen anything but a snow plow. So we have a situation also where there’s. MR. MC CABE-You guys have had a lot of time here. You’ve gone over many of the same things as the other people. MR. CROWELL-I have a few more things to say. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I yield my time to Bill? MR. CROWELL-So as far as public safety goes, there’s an issue there, too. You’re now having emergency vehicles go down a much narrower road that has to first take a right on Brayton, take a left on Holly. It’s a narrow road, as opposed to right now they have direct access off of Assembly Point Road which is 17.1 feet and there was, in the initial application to the Planning Board a letter from the fire department saying that this was fine. It was great access. I think also quickly again, we have congestion problems with garbage, the snow plow, delivery trucks, landscapers. You have situations where the garbage trucks have to back up down Holly Lane. You’re only exacerbating that situation. We have a situation also where we have rental properties on Holly Lane. My next door neighbor rents his property for a good portion of the year. Several weekends there’s eight cars there. He’s got five bedrooms. So he can have eight cars there. You’re creating a difficult situation. As I also said it’s not paved up to the Polk property. So what’s going 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) to happen? Is the Town going to enter into an agreement to maintain that? Are they going to pave it? We have no idea. You’re going to give them access and we don’t know what’s going to happen. There’s some stone there. Where is the snow going to go? And the road construction that has to be undertaken. There’s also, in the Town law a requirement that there be a turnaround. Local Law 183-27LIA, basically says you need a turnaround. It has a whole listing. Is that going to happen? Are you going to provide this variance tonight without even knowing if we’re going to get a turnaround? So that we’re not going to have. MR. MC CABE-Let me explain what’s going on here. You’re confusing our function with the Planning Board. There’s two separate groups involved here. There’s the Zoning Board which this variance has approached us, and there’s the Planning Board who is basically in charge of all the other things that you’re talking about here. So we appreciate that you’re concerned with congestion here, but the forum is not what you’re looking for. MR. CROWELL-Well I disagree with you because one of the things that you have to consider is the character of the neighborhood and the adverse consequences, and that’s an adverse consequence. MR. MC CABE-So all of the things that you’re talking about are speculative if somebody builds on this property. We aren’t here to pass judgment on that. That’s later functions. All we’re here for is to say, instead of a 50 foot frontage is a 17 foot frontage, 17 and a half foot frontage. MR. CROWELL-Let me ask you a question. This Board has the ability to put a condition on any variance. So why can’t you put a condition on the variance that the road, before it can be exercised, that the road has to be completed? That there has to be a turnaround. That’s within your power. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. MR. CROWELL-Okay, and I want to say one more thing. This may be a practical variance for somebody, but it’s not for the people on Holly Lane. (Phone ringing) MR. MC CABE-This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Did you call in earlier? All right. Hold on a second. MRS. O’HANLON-This is Susan O’Hanlon calling back on 12 Holly Lane. I invite the Board, before they make any decision tonight, strongly to go on Holly Lane and send some official people there and look at the situation at the end of this road. Look at the woods that it’s going to impact and the beauty of having your separation of woods between this property and at the end of Polk and the Hogan residence and all of the residences on Holly Lane. I’d like you to look at the impact it’s going to have on the property that the Hogans owned, in particular their landscaping, the closeness to the home where vehicles are going to drive. No one ever drives by their property because it’s at the end and they have beautified the property to the point where they would be devastated by this. This will impact them. It will impact us in terms of traffic, and I ask that you please do not make a decision tonight but please come and look at this property, look at what we’re talking about. Don’t just blindly vote on this tonight. I would be devastated if this passed tonight and so would everyone else on this lane. This needs very careful consideration and I beg you to please do the right thing by us. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Do we have anybody else that wants to speak on this matter? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, Mr. Urrico I believe has a letter from my daughter. I’d like to have that read. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Go ahead. MR. URRICO-“These comments are submitted on the above referenced application by the undersigned individuals. The purpose of the Shope/MacCoun variance application is to enable the prospective purchaser of the Polk property to newly establish access to Holly Lane for purposes of egress and ingress. The Polk property consists of two lots with three residential buildings, which are currently used on a seasonal basis. The Polk property is served by Polk Drive, a private road which exits directly onto Assembly Point Road. Holly Lane is not listed on the New York State Local Roads Listing for Queensbury as published by New York State Department of Transportation. The width of Holly Lane ranges from approximately 11'3" to 13' wide. It is at its narrowest at the dead end. The Local Highway Inventory Manual 2018 published by the New York State Department of Transportation states that "The minimum width to be considered a two-lane road is 16 feet. Roadways less than 16 feet in through travel lane width are counted as one-lane roads regardless of whether two-way traffic is permitted." Holly Lane has access to Assembly Point Road through Brayton Lane. This variance would result in additional traffic on Holly Lane, as well as Brayton Lane. In contrast to Holly Lane, Polk Drive has a width of approximately 17' and has direct access to Assembly Point Road. The Polk property has been used for seasonal rentals and as a consequence 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) there are a number of cars that use the three residential buildings on the Polk property. From a public safety perspective, there is more room for emergency vehicles to access the Polk property using Polk Drive rather than Holly Lane. At present Holly Lane has challenges with respect to garbage trucks, landscape trucks and large delivery vehicles. These vehicles almost exclusively back out of Holly Lane because they are unable to turn around. As a narrow one lane road, there should be a higher bar to newly establish access to the Polk property particularly when there is currently an adequate private road providing access to the main access road for Assembly Point which has been used as such for decades. The application for this variance indicates that there is no project work needed and no land disturbance required in connection with this variance. Due to the applicants’ adoption of this unsupportable position, the application does not disclose details relating to: design details of ingress/egress, loading areas and cutting; existing and proposed and location, design and construction details of all existing and proposed site improvements, including drains and culverts. Nor does the application note that in order to obtain access from the Polk property to Holly Lane multiple mature trees have to be removed, as well as removal of a water pump station and possible transversal of a leach field. Attached are photos of the area showing the trees and the pump station. The lack of information and detail in the application about the project is highlighted further by the applicants’ waiver request with respect to landscaping and stormwater management requirements. This waiver request should not be granted. The construction necessary to accomplish this project should be detailed by the applicant and the Town to determine what if any issues may arise as a consequence of the construction required. There will certainly be a disturbance on the Polk property and the neighboring properties if a variance is granted. The site is in a Critical Environmental Area as designated by the Lake George Park Commission. An evaluation should be undertaken by the applicants so that a determination can be made as to whether their project requires a major stormwater plan. In considering the application it is also important to note that Holly Lane itself is not paved up to the Polk property line. The paved portion of Holly Lane ends approximately 34" from the Polk property line. The unpaved area between the end of Holly Lane and the Polk property has not been used for public travel, nor is it maintained by the Town. The unpaved area is used as part of a driveway by a neighboring property and such area has been openly maintained by the neighbor since 2001 and earlier by prior owners of the property. If it is demonstrated that the Town has ownership of the unpaved area, road construction would have to be undertaken to extend Holly Lane to the Polk property and there would be significant cost to the Town to undertake this work. Holly Lane is a dead end street. Local law A.183-27 (l.(A)) provides that "Dead end streets shall not be longer than 1,000 feet and shall be provided with a turnaround at the closed end, having a street right-of-way diameter of at least 140 feet and outside edge of pavement diameter of at least 110 feet." As additional road construction would be required to extend Holly Lane, the street design requirements of the town code should be applicable. The additional property for the turnaround should be provided by the applicant requesting the variance. The construction issues including addition of a turnaround should be part of the application so the residents of Holly Lane are aware of all the implications involved in the grant of a variance. In addition to failing to provide adequate information relating to the variance, the application before the Zoning Board also does not detail what is intended to be done in terms of the existing Polk Drive nor the further development of the Polk property envisioned by the prospective purchaser. The application seeks approval of an area variance without disclosing the construction activities flowing from the grant of the variance. This piecemeal approach in terms of applications to the Zoning Board does not provide either the Zoning Board or the residents of Holly Lane with any transparency about the plans for the property. Segmentation of projects, as this application seeks to accomplish, is prohibited by the State Environmental Quality Review Act. An environmental review of the various construction activities activated by the variance should be reviewed together with consideration of the variance. The construction activities cannot be treated as unrelated activities needing individual determinations of significance. The applicant asserts that there is no option but a variance. This assertion does not accord with the fact that Polk Drive is an option for access to Assembly Point Road. Not only does Polk Drive have more direct access, it is wider than Holly Lane and more accessible for emergency vehicles. The variance is substantial since it requires construction by both the applicant and potentially the Town of Queensbury depending upon the ownership of the unpaved area abutting the Polk property. There are impacts on the neighborhood since the variance would result in additional traffic on a very narrow one lane road, as well as Brayton Lane. There are environmental concerns resulting from the construction, which are not known since no plans are available. The alleged difficulty from which this variance seeks relief was clearly self-created. The variance was provided to the owner when the subdivision was created in 1993 and the owner did not implement the variance and specifically requested the planning board to ignore the variance, or provide any access to Holly Lane in the subdivision approval. There are a number of significant unanswered questions arising from this application which should result in denial of the subject variance.” And this is signed by 16 people. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Urrico, I apologize. The sealed letter from Lynn Gauger, she’d kill me if you didn’t read that. MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m going to read that, too. “I have been a year round resident of Holly/Brayton Lane for 48 years. Previously I spent summers on Holly Lane for 20 years. I felt comfortable raising 3 children in this safe environment. I am deeply concerned with the Shope/MacCoun variance application. As it is now large commercial vehicles have difficulty maneuvering Holly Lane. I am worried about increased traffic and the safety of my grandchildren.. I cannot see the need for an additional access to the Polk property when a road currently exists. Please consider keeping Holly Lane safe for our families. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) Lynn Gauger” And she lives on the corner of Holly and Brayton. She also signed the other letter, too, by the way. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-Just a second. Is there anybody else that’s going to provide any input here? So would you like to comment? MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like to comment. First let me submit a copy of Page 17, which I got from the Town’s records, that says Holly Lane changed from Brayton Road North, north off Brayton Lane to dead end and it’s got a key next to it which indicates that it’s a Town road. On this list there happens to be Hicks Road which has a “C” which is a County road. I’ll submit this for your record, but this is a Town road we’re talking about. MR. HENKEL-But it’s obviously not completed all the way to the property line. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if it’s paved or not, but I will stipulate on behalf of the applicant that if you want to condition your action on this thing, we’re open to conditions, and from what I heard, most of the comments have to do with what we’re going to present in Site Plan, not part of the variance application, and I will ahead of that application or I will say I believe this application must go, if they have any construction, it must go to Site Plan before the Planning Board. I will stipulate that it will go to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review for any of the questions that they have raised, and ahead of going there, I will stipulate that the applicant will pave that 34 feet or whatever it is to the same conditions of the existing road, and the applicant will, I’ll be stretching it a little bit, provide an area on his parcel for a turnaround or for a dumping of snow, so that there is not a problem created for either of those two issues that were raised by some of the speakers. We’re not changing the existing road. All we’re doing is saying that we’re going to use that road for a single family home which I think the record shows that a single family home probably produces two to three trips a day. So I don’t think we’re going to create a lot of congestion or add to, if there is existing congestion, we’re not going to add to it. Perhaps if we do a turnaround it will actually help them as far as congestion because if there are people that go down Holly Lane, could go down, turn around and go back out, simpler than what they do now. I don’t know if they back out or how they back out. It is a narrow road. As far as construction goes, I will also stipulate that Holly Lane will not be used for construction on Lot One. We can come off of Assembly Point Road onto Lot Two for construction purposes, but I think you’ll see the map that’s up there, no one who is going to buy this piece of property and build the house that they’re going to build like the house that they’re going to build wants to have the driveways of other people running through their property. So that’s the real reason that we’re trying to separate them and the reason that the potential has conditioned his willingness to purchase this property on the fact that he be able to use Holly Lane to access Lot Number One. I think that’s a reasonable request. MR. HENKEL-Lot Two. To access Lot Two. MR. O'CONNOR-No, I think Lot One. The point lot. MR. HENKEL-Right, which is Lot Two. MR. O'CONNOR-You’re correct. In fact I’ll tell you that part of what they have discussed is that the cottages on Lot One are going to be removed. They’re rental cottages. So there’ll be less people on that property than before. As far as tree cutting and what not, that’s Site Plan. We’re going to have to come in here with a landscape plan and ask for a waiver and it’s up to the Planning Board whether or not we get the waiver. I don’t imagine that we’re going to get the waiver with the interest that’s been shown. So we’ll have to have a landscape plan as well as a stormwater management plan. We will be replacing the existing septic systems that are on Lot One and on Lot Two which are very old septic systems that will be an improvement to the environment, not a detriment to the environment. If you have other suggestions that you think are necessary, we’d be glad to say whether or not we would stipulate to those suggestions, but I think the main one is somebody raised the question of construction traffic using Holly Lane. I can stipulate that that will not be the case. The other thing which we’ve talked about is that there is no hydrant on the property right now, and we would stipulate that as part of the Site Plan that our applicant would install a dry hydrant like the other people have on lake frontage so that there is fire protection on the far end of the point and for the people on Holly Lane. Right now I don’t know how close they have a hydrant. So that should be a benefit to the neighborhood, and an environmental improvement as far as safety goes. I think that’s it basically other than to say the questions that were raised are going to be addressed at Site Plan. We intend to be cooperative. We intend to mitigate anything that is potentially going to impact on people. So I indicated we will fix the end of the road. We will do a turnaround on the applicant’s property and we will limit construction traffic, and we will install a dry hydrant. I don’t know what else we can do. Everybody, nobody likes to see change, and this is, as I said, this property has been in the Polk family since 1899. So people have enjoyed the property for many years. I hope I’ve answered your questions. If you have new questions based on the comments, I’ll be glad to answer them. (phone ringing) 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. MC CABE-This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Hello? MRS. O’HANLON-Susan O’Hanlon calling back. I’d like to add that the same person owns Lot One and Lot Two if they purchase this. Therefore the impact if they use Polk Lane from now on, from here to the future, if they actually have two owners for Lot One and Lot Two and they’re going to build a home on each one from what I understand, does the impact would only be that they would need to stipulate an easement for one person to allow Lot Two to have access to their property and keep this a pristine, private little point. It would also allow Holly Lane to remain a dead end where it is with woods in between, which would be environmentally more, you know, would be less impact on the environment and on the aesthetics and on the owners at the end of the point which will now have traffic going by their home. So, Number One, do you want to have an impact on everyone that lives on Holly Lane or do you want to have this easement that will allow someone to drive by the other home to get to Lot Two from Lot One? Which one is going to have less of an impact? That’s all I have to say. Thank you very much for letting me speak three times tonight. I apologize for continuing to call in, but this is very important to all of us on Holly Lane and I hope, I know I speak for other people in this regard, and I just want to thank the Board for please considering how many people are being impacted by your decision versus having an easement that simply could be a stipulation of a future sale. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-I can address that part. As I indicated, well I didn’t indicate maybe, but this is a sale and my understanding of the individual that’s purchasing it, it’s going to be his personal residence. It’s on the point. He intends to, in fact, finance part of the purchase by selling the other parcel, the other lot, who may be a family member or to someone else, and that’s what allows us to go forward with this particular transaction. I think you understand people have a reluctance to have a road run through the middle of their property that serves another piece of property. I mean the people in the audience are complaining about a public road that doesn’t run through their property, but was a public road and is a public road. So what would you do if you had a private road running through your property if you didn’t have control over it? It’s as simple as that. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request. It’s not a substantial request, and really any of the questions that were raised about the environmental impact or whatever I think are addressed to Site Plan. I think my stipulations actually answer most of those questions. In fact they go beyond answering those questions. They make an offer that will impact the property and the applicant by setting aside an area for finishing the road and then setting aside an area for a turnaround for vehicles that are going to come down Holly Lane. MR. MC CABE-So would you wipe down the podium. Okay, sir. Would you like to come forward, then? CHRIS ABELE MR. ABELE-Hello. My name is Chris Abele. I’m the applicant, the developer, you know, you name it. Okay. So I would like to start with, the owners are not here tonight, obviously, and I didn’t hear anybody say the impact to them financially. They’ve owned this property, as Mike said, over 100 years. What rights do these people have? And as far as, you know, look it, I’m a developer, longstanding developer, excellent reputation, but I do intend to build my own home here. So I would prefer to be called eventually a neighbor. Now the people that spoke here tonight are good people. They have legitimate concerns, and my intent is to be a good neighbor, and we’re all adults here tonight. When you negotiate with something, you look at it, you evaluate it, and we came to an agreement, an offer. This is under contract. I made a decision that if I could get two lots with separate access points to each lot, it would be worth the purchase price, but to put the type of home I intend to do and to conform with every regulation that the Town of Queensbury requires, I do not want to have to give an easement or give an easement to another lot I own to get to this property. It does not make sense to me and it would not be fair to me to present the offer that I did based on that, but as we all know, it’s a very rigorous process and the Town of Queensbury is difficult to deal with but at least they let you know what the rules are and you try like heck to comply with them. So I want to be a good neighbor, I want to do a good job, and this deal is dependent on this thing going through, and all the things that Mike did say, I do not want to impact the neighbors adversely. I would agree not to do construction traffic through, you know, Holly Lane. I would put a dry fire hydrant there which by the way would help the neighbors, and I would do the turnaround for the snow plow, and the other thing I want to say is to stick up for the owners that are not here. They’ve own that property for 100 plus years and it seems like other people are controlling their financial future. I think it’s unfair, and that’s all I have to say. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. ABELE-You’re welcome. MR. MC CABE-Mr. O’Connor, do you have anything else? MR. O'CONNOR-Not unless the Board has any questions they think I should answer. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. MC CABE-Well, let’s, 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 Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is a very interesting project, and what people talk about, it’s kind of like everybody wants some natural land down at the end of the road. They should have that. The property itself, if it was like Lot 41 or 55 or 54, a small one, I could see a lot of the, oh well, it’s a small lot. This property is larger than all of these lots in this subdivision, and for me, if the people were so worried about a turnaround, why didn’t Lot 56 and 37 donate some property for a turnaround? Now here the applicant is saying he’s going to take some of the property away from his own personal use to satisfy what the neighbors should have worked on years ago, and also they talk about 13 foot of Holly Lane width, well maybe it’s grown in over the years. I don’t know, you know, 16 foot versus 13 foot, and as far as the concern of one of the speakers about the tree cutting, you know, the APA has got rules and regulations about that, and if this applicant, and we’re not talking about the house he’s building or what he’s disturbing, to me sounds like he wants to be a good neighbor, and for that I’m saying good for him. Personally, having come into an area and required variances to build what I built for my family, you’re not going to stop progress, and as I started out with, this property is larger than any of them there. So I, myself, I hear them, I understand it. I’ve got that, but this is not a bad presentation the way it is, and for me, if we want to put a stipulation that there can only be one house, that would be fine, but for me, I’m in favor of this the way it’s presented. I hear all the people. I really do, and I understand what they’re saying, but this is not a little lot. The concern about construction, that’s a short term thing, and again, if this applicant says that he’s going to listen to that and he’s going to take care of that, how can you not be in favor of it? So I would be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-This is definitely a tough one. We should consider the neighbors. There’s no doubt, but like Ron said, it’s just one piece of property. It’s a large piece of property. If they’re willing to do those conditions with a dry fire hydrant, that’s a plus for the whole neighborhood, insurance reasons. If they’re willing to put a turnaround on that property, I think that’s a good thing for everybody, and there’s no doubt on Lake George, Glen Lake, there’s a lot of camps that have to go through other people’s property to get to them with easements. There’s a lot of easements. So it’s something that could still be done, but I do agree with Ron, I think it’s a variance we probably should grant. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I want to say right up front I’m against the application. I think we’re talking about a variance of 32.99 feet. We’re talking about an existing parcel. Seventeen feet of road frontage where fifty is required. That’s the variance that we’re talking about. All this other stuff is related to that. It has an impact on it, but that’s the variance where we’re kind of focused on the variance that we have before us tonight. I think the project is going to have an impact on the neighbors, the neighborhood. There’s a potential to change the neighborhood in some way. There are feasible alternatives and I think the request is substantial. So I’d be against it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-As you stated, our purview is really the variance for the road frontage. It is not to do Site Plan Review here. Undoubtedly I’m sure all these people will show up to the Planning Board when it does come before them. I do think it’s a significant amount of road frontage that we’re granting a variance on. They’re asking for nearly two thirds variance, but it’s adequate to satisfy State regulations in terms of access and we should not be creating lots that, a buildable lot must have direct access on either an approved road or an existing road, and I don’t know quite how the Town, maybe Laura can answer this, addresses easements on property. An easement, according to State regulations, does not necessarily provide that, to satisfy Town law 288, specifically it does not satisfy that. So I think that I’m happy to approve this variance. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-This is a significant request here, but at the same time it’s an insignificant request because we also have to recognize the fact that this is a large lot at the end of a road. I think that it could be ironed out with the neighbors, and it could be a win/win situation for everybody involved if we put stipulations involved, involving the construction of the new home on the point there, and that would be this. We recognize that all the other people that access off of Holly Lane currently use the access and it’s adequate with the width of that road for those accessing those other 15 properties along there. At the same time, it’s understandable why nobody wants to listen to construction vehicles moving back and forth during the construction of the home on that point. So I would be in agreement that we would grant the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) variance but only after the fact, and that would be after construction of the home. All access while constructing the home that occurs out on the end of that point there would have to occur off of Assembly Point Road and when completed then the new access could be created off Holly Lane. That’s the only way I would look at approving it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m not in favor of this application. It would, to my mind, create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood with increased traffic. Who knows how many cars would be coming and going. It could be a rental someday, you know, the variance runs with the land. So we don’t know what’s going to happen to the property over the years. I do believe an alternative exists. It’s not a very good alternative, but there is a road already there. The easement exists, and I’m not sure about the legalities of that. That could be ironed out. So for those two primary reasons, I’m not in favor, and I think it’s significant. That’s the other. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I’d like to point out that all we’re approving here is whether 17.1 feet is an acceptable frontage for the lot. We’re no means making a statement about the quality of the project or anything else involved with the project. That’s up to the Planning Board. We’ve, particularly in this area, we’ve approved less than the required frontage for a lot and so I will approve this project with the stipulations that Jim has requested for approving the variance. So at this particular time, Jim, I’m going to ask for a motion. MRS. MOORE-So prior to you making your motion, can you just go over the conditions again so that we’re all on the same page? And I understand Jim’s first condition, but the applicant also indicated they would like a turnaround. MR. MC CABE-A turnaround and the dry hydrant. MRS. MOORE-And the dry hydrant. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we have the applicant come back up and clarify, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if you can do what you said. You’re saying grant the variance after construction is completed. I would just as soon, I think it’s clearer and more enforceable if you simply say you grant the variance on the basis that Holly Lane will not be used for construction purposes on the point lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If that’s what you were intending, I think t hat’s a better way of saying it than trying to do two phases or two steps, and the applicant is willing to stipulate to that. So we would stipulate that we would do a turnaround area. We’ll pave the end of that road. We would do a dry hydrant. I think that’s it. MR. MC CABE-And a turnaround. MR. HENKEL-A turnaround. MR. O'CONNOR-I thought I said a turnaround, a turnaround on our property. MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to ask a couple of questions in regards to the turnaround. In your updated final plans you would indicate the size of that turnaround? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And then in reference to finishing the road, it would be in cooperation with the Town’s requirements. MR. O'CONNOR-To Town specs. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So, Jim, would you make a motion? MRS. MOORE-You can put the conditions at the end of the motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Laurie Ann Shope & Lynn P. MacCoun. Applicant requests relief from road frontage requirements from an existing 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) subdivision SUB5-1993M(1996) for two lots. Lot 2 of 1.13 acres requires 50 ft. of road frontage where only 17.01 ft. exists. There is no construction proposed at this time. Relief requested for road frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-4-050- road frontage The existing parcel has a 17.01 ft. of road frontage where 50 ft. is required. Access would be to Holly Lane. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 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. As far as an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties, we note that the road is 17 feet wide down the length of Holly Lane and we do not associate that adding one additional dwelling at the end of that point will create that much of a difference. 2. As far as feasible alternatives, they have been considered by the Board, and that would have been the access off of Assembly Point Road, that would be crossing on a right of way over Lot One, and that’s been deemed undesirable. 3. As far as the requested variance being substantial, it is substantial because of the road width requirements by the Town of Queensbury, but at the same time it’s the same as the road width requirement currently existing on Holly Lane. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note that the addition of one additional person at the end of the road will create that much of a difficulty for this neighborhood of 15 people currently. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It’s created by the fact that the road was created at that current width many years ago back in the early subdivision days. It was granted in 1993 and 1996. 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) The applicant agreed to: a. a dry hydrant to be installed; b. a turnaround area to be installed to assist with snow removal on Holly Lane and traffic flow; c. finish the road section on Holly Lane compliant with Town standards; d. during construction to use Assembly Point Road as access. 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. 22-2020 LAURIE ANN SHOPE & LYNN P. MACCOUN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: With the conditions as stated above. Duly adopted this 26th Day of August 2020 by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s special conditions agreed upon by the applicant. All construction will take place via Assembly Point Road and will not take place over Holly Lane during construction or re- construction on the point. That will be properly reviewed by the Planning Board in the future and added in at that time, too. MR. MC CABE-Are we going to add the other ones, the turnaround and the dry hydrant and the paving? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’ve agreed to provide a dry hydrant, a turnaround and the access will only become active upon completion of those projects at the end of the re-construction of the house on that point. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. O'CONNOR-I think that we need to have a variance either approved or disapproved this evening with the conditions that you suggested, as we’ve agreed to. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I move that we approve them as conditioned this evening and that they provide the turnaround as well as the dry hydrant at that point. MR. HENKEL-Don’t you have to add that Queensbury thing for the road? MRS. MOORE-So the road will be completed. MR. HENKEL-To specs. MRS. MOORE-To Town road specs, in compliance with what the Town requires. MR. UNDERWOOD-The road will be completed to Town road specs. MR. O'CONNOR-The 34 feet at the end of the road right now will be completed. MR. HENKEL-Or whatever it is. MR. MC CABE-So I have a motion. Can I have a second? MR. KUHL-I’ll second it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for listening to us. MR. MC CABE-And I’d like to thank the audience for their input. It’s very important to us. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is Area Variance 27-2020, MH Imperial Homes, 173 Sunnyside Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MH IMPERIAL HOMES AGENT(S) GREG HEWLETT OWNER(S) ESTATE OF BRUCE TURNBULL ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 173 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 1,421 SQ. FT. HOME ON A 0.45 ACRE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED IN THE RR-3A ZONE WHERE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS ARE 100 FT. AND SIDE SETBACKS ARE 75 FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A WELL AND SEPTIC. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. GREG HEWLETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2020, M H Imperial Homes, Meeting Date: August 26, 2020 “Project Location: 173 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place a 1,456 sq. ft. home on a 0.45 acre parcel that is located in the RR-3A zone where front and rear setbacks are 100 ft. and side setbacks are 75 ft. The home is to be 70 ft. from the front property line (due to landing); sides are 24 ft. on each side. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural residential zone – RR3A Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to place a 1,456 sq. ft. home with a front and side entry deck where the front setback is to be 77 ft., west side setbacks are to be 20 ft., the east side setback is to be 24 ft. and the rear setback is to be greater than 100 ft. The front setback requirement is 100 ft. and the side setback requirement is 75 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) 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 limited due to the lot size and the zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 55 ft. on the west side and 51 ft. on the east side. The front setback is 23 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 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. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a 1,456 sq. ft. home on an existing 0.45 acre parcel in a Rural Residential 3ac zone. The submission indicates a new driveway area of about 1,120 sq. ft. to be installed and the existing 160 sq. ft. carport remain. The plans show the approximate location of the proposed septic and well that are subject to review by the building and codes department.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. HEWLETT-Greg Hewlett, MH Imperial Homes. MR. MC CABE-Anything to add? MR. HEWLETT-The property’s for sale. We made a purchase offer on the property with the contingency that it could be a buildable lot. Right now it’s a 100 foot wide by 196 foot deep lot with 75 foot side setbacks, which gives you a negative 50 foot build envelope in the center and 100 foot front and back which gives you a negative four feet from the back. So obviously it’s a lot that has no value at all other than as a field. So I’m not interested in purchasing it unless we can build on it. So we did do our due diligence just to try and figure out where wells and septic were located just to make sure that all accepted setback requirements were being met on all the lots. I will throw a side note that you will see me again in a couple of months because I’ve made a similar purchase offer on the lot next door. It’s exactly the same size. It’s exactly the same use. What we’re proposing to build is a 1400 square foot ranch which is consistent with the character of the neighborhood, and we would like to do that if we were granted the variance to do so. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-I just have one. Are you going to put a double modular in there or are you building, is it stick built? MR. HEWLETT-No, it’s a modular home. MR. KUHL-Modular. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions. MR. HENKEL-And obviously it’s exactly the one you have here. MR. HEWLETT-Yes, it’s actually one that I currently own that sits on my lot. It’s a display model that I’m going to be moving to that location. So instead of just giving you drawing elevations, I gave you actual pictures. It will give you a more realistic view of what’s it’s going to be. MR. HENKEL-So it’s not going to change. That’s what it’s going to be. MR. HEWLETT-That’s the house. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised, and so I’m almost afraid to open the public hearing again, but anyway, I’ll open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody on the outside who would like to call in and speak on this matter, give us a call at 518-761-8225. If there’s 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) anybody in the audience that would like to approach the podium please come up. Is there any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. These are much shorter. “We received the notice for MH Imperial Homes concerning the lot next to our home. My only concern about the request to build a home there is a well that already exists on the rear of that property. The only place to install a septic system would be in the front of the existing lot. Our well is in the front of our house, 169 Sunnyside Road, Queensbury, NY. I do not think they meet the requirements where our water would not be affected by the installation of a new septic system in the front of the lot of 173 Sunnyside Road (Tax ID No. 279.17-1-63). I haven’t had any problems with our well over the last 20 years and I would not like to have any in the future. I also fear that permitting this variance may result in similar variances being passed in the future and that they may devalue our property. For the reasons stated above, we are against the current application of this variance. Thank you, The current residents of 169 Sunnyside Road Richard Billings Michelle Billings” And there’s another letter. “We received a notice about the MH Imperial Homes variance to build on Lot 173 Sunnyside Road. Our number one concern is that we do not want a trailer/modular home/slab house built on that lot. We feel it would decline the property value of our house. Our other concern is that if we allow a trailer to be built next to us on the lot, that in the future the area behind our house may become a trailer/mobile home park if you allow the changes in the zoning requirements on our side of the street because currently we are only zoned for 3 acres. For the reasons above, we are against the variance. Thank you for taking the time to read our concerns. The current residents of 165 Sunnyside Road, Jack Reese Maryellen Reese P.S. I just got through with a motorcycle track behind our home. Only because the property was sold. I do not want to see a trailer park behind my home.” And that’s it. MR. HEWLETT-I have no idea what that’s all about. MR. MC CABE-It used to be McDermott’s. MR. HEWLETT-Yes. MR. MC CABE-And they made ample use of that. So do you have anything to say about the position of their well versus where you’re going to put your septic? MR. HEWLETT-Well, it’s interesting. I actually met with them to find out where their septic was and they put a new septic in the very back of their lot. They told me the story. They put a new septic In the very back of the lot and there’s an existing well on that site, and the Town, they knew that they had to be more than 100 feet from that well that was on that site to the location of the leach field, and so we measured it out. It’s actually 101 feet to where their septic system starts, which is exactly, which is about 15 feet less than the separation between where their well is and where we’re proposing the septic system, and they knew that. So they actually know the regulations. They went through it themselves. So it’s an interesting statement. It doesn’t make any sense, and what we’ve demonstrated on the map, we will exceed 100 feet and obviously we wouldn’t be given a building permit if we couldn’t. MR. URRICO-I have a question. You said you will be back here in a few months for a lot next door. Are either one of them these lots? MR. HEWLETT-No. So 169, as I’m looking at the wall there, it’s to the left. The lot that’s darkened is 173, The lot to the right is 175 which has the garage in the back, that’s the one that we have an additional purchase order on. It is also contingent upon a variance. MR. KUHL-Are you putting this modular on, you’re not putting it on a foundation? MR. HEWLETT-Yes. MR. KUHL-So it really is not going to look like a trailer, is it? MR. HEWLETT-If you look at pictures of the house, there’s a longstanding misunderstanding between modular and manufactured homes. MR. KUHL-I know. MR. HEWLETT-Manufactured homes are homes that are constructed from Building Code that’s called the HUD Code. Modular homes don’t exist. There’s no such thing as a modular home. Modular is a method of construction. It complies with residential building code. It’s the only type of house that it is, a residential code house. The method of construction, like log homes, like timber frames, like everything else, is different than what we call stick built, but the actual end result in the Building Code that it has to comply with is the same. So once the house is completed it is not a modular home anymore. It’s just a house. There is no Building Code called modular homes. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So I think we’ve faced that with across the street down a little bit. MR. HEWLETT-That was me also, and that is a manufactured home. Without running off the rails here, they also can’t, the zoning, according to the State, can no longer be restricted from manufactured homes which is why that house was allowed to be built, but that’s not my intention. That is the house that we’re putting there. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Full basement? MR. HEWLETT-No. We’re going to have frost walls. MR. HENKEL-So it’s a crawl space. MR. HEWLETT-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, I don’t see any problems with this application. I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. It’s a very minimal request. I’d be on board with it, too. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I mean it’s zoned in a three acre zoning, so I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. Although it seems significant on paper, when you look at the neighborhood, it really fits in with the character. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s more or less what fits in with the rest of the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m going to be the oddball. I’m going to say no. MR. MC CABE-Okay. And I’m going to support the project. Again, it’s kind of like moist of the other homes in that particular area. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion from Michelle. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from MH Imperial Homes. Applicant proposes to place a 1,456 sq. ft. home on a 0.45 acre parcel that is located in the RR-3A zone where front and rear setbacks are 100 ft. and side setbacks are 75 ft. The home is to be 70 ft. from the front property line (due to landing); sides are 24 ft. on each side. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural residential zone – RR3A. Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to place a 1,456 sq. ft. home with a front and side entry deck where the front setback is to be 77 ft., west side setbacks are to be 20 ft., the east side setback is to be 24 ft. and the rear setback is to be greater than 100 ft. The front setback requirement is 100 ft. and the side setback requirement is 75 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 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 style of home will fit perfectly in the character of the neighborhood as well as the current setbacks of the neighboring homes. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board and, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the setbacks mimic those in the neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As demonstrated by the applicant tonight, they’ve considered septic and discussed it with the neighbors. 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. 27-2020 MH IMPERIAL HOMES, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26th Day of August 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 23-2020, Gary Higley, 23 Jay Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2020 SEQRA TYPE II GARY HIGLEY AGENT(S) CIFONE CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. ZONING WR LOCATION 23 JAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 590 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME OF 3,026 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT (INCLUDES PORCHES/DECKS WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 4,189 SQ. FT. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA OF 4,306 SQ. FT.) PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF A 473 SQ. FT. METAL BUILDING. PROJECT IS AN ADDITION TO A PREVIOUS 328 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 30-2020; SP 77-2019; AV 57- 2019; AV 1422-21421; RC 147-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-14 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020 GARY HIGLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2020, Gary Higley, Meeting Date: August 26, 2020 “Project Location: 23 Jay Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 590 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home of 3,026 sq. ft. footprint (includes porches/decks with a floor area of 4,189 sq. ft. proposed floor area of 4,306 sq. ft.). Project includes removal of a 473 sq. ft. metal building. Project is an addition to a previous 328 sq. ft. addition to the home. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Project subject to Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) Section 179-3-040 – dimensional requirements and Section 179-5-020- Garages The project is to construct a 590 sq. ft. garage addition that is to be 7.7 ft. to the north side of the property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for site permeability where 66.2 % is proposed, existing is 66.7 % and required is 75 %. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home and lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested 12.3 ft. from the north property line. Relief for permeability 8.8%. 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 will have minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 590 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home. The plans show the location of the addition to be in align with the existing home and to be away from the shoreline.” MR. HIGLEY-Good evening, everyone. Thank you for hearing this. Susan and I are asking. MR. MC CABE-First you’ve got to identify yourself. MR. HIGLEY-Gary Higley, 23 Jay Road, it’s actually Lake George, New York, is the mailing address. MR. MC CABE-We consider you to be Queensbury or else you wouldn’t be dealing with us. MR. HIGLEY-Susan and I are looking to remove an existing garage that is 14 feet from the lake as we speak, and replacing it with a garage that will be 65 feet from the lake. We’ll be removing blacktop. We will be improving our impermeable, our permeability and we’ll be improving stormwater management. The big thing here is we have asked Nick Rowell from Warren County Soil and Water, I think he did submit a plan to you, I think they have it, and so as the Chairman of the Planning Board said last night, we’re basically replacing a garage with a stormwater management plan. That was our goal. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Could I address the applicant, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Of course. MR. KUHL-Mr. Higley, I seem to remember you here recently Are you building a McMansion one room at a time, sir? MR. HIGLEY-I’m building it as I can afford it, yes. MR. KUHL-Tell me one thing, seriously. As I looked at your plan, you’re not going to have a door going through Gary’s t.v. room? I mean if it rains your poor wife Susan’s going to have to walk outside and get wet. Right? MR. HIGLEY-The original plan for Gary’s t.v. room has the door in it. We, right now, have to sit down with the, before the building permit, we have to sit down and see what we can actually do. MR. KUHL-Okay. Because I would encourage you to put a door through the t.v. room. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. HIGLEY-We’re talking about putting a door through the garage. The garage, we’re not going to have any access into, the garage is actually going to have a firewall between, even though it’s attached, it will not be, you won’t walk into the house from there. You’ll still have to walk out to get into the house. So we’re talking about possibly going in from the garage into the crawl space that’s under the house, rather than put that door there. MR. KUHL-Gotcha. Okay. MR. HIGLEY-The issue that I don’t, I’m not a builder so I don’t know this, I don’t know the Town regulations very well. We are, the floodplain is going to be an issue. So we’re not sure what we can do and what we can’t do until we sit down. Am I correct? MRS. MOORE-You’re correct. MR. HIGLEY-Okay. MR. KUHL-Okay. So you might need a ramp for that door as you get older. MR. HIGLEY-Well, the garage is actually going to be built on a slope. So it’s not going to be just flat because of where we are. So any water that does go in is going to come out, and it’s really, we have a, as I said last night at the Planning Board, we really have a stormwater problem on our property. The water runs down Jay Road which is just natural the way the land flows and then it comes down our driveway. So when that driveway was put in 30 years ago, stormwater management wasn’t around. It just comes down and it ends up right in the lake. This plan is going to solve that issue, and that’s really the main reason we’re here. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, invite anybody on the outside who wants to speak on this matter to give us a call at 518-761-8225. I’ll ask anybody in the audience that would like to come forward and speak to do so now. Is there any written correspondence on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. “As adjoining neighbors of the Higleys, we approve of the plan to remove the existing garage away from the lake and build new garage that will improve drainage.”, and that’s signed by Tracy Taylor, 21 Jay Road and Vic Celadon, 29 Jay Road. MR. MC CABE-So we’ve got to just wait a couple of minutes to give anybody an opportunity to give us a call here. So it doesn’t look like anybody’s going to call in from the outside. 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 Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s a good request, removing that older metal thing and putting this garage further away from the lake. The house itself with the seven foot, it’s pre-existing, non-conforming because of that, but it’s a good addition. I’d be in favor the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-Michelle MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. It’s a win/win for you and the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s FAR compliant, even though it’s the third time you’ve been back before us. So we’re used to seeing you here. At the same time I think that the permeability issue is a minor change from what it is now. So I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m on board. MR. MC CABE-John? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. HENKEL-Yes, they’re definitely being good stewards in taking out that metal building and putting some stormwater management there. That’s going to take care of some of that water off Jay Road so they’re doing a positive thing for all the lake people. So I’d be in board with it. MR. MC CABE-And I’ll support the project also. I think we’re making a significant improvement to the environment and also to the appearance of the property. So at this particular time I’m going to seek a motion. I’m going to ask Ron to make a motion here. MR. URRICO-Thank you for the opportunity. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gary Higley. Applicant proposes to construct a 590 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home of 3,026 sq. ft. footprint (includes porches/decks with a floor area of 4,189 sq. ft. proposed floor area of 4,306 sq. ft.). Project includes removal of a 473 sq. ft. metal building. Project is an addition to a previous 328 sq. ft. addition to the home. Relief requested for setbacks and Permeability. Project subject to Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR Section 179-3-040 – dimensional requirements and Section 179-5-020- Garages The project is to construct a 590 sq. ft. garage addition that is to be 7.7 ft. to the north side of the property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for site permeability where 66.2 % is proposed, existing is 66.7 % and required is 75 %. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 2020. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this is attached to the existing house and it blends in and takes away the older building which was closer to the lake. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered, and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it’s an improvement. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created, but it’s not really. It’s, as I said earlier, an improvement. 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. 23-2020 GARY HIGLEY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 26th Day of August 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/26/2020) MR. HIGLEY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I just wanted to make a comment. I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of Holly Lane people. I think we went to battle with them, I believe they did an Article 78 on us before, dual properties where they wanted to change the footprint slightly. MR. KUHL-That was down further. MR. MC CABE-The guy that did all the talking, he was the one that lead the lawsuit on that. So I suspect that we’re going to face some sort of action there, but I think that we’re on solid ground because everything that they talked about was really site plan related, and, you know, again, we don’t speak to the quality of the project. All we do is speak about the variance and again I think that we’ve approved a number of smaller road frontages than is required, particularly in an area where it’s pretty congested. I don’t think that the 50 feet is really required in that particular area. MR. HENKEL-It would be different if it was going to be a big development or something. It’s going to be one house. MR. MC CABE-Yes, really. So I think we’re on pretty good ground there, but I would not be surprised if we face some sort of legal action over that. So with that happy note, I make a motion to adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 26, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 26 day of August, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 27