Loading...
09-16-2020 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 INDEX Area Variance No. 21-2020 Greg Ball & Julie Austin 1. Tax Map No. 295.20-1-31 Area Variance No. 28-2020 Sherwood Acres Construction 5. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-27 Area Variance No. 29-2020 Stephanie Picard 10. Tax Map No. 279.-1-76.1 Area Variance No. 30-2020 William & Kathleen Bosy 17. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-16 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 09/16/2020) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY CATHERINE HAMLIN JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD 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, September 16, 2020. I’d like to point out for safety’s sake there are two exits to the north here, probably the doors where you came in. There’s an exit on the far end of the south and there are two exits to the east behind me. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is quite simple. There should have been an agenda on the table where you enter. What will happen here is we’ll call each case up to the podium. We’ll read the case into the record/. We’ll allow the presenter to answer or give any other detail that might be pertinent. We’ll ask questions of the presenter. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open the public hearing and take input from the public, both here and from the phone or call in. At that particular time we’ll close the public hearing, poll the Board, see how they stand on the case and then we’ll proceed from there, but first I have a couple of administrative issues to take care of. So, John, I need a motion on the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th August 19, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE th August 26, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first case is AV 21-2020, Greg Ball & Julie Austin. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GREG BALL & JULIE AUSTIN AGENT(S) GREG BALL OWNER(S) JULIE AUSTIN ZONING PUD LOCATION 14 RUSH HOLLOW COURT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 740 SQ. FT. SHED ON THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,440 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH AN ATTACHED 616 SQ. FT. GARAGE, A 616 SQ. FT. PORCH AND PATIO AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR AN OVERSIZED SHED. CROSS REF P20010226-22862; P20020264-24373; P20020266-24375; 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) P20020405-24572; P20020406-24573 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.95 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.20-1-31 SECTION 179-5-020 GREG BALL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2020, Greg Ball & Julie Austin, Meeting Date: September 16, 2020 “Project Location: 14 Rush Hollow Court Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 740 sq. ft. shed on the property. The existing home is 1,440 sq. ft. (footprint) with an attached 616 sq. ft. garage, a 616 sq. ft. porch and patio area. Relief requested for an oversized shed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an oversized shed in the Indian Ridge PUD zone. Section 179-5-020 – sheds The applicant proposes to construct a 740 sq. ft. shed where the maximum sheds on the property for lots three acres or less is two sheds totaling no more than 500 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the shed. The applicant has indicated the bike shed will be removed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 240 sq. ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 740 sq. ft. shed for storage of items that cannot fit in the garage or home. There is an existing attached garage of 902 sq. ft. used for vehicle storage and house/lawn maintenance. The shed is also so items are stored on the interior instead of the yard area.” MR. HENKEL-It’s supposed to be 720, but I think we did make a change, not 740 square feet, it’s 720. MR. URRICO-This says revised on it. MR. MC CABE-Yes, it’s revised because it was revised from the last time. MR. HENKEL-It’s 24 by 30. MR. MC CABE-Laura can testify that she made a math error. MRS. MOORE-So it is. It’s 720. MR. MC CABE-Mr. Ball, would you like to come forward. So just as the applicants, when you are done at the podium, we’re going to ask that you wipe down the podium and wipe down the microphone with the wipes provided there. So do we have anything to add to this? We talked about this pretty extensively the last time. MR. BALL-Correct. My name’s Greg Ball. Just some of the background, we’re combining two households. So that’s the reason there’s more stuff, and we need the storage and we’re trying to do it the best way for the neighborhood as well. Two homes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. So now I know the footprint is 720, but why isn’t the, when it’s got a second story of storage which equals about 360 square feet, why isn’t that added in as total square footage? MRS. MOORE-Because that would be considered floor area. That’s not part of the application. MR. HENKEL-Right. Okay. Just the footprint. MRS. MOORE-Just the footprint. MRS. HAMLIN-I have a question more of Staff. I’m sorry I didn’t look it up myself, but what’s the required permeability on this site? MRS. MOORE-So it’s in a PUD, and I apologize that that wasn’t a determination in the review of this. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So it’s a different calculation than the other zones which have a chart to go with them. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. Okay. I was just kind of curious. MR. KUHL-Are you putting any water or electric in this shed? MR. BALL-I’d like to put electric. No water. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. 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 and see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this case or invite anybody on the outside to give us a call at 518-761-8225. We have to wait two minutes to allow people from the outside to call in. Is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. HENKEL-You had no support from your neighbors on this project? MR. BALL-No one had any issues. MR. MC CABE-So hearing no input from the public I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-At this particular time I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-I’ve been around the neighborhood. I really haven’t seen any other sheds of that size. I do have a problem a little bit with the height of it because now you’ve got a building that’s, even though it can’t be seen back there, you’ve got a height of 22 feet, and most sheds are, in that development, the ones that do have sheds are only 12 feet high roughly. So I have a little bit of a problem with the height and I’d rather see you get closer to the 500 square feet that’s acceptable for the size shed for that size of the land. He has less than three acres. He’s got less than an acre. So it kind of doesn’t fit the Code. So I would not be in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no problem with the project as presented. I would grant this variance. I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I was in favor prior. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I would be in favor. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-All the lots over in Indian Ridge are pretty large, and that was the whole purpose of creating it when they did the subdivision, and I don’t have a problem with the request. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I have a little problem with the height, but not enough to reject it. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, will support the project since the applicant is doing kind of what we told them to do to relieve us of having to decide on a second garage. So it looks like we’ve got a go here. So I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Greg Ball & Julie Austin. (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. shed on the property. The existing home is 1,440 sq. ft. (footprint) with an attached 616 sq. ft. garage, a 616 sq. ft. porch and patio area. Relief requested for an oversized shed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for an oversized shed in the Indian Ridge PUD zone. Section 179-5-020 – sheds The applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. shed where the maximum sheds on the property for lots three acres or less is two sheds totaling no more than 500 sq. ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 16, 2020. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. It seems to be consistent with some of the other sheds in the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives, obviously he could do a smaller square footage shed there, but this has been considered by the Board and we feel that the request is reasonable. 3. The requested variance is substantial as it is 220 feet more than the maximum of 500. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2020 GREG BALL & JULIE AUSTIN, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 16 Day of September 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next case is AV 28-2020, Sherwood Acres Construction, 3 Glen Hall Drive. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION ZONING WR LOCATION 3 GLEN HALL DRIVE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN 617 SQ. FT. OF HARD SURFACE AREA IN THE DRIVEWAY AREA. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS 107 SQ. FT. OF NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK WITH RETAINING WALL FOR THE PARKING AREA TO THE HOME. THE PARKING AREA ADDITION WAS TO ASSIST WITH THE SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS. THE PARCEL WAS PART OF PREVIOUS APPROVALS FOR NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION AN ASSOCIATED SITE WORK IN 2018 FOR AREA VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN (1,019 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 2,035 SQ. FT. FAR). PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN – MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PLAN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 35-2020; AV 8-2018; SP 14-2018; PT 309-2020; RC 411-2018; P20060753 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289,11-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2020, Sherwood Acres Construction, Meeting Date: September 16, 2020 “Project Location: 3 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain 617 sq. ft. of hard surface area in the driveway area. In addition, the applicant has 107 sq. ft. of new concrete sidewalk with retaining wall for the parking area to the home. The parking area addition was to assist with the shared driveway access. The parcel was part of previous approvals for new home construction and associated site work in 2018 for Area Variance and Site Plan (1,494 sq. ft. footprint and 2,035 sq. ft. floor area). Project subject to Site Plan—modification of an approved plan. Relief requested for permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Waterfront residential zone (WR). Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a permeability of 63.1% where 75% is required and previously approved was 69.5%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce the amount of hard-surfacing. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested 11.9% less permeable surface. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the additional hard surfacing in the parking area will assist with stormwater for the existing property and neighboring properties. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain the existing hard surfacing on the site near the parking area; this includes additional permeable paver area and asphalt. The 2018 approval for this parcel included a new home and associated site work that has been completed. The applicant has indicated the hard surfacing was to assist with the neighboring properties.” 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a recommendation to the Zoning Board for this variance and based on its limited review did identify the following areas of concern: increased FAR request which was explained by the client’s need for handicap accessibility. MRS. MOORE-That’s the wrong one. MR. URRICO-Never mind. The Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was th passed seven zero on September 15. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center, the project engineer. Mr. Barber was the owner and builder of Sherwood Acres and he’s here today in the audience. If you remember, those of you who were on the Board when this project came before. It was a little contentious with the neighborhood. That’s why we had the request to add the drywell in front of the Burke property to try to take care of some stormwater from shared driveways. There’s a shared driveway that goes on Mr. Mackowiak’s property that kind of crosses this. Plus Mr. Gansle’s access is across this parcel. Mr. Seavey who originally got the original project decided not to build on here. He sold the land and the project to Mr. Barber and Sherwood Acres. So Mr. Barber’s coming in on the backside. Some of his experience of building on the lake actually brought a lot of good things to this project that weren’t in the initial approval. I’ll kind of go through those and then hit the issues with the variance. Down along the shoreline with the grassed area, at the very edge of the shoreline Mr. Barber left three to four feet of natural vegetation instead of going right up to the lakeshore with grass. So there’s natural vegetation. As you know this land was vacant prior to, it had an old foundation on it but it was vacant, in disrepair. So he thinned out that vegetation and left it there so that there is a little bit of a natural, three to four foot buffer, except where you access the dock, and that’s just river rock there so that you can get to the dock so that there’s no hard surface. There’s no hard surface added between the house and the lake. As you look up to the house, the original plan had eaves trenches that filtered down to the bottom to an infiltration trench on either side of the patio, the permeable patio, that interconnect at the infiltration stone underneath that. In lieu of doing that, Mr. Barber asked if he could change that around and gutter the roof and take it to two infiltrators. So we actually took the stormwater away from the lake, back towards the roadside and put it back further away from the lake so that we could improve it there. With the sidewalks, the original design was a three tiered concrete wall type of step down with concrete steps. I’ve envisioned, the paths. I did not show those clearly on the drawing. I take some partial responsibility for not showing those paths in between. Mr. Barber when he purchased this and started working on it, with his experience on Glen Lake, put sidewalks in. It amounts to a little bit more than, the amount’s 107 square feet of actual hard surface there, but when he did that he also changed the wall from concrete walls to boulder rock retaining walls which also have rock underneath them, which allowed any of the stormwater falling on those to infiltrate better, and we have well drained soils here. So we’ve increased the permeability around those areas rather than grass. Those rock tier walls. It’s more of a landscape thing that he changed with his knowledge of Glen Lake building. So we do have infiltration for those sidewalks getting down to the house on either side. There’s additional stone drainage. As you come up to the parking area, one of the things that we could not have envisioned at the time was when Mr. Barber came in, being a builder, he was working with neighbors on both sides. Mr. Gansle to the north here had a project that was a minor project, didn’t require site plan review, that he asked Mr. Barber if he could do it. So what ended up happening was Mr. Barber put in pervious pavers right there and in the thought of not trying to leave a grass strip between Mr. Gansle’s new pervious pavers and our impervious pavers, he installed pervious pavers all the way across, thinking he would get 100% credit but it was really 50% credit. They were porous stone pavers. MR. MC CABE-Can I just interrupt you for a minute and ask Staff. Is it standard practice for any impervious paver to be 50%, or did they take a look at the type of pavers that the applicant used here? MRS. MOORE-Permeable pavers, and they provide a detail showing the capacity underneath each paver. So that was considered as 50, permeable pavers, as long as they provide that detail of what that permeable paver is, and I get to see that in the plans, those are counted as 50%. MR. MC CABE-Because those are pretty substantial. They’re not like the normal pervious pavers. I would say that they’re better than grass, in my opinion. MR. CENTER-Yes, we don’t take into consideration in our volume calculation, the stone, the depth between the top of the paver and the bottom of that stone void. That’s extra. We don’t take that in, we just take the volume that’s underneath that pavers as our actual storage volume. As you can see, we have plenty of storage volume underneath there. Having them all tied in together we actually improve Mr. Gansle’s property over there and the issue with driving and turning and the very tight nature of that site. Had Mr. Barber been developing this property, I would have loved to have had his knowledge of lake work and what he did there. I don’t know if everybody’s been out there to see the terraced rock walls, but they look better than the straight line concrete walls that I had on the drawing. He did an excellent job of the landscaping on here and that’s with years of building on Glen Lake. The issue with the asphalt was in order to provide turning and getting in and getting out, he did use a little bit too much pavement. It works out to 391 square feet, but on the positive side, the drywell that we located down in front of Mr. Burke’s 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) house, the additional storage that would be required would be 82 cubic feet of storage. That drywell has a 130 cubic feet of capacity. So we have excess capacity down there. Another benefit of this working with Mr. Gansle and with Mr. Mackowiak, this was initially designed with holding tanks that would have been up into that paved area. Those holding tanks were able to be eliminated because Mr. Barber was able to purchase land from Mr. Mackowiak over here and he has an approved septic system that’s more than 200 feet. So rather than have holding tanks, he’s got a septic system for this house. So he was able to improve that also, and then he also improved, this, the boulder wall on the back side of the driveway area here. that kind of goes with the Gansle and Mackowiak. Mackowiak’s driveway is here. This is the shared driveway here. This area right here, Mr. Barber shored up, cleaned up. Had some erosion to it, now with those stone walls and the stone behind it is able to resist any erosion so it actually improves the look, and the parking area I think flows between the two of them much better. I would look at it as if we had brought this to the Board initially, I believe it’s a very approvable project. It does, it improves the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Barber worked with three or four neighbors in a very difficult location. So I’m willing to take any questions. MR. MC CABE-The other thing is we really appreciate you clearly marked the ID of the property. Some of the properties in there are hard to determine what’s what. So thank you for that. MR. CENTER-No problem. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Ron? MR. KUHL-So you’re coming here after the fact. Is that correct? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. KUHL-You are. Why weren’t there more pervious pavers put in instead of asphalt? And by the way, the fact that he eliminated the tanks, Mackowiak bought the property from Barber. So there was linkage there for him to get the septic system. So get over the fact that he eliminated the tanks . It was a need for the house. And in addition to the asphalt, my question about pavers, the concrete that you went and did was definitely not in what was approved. Correct? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Pavers is my question. MR. CENTER-As you get closer the driveway slopes away. Pavers were much better on the flat surface to incorporate the stone storage. MR. KUHL-As I remember their site, the place where the people that bought the house parked their cars is level and that’s asphalt. Correct? MR. CENTER-No. The most level part is the location where the permeable pavers are, and then it starts to slope back where it’s actually paved. MR. KUHL-I see, and of course you came up with a maintenance schedule for the pavers. Right? MR. MC CABE-Well, those are different. You wouldn’t want to put a vac truck on those. That pea stone in there. MR. CENTER-These are a little different. These pavers have an open course that is filled with stone in between them versus the pavers that we initially had speced out are just a closed paver that have porous in the paver themselves. So it’s less likely, you know, the sediment will get in but will go down through the stone. MR. KUHL-You’re suggesting that all the road stone is going to go through that? MR. CENTER-Well, it’s on the applicant, they’re the owner, to not sand those areas. MR. KUHL-Hello, I mean come on. MR. CENTER-I mean that’s the tradeoff with permeable pavers. Hopefully over time when you look at these things they actually let the water go through until you get a frost the water will go through until they get iced over. So they do have some benefit. MR. HENKEL-They’re still better than permeable pavers, though. MR. KUHL-But unless the people that put this product in maintains it, everything requires maintenance. When a lawn grows you cut it. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. CENTER-Correct. MR. KUHL-When you put in pavers, you’ve got to clean them. Yes or no? MR. CENTER-On the ones that are porous pavers that are a harder surface, yes. On these, if you were to bring a vac truck in, you’re going to suck the gravel that’s open graded that’s within the opening. MR. KUHL-You think so? MR. CENTER-Yes. If you’re up there to see it, there’s a possibility to do that. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. CENTER-What we tell people is not to sand and salt them, that they have to plow them, and a lot of them will keep some heat to them, too, but once they freeze over, it’s the northeast. It’s the tradeoff of trying to do the right thing with permeable surfaces and being in the northeast. MR. KUHL-You’re talking about doing the right thing. The person you’re representing went and did hard surfacing without a permit. Right, is that correct? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised this evening. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, invite anybody who wants to call in to do so at 518-761-8225 and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to talk to the Board on this project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BERNIE GANSLE MR. GANSLE-Good evening. My name’s Bernie Gansle. My wife and I live at 5 Glen Hall Drive right next to 3 Glen Hall Drive. We have shared driveway access with 3 Glen Hall Drive. We actually share a right of way up the hill. Both driveways were paved at the same time so that all the water drainage from the top of both lots could drain away from Glen Lake. We support any variances that would allow the current driveway configuration to remain unchanged. Since the driveways were paved this spring, all the water runoff from the top of both lots have been directed away from the lake and into the holding tank, just like it was designed to do. I’d also like to discuss the green space between the parking areas. I would oppose putting that in for three reasons. No green space currently provides a single paved area to allow cars to turn around and drive forward down the shared right of way. Without this ability we would have to back down the driveway and it’s 150 feet to the Glen Hall Road Extension before we could turn around. This is difficult to do and at night it’s even more difficult. It’s a very narrow right of way down there. Secondly adding the green area separating the paved area would create a maintenance problem. It would create a mud hole every time it rains, and parking for Glen Hall Drive is very tight and removing even a little bit of area would make parking even tighter. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else? Do we have anything written on this, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. “Below are my comments in support of the subject application. I am one of the 3 property owners that share use of the private road/Glen Hall Drive right of way in the vicinity of 3 Glen Hall Drive. 1. The additional hard surfacing in the parking area is providing access to the new parking spot at 5 Glen Hall Drive (i.e., adjacent Gansle property). If grass was used in this location, there would eventually be only dirt remaining from driving and turning on the grass strip while parking at the new spot at 5 Glen Hall Drive. 2. The decrease of site permeability will easily be mitigated by the new drywell, previously installed under this project. This drywell was a condition for approval of the Site Plan for 3 Glen Hall Drive. The drywell was located on my property, as recommended by the Engineer of Record, in order to maximize the amount of water collected. In the past this storm water eventually found its way into Glen Lake during heavy rain falls. Thank you, Ronald Mackowiak 9 Glen Hall Drive” The second one is, “As the owner of 96 Hall Road and an adjacent lot the construction of this 3 Glen Hall Drive home has been problematic for me. The construction crews have not been observant or respectful of my land and lot boundaries since the beginning. They have parked on my land/removed boundary markers and willfully destroyed planted and natural vegetation for their construction convenience. Van Dusen and Steves has under my direction repeatedly reestablished the land and easement boundaries multiple times. My request is that all parties be on notice that this has happened (previously reported) and cannot happen again with this additional work. Vicki Johnson” That’s it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. MC CABE-So do you want to come back up? So do you have any comment on the construction problems? MR. CENTER-That’s an ongoing issue with multiple neighbors and during the construction the backhoe is parked on a right of way that all parties have access to. I don’t know what they’re talking about with the boundaries being removed on the parcel, but I know that neighborhood. Issues during construction arise, but I believe that’s an ongoing issue with multiple parties. MR. MC CABE-The construction’s done, right? MR. CENTER-The construction is done. Yes. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this personifies the typical situation we run into on these smaller lots where everybody has shared access. It’s always an inconvenience during the time of building, and I think that we have to keep in mind what the end product is and whether it’s acceptable or whether it improves the situation that previously exists on the property. In my book, even though the permeability has been decreased on this property, above and beyond what was original permitted, I think that it was done with the interest in Glen Lake. You’re caught between a rock and a hard place no matter what you do, and when you go overboard, I think it should be pointed out that it was overdone, but at the same time the end result of what we have here is that we actually improve the situation as far as ground runoff into the lake, and I think in this instance here we should grant the variance. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m basically in agreement with Jim. I think sometimes the statistics don’t tell the whole story, and taking a step back and looking at the project as a whole on what’s been done there, even though it’s after the fact, I think this has turned out pretty well and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Generally I wouldn’t be in favor of granting 11.9 permeability, as far as the reduction there, and granted we’d be going against what we pre-approved, but after listening to Jim and Roy and Mr. Center and Mr. Gansle, I think it’s definitely a good project and they did the best they could with what they’ve got there, with the driveways going across the property, and of course you’ve got the septic tank away from, septic leach field away from the lake which is a great thing. So I would be on board with it as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think we spent an awful lot of time on this originally in 2018 and they came back several times and they developed a plan. An applicant came and they developed a plan to say this is what we’re going to do. As they went along, as things changed, they had plenty of time to come here and ask for relief. We may be known at the Town of No because a lot of people get turned away, but there’s no reason to do things and come afterwards and ask for forgiveness. I am not in favor of this. I understand, I know that that builder builds a very good house, but he had more than ample time to come, when he was wanting to make these improvements, and get approval beforehand. As far as I’m concerned, this is an indication of builders doing what they want, and then coming forward and saying, okay, slap my wrist. I’m not in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with Kuhl, and primarily it’s too substantial, and the fact that it came in after the fact I find egregious. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m torn, because I do agree with the fact that I don’t like after the fact approvals, but I also see improvement here in terms of erosion and sediment and all of that. So I think for the sake of the fact it’s not just benefitting this applicant, it’s benefitting the neighbors as well, I would probably vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am troubled with applications that come in after the fact, but in this particular case I can’t deny that the neighborhood feels that this was a definite improvement, and so I’ll go along with the neighborhood and support the project. So at this particular time, I’m going to ask Jim for a motion. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sherwood Acres Construction. Applicant requests to maintain 617 sq. ft. of hard surface area in the driveway area. In addition, the applicant has 107 sq. ft. of new concrete sidewalk with retaining wall for the parking area to the home. The parking area addition was to assist with the shared driveway access. The parcel was part of previous approvals for new home construction and associated sitework in 2018 for Area Variance and Site Plan (1,494 sq. ft. footprint and 2,035 sq. ft. floor area). Project subject to Site Plan—modification of an approved plan. Relief requested for permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Waterfront residential zone (WR). Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a permeability of 63.1% where 75% is required and previously approved was 69.5%. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 16, 2020. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. The water that will be generated by this excess paving is somewhat mitigated by the fact that there’s permeable pavers between there and the lake. There’s also a substantial drywell that was created by the Burke property next door, and that’s going to be collecting that rainwater that will be generated. 2. As far as feasible alternatives, the Board usually requests that people follow the guidelines, but in this instance here they deviated from the original approved determination of 69.5% and created slightly more impermeability. 3. The requested variance is substantial because they’re significantly below the 75%, but we understand the fact that on these smaller lots shared access creates more impermeable surfaces. We just have to live with that. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any because it seems that everything has been adequately dealt with as far as the runoff goes. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the contractor overstepped what was originally granted. 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; And in this instance we’re talking about Glen Lake and it will be protected fully. 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. 28-2020 SHERWOOD ACRES CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 16 Day of September 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next case is AV 29-2020, Stephanie Picard, 1118 Bay Rd. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEPHANIE PICARD AGENT(S) GEORGE LOYER OWNER(S) STEPHANIE PICARD ZONING WR LOCATION 1118 BAY 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 912 +/- SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT OF 1,482 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA SECOND DWELLING. THE EXISTING SITE HAS A 2,170 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME AND A 7,714 (FOOTPRINT) BARN. THE BARN AND HOME HAVE BEEN ON THE PROPERTY SINCE ABOUT 1860. THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE LOT WITH ALL OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION. THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE SITE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND DWELLING. CROSS REF AST- 339-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2020 LOT SIZE 6.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-76.1 SECTION 179-3-040 GEORGE LOYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2020, Stephanie Picard, Meeting Date: September 16, 2020, “Project Location: 1118 Bay Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain an existing 912 +/- sq. ft. footprint of 1,482 sq. ft. floor area second dwelling. The existing site has a 2,170 sq. ft. (footprint) home and a 7,714 sq. ft. (footprint) barn. The barn and home have been on the property since about 1860. The applicant purchased the lot with all of the buildings in the current configuration. There are no changes proposed to the site. Relief requested for second dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests the relief for second dwelling in the Waterfront Residential Zone (WR). Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to maintain a second home of 912 sq. ft. as the property was purchased with the second building as is. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as there are no changes to the site. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be feasible to remove the elements of a second dwelling. The applicant has indicated the building is used as a garage, workout space and an entertainment space. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested to have a second dwelling unit where only one is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain a second dwelling on the site where an existing home and barn also nd exist. The applicant has indicated when they purchased the property the 2 dwelling already existed and they were unaware of the requirements. They applied for and received a deck permit and at that time the applicant was notified of the code requirements for one dwelling per property; the applicant is applying for this variance to have the second dwelling. The applicant has indicated the building is not be used as a rental and is to be used only by them for a garage, work out area and an entertainment space. The survey shows the existing barn, home, and the 2-story garage location.” MR. MC CABE-So, Staff, did this arise because the property was sold, or would the original owner have h had to come for a variance when this particular zoning was adopted? MRS. MOORE-What took place was the applicant applying for a deck permit to this building. They received a deck permit and it was investigated by Building and Codes. They determined that there was interior work completed, turning this into a second garage, and so that was why, and it’s my understanding 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) that there was sort of a kitchen set up at some point in that building that was not known by Building and Codes and that applicant that now owns that building has improved upon that kitchen area. Again, the reason why it was caught was because they applied for a deck permit. MR. MC CABE-So do we have the applicant? MR. LOYER-Yes. What do you want to know? MR. MC CABE-Your name. MR. LOYER-George Loyer. MR. MC CABE-And I guess it’s fairly straightforward. Do you have anything to add? MR. LOYER-This is anecdotal, but when we bought the property, we did a lot of renovations to the house, and we actually lived over there for about six months, and my experience, having lived there for six months, it’s a very unacceptable setting. It’s very inconvenient. MR. MC CABE-Well the fact that it has a kitchen is what makes it a second dwelling. So I guess, how important is the kitchen? MR. LOYER-I mean basically when we entertain we use that kitchen and if we entertain on Friday and don’t want to clean the kitchen until Tuesday the next week, we’re good. MR. MC CABE-So do we have further questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So it sounds like what Laura was saying that there were some improvements according to the Code Enforcement, that there were improvements made to that kitchen that were made after. MR. LOYER-Yes. We put all new appliances in, both in the kitchen and in the bathroom. MR. HENKEL-So what was here when you moved in? MR. LOYER-Everything except the stove. The only thing we added functionally was the stove. We tapped into existing plumbing. When we bought it, I don’t know what was in it when the prior owner left it but when we moved in, we had a washer and dryer, a microwave, a refrigerator, sink, bathroom were all there. MR. HENKEL-So what did you put in for a stove? Did you put in a propane or did you put electric? MR. LOYER-Propane, yes. MR. HENKEL-But was there a propane line there for that stove? MR. LOYER-There was a propane line for the, I don’t know what you’d call it. We have geothermal, and in the winter water and geothermal is very inefficient. MR. HENKEL-In this area, yes. MR. LOYER-So basically we had a gas heat exchanger in the geothermal unit. So we had propane was there. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you’re still using that propane for that heater and the oven now? MR. LOYER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. LOYER-And the way that unit goes, the hot water for the heat exchanger comes from the instant on hot water heater. So the domestic hot water and the geothermal hot water are the same unit. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. KUHL-The building has two floors? MR. LOYER-Yes. MR. URRICO-When did you purchase the property? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. HENKEL-2014. MR. LOYER-About five years ago, four to six years ago. MR. HENKEL-I’ve got 2014. MR. LOYER-Yes, that would be about right, five, six years ago. MR. URRICO-So you were aware that was a residence when you moved in, then, right? Because you lived there and you entertained there. So you knew it could sustain another residence. Right? MR. LOYER-Yes. It didn’t ring a bell for us until we got the deck thing going. MR. HENKEL-So there’s no proof, Laura, previous to this, that it was ever income property, used as an income property or anything? MRS. MOORE-No, because it was approved under the building permit as a garage. So I know it was inspected as a garage, and what that previous owner did to it after the garage as permitted, and we’ve seen this happen, took place where they upgraded it to additional items in the building. I mean the bottom floor is a garage and the upstairs is what they’re using it for now. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I have one for Laura. What is the zoning here? MRS. MOORE-This is Waterfront Residential. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-By any chance is it in an Ag District? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and I’m going to invite anyone from the outside to, who has input on this project, to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and then I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to present information on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN V. CURRIE MR. CURRIE-Good evening. MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record. MR. CURRIE-My name is John V. Currie and I’m representing myself, Laura Currie, and myself. We live at 1133 Bay Road, which is directly across the road, across Bay Road, from the 1118 Bay Road property that’s in question here. Our home is, as I say, directly across the road and we enjoy the view of the property at 1118 Bay Road as well as the mountains of Vermont beyond and so when I say here that George Dwyer and Stephanie Picard have done a commendable job, a commendable job of improving the property at 1118 Bay Road in the several years since they purchased the property. They’ve also done a great job of maintaining the property. In short, they have done a first class job of improving and maintaining their property of approximately six acres. We fully support their application at issue in this hearing, both as property owners directly across Bay Road as well as the property owners of the 12 acres on the south side adjacent to 1118 Bay Road. We recommend approval of their proposal for relief of the zoning requirements for residential use for the existing structures which have already been in place for several years. They fit nicely with the neighboring use of the property, and as I said, I want to make one correction to a statement that was made just a few minutes ago, that it was approved as a garage. It was never approved as a garage. I owned the property previously. It was approved as an office building for our business, and it’s equipped with restrooms, plumbing and so on to fit an office building structure. At that time we applied for it as an office building. Got approval as an office building. The two car garage in the lower portion was used as a warehouse for our products that we produced to do training, consulting and training, and that was our warehouse in the garage. So it’s always had, the septic system has been there. The plumbing has been there. The geothermal heat has been there. The plumbing, the bathroom was in there for use of our employees. The only thing that changed was the kitchen. Other than that this building is the same as it was when we owned it. It was all approved by the Town at the time. So in short, Laura and I would recommend that this Zoning Board approve this application for George and Stephanie to use the property for the purposes as stated. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. CURRIE-And there’s six acres. It’s not like a little tiny piece of property. MR. MC CABE-Right, 6.7. MR. HENKEL-All right. So you’re the ones that sold the property. MR. CURRIE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you did not have a kitchen in there at that time. You did not have a kitchen when you owned it. in there. LAURA CURRIE MRS. CURRIE-We had a microwave, we had the bathroom. MR. CURRIE-Yes, we had a microwave. We had a bathroom. We had a kitchen area for our employees to have lunch breaks and so on. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. CURRIE-It’s a big piece of property. MR. HENKEL-It is. It’s nice, and you were approved to have this office space when you had the property? MR. CURRIE-Yes. It was all approved. Vic Lefebvre was the inspector at the time, and I’ve got the paperwork where he signed it and approved everything we did there, including the original certificate of occupancy. MR. MC CABE-Do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-Is our two minutes up? MR. LOYER-I have a written comment if you want it. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Just bring it up to the Secretary. MR. URRICO-“I, Andrew Serra, that owns and resides on property that directly borders the property of Stephanie Picard, fully support, without objection, her application for a variance at 1118 Bay Rd., Queensbury, Warren County. Yours truly, Andrew J. Serra” And they reside at 2 Dream Lake Road. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-First I want to say, it’s a beautiful property. I drive by it all the time and appreciate all the work that you put into it. My concern, from a zoning perspective, is any variance we grant runs with the land, and if we were to grant this application for a second dwelling, and if someone else owns the property, they may not use it in the way you are today. So for that reason I’m not in favor. I don’t have a problem with the building itself. It’s just how it’s being used. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-For me this is a case of a pre-existing, non-conforming. When we went and did our zoning, this house and these buildings were there. I mean if this gentleman would have gone and built the deck without coming for a permit, he wouldn’t be here spending this money. It’s a shame that he has to go through all this expense, but for me, with the size of this acreage, I’d be in favor as presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Ron. It’s definitely pre-existing. We’ve heard proof of that, and the only thing I’d be against is if it becomes a wedding destination or something for the barn and they’re using that 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) house as a rental, that type of thing, but I have no problem the way it’s being used now. Just in the future not to be used as a wedding destination type thing. So I’d be on board with the application as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m kind of in agreement with the previous two Board members. That this is a pre- existing condition, but I would be in favor of it if we could condition the variance that it not be used as a rental or anything that looks like a residence. MR. MC CABE-So if we conditioned it as no Air B and B in the second dwelling, you guys would support that? Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is an instance where we have an older structure that’s been there since the 1800’s obviously and it’s re-purposing it for a useful purpose. I mean no one likes to let something just sit there and not be used. So I would be in favor of the variance. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m kind of liking the pre-existing angle on this. We’ve turned people away before, but this is a very large lot. It was there before. I could support it with those conditions. I’ll maybe even go a little further and say only for the use of the primary occupants, something like that. I don’t know how far we want to go. MR. MC CABE-Well see that’s hard to enforce, where the Air B and B is a much more enforceable restriction on that property. Would Staff agree? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-How then, may I ask, I mean the overall B and B rules? Are they Townwide? MR. MC CABE-There are no rules. MRS. HAMLIN-Right. I mean basically anybody can have an Air B and B. MRS. MOORE-It would be a Code Enforcement item, and until further time as the Town Board adopts a regulation for an Air B and B, but you don’t want it to be a rental. You made that clear. I think that’s. MR. MC CABE-So rental would be a better terminology than an Air B and B? MRS. MOORE-I think you could, I would do rental/Air B and B. So that if it is adopted at a later date, then you’ve covered your bases. MR. MC CABE-Okay, and I feel the same way. MRS. HAYWARD-I’d like to add something when I have an opportunity. MR. MC CABE-Didn’t I ask you? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, but if it would be allowable, I’d like to say something. MR. MC CABE-Okay. All right. So generally I don’t favor second dwelling on a property. I feel that it causes problems, but in this particular case, I don’t feel that the applicant tried to put something over on us. I also recognize that the property is not a typical Queensbury lot. It’s plenty of acreage, and so I would support the application with the restriction that the second dwelling not be used as a rental property. Is that okay with the applicant? MR. LOYER-Totally. MR. MC CABE-So go ahead, Michelle. MR. LOYER-We have friends that do Air B and B and I think it’s more work than you get out of it. MRS. HAYWARD-I’d like to amend my response. I would be in favor with the condition. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Ron, would you like to make our motion here. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. MR. MC CABE-It’s all part of the service we provide. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephanie Picard. Applicant proposes to maintain an existing 912 +/- sq. ft. footprint of 1,482 sq. ft. floor area second dwelling. The existing site has a 2,170 sq. ft. (footprint) home and a 7,714 sq. ft. (footprint) barn. The barn and home have been on the property since about 1860. The applicant purchased the lot with all of the buildings in the current configuration. There are no changes proposed to the site. Relief requested for second dwelling. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second dwelling in the Waterfront Residential Zone (WR). Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to maintain a second home of 912 sq. ft. as the property was purchased with the second building as is. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 16, 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 these buildings have been on this property for years for a long, long time. 2. Feasible alternatives really are limited and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the size of the lot. The lot itself is 6.7 acres. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be suggested to be self-created since we look to have one lot and one house, but again, this is 6.7 acres. It’s a large lot. These structures have been there for a long, long time. 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) That this dwelling would never be used as a rental/Air B N B property. 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. 29-2020 STEPHANIE PICARD, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 16 Day of September 2020 by the following vote: MR. KUHL-This request for approval is conditioned on one condition which is that it would never be used as a rental property. MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to add, you used the word rental, and I would suggest you do the slash and add Air B and B to that. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we’ll make that amendment. Is that all right with you, Ron? MR. KUHL-No. I thought we had discussed the fact that we wanted to use rental. MR. MC CABE-Well, rental and Air B and B. Then we’re covered every way. MR. KUHL-Well then what are we going to go to, rental by owner? Yes, we will add, in addition to a rental, also an Air B and B. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MRS. MOORE-I do want to clarify. Of the 24 page document for the building permit done in ’93, Page 20 talks about the home occupation. All the 20 pages before that only discuss the garage. So I stand corrected. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. LOYER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So we’ve got a little bit of a dilemma here. The Bosy representative is not here yet. Are you the Bosys? WILLIAM BOSY MR. BOSY-Yes, we are. MR. MC CABE-So our next applicant is AV 30-2020, and it’s William and Kathleen Bosy, 53 Assembly Point Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY AGENT(S) JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY ZONING WR LOCATION 53 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME 2,537.3 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 3,065.3 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED 384 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR A NEW HOME (STORMWATER, LANDSCAPING, PATIO AREAS, AND DRIVEWAY). SITE PLAN FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND SHORELINE BUFFER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FAR, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF PT-193-2019; SEP 626-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-16 SECTION 179-6-065; 179-3- 040 WILLIAM BOSY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2020, William & Kathleen Bosy, Meeting Date: September 16, 2020 “Project Location: 53 Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home 2,537.3 sq. ft. floor area to construct a new home of 3,065.3 sq. ft. floor area. The project includes construction of a detached 384 sq. ft. garage and associated site work for a new home (stormwater, landscaping, patio areas, and driveway). Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and shoreline buffer. Relief requested for setbacks, FAR, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief for setbacks, FAR, and permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone (WR). Section 179-3-040 –Dimensional requirements. The applicant proposes a new home to be located 49 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required, 5.1 ft. from the north side and 8.0 ft. from the south side where a 12 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to be 66.6% where 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 3065.3 sq. ft. (32.1%) where the maximum allowed is 2,098.8 sq. ft. (22%). 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 a minor impact on the neighboring properties as the construction of the home is 10% greater than allowed on the site. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) 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. The feasible alternatives may be possible to meet the requirements of the waterfront residential zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The north side relief is 6.9 ft., south side is 4 ft., shoreline is 1 ft. The floor area is 10.1% in excess and permeability is 8.4 less permeable for the site. 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. The project includes a new septic system and the drinking water that is drawn from the lake is to remain. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home in the waterfront residential zone that includes site work, new septic system and a new garage. The applicant has indicated the new home is in a similar location as the existing home. The plans show the new home location including elevations and floor plans. The board may have additional discussion about the relief requested.” MR. URRICO-And then the motion by the Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review, identified the following area of concern: 1. The increased FAR request which was explained by the client’s th need for handicap accessibility. That was adopted September 15, 2020 by a five to two vote, or a six to one vote, as Mr. Valentine was listed in both Ayes and Noes. MRS. MOORE-He voted no. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask for a clarification from Staff? If we have a 22% Floor Area Ratio, and we go to a 32% Floor Area Ratio, isn’t that a 50% gain in size, not a 10% gain? I man if you were allowed a two gallon bucket and you ended up with a 3 gallon bucket. MRS. MOORE-Right. So what I did is 22% or 32% minus the 22%. That’s where I came up with the 10T increase. Ten percent over. MR. MC CABE-So we’re claiming you’re misleading us. So if you hadn’t included the percent, perhaps that would have been okay, but once you put the percent in there, that kind of is a little misleading isn’t it? MRS. MOORE-But if you take the floor area that it is. MR. HENKEL-You’re right, Jim. It’s close to 50%. MRS. MOORE-It’s 966 square feet more than allowed. MR. UNDERWOOD-But that’s 50% greater than. MR. HENKEL-I guess there’s both ways of looking at it. It sounds better the other way. MR. UNDERWOOD-It downplays it the other way. MRS. MOORE-So what you can do is take a pause. I think Jon said potentially 10 minutes. MR. MC CABE-From this particular time? MRS. MOORE-Yes. You as the Chair should say we’re taking a pause. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time we’re taking a pause for 10 minutes. Okay. State your name for the record. MR. BOSY-I’m William Bosy, 53 Assembly Point Road . What we’re looking to do is demolish our camp. It was built in, I believe, best I can tell, 1957. It’s very much in disrepair. We are looking to demolish that, add a garage and a master suite on the end, not a suite but a bedroom, and we have a large bathroom in there. That’s why that’s kind of sticking, my wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. So we didn’t know that until we bought the camp. So we made provisions for a bathroom that’ll, you know, you can maneuver in, handicap accessible, maybe a little bit larger. That’s where the extra comes into play. As of now we 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) don’t retain any of the water that comes off of the roof, and we have proposed three drywells, two in front, to maintain all our water, and the permeable area was somewhat reduced with grass where the parking area on the right by the road. The architect used that to get more permeability. The septic system was newly installed in March. So had a bigger plot plan. The Town made us do that so that if this were the plan that were accepted, it would fit for that project. Any other questions I can answer for anyone? MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes. Was there thought about incorporating the garage into the house to kind of do away with some of the permeability? MR. BOSY-You mean incorporate the garage into the house? MR. HENKEL-Into part of the house. MR. KUHL-That might increase it. You need more driveway off the street. MR. HENKEL-Well, you could use pavers, you know. MR. BOSY-Because of the height requirement, I guess you can only have a five foot crawl space underneath. There’s no basement there, so I don’t know how that would get in there. MR. KUHL-I have a question. Why 49 feet and not 50 off the lake? MR. BOSY-That’s where the house sits as it is now. MR. KUHL-So you could move it back a foot. You’re not re-using the old foundation, are you? MR. BOSY-No, I’m not. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. BOSY-But, where the septic tanks sit, I have to see if that would accommodate that one foot. I’d be happy to look into that. MR. KUHL-So you’re saying you’re putting the new dwelling right on top of the old footprint? MR. BOSY-It’s exactly on the footprint the old building was on. The only hitch is where that phantom light is on the back end, where the master bedroom is, that’s the additional living space, and everything was moved over to that side. It used to be, well I don’t have it right here. MR. KUHL-I see the old drawing. MR. BOSY-Yes, it’s not any wider or any closer to the lake than it was. MRS. MOORE-Is that the drawing that you’re looking for? MR. BOSY-No. MR. MC CABE-The location of the original house. MRS. MOORE-The survey? MR. BOSY-Yes, the survey map. I think he did have it up there. If you look at the one that you have, it should have shadowed or colored line over the existing foundation to the new foundation which shows that it’s right on top of the old one. MR. KUHL-Yes, that shows it. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So we have a public hearing advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. I’m going to request that anybody who wants to call in from the outside on this matter give us a call at 518-761-8225 and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project. Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So we just have to wait for a couple of minutes here. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MR. KUHL-Are you putting in a whole new septic system? MR. BOSY-It was put in as of March. MR. KUHL-It’s an existing system? MR. BOSY-That system was installed. It’s all brand new. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-It was 2019 it was put in. Right? MR. BOSY-No, this year. MR. HENKEL-Really? Okay. MR. BOSY-In March, I believe, March or April, and we were here just last year for the approval for that. MR. HENKEL-The approval was done in 2019. MR. BOSY-2019, and it was installed this year. HUNTER BOSY MR. H. BOSY-Can I say something real quick? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. BOSY-That’s my son, Hunter. He’s an engineer. MR. MC CABE-So you’ll want to identify yourself for the record. MR. H. BOSY-My name’s Hunter Bosy. I’m the son of Bill and Kathy. A couple of things I’ve noticed, I’ve jotted down here. It was a few of the points that were brought up last night as well. The placement of the property. If you look at the adjoining property owners, they have a very similar layout. Especially the one to the left side of the property. My parents, as has been stated, are looking to make this their retirement home. So it’s not a place to have a lot of renters or any renters at all for that matter. It’s strictly for their retirement use, and as they both age and care may need to be taken. The extra room would also allow others to help out as part of the disease and having people there and an extra room or whatever they need, but that’s all I have. MR. KUHL-Could I ask him a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. KUHL-So, Hunter, you’re suggesting that this house is for your parents and you’re not going to bring your friends up and have parties. Right? I mean state it now because you’re on the record. MR. H. BOSY-He doesn’t let me. No, this is something that they’ve really been looking at for a long time. It’s my mom’s dream to live on the lake. MR. KUHL-And all the extra bedrooms are just there, just in case. MR. H. BOSY-Right. I mean we have a lot of family come up. We’re lucky in that aspect. MR. KUHL-I have the same situation. MR. H. BOSY-So that’s all. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I think that the permeability has improved. So that’s a good thing. As much as I understand the need, I wish that the percentage of increase in the FAR was not so much. Although as I 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) look at the plans for the first floor, considering their need, needing to be on the first floor for accessibility, I don’t see much that can go. So I don’t know what the solution is. I would like to see them find a way to reduce the FAR, and I also agree with the other Board member. If there was any way to push it back to meet the 50. I mean it’s not very much distance given the fact that you’re not going to use the foundation. The new system you put in, the sewage disposal system, that would be the determining factor. So I’m still torn. I’d like to hear what the others have to say first. MR. MC CABE-So you’re not going to commit yourself? MRS. HAMLIN-I can’t yet. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-I want to hear the rest of the Board. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is an example of what we run into here on these smaller lots. I ran into Supervisor Strough last week and I explained to him the situation that we’re up against with the Board. We have a 22% floor area ratio, and I said to him, you know, it would seem that on these smaller lots we could give an allowance because there’s less buildable space than there is on a one acre lot or two acre lot or something like that. They’re extraordinary in Waterfront situations. He said that he was probably going to go back to the Town Board and ask them to raise it from 22 to 25%, the floor area ratio, but that hasn’t been done yet. So I think we’re caught between a rock and a hard place here. Last month when we had that one on Birdsall Road we were in that same situation. We had a 34.1% floor area ratio on that one and you guys approved it narrowly last week because I don’t think it was brought to your attention that it was 50% larger than what was allowed to be built on that lot, and I think we’re in the same situation here. People are going to have to go back and re-invent themselves because you can’t have everything on a big lot that you can have on a small lot and vice versa, and I think that we have to be careful to ensure that we basically follow the rules and stay within the guidelines as suggested by Code, and so I think that this one needs to be re-thought out. I think that that excessive bedroom on the back there, even though there’s a defined need for it, the house could be shrunk down with a smaller great room and a smaller activity room in the front of the house there, and I think you could go back, re-design and come up with something more compatible with the guidelines. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I kind of agree with Jim. I think when you look at the criteria we have to look at, I don’t see, I see it having a minor impact on the neighborhood because most of the neighborhood is in the same situation, but there are feasible alternatives, and the Area Variance requested is kind of a lot. We’re asking for several variances and many of them can be at least alleviated somewhat by a smaller design of the house. I think the difficulty here was self-created, and I think the variance, we don’t think it’ll have an effect on the environment. So I would be against it at this point. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members. It looks like it’s tipping a little bit too much. I think if you’re not going to use the existing foundation, you could probably get back to the 50 feet, if allowable away from the lake. Also I think you could decrease the amount of the FAR variance by a little bit. The side setbacks don’t really bother me too much. Permeability bothers me a little bit, but it’s not a big concern. The FAR variance and the shoreline setback is my concern. So I would not be in favor of it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well I hate to agree with everybody, but I don’t think this whole thing was thought out properly. I mean one foot, that it couldn’t be moved back. I think that any architect or engineer that lays this out could have looked at the regulations of the Town, and I think it could have been made to fit a lot better. So with that in mind, I’m agreeing with my other Board members, I would not be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-And I’m not in favor as well, for all the reasons my fellow Board members have stated. MR. MC CABE-=And so the problem that you have here is that you’re asking for a lot of variances. We’ve approved all of them at one time or another, but in this particular case we’re cumulative. So probably the most serious are the floor to area ratio and the permeability, and so I think that for this to be a go something needs to be done to address those two in particular, and it could be toned down a little bit by meeting some of the other requirements like setback from the lake. So I’m going to be a no also. So you’re insignificant 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) here, Cathy. So you have a couple of choices here. You can ask for a vote, but obviously that’s not going to go well. You can ask for a table and take another look at your application here and see if you can reduce the magnitude of the variances requested. MR. BOSY-Let me ask a question. The garage is actually playing a big factor. Why is that? I mean I’ve never heard of, like a covered porch is considered living space, but it wouldn’t be too comfortable to sleep out there. MRS. MOORE-So it’s anything that you could potentially enclose and live in. I mean you could potentially enclose that and heat that, the porch, and so that’s the reasoning behind it. MR. BOSY-That seems to be the thing that’s tipping the scale. Okay. MR. MC CABE-So you’re going to ask to table this? MR. BOSY-I guess we’ll table it. MR. MC CABE-So what would be his? th MRS. MOORE-The next submission would be October 15 to be on a November agenda, and so that gives you from now a little less than 30 days to think about it, whether the person you’re working with can do a re-design of that or if you want to give yourself a little more time and come in for a December meeting. MR. BOSY-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Well hold on a second. We’ve got to formalize this. MR. MOORE-I guess I’m asking you. MR. BOSY-I guess table it, but I don’t see any way I could, I really don’t see what I could do with this, knowing my needs down the road. MR. HENKEL-At least table it. It gives you a chance, because you can withdraw later, but I would table it. MR. BOSY-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And so the question is do you want to table it to a November meeting or to a December meeting, and if you do the November it’s fine. You can further table it to the following month. MR. BOSY-Yes, we’ll do November. MRS. MOORE-November then. Okay. MR. MC CABE-So, John, could I have a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William & Kathleen Bosy. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home 2,537.3 sq. ft. floor area to construct a new home of 3,065.3 sq. ft. floor area. The project includes construction of a detached 384 sq. ft. garage and associated site work for a new home (stormwater, landscaping, patio areas, and driveway). Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and shoreline buffer. Relief requested for setbacks, FAR, and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Tabled until the first November meeting with new information due by October 15. th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So, sorry about the wait here. A little unusual, but I’m kind of disappointed in Mr. Lapper. He’s usually pretty good. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2020) MRS. MOORE-He was doing a Zoom meeting in the Town of Wilton. That’s my understanding. That must have carried over, and he hasn’t responded yet to my inquires. He may be in the Town of Wilton Zoom meeting. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2020, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So we’ll see you next month. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 24