Loading...
2009.10.21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2009 INDEX Area Variance No. 52-2009 Michael Arnold 1. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Area Variance No. 54-2009 James White 7. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-9 Area Variance No. 55-2009 Randy Ryther 12. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-21 Area Variance No. 56-2009 Beverly Tucker 16. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-17 Area Variance No. 57-2009 Steven Quirion 20. Tax Map No. 296.14-1-29 Area Variance No. 58-2009 Shannon Stockwell 26. Tax Map No. 295.14-1-27.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOAN JENKIN BRIAN CLEMENTS MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE DRELLOS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the October 21, 2009 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand, and it functions to help the Board members make a wise decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three minutes, and only if after listening to the other speakers, a speaker believes that they have new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking. Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public comment. Board members will then discuss the variance request with the applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove will follow. It looks like we don’t have our alternates here tonight. So we’re going to be one short. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II MICHAEL ARNOLD OWNER(S): ANITA ROSS ZONING: WR LOCATION: 108 LAKE PARKWAY – CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 625 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ABOVE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND EAST SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2009-323; BP 85-574; SP 54-09, VARIANCE NO. 1010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 14, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES; LG CEA LOT SIZE: 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16 SECTION 179-13-010; 179-3-040 MICHAEL ARNOLD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2009, Michael Arnold, Meeting Date: October 21, 2009 “Project Location: 108 Lake Parkway – Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 625 sq. ft. second story bedroom addition above existing attached garage. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the expansion of a non-conforming structure and east side setback requirements of the WR zone. 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 overall; however, the property to the northeast will be most affected by this proposal as the proposed expansion will be approximately 15 feet from the east property line. 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. Due to the limitations of the lot, there appears to be limited options by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 5.1 feet or 25.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback for parcels with lot widths between 60 and 150 ft in the WR zone per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per §179-13-010 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty for the applicant may not be self created due to the limitations of the lot relative to the proposal. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 54-09 Residential addition Pending BP 09-323 Residential addition Pending BP 85-574 Garage Approved 10/8/85 Staff comments: Note: Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Area Variance. See attached recommendation. This application requires site plan review for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a critical environmental area per §179-13-010G. It appears the applicant is adding an additional bedroom above the garage. The applicant will be required to prove wastewater compliance or upgrade the septic system. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review needed.” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 14, 2009 Project Name: Arnold, Michael Owner(s): Anita Ross ID Number: QBY-09-AV-52 County Project#: Oct09- Current Zoning: WR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 625 sq. ft. second story residential addition above existing attached garage. Relief requested from the expansion of a non- conforming structure and east side setback requirements. Site Location: 108 Lake Parkway, Assembly Point Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-1-16 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 625 sq. ft. second story addition over an existing attached garage. Relief is requested from the following: expansion of a non conforming structure; and side setbacks where 20 ft. is required and 14.9 ft. is proposed for the new construction. The plans show the location of the addition, internal layout, and elevation. The applicant explains the addition is raising the roof area on the existing garage where all setbacks will remain the same no further encroachment is proposed. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 10/14/09. MR. URRICO-The following is the resolution for the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 52-2009 and Site Plan No. 54-2009 for Mike Arnold. “Whereas, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; and Whereas, this project does require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval, the following recommendation is hereby provided to the Zoning Board of Appeals; and Whereas, the Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2009 AND SITE PLAN NO. 54-2009 MIKE ARNOLD, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. The first three paragraphs apply, and we would like to go with Option Two: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following area of concern: a.The Planning Board is concerned because of this property being located in a Critical Environmental Area, whether the current septic system can handle the increase in load of an additional bedroom. We’re most concerned with capacity and functionality of the system. th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Krebs, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to fill us in then? Anything else you want to add? MR. ARNOLD-You covered most of it. As of last night’s meeting, we’re trying to get in touch with the planning engineer, so that he can assess the septic. Basically Anita’s daughter and son-in-law have moved in with them. They’re consolidating two households. They just need some more room. That seemed to be the only way to do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-The original renovations to that place took place about ’85 when they upgraded the septic. MR. ARNOLD-It was a new home in ’85. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, brand new. Yes. I had a question for you, Keith, because obviously they added a garage later on, after that. From what I read in here it says garage was approved on 10/8/85. I don’t know if that was part of the original deal with the house or if it was all built at the same time, but was a variance needed for that because of the setback on that, at the time? I don’t know, I mean, we don’t have any history of it. MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s no Area Variance for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, either it all went in as a building permit. MR. OBORNE-It went in as a building permit, and/or did not require a setback, depending on what the Zoning Code read then. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess amongst Board members, then, we have to decide amongst ourselves. The septic issue seems pretty important here, but before I open up the public hearing and see what the public has to say on it, that’s probably something that we should consider before we render any decision, if we render a decision this evening, in regards to the project. So I think maybe what we’ll do is do you guys have any questions right now? I mean, other than the fact that it’s going to be adding space 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) above what’s already a building there, and in the past we’ve dealt with these on pretty many other occasions, gotten through the process, but I think the only hang up we’re looking at really is the septic capacity. If they’re going to add that extra bedroom and they don’t have the capacity, we don’t know if the site has enough room to add more laterals and add on to the present septic system. MRS. JENKIN-I just wanted one clarification. The story that you’re going to be adding, that will be wider than the existing garage, two feet wider, so there’ll be an overhang now? MR. ARNOLD-There’s an existing overhang over the entrance now. We are going to cantilever into that two feet, but it’s now four feet. So it’s actually two feet wider than the footprint of the garage, but it already cantilevers four feet over the walkway into the front door. MRS. JENKIN-I see. Okay. MR. ARNOLD-I mean, that part exists. We’re just going to cut into it. MRS. JENKIN-And make it two feet larger than wider. Just for more space. MR. CLEMENTS-And that addition also includes a bathroom, as I see here. MR. ARNOLD-The only way to get to that space is through an existing half bath. So we were just going to take that out and put the stairs through there and put the bath upstairs. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-So you’re putting stairs where the half bath is now. MR. ARNOLD-Yes. It’s kind of a split level home. There’s several levels, but the main staircase would spiral up into that space over the garage, if the half bath weren’t in the way, and that’s the only way to access it, so that’s where the stairs would be is in place of the existing bathroom. MRS. JENKIN-So then you’ll have two full baths in the house, rather than a bath and a half? MR. ARNOLD-There’d be three. MRS. JENKIN-Three. MR. ARNOLD-There’s one on the ground floor, one on the main floor, and there would be, the half bath would turn into a full bath upstairs. That’s our proposal. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. URRICO-So how many baths will you have? MR. ARNOLD-Three, well, right now it’s two and a half. MR. URRICO-And how many will you end up with? MR. ARNOLD-Three full ones. MR. URRICO-Are you planning to upgrade the septic system to handle the additional? MR. ARNOLD-I understand we have to if it doesn’t comply. Right now I know it’s an engineered system. It’s relatively up to date. I don’t know if it’s large enough. We’re going to have an engineer look at it. I think that’s our only option is to upgrade it if that’s possible. MR. GARRAND-Quick question. Is the engineer also going to look at the stormwater mitigation for the water coming off the roof towards the septic? MR. ARNOLD-I haven’t mentioned it, but, I mean, nothing changes. We’re still using the same pitch. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. GARRAND-I was just concerned about where the garage is moving, expanding a little bit, that roof line. MR. ARNOLD-It actually doesn’t. If you, on the right side of the picture of the garage, there’s an overhang. We’re stepping out two feet from the corner of the house, onto the overhang. So the overhang is exactly the same, and we’re just going straight up two feet to the right of the existing corner. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this time? Okay. I think I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter, raise your hand, please. Do you want to come up, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KATHY BOZONY MS. BOZONY-Good evening, Kathy Bozony from the office of the Lake George Water Keeper. A couple of questions, when I reviewed the file, I could not find out how many bedrooms are existing right now. There were no details of anything, but it seemed like the second floor, which was going to go into the new great room area, had a bedroom, but I don’t know what was in what was called the basement. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Planning Board minutes basically, and you can answer this question, too. I think the Planning Board minutes pretty much are calling it a four bedroom as it exists now. So there was some question as to whether. MR. OBORNE-It’s a three bedroom now. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a three bedroom as it exists, but there was a little bit of question as to whether it was three or four, and if it was going to be five when this was completed. So I think it’s a little bit of, that was their concern that it be looked at the capacity of the whole thing, as the end result whether there was enough capacity in the septic to handle it. MR. ARNOLD-Okay. This is the ground floor. No, this is the main floor. This is one bedroom on the main floor, and then the basement there is two small bedrooms. MR. UNDERWOOD-It says it is classified as a three bedroom at the present time on the tax rolls. MS. BOZONY-So the on site wastewater treatment was designed in 1985 for three bedrooms? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MS. BOZONY-Okay. The other thing, I didn’t see a FAR calculation there. I saw the proposed FAR at 3121, but I didn’t actually see the detail of the first and second floor and the garage and that detail. I don’t know if that’s critical or not. It is just .33 acres. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think it’s over 22, is it, Keith? MS. BOZONY-Or 3238 is allowed, I believe, and it’s coming in at 3121. So I was just curious if that calculation had actually been detailed, and the other thing is, I don’t know what the shoreline looks like, but, and I know it’s not your purview to actually require shoreline buffering and fertilizer restriction and all, but it looks like there’s (lost word). I do not know, but that, I would ask that that be conditioned. MR. ARNOLD-It’s riprap, I believe, that’s all around the. MR. OBORNE-That would be a Site Plan issue, at this point. Certainly not a ZBA issue. MS. BOZONY-Yes. Okay. Good. Again, I wouldn’t support riprap only without vegetation because of infiltration and treatment, and if you want more information, we can certainly supply it. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. URRICO-Yes. There is one public comment. A letter. “We are Pamela Lester Golde and Robert Golde, the neighbor directly south of Anita Ross. We extend our apologies for not being able to attend the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals meetings for the above-mentioned project, and would appreciate if our comments would be read into the record. It is our understanding the Ross/Arnold’s would like to expand the garage by adding a second story to its current footprint. For this request, we do not have a concern or an objection; however, our concerns lie with any need to disturb and/or expand the current septic system. Our home, 110 Lake Parkway, has been in my family, the Lester Family, since 1960. At that time, the Ross/Arnold property was an empty parcel. Their present home was not built until the early to mid 1980’s, which also included the current septic system. The system lies between their house and our side property line. Due to the system’s proximity to this property line, the original system’s construction affected mature vegetation existing on the edge of our property. Originally, there were four large Sugar Maples, only the western two remain. Over the years, we have replanted trees, and trees have also seeded themselves in creating an effective buffer between the two houses. It is our concern that with the addition to their home it will require an expansion/upgrade of the septic system, again impacting our trees. we would request that any expansion/upgrade to their septic system protect and minimize any disturbance to the root zone area of the Sugar Maples, Hemlocks, and Spruces occurring along this joint property line. Thank you for this consideration. We remain, Pamela Lester Golde Robert Golde” MR. UNDERWOOD-Thanks. Okay. Any comments you want to make at all, as to the concerns? MR. ARNOLD-We will have an engineer look at it and see what the options are. It should be a fairly unobtrusive upgrade. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not an Eljen System or anything? It was a raised bed from ’85? Yes. MR. ARNOLD-Yes, to my knowledge. MR. UNDERWOOD-What do you guys want to do? Do you want to hold off? Do you want to do this now? MRS. JENKIN-We probably should table. MR. CLEMENTS-I’d like to hear about what the septic system is, problem, before I would vote on anything. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that in the past, you know, we’ve had numerous requests for additions on, and, you know, usually the Board has, you know, grants those in most cases, but I think in this case here, I think due to the fact that we’re, the issue is the capacity of the septic and, you know, whether it can fit in there as necessary, if you’ve got to add laterals in or anything like that, along the property line there. The neighbors that are going to be effected to the south there did have some concerns about preservation of the trees and how much hacking and digging was going to occur there at the time, and I don’t know if it would lead to a complete re-design, you know, with an above grade Eljen System which wouldn’t impact digging into the ground so far, because those are above grade. I think, too, the issues that the Water Keeper raised there about the forefront of the property there. If you’re going to increase substantially the amount of wastewater that’s going in the ground there, you are in pretty close proximity to where you draw your drinking water from, and everybody else up on that area up there draws water from the lake at the same time, too, so I think that’s a concern, because you’re looking at about an 80 foot setback from the water there, which seems adequate, but it does slope to the water, and with the lack of vegetation there, I think that’s a concern that maybe we might require you to add some vegetation down on the foreshore as has been recommended in the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan that the Town adopted this year. MRS. JENKIN-The one thing, too. Are the Sugar Maples on your property? MR. ARNOLD-I couldn’t say. I don’t recall that there are any, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn’t look like it. It looks like they’re right on the line. MR. ARNOLD-Yes. There is a grove between the two, our houses, that follows the line, but. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. ARNOLD-I’d have to look and see. They surveyed it about a month ago. So I could tell. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we do this. Because, in lieu of the fact, just so they have an idea of where we’re headed with this. If the septic passes muster, if they have the capacity to add on if necessary, without doing any major disturbance there, would you guys have a problem with it? Do you want me to poll you now, just so they have an idea of where you’re going or whether you think it’s reasonable? MRS. JENKIN-Well, my concern would be, if they have to expand the septic system of how much disturbance it would be to the side yard, and to the trees and everything. I would like to know that. If there was no disturbance, and everything was maintained as it is now, then I wouldn’t have a problem really. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because it is floor area compliant, as far as the size of the house. It fits with what we require. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-And, so, do you guys want to just table it, then, for that information? And if you do come back at that point I think it would be a pretty quick, you know, whatever it occurs. If it’s the green light, then we would probably approve it, with some conditions. MR. OBORNE-If you could table them to a December meeting, a specific December meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Do you want to go to the first December meeting, then? I mean, I’m sure the information will be in by then. MR. ARNOLD-I hope to have it in a week or so. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2009 MICHAEL ARNOLD, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 108 Lake Parkway – Assembly Point. Tabled to the first meeting in December, pending the outcome of whatever happens with the Planning Board in regards to the wastewater plan for this. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II JAMES WHITE AGENT(S): ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S): JAMES WHITE ZONING: WR LOCATION: 104 SEELEY ROAD – CLEVERDALE APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING GARAGE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VEHICLE BAY AND OVERHEAD STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF.: SP 53-09; BP 2002-543 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 14, 2009 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES, LG CEA LOT SIZE: 1.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-9 SECTION: 179-13-010; 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’m recusing myself from this one. So, Rich, take over. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2009, James White, Meeting Date: October 21, 2009 “Project Location: 104 Seeley Road – Cleverdale Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes expansion of existing 480 square foot garage to a 1080 square foot garage in order to provide additional vehicle bay and overhead storage as part of an overall renovation and expansion of existing single family residence. Relief Required: The applicant requests 6’ feet of relief from the 16 foot height restriction for accessory structures in the WR zone per §179-3-040 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 character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of granting this area variance. 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 proposed design appears to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid a height variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 6 feet or 37.5% relief from the 16 foot maximum allowable height for accessory structures in the Waterfront Residential zone per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 53-09 Pending BP 02-543 Septic alt. Staff comments: Note: Planning Board has made a recommendation to the ZBA concerning this Area Variance. See attached recommendation. This application requires site plan review for the expansion of a non-conforming structure in a critical environmental area per §179-13-010G. The applicant states that the existing temporary storage structures will be removed upon completion of the garage expansion. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review needed” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 14, 2009 Project Name: White, James Owner(s): James White ID Number: QBY-09-AV-54 County Project#: Oct09-28 Current Zoning: WR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes expansion of existing garage to provide additional vehicle bay and overhead storage. Relief requested from the expansion of a non- conforming structure and height requirements of the WR zone. Site Location: 104 Seeley Road, Cleverdale Tax Map Number(s): 227.17-2-9 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct 592 sq. ft. addition to an existing garage for a vehicle bay and overhead storage. Relief is requested for the following: the maximum 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) height allowed for a garage is 16 ft where 22 ft 10 in is proposed; and alteration to a non conforming structure. The plans show the location and addition of the garage space. The applicant explains the existing garage does not meet the height requirement but the garage look will be consistent with the house. The applicant also explains the height is needed for storage as the existing house is built on slab and there is no basement for storage. The applicant does not desire to build a separate storage building only to add on to the existing garage area. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 10/14/09. MR. URRICO-And as far as the resolution, there was a motion made, a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 54-2009 and Site Plan No. 53-2009, and the Planning Board, “based on a limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal.” And it was adopted six to one on October 20, 2009. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Staff, just before we begin, I’ve got a quick question. Did we receive a deed with this application? MR. OBORNE-You’d have to check your file. It should have been in with your application. It certainly did have a deed with it. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. GARRAND-I didn’t get one in my packet. MR. HALL-I think we only made one copy. I think there was only asked for one copy. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I don’t know what happened there. I certainly vetted the deed. MR. URRICO-There is a deed here. MR. OBORNE-The applicant certainly does own the property. MR. HALL-Roy, is it in there? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I just wanted to ensure that there’s no question about it. Also no restrictions or anything on the property. MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read all of this into the record? MR. GARRAND-No. If you could just take a cursory look at it and just make sure there’s no restrictions whatsoever on the property, that might have any bearing on this application. MR. URRICO-I can’t answer that question right away, but I’ll look through and I’ll let you know. MR. GARRAND-Okay. For the purpose of the record, please state your name. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Beth White, the owner of the property. I would like to just clarify one thing that was read into the record, whether the Area Variance was substantial. After we made our initial application, in talking with the Town’s Staff, it was decided that since the 900 foot size of the garage had, or overall size, square footage, had been allowed to be upgraded to 1100 square feet, that increased our area height variance that we’re needing, and we’re looking for six foot ten inches of relief, and that should have been updated in that outside piece, and that is in our project description cover letter that was included with all your packages. As discussed, or as indicated on the information that we provided, the Whites are planning to tear down an existing, part of an existing two car garage, expand it to a three bay garage, and, Keith, I don’t know if you have the picture of it. Right now it has like a peaked gable roof on it. The main house itself has a gambrel style roof, and the intent for the new design is to be a gambrel style roof over the garage, which would provide storage above the garage space. The need for this storage, the existing residence is a slab on grade building and has no attic 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) or basement space. So there is no storage at all. They are moving up to the residence full time from Saratoga and they need storage space. So that’s the main extent for the need for this. The intent is to match the design of the roof to the design on the house so that it kind of all flows together and becomes an aesthetically pleasing look. As far as the stormwater mitigation that was talked about by the Planning Board, we have roof gutters that are going to go to infiltrators in the ground, and the house itself has eaves trenches around it that are going to accept all the roof water. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Fellow Board members, any questions for the applicant? MRS. JENKIN-Well, there’s one question. So you’re actually asking for six foot ten inches of relief, rather than the six feet? MR. HALL-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-So we should probably note that in our motion. MR. HALL-Yes. It was an update after we talked with Staff the last time. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. URRICO-Well, it seems like you’re restricted by the design that’s creating the need for a height variance. MR. HALL-Correct. The existing ridge is already 18 feet, and if we tried to expand to cover the three bays, it would have gone way higher than the 22 10 that we’re looking. MR. URRICO-Is there another design that may bring it lower, so you don’t need as much? MR. HALL-Not, any design that we went with was going to wind up being higher than this. The gambrel actually drops us down as low as we can get and still maintain decent head room in the storage area above the garage. MR. GARRAND-And as you mentioned, it’s not going to be, no utilities in there, plumbing or anything like that. MR. HALL-There’s no plumbing in it. There will be electrical in it just for lights and convenience outlets. It’s not insulated and it’s not a heated structure. MR. GARRAND-Any other questions from Board members? With that I’ll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public that would like to comment on this Area Variance? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Nobody? Staff, any other input? MR. OBORNE-The only input I have is that it wasn’t advertised as six foot ten inches. It was advertised for height requirements. So as far as that goes, it’s fine. I don’t think there’s any public input either. MR. URRICO-There’s one letter. MR. OBORNE-There is one letter. MR. URRICO-I have it right here. It’s, “Please accept this as our advisement that a upon receipt of notification and learning of the proposed changes that we are in favor of the changes being made by Mr. White on his property. We support an approval by the Zoning Board to grant the required relief as requested. Sincerely, Peter Bogert, Karen Bogert” And they’re at 133 Seelye Road. That’s it. MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Board members, do you guys feel comfortable with this? MRS. JENKIN-Actually my comment I think that it’ll improve the property, because having the same design as the house, it’ll look a lot better than what you have now. Improvement is needed, and there was a comment about the outbuildings. You’re going to remove any other? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) BETH WHITE MRS. WHITE-Right. All the temporary structures will be removed once the garage is completed. MR. GARRAND-I think it’s a nice piece of property. It’s one of the bigger lots up there, much bigger than most in Cleverdale. MRS. WHITE-It was the original farmhouse for the area. MR. GARRAND-Yes, and it’s listed as Waterfront Residential. How far from the lake is it actually? MRS. WHITE-Well, we do have a dock, but. MR. HALL-Four hundred plus feet. MR. GARRAND-Yes, that’s what I was looking at, Waterfront Residential, I did a double take. MR. HALL-Yes, just because it’s on Cleverdale. MRS. WHITE-Yes, it’s across the road, but anyway. MRS. JENKIN-So you do have a dock on the lake. MRS. WHITE-We do. MR. HALL-Yes, they have dock rights. MRS. JENKIN-Do you have neighbors there that live through the winter, too? MRS. WHITE-We do. In fact, most of the neighbors around us are all year round, which is great. Yes, we have a nice little community. MRS. JENKIN-Welcome, welcome to the area. MRS. WHITE-Thank you. Thanks. MR. GARRAND-At this point, I’ll poll the Board members. Mr. Clements, would you like to comment on this? MR. CLEMENTS-I think that this is a good project. I would think that, since they have no objections from any of your neighbors, and as I looked at it on the screen here, I don’t think that that height is going to bother anybody. I don’t think it’ll be, produce any undesirable change. I think it would be a desirable change. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Jenkin? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I gave my opinion before. I think it will be definitely a desirable change to the neighborhood, and it certainly doesn’t alter the character. It improves it, and I would be in favor of the variance, granting a variance. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Urrico? MR. URRICO-I must say I’m not 100% in favor of it, but I’m mostly in favor of it. I think the height variance is something I’m reluctant to agree to because it’s a relatively new Ordinance, and I think we have to be very careful, when we start granting these, that we’re not setting some sort of a precedent for down the road. That’s all I’m going to say, but I’d be in favor of this particular project. MR. GARRAND-Mrs. Hunt? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it’ll be an attractive addition to the neighborhood, and I’m glad the outbuildings will be going. MRS. WHITE-Me, too. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MRS. HUNT-And I think the height of, you’re not on the Waterfront. You won’t be impacting anyone’s view, so I would have no problem with it. MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with the other Board members. While I’m a little reluctant on the height, in and of itself, this lot is, compared to everything else in Cleverdale, is secluded. I think removal of the outbuildings is a definite advantage, especially to an inflatable Quonset hut. I think it is inflatable. I have no objections to this application. Would somebody like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. GARRAND-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. OBORNE-Joyce, if you could, do say six foot ten inches. MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have that. I don’t know what the percentage would be, but I won’t mention that. MR. OBORNE-Don’t worry about that. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2009 JAMES WHITE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 104 Seeley Road - Cleverdale. The applicant proposes expansion of an existing 480 square foot garage to a 1,080 square foot garage in order to provide additional vehicle bay and overhead storage as part of an overall renovation and expansion of an existing single family residence. The applicant requests six feet ten inches of relief from the sixteen foot height restriction for accessory structures in the WR zone per Section 179- 3-040. The criteria for granting this Area Variance. I don’t think there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood. In fact, I think I will be a desirable change. There’ll be very minor impacts, and I think the fact that the outbuildings will be gone and that the building will be more in keeping with itself is good. Whether the benefit could be sought by the applicant in some other method. I don’t think so. it’s kind of difficult to avoid the height variance with the design of the building. Whether the request is substantial. I think it’s moderate relative to the Ordinance, and again, it’s a Waterfront Residential, and this home is not on the waterfront. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? I don’t think so. They’ll be minor, and the alleged difficulty only in that the Whites want to improve the building and their property. So I propose we pass Area Variance No. 54-2009. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MRS. WHITE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II RANDY E. RYTHER OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: MDR LOCATION: EAST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 50 FT. BY 14 FT. MANUFACTURED HOME WITH A 24 FT. 8 FT. ADDITION ON A VACANT PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF.: TB RES. NO. 289, 2009 REVOCABLE MH PERMIT WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-21 SECTION: 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2009, Randy E. Ryther, Meeting Date: October 21, 2009 “Project Location: East Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) proposes placement of a 14 ft. by 50 ft. manufactured home with a 8 ft. by 24 ft. addition on a vacant parcel. Relief Required: Applicant requests 15 feet of north sideline setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement per §179-3-040 for the Moderate Density Residential zone. 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 character of the neighborhood may be produced as many dwellings associated with parcels in the neighborhood are non- compliant with regards to side setbacks. 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 limitations of the lot appear to eliminate any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 15 feet or 60% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this request. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be attributed to lot limitations. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): TB Resolution 289-09 Revocable Mobile Home permit Approved 9/14/09 Staff comments: The applicant requested and received approval to place a proposed mobile home outside of the mobile home overlay district from the Town Board on September 14, 2009 (see attached). Type II SEQR Status: MR. URRICO-Do I need to read the Town Board resolution into the record? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I don’t think so. It’s not necessary. Do you guys want to fill us in? I assume this is one of your smaller lots that you’re finally going to put something on to? MR. CLUTE-Yes. I’ve had the lot for a while, and prior to me it was a friend of mine’s, and the lot essentially speaks for itself. They were pretty much cut up that way on East street all the way through there. Most of them are all 60 by 100’s, with the intent of single wide mobile homes when they were cut to that size. So, the condition of it, really, there’s not any other really use. MR. UNDERWOOD-So with it, in the change to the mixed residential, that negated that, or would you have needed it anyway even with the old Code. MR. CLUTE-Well, to be honest with you, previous it was Light Industrial. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, so it was even more. MR. CLUTE-Yes, it was even more restrictive, which I don’t really quite understand how it became Light Industrial, but I never much paid attention to it. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t know if they ever just intended that end of Town, thinking that maybe some day if somebody bought the whole thing up or something. MR. CLUTE-Exactly. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Is that the property right there? MR. CLUTE-Yes. The trailer, and these are Randy’s trailers. He was in there clearing off some of the brush and stuff like that. MRS. JENKIN-On the left? MR. CLUTE-Yes. The telephone pole to the right of that little trailer is just roughly the property line. You can just see a slight string. That’s the right property line. MRS. JENKIN-I was just wondering about, if the property is treed, or not. MR. CLUTE-There are a couple of, you can see it, there’s a couple of sizeable trees to the back property line, but mostly it was brush. There wasn’t a lot of trees to the lot. MRS. JENKIN-So you have to take those trees down? MR. CLUTE-No, what you’re looking at right now, where the small trailer is, is, if approved, is where the mobile home itself would be backed into. To the right of it you can see the edge of the single wide. It’s going elongated on the road. Randy’s proposing to go elongated on the lot instead of the road. So the depth of the trailer will be going into the lot. So essentially right where you can see the drive lines is the line of the new trailer, where the new trailer would be if approved. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, because it’s 10 feet from that property line where the post is. MR. CLUTE-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-And the other homes are probably, is there 10 feet there? MR. CLUTE-They’re pretty tight as well, throughout them, not just East Drive but West Drive as well, because of a 60 by 100 foot lot. It’s very difficult to meet the setbacks. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think in general, if you’re looking at the placement, it’s probably more so you gain a little bit of yard, rather than setting it right in the center so you’ve got like little alleyways on either side. MRS. JENKIN-Well, with the septic you’d have to. MR. CLUTE-Exactly. With the septic as well, you have to, which you can see on the plot plan, you have to be able to access it. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you can pump it. MRS. JENKIN-So this is a seepage pit. Would you explain that? MR. CLUTE-Well, rather than leach lines, a drywell, is essentially what it is. It’s a cast drywell, surrounded by blue stone. Just another method of doing a septic system. So a typical septic system is a 1,000 gallon tank and then so many 50 foot lines. This particular system, again, because of the restricted space, a 1,000 gallon tank and a drywell. So now you’re not using, you don’t have to have so much yard available to do all these lines. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Is it sand out there? MR. CLUTE-Very much so. MRS. JENKIN-Good drainage. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any other questions? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll you guys to see what you think. Rich, do you want to go first? MR. GARRAND-Well, given the size of this lot, anything he puts there is going to require an Area Variance. The lot’s only 60 feet wide. The Town Board doesn’t have a problem with it. I don’t see any adverse impacts on the neighborhood either. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree. It’s only an 8 by 24 mobile home on a 60 foot lot, and probably the best placement for it, and since the Town approved it, I have no problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. It is 14 by 50. That’s the addition that you’re looking at. That’s like the porch. Kind of that extra section on the side. It’s 14 by 50, and then it’s 8 by 24, like a side addition on the side of the home. MRS. HUNT-I’m looking at the wrong thing. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. Certainly there’s not going to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, and considering the size of the lot, the request is not substantial. I think it’ll probably improve the property as it stands now. So I wouldn’t, I’d be in favor of granting a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I have to agree with the rest of the Board. I think that it would be desirable change. I don’t think it can be achieved by any other method because of the lot size. So I’d be in favor of this also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I think the only concern I would have had would have been the district it’s in. That’s already been approved. So I’m okay with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume you’re just going to put it on, it’s going to have a cellar under this one? MR. CLUTE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Just slab. MR. CLUTE-Just slab. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just to remind you guys, make sure you measure from the actual property line, so we don’t get into that, you know, we won’t go there. In essence, I don’t think that you could put anything else there more reasonable than this. It’s a reasonable size home for the size of the lot, and you don’t want to put something small on there. I think the double wides are, you know, even though this isn’t a double wide, it’s a narrower one, but at the same time, it fits with the neighborhood and it’s an upgrade from 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) some of the other stuff down that way. So, I’d be all for it. So does somebody want to do this one? MR. GARRAND-I’ll do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2009 RANDY E. RYTHER, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: East Drive. The applicant proposes placement of a 14 foot by 50 foot manufactured home with an eight foot by twenty-four foot addition on a vacant parcel. The applicant is requesting 15 feet of north side line relief from the 25 foot setback requirement per Section 179-3-040 for the moderate density residential zone. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Given the lot size, the benefits cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. The lot is very constrained. Will this variance produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? I think granting this variance, this addition will match the character of the neighborhood, perhaps enhance it. This request may be deemed substantial relative to the Ordinance, given that it’s 15 foot variance for a 25 foot side line setback relief. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impact on the neighborhood? I don’t believe it will have any adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? The applicant didn’t make the lot 60 feet wide. So I would deem this as not self-created. So I would move we approve Area Variance No. 55-2009. th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. RANDY RYTHER MR. RYTHER-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II BEVERLY TUCKER AGENT(S): KENNETH TUCKER OWNER(S): BEVERLY TUCKER ZONING: NR LOCATION: 4 MURRAY AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 1,050 SQ. FT. SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE NR ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 2008-592 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 14, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-17 SECTION: 179-3-040 KENNETH TUCKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2009, Beverly Tucker, Meeting Date: October 21, 2009 “Project Location: 4 Murray Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 1,050 sq. ft. single family dwelling on a 0.17 acre parcel in south Queensbury. Relief Required: Applicant requests 5.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement per §179- 3-040 for the existing single family dwelling located in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) 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 as the house appears to be consistent with the neighborhood. 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. With the house already constructed, the only feasible alternative would be to move the house 5.5 feet to the north in order to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 5.5 feet or 27.5% of relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement for the neighborhood residential zone per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and/or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): C/O for BP 08-592 1,050 Single Family Dwelling On hold pending variance outcome Staff comments: The applicant states that the front setback was measured from the edge of Murray Avenue and not the front property line. The house is setback from the road approximately 30 feet but only 14.5 feet from the property line. The relief required is measured from the enclosed porch on the front of the house to the front property line. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review needed” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 14, 2009 Project Name: Tucker, Beverly Owner(s): Beverly Tucker ID Number: QBY-09-AV-56 County Project#: Oct09-27 Current Zoning: NR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a 1,050 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from front setback requirements of the NR zone. Site Location: 4 Murray Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 309.14-1-17 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant requests approval of a constructed 1,050 sq. ft. house. Relief is requested for the following: front setback where 30 ft. is required and 14.9 ft. is existing. The plans show the location of the house on the lot. The applicant explains the house was constructed to be consistent with neighboring houses where the house is about 30 ft. from the road - just not the property line. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 10/14/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to tell us? It seems to me we’ve, you know, I’ll just make the comment, we’ve come up against these numerous times in Town, and one of the suggestions that I made a long time ago was, that we never followed up on, was that whatever new construction is undertaken in the Town, that when the building permit is filed, that somebody who issues the building permit tells the people who own the lot, your property line is setback blank number of feet from the pavement line, and I think that that something’s that maybe would head a lot of these off at the pass, so we didn’t have a recurrence of them, you know, continuously, until kingdom come. I don’t know if that’s something you guys want to do as a Board, you know, or make that recommendation, but, you know, it would relieve Staff from having to deal with this and cut back on the number of these that we have. I don’t think in any instance that we’ve previously done these, that we’ve made people move their homes, you know, 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) even though it’s been suggested that that people did it on purpose. I know that in probably the bulk of the cases that we’ve had before us, nobody does this on purpose. Everybody assumes they own out to the edge of the road, as I do with my house and everybody else probably does with their home in Town, too, but I think it puts the onus on you guys, you know, it makes you look like you’re the bad guys or something, and we realize you’re not. So, you know, don’t feel like we’re here to beat you up or anything on that. Anything you want to add? We’ll just ask you some questions. MR. TUCKER-Originally I set the house six feet back. We hired a contractor who three days later was on the news Superior Paving, I don’t know if you remember them. They set us back a month. I finally got another contractor to come in and pour the forms. I was at college all day. When I got home, he was supposed to set them. He had set them, had them inspected and poured them. They were farther forward than I had set them. I couldn’t measure well because the excavation was piled there, but I knew that, from where I’d set my stakes, that I was still better than 30 feet back. Originally we were going to put a front porch the whole length. When I realized that I was close, and it was, could be a problem, we just put the breezeway instead of a full front porch across. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think we realize that, you know, like whoever purchases the home, if it’s for sale, you know, they could also come in and ask for a variance to put a porch on there, and, you know, down the road, that’s a possibility, too, but I think it’s tough when you anticipate doing a home and then you think, gee, now we’ve got to through a wrench in the works here by doing this. So we understand. It’s not like it’s. MRS. JENKIN-Well, the thing I notice, too. It is set quite a bit farther forward than the homes on either side of you, too. MR. TUCKER-Well, the white house on the other side is my mother’s house. It is, because her house is set all the way to the back of, you know, even though it’s front yard is Murray. The green house on the other side, we are a little bit in front of, but not excessively like, or a great amount like my parents’ house, but like I said, her house is set to the back of her lot, and most of her yard is in the front, and like I said, the house should have been six feet further back than where it is. MRS. JENKIN-All right. MR. OBORNE-And I will say, that’s difficult for Staff and the applicant if the contractor’s not going to pull it off right. MR. TUCKER-And it was halfway into December when he came. He thought he was doing me a favor. It was snowing. It was just a nightmare job. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Any other questions from you guys? All right. I guess what I’ll do is I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody here from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Have we got any commentary? MR. URRICO-Yes. There’s notes from, I’m just going to read one. “I have no objection to the house at 4 Murray Avenue, Queensbury, New York, as it is built on the property.” And they all say the same thing, but it’s signed by it looks like 15 neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Good. MR. URRICO-They’re all in the neighborhood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, within the immediate area. All right. If there’s nothing else, then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll poll you guys for your commentary on this. I’ll start with you, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I definitely think that your recommendation is important, that before a building permit is issued and building happens, you really need to go and check it out. Because it’s not fair to the property owners. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think there’s some question, because, you know, we end up with like, if it’s a Town road or if it’s a dedicated road, you know, some of them are 30 feet back. Some are 20 feet. Is there a variability, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely, but, I mean, I do say that when a building permit is generated, the Zoning Administrator does vet that against the Zoning Code, and if it doesn’t make, as drawn to the Zoning Code, then it’ll be kicked back and there’ll be a denial letter generated. In this case, it was drawn compliant, set in the ground non compliant. So there’s nothing we can do about that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Sure. MRS. JENKIN-But there’s no check after that, there’s no check after the foundation is in? MR. OBORNE-There obviously was a check, and maybe Randy could expand on that. There must have been an as built survey? MR. TUCKER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-That’s what happened was an as built survey was done. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think the only way to catch it would be like when you go out to look at the footers, you know, like when they do the inspection, you know, they might say, well, hey, it looked a little closer, you know, or, and I don’t know it they go out and inspect the hole before you put everything in or they just come out after you’ve already poured cement or not, but, you know, I don’t know how we’d head it off at the pass. Like you say, there’s so many variables involved. We’ve had stakes get moved, you know, people assumed the line was there. MR. URRICO-Well, sometimes the middle of the road is not the middle of the road either. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Sure. MR. OBORNE-But I don’t want to dissuade you from making recommendation. MR. URRICO-No, I understand. I think what we’re saying is it would be fair, much fairer if we can head this off earlier, understanding that eventually the contractor could make a mistake anyway. MRS. JENKIN-Well, the thing is, too, it’s expensive to do this variance, to have to come and get all these copies. It’s an expense that you shouldn’t have had. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll go to you, Roy, next. MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in favor of the application, basically for the reasons that we talked about earlier. I think, whatever mistakes were made was an honest mistake. It wasn’t, and it’s not going to affect the location of the house. I think it’s far enough back from the road where it’s not going to be an issue anyway. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-Well, in looking at an application like this, one of the things that I consider what could have been gained by moving this house closer to the road in this manner, and I don’t see anything that the applicant did maliciously to gain anything here. I think it was an honest mistake, and I do support your recommendation. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I do think it was an honest mistake, not something that was done deliberately, and the fact that 15 of your neighbors have no objection, I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’m never happy with variances after the fact, but I think there was no malice intended here, and so I’d be in favor of the application. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t have any problem with this one, either, but, you know, if there was some means that we could, if we had a crystal ball on these, but I don’t think 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) we do. I mean, they happen occasionally. What I’m going to suggest to you guys is pass down all these surveys. We’ll give them back to you, and whoever you sell the house to, tell them to keep them, so when they want to come in and put their porch on, they don’t have to go get new surveys and spend the extra money. So that way, you can streamline the process. We’ll assume at some point somebody’s going to come in and ask to do that. Does somebody want to do this one? MRS. JENKIN-Sure, I’ll do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2009 BEVERLY TUCKER, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 4 Murray Avenue. The applicant has constructed a 1,050 square foot single family dwelling on a .17 acre parcel in South Queensbury. The applicant requests 5.5 feet of relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement per Section 179-3-040 for the existing single family dwelling located in the Neighborhood Residential zone. The criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law has five criteria. In making the determination the Board shall consider 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 the Area Variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood. In fact, there’s probably no impact to the neighborhood, with the placement of the house that is five feet closer than it should be. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. With the house already built, it would be very, very difficult to move the existing home, almost impossible now, without major expense, and so there really can’t be any other method that can be achieved, other than the Area Variance. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial, 27.5 feet of relief is not really considered substantial, considering the neighborhood that it’s in. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. There’s probably no impact on the physical or environmental conditions to this neighborhood. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. Probably monitoring could have been done a little bit closer before the forms were put in, but it was probably an honest mistake and I would not feel that this was self-created. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 56-2009. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. TUCKER-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II STEVEN QUIRION OWNER(S): STEVEN QUIRION ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 31 EDGEWOOD DRIVE – EDGEWOOD PARK, SECTION 2 APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A POOL IN THE SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT POOLS BE ERECTED ONLY IN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF.: BP 2007-159; BP 2003-074 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: OCTOBER 14, 2009 LOT SIZE: 1.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-29 SECTION: 179-5-020 C 2 STEVEN QUIRION, PRESENT MR. URRICO-I’m also going to read in a letter that Mr. Quirion wrote to the Zoning Board. “I am requesting a variance for our pool which has already been installed. I have been told I need the variance, as the pool is located in the side yard. We chose to locate the pool in the side yard for a number of reasons. The main reason being the shape of our lot and the lay of the land. Even though our lot is 1.52 acres, it is only about 60 feet from the back of the house to the rear property line and it slopes upward. The south side (where the pool is located) is flat and level only to the pool. From there the land drops at a very steep slope and continues to slope down to the south property line for approximately 400 feet. Except for the areas next to our house, our lot is covered with a very dense stand of trees, which we love. The trees also act as a very good screen for our pool and surrounding deck from the south and west. Actually, the pool and deck are not visible from any direction off of our property, and only a small portion of the fence 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) around the area (approximately three panels) is visible from the road (see the attached photos). The reasons we decided not to consider locating the pool behind our house are many. The first being it would be closer to our next-door neighbor on the north side. The second being the available level area would be greatly reduced by the pool, which would require us having to excavate into the slope to create a larger level area. In doing so, we would possibly be cutting into the root systems of the trees in the back, and we did not want to chance injuring them. We had already done a minor excavation to create a flat area closest to the back of our house for our dogs to play, and we did not want to excavate any further being it might injure the trees and would also result in creating a much higher retaining wall. The third being the amount of sunlight in the rear yard is very minor compared with that of the side yard with its southern exposure. The last reason for not considering locating the pool in the rear yard is that it would result in the pool being higher than the house foundation and resulting in possible water damage should the pool ever fail. We realize the chance of this happening is not great; however, if it ever did in its present location, the water would safely run away from the house due to the slope. By locating the pool in its present location with the surrounding deck, the area did not have to be filled and leveled to make it useable, and the backyard did not lose anymore of its useable lawn area, even though it is still a very small area considering the 1.52- acre lot size. Even though I take full responsibility for the pool being installed prior to a variance being requested, I offer the following explanation. In April of 2007, I hired a contractor to install my above ground pool. He was not familiar with the Queensbury pool regulations, and directed me to contact the Town to see what they entailed. After contacting the Town Zoning Administrator (Craig Brown), I was told a permit was required for the pool I purchased. As I was directed, I applied for the permit. Due to his schedule, the contractor informed me he would not be able to install the pool for quite a few weeks. Being we were about to leave town for a long planned vacation, I told him it was not a major concern. However, if he had the opportunity to install it sooner, should his schedule open up, I would appreciate it. The contractor stated that being the pool is an above ground type (only 4 feet deep), it would only take a day to install, and if he could fit the job into his schedule, he would do so. A few days later, we left town for our vacation. When we returned home, much to our delight, the pool was installed in its present location. It wasn’t until after we picked up our mail, which had been on hold, did we receive the letter from Mr. Brown that informed us the pool as located on the permit site map would require a variance. Our delight quickly turned to embarrassment and then fear. Knowing we would have to apply for a variance, we discussed the situation with our neighbors. All of our neighbors agreed with us that the location we chose was the best considering all of the constraints due to the lay of the land and shape of our property, and they would be supportive of a variance being approved (see the attached petition). We considered hiring an attorney to handle the matter, and were advised the town would surely be contacting us soon regarding the matter, and we should apply for the variance then. At the time, we never would have guessed we wouldn’t be contacted until more than two years had passed. I have to admit as time went by, I hoped the Town would forget about the matter, and being no one’s quality of living was negatively impacted due to our pool location (which we thought was the intent of the code) our embarrassment and fear lessened. Unfortunately, all of the embarrassment and fear are back and rightly deserved. We should have addressed the matter right after receiving Mr. Brown’s letter. For this, we apologize to the town and the board and take full responsibility for our actions. Members of the board, please consider granting our variance based on the factors mentioned above, that resulted in our choosing to place our pool on the south side of our house and not in our rear yard, rather than punishing us for not applying for the variance back in 2007. We realize our decision to wait to ask for the variance was not a good one, however, we believe our decision to locate the pool where we did was the best choice considering our closest neighbor and our environmental concerns and was only supported by good intent. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Steve Quirion” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2009, Steven Quirion, Meeting Date: October 21, 2009 “Project Location: 31 Edgewood Drive – Edgewood Park, Section 2 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 16 ft. X 24 ft. pool with deck in the side yard. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirement that pools be erected only in the rear yard per §179-5-020C. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) 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 character of the neighborhood may be anticipated as the pool is well screened and the lot is relatively large. 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. With the pool existing in the side yard, feasible alternatives appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief from the placement of a pool in other than the rear yard per §179-5-020C may be considered moderate in this instance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The alleged difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 07-159 Above ground pool BP 03-074 1,494 sq. ft. SFD CO issued 8/12/2003 Staff comments: The applicant states that the pool could not be located in the rear yard due to topography restraints. Please see narrative submitted with application. It does appear, with the submittal by the applicant of a list of neighbors in support of the variance, that little to no opposition exists to the applicant’s request. The pool is well screened from the road and appears to meet the minimum 4 foot permanent fencing requirement. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review needed” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form October 14, 2009 Project Name: Quirion, Steven Owner(s): Steven Quirion ID Number: QBY-09-AV-57 County Project#: Oct09-26 Current Zoning: MDR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a pool in the side yard. Relief requested from the requirement that pools be erected only in the rear yard. Site Location: 31 Edgewood Drive – Edgewood Park, Section 2 Tax Map Number(s): 296.14-1-29 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant requests approval of constructing a pool in the side yard. Relief is requested for the following: location of pools are required to e in the rear yard where this pool has been constructed has been constructed in the side yard. The applicant explains the location was selected due to sloping issues on the property, desire to note remove trees, desire not to interfere with neighbor on the north. The plans show the lot configuration and pool located in the side yard. Additional details in the application indicate the applicant has contacted the neighbors who agree the current location better than a rear yard location. Staff recommends no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Tim Lawson, Warren County Planning Board 10/14/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Quirion, anything else you want to add at this time? MR. QUIRION-All I can do is apologize. It got out of control a little bit. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Do Board members have any questions? MRS. JENKIN-A question on your property. Where is your septic system? MR. QUIRION-Up on the front yard. MRS. JENKIN-It’s in the front yard. MR. QUIRION-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-I see it now. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MR. GARRAND-That deck is huge. MR. QUIRION-You went and saw it? MR. GARRAND-That whole neighborhood, though, slopes down. MR. UNDERWOOD-Into the pit. MR. QUIRION-But, you know, by doing that, I don’t have to mow, you know, no fertilizer going down that ditch. We’re going to keep that wild down there. MR. GARRAND-If you had tried to put it in the back yard, you would have had all kinds of problems. You’d have had to, you know, erect walls and everything else. MR. QUIRION-In my wildest dreams, I never thought this was a problem. Honestly, you know, the back yard, I’ve got the neighbors right there. This was perfect. MR. GARRAND-Putting a pool in the backyard there would have been a complete nightmare, though, as far as, you know, engineering that. You could have had Gifford help you with that. He’s an engineer, but. MR. QUIRION-And those aren’t my trees in the back. That’s a landowner, Al Cerrone’s property back there. So where you see the trees there is Al Cerrone’s. MRS. JENKIN-I guess waiting the two years was your biggest. MR. QUIRION-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MR. URRICO-I’ve got a comment. How come it took two years to get back to them? MR. OBORNE-Well, because we typically, and we, I’m speaking for the Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance. I’m not a Code Compliance Officer. I’m a Planner. They give anybody who’s in violation the chance to come around, and the last resort is to issue an appearance ticket. So, I think Craig and Bruce put a little pressure on you and. MR. QUIRION-Well, no, this was the first they came. MR. OBORNE-Well, you had a letter written. MR. QUIRION-Right, and I addressed it right away. MR. OBORNE-Right. They came in two years later. MRS. JENKIN-Keith, does the original letter state that the homeowner must follow up with that and come in and it’s their responsibility to respond to it, or do they, is it a little ambiguous that a homeowner feels well maybe the Town will contact me further? MR. OBORNE-I think that the applicant understood that he needed a variance, in his letter, which is quite clear, is that he was hoping that we’d forget about it, I guess. MR. QUIRION-Yes. I looked at the variance, I was way over my head. MR. OBORNE-As far as the Code goes, the Code was followed. The letter was issued. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. QUIRION-I didn’t know where to turn to. MR. OBORNE-Now, we didn’t go and check and see if there was a pool built, you know, we don’t check that. The only time that we would check that is if we get a complaint. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So what made, two years after this, why did he receive a letter two years after? MR. OBORNE-Can you answer that? MR. QUIRION-They said just an open permit. MR. OBORNE-It was an open file and they came around to it. There wasn’t a complaint. I really don’t know, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else from you guys? All right, I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter, raise your hand, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-The only correspondence I would say is that there was a petition signed. It says, “Mr. Quirion has informed me of his applying for a variance for his pool installed in his side yard, and I am in support of the variance being approved.” And it’s signed by four of his neighbors, all on Edgewood, 18 Edgewood, 37, 29, and 16. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I’ll just make some commentary. I think the Code as it exists, the side pools would be basically not something that most homeowners living in close proximity to their neighbors would tolerate, you know, and I think we would be very reluctant to give variances for them, except on rare occasion. We have given them on corner lots, you know, where you have the two side yards, you know, in that instance there some times, you know, with screening, but in looking at this one here, I mean, my son goes down to Messinas house all the time. So I drive up the hill past your house, and, looking at the size of your lot, I mean, no one’s ever going to build on the rest of that lot there because of the swale and the water and the runoff, the way everything drains in that direction there, and I think normally, if you had a house immediately next door, we might be flipping out over this one, but because it’s such a long way from there to the next home down the line, in essence the side line thing really becomes a moot point. It doesn’t really trigger anything that puts a red flag up, other than it’s not permitted. So, you know, we’re back to square one with this one. For myself, I wouldn’t have a problem with this one. It doesn’t really have an effect on anybody. The people across the street, I don’t think it’s, you’re having too many wild parties down there driving the neighbors crazy or anything like that. MR. QUIRION-I had all the neighbors sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess what I’ll do is ask you guys, anymore commentary from you guys, or do you want me just to poll you? MR. URRICO-I think if there was any problem, his neighbors would have turned him in a long time ago. Really. I don’t think there’s an issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll start with you, Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Okay. Yes. Well, I can understand the reasoning for having pools in the backyard, but in this case, because of the size of the lot and the topography of the rear yard, and the fact that there’s no opposition to your placing it in the rear yard, and it’s well screened, I would have no problem with this variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-I absolutely concur with this. When I drove past, I thought this is a wonderful spot for a pool, and that really isn’t a consideration. It’s just that you didn’t get the permit before, or you didn’t come for the variance before, because there probably 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) wouldn’t have been any problem in us granting the variance at that point, either. So I certainly would grant it now, this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-We said earlier that after the fact variances are never really liked very much, and I guess the question would be, if you came to us with clean hands, if you were doing this from the beginning, what we would have said at the time. We probably would have asked you, what would be the chances of putting it in the rear yard, and you would probably have given us the same answers you gave us tonight, and I probably would have agreed that that’s the best location for it in this instance. Every instance is different. So I would be in favor of it this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’ve got to agree with Roy and the Chairman’s remarks also. Again, I’m never happy granting a variance after the fact, but I believe the variance would have been granted, given the arguments you gave tonight, I believe. So I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-When I look at whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, I don’t think the amount of landscaping and adjustments to the lay of the land in the back would be feasible to the applicant. Like the other Board members also said, variances after the fact tend to be frowned upon, but in this case I think if they’d come here first with this request, I don’t think we would have turned it down. So I’d be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and I’ll go along with it, too, and I guess I’ll do this one. MS. GAGLIARDI-You need to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll close the public hearing. Thanks. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2009 STEVEN QUIRION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 31 Edgewood Drive – Edgewood Park, Section 2. The applicant has constructed a 16 by 24 foot pool with a deck in the side yard and is requesting relief from the requirement that pools be erected only in the rear yard per Section 179-5-020, Section C. In general we feel that there’s no undesirable change that’s been created in the neighborhood by the erection of this pool in the side yard. Everybody, I think unanimously, feels that had the applicant come in and asked for the variance initially for the pool in this position, we would have granted the favor to them at that time. Whether the benefit could be sought by putting it in a different area, that would be the backyard only, it would have been an engineering nightmare to put it back there, due to the topography of the lot and the way that it slopes. I think that the request is substantial, and in most cases we’re happy with the Code that disallows pools in the side yard, but in this instance here, due to the long setback from the nearest neighbor, and no real opposition by the neighbors, that the Area Variance being granted here this evening will not have any adverse impact on any physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and although it was self- created, by putting the pool there, I don’t think anybody has a problem with it. So I’ll move for its approval. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. QUIRION-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Do you want your surveys back? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. OBORNE-Steve, you’re going to need to submit final plans, so you probably should take the surveys back. MR. QUIRION-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II SHANNON STOCKWELL OWNER(S): SHANNON STOCKWELL ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 4 BENNETT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18 FT. BY 32 FT. ABOVE- GROUND POOL IN THE NON-ARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PLACEMENT OF POOL IN THE REAR YARD REQUIREMENT AND FENCE RELIEF FOR A PORTION OF EXISTING FENCE ENCROACHING INTO FRONT SETBACK. CROSS REF. BP 2003-919 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-27.2 SECTION: 179-5-020 SHANNON STOCKWELL, PRESENT MR. URRICO-I’m also going to read in a narrative given to us by the applicant. It says, “My husband and I applied for a pool permit. We were denied because of where we want to put it on our property. We are now applying for a required variance. The pool is an 18 x 32 above ground. We would like to put it in our side yard, which is shown on the included surveys. The reason we would like to put it in our side yard, because our backyard is very shallow. We also have two large locust trees that would be constantly dropping thorns and leaves into the pool. Our house faces the west and block the sun form hitting out backyard. Therefore our pool would have no or very little sunlight. The area of our backyard that we would like to put the pool has no trees that would be hanging over the pool. The sun also hits that area all day long. Our back yard is completely fenced in. We have a privacy fence located around the side and back yard and a chain fence around the front yard. We are also seeking relief for the fence so that it does not have to be removed when installing the pool. Our home and yard are always kept clean and we assure you that the pool ad pool area would be kept the same. Thank you for your consideration. Brandon and Shannon Stockwell” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2009, Shannon Stockwell, Meeting Date: October 21, 2009 “Project Location: 4 Bennett Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 18 ft. by 32 ft. above-ground pool in the non- architectural front yard. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the requirement that pools be erected only in the rear yard and fence relief for a portion of existing fence encroaching into the front setback. 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 as a result of granting this area variance. 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 applicant could move the pool to the northeast portion of the property; however, the limitations of the lot and the location of the wastewater system appear to add to the need for an area variance as proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request to locate the pool approximately 38 feet into the side yard may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 09-196 Above ground pool Pending BP 03-919 1,604 sq. ft Single family dwelling & two car detached garage CO issue 3/22/04 Staff comments: All private swimming pools shall be enclosed by a permanent fence of durable material at least four feet high per §179-5-020C4. In the case where a lot fronts on two public rights-of-way, the pool shall be screened from the view of the public right-of-way and the neighboring property by means of landscaping as per §179-5-020C5. Note: Landscaping includes fences, scrubs, trees etc. The Zoning Board may wish to consider, as a condition of approval, that fencing and / or vegetative screening may be used to satisfy the landscaping requirement of this proposal. In order to avoid an additional area variance due to the location of the existing non- compliant fence encroaching on the non-architectural front setback, the applicant will need to reposition the fence in a compliant location. Further, the applicant should clarify the proposed new location of the existing fence as the plan calls for the pool to encroach into its current location. The applicant may wish to rotate the position of the pool counterclockwise to the northeast by 90 degrees in order to avoid repositioning the existing fence as stated above. Note: This action would not preclude the applicant from repositioning the southeast corner of the existing fence in order to avoid an area variance. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review needed” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want to fill us in? MRS. STOCKWELL-Well, we did talk to Keith about rotating the pool. We don’t have a problem with that. Anything that we have to do, basically, just to get it on that side of the yard we would do. The backyard is extremely shady. The trees are huge back there, constantly dropping things, and the house blocks the sun. So it’s an extremely shallow backyard, and we’d just like to do what we can to get it on the other side. It is blocked, privacy, that’s from Aviation Road, and you would only be able to see it coming from West Mountain up Aviation Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Questions from you guys? MR. CLEMENTS-I just wondered why it was set here, over the line of the fence. I just wondered why you had it done that way. MRS. STOCKWELL-Well, I think there was a lack of communication between myself and the surveyor. I told them as far to the right as I could get it. I didn’t mean that there was a fence, but that’s where they put it. So, unfortunately that’s the way it turned out. MR. CLEMENTS-So you’re planning on turning it and putting it inside of the fence, leaving the fence there? MRS. STOCKWELL-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it would go lengthwise towards Gordon’s property, and, you know, short end towards Aviation Road that way. That makes more sense. MR. OBORNE-And I think I said rotate it to the northeast. I probably should have said northwest. I’m sure you guys would have told me about that anyway. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We figured that out. As far as the setbacks, so it would be setback from the fence. How far has it got to be from the fence, like four feet? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. OBORNE-It could be right up to the fence. There is no issue with that, but you do have to have that screened from Bennett Road and Aviation Road, you know, where you have your chain link, you have to have a four foot opaque fence, and I would highly suggest that you direct them to do that, along with plantings, and it’s a safety issue is what it is. MRS. JENKIN-That was my concern, too, when I drove, because you wouldn’t have any privacy, really, because Aviation Road is very busy and you can see into that area. BRANDON STOCKWELL MR. STOCKWELL-So it would be a combination of vegetation and slats, or just one or the other? MRS. JENKIN-Well, you could put bushes, or you could put a four foot privacy fence. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you’ve got to put a fence that you can’t see through. MR. STOCKWELL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-But you can do any kind of plantings you want in front of that. In fact, probably put an arborvitae hedge, it’ll grow up way tall and it’s like your private sanctuary back there. MR. OBORNE-You can run a compliant six foot privacy fence from the corner of your hour all the way over, okay. As you have it now, because the fence comes out from the edge of the garage, and it’s four foot. You’re compliant, but if you wanted to do that with a six foot fence, you couldn’t do that. You’re not here for that type of relief right now. So, just keep that in mind. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s got to come from the back, then? MR. OBORNE-It has to come from the very, the point on the side of the house, and actually as the Code reads now, a fence can go up to the front setback along the side line, but that’s a whole other issue. We don’t need to get into that now. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you don’t want it out in front of the garage. You want it in back of the garage? MR. OBORNE-No. I think that they have a compliant fence now. If they somehow put slats in that fence, and then put plantings, I think they’d be golden. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-Actually, to buy shrubs right now, at this time of year, everything is 50 to 70% off. MRS. STOCKWELL-He works at Lowe’s. So we’re in like Flynn. MRS. JENKIN-You could easily put in, arborvitae grows fast, but keep it trimmed, or you will end up with. MR. OBORNE-Deer love the arborvitae. MRS. JENKIN-But that’s what I would suggest. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, as far as the location goes, too, I mean, it’s on the south side. I mean, you’re going to get the sun, and I agree with you. Putting it anywhere else is either going to be in the shade or a leaf collector. All right. I think what I’ll do is open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Okay. Do you want to come up? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS HANCHETT MR. HANCHETT-Hi. My name is Chris Hanchett, and I own the property at 59 Aviation Road, which is adjacent and east of the subject property. I also own the property at 6 Eldridge Road. I’m opposed to the Zoning Board of Appeals granting the Area Variance 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) outlined in this application. When I look at the criteria, the balancing test here, I guess what I can do is just read off my concerns in regards to that. With respect to whether granting this variance will produce an undesirable change in character or a detriment to the neighborhood, the applicant is in effect requesting to install a very large sized pool, 18 by 32 feet, above ground in a non-architectural front yard adjacent to my architectural front yard. In addition, Section 179-5-075 sub paragraph C3 and C4 of the zoning ordinance states that no fence over 4 feet shall be erected along side yard adjacent to public streets and that privacy fences are restricted to rear and side yards only. I have a concern that I think was brought up here about that fence, because of the way that pool was positioned. Granting of this variance will introduce a “back yard environment” adjacent to our front yard and as such is detrimental. The other thing is that Aviation Road is a main corridor in the Town, out to West Mountain Road. This is a corner lot. It’s very visible on Aviation Road. It’s not a side street. This is not like the last case that came up where there’s, you know, this is right out in the open, and very visible. So, you know, based on this tenet, I think the variance should be denied. Secondly, with respect to whether or not the applicants can achieve their goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the granting of a variance, the answer is, yes, they can, and the information in their own application alludes to this. The applicant can place the pool in their rear yard as permitted. They have two locust trees there which, you know, I understand can be a problem, and there’s not a lot of sun there, but they could be trimmed, and even though I’m not an advocate of cutting trees down, you know, they can certainly be cut, and this would also improve available sunlight to the back yard, which was another issue that they brought up. With respect to the relief requested being substantial to the Ordinance, the Ordinance states in the relevant sections that in the case where a lot fronts on two or more public rights-of-way, a private swimming pool shall be erected only on that portion of said lot that is directly adjacent to that side of the principal building which is directly opposite the architectural main entrance of said building and the neighboring side lot line. This request is totally contrary to that. This is not equivalent to granting of setback variance of several feet. If you grant this, you will be allowing a prohibited activity to occur in what is in essence, a front yard. Here the Ordinance makes it clear that the proposed location of the pool is not allowed, period. Therefore, it is substantial, and should be denied. With respect to whether the relief requested will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood or district, I said some of my concerns, and it certainly would, I think, adversely effect the neighborhood, my property, and possibly property value. However, we can not overlook the fact that the granting of this variance can set a precedent which could cause similar requests from many other residents. In the applicant’s own words, they state in their application putting the pool in the rear yard is not acceptable due to the presence of trees which will drop leaves into the pool and due to less sun in the permitted area than in the requested non-permitted area. This is not a unique situation and a common occurrence on many, many lots in the Town of Queensbury. Granting this variance could set a precedent that many other resident could take advantage of if they so choose. Allowing such installations throughout the Town will have a detrimental, physical appearance on our community. As I stated before, Aviation Road is a main corridor. It’s right on a corner. It’s not back down a street. Therefore, I believe a request for the variance should be denied. And the last tenet of the balancing test, as to whether or not there has been a self created difficulty, there has been as follows: When the property was purchased, as per Town records, in 2007, the zoning law existed, so the prohibition of a pool in the front yard should be no surprise to the applicants. Exercising good due diligence at the purchase time would have made this prohibition clear. The applicants apparently did not do that. When the applicants purchased the house, the amount of sunlight exposure in the part of the yard where a pool is permitted is the same today as it was on the purchase date. The applicants had to know this. If sunlight in the backyard of this property is insufficient to support their intended activities, they could have chosen another property. The trees can be trimmed or removed. The pool can be heated. There are other alternatives. The applicants are choosing not to do this. The decision is self created, and the applicants have chosen to apply for a variance to mitigate the results of that decision. Again, it is self-created. Certainly, I mean, I don’t know the applicants, and I don’t wish them any, you know, impediments to enjoying their property, and certainly, you know, they should be able to do their desired activities, but in our neighborhood, a balance, you know, and in any neighborhood in the Town, must be achieved, and when one wants to do something on their lot that is contrary to the Ordinance, and in this case it’s a significant variance, I believe, I feel that it shouldn’t be granted. MR. UNDERWOOD-So do you live adjacent to them? MR. HANCHETT-Yes. I own two properties. I own this property right here, so this house. The pool would be right here. The fence goes like this now, and it’s right, right here is Aviation Road. So, I mean, the pool would be right on Aviation Road basically. I 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) live in a new house right here, but we’re in the process of rehabbing this property and this house, and done a lot of work here, and to an existing cabin on the property, just completely rehabbed it, and we are planning on rehabbing this house, and selling this house and moving to this house. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. MRS. JENKIN-Is there a row of trees on your property now, separating the two properties? MR. HANCHETT-There are a few trees there, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. He brought up some points. I don’t know if you guys want to address his concerns. I don’t know, as far as mitigation purposes, what you could do, as far as where you’re proposing the pool. I think if you, actually, if you move it back it I think it would make it even closer to the house next door, if you put it back behind the house. Would that be correct, your assumption on that? MR. HANCHETT-If you look at that, it will actually be further away, if it’s behind their house. MR. OBORNE-Are you saying if they put it where the locust trees are? MR. UNDERWOOD-If you put it kind of back behind the garage, you know, like if you were, slide it from Aviation north, you know, they’re already proposing to turn it that direction. MR. OBORNE-Yes. Either way, they’d require a variance, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. OBORNE-And I don’t know how much that’ll mitigate anything, to be honest with you. MRS. JENKIN-But won’t it be a negative thing for you to have the pool so close to the fence? You’ll have to walk out your back, and it would be a little easier for you if you did move it closer to the house, especially to the garage, and maybe have it slightly behind the garage. MRS. STOCKWELL-I worry about the septic system when we get close to the garage. Because it is, you know, it’s right at the edge of the garage. MRS. HUNT-It says approximate septic. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re probably not sure, the laterals, you think, go towards Aviation Road, that direction there? Yes, so it would mean digging it all up. MRS. STOCKWELL-Yes, and the fence, our whole back yard is, there are trees along the whole back of that fence, that privacy fence, and, you know, trimming the locust trees I guess is doable. They’re huge, but the house provides a lot of the shade itself. So I’m not sure how much, how effective, you know. MRS. JENKIN-But if you were to move the, back behind the house, you would interfere with the septic system most definitely. Wouldn’t you? MRS. STOCKWELL-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-That’s a real detriment. MRS. STOCKWELL-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, these are all the laterals back there. MRS. JENKIN-Unless you did it on the other side of the house, but that would be the very dark side. That’s the north side of the house. MRS. STOCKWELL-And that would be right next to our neighbor who’s directly next to us where there are no trees between the two properties. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Have you considered, it’s an above ground pool, so it would come up, what, is it four feet high? MR. STOCKWELL-Yes, it’s four feet. MRS. JENKIN-Have you considered putting it down partially in the ground, to lower it? MRS. STOCKWELL-We never considered it, but we can. I don’t know. MRS. JENKIN-I don’t know whether you can or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think before we continue, we do have some public comment letters. So I think I’ll have Roy read those first, because that’ll give us a little more input. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. URRICO-One of the letters was from Mr. Hanchett, but he made his comments in person. MR. HANCHETT-That was pretty much what I had to say. MR. URRICO-Here’s another one from, “I, Thomas Hall, reside at 41 Aviation Rd. Having spoken with my neighbors I am objecting to the proposed 18 by 32 foot above ground swimming pool to be erected at the Shannon Stockwell residence at 4 Bennett Road, Queensbury. I feel it would be an eyesore on the corner of Aviation Road and would lower the value of my home. Thomas Hall” “A 10/19/09 call to the zoning board answered the question as to why pool cannot be established behind house as it would be located over septic area. We would not object to a side yard positioning of pool if applicant would agree to establish fencing similar in height and style to fencing on the south and east side of their property obscuring view of pool area from road frontage. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the scheduled variance meeting but would like my position presented. Thanking you in advance. Tim Towers” He’s at 20 Bennett Road. I think that’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any suggestions? Let’s look at the original plot on the thing as proposed there. It seems to me if you took the original proposal, which was with the long side going along Aviation Road and the short end facing Bennett Road, if we slid that, and we moved that back towards the garage, it looks like you’re 37.75 feet from the garage. That’s what’s listed on the survey. I don’t know at what point you would encroach into the laterals from the septic system, or if, you probably would come back say 35 feet further back towards the garage. I don’t know how long those laterals are. Is there anything on record, or you guys would just be guessing? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, you couldn’t put it behind the garage. MR. CLEMENTS-Are you talking about putting it behind the garage or beside the garage? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. It’s over here, so we would just move it 30 feet back closer towards the garage, not turn it like we originally talked about doing. That brings it closer to the side of the house. You can’t put it behind there because the septic and the leach field and the lateral lines are all there as it is. MRS. JENKIN-If you did move it toward the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, that way the shed would be there, you know, it would be past kind of a, like approximately past the shed, you know, the edge of the pool, you know, as it is on the plot there, and that would bring it a substantial distance back. It looks like you would be, from Aviation Road you would probably be, it’s 75 feet to the edge of the garage. So you’d probably be out, 75 minus 18, right? If you’re near the edge of the garage. MRS. JENKIN-Well, you can’t put it right on the edge of the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, not near there, but you’d be out probably 24 feet from the garage or so. If we put it further, if we put it, if we moved it up closer to the, so it was parallel, in line next to the garage, you know, that would substantially increase the setbacks from the property to the east. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MRS. JENKIN-Then it would be really evident from the road, Bennett Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, here’s what I’m proposing. Here’s what I would say. Like this. MRS. JENKIN-Like this. MR. UNDERWOOD-So move it up here. Move it from here, over here, so it’s next to the garage. You still would have a fence. You’d still have things up there. You would be increasing the setback this way. MR. GARRAND-And you wouldn’t have a pool right on top of Aviation Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-You wouldn’t have the pool close to the road. It would be closer to the house, but still on the south side of the house, but next to the garage. MRS. JENKIN-It would be closer to Bennett, but then if they put in the shrubs. The shrubs take a while to grow. That’s the problem. Yes, but I think you’d be increasing the setbacks away from the road, you know, in a side situation there. I don’t know what you guys think. What do you think? Does that go anywhere or not? MRS. JENKIN-What about sinking into the ground a couple of feet? MR. GARRAND-That would be one of the most reasonable, as far as positioning goes, because, Number One, I can go down Aviation Road. I don’t see a single pool on Aviation Road. All right. That, in and of itself, changes the character of the neighborhood by having a pool on Aviation Road. Next is the size of the pool. It is, it’s more than double the size of the pool that was in my back yard. MRS. JENKIN-So maybe making it smaller? MR. GARRAND-Not necessarily. I mean, if they don’t want to make it smaller, I would suggest that it definitely be repositioned in such a way that it’s not right on Aviation Road and it’s not something that people are readily going to see from Bennett Road. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys want to see what I’m proposing? Okay. You can take it back with you. So right now you’re talking about doing it here. So I was saying if you moved it over here, next to the garage, you know, you’d increase the setback over here where you’re interfering. You’d get further back from the road. You can plant trees galore out here. Trees galore out here, you know, which eventually, and obviously you’re going to plant trees over on the Bennett Road side. MR. GARRAND-You’d get all the afternoon sun around there. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re still on the south side, you know, and you’re still going to get the benefit of it, but it’s more, you know, move it closer. MRS. STOCKWELL-I mean, we will do whatever we have to, landscape wise, to make it look nicer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, and I think that moves it this direction, you know, relieving him of some of his concerns. Not giving him total. I’m going to guess your D box comes out, and your lines are all set back there, you know, I mean, if you’re close to your nearest one, it’s not going to kill your septic system probably. We know it’s sand over there, big time. MR. OBORNE-It percs very fast, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I don’t think that’s a concern. MRS. STOCKWELL-I guess we were just thinking further back (lost words) would be more (lost words) however. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure, but I mean, I think they’re looking at, so you’re not going to be seeing this as you come around the corner here. It’s going to be here. You’re going to have to screen this out here substantially, too, but. All right. MRS. HUNT-Yes, being close to the house, it won’t be as obtrusive. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. GARRAND-I’d be okay with that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Why don’t you come up here and I’ll show you what I’m proposing. See what you think. MRS. JENKIN-Are you going to put a platform around it or anything? Do you have anything planned for that? MR. STOCKWELL-I don’t have plans on it right now. MRS. STOCKWELL-We don’t have any permanent plans, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they were talking over here, and then they were talking changing it to this position, but what I’m saying is, if you bring it over here close to the garage, that gets it further away from you, and if they put a whole bunch of screening up here, a whole bunch of screening up here, and a whole bunch of screening up here, it’ll privatize it somewhat. I mean, obviously it’s going to take a while for that stuff to grow up. I don’t know if that relieves you of any. MR. HANCHETT-In any event, any pool in this area we’re opposed to, and I think there’s better spots on that property for a pool to go to. I don’t think that’s an appropriate or a good design. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. What do you guys want to do? Okay. We don’t have any measurements as to where it’s going to go. Do I want to show you? MR. OBORNE-That’s not the issue. The issue is the location. That’s what you’re granting variances for, a variance for. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we would want to tuck it over towards the garage there, and put up substantial buffers so we’re not going to look at that from any roads or anything like that. MR. URRICO-We should point out, right, this Ordinance has changed from what it used to be before. Before we used to recognize two front yards. MR. UNDERWOOD-Two architectural front yards. MR. URRICO-Two architectural front yards, and we required a variance for any pool, but we didn’t direct the pool to be behind the house essentially. Whereas now we are directing where the location should be MR. OBORNE-The location of any pool, even in the Code that was approved in 2002, was required to be in the rear of the property. No ifs, ands or buts. That hasn’t changed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And there’s reasons for it, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes. So it’s not a nuisance to driving and all. What do you guys want to do? Do you want to proceed with this? Do you want to table it? What do you want to do? MR. URRICO-Well, I think we have to hear what everybody has to say first. I don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let’s go through the ranks, then, and we’ll start with you, Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, I think it’s very clear that the Ordinance in this, in terms of the pool, directs us where it has to go. I mean, there’s no ifs ands or buts about that. There’s a problem there right off the bat. So I think the applicant has to consider moving it to that location, and maybe consider a smaller sized pool, at the same time. Because as it is right now, there is criteria for requesting you to be more compliant. There’s definitely a place that’s, the variance is substantial. There is benefit that could be made by putting it in a more compliant location, and basically you’re creating the difficulty because of the pool. A pool is not something that, unfortunately, we’d all like to have a pool, but it’s not something that everybody maybe can have in the Town, and I would be against it. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, I would, I like moving it closer to the garage and further away from the property lines, but, listening to Roy, maybe reducing the size would help, too, and I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I guess I’d probably make a suggestion. I think that maybe you ought to go back and take a look at this and see where you could move it possibly closer to the garage, like Jim suggested. The other thing is that you can only have a four foot fence on that Bennett Road side. Otherwise you’d have to have a variance for a higher fence there. Is that correct? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. CLEMENTS-But you may want to look into that. It may be another variance, but that may help with some of the neighbors and the questions that they have about it. So my suggestion I guess would be to table this, have you look at some other alternatives, and maybe talk with your neighbors and come back with something that maybe, you know, everybody could live with. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I also feel, because this is a wide open space, Aviation and Bennett Road. It is close. There is opposition from neighbors which I do think we have to take into consideration. Looking at the plot plan, even though it’s not an ideal location, it is on the north side of house, you could, you do have room, within the pool setbacks, to place it behind the house, and you said there are no trees on that side, the north side of the house. MR. OBORNE-That would require a variance, too. It would still require a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can’t do it over here. You’d need side setback variance on the north side. You’re talking the short side. MRS. JENKIN-Well, there’s a pool setback line, and if it was placed almost, well, it would go into that side yard, that’s for sure, partially, but it would be much less obtrusive to the street and to your neighbors to have it back there. So I’m thinking that it’s a huge problem, and right now I am not going to be in favor of a variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-While there is some opposition to this application from the neighborhood, I think that by placing the pool where you’ve suggested actually puts about half the pool in a compliant location. I think they’ve been more than willing to accommodate requests on this. At this point, I would be in favor of a location somewhat of what you’ve outlined there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For me, my suggestion would be that you consider this, but maybe what you should do is this. Why don’t we consider tabling it until next time, all right, because you can take this thing that I drew in there and maybe you can actually go out in the backyard and think, well, maybe we can take the trees down and get rid of that problem, too, you know, it’s going to take a little thought process involved, but I’d rather have you end up with something that you really want and something that’s more compatible. I think that the suggestion I made isn’t off the wall crazy or anything like that, even though it’s somewhat in the side yard there. It’s an attempt to alleviate the situation that you have with your neighbor who doesn’t want anything there at all, period. I think you should have a pool in your yard, but we’ve got to find a place where it’s going to work and something that mildly satisfies everybody. It’s not going to make everybody happy, but too bad. So I think what I’ll do is table this until next month, and we’re going to have to go to December, right? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Not that we’re going to need the pool anytime soon. So we’ve got lots of time to play with here. So I don’t know how many days you’re, or how long you guys want to think about it, but maybe go out and draw things and the other 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/09) consideration that I would ask you to make it whether you really need a pool that big, you know, because as people have said, it’s a pretty big pool. It is nice to have a semi small lake in your yard, though. MRS. STOCKWELL-Well, the problem is is that in May we went and purchased it. It was a used pool. It’s very nice. We got it for cheap, however, it is sitting in our garage, and we were hoping, I mean, that’s the only reason why we went with an 18 by 32 pool. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So everybody understands that. MRS. STOCKWELL-But, I mean, it’s not for luxury purposes. It was just we went and saw it and it was cheap. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I would say your two viable places to consider it would be up to the north, you know, parallel with the Gordon property, the other side of your septic system away from your leach field, or the consideration of putting it where it said next to the garage there, and I wouldn’t have a problem with either one of those, because I think we’re trying to make things reasonable and not deny you completely. I mean, I think it’s a hardship to tell people, no, I’m sorry, you can’t have a pool, when everybody else in Town applies for one. So I think what I’ll do is table it until December, and if you guys want more time, that’s fine, too, and as far as your plots on here, I don’t think you have to have a whole new survey. I think you can reasonably copy that circle there and draw that circle anywhere you want and come up with a proposal and maybe think about, you know, what your neighbors’ concerns are, too. Screening is going to work, as far as I’m concerned, with the arborvitae hedge. There’s people that live in a lot closer proximity to their neighbors that have pools than these large lots down here. So I don’t think that I’m going to like fall on the favor that it’s some horrible thing that’s going to occur in the neighborhood. MRS. STOCKWELL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Given the fact that it’s Aviation Road and there’s all that noise and traffic all the time there. MR. OBORNE-When you do your resolution, please, in the body of it, make sure that you th put November 16 is the deadline for submittal of revised plans. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. GARRAND-For December. MR. UNDERWOOD-For December, unless you want to wait until January. I mean, there’s no hurry. We’re not going to get the pool in the ground this year, probably, anyway. MRS. STOCKWELL-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2009 SHANNON STOCKWELL, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th 4 Bennett Road. Tabled to December. The submittals should be in by November 16 for December. The public hearing will be left open. st Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Drellos MRS. STOCKWELL-Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED James Underwood, Chairman 35