Loading...
2009.11.18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2009 INDEX Use Variance No. 66-2009 Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless 1. CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 307.-1-31 Area Variance No. 52-2009 Michael Arnold 2. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Area Variance No. 59-2009 Dan Hunt 8. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-25 Area Variance No. 60-2009 Ronald Morehouse 11. Tax Map No. 309.9-3-24 Area Variance No. 61-2009 Larry Clute 17. Tax Map No. 309.6-1-30 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 11/18/09) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2009 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOAN JENKIN RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT GEORGE DRELLOS BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to call the November 18, 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. 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. First up tonight we have an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: USE VARIANCE NO. 66-09 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS: ZBA TO CONSIDER/CONSENT TO PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what’s going on is next month we have a tentative draft to rd hold, Cellco have their own evening on December 23, and I just wanted to poll the rd Board to see, are you guys going to be available on the 23? Do you want to go after Christmas, you know, like 27, 28, like we did last year? I know like sometimes before Christmas it’s not good for people, but it’s up to you guys. How many of you can make it rd the 23? MRS. JENKIN-Either night, I’ll be here either night. MR. CLEMENTS-Either one’s good for me. rd MR. UNDERWOOD-So we may as well go with the 23, then. That’s fine, Keith. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, and that obviously depends on what the Planning Board does with SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, you know, whether they get to it between now and then, because it’s going to demand some time and effort on that one. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. OBORNE-Yes. This is in the Park. So it’s just over the blue line, and if APA does rd come back within the 30 day window, then the 23 is most definitely doable. If not, it may be a stretch, so we’ll figure that out. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and if that were the case, then we probably wouldn’t see them until January. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-And would you still expect we’d want to have their own evening set aside for that one? MR. OBORNE-No, I don’t think so. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, okay. Sure. MR. OBORNE-I certainly would not, I’d balance the agenda, where that would be probably with two or three other ones, if they’re not too extensive. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. All right, then, do you guys want to consent to the Planning Board for lead status on this one? I think because it’s going to demand some thorough review, that it’s a little bit above our heads, not that we can’t handle it, but at the same time I think it’s going to be coordinated in the end anyway. MR. OBORNE-It will be a coordinated review if you consent, absolutely. MR. GARRAND-The Planning Board does have more tools at their disposal than we do. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. They can require more studies if they’re unhappy with what’s been presented, but it’s pretty thorough so far anyway. All right. Then I’m going to make a motion. MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CONSENTS TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE CELLCO PARTNERSHIP PROJECT USE VARIANCE NO. 66- 2009, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 311 West Mountain Road. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-And make sure you hang on to all that stuff in your packet, okay, and spend some time on it prior to. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II MICHAEL ARNOLD OWNER(S): ANITA ROSS ZONING: WR LOCATION: 108 LAKE PARKWAY – ASSEMBLY POINT 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 , EAST SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO. 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 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD-We did hear this briefly, and I think what we were looking for was the information that’s been submitted to us and maybe, Dennis, do you want to go through and go over that for us? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Thank you, Jim. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, and I was asked by Mike Arnold, who is with me at the table, to look into a 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) couple of issues that had come up through prior review by the Boards. First involved the adequacy of the existing septic system. The proposal is for the addition of a bedroom, which by Queensbury Code requires either the certification of the system as being adequate or providing a new design. I reviewed file information on that issue. It is covered in the letter that I assume maybe has made the file. It was a letter written to Keith in response to that issue, but it covers the issue of the size, the design capacity at the time of design in 1985, when the system was originally constructed. The design was for, based on a 450 gallon per day flow. That’s what was approved by the Town and DEC at that time. In the interim, flow rates per bedroom have changed. What was 150 gallons per bedroom is now 110 gallons per bedroom, providing that low water use fixtures are in place. That is a condition of my certification that that changeover be made, of any fixtures that are not currently low use fixtures, and that can be confirmed and inspected through the Town’s building code inspection process, prior to CO. There were a couple of other conditions that I suggested or recommendations that I suggested in the letter, such as pumping out the tanks, inspecting the tanks. That, in fact, has already been done, and I find that the two tanks, while they are 24 years old, are in usable condition and what I’m suggesting, as far as the tank capacity, because that currently is not adequate for standards, that the current pump tank be used as the second septic tank, which provides them more than enough capacity, in fact then would be 2,000 gallons septic tank capacity where 1250 gallons is required, and then installing a new pump tank with a new pump, so we’re updating the most critical portion of the system with new pump, new controls and a new tank as part of the upgrade of the system. So that’s the basis of my review and statement, and the letter, I think, is clear that with those provisions that that would be adequate for a four bedroom residence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the idea behind the two tanks so you’re capturing more and you’re dosing your Wisconsin Mound? Is that what you’re doing that for? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, currently there’s a 1,000 gallon tank, which was appropriate for the three bedroom house. The contractor at the time just happened to use a second 1,000 gallon tank for his pump tank. So now if we take the pump works out of the second tank and just use that now as a second septic tank, we have, again, 2,000 gallons worth of capacity where the 1250 is what’s required for a four bedroom residence. MR. UNDERWOOD-But you still capture your solids in the first one. It’s just the leachate in the second one? rd MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Usually a septic tank is 2/3’s, 1/3 split, where the first compartment is for the settling and separation and the last compartment, or second third, the third portion of the tank is at the discharge end. It just gives it that much more capacity and effectiveness. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I would assume, based upon a, this is going to be creating a granny apartment, in essence, up there. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. We didn’t talk about that, but the reason for the request is that the owner who is Mike’s mother-in-law, is elderly, has some health issues. Another family member, a daughter and her husband, have moved into the residence and this was an effort to provide another bedroom in that situation that would provide for her care. MRS. JENKIN-There is room for that new pump tank to be installed so that it is going to be just down gradient of the existing? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MRS. JENKIN-That’s behind the house, then? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s alongside of the house. It’s on the southerly side of the house. It would be in line with the two tanks. I’m not sure what drawing that you have that shows the configuration of the tanks, but they run parallel to the house, down gradient. MRS. JENKIN-And there’s lots of room to put a new one in there? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. The setback requirement for the tanks is 50 feet, whereas the setbacks for the field is the 100 foot setback from the lake. So, there is room in that area to put in a new, what we were talking about as the 500 gallon tank with the new pump system with controls. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-And that would not involve, I know the neighbors were concerned with vegetation removal. That’s not going to disturb anything per se? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That’s really the, in fact, we were even talking in terms of a heavy duty plastic tank that could be more readily brought to the area without having to bring equipment around the house, be able to excavate for that, install that with the least amount of disturbance, but, yes, that neighbor to the south I think I had heard had commented, and there shouldn’t be any disruption of that buffer. MRS. JENKIN-And you don’t have to remove any trees or anything like that to do that? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, you said Dave Hatin looked at this and he didn’t think there was any big deal with it. MR. OBORNE-As long as Building and Codes, prior to the issuance of the CO, gets in there and makes sure that the low flow fixtures have been installed, he’s fine with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-And this doesn’t have to go to Planning Board for anything? MR. OBORNE-Yes, Site Plan Review, absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And you’ve already received a recommendation for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want me to open the public hearing up at this point, or do you have any questions? MRS. JENKIN-Well, there’s the other Area Variance, too, that Floor Area Ratio relief. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Again, when I entered into this, Keith had presented a couple of questions to the applicant to verify and confirm things. So I spent some time inside the structure measuring different areas and trying to confirm what the Floor Area computes to. Now, based on the, let’s say, more evolved definition of what counts as Floor Area, based on the new Ordinance that was instituted in May, any space that has more than five feet of headroom now qualifies. So, in fact, as I investigated all these different spaces, crawl spaces here, storage spaces, attic, whatever, there is an area, and it turns out to be 36 square feet, that is more than five feet high, it’s in an attic area. There’s roof trusses and what not angling down through the building, through that space, but in fact, by definition, it’s 36 square feet, and that’s what kicks this expansion request over the exact 22%. It turns out to be 22.14%. It’s a matter of 21 square feet more than what is allowed by Code. So we’ve included that within the request. We think it’s minimal enough, I think, you know, that spirit of that regulation, I’m not sure, this is one of those cases where the strict definition of the Floor Area Ratio kind of causes an issue that brings it before you. Now we’re already here for other issues. So it’s not an extra effort, necessarily, but. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else, you guys? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Raise your hand. Do you want to come up please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We’d like to thank the Board for their request of additional information to clarify the application and offer the following comments for consideration. The Water Keeper commends the use of the professional engineer by the applicant for the evaluation of the on site system. We agree with much of the evaluation provided, but I have a couple of comments or questions. The bed that was provided for treatment is 10 by 38 according to the plans in the Town. With the application design rate, in the Design Manual, the system is sized for an average daily flow of approximately 360 gallons per day. We’d just like a clarification on that, if this is actually undersized or whether that was based on previous design rates. The second point was regarding the pump tank proposed to be converted to a septic tank. It appears that it has been pumped out. We were going to suggest that the tank 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) should be verified to have the interior components and be tested, to be certified water tightness if there was any patching or modification that was required to remove the pumps. Lake George Water Keeper recommends the applicant be required to submit a certified report addressing the recommendations in the engineer’s report, prior to the issuance of a CO. Regarding Floor Area Ratio, the applicant proposes to exceed the allowable Floor Area Ratio. The Lake George Water Keeper recommends the installation of stormwater management and/or a shoreline buffer to mitigate impacts of development in the Critical Environmental Area along Lake George. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Do we have any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, no correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So your flow rate was, in your latest submittals, 450, and he’s saying 360 or something? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I have a copy of Chris’ letter, and I haven’t had a real chance to look at it, but I understand the basis of his comment. I think that it was, the 450 gallons per day was the standard at that time, or the capacity that came out of that. I have, from the files, the information that was used to develop that design, and I’m not really sure why it worked that way, but the DEC engineer was the one that designed the system. Now certainly we don’t do that that way anymore, but it was, all the design information that was in the file, and part of that permit was straight out of DEC manuals, so that was the design at the time for the 450 gallons a day. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. GARRAND-As far as removal of the pump? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Currently there is a pump in that second tank. That would be removed. There’s a discharge, small diameter discharge pipe, that also goes through, that goes through the wall, exits the tank to go up to the field. That would be removed and that can be easily patched and sealed, but it’s a standard procedure as far as doing that. I don’t envision that being a point of, to be problematic with the effectiveness, use of that tank, but, it, yes, it has to be sealed so that that capacity of the tank is there. MRS. JENKIN-Would you be testing that it is watertight? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Certainly we can, upon the construction of that, we would be witnessing the installation of the system, in testing and doing the start up of the, that’s a typical procedure that the Town would require of the engineer, design engineer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, is Planning Board going to bring the whole structure up to stormwater standard when they do their review of it, or is it just going to be concerned with the addition? MR. OBORNE-I think at this point it would be concerned with the addition. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Certainly my notes have reflected some sense of eaves drains, eaves trenches. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Is there anything on there now, or pretty much just running off on the ground? MR. MAC ELROY-I guess the simple answer is yes. It somehow has established itself over these years. Now, I guess technically there is an increase of impervious area by that slight enlargement of the space above the garage. The garage itself is 24 by 24. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re pretty much just going up straight, right? You’re not cantilevering out for anything? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct, but just slightly. There is on the northerly side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would that be achieved with this eaves trench? MR. MAC ELROY-A drip edge infiltration trench probably. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Something simple like that would accomplish it, and as far as the foreshore, I think even last time around the neighbors were concerned also and the Water Keeper I think commented last time also about some kind of buffer, vegetative buffer on the shoreline out in front. Is that something that we can require or condition, that something be done for the Planning Board for them to look at? MR. OBORNE-I wouldn’t recommend doing that here. I think that’s more of a Site Plan issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If you feel the need to do that, I think that’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s suggested in the new Code that, you know, like if people do not have anything or a minimal amount of stuff out in front now, as far as vegetation goes, that it’s not a bad idea to do it. MR. OBORNE-Not at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-And it’s up to you guys as the Board what you want do with that. All right. Do you guys have any other questions? All right. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you guys want to close with? I think it’s pretty straightforward what you’re proposing. It looks to me like what you’re going to do here is going to be adequate. It looks like the Town’s going to look at, and the Planning Board I’m sure is thoroughly going to look at, the adequacy of what you’re proposing to do with the septic addition, and I think with the addition of those water saving fixtures and things like that you can lower down your numbers there and get them into a sense of, you know, it’s going to accommodate the expansion. I would comment on the Floor Area Ratio. It’s just slightly over the 22%. It’s not like way over like it has been requested by other people at other sites, and this isn’t some huge expansion that we can’t accommodate. I think it’s reasonable. So, do you guys want to make any comments on this? Do you want me to poll you, or should we just go through? Brian, do you want to start? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I had some concerns and I’m glad you came back with the report. It really answered a lot of questions. As far as I can see, it looks like they’ve done their due diligence and I would be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think definitely the septic system is, the plan to upgrade it sounds as if it’s been well thought through, and the request is definitely not substantial for the Floor Area Ratio. I don’t think that’s a problem. It won’t be, I’m just going through the things to consider, and there definitely will not be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character. It really won’t change it dramatically at all, having an extra floor on that. So I think it’s self-created because you need the expansion and I think it’s a good project, and I would be in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-George? MR. DRELLOS-Yes, I agree with Joan, I’d be in favor. In the interest of time, no sense in saying the same thing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think most of the change going on here is a vertical expansion, and the biggest implication of that is going to be on the septic system. The applicant has addressed the septic issues which we asked them to do, and I guess now it’s up to the engineer and the Town Building and Codes to go through it and make sure that it will work. Beyond that, I would be in favor of this. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I would like to congratulate you on listening to our concerns the last time, and I think your report is very complete, and your recommendations, if they’re followed, should leave no problem, and I have to say the Floor Area Ratio, you certainly were very complete to find out that, what is it, 21 square feet over. I mean, I congratulate you on that, and I’m in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Based on the information we’ve requested, and we’ve received, I think this satisfies the test. I’d be in agreement with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I don’t really have any problem with it either. I think it’s, you know, the thoroughness of what you did was proper this time, you know, having an engineer review the thing and make sure that it was going to be functional with the expansion, and as far as what we’re doing here, it’s relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. You need 5.1 feet of east side setback relief, and finally the request for the Floor Area Ratio, which is just slightly over the 22% by .14%. So I don’t see that that’s any big deal. I think that when you go into Planning Board, my recommendation, and whoever does this one tonight, I would like you also to put on there, and I think everybody should agree to it, is that some vegetative plantings should be done in front of the structure. I mean, you are going to be increasing, you know, whether we increase or not the amount of water going into the ground here, you are in close proximity to everybody’s drinking water that lives up there, and I think it’s imperative that we all sort of get on the plan and, you know, screen our houses a little bit better from the lake than what they’ve been in the past. MR. OBORNE-And I’d like to add that every resolution that the Zoning Board does, does get presented to the Planning Board. So they see what you’re doing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So does somebody want to take this one? Brian, do you want to go? , MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2009 MICHAEL ARNOLD Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 108 Lake Parkway. Applicant proposes a 625 square foot second story bedroom addition above existing attached garage. The relief required is the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure per 179-13-010. Further, the applicant requires 5.1 feet of east side setback per the requirements of Section 179-3- 040, and finally relief requested for a 22.14% Floor Area Ratio total. 1. In considering the criteria, we should consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created in granting this variance. I see very minor impacts for this. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Due to the limitations, there appears to be limited options. 3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial? The request for 5.1 feet or 25% relief from the 20 foot side setback for parcels with lot widths between 60 and 150 feet in the WR zone per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate, and the relief for the Floor Area Ratio is minor. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Minor impacts are anticipated. I’d like to add a recommendation to the Planning Board on discussing vegetation between the house and the lake. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty appears to be self- created, 6. And I would like to move for its adoption. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II DAN HUNT OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: MDR LOCATION: EAST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FT. BY 67 FT. (938 SQ. FT.) MANUFACTURED HOME AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF.: T.B. REV. PERMIT; BP 09-476 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.15 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-25 SECTION: 179-3-040 DAN HUNT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2009, Dan Hunt, Meeting Date: November 18, 2009 “Project Location: East Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 14’ x 67’ [938 sq. ft.] manufactured home with two 4’x6’ entrance decks on a 0.15 acre lot. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the side and rear setback requirements of the MDR 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 nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 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 4 feet or 16% relief from the 25 foot north sideline setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 8 feet or 32% relief from the 25 foot south sideline setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 17 feet or 57% relief from the 30 foot rear 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.): Town Bd. Revocable permit Approved 11/2/09 Staff comments: The applicant received approval from the Town Board to place a manufactured home outside of a mobile home court on November 2, 2009 (see attached resolution # 338- 2009). 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 10, 2009 Project Name: Hunt, Dan Owner(s): Dan Hunt ID Number: QBY-09-AV-59 County Project#: Nov09-18 Current Zoning: MDR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 14 ft. by 67 ft. (938 sq. ft.) manufactured home and requests relief from side and rear yard setback requirements of the MDR zone. Site Location: East Drive Tax Map Number(s): 308.12-1-25 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the placement of a 14 ft. by 67 ft. (938 sq. ft.) manufactured home. Relief is requests relief from the following: side yard setback south side 25 ft. is required and 17 ft. is proposed; and rear yard setback where 30 ft. and 13 ft. is proposed. The plans show the location of the home, drive access, and septic location. The information also includes a letter from the neighbor who supports the placement of the mobile home. 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 Susan C. Wilson, Warren County Planning Board 11/10/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Hunt, anything you want to add? MR. HUNT-No, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it speaks for itself, you know, what’s before us here. I think everybody realizes it’s a small lot, pre-existing lot. It wasn’t anything that was cut up or made smaller. So do you guys have any initial questions you want to ask? MR. DRELLOS-Is this the home that’s going on the lot? MR. HUNT-Yes, sir. MR. DRELLOS-Is this going to be your house, or are you selling it? MR. HUNT-No. Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Okay, and do you own all the land in the back? It says Hunt. MR. HUNT-No, I used to. MR. DRELLOS-You used to. Okay. MR. HUNT-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-I was just curious, that’s all. MRS. JENKIN-Is there a home right behind where you’re building? MR. HUNT-No. MRS. JENKIN-And you plan to do all the landscaping and all? MR. HUNT-It’ll be better than that. MRS. JENKIN-It looks nice. MR. DRELLOS-Well, that would be a big improvement to the street. MR. HUNT-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have anymore questions at this time? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-There’s one letter. “To Whom It May Concern: I, Richard Barry, reside next door to the vacant lot in which Dan Hunt is seeking to put a mobile home. I support 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) Mr. Hunt 100% on this project because I have seen his work on other homes in the area and his work speaks for itself. It will be an asset to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Richard Barry” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess, do you guys have any final questions on this one? MRS. JENKIN-Are you a developer? MR. HUNT-No. MRS. JENKIN-You just are doing it. MR. HUNT-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Good for you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want me to poll you, or is everybody pretty squared away on this one? All right. I would think the mere fact that the Town Board signed off on the revocable permit to put it here, you know, means that it probably gives it the green light of its own accord here, even though it’s up to us to make the final decision on it, but again, the amount of relief that’s requested here doesn’t seem that out of place with a lot of the other smaller lots down in this area in Town. So I think everybody’s used to close to proximity of their neighbor. So, like it or not you’ve got to deal with it if you live down there. So, does somebody want to do this one? MRS. HUNT-I’ll do this one. MS. GAGLIARDI-You’ve got to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2009 DAN HUNT, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: East Drive. The applicant proposes construction of a 14 by 67, 938 square foot manufactured home with two, four by six entrance decks on a 0.15 acre lot. The applicant requests relief from the side and rear setback requirements of the MDR zone. 1. Whether this benefit could be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. It seems as if the lot size is the determining factor. 2. Will there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties? I don’t think so. This is pretty typical of the area. 3. Whether the request is substantial. The request of four feet or 16% relief from the 25 foot north sideline setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the Ordinance. Further, the request for eight feet or 32% relief from the 25 foot south side line setback requirement per Section 179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. Finally, the request for 17 feet or 57% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement per Section 179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance, and I think it’s interesting that the neighbor that would be most impacted, Mr. Barry, is in favor of it. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have any physical or environmental effects on the area. I don’t think so. 5. And whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. I think the lot limitations dictate the problem. 6. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 59-2009. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. HUNT-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to keep your surveys? In case somebody wants to put a big porch on or something. MR. OBORNE-Yes, Dan, you’re going to get a letter in the mail, and you made need some of those for your final submission. MR. HUNT-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Plus it makes them happy. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II RONALD MOREHOUSE AGENT(S): MELISSA TRAVIS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: MDR LOCATION: 46 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 60 FT. (1,440 SQ. FT.) MANUFACTURED HOME AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF.: AV 28-09; BP 08-540 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: NOVEMBER 10, 2009 LOT SIZE: 0.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-3-24 SECTION: 179-3-040 GARFIELD RAYMOND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. URRICO-I was just informed that you’re going to need to sign the Agent list. You’re not on the agent list. MR. RAYMOND-I’m not. MR. OBORNE-Melissa Travis is. MR. RAYMOND-Well, my name is Garfield Raymond. I’m appearing for Mr. Morehouse. Mr. Morehouse is, in fact, here, but he’s not feeling that well so he’s outside. MR. URRICO-Okay, but before we get done here, you’re going to have to sign this. MR. RAYMOND-Do you want me to sign right now? MR. OBORNE-Yes. Let’s go ahead and do that. That’s the proper protocol. MR. URRICO-There’s a little comment here by the applicant, it’s a narrative explaining the variance. It says, “We need new A-Variance because the home we were going to use in the old hearing we were unable to buy. So we have to use a different home which is also a different size. The size of the new home is 23.4 x 56.5 but the mobile home is sold as 24 ft. x 60 ft.” STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2009, Ronald Morehouse, Meeting Date: November 18, 2009, “Project Location: 46 Rhode Island Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 1,440 square foot mobile home on a 0.14 acre parcel. Relief Required: The applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement and 20 feet relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for both rear property lines in the MDR zoning district 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 changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) 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 utilize Area Variance 23-2009 approved by this board on May 27, 2009 for this parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 4 feet or 13.3 percent relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. The request for 20 feet or 66% relief from the 30 foot rear setback line for both rear lines 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 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.): A.V. 23-2009 Front setback relief Approved 5/27/09 None since 1962 Staff comments: The applicant was before this board on May 27, 2009 and gained approval for a 1,104 square foot manufactured home that required rear setback relief (see approval language on survey). According to the applicant’s narrative, the proposed manufactured home previously proposed for the site could not be purchased. They are now seeking relief as a result of a different sized manufactured home proposed for the parcel. SEQR Status: Type II – No action necessary” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 10, 2009 Project Name: Morehouse, Ronald Owner(s): Ronald Morehouse ID Number: QBY- 09-AV-60 County Project#: Nov09-20 Current Zoning: MDR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 24 ft. by 60 ft. (1,440 sq. ft.) manufactured home and requests relief from the front setback requirement of the MDR zone. Site Location: 46 Rhode Island Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 309.9- 3-24 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the placement of a 24 ft. by 60 ft. (1,440 sq. ft.) manufactured home 3-bedroom home. Relief is requested for the following: front yard setback where 30 ft. is required and 26 ft. is proposed. The information submitted shows the lot to be a corner lot with frontage on two streets. The applicant has indicated a previous application was for a smaller home that they were not able to purchase. The plans do not indicate an entrance way to the home i.e. porch area with steps. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition clarification be provided about the entrance way to the home to confirm the relief requested at the local level. This is 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 with Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition clarification be provided about the entrance way to the home to confirm the relief requested at the local level.” Signed Susan C. Wilson, Warren County Planning Board 11/10/09. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add to that? MR. RAYMOND-Well, the only thing I would add is that with the prior variance approval, I mean, we already were given the setback requirements, and really what we’re doing is just stretching the trailer out a little bit longer. It’s a 56 versus a 44. So, 56.5 feet, and we’re still, as far as the side line setbacks, we’re still within compliance of those. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pretty much the same as what it was. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. RAYMOND-It was, yes, and Mr. Hatin has looked at this particular home. This home has been bought, and he looked at it and said actually this is a better home than the last one. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. If the applicant could use Area Variance No. 23-2009, why aren’t we? MR. OBORNE-Because they could not purchase that size trailer, or manufactured home. MR. URRICO-Okay. I understand that, but from here it sounds like they could have used that same variance. MR. OBORNE-Sure. Not for this, they could not put that size home on it. They could put the one they were approved for. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. DRELLOS-Is the home on Van Dusen Road right now? MR. RAYMOND-It’s in White Birch. MR. DRELLOS-It’s White Birch. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this time? MR. DRELLOS-It’s still a three bedroom, right? MR. RAYMOND-Yes. MR. DRELLOS-Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-I just had a comment. On the setback requirements page here, this one, maybe I missed this the last time, but it says required rear yard 10 feet, one and rear yard two 10 feet. Shouldn’t that be 30 feet that’s required, and they’re asking for 10 proposed? MR. OBORNE-The required, you’re talking rear, required 10, proposed 10. What are they requiring, what are they doing. No, that’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got 30 on one end, 10 on the other. MR. OBORNE-So the required is 10. MR. RAYMOND-And they only have six. MR. OBORNE-No, you have 10. MR. RAYMOND-I’m sorry, we have 10. MR. OBORNE-Yes, because you moved it forward. MR. RAYMOND-Right. MR. OBORNE-That’s the previous one. MR. RAYMOND-Right. I’m getting confused. MR. OBORNE-Yes. I mean, they’re there just for the front setback relief I believe. Is that what my notes say, or is it side also. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got 26 on the. MR. OBORNE-Yes. So you are correct. Keep in mind that the zoning has changed in the area from the previous approval. That’s why it looks a little more drastic, so to speak. You are correct, Brian. Absolutely. That should be fixed up, and it will be on final submittal. MR. DRELLOS-So it should be changed to what? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. OBORNE-It should be changed to 30 feet. MR. DRELLOS-The rear yard? MR. OBORNE-The rear yard, right, and proposed is 10. So they’re looking for 20 feet of rear yard relief. MR. CLEMENTS-Which is what it says in the, yes. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MRS. HUNT-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. So it’s 20 feet relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on this matter? Raise your hand if you want to come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-The only other commentary we had was from the County Planning Board and they wanted a stipulation in there in regards to, is there going to be any kind of a stoop or porch, I would imagine that’s what that question was related to, if that was going to require more relief. So I don’t know where you’re at with that. MR. RAYMOND-What size deck are you going to put, you’ve got to have a rear entrance and a back entrance? I think a four feet. Is that, you’re going to need? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that out the 30 foot end, towards the septic on that end or the other way? MR. RAYMOND-But, if you put the deck on the front, do you need that as part of the Area Variance? You’re going to need that because it’s, generally they’re not attached to the home, but then we would need a? MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we do that anyway, even though we didn’t advertise it? MR. OBORNE-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. DRELLOS-You need a variance if it’s under 10 by 10? I thought you don’t even need a permit. MR. OBORNE-This is front setback relief. If you were to put any deck within any setback you’d need relief. Period, even if it was less than 120 square feet or what other requirements are. MR. DRELLOS-What size can he put on, without coming in front of us? MR. OBORNE-Well, in this case he’s looking for four feet of front setback relief. Is that correct? MR. RAYMOND-That’s correct. MR. OBORNE-You’re looking for four feet of front setback relief, and you’re proposing to add four feet, four foot deck. MR. RAYMOND-Four feet stairs. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. OBORNE-Four feet in depth, so in essence you’re looking for eight. That’s greater, not less, so you’d have to revise that. You’d probably have to table it tonight. MR. DRELLOS-Let me ask you something, Keith, I mean, if you put the home on there, you’ve got to get into it somehow. So you need stairs somehow. MR. OBORNE-That’s true. MR. DRELLOS-So you should have thought of this before. MR. OBORNE-I should have thought of it before? MR. DRELLOS-No, I’m just, I mean. MR. OBORNE-Looking at the house, I probably should have picked up on it. I didn’t. Certainly it’s something that is required. MR. DRELLOS-I mean, you can’t jump into the home. MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, a lot of times there are internal porches on houses, too, and so it wouldn’t require that, but I did have, do I have a picture of this, and I don’t mean to be so wishy-washy. I don’t know if I even have elevations on this. MR. DRELLOS-Well, could he put something on that’s not, that doesn’t need a variance? Just the regular steps up? I mean, they come with them, like a little. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can still grant approval so they can set the house. Right? I mean, that’s essentially what you’re looking for? MR. RAYMOND-Right. We have the house. MR. UNDERWOOD-At this point in time, and then you can come back, at your leisure, and do the. MRS. JENKIN-They’d have to go through the whole process again for the four feet? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, yes, but I mean, we can streamline it for them, too. I mean, other than, you’re going to have to re-advertise it and come back, but it can be very brief and to the point, as long as it’s not going to be some. MRS. JENKIN-Except they’d still have to pay again, for everything. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or can we table it? We can grant it with, and table at the same time. MR. OBORNE-They certainly should have on this survey what their intention is, what the size of the entrance deck is. I guarantee you Craig will kick it back. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we do this. I mean, let me just throw this out to you guys. MR. URRICO-And then add the additional variance into it? MR. OBORNE-Yes. You’re going to have to update and revise the amount of relief that’s being requested. MR. URRICO-But, if we table it, that’s not the same as resubmitting it. Are they going to have to incur a different, another fee? MR. OBORNE-Right, they would not have to incur another fee. MR. URRICO-Then why don’t we do that? MR. OBORNE-Keep the public hearing open. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right. Why don’t we do this. Are you intending to set this home like immediately? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. RAYMOND-Well, we’ve got the forms set on it and we’re ready to do the groundwork for it, because the cold weather’s coming and we want to get that done. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That probably would not be an issue, as far as setting the groundwork, and you’ve already started, obviously, and what does that entail, putting the piers on. MR. RAYMOND-Actually forms, we’re going to have a slab, it’s going to be a slab, I believe. MR. OBORNE-That would probably not be a problem. Yes, you could probably get that done. I’m sure Dave will release that. Craig would release that. I’m not speaking for them now, though, but that would be the wise thing to do is to get that going, come back in December with a quick and easy process, again, updating this survey. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. RAYMOND-And we probably would move the home to that location, though, once it was set up, we’d move it there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, well, why don’t we do this. Let’s just go through. I don’t think anybody, does anybody have a hang up with this, as far as what they’re doing here? We’ve already granted previous relief for this. It’s a little bit longer than what we granted the last time. We’re going from 44 to 60. I think that we can give the green light for the site work to be completed, for the home to be set, and we’ll table the request for the additional relief that you’re going to need for the entrance deck, until. MR. OBORNE-I think that’s out of the auspices of this Board. I think that is something that certainly the Zoning Department and Building and Codes Departments can go ahead and give them that. They just won’t give you a CO. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, which is fine. That’ll keep you guys on track to get it done before the snow, before the bad weather sets in. MR. RAYMOND-That’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-So we’re going to table it, right? MR. OBORNE-You’re going to have to table it. MR. UNDERWOOD-But you’ve got the green light to continue on as you’ve been working. So, sorry about that. MR. RAYMOND-So when will we be coming back? MR. OBORNE-Well, let’s get them back in December if we can. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we just put you on the first one in December, because this is not going to take that long. MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind to the Board, just to let them know that, if we don’t have that rd 23 meeting, that’ll be seven items. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s okay. MR. OBORNE-Just don’t come down on me now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So I’m going to make the tabling motion for Area Variance No. 60-2009. MS. GAGLIARDI-I think, also, Mr. Chairman, you need to re-open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll leave the public hearing open in case there’s any commentary that’s necessary on that, too. MR. OBORNE-And you won’t have to pay for advertising. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2009 RONALD MOREHOUSE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 46 Rhode Island Avenue. Tabled to the first meeting in December 16, 2009. I’ll leave the public hearing open in case there’s any public comment on that. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ll see you next month. MR. OBORNE-Did you give them a revision date to submit by? MR. UNDERWOOD-Just get it in ASAP. I mean, I think you’re not going to have to get a whole new set of drawings. I think you can probably scale that out to what it’s going to be, based upon. MR. OBORNE-Well, yes, if it’s a plot plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys can keep these things, okay. So maybe you can just copy these with the addition on there, you know, run them through your copy machine. MR. OBORNE-Please keep in mind that you can’t alter a signed, stamped survey. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. RAYMOND-No, no, I understand that, but what I’ll probably do is have him just add it. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Yes, that would be great, and that’s the only thing you’ll have to submit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, sure. MR. RAYMOND-All right. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S): JOHN & SYLVIA HILLER ZONING: NR LOCATION: 27 SUNSET AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. (576 SQ. FT.) DETACHED GARAGE AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE NR ZONE. CROSS REF.: BP 09-438; BP 03-815 LOT SIZE: 0.24 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-30 SECTION: 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2009, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: November 18, 2009 “Project Location: 27 Sunset Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 24 foot by 24 foot (576 sq. ft.) detached garage in the non- architectural front yard of a 0.24 acre parcel. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement of the NR zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) 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 nearby properties are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 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 build in a compliant or more compliant location. However, the location of the garage appears to be the most logical given the restraints of the parcel and the resulting ease of ingress and egress afforded by this proposed location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the 20 foot front yard setback requirement 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 as the garage could be placed in a compliant location (see number 2 above). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 09-438 Detached Garage Pending BP 03-815 SFD Approved 9/30/04 Staff comments: The location of the proposed garage appears to be the most logical given the limitations of the lot and the location of the driveway. Are gutters associated with this project? Where is the stormwater directed during rain events? Please clarify. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary” “Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form November 10, 2009 Project Name: Clute, Larry Owner(s): John & Sylvia Hiller ID Number: QBY-09-AV- 61 County Project#: Nov09-15 Current Zoning: NR Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 24 ft by 24 ft. (576 sq. ft.) detached garage and requests relief from the front setback requirement of the NR zone. Site Location: 27 Sunset Avenue Tax Map Number(s): 309.6-1-30 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes the construction of a 24 ft. by 24 ft. (576 sq. ft.) detached garage. Relief is requested for the following: front setback where 20 ft. is required and 10 ft. is proposed. The information submitted shows the parcel to be a corner lot having two fronts. The existing house and driveway are situated so access is from Sunset Avenue where the garage will be 66 ft. from. The applicant has indicated access is easier from Sunset Ave. and relocating the garage would interfere with the existing septic. 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 Susan C. Wilson, Warren County Planning Board 11/10/09. MR. CLUTE-Hi. My name’s Larry Clute. This is Mr. Hiller and his wife Sylvia in the crowd. The Staff comments essentially speak for the project. The lot is restrictive simply in size alone, and then the placement of the house, when constructed, was fairly centered, not taking into consideration the possibility of a garage, and then on top of that, the lot was kind of hollowed. So it created high banks to either side. So it makes it really access forced off of Sunset, makes it rather difficult to comply with the setback. Actually we already have a permit. I submitted for a permit for the two car garage initially complying. John and Sylvia staked many different locations, and determined that, access wise, it was just very complicated, and they tried many different ways, tried angling the garage, but as proposed seems to be the best, as far as Staff has said, ingress and egress for their purposes in and out. So as proposed it just seems to work best for them. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to come in off Sunset or off Nathan? MR. CLUTE-Yes, they already have an existing paved garage, just going to extend off. If you’ve been to the site, you come off Nathan, it’s kind of a drop, actually a pretty healthy drop. So they just literally want to extend the existing paved driveway straight into a garage, whereas initially, as we already have a permit, they’d have to do a “T”. It would be rather complicated to swing on in, because they are tight with that bank coming off of Nathan as it is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or you’d need a catapult to get out in the wintertime. MR. CLUTE-Pretty much, yes. MRS. JENKIN-Was that naturally a natural hill (lost word) houses built? MR. CLUTE-I don’t believe it was. I think when the home was constructed, I never witnessed it, but just by my opinion, I honestly believe the builder hollowed the lot, if that makes sense. MRS. JENKIN-Why? Why would they do that? MR. CLUTE-My guesstimation is the builder also did the unit across the street. MR. UNDERWOOD-He needed fill. MR. CLUTE-I think the unit across the street needed fill. You’re getting my opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I’d guess. MR. GARRAND-Wouldn’t this look better with a garage attached to the house? MR. CLUTE-It would be more relief requested, in other words, remove the deck and attached the garage? More relief requested in order to make that happen. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other comments from you guys? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d just say that, yes, when I went out there, too, I wondered why you were going to put it there, and I’m hearing you say that you looked at a lot of different ways to do this that didn’t seem to work out. So I guess you’ve looked at it. MR. CLUTE-They’ve tried to take the home, you know, the home’s existing. They tried to place it even at an angle, and that became problematic, and still relief necessary no matter how it worked, plus we have a septic system, obviously, as well. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, you can’t move it over too far to the side. MR. CLUTE-Correct, and they don’t want to lose complete rear yard, I mean, the enjoyment of a rear yard. They don’t want to lose that. Trying to maintain as much of the benefits that they have on the home, the deck being one of them as well. MRS. JENKIN-Well, that’s what I was looking at when I saw the house, that if you put the garage right, attached to the house, you’d lose that entrance way. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MRS. JENKIN-And then is that just a side entrance, or entrance into the kitchen or what is that? I guess it would be called the rear entrance. MR. CLUTE-It’s their main entrance into their. MRS. JENKIN-It’s your rear entrance, but it’s up on the second floor. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that’s the south side of your house. You get the sun all day, too, you’d be blocking that. It wouldn’t make much sense. MR. CLUTE-Yes, absolutely. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) MRS. JENKIN-Well, I thought with the fence there, too, that the fence is already constructed, and that’s going to hide a good portion of. MR. OBORNE-That’s funny you bring the fence up. The fence is a non-compliant fence, and you’ll need to have relief for that fence also. It’s in the front yard, non-architectural front yard. MR. CLUTE-That’s right, too. MRS. JENKIN-It’s not compliant for the height? MR. OBORNE-And it’s location. It’s in the front yard, it’s in the non-architectural front yard. It’s a corner lot. MRS. JENKIN-So they’ll have to come back? MR. CLUTE-They have two fronts, or get relief for it, as he said, get relief for it as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I think I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence? MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody understand what they’re asking for here and why? To me it’s sort of constrained by the way that the parcel was carved out here, and dug into a hole in the ground, in essence. So, it doesn’t make sense to put it any other place that I can see in the yard. Anybody have anything they want to ask to continue or finish up? MRS. HUNT-Well, the question about the stormwater and gutters that were brought up. Have you thought about that? MR. CLUTE-I’ll be honest with you, we haven’t put any thought into stormwater. If necessary, I mean, like a gutter of sorts, is that what you’re, is that what the comment? MR. UNDERWOOD-An eaves trench would probably make more sense. It’s just sand down there anyway. MR. CLUTE-Definitely. It’s all beach sand. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and just as you know, Larry, that’s my mo, is anything new, impervious, you definitely want to capture that, and this is great, I mean, it’s highly permeable soils. MR. CLUTE-Extremely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you want me to poll you guys, or are you guys all squared away with this one? It seems pretty straightforward. Does somebody want to go ahead and do the? MRS. JENKIN-Sure, I’ll do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2009 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos: 27 Sunset Avenue. The applicant proposes construction of a 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage in a non-architectural front yard of a .24 acre parcel. The relief required is the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement of the NR zone. In making a determination, the Board shall consider the following criteria: 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 nearby properties are anticipated. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/09) 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 has made a lot of effort to try different ways to put this garage in and found that this was the most logical place to put them, considering the house is a split level house and the side entrance is on the second floor or the side or rear entrance is on the second floor, and considering the restraints of the parcel, it’s the most logical place to put it. 3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 10 feet or 50% relief from the 20 foot front yard setback requirement per 179-3-040 may be considered moderate, but because of the size of the lot, it is not a really considerable request. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, with the building of the garage. It may have a positive effect, because there won’t be any vehicles sitting out for the neighbors to see, and it will probably improve the neighborhood with its appearance. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. This difficulty may be considered self- created as the garage does not really have to even be placed. It can’t be placed in a compliant location because of the lot size. 6. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 61-2009. So the applicant should be reminded that they will have to seek a variance for the existing fence that’s in there now. th Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2009, by the following vote: MR. OBORNE-I’m sorry, if I could add just one more thing. If you could direct the applicant to seek a variance for the fence. MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I wondered if we should put that in as part of the variance. MR. OBORNE-That would be a reminder. I mean, we’re aware of it and you’re just going to need a variance for it. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ll give you back the surveys, too. So you won’t have to go get another set. AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other business from you guys tonight? Okay. Then I guess we’re adjourned for the evening. On motion meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, James Underwood, Chairman 21