Loading...
2010.08.25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2010 INDEX Area Variance No. 38-2010 Larry Clute 1. Tax Map No. 301.20-1-35.1 301.20-1-35.2 Area Variance No. 39-2010 Larry Clute 5. Tax Map No. 301.20-1-35.1 Area Variance No. 40-2010 Larry Clute 8. Tax Map No. 301.20-1-35.2 Area Variance No. 42-2010 Eric O. Egan 10. Tax Map No. 308.16-2-5 Area Variance No. 43-2010 Ernest Burnell 16. Tax Map No. 278.00-1-21 Area Variance No. 44-2010 John & Sandy Lambrechts 24. Tax Map No. 239.08-1-4 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 08/25/10) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2010 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOAN JENKIN RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE HUNT LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to call the August 25, 2010 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 is intended to help us gather information and understand it about the issues 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 then will 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. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: MDR LOCATION: HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE CHANGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: AV 39-2010 NORTH; AV 40-2010 SOUTH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.41 ACRES AND 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-35.1; 301.20-1-35.2 SECTION: 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2010, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: August 25, 2010 “Project Location: Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line change for the purpose of balancing two adjoining lots for the construction of two new single family homes. Relief Required: Applicant is requesting relief from lot size, lot width and road frontage requirements for the Moderate Density Residential district as per §179-3-040. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Lot limitations and the nature of the request preclude any feasible method other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 1.69 acres or 84.5 percent relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size for both the north and south lot per §179-3- 040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 25 feet or 25 percent relief from the 100 foot minimum lot width and 25 feet or 25 percent relief from the 100 foot minimum road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 for both the north and south lot may be considered minor to 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.): AV 39-10 Setback relief Pending on 8/25/10 AV 40-10 Setback relief Pending on 8/25/10 Staff comments: The size of the north lot is 0.41 acres and the size of the south parcel is 0.21 acres respectively. The applicant wishes to place two new homes on two equally sized lots. SEQR Type II” SEQR Status: MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Clute, do you want to come up. Do you want to just fill us in? It’s similar to some other ones you’ve done, proposed to us before? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. Geneva Estates, the new subdivision that’s at the end of Howard, it’s had an incredible effect on Howard Street, and I’ve slowly but surely been pulling the new construction created by Geneva onto Howard Street. This is an opportunity to continue that, to be honest with you, and the affordability, which is pretty key, to be honest with you, in this market as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, I think we’ve been dealing with these projects since before the Code change, but now we’re up to two acre zoning up in here, which, you know, and the reality is, you know, it’s sort of unachievable. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that’s strictly for subdivision, obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, for anything large that’s going to go in there. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Is there some thought as to why they want it to be that big going forward? MR. OBORNE-Because there’s so much marginal land left at this point. So I figured they would want to expand the size and keep it for open space purposes, based on the Comprehensive Plan. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just so you don’t have the density that you have existing down there now. MR. OBORNE-Right. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Do you guys have any questions? MR. KOSKINAS-I have a question for you. I like what you’re doing over there, by the way. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. MR. KOSKINAS-I go through your new development, talked to a couple of your guys around the job there. Very cordial gentlemen. I noticed that on Howard Street and the adjacent lots, 43, 45, and 39, those lots are all bigger than these two lot will be. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-But it looks like the pictures that you’ve added here are the homes that you’ve already built. Are you going to build the same size houses there? MR. CLUTE-I am. I submitted the pictures to put it in perspective. If approved, that’s exactly what I’m building are those two homes that you have pictures of. MR. KOSKINAS-And the square footages of the houses are high nines, and then you add a garage? MR. CLUTE-Well, one of them, the colonial, the two story is a 1300, and the ranch that you have a photograph of is 936, I want to say, and obviously add the garage, yes. MR. KOSKINAS-That gets on there pretty close, doesn’t it? There’s septic systems here? MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. There is. MR. GARRAND-What was there previously? MR. CLUTE-A house. Actually it still shows on Keith’s overlay. There was a house, a garage and a pole barn. I brought down the garage because it was actually doing this, and since I was there, I just wiped the place out. Have you driven by? You can see the foundation holes still in place, but I went over there to get the garage down because it was coming down anyway. MR. KOSKINAS-Did that house straddle the two property lines? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, I really don’t know. By this picture, it sure looks like it was, but I don’t know if it really was or not. By all indications on this it sure looked like it did. I was just talking to a gentleman right here behind me. To be honest with you, on Howard Street, there’s, I am aware of houses that are actually across property lines. How do you want to say it, west end wasn’t really following any guidelines in a lot of cases, and so you just see structures going up without any guidance or surveys. So there are homes on Howard Street that I do know cross property lines. So that one may very well have been one as well. MR. GARRAND-It’s kind of a tough situation, because, you know, you could sit here and deny the variance. You can sit here and put a couple of trailers back up in that neighborhood. MR. CLUTE-No question. No question. MR. GARRAND-And be compliant all the way through. MR. CLUTE-It’s a tough call, well for me. That’s my, I live there. I live in this neighborhood, and with the Board’s assistance, I’ve really, I believe I’ve done quite a bit for the neighborhood, and I have a purpose in mind, so to speak, but I could very well do what you say, but I believe that defeats my purpose, and it actually works against the people that I’ve been selling to, in value wise, I guess. So it’s a really, it’s a tough balancing act, but again, with the assistance and understanding of Queensbury to date, I’ve done pretty well by the neighborhood. MRS. JENKIN-It looks like, too, the homes that you have built, people are taking pride in them, and they’re keeping them up. MR. CLUTE-They are, and including the pre-existing homes, to be honest with you. It’s amazing what happens when you come into an older neighborhood and put up newer homes. You’ll see neighboring properties do a little bit more to take care of, or take further pride, as you say, in their property. So it really has, it’s come a long ways. MR. KOSKINAS-If you didn’t have this variance, sir, you’d build on this one lot, and what would you do with that little strip? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. CLUTE-I actually hurt myself there, because I owned the two properties at one time, to either side, which you’ve been over, there’s two new houses to either side of this property. I always try and shuffle of and come up with manageable lots. I mean, I’ve done it on a few other lots in Howard. They were even more substandard as we’re describing now, and so I always try and cluster. I’ve waited, there’s properties I’ve waited five, ten years, wait for the neighboring property to become available, and try and make it work. So I’d end up holding on to a 50 foot lot for a while. MR. KOSKINAS-But 38 you’ve already built on. MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir, I did. That took two lots. Thirty-eight took two lots. I took, I can’t remember what the size was, I almost want to say I took a 50, it might have been two 50’s, I’m not positive, but I know 38, the house to the south of these properties, was two lots. I waited a while on that one, and I actually ended up at the County tax sale, and picked up a sliver and made the lot manageable enough to have the Board allow me to construct. So we ended up putting up 38 Howard Street. MR. KOSKINAS-What would you do with the little strip? Would you build on the big lot if you didn’t get this? MR. CLUTE-I probably would. I probably would, and I’d be sitting on the 50 footer, and really the only logical thing that would probably happen is hope that one of the neighbors, the people on either the house that I’m building on this lot, or 38, as you brought up, would pick it up for additional property. I don’t know if that would happen or not. MR. KOSKINAS-Or you could make a playground. MR. CLUTE-I could do that, too. MRS. JENKIN-Somebody has to maintain it. MR. GARRAND-There’s already one on the west end. MR. CLUTE-There is. Actually they just re-did a very nice one. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anymore questions from you guys now, or? I’ll open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just to summarize, I think that, you know, as he’s mentioned, he’s gone through a lot of time and trouble down in the neighborhood there to try and upgrade the neighborhood from what it once was to what it is now, and hopefully what it will be in the future, if it’s continued, if we allow this to go on tonight, this evening here. So, unless you have anything more to add, I guess I’ll just poll the Board and see what they think on it. And I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian, do you want to go first? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I think that it’s in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. As you drive down through there now, the new section as you go down further, the houses have more land with them, but right on that street, I think it’s pretty much like the rest of the neighborhood. I think you’ve done a good job on the other projects that you’ve done there. So I’d be in favor of this proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. My concern is not so much with Mr. Clute as it is with the way the Town re- zoned this area. This is like another area where maybe some thought should have been given to how they zone it, because two acre zoning is really, doesn’t fit the neighborhood, and now we’re in the situation where we have to grant basically a variance that’s excessive in some respects, you know, if you don’t consider what the property is, where it is, and what he’s going to 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) do with it, it’s certainly, on the face value, it doesn’t look, it looks onerous. So, with that in mind, I’m not going to hold it against Mr. Clute. I think we know what his projects look like and I think he’s done a great job in this neighborhood. I just think it’s unfortunate you have to go through this process right now, for something that seems to fit. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I’m in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes, I also, I think it’s a huge benefit to the neighborhood, and actually the houses you have, if they’re correct, there is 15 to 16 feet on either side of the home, which is pretty close to the 20 feet that I feel should be done and made, and so I think that I definitely am in favor of this variance, lot line change. MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think reasonable alternatives are precluded by the lot size here. We aren’t left with a lot of other options here. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t have any problem with it, and I’d commend you for what you’re trying to do in the grand scheme of things down there. It’s working well, and I, too, am on the same wavelength as Roy. I think it’s, I don’t understand, you know, what the thinking is, because it actually makes it more difficult to achieve it, you know, if we’re going to be militant about it and say you’ve got to have a two acre lot. No one’s going to be able to do anything, you know, it’s pointless. To me it would have been better to come up with a plan that said let’s try and amalgamate these lots together and add, pick and choose, and, you know, it shouldn’t take decades to accomplish it. It should be something that should be a helpful task with the Town in league with what you’re trying to do down there, and I don’t think anybody in the neighborhood’s opposed to it. They’re probably all much happier with the outcome as it’s been so far. So does somebody want to take this one? MR. GARRAND-I’ll take it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2010 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Koskinas: Howard Street. Applicant proposes a lot line change for the purpose of balancing two adjoining lots for the construction of two new single family homes. The applicant is requesting relief from the lot size, width, and road frontage requirements for the Moderate Density Residential district as per Section 179-3-040. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Other means feasible would be combining the two lots into one, but we would still be in a position where we would need an Area Variance. Will this request produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? It won’t produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood. It’ll be an improvement. Is this request substantial? It may be deemed substantial relative to the amount of relief requested here. Whether this request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. I can’t foresee any possible physical or environmental effects that would be negative on this neighborhood. Is this difficulty self-created? I don’t think it is self-created in that the lots traditionally have been undersized over there, and he is within the constraints of the given lot sizes here. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 38-2010. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: MDR LOCATION: HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) REQUIREMENTS. NORTH PARCEL CROSS REF.: AV 38-2010 LOT LINE ADJ.; AV 40-2010 SOUTH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-35.1 SECTION: 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2010, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: August 25, 2010 “Project Location: Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a new single family dwelling on a vacant Howard Street parcel. Relief Required: Applicant request 8 feet 8 inches of north side setback relief and 9 feet south side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement 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 neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Lot limitations and the nature of the request preclude any feasible method other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet 8 inches or 35 percent relief for the north side line setback and 9 feet 0 inches or 36 percent relief for the south side line setback from the 25 foot side setback requirement of the Moderate Density Residential district as per §179-3-040 may both 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.): AV 38-10 Lot line adjustment Pending 8/25/10 AV 40-10 Side setback relief Pending 8/25/10 Staff comments: The applicant has proposed to center the single family dwelling in relation to the side lines and placed the structure 31 feet 4 inches from the front setback to appear on-line with the adjoining proposal to the south. Note: Review of this application is contingent upon approval of Area Variance 38-2010. Type II” SEQR Status: MR. UNDERWOOD-So we just created this lot which now needs relief because we’re narrower than we need be. So, as far as the other houses on the street, is this, you’re going to have that 31 foot setback from the main part of the street. Is that going to be about equal to the other homes on the street? MR. CLUTE-It will be equal to the other homes, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and just as a reminder, make sure we don’t measure from the road. MR. CLUTE-Right. Yes, because the measurement you have is actually from the property lines. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s from the actual property line. Yes. MR. CLUTE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and so as Staff Notes explained, this is going to be centered on the lot, both of them are going to be lined up side by side with each other? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely. Yes, and as I was saying in the previous is I have two new homes to either side of these lots, and essentially they’re going to be right in a line. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re going to have garages built on these as they’re done, so they wouldn’t have to come in later and ask for a variance. MR. CLUTE-Yes. That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-That makes more sense to do it that way, too. Okay. Anything you guys want to ask on this one? Anything? Okay. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-No correspondence. All right. Pretty straightforward. I think these ones, you know, you’ve sort of got these down to a science now. You do them correct to begin with so later on you don’t need to come in and ask for relief for an added garage, and as mentioned before, they’re complete projects. They’re not like, you know, we’ll do this and worry about the rest later deal. So, you know, I think they’re pretty well thought out. Do you guys want to talk about this one? You guys are pretty much set with this? MR. URRICO-I think when we approved the lot line, we gave tacit approval to the rest of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right. Does somebody want to take this one? Okay. Brian. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I did. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2010 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: Howard Street – north lot. Applicant proposes the construction of a new single family dwelling on a vacant Howard Street parcel. The relief required is applicant requests eight feet eight inches of north side setback relief and nine feet south side setback relief from the twenty-five foot setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040. In making the determination, the Board shall consider, One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance? Lot limitations preclude any feasible method other than an Area Variance. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for the eight feet, eight inches, or thirty-five percent relief for the north side line setback and nine feet zero inches or thirty-six percent relief for the south side line setback from the twenty-five foot side setback requirement for the Moderate Density Residential district as per Section 179-3-040 maybe considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move to approve. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S): LARRY CLUTE ZONING: MDR LOCATION: HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SOUTH PARCEL CROSS REF.: AV 39-2010 NORTH SIDE; AV 38-2010 BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE: 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.20-1-35.2 SECTION: 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2010, Larry Clute, Meeting Date: August 25, 2010 “Project Location: Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of a new single family dwelling on a vacant Howard Street parcel. Relief Required: Applicant request 8 feet 2 inches of north side setback relief and 9 feet 6 inches south side setback relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement 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 neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Lot limitations and the nature of the request preclude any feasible method other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet 2 inches or 35 percent relief for the north side line setback and 9 feet 6 inches or 36 percent relief for the south side line setback from the 25 foot side setback requirement of the Moderate Density Residential district as per §179-3-040 may both 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.): AV 38-10 Lot line adjustment Pending 8/25/10 AV 39-10 Side setback relief Pending 8/25/10 Staff comments: The applicant has proposed to center the single family dwelling in relation to the side lines and placed the structure 31 feet 4 inches from the front setback to appear on-line with the adjoining proposal to the north. SEQR Status: SEQR Type II” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So very similar to what we just approved on the north lot. This is the south lot. This is a slight difference in the amount of relief compared to the other one. Do you guys have any questions or anything you want to add? I guess I’ll open the public hearing up. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So I’ll close the public hearing. MR. CLEMENTS-You’ve got one, Mr. Chairman. MR. UNDERWOOD-We do. JOE AUSTIN MR. AUSTIN-I just had a quick question. What’s the address of this lot? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you have a plot you want to look at? MR. AUSTIN-I do not, no. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can take one if you wish. So what we did initially was we took that smaller lot, combined it with the larger lot that was there, then we split the two lots in half into equal lots. So they’re adjoining each other. MR. AUSTIN-Okay, but still, what is the address of that lot? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have a physical address yet? MR. CLUTE-The northern one’s 46. I can’t remember what this is. It’s got to be 42 and 38 next to it. So it’s 42 and 46. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So we’re skipping numbers on that street. MR. CLUTE-Yes. MR. AUSTIN-Okay. So I guess the question I have, everyone was contacted with one of these on Howard Street? MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody should have received notice. MR. AUSTIN-Even if they’re not directly? MR. OBORNE-Anybody within 500 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody within 500 feet gets it, and then if they’re not picked up in their mail, if they’re returned by the Post Office, we always get those back in the file. MR. AUSTIN-Okay. I didn’t realize. I was thinking it was a lot that was right next door to mine when showed up tonight. If I’d known it was down the street, I probably wouldn’t have even been here, but, other than that, I just wanted to make sure it was something that wasn’t right next door, because he knows the situation I was thinking about next door. It’s kind of a really strange. MR. CLUTE-He’s the lot right, that was mentioned one, I know there’s a house that definitely crosses the property. MR. AUSTIN-Right next door. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I don’t know what you can really do in that situation, you know, I mean, we’ve had those in numerous parts of Town. The latest one we’ve dealt with was over on Glen Lake, and it’s, you know, five feet over the line, one corner of the house. MR. GARRAND-Has that property adjoining his gone to taxes yet? MR. CLUTE-Next to him, I don’t think it has. I don’t think it has. MR. KOSKINAS-If you’re patient, Mr. Clute may be your salvation. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. AUSTIN-One of us two will get it cleaned up. All right. Very good. Well, thank you. That’s all. MS. GAGLIARDI-And could I get your name for the record? MR. AUSTIN-Yes, Joe Austin. MR. OBORNE-Thank you, sir. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Barring any unforeseen circumstances here, I think that this one’s, you know, almost a ditto of the last one that we just approved. So, as far as the language, does somebody want to do this one? MRS. JENKIN-I’ll take it, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2010 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Howard Street – south lot. Applicant proposes the construction of a new single family dwelling on a vacant Howard Street parcel. The relief required. The applicant requests eight feet two inches of north side setback relief and nine feet six inches south side setback relief from the twenty-five foot side setback requirement per Section 179-3-040. The criteria for considering the Area Variance. There are five considerations to make in making the determination. 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 variance. There should be no undesirable change, as the construction of the two new homes will produce a desirable change in the neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant may be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. Lot limitations and the nature of the request preclude any feasible method. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for eight feet two inches of north side line setback and nine feet six inches for the south side line setback from the twenty-five foot side setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. Considering the make up of the rest of the neighborhood, the request is actually quite minor. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. Granting this variance will probably have a positive effect after the homes are built. It’ll improve the neighborhood considerably. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Because of the new two acre requirement for lot line, it is not self-created because the area and the residences all around are much smaller lots. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 40- 2010. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt MR. UNDERWOOD-See you around. MR. CLUTE-Could I get some of those applications? MR. UNDERWOOD-You want some of those back. You’ve got to go to the Planning Board? MR. OBORNE-No. There’s no conditions on this. So he can just turn them in as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Good. All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II ERIC O. EGAN OWNER(S): ERIC O. EGAN ZONING: CLI LOCATION: 335 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION, DECK AND DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR PROPOSES WESTERN DECK AND THE PORTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL EXPANSION WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK RESPECTIVELY. CROSS REF.: BP 6415-1980 STORAGE SHED; BP 91-781 ALTERATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 LOT SIZE: 1.03 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-2-5 SECTION: 179-3-040 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) ERIC EGAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2010, Eric O. Egan, Meeting Date: August 25, 2010 “Project Location: 335 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a residential addition, decks & detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 19 feet 11 inches of front setback relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement for the Commercial Light Industrial district per §179-3-040. Further, the applicant request relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure for proposed western deck and portion of residential expansion within the front setback respectively. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. With the expansion of an existing structure proposed, feasible alternatives appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests for 19 feet 11 inches or 40 percent relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement for the CLI district may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The expansion of a nonconforming structure for the proposed western deck and the 8 foot portion of residential expansion within the front setback must also be approved by the ZBA. 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.): BP 6415-1980 storage shed BP 91-781 alteration Staff comments: The applicant has requested a waiver from the survey requirement for area variances and has been granted a waiver from the ZBA Chair on June 23, 2010. The ZBA may wish to consider the following condition of approval when deliberating this application: Concerning the proposed garage, no commercial vehicle exceeding 1.5 tons to be sheltered and no business, occupations or services for profit to be conducted from the private garage. SEQR Type II” SEQR Status: MR. URRICO-I also have the Warren County Planning Board, they reviewed the project, and they found No County Impact. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. A question for Staff. Keith, the Commercial Light Industrial zone down there, I mean, it’s next door to Northern, where Northern Distributing was. Was there any commentary from the Town Board or anything as to what the thought was as far as the future development of the parcels down there that are in the zone? MR. OBORNE-Not at this point. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-So we didn’t have any like EDC or anybody looking at purchasing them for Light Industrial uses? MR. OBORNE-No. I mean, they’re lawfully conforming uses right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, and there seems to be pretty low demand down there for turn over of those Light Industrial areas at the present time. MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, we currently have the Ireland property, which is the old Northern Distributing property, is being subdivided and there is some action going on there. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. Sure. Okay. Do you want to tell us about what you’re doing here? I mean, to me, when you look at the picture of the old one, pictures tell 1,000 words. It looks like one of those houses that started out small and they added on a piece. MR. EGAN-Yes, it is, sir. First of all, I’d like to start off, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Eric Egan, and my wife, Trudy and I have owned that property since 1971. It was our first home after I, I came back from Vietnam, went to college on the GI Bill, and we came back and bought 335 Corinth Road, and she taught in Lake George. I was teaching in Glens Falls High School, and the reason that we need to have this improvement is because we now live in Warrensburg, because we left the Army, we were teaching. I was recalled back into the active service. I left the Army in 1992, and my father-in-law was living in our home at the time. Since then he has passed, and we ended up renting that, unfortunately, while we lived in Warrensburg, because we bought a two story, four bedroom with an attached garage in Warrensburg and we also have an extra 15 by 30 foot workshop on our property in Warrensburg, and so you can see from the accumulation of 45 years of marriage, and what we have jammed packed full in Warrensburg right now, we need the additional space. I have no intention of having a business run out of that garage. The purpose of the second story of that garage is for dry storage and dry storage only, because I need the dry storage area. Also, the reason that we need the addition for the kitchen and for the bathroom is now the laundry room for that property is in the basement, and we’re at the point now where we don’t desire to go up and down stairs to get our laundry done. I’d like to keep my wife on that first, on that one floor and have it basically for a home where we can live until we end up passing away and giving it to our sons. I do have one quick question, though, about this recommendation from the Staff about not concerning the proposed. I have no intention of turning it into a business or running a business out of the garage, or having any commercial vehicles of 1.5 tons or greater there. However, if I go to sell this property and there’s a restriction on it, I certainly don’t want to have my son having to jump through hoops to get that straightened out. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what’s happened is we’ve, in the past, we’ve granted people oversized garages, and in follow up, maybe it’s a year or two down the road after the CO’s been given for those buildings, mysteriously their businesses have been moved there and, you know, it just sort of grows and grows, and it’s more of a safety policy on the part of the Town so we don’t have to come back and cite somebody for having an illegal business. MR. EGAN-Is that an oversized garage? Because I understood that that’s what the standard size, the size had been increased to 45 feet, and that’s why I moved it that way. MR. OBORNE-It’s compliant. MR. EGAN-It is compliant? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. EGAN-Okay. So, I’m still in compliance on it, and I also have a 1956 Corvette that I’ve been waiting 40 years to restore, and that’s the main reason for that third bay. MR. KOSKINAS-I saw it. MR. EGAN-You’ve seen it? MR. KOSKINAS-In the back. MR. EGAN-Yes. It’s been there, unfortunately because it is, as you can see, what they took, they took a perfectly good office area, when it was built it was an office/sunroom area, and they, the people we bought it from, they were the second owners, and they only had it a couple of years, but they wanted a garage. So they cut into that office, and put that garage, and that garage is right on Merritt Road, as you can see. We’ve never liked it there, and what I propose 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) is to cut that, what they’ve put on, cut that off and make it back into the sunroom/office area, because I’m still a graduate student, you know, and we need an office badly, because my wife just retired in July from teaching. I have retired from teaching at the high school level, but I was still teaching at ACC, and also doing summer programs in Johnsburg, but this next year I’ll be up there doing an internship with, administrative internship through the University of South Dakota, but we still need the office area, and that’s the purpose of having that office area there, and so I, to make this livable for us, in our age, I think that this is probably the minimum that we could come up with. Hopefully it’s not going to be too much of a strain. I would have moved the garage any place on the property that would help eliminate this, but I’ve got four 50 year old maples that are beautiful, and I have three, or two 30 year old black walnuts on that property that are absolutely coming nicely, and I didn’t want to damage any of them. That’s why you see the placement of the garage is where it is. MR. OBORNE-Well, you’re not here for relief for the garage at all. MR. EGAN-I know. MR. OBORNE-That’s totally compliant. MR. EGAN-But also, and because, you know, we’re changing the septic as you can see, we’re going to have to change the septic because right now with the garage where we’re going to put it, we’d be driving over the existing septic. So that’s got to go, and then we’ve got to put a new septic in, and I’ve talked with people in the business, and that should be an easy fix on that property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you guys have any questions at this time? MRS. JENKIN-You have an outside entrance on the left elevation. MR. EGAN-Yes, ma’am. MRS. JENKIN-Will there be another apartment upstairs? MR. EGAN-No, no. That’s in order to get my, I’m going to use that upstairs as dry storage. Of the garage? MRS. JENKIN-I see. Okay. So the upstairs area will be finished off, too, then, but it won’t be an apartment. MR. EGAN-It’s not going to be finished, I don’t plan on it being finished off. I plan on having it there for dry storage, and I am a little bit paranoid when it comes to rooms that only have one exit with fires. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. EGAN-That’s why you’ll notice on the east side of the house there’s a bilco door there. We put that in, right after we bought the house in ’71. MRS. JENKIN-Now, the other question I had is about the foundation of the existing house. MR. EGAN-Yes, ma’am. MRS. JENKIN-Is that over everything, well, they turned it into a garage, but is there? MR. EGAN-No, that’s a slab, where that garage is and where that. MRS. JENKIN-That is a slab. MR. EGAN-Yes, that’s a slab where that sunroom/office area is. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. EGAN-That’s a slab. MRS. JENKIN-Will it continue being a slab? MR. EGAN-Yes, it will, ma’am. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. You’re not changing the foundation at all? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. EGAN-I’m not going to change that. I’m just cutting it off and putting a floor back on it so I can use it as an office/sunroom area. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. EGAN-But I am going to put, I want to put, I want to go down underneath the addition for the kitchen and the bathroom, I do want to put a basement area there. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. There isn’t one there now? MR. EGAN-No. That’s just a deck area. What I’m doing is removing the deck and putting a regular structure there. MRS. JENKIN-Okay. MR. EGAN-And that’s an ugly, very ugly enclosed deck that should be gone. It really should be. MR. GARRAND-Are you going to have a woodworking area in the garage? MR. EGAN-Probably not in the garage itself. I have woodworking equipment. I used to teach wood technology at Glens Falls High School. I have found, in my age, that I can’t be in a confined area with a lot of wood dust. I do a lot of, if I do any woodworking, it creates dust. It’s usually outside. So if I do do anything, it will probably be out on the front of the garage. I will have equipment there that can be moved out, yes, but I don’t plan on doing woodworking inside that, unless I can have the windows open and some fans, but I’m at the point now where. MR. GARRAND-Give the corvette to Mr. Miller, let him work on it. MR. EGAN-Yes. Don. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any other questions from you guys? MRS. JENKIN-It looks like the project will really definitely add a lot to the home. It’ll add a lot to your property. MR. EGAN-I hope so. MRS. JENKIN-It’ll make a huge difference to the existing house, having the changes. MR. EGAN-Yes, it will. MRS. JENKIN-Now you’re selling up in Warrensburg and then just going to be moving down here? MR. EGAN-We will be, hopefully when this project is finished, and we can move out of there, then I will put the property in Warrensburg for sale, but we can’t do that now. MRS. JENKIN-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else from guys? All right. 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-Yes. “To Whom It May Concern: It has been recently brought to my attention that our neighbors Eric and Trudy Egan are proposing to build an addition to their home at 335 Corinth Road, as well as a detached garage on the property which borders our home. We have known the Egans since we bought our property more than 35 years ago, and have no problem with their proposal. It will definitely improve their property as well as our neighborhood and we support them in this effort. Peter Rozell 15 Merritt Road.” And, “To Whom It May Concern: We have been informed that our close neighbors the Egans are planning to add an addition and new garage to their property. This is to inform you that we have no objection to this project. Yours truly, Mr. and Mrs. R. Stanton Batease” I don’t have the address here, but I think it’s in the. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re right next door. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. URRICO-Yes. That’s it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. If there’s nothing else you want to add, I think it’s pretty clear what you’re trying to achieve here, and as far as the Board goes, I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Board members, any commentary you want to make, or do you want me to just poll, someone can just take this one. Anything you want to say. Roy, are you all set? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m good. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll do this one. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2010 ERIC O. EGAN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 335 Corinth Road. Applicant proposes construction of a residential addition with both decks and a detached garage. As far as the relief requested. He’s requesting 19 feet 11 inches of front setback relief from the 50 foot front setback requirement for the Commercial Light Industrial district. Further the applicant is requesting relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure for both the proposed western deck and a portion of the residential expansion within the front setback respectively. As far as the request, we do not feel that there will be any undesirable change created in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to any of the nearby properties. No one seems to be opposed to this project, and we feel it will be a major improvement, as proposed here. Whether the applicant could achieve this by some other method. Feasible alternatives due appear to be limited in this respect because of the nature of where the present building is sited and they’ve owned it since the 60’s, and whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 19 feet 11 inches is 40% relief from the 50 foot setback requirement for the Commercial Light Industrial district, but we would consider that to be moderate relief per the Ordinance and it’s really not a light industrial district by any means here where this house is, other than in name. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Minor impacts. Actually I think it will be an improvement because the garage is not going to be exactly right on, is it Merritt Road, I believe there. It’s going to be set back. So it’ll greatly improve the situation as far as the current ingress and egress, and the difficulty can be considered to be self-created, but the Board, in general, feels that this will be an improvement for the neighborhood, and as far as the stipulation, I think we should put the stipulation on that for any future users of the site, and that would be not necessarily the applicants, but we would not like to see any commercial vehicle exceeding one and a half tons be sheltered, and that no business or occupations or services for profit be conducted from the private garage. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we should put the stipulation on that for any future users of the site, and that would be not necessarily the applicants, but we would not like to see any commercial vehicle exceeding one and a half tons be sheltered, and that no business or occupations or services for profit be conducted from the private garage. I would think any applicant that came in and wanted to do that could propose to do that. They’d have to get a variance to do that. MR. EGAN-How about if somebody wants to buy that property and use it as a Light Industrial property? MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. EGAN-What would I have to go through on that one? MR. UNDERWOOD-Nothing. MR. GARRAND-Nothing. It’s an allowed use in that zone. MR. OBORNE-It’s an allowable use. MR. EGAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Koskinas, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2010 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED ERNEST BURNELL AGENT(S): NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S): ERNEST BURNELL ZONING: RR-3A LOCATION: 419 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.22 +/- ACRE LOT INTO LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.0 TO 21.06 +/- ACRES. RELIEF IS REQUIRED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS. FURTHER, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: SB 7-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 LOT SIZE: 34.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.00-1-21 SECTION: 179-3-040; 179-4-050 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Roy, when you come down to the Area Variance actually, if you could read in the memo that I gave you, because there has been an update to the amount of relief required. MR. URRICO-Is the memo attached to this? MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s the one we just got. MR. OBORNE-The handout. Really the only thing we’re here for is for lot width relief for one and three. That’s it. MR. URRICO-Okay. We’re still doing the lot relief? MR. OBORNE-Yes. All we’re here for is lot width relief for lots one and three. MR. URRICO-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2010, Ernest Burnell, Meeting Date: August 25, 2010 “Project Location: 419 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 34.22 acre lot into lots ranging in size from 3.0 to 21.06 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests road frontage relief for lots 1, 3, and 4 as per § 179-3-040 and 179-4- 050. Further, the applicant requests lot width relief for lots 1 and 3 as 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 neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could develop the property with a public road and avoid the request for road frontage relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 265.9 feet or 66.5 percent relief from the 400 foot road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 for lot 1 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the Ordinance. The request for 400 feet or 100 percent relief from the 400 foot road frontage requirement per §179-3-040 for lot 3 may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Further, the request for 154 feet or 38.5 percent relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement per §179-3-040 for lot 1 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 110 feet or 27.5 percent relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement per §179-3-040 for lot 3 may be considered minor to 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 to moderate impacts on the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as any development on slopes has the potential for impacting the environment. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SUB 7-2009 4 lot subdivision Pending . Staff comments: The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application as required by NYS Municipal Law and Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, please see handout. SEQR Status: SEQR - Type II MR. URRICO-I’ll read this in here. This is a memo that was received from Keith Oborne. It’s dated August 25, 2010, regarding the Burnell subdivision. “In consultation with the Zoning Administrator it has been determined that the Road Frontage variance associated with the Burnell Subdivision off of State Route 149 is not applicable as the project is located in a Rural Residential District. Below is the Code reference for clarity. As this application has been advertised and the notes distributed to the ZBA members this should have no affect on the Board’s deliberations as less relief is now sought. Code Reference per §179-4-05 for Frontage on public or private streets: Except in the Rural Residential Districts, every principal building shall be built upon a lot with frontage upon a public street improved to meet the standards of the Town of Queensbury. A. The required frontage for one principal building shall be at least 50 feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon, for purposes of ingress and egress to the lot by emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and/or ambulances. B. Where private roads are proposed or where multiple principal buildings are proposed for one lot, such as, but not limited to, mixed-use developments, apartments or an office park, the minimum frontage on a public road for such use shall be the width of the right- 0of-way for a public collector street. Such development shall provide actual physical access to and from each principal building to be built upon the property, for the purpose of ingress and egress to each principal building by emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and/or ambulances.” The Warren County Planning Board looked at the project and determined that there’s No County Impact. The Planning Board, their recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for this Area Variance, according to their resolution, which was introduced by Gretchen Steffan and seconded by Paul Schonewolf, “The Planning Board, based on its limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: 1. Emergency access. However, with future input from Bay Ridge, it may not be an issue. 2. The Planning Board will likely require Site Plan Review on lot development if approved.” And this motion was approved seven, zero, and the SEQRA on the second page. Should I read that in? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think just read the resolution number five at the bottom. MR. URRICO-Yes. They said that, on the SEQRA, “Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law.” And that was approved by seven, zero, and then in a related matter, there was a letter sent to Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, on the proposed Burnell subdivision. It says, “I met with Tom Center of Nace Engineering regarding the Burnell Subdivision today. The only addition that I request to be added is a 12’ x 50’ pull off located approximately 300-400’ in from State Rte. 149. This could be utilized for water supply operations in the event of a fire within the subdivision. Additionally, the Fire apparatus responding to fire calls in the development on a regular basis have a gross vehicle weight of 70,800 lbs. and length of 37’ 7” with a Wall to Wall Turning Radius of 39 ft. 11 in. so I am requesting that the Cul De Sac at the end of the road can accommodate this. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank You, Patrick Mellon, Sr. Fire Chief Bay Ridge Vol. Fire Co. Inc.” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Good evening, and if you could tell us a little bit about what you’re proposing here. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. CENTER-Tom Center from Nace Engineering with Mr. Burnell, the owner of the parcel. We’re proposing a four lot subdivision, lots ranging from 3 to 21.06 acres. We are going to use a single access point off of 149, the existing driveway, and then extend the shared driveway right off the existing driveway, and on to service the three additional lots. We’re in front of you for lot width variance to perform the proposed subdivision. I did meet with Bay Ridge Fire Chief and Assistant Chief Pat and Chip Mellon this afternoon to discuss their concerns. Just a clarification. We talked about the end, I think it’s more semantics. They understand that it’s a hammerhead at the end, and we’re just making sure. Actually we’re going to extend one leg of the hammerhead so they can pull in, back up. MR. UNDERWOOD-Back up and have enough space, right. MR. CENTER-And do a three point turn to exit. So that’s just going to be lengthened slightly, and then a pull off along the side so they can have one vehicle pass another. There’s more than enough for access, emergency use, and the road’s a 20 foot wide road, and that’s the extent. MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as the road frontage relief, we’re basing that upon the normality that we require every lot to have access to the road? MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re going to have a shared drive on here? MR. OBORNE-The Code does read, for Lot One, you’re still going to need to provide road frontage relief, but for those back lots, it’s not a requirement in a Rural Residential district. So you’ll have Lot One, road frontage relief; Lot One and Lot Three for lot width relief. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. CENTER-And currently where the road, where we have the proposed road, that’s currently what’s been used for logging access to the back. It’s going to be widened out would be the only thing, but it’s currently a road used for when they log the property. So we’re not creating any additional disturbance than what’s there now, other than where we’re widening out the road slightly. MR. GARRAND-Who’s going to maintain the road? MR. CENTER-It’s going to be a maintenance agreement between the property owners. It’ll be legal language within the deeds. If they guy on Lot Three is the first one to buy the lot, he’s got to build the road all the way in, and he ends up maintaining, you know, the whole length, as, you know, if it’s Lot Two that buys the first lot, they work out an agreement with Lot One and themselves, and then it works from there, but there’ll be legal language within the deeds for maintenance of the road. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you don’t have to form an HOA or anything like that? MR. CENTER-I don’t believe so. You’ve got to have the minimum, five, I believe, lots in order to have the HOA. MRS. JENKIN-Will the road be paved? MR. CENTER-Yes. It’s, initially we have it down for crushed stone, but we have details in there to be paved. You’re probably not going to pave it if you’re still constructing the lots. You’re not going to want to, you know, put pavement down when you’re still trying to build out, but the final build out will be paved. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the parcel in the back, in the rear there, that’s the 20 acres plus back there? MR. CENTER-Yes, that would be Lot Four. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the proposal for that? Is there going to be further subdivision of that in the future, or do you think that’s just going to be woodlands for the moment? ERNEST BURNELL MR. BURNELL-That would be entirely up to whoever buys it. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-Whoever buys it. MR. BURNELL-That’s their headache. MR. CENTER-And that would be the fifth lot, then it would come under, you know, the rule of thumb, if it’s within five years, more than five acres, or less than five acres, I’m sorry. MR. OBORNE-It’s actually three years. MR. CENTER-Three years. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. CENTER-Then they would have to, it would become a realty subdivision at that point. So it has some additional restrictions that are in place, but I think the land would be difficult. That’s why we’ve located the house where we’ve located it. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re pretty far off the beaten path back there. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Well, there’s a DEC classified stream on the property, and they’re not crossing it. MR. CENTER-Yes. There’d be a stream crossing issue. There’d be a lot of issues to go further back. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because that’s where the wetlands, about halfway back where you ended up. MR. CENTER-Yes, you’ve got some wetlands right alongside the stream that are delineated with the cross-hatched pattern. MRS. JENKIN-Is the cell tower on your property? MR. BURNELL-No, I wish it was, I’d be getting income every month. MRS. JENKIN-It looks close. MR. BURNELL-Yes. It is. It’s right close to my property line up there. MR. KOSKINAS-So this project will have Site Plan Review but hasn’t had it yet? MR. CENTER-Correct. We still need to go through Preliminary and Final for the subdivision itself, and then one of the conditions that we talked about at the Planning Board would be the three individual lots would have to come back for individual Site Plan Review, because they’re larger lots, because, you know, we’ve placed the house where we believe would be the best, but somebody buying the parcel may move the house, may rotate it, may shorten the driveway, may, you know, tweak the driveway. We have to come back for Site Plan Review. MR. KOSKINAS-I was out there. I walked that road, and it was pouring rain, and when you elevate that road, it’ll be an interesting place when it’s raining. MR. CENTER-Well, it’s got very good soils back there. MR. BURNELL-In the Spring of the year, after all the, not so much last year, we didn’t have that much snow in our area, but previous years, when we’ve had four, five feet of snow, and we get the Spring rains, it, of course you’re going to have a puddle in that low area. Within 24 hours it’s gone. It drops that fast in there. Of course putting a road in there, a driveway or whatever you want to call it, it’s going to be raised, and I’m sure, I don’t know if anybody who owns property, they could fill it. I don’t know. That’s something down the road, I guess. MR. KOSKINAS-So each individual lot, is that how it works, each individual lot would go for a Site Plan Review before they could build a house? MR. OBORNE-If that is a condition of approval. One of the Code requirements is if you place a house near a slope greater than 15%, within 50 feet of that slope, you’re required to come in for Site Plan Review, and as designed, there’s two of these lots are within 50 feet of a slope. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. CENTER-Lot Two and Four are going to have to come back for Site Plan Review, and we did not object to the condition of having all three lots come back for Site Plan Review, because if there’s any change, if the person buying the parcel wants to locate something different to change the driveway to the house, you know, he’s going to have to come back anyway. It makes it easier to require all three to come back. They’re such large parcels, you know, no matter where we try to locate a house, invariably when someone comes in, the size of the house may change. It may get smaller. So we didn’t have any objections to requiring all three to come back for Site Plan Review. MRS. JENKIN-Lot Four looks like it’s sitting right down in a little valley. Is that true? MR. CENTER-It’s actually sitting on, there’s a little bit of a slope on the back side, and then it drops down to where the shared driveway is. There’s a nice level area there. We’ve got the septic system located on the uphill portion, and then any stormwater coming around would be down around the septic system and down the slope. That would be a lawn area. Certainly more than likely would be leveled off and graded for lawn area. MR. CLEMENTS-Just to make sure that I have the relief required, you’re asking for road frontage relief for Lot One, and lot width relief for Lots One and Three? MR. OBORNE-That is correct, and whoever does the resolution, if you get to that point, we’ll make sure we have the numbers right. They are on the page. I mean, they are there, but you just want to cross off the request for 400 feet for the two lots, Three and Four. That’s really what you just need to cross off. MRS. JENKIN-That I’m not sure of myself. I don’t get it. So you only need 50 feet of road frontage? MR. OBORNE-You need 400 feet of road frontage if you’re on a public road, if you’re subdividing this parcel, which they’re doing. Lot One fronts on a public road. So it’s required to have 400 feet. MRS. JENKIN-So it’s still 400. MR. OBORNE-Yes, but the addendum to that is, in the Code reference, 179-4-05, Frontage on Public or Private Streets, it states except in the Rural Residential area. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. OBORNE-You don’t have to have that 50 feet. You don’t have to have that 400 feet. MRS. JENKIN-You don’t have to have the 400 feet, or the? MR. OBORNE-That’s correct, except in the Rural Residential area. So that 50 feet is a minimum in the Town. It used to be 40, but now it’s 50, and then you break it down into different code, different districts, then it gets specific on what size of frontage you need. MRS. JENKIN-So you still need the 400 feet, or you need 50 feet? MR. OBORNE-For Lot One you need 400 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys at this time? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public here wishing to speak on the matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-I did not see any correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Why don’t we discuss this amongst ourselves. So what we’re looking at relief only for Lot Number One, as far as road frontage relief? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-That one’s deficient, and the other lots are just lot width requirements and that’s on Two and Four? MR. OBORNE-One and Three. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-And as far as anything else goes, the issues with the Planning Board, as far as like the road and that, that’s going to get dealt with at Site Plan Review? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-In their final approvals, as far as that goes. MR. OBORNE-Yes, there’s just a little clean up that’s needed, but, and then some engineering that needs to be addressed. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Do you guys want to discuss anything in the matter? Why don’t we just got to Lot Number One. Do you guys have any problems with Lot Number One, what’s proposed as it is? MRS. JENKIN-Well, the lot width, that’s a fair amount of lot width. It’s 327, correct? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think they’re looking for the front, and that’s, the width issue, I think, in a Rural Residential area, so you don’t end up with houses all on top of each other, to preserve the rural atmosphere. It’s 149, right? So, I don’t know if you could call it rural atmosphere out there. It’s highway atmosphere. That lot’s going to require the relief because it is located on the road frontage, so that’s significant. MRS. JENKIN-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-But then again, you know, as is proposed with a single access point to all four dwellings, that’s more in line with what we would propose to have occur on 149. So we don’t have a bunch of curb cuts, separate ones going out. It doesn’t make much sense. We just did that other one further down the road. Okay, and Three is the only one that needs relief, interior relief, and that, again, too, is a lot width requirement on that one. Is the Planning Board going to consider this to be sort of clustering to a degree with those interior ones, because you’re still far enough apart? MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s not a cluster. They’re not going below the minimum lot size. MR. UNDERWOOD-But as far as disturbance on the total lot, you know, somebody may purchase that lot further up in there. They’d be subject to the same zoning that’s in effect now? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. You’re talking Lot Four, the larger lot? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the larger lot. MR. OBORNE-Good luck to anybody who wants to subdivide that lot and try to develop it, to be honest with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because DEC’s got to approve crossing the wetland? MR. OBORNE-And the slopes are ridiculous. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it really goes up. MRS. JENKIN-Could you describe the lay of the land for Lot Number Three, please? MR. CENTER-Lot Three, as you come down the shared driveway, you’re going to go up to a peak where the driveway for Lot Four turns off, and then you’re coming back down slightly, and. MRS. JENKIN-It looks like it’s flatter, except for the. MR. CENTER-Lot Three actually sits down lower than the road. MRS. JENKIN-It does? MR. CENTER-You’re actually coming down from the road, in order to grade it so there’s a slight pitch to it, and widen the road, and match the contours. You come down to where the house will be located, more than likely that house is going to be built up slightly in that area. There is some mottling and groundwater issues in that area. So that’s why we have the septic system for that lot as a pump up system and along the slope, as slope rises back up towards the south property line. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’d raise the grade and put it up above? MR. CENTER-I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks raised the grade, when they do build the house, unless they do a slab on grade house, you know, a single ranch, and have a larger footprint, but they don’t necessarily build a full basement. If anybody was to want a full basement there, they probably would pull the driveway back closer to the shared driveway and build out. We are more than 100 feet away with the house and the driveway from the wetlands, but to grade anything there we’ve applied for a freshwater wetlands permit, for any disturbance, clearing, grading, within that 100 foot disturbance line. MRS. JENKIN-Because it’s lower than the road, where the house is projected to be built, to be put, do you think in the Spring you would have any really, a lot of standing water in that area? MR. CENTER-No. The upper soil is very porous, had a good percolation rate. It was good, well draining material. There didn’t seem to be, we did a mottling for soils. MRS. JENKIN-There’s no way to make it any wider either. MR. CENTER-Because we did look at mottling in there, and that’s why any house that would be there would be built up, and that’s, again, why we come back to Site Plan Review for every individual lot, to address any of those issues. We had mottling at 43 inches, but we had groundwater at 83 inches. The groundwater itself was down more than five feet, more than six feet, and then as we came up that slope, we had no groundwater at all and mottling at 50 inches. So, you know, I think what would be done for there would be, you know, maybe halfway into the ground and build up, in order to protect any groundwater issue. MR. URRICO-Do you have any buyers for the property yet? MR. BURNELL-No. Right now I haven’t, no one has talked to me, I haven’t talked to anybody. We have six children, and I’m hoping maybe some of them will buy it, but all it take’s money. MR. URRICO-Are you planning on selling it as a unit, and then having that person subdivide it, or would you rather sell off a lot at a time? MR. BURNELL-Well, that’s something I’m going to have to, I’ve got, Mr. Metivier’s going to be my realtor, and until I get this thing approved, I’m not even going to put it out on the market or talk how we’re going to handle it, because I have no idea, to be honest with you. MR. URRICO-Are there going to be any accommodations for the school bus on the property, do you know? MR. BURNELL-He stops there now. I’ve got a grandson living with me. So he stops and picks him up. So they will be there. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll poll the Board members, then, at this point. I’ll start with you, Joan. MRS. JENKIN-Could you start with someone else, please? I’m not sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich, do you want to go? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. I think what’s most needed here is what the builder agreed upon is, which is Site Plan Review for each and every individual lot here. There’s some environmental concerns here that are going to need to be addressed at Site Plan Review. Overall I think the proposal isn’t asking for a tremendous amount of relief. It’s a huge parcel, and I don’t think four houses is necessarily overwhelming for a parcel this size. I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m comforted by the fact that Site Plan Review would be required, particularly in the emergency and fire situation there. The Planning Board well stated that I think their concerns, and it seems like the Bay Ridge also addressed their concerns with that. So as long as that is accommodated, I would be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-And the lot width requirements, you guys don’t have a problem with that? MR. URRICO-They’re big lots. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Okay. John, do you want to go? Go ahead. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. I have no reservations. You’ve answered all my questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I looked at, you really can’t configure the lots any differently because of the width of the whole parcel, and dividing it in half, with a road that goes through, you really can’t change anything, especially with all the hills and dales and everything else. I think Site Plan Review should be required for all the properties, absolutely, just because of the nature of the land, the environmental concerns, but I don’t think that the road frontage relief, when I was there, the one thing positive is you have actually pretty good sight both ways when you’re going on your property. There’s no huge hill that you can’t see oncoming traffic or anything. So that’s a plus there, and using just one driveway, of course, for all the four lots is a definite plus. So I would be for granting the variances, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I was intrigued by the lot line going down the middle of the road there. Other than that, I agree with the rest of the Board members. I think it’s a good project. I think that you’ve got a lot of land, and four houses on there is not a huge population. So I’d be in favor of it also. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would make similar comments. I think there’s, you know, the bus is only going to stop in one place to pick up anybody who’s in any of those proposed homes that are going to be built interior to the lot parcel as it exists now, and as far as the lot width, I mean, it is deficient as far as the lot width goes, but it’s not anything anyone’s going to notice. I think that the lots are, you know, all three acres plus, for the most part. So that[s plenty big enough for anybody to have for a property anywhere in the community, especially in the Rural Residential area. So I don’t really have a problem with any of it, either. So, I think the issues will be dealt with at Site Plan Review by the Planning Board, with the individual homes, and is that going to happen only as they’re built? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s just pending at some future point in time. Okay. Does somebody want to do this one? MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll try it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. KOSKINAS-Before I begin, Keith, can I just verify with you, relative to making a determination, Item Three, the relief requested will be the 265.9 feet, 66.5% for Lot One? And then we’ll move to the 38.5% relief for Lot One? MR. OBORNE-Correct, you’ve got it. MR. KOSKINAS-And then finally the 110 feet or 27.5% relief per Lot Three? MR. OBORNE-John, you’ve nailed it. Yes. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. MS. GAGLIARDI-Did you close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2010 ERNEST BURNELL, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 419 State Route 149. Applicant proposes the subdivision of a 34.22 acre lot into lots ranging in size from 3.0 to 21.06 acres. The relief required. The applicant requests road frontage relief per 179-3-040 and 179-4-050. The applicant requests lot width relief for Lots One and Three per 179-3-040. In making the determination, the Board shall consider, One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance? The applicant could develop the property with a public road and avoid the request for road frontage relief, but it does not appear practical. Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial? The request for 265.9 feet or 66.5% relief from the 400 foot road frontage requirement per Section 179-3-040 for Lot One may be considered moderate to severe. The request for 154 feet or 38.5% relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width requirement per Section 179-3-040 for Lot One may be considered moderate. Finally, the request for 110 feet or 27.5% relief from the 400 foot minimum lot width per Section 179-3-040 for Lot Three may be considered minor. Four, whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts may be anticipated. Five, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application, as required by New York State Municipal Law and Town of Queensbury Zoning Code, and that result was negative. SEQRA Status, Type II. Again, I move for approval of Area Variance No. 43-2010. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. BURNELL-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want some of your surveys back, so you don’t have to re-produce them? MR. CENTER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2010 SEQRA TYPE: II JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS AGENT(S): DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENV. DESIGN OWNER(S): JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS ZONING: WR LOCATION: 32 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION OF A 692 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR TO EXISTING ONE-STORY STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE, SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF.: BP 2006-183 RES. ALT; BP 2006-289 SEPTIC ALT.; SP 8- 2009; BOH 20, 2010 SEPTIC VARIANCE; SP 52-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: AUGUST 11, 2010 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES LOT SIZE: 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.08-1-4 SECTION: 179-13-010; 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2010, John & Sandy Lambrechts, Meeting Date: August 25, 2010 “Project Location: 32 Russell Harris Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 692 sq. ft. second floor residential addition on a property located adjacent to Harris Bay. Proposal include the retro-fit of existing wastewater system to accomodate an additional bedroom. Relief Required: Applicant requests 8 feet of shoreline relief for that portion of the expansion within the 50 foot setback. Further, the applicant requests 18.2 feet of north sideline setback relief and 2.0 feet of south sideline setback relief for the second story addition. Finally, the applicant requests relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the neighbor to the north may potentially be affected due to the close proximity of the expansion. 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. Lot limitations and the nature of the request preclude any feasible method other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet or 16 percent relief for that portion of the expansion within the 50 foot shoreline setback per §179-3-040 may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 18.2 feet or 91 percent relief from the minimum 20 foot north side setback requirement per §179- 3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 2.0 feet or 10 percent relief from the 20 foot south side setback requirement per §179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board per §179-13-010. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to moderate impacts on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated as expansion of shoreline structures could be potentially detrimental to the adjoining water-body. However, impacts can be mitigated by professionally designed Stormwater and Erosion and Sedimentation controls. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 52-10 Expansion of N/C structure in a CEA Pending BOH septic variance 18-10 Approved 7/26/10 Parcel History continued: SP 8-2009 Shoreline stabilization Approved 3/3/2009 BP 2006-289 Septic alteration 6/7/2007 BP 2006-183 Residential alteration Approved 4/11/2007 Staff comments: The Planning Board has issued a recommendation concerning this application as required by Town Code, please see handout. SEQR Status: SEQR Type II Application Protocol: 8/24/10: PB recommendation to ZBA – Complete, see handout. 8/25/10: ZBA review 9/10: PB review-dated tbd” MR. URRICO-And let me go to, the Warren County Planning Board reviewed this application and found No County Impact. Back to the Planning Board. The Planning Board made a motion to recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board in its recommendation says according to their resolution, based on their limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal. And that was approved seven, zero. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Dennis, do you want to fill us in? MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-So this is presently used as a summertime camp, I would imagine, from looking at it? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s a single family residence which is habitable year round. The proposal is to add an addition, vertically, it doesn’t expand the footprint of the residence at all, but adds the 692 square feet of floor area, in that, again, vertical dimension, above the existing structure, and therefore it requires the variances requested, expansion of a nonconforming structure, shoreline setback, which is no greater than currently exists, and the side setback, 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) which is no greater than currently exists, but because the expansion is upward, it is still within that setback, but it doesn’t expand upon it. It’s simply vertical expansion. MR. UNDERWOOD-The age of the septic system, that’s recently been upgraded then to the peat system? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, correct, yes. In fact, I would give the owners a little credit here, the Lambrechts. That’s the first system in the Town of Queensbury using the advanced treatment technology of the pure flow peat fiber system. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that looks like it’s about 195 feet from the lake, approximately? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s way back. MR. MAC ELROY-When the Lambrechts first purchased the property in 2006, that’s the first thing that they did was to upgrade the wastewater system and replace the system that was immediately in the back of the house, which, because it wasn’t a pump system, it had to have been right there and it was within 100 feet. So not only did they push the system back upgradient further away from the lake, they used the advanced treatment technology. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have any questions right now? MR. KOSKINAS-I have one. Did I understand, reading the text, that you have to expand that system for this construction? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Because the addition includes a bedroom, the wastewater system that had previously been designed and approved was for a two bedroom system. We need to expand upon that, and in this particular instance, it’s a matter of adding a third module, a third. MR. KOSKINAS-So that’ll be presented up at the top of the drive where the stone is? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. It’ll be inserted within that. If you happen to see the two. MR. KOSKINAS-More towards the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re actually going away from the lake. MR. KOSKINAS-You’re going away from the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-Parallel with the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, that’s where the system is currently. MR. KOSKINAS-I understand where it is. Where will you expand it? MR. MAC ELROY-Right in that same area. In the expansion of it, it’s not going to grow it physically. It’s a matter of adding a third module. If you happened to see the green box, by adding a third, which has peat fiber within it, that’s where the treatment occurs, the additional treatment. That’s going to be placed right in between the other two. MR. KOSKINAS-It’s a small excavation. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. KOSKINAS-That’s what I was really trying to understand. MR. MAC ELROY-Sorry. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? All right. I’ll open the public hearing up. Anybody from the here from the public, do you want to come up please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANN MC MAHON MS. MC MAHON-Hi. My name is Ann McMahon. I’m at 26 Russell Harris. So I’m just two doors north of them. To compliment them, they take wonderful care of their property. They’ve 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) got a great septic system, and I’m very glad that that’s going to be enlarged to accommodate the extra bedroom. The cons, it is a close neighborhood. All the lots are substandard. We are very close to each other. We can hear each other burp at night. Their air conditioner’s very noisy. Their generator is outrageous. It’s like having a tractor parked outside in your yard when the power goes off. So these reasons, because it’s a tight, small neighborhood, I think you have to be careful that your additions don’t overwhelm your neighbors. I don’t think their addition is going to bother me. I’m two houses away, but I do worry for the person in the little red house next door. It’s going to kind of overwhelm that house, but, I mean, I don’t know, if you do that in neighborhoods, you do that in neighborhoods. The idea of zoning is so that you can kind of keep everybody in their spots that you don’t overwhelm the guy next door. I mean, I don’t know. Like I say, they’re very nice people. They keep their place very nice, but, you know, things like air conditioners, you can hear them. Things like generators, you can hear them. How much do we want on these small lots? So I guess that’s my concern. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. I think everybody recognizes the close proximity, you know, and it’s no different than when you’re on Rockhurst or any of the other parcels up there that, you know, it is your own space, but at the same time, you’ve got to recognize that everybody has an impact on everybody else, irregardless of what happens, but I don’t know as if those issues of generators and air conditioners are germane to the discussion, you know, with us as far as it goes. The expansion, I think we’ve seen an awful lot of requests for expansions of second levels on the same footprints of homes, you know, on Waterfront Residential because a lot of these lots are pretty tiny up there, but at the same time, you know, recognize it’s not an extraordinary request, compared to any other ones we’ve had. It’s pretty similar to that. MR. URRICO-It’s within the Floor Area Ratio allowable for that property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As far as the height of it goes, you’re below the 28 feet, right. So you’re going to meet that height requirement. You’re not going to be overbuilt as far as oversized or anything like that. MR. KOSKINAS-But you won’t see the lake from the road anymore. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. GARRAND-No, that’s gone, for anybody driving by there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t know, as far as, you know, like the colors of the house. I mean, a lot of people have white houses up on the lake, and you wonder in this day and age why the Town hasn’t worked in more earthy colors like they’ve done in a lot of other Waterfront Residential areas, but I mean, that’s not within our purview to make that happen at this point in time either. Vegetation wise, you know, I mean, everybody can add more vegetation. That deadens the sound, too. You would think that with some of these smaller parcels people would have more hedgerows and things like that, like you see even in Metropolitan areas where it works pretty effectively, but that’s something for individuals to do on their own. I don’t think we can stipulate that ourselves. Any comments you guys want to make? MRS. JENKIN-Well, there’s only one comment I would make, it’s that 1.8 foot, on the existing house, and it’s true you’re only building on the existing footprint, but it would have been an opportunity to cut that part of the wing out a little bit and give yourself a little bit more room to the lot line, and did you ever consider that? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. I think it certainly was considered. One of the, from a building or an engineering standpoint, on the southerly side of the structure, existing structure, that’s where it’s not being expanded to a second level, and that has to do with foundation, because the foundation in that area, actually that used to be a garage. So it’s just a slab on that end. MRS. JENKIN-That’s the section that’s not being taken up the second floor? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s towards the Friars property there? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-On that side. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. So in order to achieve what the Lambrechts were hoping to achieve through the expansion, a third bedroom, and by the floor space and the area to have stairs, you lose one of the ones in the downstairs area. It gets replaced in that upper area. So that was, 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) you know, the consideration of what could be done in that, versus him not being able to expand without doing significant foundation work on the southerly end of the building. I don’t know if that explains it. That was part of the thought process that the Lambrechts went through, certainly. MR. GARRAND-What are they going to do to mitigate the impact of construction on the neighbor’s property? You’re going to have construction people walking over the neighbor’s property, and there’s less than two feet of space along the side of the house there. You’re going to. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. Well, that’s not totally unusual in those areas of Cleverdale and Rockhurst. Contractors will know how to deal with that, but the neighbors are friendly neighbors with the Lambrechts. While there isn’t a, I don’t believe there’s a letter that is anything negative, they’ve had conversations with both neighbors, made them fully aware of what the plans are, and there has been an understanding and an agreement that they don’t oppose the planned expansion. The next step would be, to get back to your point, they’ll just have to have an understanding. I think that the construction would be staged in the off season time. That’s the hope that if it’s successful through your Board, and then on to Site Plan Review by the Planning Board, that potentially this project could start this Fall, this construction season, and occur during the winter months. So that that would mitigate any impact on the seasonal structure immediately to the north. JOHN LAMBRECHTS MR. LAMBRECHTS-And when we did the renovation, four, five years ago, the contractor worked around most of that. I don’t think we had any issues. MR. GARRAND-Yes. You just got done. I was wondering why you were doing this all again so soon. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it was four years ago, four and a half years ago. They were new owners who took possession of the house and made cosmetic type improvements, and now that they’ve been there, John is retired, the idea would be to have a little more comfort on a year round basis. MR. LAMBRECHTS-And we may not have realized how small 900 square feet really was. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the vintage of what’s there now, Dennis, is it two by four or two by six walls in there? Are you going to have to beef it up to put a second story on? MR. LAMBRECHTS-The engineer that looked at it, Williams and Williams, went out and did a, so we knew what we were building on top of, said the foundation and the existing structure would handle the second floor without a problem. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MRS. JENKIN-I guess the other concern that I had, too, because it’s quite a bit lower, that when you do the construction work, and the machines and things that are necessary in order to actually aid in the construction, how are you going to manage that with getting rid of all the old building because you’re going to. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there’ll be a staging area in the garage area, up in the parking lot. Again, this is more in the contractor’s area of expertise, but there’ll be small equipment, whether it’s a little Bobcat type thing that would move materials, debris and what not, up to a truck for removal, but, yes, certainly that’s something that goes hand in hand with the construction process, and the more involved it is, hence the more costly, but that’s also not unusual around the lakefront area on some of these properties. MRS. JENKIN-Right. It’s not unusual, and it’s also a problem, too. MR. UNDERWOOD-So right now is it just, there’s no cellar under here, or there is a cellar? MR. LAMBRECHTS-Just a crawl space. MR. MAC ELROY-A crawl space in that area that’s proposed for the expansion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MRS. JENKIN-And the other thing that I would recommend, if we do vote positively on the variance, I mentioned it today when I was out there to you about the sloping down toward the home, that there has been some runoff there in heavy rains and everything, that a lot more plantings be put down to hold that, rather than just having a lot of mulch and a few plants, if you could have more extensive coverage of the type of low growing shrubs that are native to the area, because that would help a lot, because right now there is some runoff that comes down. MR. LAMBRECHTS-Sure, and we’re not opposed to that. We’ve started some of the, as you saw, some of the plantings on the hill. We certainly can finish that off. MRS. JENKIN-And the front area, you have the whole trees there, and that’s nice. MR. LAMBRECHTS-Yes, it’s beautiful actually. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you guys need to know? MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I will close the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board, and I’ll start with you, Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. I think that you’ve done a very nice job with the septic, and I think that the upgrade to it will be fine. I think it’s a good project. It looks like you’ve done your due diligence on this. It sounds like you’re good neighbors. So I’d be in favor of this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. My only concern is the height. Even though it’s within reason, I think it is going to have an impact on the neighborhood. That being said, I don’t think that’s enough for me to say no to the project. I think everything else weighs in their favor. So I’d be in favor of it, with the caveat that they consider their neighbors surrounding them, in terms of overwhelming them a bit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich? MR. GARRAND-I think one of the most important things we can do here is make sure the homeowner is well aware of the needs and concerns of the neighbors in this area, and also our concerns with respect to the mitigation and runoff into the lake from where they are and the impacts that their construction will have on the lake. As long as they’re aware of it and take precautionary measures to mitigate all this, I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan? MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I also feel quite strongly about those two issues that Roy had brought up, and also the runoff issues and the construction, the impact it will have on the neighbors, but I also think the project is a good one. I think it is a little overbearing for the house next door. They might decide to build a two story house, too. Who knows? I understand why you want to make it more livable. I certainly do, and I think that you’ve done it within the footprint, which is important, and you’re trying to make as little change to the property as possible. So I would be for the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. John? MR. KOSKINAS-I believe you’ve done a great job here. I can understand grilling, and that dog needs room to, and I like that dog. I think you’ve done a good job. I think it’s practical. I don’t think, compared to some of the things that people have asked for here, that you’re being particularly aggressive about floor space or additional space. It’s uncomfortable, 1.8 feet away from your neighbor, but your neighbor knows it. You know it. I’m sure you’re cordial. I think it’s a nice project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, and as far as I’m concerned, I think that the septic issue has been dealt with adequately. It’s not going to be any grand disturbance on the ground or anything like that. I think during deconstruction and demo, demo work, I mean, that’s going to be staged. It’s not going to take very long on that. The house is pretty small. They’d probably do it in a day or two, taking the roof off and getting on with the construction. My only question would be this. Once you tear into it, is the Town going to make them bring the rest of it up to standard, the walls downstairs? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. OBORNE-That’s a Building and Codes issue at that point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m going to guess that they’re going to make them reinforce or at least go to two by six to support what’s upstairs. They’re not going to let them build the two by four’s up there. I can’t imagine that that’s going to happen, but it may be more than you think before you’re done, but, I mean, you won’t know until you get in there, but at the same time. MR. LAMBRECHTS-It is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Recognize the comments from your neighbors. If you’re living that close together, it’s almost like in a city situation, and if everybody’s got their air conditioner going and their generator going when the power’s off, you know, and I live on a lake, too. So I know what it’s like, but everybody needs to recognize whatever they can do to make things better, you know, get a quieter air conditioner, or something like that. I mean, there are things that can be done and more plantings between the properties, and that delineates and makes your own little world of your own, but as far as the rest of it goes, I don’t think it’s any big disturbance on Lake George, and it looks like you’ve got adequate water supply because there’s plenty of water out front. So, does somebody want to take this one? Anybody who hasn’t done one? Okay. All right. I’ll do it. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2010 JOHN & SANDY LAMBRECHTS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 32 Russell Harris Road. The applicants propose a 692 square foot second floor residential addition on the property located adjacent to Harris Bay, and this proposal includes a retrofit of the existing wastewater system to accommodate the additional bedroom, and that was signed off by the Town Board of Health. As far as the relief requested, the applicant is requesting eight feet of shoreline setback relief for the portion of the expansion within the 50 foot setback. That’s the same as currently exists on the property as a single story building. Further, the applicant is requiring 18.2 feet of north sideline setback relief and 2 feet of south sideline setback relief for the second story addition, and again that’s the same, reflective of what’s there in the current building on site. It’s not considered that there will be any major undesirable change created in the character of the neighborhood. The building will be within the 28 foot height requirement, and that is going to be large because these other buildings are located in close proximity to each other, but at the same time, the lot limitations and nature of the request are not any different than what we normally see when people want to put a second story on their camp. The request for eight feet or 16% relief for that portion of the expansion within the 50 foot shoreline setback is considered minor as far as I’m concerned. The request for 18.2 feet or 91% relief for the 20 foot north side setback requirement is considered severe relative to the Ordinance, but it’s currently existing. It’s not going to be changed or lessened as a result of what’s going to be done, and the request for two feet on the south side setback requirement is minor as far as the Ordinance goes. Neither of the adjacent properties seem to have any concerns based upon what’s been proposed here, and it will fit in with the neighborhood, and we would expect that more of these single story camps are going to get changed over as time goes by. The major effect that this will have will be the septic issue, which has been adequately dealt with, and as far as that goes. Anything future that’s done on that property, you know, should be done to keep in mind the fact that everybody is in close proximity, and that, you know, future vegetative plantings are probably a good idea to lessen the noise factor. th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want your plots back, in case you need them? MR. LAMBRECHTS-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. We’ve got a set of minutes to approve. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 28, 2010 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2010, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joan Jenkin: 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) Duly adopted this 25th day of August, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Koskinas ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess we’re all set. Any big news for us? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I do have one thing I want to address the Board about. Because your meeting cycle is a little bit strange this coming month, in September, you’re starting off on the th 15, and that’s prior to the Planning Board. So you’re not going to get any recommendations. So you only have three items on that first meeting, but I have to stack that second meeting, not horribly. MR. UNDERWOOD-How many items? MR. OBORNE-Seven. MR. URRICO-Do we have a fifth Wednesday? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that because we’ve got those ones coming back that we postponed? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you tabled some. MR. UNDERWOOD-Two of them. MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So five new ones? MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s seven total on that second meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the nature of them? Are they complex? MR. OBORNE-Well, one of them is actually a dual same project. It has to do with R & T Antiques, and a setback issue on Montray Road, and a Sign Variance. So, I mean, I could take the Sign Variance and put it on that first meeting, but if you don’t like the Area Variance, it’s moot. So I’d much rather stack the two of them together. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s a combination one anyway. MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. URRICO-We have five Wednesdays next month. Is it possible to do meetings on the fourth and the fifth weeks, instead of doing the third and fourth weeks? MR. OBORNE-Well, the final agenda meeting is tomorrow. If you were to change that, as opposed to, it’s only one more item, and, you know, if you want to do that, I guess that’s fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is everybody going to be here for those dates? th MR. URRICO-I won’t be here for the 15. MRS. JENKIN-For the second one, you mean? The first one I won’t be here. The second one I’ll be here, and, Roy, you won’t be here for the first one. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re only three items on the first meeting, so it shouldn’t make any difference. What do we have on that night? MR. OBORNE-Off the top of my head, I don’t know off the top of my head, to be honest with you, but they’re strictly variances that do not require recommendations. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. All right. I don’t see a reason not to just stay on the schedule and not worry about it. If there’s only three items, it’s not going to take us that long probably. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/10) MR. OBORNE-Well, we do have our organizational meeting in January. We definitely should project out through the whole year, because this is an issue, with this whole change in the Zoning Code and the recommendations that come before you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and I think that they were trying to have the stagger done so when you, maybe when they make the schedule, they can do the Planning Board first before they do us. That makes more sense. MR. OBORNE-Exactly, and then that project would get done in eight days, hypothetically, which has happened quite often. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Can we get new copies of the Zoning Code? MR. OBORNE-We sent them out. MR. UNDERWOOD-We only just got our like uncollated ones, like just the pieces of paper. MR. GARRAND-We want hard bound. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’re not going to get one of these anymore? MR. OBORNE-If you would like to have it in a three ring binder, I could most certainly get you a three ring binder. I don’t think that’s an issue. MR. GARRAND-I just thought they’d have a copy already put together, the way it was previously. MR. OBORNE-I mean, this is the way I do mine, is in this, but I also have stormwater, subdivision and Sign Code in this, and you guys should have Sign Code and 179. I can certainly supply you with some three ring binders, but I’m not going to put it together for you, because I don’t know what your foibles are. MRS. JENKIN-Keith, one thing, though, you referred to with this Rural Residential, the 179-4- 050. MR. OBORNE-050, yes. MRS. JENKIN-I don’t think mine was in here. Was it 005? MR. OBORNE-Well, on that memo, I lifted it right off of. MRS. JENKIN-050. MR. OBORNE-Right, 050. MRS. JENKIN-Okay, except in Rural Residential. Okay. I‘ve got that. MR. OBORNE-Except in Rural Residential. Yes, and that’s something, moving forward, when those lots are aren’t fronting on roads, it doesn’t matter. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any major items of controversy approaching us on the radar screen, like in months ahead? Anything we should be aware of? MR. URRICO-Yes. Is Wal-Mart coming back? MR. OBORNE-No. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Chairman 32