Loading...
03-24-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 17-2021 Mark Prendeville 1. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Area Variance No. 19-2021 Madaline Drellos 13. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-33 Sign Variance No. 2-2021 Adirondack Trust Co. 17. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47 Area Variance No. 18-2021 Paul Derby 21. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-22 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 24, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. My name is Mike McCabe and I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the th Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Wednesday, March 24 2021. If you’ve not been to one of our meetings before, the procedure is simple. We’ll call each case up, read the case into the record, question the applicant. The applicant can present his case. If a public hearing has been advertised then we open the public hearing, take input either directly or written, from the public. When that’s done, we’ll close the public hearing. I’ll poll the Board and see how the Board stands on the application, and then proceed accordingly. So tonight our first application is AV 17-2021, Mark Prendeville, 102 Ash Drive. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MARK PRENDEVILLE AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) MARK PRENDEVILLE ZONING WR LOCATION 102 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2 STORY ADDITION WITH A PORTION OT HAVE A BASEMENT TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITION IS TO BE 1,518 SQ. FT. WITH 321 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 1,964 SQ. FT. AND THE PROPOSED IS TO BE 5,808 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT HAS RECEIVED AREA VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS SOUTH SIDE WHERE 10.7 FT. GRANTED AND 20 FT. REQUIRED; HEIGHT WHERE 28.9 FT. GRANTED AND 28 FT. MAXIMUM ALLOWED. AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR AN ADDITION THAT EXCEEDS 1/3 OF THE EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING HOME WITH AN ADDITION GREATER THAN 1/3. CROSS REF AV 37-2020; SP 48-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE .62 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.13- 1-58 SECTION 179-4-010 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2021, Mark Prendeville, Meeting Date: March 24, 2021 “Project Location: 102 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2 story addition with a portion to have a basement to an existing home. The addition is to be 1,518 sq. ft. with 321 sq. ft. of porch/deck area footprint. The existing floor area is 1,964 sq. ft. and the proposed to be 5,808 sq. ft. The project has received area variances for setbacks south side where 10.7 ft. granted and 20 ft. required; height where 28.9 ft. granted and 28 ft. maximum allowed. An additional variance is requested for an addition that exceeds 1/3 of the existing building floor area. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and shoreline planting plan. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming home with an addition greater than 1/3. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming home with an addition greater than 1/3 in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR Section 179-4-010 Residential Design requirements –conversion of seasonal home 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) The addition is to be 3,844 sq. ft. and the existing floor area is 1,964 sq. ft. 1/3 would be 655 sq. ft. The additional variance was identified during the Planning Board meeting of 1/19/2021 –the Planning Board tabled the site plan application pending the ZBA review of the variance request. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce the size of the addition however the applicant has explained the intent to maintain the existing structure to minimize disturbance. An entire new structure may cause more disturbance to the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 3,189 sq. ft. in excess of the 1/3 of the structure. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of 1,518 sq. ft. footprint and a floor area of 3,844 sq. ft. two story addition with a basement area. The submission includes site drawings of the addition to be built. The floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided. The addition is to be constructed away from the shore. The applicant has provided an updated survey.” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board passed a motion, based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was rd adopted on March 23, 2021, and that was a unanimous, 6 -0 vote. MR. MC CABE-So we’ve had quite a bit of discussion on this particular project already. I assume Tom Hutchins is out there someplace. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I’m here, Mr. Chairman, and also Mark and Julie Prendeville are on, too, I believe. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I have to say, I was unaware of this one-third requirement here. I’ve never run into it before, but is there any other, so this was discovered during the Planning Board. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I mean we were all somewhat unaware of it. I have run across it in years past, but it has been some time, and what it essentially says is when an existing seasonal residence is converted to a year round use those provisions come in, and, yes, frankly, that wasn’t in the original application. We’d like to be able to just clean up the record. The project itself has not changed from what you’ve seen. We’ve updated some of the survey information and we’ve hired an abstracter to review some claimed rights of way and we believe that issue has been resolved, and we’ve issued a new current signed, sealed, certified survey based upon an abstract that shows all the rights of way that exist on the property, and none of those impact the project whatsoever. So besides that, the project really hasn’t changed at all from what you’ve seen. So if you want me to go into greater detail on it, I will, otherwise I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. MC CABE-So, I’ll ask the Board, do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve got a question. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MR. HENKEL-When you originally came to us with this project, they had said the original building is not going to be used during the winter anyway. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. HENKEL-It’s not going to be winterized. It’s going to stay as is. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Right. So you’re really only asking, so it’s kind of a weird. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s a little bit unique. It’s a historic structure. It’s on a modified pier foundation. It would really not be practical to try to winterize it and although it looks of considerable size. A lot of that area in the existing structure is a wraparound porch. If you look at the floor plans, the existing building is not very big. So what they propose to do is add their winterized section, add their addition and make their addition winterized. It would have an exterior door between the two structures or the two areas and it would be one structure, and then they would have the old residence for summertime use as well, and then a winterized portion, A lot of the winterized portion is a two car garage which isn’t unreasonable. MR. HENKEL-And you’re still below the FAR variance anyway, by 139 feet. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we’re compliant with FAR. We’re compliant with permeability. So, yes, density wise, we’re compliant with all Code provisions. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Well I just want to ensure, because I think we asked this before, it’s coming back to me. There are two kitchens, but there’s no potential here for using that as a second home. You’re not winterizing it. MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct. The existing kitchen in the existing residence is going to remain as a kitchen. Actually the bathroom that’s in the existing residence is in that little shed that comes off the back of the residence which is being removed. There will be no bathroom in what is now the existing residence because it will be removed. So there will be a kitchen, but that will be the only plumbing in the existing residence. MR. HENKEL-Like a summer kitchen. MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody out there who has input on this particular project or see if there’s any written communication. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Okay. So I first have, I have Bill Clark. I’m going to let him in as a panelist. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Bill, are you there? Bill Clark, are you there? Is he muted? MRS. MOORE-He’s not muted. I’m not quite sure where he is. MR. URRICO-I don’t see him on the attendee list. MRS. MOORE-Right, because I moved him to panelist. So he’s on your, I can ask him to start a video. Let me see what he’s doing. MRS. HAMLIN-There he is. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Bill, can you hear us? JULIE P MRS. HAMLIN-He’s muted or something. MRS. MOORE-Bill, we can’t hear you. You don’t have an audio connection. MRS. HAMLIN-You could chat with him and tell him to fix the audio. MRS. MOORE-He can hear me, but his audio’s not working. So, Bill, if you don’t mind, I think I’m going to mute you out, and I think Anne Clark is the next one. MR. MC DEVITT-There’s a note there from Mary Hilliard. Yes, it’s gone now. It says we can’t see. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MRS. MOORE-Correct, because my screen is active. MR. MC DEVITT-That’s the reason. MRS. MOORE-That’s the reason. So I still don’t see Bill’s. So I’m going to scoot Bill out. Hold on. Maybe he can either. MR. MC CABE-Well why don’t we move to another participant and give Bill a chance to get organized. MRS. MOORE-I’m going to do that, and then I have the next person that’s up is Anne Clark. So I’m going to move her into panelist. Here she comes. So, Anne, if you could unmute. I can hear Anne. ANNE CLARK MRS. CLARK-Okay. My name is Anne Clark. I am, I live next door to the Prendeville family on the lake. I’m 88 years old, and I would like to have my daughter read my three minute statement please. MR. MC CABE-Sure. LINDA CLARK MRS. L. CLARK-When considering Mr. Prendeville’s “extension” proposal, we ask that the Town of Queensbury do its due diligence and expect that all areas of compliance according to town codes are met with the entire piece of property, from the lake front to the western end accessing the road, and the size limits of the building be restricted as per Town Code 179. This house next to a house project is a gross overreach of requests for Code variances, and I am adamantly opposed to the project as presented. This structure is ridiculous in size and scope for the plot that it is intended, and it produces an undesirable change in the neighborhood by overburdening a property and creating a multifamily structure. The proposed addition is nearly two times the size of the existing structure and unacceptably exceeds the Town limit. Since one third of the existing floor area is approximately 655 sq. ft., and this is the limit of the size of the extension according to Code 179, this variance is grossly beyond a reasonable request and sets a dangerous precedent for others who want to exceed building limits in a water front residential area. Let’s call it what it is. This project is actually two functioning houses built next to one another. The old house includes one kitchen and one water closet. The new house includes one kitchen, one water closet and a toilet with a toilet, sink and laundry use area and an additional full bath. There are two functioning houses in this plan. Nowhere in the Town Code is there any allowance for a year round home to be attached to a summer residence. In fact all applicable Codes are built to prevent this from happening. This must be considered a conversion and updates to the old structure are essential. The applicant st received a setback variance on October 21. The Code required setback is 20 feet. The applicant proposed a setback of 10.7 feet. The basement exit on plot plan was not considered part of the setback approval on the Russo side. The variance approval was for the setback from the house. Shouldn't the basement entrance, which is four feet away from the Russo line, be the line of the variance request rather than the corner of the building? The septic tank and absorption field ,is designed for a 4 bedroom house. The Town should expect that all areas that are "unfinished" in the plans be considered bedrooms, If the Town approves of this size structure, the Town must require a septic for a 6 bedroom house. The applicant has repeated several times that there is no intent to rent out the 6 bedroom house. However, he has a long history of renting the building and an advertisement for rental available online in December of 2019 with winter activities listed, offered 3 bedrooms for 6 people. If it were not for COVID, the "winter'' section of the house would have been rented by winter of 2021. Therefore ,the rooms the applicant claims to be unfinished storage areas should be considered bedrooms. Although the applicant may claim that he will only use the rooms for storage, any future owner or occupant may not abide by the same promise. Finally, one must look carefully at the extensive window design and ask why someone would put these expansive and expensive windows in a storage areas. Finally, the proposed location for the septic absorption field encumbers my right of way over the north western section of the original property. An extensive abstract has been prepared which goes back to the original property owners in the 1800's. If the Town approves this project and the Prendevilles' continue, I will commence with legal action to have the septic removed from the right of way, even after its installation. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have the next person? MRS. MOORE-So Linda Clark is next. I’m going to move her in. MRS. L. CLARK-My three minute presentation is different, as the Board has requested, and it is in regards to my property which is on the western end of the Prendeville project. Okay, and I’ll try and keep it to three minutes. When considering Mr. Prendeville’s full house extension, I ask that the Town of Queensbury expect that all areas of compliance according to town codes are met with the entire piece of property, from the lake front to the western end accessing the road, and the size limits of the building be restricted as per Town Code 179. This project is a gross overreach of requests for Code variances, and I am adamantly opposed to the project as presented. This structure is ridiculous in size and scope for the plot 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) that it is intended, and it produces an undesirable change in the neighborhood by overburdening a property and creating a multifamily structure. Since the entire property is being used to develop this project, then it seems that the entire property should be in review. The applicant has not presented a landscaping plan for the entire property at per the Town’s application. This property borders four other property owners and the western end of the property has been recently altered to negatively impact the neighborhood. The applicant’s plan only addresses the lakefront and the area surrounding the house, which is an egregious oversite to the neighborhood not bordering the lakefront. According to the applicant’s responses, the proposed project has been designed to be in compliance with principles of good site access, traffic flow, and safety and general welfare of the neighborhood and has been designed to not impact the natural, scenic, aesthetics of the Town. This is not the case. The western section of the property which leads to Ash Drive is not in compliance with this statement. There are many dead trees in this area of the property that pose a danger to surrounding neighbors, and the area along my property border is used for dumping of grass clippings, leaves, fireplace soot, branches. All of this is located 40 feet from my front door. On th October 27, Mark Prendeville informed my brother and I that the dirt removed for the basement will be relocated to the property line bordering my property to create a dirt berm. This intent does not follow the Town Code for the general welfare of the neighborhood or the Town Code’s intent to not impact natural, scenic, aesthetics, of the neighboring properties. A lack of plan for the entire property puts the neighboring properties in peril and these actions may adversely impact home values. In the same western area during the summer of 2020, several large trees were removed to allow for space to park boats, trailers th and cars, and to run a 4-wheeler around the property. On Monday October 19, 2020, without a permit, a 10 x 12 shed was moved to this location after the removal of additional trees. Also there is a large, roofed, permanent sign in this section of the road access property which is used to identify his property for renters. There was no permit for this sign. The Prendeville’s response to the re-opening of the right of way was to install approximately one dozen “No Trespassing” signs on nearly every tree facing my mother’s and my property and he also threatened to shoot us if we were to use the access. Additionally the applicant has place vehicles, cement blocks and several mafia blocks in the right of way to block the access. Again, an unsightly environment has been created to damage the surrounding properties. Finally, the plot plan does not account for parking especially for a house with a potential usage of six or more bedrooms, and it does not account for snow placement which will impact water runoff and the shared right of way. What is the plan for these things? What will the Town do to protect the neighboring properties. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-All right. So Jeff Meyer has his hand raised. I’m going to scoot him in here as a panelist. Jeff, if you want to unmute your mic, you can speak. Thank you. JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-All right. Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr. Chairman, members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I did submit a letter and some additional paperwork which hopefully can be provided to you. My preference is not to read my letter, but that’s not to say anything that’s included in the letter isn’t of great importance. The provision in the Code that we’re talking about, as the old timers will know, that it’s been a by-product of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan that was adopted by the Town and it’s specifically included in the zoning to protect Critical Environmental Areas that are at risk of overdevelopment. The language provides for an expansion of one-third, which in this case we’re talking about 654 or 55 square feet of space. The applicant is proposing 3800 plus square feet of additional space. The resulting proposal is a 600% increase over what is currently permitted. This is just a staggering number, and if you go through the criteria that this Board is tasked with reviewing, you find that it does not satisfy the test and not only does it not satisfy the test, the applicant hasn’t even provided you folks with the information to support any findings that the Board could make in attempting to justify this request. It is absolutely an undesirable change that will occur to the neighborhood. If you take the half mile plus of shoreline from the Docksider south, to the wetland on the other side of Ash Drive, the average house size is 2100 square feet. What is being proposed is 5800 square feet. One of the largest houses in this area is the Casino which is an outlier in its own right because it used to be a commercial property. Even the Casino is smaller than what is being proposed by the applicant, and I heard in earlier conversations, well, you know, there’s the garage, there’s this space, there’s that space. If you break this house out in different chunks, the garage by itself would require a huge variance. The living space on the first floor would require a variance. The 2,000 square feet plus of storage, and unfinished space in the basement, would all require a variance. There’s no escaping the fact that this is a massive house and an overdevelopment of the property. The applicant has noted that there are feasible alternatives. The house doesn’t have to be that big. There are options in dealing with the existing residence which sounds like it could be a historic structure. Just because he wants to build this giant house doesn’t mean he has a right to build this giant house. There is no inherent right to the overdevelopment of property in Queensbury. You guys are merely the relief valve. The meeting last week you were talking about how certain variances are more or less sacrosanct. You stayed away from increasing the roof heights and things like that. This should be one of those things. It is an overdevelopment. The house is squeezed into the narrowest portion of the lot, and they’re building out every square inch that’s physically available. Again, this variance is substantial. The applicant recognizes that it’s substantial. So there’s three of the five in the test. Is it self-created? It’s absolutely self-created. So there’s four out of the five in the test. Will it have an adverse physical impact on the environmental characteristics of the neighborhood and the district? Absolutely. You have the two neighbors to the north, who I represent, Anne Clark and her daughter Linda Clark, and this is going to impose on their property The 2007 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) Comprehensive Plan talked about preserving visual impact to Critical Environmental Areas. Linda Clark is going to stare at the back of this giant house where she used to be able to enjoy views of Glen Lake. Anne Clark is going to lose all southern exposure on her property because this giant house which now extends almost 30 feet in height is going to block a lot of that lake and a lot of that exposure. The unfinished space was also touched upon. The renderings that were supplied by the applicant’s architect don’t distinguish or show any difference between the finished and unfinished space. It shows hardwood floors throughout. Granted it’s just a rendering, but this Board has to assume that it’s going to finished. If I were to put sheet rock or replace the sheet rock in my garage, that doesn’t necessarily require a building permit. There’s no mechanism for the Town to even keep tabs on what’s living space, what’s not living space, what’s been represented, what’s been misrepresented, and your only chance is now, and in order to properly size the septic system and understand the full magnitude of the development, now is when you make those decisions. Otherwise, again, you’re segmenting a project which I know this Board hates, because it comes up every meeting. So in closing I do want to kind of highlight two other things that my client noted, was the bilco door does require a variance. The language, as it relates to basement doors, is only applicable when they extend no more than 18 inches from the building, and that’s in the Definitions in the Code, and we’re talking about six feet. So that would require a variance to encroach on that side, and additionally we, too, did a full abstract for my client’s property and the Prendeville’s property and we would respectfully disagree with the conclusion that Matt Steves reached. Presumably we have the same abstract. I’m happy to provide you guys with a copy if you’re interested, but the absorption bed location, it’s reasonable to assume that it may need to move in the future, and the impact of, well it looks like grading wise it would require pumping to go up gradient to maybe where the existing driveway is out back, but these are considerations that the Board should take into account. So in closing I respectfully request that this Board deny the requested variances as they are substantial and would result in a 600% increase in what is permitted per Code. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So next I have Bill Clark. Bill, you’re on. There he is. WILLIAM CLARK MR. CLARK-Thank you. My name is William Clark, and I’m the son of Anne Clark who lives right next door to the proposed Prendeville building project. The scope and size of this project being proposed for this small lakefront property is completely unacceptable for our environment and we all know it. Shame on all of us if we do not establish limits. We keep granting variances, waivers for this building project. It’s lunacy. To not follow zoning requirements sets a bad precedent for residential communities living on all lakes in New York State. The following are red flags. The number of variances, waivers, and re- submission of project due to uncertified survey, and then the new survey is not completely accurate. Lot lines, lot size not clear. Site area not matching deed. Shed placement without permits. Is roof of shed calculated in non-permeable surface? I don’t know, but making decisions on variances when data is skewed for example on Page Three of Site Development plans data area, the current drive is dirt. By putting in a paved driveway you cannot improve surface permeability by 413 square feet as proposed. This data is inaccurate. It causes me to question the validity of choices being made on variances and project scope. I th wonder what else there is. I witnessed and videotaped on November 10, 2020, a said perc test by Ellsworth Excavating company. This perc test was not done according to specifications. There was no water. Just because the company says they did it does not mean it was done properly. All lines of declination flow towards Glen Lake. They also flow towards Russo and down all in Russo’s area. Where is all this water going to go? Right into the lake. Do we just take the word for Ellsworth or the contractor? Do we have our own that are checking? Is the Town, community double checking concerns for topography being changed on side of property toward Anne Clark, Mr. Russo, Linda Clark, and Glen Lake concerns me greatly. Please will the Town of Queensbury zoning follow the Town Codes which were established to protect the environment and the concerned citizens that live in this community. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have Mary Hilliard. MARY HILLIARD MRS. HILLIARD-My name’s Mary Hilliard. I live at 79 Ash Drive. I’ve lived here for 31 years. It’s obvious here there’s quite a bit of tension in the neighborhood. I respectfully disagree with a large amount of what’s been said tonight. Specifically that this is an undesirable change to our neighborhood. I think it’s quite the contrary, actually. This is a win/win/win. I see it a win for the lake. We’re getting a new septic system, and I know the Board is interested in that. It’s a win for the ecology around the lake. There is a new vegetation plan. It’s a haven for wildlife. It’s a win for the neighborhood. It’s an upgrade to property. There’s no way around that. Despite what has been said tonight, this is a very big upgrade that’s going to improve everybody’s property values, including the people that have objected to this. It’s a win for the Town. It has a higher tax base, and most importantly, and last but not least, it’s a win for the Prendeville’s. They have maintained two residences for over 60 years here and they want to have one residence and not have to pay for two residences, which is obviously the reason for the storage. It’s not, there’s accusations here of renting, a long history of renting. I’ve lived here 30 years. I don’t even remember anybody renting, but that may be true, which is the owner’s right and it’s not appropriate for this venue to dispute that. There’s other ways to do that. It’s also a win for the historical nature of the building. Instead of knocking 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) this home down they’re preserving it. It’s the second oldest building on the lake. The long and short of it is they’re adding three rooms. They’re adding a living room, a kitchen and a bedroom, and I’m not sure who anyone is, who is anybody here to say how they’re going to use the building. I think they’ve said that, and they are combining several homes. I think that’s also what they explained. Some of the other legal things that were mentioned, this alleged right of way and surveys, I think there’s a long history of this Board, Zoning and Planning actually, of dealing with what’s in front of them, and they have a legitimate survey, and a right of way, this is not the venue to dispute that. I know that you have said that there’s a long history of the Board saying that they only, if you didn’t, if you made decisions based on neighborhood disputes, you’d never make any decisions at all. I know I’ve been on the other side of this, so I can attest to that. If there’s any issues legally they need to go to court to resolve them. It’s not appropriate to ask you to deny a project because of disputed rights, and it does appear there’s some, I would say, personal issues between some neighbors that really shouldn’t be brought up here and aren’t appropriate. The Prendeville’s have been good neighbors. They want to age in place. They should have a right to age in place. I think their project is well done, and, one, the project is deserving to be approved so they can enjoy and live out the rest of their life. There’s no peril here. I think there are numerous requests.. The Number Four topic, I think, on this agenda is also a request for doubling the size of a house or even tripling. So there is also a lot of precedents for granting variances for relief of a floor plan that maybe larger than what was originally there. I hope the plan gets approved for the sake of the Prendeville’s. I think there’s overwhelming neighborhood support for this, and I believe that the scope and size of the project is not unreasonable, and as I said before there is a history of granting these kind of variances so people can live out their lives in comfort. I know all the people that objected to day got to expand their homes and improve their homes so they can live more comfortably and I just hope this Board grants the Prendeville’s the same way. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’m going to let in Carol Snyder. Carol, if you’re here, you can unmute. CAROL SNYDER MRS. SNYDER-Hello. My name is Carol Snyder and I would like to speak against the expansion of Mr. Prendeville, and I just simply want to state that the Town Code is that he is only supposed to be allowed one third the size of the existing structure and he’s looking for a 5,800 square foot proposed total floor area, and yet he only wants to live in 866 square feet. So less than 1,000 square feet is what he’s proposing to live in, and he wants a variance from the Town Code for storage area. I have a hard time understanding why the Town would allow that when he only wants to live in a small area of his home. So that is my only objection is that we shouldn’t allow a variance for storage. If he wants storage, put it in the back part of the property where it’s not going to affect the lake or the neighbors. Build a storage unit in the back area of the property, but I have trouble offering a variance for storage area, and that’s all I have to add. Thank you for allowing me to make a comment. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. Next I have a Mary Ann Clark, and I apologize. I don’t know if that’s the same as Anne Clark. So I’m going to promote them to panelist. MARY ANN CLARK MRS. MARY ANN CLARK-Hello. Hi, my name is Mary Ann Clark. I am the daughter-in-law of Anne Clark, and I am speaking as someone who is opposed to the project. Due to the magnitude of this project and all previous discussion points. MRS. MOORE-Mary Ann, we can just barely hear you. You’re cutting in and out. No, Mary Ann, I understand that you are against the project. I will try to, if you can write it in the chat, we can share that with the Board members, but I’m going to put in Lisa Doster that’s in line here. Sorry about that. LISA DOSTER MRS. DOSTER-Good evening, all. Lisa Doster, Ash Drive. At the last Zoning Board meeting for this property location, which was granted an approval for height and setbacks, a Board member brought up the change of use issue, and also stated that the old house would need to be brought up to Code. Change in use affects the property as a whole. So if it is changing from seasonal, a 260 classification code to a year round single family residence, which would be a 210 code, then the Town Code only allows for an increase of a one-third addition. In this case, the addition they wish to do is larger than the current main house that they wish to keep as a seasonal residence, and the new larger expansion is to be a new year round residence. This results in making the new property use a multi residence use which would now be required to be coded a 281, and Town Code does not support this. Town Code, in a Waterfront Residential district, only allows for a single family residence, see Chapter 179, residential table showing what is allowed in a Waterfront Residential zone and multi residences, multi dwellings and duplexes are not allowed in a WR zone. This applicant is asking the Board for the best of both worlds by adding a new use residence and also keeping an older seasonal use residence that will not be winterized or brought up to today’s code standards. Zoning Article 13, Town Code 179-13-030 Change in Use, if a non-conforming use is replaced by another use, the new use shall conform to this chapter. Any development of a property located in a 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) Critical Environmental Area must comply with 811 of New York State Executive Law, Article 27only one single family residence is allowed. Conversions of existing uses are allowed from their previous use to only a single family residence use and need to conform to the overall intensity guidelines and restrictions. Any existing use or development being restored, rebuilt, increased or expanded in no case can violate or increase any non-compliance with the minimum setback requirements and restrictions. So even if there is a change of use, it is required to be that of a single family residence, meeting all setbacks. Some solutions to the problem might be, one, change the Town Code to allow multi residences in a WR zone, two, upgrade and winterize the original house to make it year round and add a significantly downsized addition to that of less the size of the original house, meeting all setbacks and requirements as Code requires or, three, tear down the original house and build a new year round single family residence that meets all setbacks and requirements. This application, as is, should be denied. The addition is not really an addition, with that of the size of a whole new bigger house being attached to an existing smaller outdated resulting in a multi residence classification. Also the new Town septic law is put in place to protect the lake and the new survey notes clearly state that the property is subject to easements, but is vague and does not depict them. The Board should require these rights to be identified. What if the placement of the septic is wrong and could be impacted due to driving rights.. If there is an emergency, let’s say, and a fire truck were to drive over an approved location of the new septic, that could result in a failed septic system that may not be noticed for years until the property is transferred. This could leach into the adjacent property wells and to the lake unnoticed. We are just experiencing an issue in Queensbury where a landfill failed and has been leaching for some time into the adjacent property wells causing health issues. Problems like these should not be happening. At past meetings the Boards have stated they do not get involved in civil cases. However, if the Board errs its judgement and grants approvals and allowances outside that which is just, then in fact the Board could potentially be involved in such civil cases. Let’s keep problems from occurring and do the right thing. MRS. MOORE-<Mr. Chairman, that’s three minutes at that point. MRS. DOSTER-I’m all set. Let’s keep problems from occurring and do the right thing from the start. Please, it’s time to set the right precedents. Thank you. MRS. MOORE-I now have Emma Prendeville. MS. PRENDEVILLE-Hi. My name is Emma Prendeville. I am the eldest daughter of Mark and Julie Prendeville who are the applicants on this proposal. I just wanted to speak on their behalf. I know that tonight we have heard a lot of public statement from the Clark family, members of the Clark family and neighbors, and I just, you know, I feel like there’s certainly strength in numbers it seems, and sitting before the Board continuing to state a lot of utterances that, you know, people claim to be true does not make them so, and so there’s just a few things that I’d like to address that I feel, you know, need to be set straight, because it really is becoming a situation of the loudest voice in the room gets the most attention and I would love to keep this forum on the purpose of what it was intended to do, which is, you know, focusing on the truth and the purpose of the meeting with this application that’s in front of the Board, which I have full faith that the Board will do. My father is currently battling cancer and it’s almost, you know, I laugh a little bit when these come up that he wants to rent this property out for multiple uses and families and all of these things, when the entire purpose for our family is to build a single bedroom addition on a historic property that he and my mother could live in during the winter, since the front residence, which is seasonal, has no working bathroom in the winter and is not a seasonal residence. They cannot live there . I know that that’s been brought up multiple times, but I just wanted to reiterate there is no bathroom accessible section of the house in the winter. Therefore it is unable to be rented in the winter. It is unable to have multiple families being there at the same time. There is only going to be one bathroom. There’s been a lot of talk about right of ways. I’m very glad the Board is looking at these up to date surveys and abstracts that are in front of them and utilizing the information they have at hand. These have been done by of the absolutely accredited and licensed surveyors that were actually recommended to us by the Board. So there would be no issue with a septic or fire trucks or anything relating to this baseless accusation of a right of way when we have clearly proven that with surveys and abstracts that have been presented correctly. So those statements, I just felt it needed to be said again. Windows in the storage area were brought up as a claim that that storage area would be created in the future for this magical addition with bedrooms and wonderful things. I can assure you that’s not the case. I would love to know what material the windows are going to be made out of because I don’t think we have decided that. I don’t believe my mother and father have yet. So please enlighten us if you already know. In addition to that comment, I want to state that the storage area, for those of you not familiar with my family, the goal of this residence is to be where my father and mother can age in place and in doing so, they sold our family home that I grew up in for 29 years of my life, and we have a lot of items, heirlooms, boxes, things from my sister and I, that will need to be stored, and that storage area will be used for said storage as any parents would do for their children in having things that they want to be kept safe and in a proper area that can be stored. I think that, you know, in the public bringing up a lot of these comments about the home being rented, my father and mother are going to be living there. As Mary Hilliard pointed out, they’re going to be living out the rest of their life in this property. This is not something that they wish to rent out to the public. This is something that, you know, I enjoy coming to visit this lake. I’ve grown up on this lake, and I love the historic aspects of this property, which is one of the reasons why we don’t want to tear it down. We want to try to preserve 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) it. It’s a very notable presence on the lake, being the second oldest home, and I think there’s something to be said about trying to preserve that while still maintaining a very small livable area for my parents to age in place in. There were talks about tree removals that were done incorrectly. This is a false accusation. That was done completely correctly according to the laws that needed to be done. The shed was moved correctly, according to all aspects of the Code, another false accusation. I guess I’m just kind of running down a list of notes of things I feel need to be clarified, and that’s unfortunate because, to Mary’s point, I think this is a great addition to the neighborhood and to the Town in many, many ways. It’s also a wonderful addition for my family, for my parents to be able to age in place, on a piece of property that has been in our family for generations and we generally love and care about. So I thank you. Thank you so much for your time. MRS. MOORE-So I don’t see any other hands raised at this point. I do have some public comment letters, but I will read this, and then I’ll read the addresses that are associated with it. MR. MC CABE-Mr. Meyer indicated that he sent a letter, but he also made a presentation. Is that one of the written comments? MRS. MOORE-No, he’s not. So the written letters that were identified by those that read them into the record or they read highlights into the record, is Jeff Meyer has a letter and then also Linda Clark has a letter and documentation in the file. So if this Board wishes to see that, then they can request that information be provided to them, but she did highlight that. So let me just read through this prepared letter and then I’ll just read through the addresses that are associated with it. So this is, “We have reviewed the plans for Mark Prendeville’s addition to his summer camp located at 102 Ash Drive. We feel the new septic system would be a big addition to Glen Lake. We also agree with all construction plans and endorse this plan as a good addition to the neighborhood. Please approve this plan as submitted.” This is 84 Ash Drive, Kenneth and Mandy Diffenbach. The next one is 86 Ash Drive for David Hodgson. The next one is 82 Ash Drive, Barbara Frenyea. 76 Ash Drive for David and Carol Caruso. 27 Ash Drive, Scott Gunther. 38 Birch Road, JoAnne Pedersen. 41 Birch Road, Michael Mashuta. And then we heard from Mary Hillard and she was also in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-And that’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-Don’t we have to get some answers from Mr. Hutchins as far as some of the concerns? MR. MC CABE-Well, not really. I mean most of the concerns are not what we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with the one-third expansion. So didn’t hear anything that was. MR. HENKEL-Right, any different than what, right, I understand what you’re saying. Okay. I guess when we approved this the first time we didn’t know, or run into that problem, even though we should have been aware of that and that was kind of our fault as a Board. I like the historical part of this house. I’d hate to see that disturbed. What would concern me is if they were under the permeability. If they were grossly over the FAR variance, which they’re not, they’re under the FAR variance. Yes, it’s a pretty good sized home, but it is also away from the lake, the new addition, it is coming with a new septic system. I mean I would say I would be on board with it. I understand the concerns of the neighbors which are immediate neighbors, but also the other neighbors that are in the area are on board with it, too, except for the ones bordering it, obviously. I think that’s more of a conflict with personalities maybe, because with the information that we’ve been given it looks like everything’s been done right as far as the survey and that. So we as a Board can’t really question the professionalism of this survey. That has to brought up at site plan or by the engineers for the Town. So I would be on board with this addition, mainly because I’d like to see the historical part of that building stay and it’s still under the FAR variance which satisfies me. So I’d be on board. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I also am in favor of this project. I do appreciate what the neighbors have to say and they have some concerns. I also know that many of their concerns will be addressed by the Planning Board. It’s still under review by the Planning Board. They’ve tabled their discussions pending our review tonight, but I do agree with John. We approved this plan in October. So I’m still in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-Well a couple of things. One, I did go to visit the site, which was clearly labeled 102 Ash Drive, but it really doesn’t look like the home I’m looking at here. So I don’t know what I looked at. That home didn’t look that old, and I don’t remember it having this big porch on it. So I’m concerned about two kitchens. I was back when we approved. Granted the prior approved variances were reasonable. The height was reasonable. You actually increased one from the existing house, you know, better conformance there. It wasn’t really a big deal, and yes we are under FAR, but there’s this new rule that we didn’t know about with the one third, and this is far in excess of one third, and I’m just not hearing a good reason, I’ve renovated homes, it’s an older home, why the addition couldn’t be scaled back somewhat and do more renovation within that home, and I do see a water closet existing on the second floor of the existing home, if I’m wrong, so I think that I would be against it at this point as it is presented. I wish they could come back and explain why they can’t renovate the existing home. Maybe they want to add on, add a bigger, more modern kitchen and re-purpose that space where the kitchen is, but as it is, I think it is excessive and it’s certainly way more than one third, and it’s a precedent that we might regret. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m a little bit baffled by this curve ball that’s been thrown to us here with the one third addition on waterfront triggering this response that we’re dealing with here this evening, and I think that Roy and I have both been on the Board for many, many years. This has never, ever come up in my memory for us previously, any case that we’ve had on waterfront residential. So at this point in time I would like to see an explanation from the Zoning Administrator as to why this has never before appeared before us, why suddenly it pops up on the radar screen. I think that if indeed it’s true then I think in this instance here I would agree with Cathy that even though we’ve properly vetted and approved the request for variances for this project previously, I think this throws a wrench in the whole works and we have to go back to the drawing board if the Zoning Administrator makes a determination that this is a valid concern. So I’m not in favor of this project. MRS. MOORE-Mike, do you want me to interject or do you want me to wait? MR. MC CABE-Yes, go ahead, Laura. MRS. MOORE-So both for Jim and Roy’s benefit, I haven’t seen this pop up, and I’ve been here, I started here back in ’96. It may have occurred with other Planners at that point, but between Craig and I we have not seen this come up. So again us reviewing the Code as these applications come in and finding those, there’s typical triggers. This one, it’s correct. It’s something that’s in our Code, and it requires review by the Zoning Board if it exceeds that one third. MRS. HAMLIN-Laura, can I ask then, so what you’re basically saying is at least to your knowledge just nothing ever triggered it. MRS. MOORE-Not that I’m aware of. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s possible. Maybe the expansions weren’t that big, or maybe it was a complete new re-development of a home or a teardown and a buildup. It might not have triggered it, but it’s here now. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think given that information there’s a strong case that could be made to vacate our previous approvals, then. We’d have to go back and think about this from Square One from the beginning. I don’t think that we can just simply ignore the facts. MRS. MOORE-No, so that’s incorrect. Sorry, Jim. In essence you’ve already granted those variances. If someone takes issue with those particular variances they would file the appropriate course of action to address those concerns, but at this point this Board has granted those variances. MR. MC CABE-So, Jim, you’re a no, right? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m a no. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m a no on this project, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-For what reason? MR. MC DEVITT-I think in trying to, as Jim indicated, just this one third issue coming up is I guess puzzling to me. I think I need to probably understand it better, but in addition to that, I would say that I think this is substantial. I think it fails several prongs of our test and I think that the applicant could certainly potentially size this down and get what they’re looking for, but I believe that it’s substantial, and that would be my reason. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m looking at this as, I know they’re separate cases, but I’m looking at this as a continuation of the variance that was passed I guess back in October last year, and at that time I was not in favor of the project. I’m certainly not in favor of it now because I think we’re not granting minimum variance necessary. I think there are opportunities to shrink this and make it more palatable and I think it’s a substantial variance compared to what we’re tasked with, and like Jim said, I have not seen this before, but it’s here now, and I just feel it hard to approve something that I didn’t approve the first time it came around when it was much less of a variance, the variances were less. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And the way I view this is although it does sound substantial, when you consider what they’re trying to do here, in preserving the old original property, that’s the whole reason why we’re into this one third, greater than one third replacement. If they just tore down the old building and built a new building there’d be no issue here, and so I support granting this variance to save the old property. I mean the simple way out of this is just tear it down. Then there’d be no particular variance here, and as Laura pointed out, we granted the other variances, buy unfortunately there’s only three yeses here. So we’re going to need some guidance from the applicant here. So let’s get this straight. Roy, Jim, and Brent, you guys are against the one third, and, Cathy, you’re against having a second kitchen and a bedroom. MRS. HAMLIN-And the one third.. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you also have a problem with the one third. So I guess we’ll be looking to the applicant here. Do you want to table? MR. URRICO-Isn’t the one third the only variance we’re considering at this time? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. URRICO-So that should be the only consideration right now. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-Then that’s all I care about at this point. MR. HENKEL-They could tear down the place and build a bigger place and we’d probably grant it, because look what we’ve done in the area. That’s a concern. Now you’re going to take the old nice historical building down and we’re going to probably grant something over the FAR, and this is below the FAR. Look around the lake what we did, just last week what we approved. MRS. MOORE-So at this point, John, you’re in a hypothetical situation. You’re not re-designing someone’s project. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. I’m just saying you’d be getting rid of that historical building. MR. MC CABE-Is Jim still there? MR. HUTCHINS-I’m here. Yes. MR. MC CABE-So, Jim, do you want to table this and take another look at it or do you want us to take a vote? MRS. MOORE-Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-If possible, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add a couple of things, and then I think it would be good to give the applicants a chance to just air their opinion here briefly. They do feel they were doing a good thing by preserving this old residence. MR. MC CABE-And I feel that way, also. MR. HUTCHINS-And that the way this particular section is written is to their detriment in that they could indeed tear it down and build a residence of this size or even larger and they really, the residence has been in the family for a long time. They like it. They like the uniqueness of it, and that’s really the purpose of a variance process when there’s a unique situation that the Code doesn’t really hit then that’s why we have a Zoning Board, and they, again, feel they’re doing a good thing by keeping this residence, but I don’t want to go to a vote if we’re going to be denied. If Julie’s on, do you want to add anything? JULIE PRENDEVILLE 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MRS. PRENDEVILLE-Thank you very much, and I appreciate the chance to speak here to the Board. My daughter spoke, and I just want to reiterate that we have gone to great lengths to clear up a lot of questions that neighbors have brought up. We have gotten multiple title searches. We’ve gotten a new survey. We’ve gotten attorneys, title abstracters and surveyors agreeing that there’s no encumbrances from that neighbor on to our property with easement rights. They have none in that area. We have looked at the property very carefully to maintain the original residence. The property came into the family in 1933. So by looking at the existing plans, some people are misreading them. There is no bathroom facility in the original structure except the old shed part which will be pulled off. So when that’s removed, there is no bathroom in the summer residence. The summer kitchen, okay. We’re keeping a sink there, but there is no way that it can be multifamily or multi-use. The square footage in the back that will be winterized is going to be almost I mean on the very small side, going towards tiny home living, and that’s the only plumbing that’s available. The large space that the size of this is created by is the size of the garage. We’re boaters and we’re trying not to have our boats stored out in the backyard where the neighbors are complaining that trees are cut down to store boats, which is totally legal, but by us being able to put a boat in the garage with the two cars in the winter, it keeps it out of their view. We’re trying to keep the property aesthetics in mind. The windows above the garage where the storage area is, that’s for onlookers to look at the property from the outside and say that’s nice. Instead of a solid wall. It’s not for any other reason than we are trying to have it aesthetically pleasing. So the storage over the garage has no access to it other than through the garage. So you cannot get to it from the winterized part of the house. So that cannot be used as an added bedroom. It’s not for that purpose. We have two daughters and their families and we do have storage because we did sell a house. We’re trying to keep it in one location. MR. MC CABE-I’m going to interrupt you a little bit here. That’s not the issue. That’s not what we’re considering here. MR. MC DEVITT-It’s the one third issue. MR. MC CABE-It’s a geometric ratio here. We don’t care what the house is being used for. What we’re saying is simply that the addition is too much. MRS. PRENDEVILLE-And if I can just say that it would be too much to add a garage to the size of that 22 by 32 structure. That would put us over the limit as well, just to put a garage, even if we did nothing to it, and winterizing it is cost prohibitive. We cannot winterize that structure built in 1903, which is why we are not renovating it, and it does not have any way to have a bedroom on the first floor. So we have chosen to make that the winterized part of the house. My husband cannot do the stairs. So we do need a bedroom on the first floor. So the winterizing of that old structure is just not going to work for us. MR. MC CABE-And I understand that. MRS. HAMLIN-Mr. Chairman, can I just say something? I just want to clarify my position a little bit. I’ve helped write historic preservation laws. MR. MC CABE-Unless you’re going to change your vote, MRS. HAMLIN-Well, no, but I want it clear that I’m not in favor of this historic building being torn down, but I still haven’t heard a reason. MR. MC CABE-That’s the only way out here. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, no it’s not. I don’t believe it is. I’m sorry. If I can say this, we are entitled, as ZBA members, to offer alternatives. That is part of our task is to say did you think about this, and I haven’t heard a good reason why yet why the old house can’t be winterized. MR. MC CABE-Tom, can you add something to that? MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. The way I see it the fundamental issue is foundation wise. Much of the existing house is on a stone pier foundation from the early 1900’s. In order to put that on an appropriate winterized foundation where you could heat a structure through a normal northeast winter, that alone would be a tremendous venture without removing the house completely to do it. That’s what I see as the biggest hurdle on winterizing. I mean, yes, it can be done to remove interior walls and put in insulation, but when a house is on a pier foundation, to winterize it in an efficient manner, it’s cost prohibitive, and, yes, could it be done, sure? But it’s a monumental task. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So how much time do you need for tabling? th MRS. MOORE-So at this point it would be, if they were able to make an April 15 deadline for May. It would be subject to a May meeting or later than that. MR. MC CABE-So, John, could you make a motion here for? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. HENKEL-What’s the decision from Tom, though? We don’t know what he’s saying. Is May going to be all right or no? MR. HUTCHINS-If our choices are a denial or a tabling, I think we’ll choose a tabling. MR. HENKEL-Until when, though. Are we still talking May or is that not going to be good? MR. HUTCHINS-Maybe. Yes, we’ll do May and if we have to push it off, we’ll push it off. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So are we doing the first meeting in May or the second? MRS. MOORE-You’re going to do the first meeting in May. th MR. HENKEL-Okay. So the 19; MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark Prendeville. Applicant proposes a 2 story addition with a portion to have a basement to an existing home. The addition is to be 1,518 sq. ft. with 321 sq. ft. of porch/deck area footprint. The existing floor area is 1,964 sq. ft. and the proposed to be 5.808 sq. ft. The project has received area variances for setbacks south side where 10.7 ft. granted and 20 ft. required; height where 28.9 ft. granted and 28 ft. maximum allowed. An additional variance is requested for an addition that exceeds 1/3 of the existing building floor area. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and shoreline planting plan. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming home with an addition greater than 1/3. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2021 MARK PRENDEVILLE, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, thth Tabled until the May 19, 2021 meeting with any new information by April 15. th Motion seconded by Brent McDevitt. Duly adopted this 24 day of March 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application here is AV 19-2021, Madaline Drellos, 446 Luzerne Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MADALINE DRELLOS AGENT(S) JON C. LAPPER OWNER(S) MADALINE DRELLOS ZONING MDR LOCATION 446 LUZERNE RD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A SECOND GARAGE (672 SQ. FT.) IN CURRENT LOCATION AT BACK OF PROPERTY. STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY INCLUDE A HOME OF 1,680 SQ. FT.; ONE GARAGE CLOSE TO TH HOME OF 540 SQ. FT. +/-; SECOND GARAGE NEAR THE REAR PROPERTY LINE IS 1,950 SQ. FT. +/-; AND 336 SQ. FT. SHED. PROJECT SITE RECEIVED A USE VARIANCE IN 1988 AND REVISIT REVIEW IN 1989 (UV 1333) FOR A ON- MAN ENGINE REPAIR SHOP ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LUZERNE ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF UV 1333; AST 536-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-33 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2021, Madaline Drellos, Meeting Date: March 24, 2021 “Project Location: 446 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain a second garage (672 sq. ft.) in current location adjacent to the home. The site has an existing garage of 2001 sq. ft. that is used for storage; previously approved in 1988 for an engine repair shop. The existing home on the site is 1,480 sq. ft. Relief requested to maintain second garage. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage in the Moderate Density zone –MDR. Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant requests to maintain an existing 672 sq. ft. garage near the existing home. The applicant has explained the larger garage to the rear of the property was built in 1988 and was used as an engine repair now used for storage and the garage near the home was built sometime after 2000 but had not received the approvals. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the second garage is existing and has existed for some time. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial as only one garage is permitted per parcel. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain an existing second garage on the property for storage of a vehicle. The survey shows the two garages and noted the garage to the rear of the property to remain and used for storage.” MR. MC CABE-So do we have Jon Lapper here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Good evening, everyone. Because it’s getting late I’ll give you the simple story. Madaline has owned the property for 37 years. The garage was built by her ex-husband. It wasn’t permitted apparently. It’s almost a five acre site. It’s very well camouflaged by trees. As an older woman she needs the garage, as it was read in the application, because it’s close to the house. The other building is all the way by the rear property line, and there really is a big benefit to use it in the winter as a garage and there’s really no detriment to the neighborhood because the property is camouflaged and the size of the lot is, it could support two principle dwellings. It’s over four acres. Not that that’s proposed, but it’s just a big treed lot and I don’t see that there’s any detriment to the neighborhood to allow her to keep it. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve got a question. I was there like a couple of weeks ago. There’s no one using that. Obviously the property’s up for sale. Right? MR. LAPPER-She’s in Florida now. MR. HENKEL-Okay, because you were saying she uses the garage in the winter. I was going to say, I went back there. No one’s been using it in the winter. MR. LAPPER-This winter that’s absolutely true. She hasn’t been traveling back and forth. MR. HENKEL-And it is up for sale? MR. LAPPER-And it is up for sale. MR. HENKEL-Okay. My question’s been answered. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-So hearing no other questions, a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has input on this project or see if there’s any written. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-And again, if there’s attendees in the audience, if you could use the function in Zoom to raise your hand. I don’t see anybody with raised hands and there is no written comment. MR. HENKEL-My question to Laura is. I might have misread this or didn’t read it at all. The Special Use Permit, is that still attached to that garage in the back? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it’s a Use Variance, and it is still attached to that. MR. HENKEL-How come that’s not abandoned? MRS. MOORE-Right. So I was just thinking out loud to myself and I apologize. I have to go back to that section of Code. If it hasn’t been used as such, it may be considered not a use that’s allowed at this time. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that’s correct because if it was a grandfathered use it would be abandoned, but because it’s a Use Variance use, it runs with the property. MRS. MOORE-There you go. It runs with the property. Sorry. I apologize. MR. HENKEL-You’re right, Jon. Thank you. You’re right. Because I was going to say I live not too far from there. I live closer to the mountain and I go by there all the time and I haven’t seen that garage used in years. MR. LAPPER-She really feels that it’s part of the value of the property. That’s really what it’s about. MR. HENKEL-Understandable, Jon. MR. MC CABE-So we have no public input. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I have no problem with maintaining the building, but as we have just recently done, I would like to see that the owners somehow, I don’t know how you do this magic, Laura, but relinquish the Use Variance because it is for sale and it will be probably in the future anyway, and I would not like to see that use to be resumed. So keep the building, but if we could extinguish the Use Variance in some deal. I would be for it at that point. MRS. MOORE- MR. MC CABE-So you want to condition your yes? MRS. HAMLIN-That somehow that Use Variance goes away. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Use Variances go with the property, even if it’s sold to someone else. You can’t change them without someone raising a red flag. I think whether Mrs. Drellos continues to use this single garage in the back closer to the home, I don’t really have any problem with that whatsoever. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-As Jim indicated, I have no problem with it, either. As Attorney Lapper has indicated, this is very buffered by trees. I’ve been by it, I don’t know, on many occasions and many, many years ago, I think it might be the ex-husband, used to work on an old car of mine, and we’re going back probably 30 years ago. So I know the property. I think it’s pretty benign what we’re talking about here. So I have no problems with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. I don’t see any problems with it. MR. MC CABE-John? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. HENKEL-This is a large piece of property. It’s almost five acres, and I don’t have any problem with it, either. I think it’s a good project. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, favor the project. It’s been in use for 20 years. So I don’t see where we’re making any big changes here. So at this particular time, Brent, I’m going to ask if you’d make a motion for us. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Madaline Drellos. Applicant requests to maintain a second garage (672 sq. ft.) in current location adjacent to the home. The site has an existing garage of 2001 sq. ft. that is used for storage; previously approved in 1988 for an engine repair shop. The existing home on the site is 1,480 sq. ft. Relief requested to maintain second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage in the Moderate Density zone –MDR. Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant requests to maintain an existing 672 sq. ft. garage near the existing home. The applicant has explained the larger garage to the rear of the property was built in 1988 and was used as an engine repair now used for storage and the garage near the home was built sometime after 2000 but had not received the approvals. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 24, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. As we indicate it’s very well treed. We’re talking about several acres here. It’s a big treed lot. 2. Feasible alternatives, the buildings are already there. They’ve been there for many, many years. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the size of the parcel, because of the screening that’s involved here. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. There was a non-compliant lot built by the applicant’s ex-husband. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2021 MADALINE DRELLOS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-All right. Congratulations, you have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Sign Variance SV 2-2021, Adirondack Trust Co., 79 Main Street. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED ADIRONDACK TRUST CO. AGENT(S) JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(s) ADIRONDACK TRUST CO. ZONING MS LOCATION 79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE ADIRONDACK TRUST BANK UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT 79 MAIN ST. LOCATION OF SIGN PROPOSED IS 0.62 FT. WHERE A 15 FT. SETBACK IS REQUIRED. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A NEW SIGN IN THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SIGN 760-2020; SP 26-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10- 1-47 SECTION 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2021, Adirondack Trust Co., Meeting Date: March 24, 2021 “Project Location: 79 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 45 sq. ft. freestanding monument sign for the Adirondack Trust Bank under construction at 79 Main St. Location of sign proposed is 0.62 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required. Site plan review for a new sign in the Main Street zoning district. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for sign setbacks in the Main Street zone –MS. Section 140 –signs The sign is to be located 0.62 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 sign variance. Minimal to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to be limited due to the requirements for the building location that is under construction. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 14.38 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may not be self-created due to the Main Street requirements for setbacks. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to locate a free standing sign 0.62 ft. from the front property line. The building currently under construction is also in close proximity to the front property line. The plans show the location of the sign and the design of the sign.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was rd passed on March 23, 2021 by a unanimous 7-0 vote. MR. MC CABE-So, Jon, are you there? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir. MR. MC CABE-So I’ve got to commend you. You’re pretty efficient here. You couple these up so you can get everything done at once. MR. LAPPER-It would have been more efficient if I was before Tom tonight, but all good, thank you. Dean Kolligian from Adirondack Trust should be on also, Laura. I don’t see Dean. MR. LAPPER-He was on last night at the Planning Board, but that’s okay. I’m ready to go. MRS. MOORE-I don’t see him listed here. MR. LAPPER-So this is an interesting story. This is obviously an important and attractive new building in the Main Street zone because it’s one of the few new buildings since the re-zoning was done, and it’s kind of funny. Because it’s the Main Street and the new urbanism design, if you will, buildings are supposed to be closer to the street scape and in this, the Sign Code was not changed for the Main Street zone. So as all monument signs are supposed to be 15 feet back from the property line, here that would be into the façade of the building. The building’s located where it’s supposed to be, but there’s nowhere to put a monument sign where it’s conforming, and this isn’t an additional sign. It’s allowed to have a monument sign and that’s what they always contemplated because being on the corner there, when you’re coming from the Northway, the first thing you’re going to see is the monument sign. The design of the sign is attractive like the building itself. It’s a stone base, which is what Adirondack Trust does with their monument signs and their new logo on the sign. So it’s necessary for visibility, for people to recognize what it is, because it maybe so much doesn’t look like a bank more than modern architecture, but it does need to be there and there’s nowhere to place it that’s in conformance with the 15 feet. MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty straightforward and not the first time we’ve experienced this on this particular street. So at this particular time, do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve got a question. Wasn’t it thought of that it could have been put on the corner of the building and put up like maybe 15 feet in the air? Maybe that’s in the way there kind of because even though it’s away from the sidewalk it’s still kind of in the way. Wasn’t that ever thought of that it could be put on the corner of the building? MR. LAPPER-You mean a façade sign rather than a monument? MR. HENKEL-Well it’s sticking out. It can still be sticking out, but up in the air, just even. MR. LAPPER-Monument signs are usually considered more attractive because they’/re a little bit more understated and they can be landscaped. MR. HENKEL-I understand. It’s a very attractive building. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Does the Code, the Code doesn’t obviously require build to the line, then, because you have a little bit of a front yard there. MR. LAPPER-The Code requires, it’s a measurement back from the centerline of the road to get to the front setback in that zone. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Can we ask Laura a question? Size wise this is in compliance, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions. MR. HENKEL-But we also could request that it be a little bit smaller, too, couldn’t we? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you could. MR. HENKEL-That’s an awful big sign for that corner. If the building sticks out that’s like a sign itself, the building. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. LAPPER-Because you want people to be able to make that left turn, it’s not, any smaller I don’t think you’d see it. It’s a lot of stone. 45 square feet is a pretty moderate size sign there. It’s really, the architects designed it to complement that beautiful building. MR. HENKEL-I agree. MR. MC CABE-Any more questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Is it also by any chance compliant, I see there’s actually technically sort of like two signs there. Is that allowed? MRS. MOORE-There’s two parcels there. MR. LAPPER-I think she means double-faced. MRS. HAMLIN-No, the big circle A on the front, and then the monument sign. Is that in compliance? MR. HENKEL-Well they’re allowed a wall sign. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-They’re allowed the two? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That’s all one sign there. MRS. HAMLIN-No, I’m looking up on the building in one of these pictures. It looks like there’s a big A in the middle of the building. MRS. MOORE-So that’s a compliant sign that was done under a Site Plan Review. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So there’s no written comments, and I’ll ask if there’s anybody in the attendees if they wish to speak on this application, that they use the function in Zoom to raise your hand, and as previous, there’s no one raising their hand at this time. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I really don’t have a problem with the sign. I think when they re-designed this corridor and changed this zoning it really created some problems, but at the same time it also improved the look of that neighborhood. So I think this sign is conforming with what should be visible, and I think that would be something nice. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with Roy, there’s no doubt, it’s a good plus to the neighborhood, to that whole new zoning in the corridor. I’d be on board with it as is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. It’s a unique situation, given the change in zoning, and they need signage on the west side of the building towards Pine Street. So although it’s substantial, I am in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I see it was just some sort of oversight in the change in the zoning to match, the signs to match it. So I would be in favor as well. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the signage is exactly what we anticipated we would see on the Main Street corridor with the urban fronts on the buildings. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-As Jim just indicated, I think it’s exactly what was the intent of the plan with what’s occurred on that corridor. Things are finally starting to happen. I love this building. When I first saw it, I’ve got to tell you I was like I don’t know about this, and I really like it. It’s coming together well as Mr. Lapper indicated. They’re allowed to have a monument sign, but I think the stone base of the sign is very well done. There’s really attention to details these guys at Adirondack Trust. They do it right and I give them credit. So I’m in favor of this as it’s proposed, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-And so I also support the project.. So at this particular time I’m going to ask John to do SEQR for us. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 2-2021. Applicant Name: Adirondack Trust Co., based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 24th Day of March 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So, Michelle, could you give us a motion for the Sign Variance? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Adirondack Trust Co. Applicant proposes to install a 45 sq. ft. freestanding monument sign for the Adirondack Trust Bank under construction at 79 Main St. Location of sign proposed is 0.62 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required. Site plan review for a new sign in the Main Street zoning district. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for sign setbacks in the Main Street zone –MS. Section 140 –signs The sign is to be located 0.62 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 2-2021. Applicant Name: Adirondack Trust Co., based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 24th Day of March 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 24, 2021; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? As a Board we decided no, there will not. This monument sign will actually produce a desirable change in the character of the neighborhood and provide some needed signage on the west side of the property. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? No, which has been reflected in tonight’s dialogue. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Yes, it is, but when considering the total size of the project and the scope of the project, it is deemed amenable. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, it will not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? No, it was not. This is a function of a change in zoning by the Town. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance SV 2-2021, Adirondack Trust Co., Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 24 Day of March 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much, everybody. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 18-2021, Paul Derby, 31 Canterbury Drive. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PAUL DERBY AGENT(S) CLARK WILKINSON, PE OWNER(S) PAUL DERBY ZONING WR LOCATION 31 CANTERBURY DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 639 SQ. FT. UPPER LEVEL ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY HOME (2,044 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT) ALONG WITH SOME INTERIOR ALTERATIONS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF A CONCRETE PATIO/DRIVEWAY AREA REPLACED WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 2,683.9 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, CHAPTER 91 SEPTIC IN A FLOOD PLAIN, AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 15-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-22 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13- 010 CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PAUL DERBY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2021, Paul Derby, Meeting Date: March 24, 2021 “Project Location: 31 Canterbury Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 639 sq. ft. upper level addition to an existing single-story home (2,044.5 sq. ft. footprint) along with some interior alterations. The project includes removal of a concrete patio/driveway area replaced with permeable pavers. Proposed floor area is 2,683.9 sq. ft. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, Chapter 91 septic in a flood plain, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure, setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, setbacks, floor area, and permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-13-010 expansion The addition is to be located 32 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required; 23 ft. from the front where a 30 ft. setback is required. The existing home and the addition are to be 2683.9 sq. ft. floor area as proposed where 2040.3 sq. ft. floor area is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the parcel size, location and orientation of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for 18 ft. to the shoreline, 7 ft. to the front, and 643.6 sq. ft. in excess for floor area. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The addition is over an existing garage area and a new septic system is to be installed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an upper level addition over the existing garage of an existing single story home. The plans show the location of the addition and the existing hard surface area near the garage is to be replaced with permeable pavers.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board passed a motion that based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And rd that was passed on March 23, 2021 by a unanimous 7-0 vote. MR. MC CABE-So is the applicant here? MRS. MOORE-I have Clark and Paul. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, we are. MR. DERBY-Yes, we are. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. WILKINSON-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Board. My name is Clark Wilkinson with the Environmental Design Partnership, representing Paul Derby, the owner of the project, for this particular project. I wanted to give you just a little bit of background on the project itself. This is an existing, non-conforming lot as you stated of only 9,274 square feet. The width at the water is approximately 109 feet. So the front setbacks become 30 feet based on those widths. The existing two bedroom home was built in approximately 1965 and it does have 2,044 square foot of footprint, but only about 1350 square feet of living space as the rest of it is garage. There is an existing two car garage included with that, and that garage currently has a flat roof over it which is, as you are aware, can be a maintenance headache and that’s one of the reasons why that location was chosen as well as that’s the best place that we saw to add an addition to this property to better utilize the property. The existing height of the building is approximately 16 feet and the bedrooms are relatively small in this existing house and it has never been updated since 1965 and that’s what the owner currently wants to do is update it, make the bedrooms more useful, make the layout more usable, and he’s not adding any additional bedrooms. In addition, as stated, the applicant is proposing a new, state-of-the art septic system. It’s a Clarus system. If you guys are familiar with this, it’s an enhanced treatment type of system that not only treats the septic in the initial treatment, but there’s also a secondary treatment and in particular this is going to also have, the discharge is going to be treated with ultraviolet prior to being discharged to the groundwater, which is above and beyond what can be expected, and in that light I would also like to say that the applicant is very active in Glen Lake and is actually putting his foot forward in showing how active and how much he wants to protect the lake by doing the improvements he’s doing. We are asking for the variance on the FAR as well as the variance for the setback to the lake. However, I also want to point out that the existing building and existing lot as is currently has five variances that would be needed just to exist today. The only one that would be increased with this application is the floor area ratio, which is increased by about eight percent and that’s mainly because it’s such a small lot. Any increase adds a lot of percentage. Six hundred and seventy square feet is not a lot of area. It’s above the garage and it will change the garage from a flat roof to a peaked roof. In addition, to try to offset some of the impacts of that, the applicant has put forward his best foot to say, hey, we don’t need all this impervious around this property. We’re going to try to create pervious area by removing the concrete and replacing it with permeable pavers. The approximate area of the permeable pavers that we’re adding is 1400 square feet, but under the Code we get about 700 square feet, half of it, that we can count towards the pervious area, adding to the pervious area. So therefore we’re adding to the pervious area, and, again, we are above the requirement of permeable requirements for this, which that would be one of the other variances that were needed and we’re lessening what variances would be needed under this project. In addition, to offset that, the applicant is also proposing, again, required, but still proposing a very good planting plan along Glen Lake to offset some of the runoff going into the lake to try to provide the planting buffer that’s needed to treat the water so it’s not going directly into the lake. So in summary the project put forward tonight is the minimum that can be done, or the best that can be done on a property that pre-exists in a non-conforming situation. The improvements that are proposed for this lot, in our opinion, far outweigh what we’re asking for as far as variance. At this time I’d like to turn it over to the Board for questions, comments and discussion. MR. MC CABE-So you made a statement about permeability. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MR. MC CABE-And it looks like you have some contention here because in our agenda it shows what you’re looking for, relief for permeability, but in our description here that’s not one of the requirements. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. So they’re improving that permeability. So we’ve never requested an applicant to receive a variance for some permeability that they’re improving, even if it’s still under. They’re improving it from what it was, it’s current condition. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we’re looking for two setback reliefs and the floor area ratio. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I’m sorry, you know what, if you guys didn’t notice I disappeared for quite a while. I had some more problems with my computer. So I didn’t catch everything, but I’m reading in my Staff Notes, and maybe I’m reading incorrectly. It says relief requested for expansion of a non-conforming structure, setbacks, floor area and permeability. MRS. MOORE-And I’m correcting that saying that it’s not. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. I just wondered. Okay. That’s the only question I had. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input on this particular project. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So I don’t have any written comment, but I do have, it looks like there’s people in the attendees list. So if there’s someone that would like to speak from the attendees, if they’re still on, there’s a function in Zoom to raise your hand or you can chat and indicate that you’d like to speak and I can move you in to the panelist, and again, as I’m talking, I don’t see them raising their hand at this point, and I will just confirm there is no public comment, written, rather. MR. MC CABE-So no hands raised. MRS. MOORE-I apologize. There is one. So I do have, I have Lisa Doster. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, Lisa. LISA DOSTER MRS. DOSTER-Hi, good evening. Lisa Doster. I live on Ash Drive. I approve of this project. What the applicant is proposing is minimal. The property improvements and septic update will be very good for the lake and surrounding areas. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else , Laura? MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anybody else, and no one’s hit chat. I think that’s it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think Paul should be complimented for what he’s proposing to do here. Even though he’s not adding more bedrooms, he’s going to put a new compliant septic system in that’s state-of- the-art and I think that’s a plus for the lake. I agree also that the permeable pavers replacing the impermeable concrete that currently exists is a good idea, as well as the plan to do more plantings and vegetation along the shoreline. So in this case here I think the setbacks as they are are already pre-existing. They’re not changing them or making them worse. As far as the floor area ratio relief, he’s essentially moving a bedroom from inside the main structure over onto the top of the garage and I don’t think that’s a negative either. So in this case I’d be fully in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’d also be in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. In addition to what Jim just indicated, I believe that the improvements outweigh any detriments. Additionally, the compliance of the septic that’s going in. I’ve actually read a little bit about this septic that they’re talking about and it’s super slick. So I would give credit to Mr. Derby for what they’re doing here, as well as the plantings and vegetation that are associated with this potential project. So again I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Jim and Brent and I think Paul should be complimented by leading by example. This is a great project. I’d be very much in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I guess there’s nothing more to be said. The Board members have already said what I would say, so I would be on board as is. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I agree with all of my fellow Board members. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I will add I noticed that his neighbor to the left did pretty much the same thing in terms of building over the garage and the other houses are bigger than his. So, yes, given that we’re gaining some permeability, it’s an okay with me. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. The setbacks are already existing and the floor area is a consequence of a very small lot. So we’re not really giving up anything at all. So I support the project also. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Jim for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul Derby. Applicant proposes a 639 sq. ft. upper level addition to an existing single-story home (2,044.5 sq. ft. footprint) along with some interior alterations. The project includes removal of a concrete patio/driveway area replaced with permeable pavers. Proposed floor area is 2,683.9 sq. ft. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, Chapter 91 septic in a flood plain, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure, setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure, setbacks, floor area, and permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-13-010 expansion The addition is to be located 32 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required; 23 ft. from the front where a 30 ft. setback is required. The existing home and the addition are to be 2683.9 sq. ft. floor area as proposed where 2040.3 sq. ft. floor area is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 24, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We do not note any. All the neighbors seem to be in favor of this project also and it would be an improvement for the lake. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, given the small size of the property and the resulting bedrooms being moved up on top of the garage area, it’s deemed to be reasonable. It’s the minimum request based upon maintaining the number of bedrooms which currently exist on the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it’s essentially maintaining the same number, just slightly increasing the floor area ratio over what’s permitted by law. As the record reflects, the site plan review of the project shows that there will be no new floor area in the CEA other than the bedroom expansion over the garage. All the current setbacks that exist on the property will be the same. The only difference would be that extra square footage over the minimum that’s allowed on this small lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We think there will be an improvement with the new septic system as well as the permeable pavers and the vegetation plan as proposed. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of the small nature of the lot, but not overly so as far as we’re concerned.. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2021 PAUL DERBY, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 24 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/24/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. WILKINSON-Thank you very much for your time. MR. DERBY-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any other business? Do we think that our meeting in April is going to be live? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I believe that we will be moving to in-person meeting in April, and we will advise the Board as soon as we know so that you can prepare for that. MR. MC CABE-All right. So if there’s no other business, I’ll make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 24, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 24 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Okay. We’ll see you guys next month. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 27