Loading...
04-21-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 5-2020 Thomas Heinzelman 1. EXTENSION OF APPROVAL Tax Map No. 289.7-1-19 Area Variance No. 39-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Area Variance No. 7-2021 Victoria Tuccillo 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 316.14-1-15 Area Variance No. 14-2021 Robert McCormick 2. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-45 Area Variance No. 21-2021 Ron & Ruth Jameson 6. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-24 Area Variance No. 23-2021 Peter Rienzi 11. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-60 Area Variance No. 24-2021 Paul Lorenz 16. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-61 Area Variance No. 22-2021 Ronald O. Morehouse 19. Tax Map No. 309.9-1-82 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 04/21/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 21, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL CATHERINE HAMLIN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of st Appeals, Wednesday, April 21, 2021. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is rather simple. We’ll call each applicant up to the podium. We’ll read the application into the record, allow the applicant to present his case, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open the public hearing, take input from the public. They can either do it in person or call us at 761-8225 and then at that time then we’ll close the public hearing. I will poll the Board, see where we stand, and we’ll go from there. So the first thing we have to do, though, is take care of a couple of administrative items. So, th John, could I get a motion for the minutes of March 17? APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 17, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl March 24, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So we have a request for an extension of AV 5-2020, Tom Heinzelman. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: EXTENSION OF AV 5-2020 (THOMAS HEINZELMAN) FOR 1 YEAR FROM MAY 20, 2021 TO MAY 20, 2022 MR. MC CABE-He was unable to complete construction during the one year period, so he’s asked for an extension. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) Applicant proposes to demo existing home to construct a new home with 1,510 sq. ft. footprint and a 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, stormwater, landscaping, well, and septic. Project subject to Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for permeability and setbacks. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 5-2020 on May 20, 2020. A temporary one year extension was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 21, 2021. With this resolution the Zoning Board of Appeals grants another six month extension to May 20, 2022. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 5-2020, THOMAS HEINZELMAN. Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption; seconded by Ronald Kuhl. Until May 2022. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So we have a request to table from Jeffrey Godnick. TABLE AV 39-2020 (JEFFREY GODNICK) TO MAY 19, 2021 MEETING The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey Godnick. Applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The shed is located 3.9 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. footprint with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft. which includes the 188 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Site plan new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK: Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico; thst Tabled to the May 19, 2021 Zoning Board meeting with any new information submitted by the 1 of May. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-And so we have a request to table AV 7-2021 Victoria Tuccillo. TABLE AV 7-2021 (VICTORIA TUCCILLO) TO MAY 19, 2021 MEETING The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Victoria Tuccillo. Applicant proposes to construct a new 1,996 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home with 480 sq. ft. of porch/deck area (footprint). The project includes a septic system and connection to municipal water. The project includes a shared driveway that was part of an area variance in 2018 with the subdivision that was approved in 2019. The new home has a proposed height of 39 ft. where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. Relief requested for height. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2021 VICTORIA TUCCILLO, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Tabled to the June 16, 2021 meeting. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first application is Area Variance 14-2021, Robert McCormick, 18 Dark Bay Lane. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROBERT MC CORMICK AGENT(S) JOSEPH J. BIANCHINE, PE OWNER(S) ROBERT MC CORMICK ZONING WR LOCATION 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 18 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 110 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOME AND A 116 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION ALSO ON THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 500 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 624 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,995 SQ. FT. GARAGE WITH THREE BAYS. SITE WORK INCLUDING A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND A WELL. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND PROJECT WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF GARAGE AND SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 13-2021; SP 15-91; SP 59-88 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-45 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-5-020; 179-13-010 JON LAPPER & JOE BIANCHINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-We’ve already read part of this into the record. So our reading tonight is going to be abridged. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2021, Robert McCormick, Meeting Date: April 21, 2021 “Project Location: 18 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Revised: Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch addition to the main home and a 116 sq. ft. porch addition also on the main home. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 624 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 1,995 sq. ft. garage with three bays. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure, and project work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for size of garage and second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of garage and second garage in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-5-020 –garage The proposed second garage is to be 1,995 sq. ft. and to be 3 bays. Relief is requested for the second garage, garage greater than 1,100 sq. ft. The garage was reduced from 3,113 sq. ft. 8-car garage. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to expand the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for a second garage and 895 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage to store classic cars and antique boats. The new garage is to be 16 ft. in height and have 3 bays. The plans show the revision of the size and appearance of the garage on the site. The garage has been located closer to the home with a shorter driveway and smaller disturbance area.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. Nice to see everyone in public. MR. MC CABE-So our procedure is the way it used to be. When you’re done, please wipe down the podium and the microphone, and then the next person that comes up will have to do the same. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MR. LAPPER-The next person that comes up will be Joe Bianchine, the project engineer. I just want to make some preliminary comments before Joe shows you the changes. Based upon the comments of the Board at the last meeting, the proposed garage has been substantially reduced in size. So what Rob was hoping for was an eight bay garage for his car collection. Now what’s proposed, as Roy read, is a three bay garage. It was over 3,000 square feet and it’s down to, the number that was on the agenda is wrong. It’s actually 1995 square feet. It’s correct in Laura’s Staff Notes, but it’s come down over 1,000 square feet. The building was moved closer to the driveway, Dark Bay Road, so that the driveway is substantially shorter, which was one of the issues for you, and it’s moved closer to the main house as well. It’s very well shielded from neighbors and the garage is in character with the neighborhood. My best argument here is because this is a 4.7 acre site in a two acre zone, this could be subdivided, going down the middle of the road, so that both parcels would have frontage. I talked to Craig about this. This is not what he wants, but if the variance were denied, he could have two principle structures, which he would have to have a kitchen and bedroom to make it a principle dwelling, and he could have his three car garage. So what you’re actually voting on tonight is less than what he could have as of right if we did a two lot subdivision because it’s a 4.7 acre site, but I think more important than that to you was that you felt it was too large, and it’s substantially smaller than what came in, but this could be done as a second residence with a three car garage. So, Joe, if you could just give them the details of what’s changed on the site plan. MR. BIANCHINE-I’m Joe Bianchine with ABD Engineers, representing Rob McCormick. The McCormick family now lives at 18 Dark Bay Lane. Jon covered most of, when we were on the Zoom meeting a little over a month ago we had a 3,100 square foot eight bay garage. The McCormicks have agreed to reduce the size of that from a little over 3100 down to 1995 square foot. They moved it from the east side. There’s a basketball court as you can see that’s there, from the east side of the basketball court to the west side of the basketball court, which puts us closer to Dark Bay, which also reduces the amount of pavement we have to do. It reduced the stormwater runoff. It does a lot of things that are good for the site. It’s less impact on everybody. We’re at three bays. It’s a nice looking garage. It fits with the house, Adirondack type architecture. As Jon indicated, it’s a 4.7 acre parcel. It also should be noted that the McCormick’s own two parcels just to the west of this that are each a little over a half an acre. In total they do own more than five acres. The two lots to the west are undeveloped. He doesn’t intend to develop them. There is over five acres of land available there. It fits in to that site. It’s not in a 15% slope area, but it’s right adjacent to the 15%. So we have three sides there that are 15%, but right where we’ve got a garage is less than 15% slope. We’ll just have the garage there. Mr. McCormick’s not doing any work in the garage. He has classic snow mobiles that he’ll put in the garage. There’s no bathroom. We had a bathroom the last time. We had a well and we had to have a septic tank to pump it up to his septic field. Those have all been eliminated from the site. So it’s been greatly downsized and reduced in scope. We will add landscaping. There was one comment on the Staff comments about a possible alternative would be to expand the existing garage. We really can’t do that because the only way to expand it would be towards the lake and it drops off quite steeply towards the lake. So he really can’t do it there. On the other side is where we have our carport and the carport will take us just about right to the setback line on that side. So there’s no room to expand the existing garage. That’s why he’d like a new garage on the site. I think that pretty much covers it. Jon, do you want to wrap up some things. MR. LAPPER-Any questions? MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward and quite a change from the original asking. No questions? So a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular application, and invite anybody from the outside that wants to provide input to give us a call at 761-8225, 518-761-8225. Anybody? So we just have to wait for two minutes, Jon. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think unfortunately here I still feel that you’re building a garage that’s way oversized. It’s oversized by over 800 square feet from what the allowance is for garages in size. I think that if you’re realistic and you look at this garage as proposed here, it’ll still hold up to six vehicles, you know, on top of the three cars that you could store down at the other garage with the carport. So I’m still not in favor of it. As far as the rest of the project goes, I’m in favor of the rest of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with Jim. I think it’s still too large. It’s a nice looking project, but it’s more than I think is needed. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m kind of not happy about going down this road. It’s not the size so much, although it is a second garage. He does have an option like you said. He could subdivide and have a guest cottage with a garage. There are options available. So I think I would not be in favor of this application. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’m in favor of this project the way it is. I think the land supports it. I think the area supports it. We did give a three car garage down the road. I do agree with the other Board members about the square footage. Forty-one feet is awful deep, but I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m also in favor of the project as presented at this time. I think it’s an improvement over what was there before or what was projected before, and I don’t think having a second residence close by is a solution. I think it serves to make a crowded situation worse if there were another building there. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I still think it’s a little big. I wish it was a little smaller, and I wouldn’t mind seeing the bathroom being put back in it. I can see where a bathroom would be needed and water would be needed that far from the house. So it’s tough. I think the property does warrant a garage of that size. Maybe not quite that big, but like I said I’d like to see that bathroom back in there, and water in there, but I guess I’d be on board with the project as is. MR. MC CABE-And so the way I look at this is, one, I think the size of the property certainly warrants a second garage. The argument could be made that the garage is a little bit too big, but if you consider the alternative, splitting the property in half just to achieve the second garage, I think that okaying a project as presented is a much better alternative. So I’ll vote in favor for the project. So it sounds like we’ve got a four to three here. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Ron for a motion. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert McCormick. (Revised): Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch addition to the main home and a 116 sq. ft. porch addition also on the main home. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 624 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 1,995 sq. ft. garage with three bays. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure, and project work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for size of garage and second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of garage and second garage in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-5-020 –garage The proposed second garage is to be 1,995 sq. ft. and to be 3 bays. Relief is requested for the second garage, garage greater than 1,100 sq. ft. The garage was reduced from 3,113 sq. ft. 8-car garage. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 & Wednesday April 21, 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 this applicant not only owns this property but neighboring properties. It’s a large, large piece. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. They’ve been considered and we believe that they’re reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial due to the properties that this applicant owns. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 5. We could suggest that the difficulty is self-created as this applicant already has two garages and a carport on the house. 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. 14-2021 ROBERT MC CORMICK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: st Duly adopted this 21 Day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 21-2021, Ron & Ruth Jameson, 94 Hall Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RON & RUTH JAMESON AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS) ZONING WR LOCATION 94 HALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,440 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 3,478 SQ. FT., INCLUDES ATTACHED GARAGE AND COVERED PATIO. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR GRADING, STORMWATER CONTROLS, AND PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 21-2021; PT 721-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-24 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2021, Ron & Ruth Jameson, Meeting Date: April 21, 2021 “Project Location: 94 Hall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo existing home and garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,440 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,478 sq. ft., includes attached garage and covered patio. The project includes associated site work for grading, stormwater controls, and plantings. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and permeability for the construction of a new home in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home is to be located 17 ft. 8 inches from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required; then 11 ft. 3 inches to the north property line and 15 ft. 8 inches from the south property line where 20 ft. is required. Floor area proposed is 23.95% where 22 % is allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 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 could be achieved by reducing the home size – would reduce setback and floor area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 32 ft. 4 inches from the shoreline, 4 ft. 4 inches south and 8 ft. 9 inches from the north property line. Floor area relief is 1.95%. 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 has indicated the new home would allow for an updated home with a garage. The home is in a similar location as the previous home. The plans show the location of the home on the parcel and the elevations.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board passed a motion and in its adoption they said the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following area of concern: One Board member expressed concerns about the setback from the lake. The motion carried seven zero. MR. MC CABE-So just a quick question. Shouldn’t we include permeability in here? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So did we have permeability? MRS. MOORE-I think he had it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Then it’s not on the Staff Notes here. MR. HENKEL-It is on mine. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. So we’ve got to ask you just one person up here at a time. MR. HALL-One at a time. Sure. So for your records, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Ruth Jameson, the owner of the property. Her husband was going to be here tonight but he’s tied up. To give you a brief rundown, I asked Laura to put up the existing building plan, the existing site plan that’s there. We’re showing that there’s a 17 foot 4 inch setback to the existing stairs that are out in front and the existing structure is a one story. That’s a very minimal amount of crawl space in the underside of the camp. It’s really the area where the heating system is. There is a large drop between, it’s labeled as a garage which is really a misnomer because there’s not a modern vehicle today that will fit in it. It’s more of a storage area than anything else, and it drops off fairly significantly. It’s about a four foot drop right behind the house. They have a significant problem with stormwater coming off the roof and going back down into the crawl space and underneath the camp. When they purchased the property, during the property transfer, the effluent chamber had shown that it was not working. So that was replaced. The existing septic tank is in great shape. They put a new effluent chamber in, and the existing sewage disposal system is working fine. So those are the things that are there now. There’s a large slate patio to the north and the existing setback to the garage on the north is four feet nine inches. So, Laura, if you could go down to the proposed. So we’re basically trying to set the existing house on the same footprint that the camp is and then tie the new garage into the existing house. We’ve set it where it is because of the grades, that we’re trying to take that into account for stormwater and things of that nature. One of the issues that came up last night was somebody asked, you know, why can’t we move it back. If we move it back, it goes farther uphill, and if you move it back now we’re looking for a height increase, a height variance. So we looked at both scenarios, and we figured, sitting, we have moved it back, grant it we’ve moved it back four inches. We’ve moved it back from the lake, and the part that sticks out, the 17 foot 8, is the edge of the new patio not the house. We’ve actually moved the house farther back from the lake than currently exists, and we just felt that, on the lakefront like this, I’d rather ask for a setback to the lake than a height variance. I’ve been in front of you several times asking for height variances. I’m trying to avoid that this time. So that’s where we’re a t with this. The permeability, we’ve actually increased, we’ve taken away a lot of the patio that was there, the big slate patio, a lot of the walkways that come off. We’re adding plantings around the foundations, plantings for 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) buffering between the building and the lake and we’ve taken care of a lot of the stormwater issues that were on the lot. So that’s where we are with this. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I do. Now if you did push that back, how much of a height variance do you think you’d be asking for? Because I think it would be better off farther away from the lake and ask for a little bit of a height variance than being that close to the lake. MR. HALL-I’ve not gone that route, John, to know how much that would be. MR. HENKEL-Because you’ve got 14, 6 here with the garage. MR. HALL-Well it’s the front, it’s the very front of the house. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. You’ve got 24, 8. So if you push that back, there’s no way you could change the roof line a little bit or something different? MR. HALL-Well, it’s a fairly shallow pitch. We’ve made this, this is a very contemporary style house. This is what Ron and Ruth came to me with is the design of the house that they were looking for. I’m afraid that if I change it and make it much shallower, our structure to support that roof is going to get, it’s already pretty deep. There are already beams that are 18 inches deep. I’m afraid if I make it much shallower than that, it’s going to really blow them out of the water because it really is a two on twelve pitch with a standing metal roof now. MR. HENKEL-So there’s no way of really telling how much of a height variance you would need if you pushed that back 10 feet? MR. HALL-If I push it back 10 feet, I’m going up in grade probably three and a half, four feet. I’m going to be right at 27, 28 feet. We’re going to be right at looking at a variance for that. I was just trying to keep everything as low at the water as I could. MR. HENKEL-I understand. It would just be nice to preserve a little. MR. HALL-The two adjoining properties, one of the questions that came up last night was the two adjoining properties. Do you have the tax map picture that I sent? They asked me to take a look at the tax map and the adjoining properties. If you look at the outline of Glen Lake right where they are, this property kind of sits forward and it’s on a, almost not a peninsula I wouldn’t say, but it juts out right there. Jim, you know what I’m talking about. And it kind of goes back in on the two sides next to it. The camp that is immediately to the south of it is, was my family’s, not my family’s, my wife’s family’s and that actually sits closer to the water than what the Jameson’s house does now, and then the one that’s to the north of it is Jerry Quintal’s. His, it kind of wraps back around. His house sits back but the porch is a little closer. So the average of them, I think, Laura, you said the average of those was 42 or 46 feet. MRS. MOORE-Forty-six I think. MR. HALL-So his actual setback is the 50 foot setback, not the average of the two. So we’re really kind of in line with the rest of the houses that are right in that area. So it’s kind of where we wanted to stay. Pulling it back we’re back behind everybody else. MR. HENKEL-And the other question is since this is a new project, there’s no way of getting more permeability there? It looks like you’re adding quite a bit of asphalt here for this new. MR. HALL-Actually we’re not adding, I hate to keep asking you to jump back and forth. The asphalt that is there, it comes down to the actual building itself. MR. HENKEL-’No chance of changing that to, I know it’s not going to give you as much, but permeable pavers? MR. HALL-We could look at, you know the walkway that goes along the edge of it, John, I think the walkway between the end of the garage and the house, we could do that. There’s a walkway just along the north side there. I could probably do that, pavers in that spot. MR. HENKEL-Otherwise we’re looking at, what, 13.83 or something percent. MR. HALL-It’s close, and keep in mind, we’re dealing with a .3 acre lot here where your zoning is typically set up for two acre lots. You’ve got a relatively small lot to start with. MR. MC CABE-Yes, you’re actually improving permeability from what it is now. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MR. HALL-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but now it’s a new project. MR. MC CABE-A new project, that’s right. MR. HENKEL-Otherwise we wouldn’t have to look at that. MRS. MOORE-I’ll interrupt you. I’m sorry, I was incorrect. So because the permeability is increasing, it’s getting better, there’s no variance required. MR. HENKEL-Okay. There isn’t. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I wondered about that. MR. HALL-So just the setback variances and the floor area. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So no permeability involved in this. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. URRICO-Ethan, is there any way to move it back without affecting the height? MR. HALL-No, because as we come up, as we move back up the driveway, if I keep it that way, then the driveway’s going to get so steep. It’s, getting out of that driveway right now is a bit of a challenge for them. So we’ve tried to maintain it, and actually done it so that the grade comes down the existing driveway and then we’re going to kind of go up a little bit to get back in so that the stormwater doesn’t. That’s part of the problem now. Stormwater runs down the driveway and into that garage and it runs kind of through the garage. So I’m trying to solve that problem as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you still going to keep the crawl space, or are you going to have a full this is going to be a slab on grade, or slab on frost wall. The main floor is not going to go into the lake at all. We have an issue that we had to talk to Dave Hatin about as far as flood elevation of the lake. So we’re at where we need to be for flood elevation. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I know the property to the south there, Johnson, when we just discussed that one, that one’s even lower. So there was no way to do it that way. MR. HALL-Yes, when Steve was looking at doing what he wanted to do with that, it was so low that, and that was the problem that, like I said, that camp was in my wife’s family for years, and it’s always wet. The good news with this site is they are up a little higher, but we don’t want to risk trying to put anything into that crawl space. That’s the problem they have now. So we wanted to keep everything up so there’d be frost wall and slab on grade and everything is above the site. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So you’re saying the setback is actually from that little, you’re saying it’s a newer patio there? MR. HALL-Yes. It’s a covered patio on the north. MRS. HAMLIN-And those are permeable pavers? MR. HALL-Well that part has a roof over it. So it wouldn’t be permeable at all. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. So what’s the actual setback from the house itself? MR. HALL-I don’t have the number for you off the top of my head. MR. MC CABE-17.8 inches MR. HALL-Seventeen feet eight inches is to the actual structure that’s over that. To the house itself it’s probably 21, 20, 21 feet, something like that. MRS. HAMLIN-I didn’t get to see the house itself. I couldn’t find it. MR. HALL-The addressees on Hall Road are a little difficult because Hall Road kind of winds itself around and ends all of a sudden. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-I needed a 10 point turn to get out of there, too. So I kind of tend to agree, although I understand that there’s many iterations of it, but I’d be more in favor of just a small height variance. What was the setback on the house again to the two to the side of you? MR. HALL-The one that’s to the south of us is actually closer to the water. I don’t have the exact number because we didn’t have it surveyed. We didn’t have that part surveyed. The one that’s to the north of us we’re about equal in the setback because of the way that the land drops back in that little bit. MRS. HAMLIN-And those are existing older homes, or are they new homes? MR. HALL-One of them is a camp that has been, I think Steve Johnson converted that a number of years ago to a, I don’t know that it’s used as a year round. In fact I think that it’s used as a rental unit. I think it’s like an Air B-n-B type rental. MRS. HAMLIN-And they’ve been around, both of them, for a while? MR. HALL-Yes, and then the one to the north, as you can see the way it kind of wraps back around, that one’s got a porch that sticks out in front and that’s about the same distance back that we are. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m just the kind of person that, you know, if we get an opportunity, with a non- conforming, to make it even more conforming. MR. HALL-Yes. I tried that with the house to the extent that we can do it. 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 invite anybody in the audience who has comment on this project to step forward and invite anybody from the outside who wants to provide comment to give us a call at 518- 761-8225. Anybody in the audience? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-So we’ve just got to do the two minute drill. 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 Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not in favor of this project. The house could be moved back. It’s the applicant’s choice to put an attached garage. I think that could be dealt with further on back on the property. To the Johnson’s camp, they came and wanted to do like for like a while ago and we turned them down. I honestly believe that this could be moved back and you could accomplish the house and the dwelling and the garage. So, as it’s presented, I’m not in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I would be more in favor of a slight height variance, I’d like to get some distance from the shore. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to come down in favor of it. I think this is consistent with the other properties nearby. I don’t think it’s that big a request considering what’s there already, and I’d much rather have this than a height variance. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Definitely they’re not asking for too much here, a very small FAR variance, very small on the setbacks except for the shoreline setback. I mean if you want to have a garage that’s attached to the house, obviously you’re going to need a height variance that could be substantial. So I’ve got to kind of agree with Roy that I’d like to see a little bit better on the shoreline, but I can understand what you’re trying to do there, so I guess I’d be on board with that as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think when we look at the two most recent projects we’ve done in the vicinity on that side of the lake there, we’ve tended to move each one of them slightly back from where they were, and I think what you’ve done is a slight move back, but I think there’s room for it to move back even further, even though it would take a little bit of engineering, because the garage would be at a slightly higher height 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) back there on the back 40. So at this point in time, my recommendation that I had put down was to move it back 10 feet, you know, and I don’t know if you could compromise and move it back five feet, but I think a little bit of movement backwards is going to be a big plus and I think that this house is very close to the water without much of a buffer, and I think it would benefit by moving it back. So I’m not in favor of it right now. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, it’s a great looking property, but I think in respect to the lake it really needs to move back. It’s an opportunity to improve it. So I would say no at this time. MR. MC CABE-So the way I look at this is would we be better off with a new building as opposed to the old building. They’re both the same. They would both be the same setback. I assume that there’s going to be a new sewer and septic with this. MR. HALL-What’s there is functioning perfectly. MR. MC CABE-So that’s passed the Town. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So the vegetation, the control of runoff that you’ll do with the next, or the new home will be a considerable improvement on what we have now. So if you measure what the new property will bring versus what the old property has, it will be a significant improvement. Now I have to agree that the setback is certainly less than what we’d like, but on the other hand it’s no worse than what we have right now. So I would be in favor of the project, but unfortunately you’re to the negative right now. MR. HALL-So I think we would like to table it and see what we can do to make some modifications. Maybe, as Jim said, we can come up with some kind of a midway in between. Maybe we could move it back a little bit and come up with something. My biggest concern, as I’m thinking about it, is moving it back, moving it closer to where the septic tanks and things like that are, but let me take a look at it. MR. MC CABE-So how much time do you need to look at it? MR. HALL-We could probably re-submit by the 15rh of this coming month. Keep in mind I’ve got eight other ones I’ve got to come talk to you about. MR. MC CABE-So we could accommodate tis in May? MRS. MOORE-In June. MR. MC CABE-In June. Okay. So, John, could we have a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ron & Ruth Jameson. Applicant proposes to demo existing home and garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,440 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,478 sq. ft., includes attached garage and covered patio. The project includes associated site work for grading, stormwater controls, and plantings. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2021 RON & RUTH JAMESON, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: stth Tabled to the 1 meeting in June with any new information to be submitted by May 15. st Duly adopted this 21 day of April 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is AV 23-2021 Peter Rienzi, 374 Cleverdale Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PETER RIENZI AGENT(S) NICHOLAS ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS) OWNER(S) PETER RIENZI ZONING WR LOCATION 374 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD AN EXISTING 422 SQ. FT. DECK AREA AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 365 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE DECK FOR A TOTAL OF 787 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING 2 STORY HOME OF 1,414 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) TO REMAIN. SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) STRUCTURE IN A CEA. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING PERMEABLE WALKWAY FROM THE HOME TO THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 24-2021; AST 423-2020; AV 1452; SP 25-97; SP 26-97; SP 2-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-60 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2021, Peter Rienzi, Meeting Date: April 21, 2021 “Project Location: 374 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 472 sq. ft. deck area and construct a new 304 sq. ft. expansion to the deck - totaling 776 sq. ft. deck. The existing 2 story home of 1,414 sq. ft. (footprint) to remain. Site plan for expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA. The site has an existing permeable walkway from the home to the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for the construction of deck to an existing home in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure. The new deck is to be located 42 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The side setback to the north is to be 19 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The permeability is to be 70.3 % where 75% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief is for 8 feet to the shoreline and 1 foot for the side. Then relief 4.7% for permeability. 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 to no 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 proposes a new deck on an existing home that is an upper level of the home. The project does not alter existing conditions under the deck area or area to the shore. The plans show the deck area to be constructed in relation to the home.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review, passed a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was th passed unanimously on April 20, 2021. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Mary and Peter Rienzi. They have the property at 374 Cleverdale Road. The proposal, as described, is the addition and replacement of a deck with some additional square footage. This results in setback variance and a slight permeability. If you look at Sheet S-2 in the dark gray area, it’s the coverage of the existing deck, and by the way, the Rienzi’s are in the audience tonight as well. The existing deck is the original deck from the 80’s. The Rienzi’s have owned the property since ’97. It’s necessary to replace that deck for structural reasons. So while going through that process they thought that it would be timely to request an expansion of that deck. All the area to the north, as shown on the screen, that Sheet S-3, and that shaded area, that is basically all within setbacks. There’s a four foot bump on the lakeside which increases the relief 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) requested in that area, and there’s a couple of reasons for that. From the Rienzi’s standpoint, between age and health issues they would like to have more space on that deck area. The patio below is not as usable for them. The main floor is the primary living space. The walkout below is less actively used these days. The expansion of the deck is primarily over the existing impermeable or actually because of block pavers, there’s a certain permeability to those. Part of that expansion involves new coverage over grass area and as Queensbury considers decks as impervious, that increases slightly 161 square feet of new impervious which is the reason why variance three is requested is the permeability change. So there’s four feet on the front side. There is one foot in that northeast corner of the deck that exceeds the side yard setback. So those are the three variances that would be requested, and I’m glad to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It looks like it’s pretty straightforward. So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to present information on this particular project, and invite anybody on the outside who has comment to give us a call at 518-761-8225. Anybody? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-We have a couple of letters. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. URRICO-There’s a letter from an Ann Marie Mather, “We totally support the Rienzi deck>” And unfortunately I don’t know what address she is. She has a Clifton Park address that was used to mail to her. MR. MAC ELROY-She’s an adjacent neighbor. MR. URRICO-Yes. We don’t know which house. MR. MAC ELROY-Three houses north. MR. URRICO-Okay. So Mather is three houses north, and I have Chris Martin. “Just a note to let you know I’m fine with the proposed project for the Rienzi house on Cleverdale. I’m their abutting neighbor to the south.” Okay. MR. MC CABE-So we do have input from the public. We have Chris Navitsky here. So let’s see if I can put you on speaker phone. Go ahead, Chris. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Hello. Thank you. It’s good to see everyone at that meeting. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’ve had some concerns about the requested variances, especially the decrease in permeability within the Critical Environmental Area. In our opinion the application fails to offer mitigation measures to balance the benefits achieved by the applicant with the applicant’s request, and increase the shoreline setback and the site permeability, which could include a reduction in impervious cover to provide benefits as well as providing stormwater management. Or additional shoreline buffering. We do think the variance may produce undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and the detriment, decrease in permeability, and the variance would reduce shoreline setbacks can be a detriment. There are alternatives available that would include reduction of the existing impervious surfaces or utilizing existing gathering areas and the variance would have an adverse impact and effect on the environmental conditions. The application does not provide any measures to mitigate the requested variances, especially permeability requirements along the shoreline of the lake, and therefore would contribute adverse effects. We do not support the variance and would request the Zoning Board deny the variance. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to close the public hearing at this particular time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I think my biggest concern, and it’s not a huge request, is the shoreline setback. It appears from the drawings here that the extension of the porch overhangs the patio underneath, which is already non-permeable. So to me it’s almost a wash. MR. MC CABE-Well isn’t it part of it? Part of it overhangs the patio, part of it overhangs grass? MRS. HAYWARD-Right. So that’s what I’m saying. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MR. MAC ELROY-The shoreline side expansion overhangs the patio, the existing patio. MRS. HAYWARD-Right. So to me it’s kind of a wash because it’s already overhanging something that’s impermeable. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MRS. HAYWARD-So for that reason I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-So you support the project? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I’m in favor. So, let’s see. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask a question? Is the patio? MR. MC CABE-Wait a minute. So we’ve closed all the public hearings and that sort of thing. We’ve asked the questions. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So then all that I would say is if that patio is old and impervious, I would think it would be a tradeoff, that that would be replaced with something more impervious. MR. MAC ELROY-Well it’s impermeable block pavers as it is. So it doesn’t increase the permeability in those areas of the deck. MRS. HAMLIN-No, the deck doesn’t, but as a tradeoff for the increase in impervious surface. You are going farther away from the goal of the permeability, to even it up. You’re losing some shoreline as well, but you’re really close to the 50 as it is. So I’d just like to see something done more to avoid having to give this variance for permeability. I can accept the shoreline. So as it is I guess I’m saying I’m not in favor unless some more mitigation can be done. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-And I look at this, and it appears that they have pavers already. I don’t know where they could pick up any permeability, and I think it’s a minimal request. I mean they’re looking for four feet additional from what they have towards the lake. So I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-So, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Ron. I’d be in favor of this project as it is. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I have a little bit of a problem. I have no problem with the side setback that they’ve got. They’re extending the deck. With them having a nice deck over their dock, there’s not many like that there, that they’ve got plenty of use of this in view of the lake. They don’t really need to extend that deck any more I would say towards the lake and they’ve already got a patio that’s usable downstairs that can be used, and they could actually do away with that concrete pad that they have going into their garage which would give them better permeability. So I’m not in favor as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The permeability pretty much already exists due to the patio being beneath the deck on the lakeside as proposed in this project. No significant change is going to result if we approve it, but I think that we should consider, if we’re going to allow this upgrade, that there should be some vegetation placed out on the shoreline there, and I think, Dennis, you could probably come up with a plan that would be in the interest of everybody. It’s kind of a stark contrast with the neighboring side properties without any trees out in front and things like that. I know people would prefer to have an unobstructed view of the lake, but I think it’s important since you’re a waterfront property owner that you observe the fact that we’re trying to improve the situation. MR. MC CABE-So if we conditioned this request, you’d be in favor of it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, if there were a vegetative plan proposed, and that can be done with the Planning Board. MRS. HAMLIN-Mr. Chairman, I would agree with him. That’s the kind of mitigation that would make me happy. MR. MC CABE-So you’re going to change if we condition this? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I asked for mitigation and that’s a good choice of landscaping. MR. MC CABE-And so with a condition that we provide some landscaping to collect runoff to make up for the permeability loss, I would okay this also. So I’m going to ask Cathy for the motion and then you can configure the condition the way that you’d be happy with. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Peter Rienzi. Applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 472 sq. ft. deck area and construct a new 304 sq. ft. expansion to the deck for a total of 776 sq. ft. deck. The existing 2 story home of 1,414 sq. ft. (footprint) to remain. Site plan for expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA. The site has an existing permeable walkway from the home to the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for the construction of deck to an existing home in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure. The new deck is to be located 42 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The side setback to the north is to be 19 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The permeability is to be 70.3 % where 75% is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 21, 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’ve had input that there’ll actually be some improvement to the aesthetics. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. They’re looking at increasing their existing shoreline setback by four feet and they’re looking for a very slight decrease in permeability which will hopefully mitigate that. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Provided the mitigation is done. 5. The alleged difficulty is definitely self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following condition: a) That the applicant consider a combination of practices, removal of impervious pavement and additional landscaping for additional erosion and sediment control to help with the permeability of the site on the north side of the property. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2021 PETER RIENZI, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21st Day of April 2021 by the following vote: MRS. HAMLIN-The Board also proposes the following condition. That the applicant consider vegetation to control erosion and runoff, some sort of landscaping that will mitigate some of the requested permeability. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make the recommendation that the addition, if you look at the adjacent properties, look at the trees that are out in front of those properties, as opposed to this property, and make it the same, make it. MR. MC CABE-Well, could we go better and get some raingardens in there? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think to supplement some of the existing vegetation is you see the house to the north, the property to the north, that house is out on and even over the shoreline. So that’s not a good representation. That’s what the neighborhood to the north is in that case. So I think by maybe supplementing some of the parking to the north side where that north deck is the new impermeable area, that we would supplement it. That would be perfect. Because otherwise they have a nice tiered effect there of existing vegetation, but we can supplement it on the north side if it’s appropriate to achieve what you are suggesting. MRS. HAMLIN-Since we haven’t voted on this, are we able to play with the words and? MR. MC CABE-Well you’re doing the motion. So you’re the wordsmith. MRS. HAMLIN-So I can. So take it all out and put back in something to the effect of a combination of practices, whether it’s removal of impervious pavement and additional landscaping for additional erosion and sediment control to help with the permeability of the site. MRS. MOORE-On the north side of the property. MRS. HAMLIN-On the north side of the property.. Okay. All right. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, I just want to confirm that usually the top part of the resolution is read into the resolution and that you would like to have that included as part of the resolution? That means that typically you put in the relief being requested. Which is fine. You don’t have to read it now. MR. MC CABE-Just state per Staff Notes. MRS. HAMLIN-Per Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. So our next application is Paul Lorenz, 78 Quaker Road, AV 24-2021. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PAUL LORENZ AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) PAUL LORENZ ZONING CI LOCATION 78 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 240 SQ. FT. SHED TO BE PLACED ON PROPERTY. THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING OF 4,079 SQ. FT. TO REMAIN. THE SITE AND BUILDING USE REMAINS THE SAME. AUTOFIX (AUTO SERVICE/REPAIR FACILITY). SITE PLAN FOR INSTALLATION OF A SHED ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 26-2021; AV 80-1990; AV 91-2002; SP 26-2003; SP 92-90; SV 25-2004; UV 83-1990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2021 LOT SIZE 0.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-61 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-050 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2021, Paul Lorenz, Meeting Date: April 21, 2021 “Project Location: 78 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 240 sq. ft. shed to be placed on property. The existing commercial building of 4,079 sq. ft. to remain. The site and building use remains the same, AutoFix (auto service/repair facility). Site plan for installation of a shed on a commercial property. Relief requested for setbacks. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to install a shed on a commercial property in a Commercial Intensive zone –CI Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-5-020 –sheds The shed is to be located 10 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. 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 appear to be limited as the lot is a corner lot and the shape of the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setback of 15 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a shed on the property that does not meet the setbacks. The applicant has indicated the shed location is due to the location of the existing building and the use of the shed. The shed is to be consistent with the building.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on limited review, passed a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was passed unanimously on 4/20/2021. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. I’m here representing Paul and Joan Lorenz. They’ve owned AutoFix, basically an auto repair shop in this location for many, many years and probably all of you know they keep a very, very clean neat site. They’re great neighbors. Part of the reason they need the shed is storage for equipment, materials for the business, but also for the decorations they put out on holidays, which many of you have probably seen. The site is a triangular configuration. So it’s very difficult to put a shed on here. It’s in a compliant location without being obtrusive to Quaker Road, the view from Quaker Road. So we thought this was a good location, accessible and relatively hidden, adjacent to the National Grid right of way. Unfortunately the triangular shape of the site means that we need a setback variance. The current building is two feet from the line and this shed would be 10 feet from the line, and the shed would be designed to blend in with the aesthetics of the existing building. So we hope you find it an acceptable variance, an acceptable proposal. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes. My question is, is that going to be big enough, that shed, with all those decorations he puts out? MR. JARRETT-Not to be flip, but at the Planning Board meeting I said we wanted to make it an eight story shed as opposed to a one story shed, but, no, it should be large enough. They considered it long and hard before they came to me. I think it’s large enough for them. MR. HENKEL-They should be commended. They keep that property really nice and it’s definitely a plus to the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. HENKEL-Plus the property behind it can’t be built on. The property behind them is owned by the electric company. So nothing would ever be built there. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if anybody in the audience has input to this particular project? I’d invite anybody on the outside who has input to give us a call at 518-761-8225. And, Roy, do we have any written correspondence on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So we just have to wait for two minutes here. 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-I think it’s a good project. They’re not asking for much like I said, especially the property behind it is not a buildable property. So it’s not going to affect any neighbors and they do a nice job with their property. So I’d be on board with the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s not going to be any effect on anybody with this project being approved here this evening. Again it’s from the property line and from the National Grid right of way on the back side anyway. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. I agree. It’s in the most logical location. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’m also in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. This is one of the most impeccably kept commercial properties in the Town. I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-And I’m just amazed to hear about National Grid, but they still kept their name on real estate that they own. Or Niagara Mohawk. That’s a Niagara Mohawk property. Right? So I’m in favor of the project. MR. JARRETT-I think it’s listed that way. Right. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask Michelle for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul Lorenz. Applicant proposes a 240 sq. ft. shed to be placed on property. The existing commercial building of 4,079 sq. ft. to remain. The site and building use remains the same, AutoFix (auto service/repair facility). Site plan for installation of a shed on a commercial property. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to install a shed on a commercial property in a Commercial Intensive zone –CI Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-5-020 –sheds The shed is to be located 10 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 21, 2021. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 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 because it’s a shed on a commercial property. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board and deemed not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Although it’s a 10-foot request or 15-foot request, it borders property that’s owned by National Grid or Niagara Mohawk. So it really is of no consequence. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2021 PAUL LORENZ, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: st Duly adopted this 21 Day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. Have a good night. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 22-2021, Ronald Morehouse, 66 Ohio Avenue. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RONALD O. MOREHOUSE AGENT(S) DONALD PIDGEON OWNER(S) RONALD O. MOREHOUSE ZONING NR LOCATION 66 OHIO AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE AN EXISTING 980 SQ. FT. MOBILE HOME ON A 6,000 SQ. FT. LOT. PROJECT INCLUDES CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL WATER AND INSTALLATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM. SITE WORK INCLUDES PLACEMENT FOR THE MOBILE HOME, DRIVEWAY, AND INSTALLATION OF THE SEPTIC. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF BISV 89-2021; RC 289-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-1-82 SECTION 179-3-040 DONALD PIDGEON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2021, Ronald O. Morehouse, Meeting Date: April 21, 2021 “Project Location: 66 Ohio Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place an existing 980 sq. ft. mobile home on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot Project includes connection to municipal water and installation of a septic system. Site work includes placement for the mobile home, driveway, and installation of the septic. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the placement of a mobile home in the Neighborhood Residential zone -NR. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The mobile home is to be placed 10 ft. from the rear property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot size and location of the proposed septic. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief is 5 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 be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes placement of an 840 sq. ft. mobile home on an existing 4,500 sq. ft. parcel. The plans note the placement of the home. The applicant has included photos of the mobile home to be placed on the parcel.” MR. PIDGEON-I’m Donald Pidgeon. I represent Mr. Morehouse. We’re asking for a five foot variance for the mobile home. As you noticed the garage, that’s a concrete garage structure on the property to the east on our rear property line. There’s only 4.8 at this current time from this property. So I mean everything seemed to fit nicely on the lot. We’ve got a mobile home and a porch. It fits nicely on the lot within Code as far as I know. It seems as though we’re not really disrupting the neighborhood. Much at all. MR. MC CABE-So we just have a little discrepancy here. In one place we say that the lot is 6,000 square feet and then in another place we say it’s 4,500. MR. PIDGEON-It’s 6,000. MR. MC CABE-Yes, it looks like 6,000 is the correct. MR. PIDGEON-It is 6,000. I don’t know where you see 4,500. MR. MC CABE-It’s on another document that we have. Okay. Do we have questions of the applicant? It’s pretty straightforward. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this particular project, invite anybody on the outside who’d like to comment to give us a call at 518-761-8225 and check with Roy and see if there’s any written correspondence here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there’s one. “I own the property on Ohio Avenue next to the property that Ronald Morehouse is applying for a zoning variance because the proposed trailer or driveway will be closer to my property than originally planned I would ask that Mr. Morehouse install a six foot tall maintenance free fence to my satisfaction on the property line between his property and mine running from Ohio Avenue to the rear of his property. If this request could be forwarded to the Zoning Board and be read into the minutes it would be most appreciated.” And that’s Bill and Mary Jane Canale. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So normally it doesn’t come under our purview or I suppose it could, but normally I would think that that would take place with the Planning Board. MRS. MOORE-So if this individual is asking for it to start at the beginning of the property on Ohio Avenue and return that entire side, you can’t put a six foot fence in the front portion of that yard. MR. HENKEL-Without a variance. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MRS. MOORE-Right. So if the applicant were to put some vegetation at that front line or if the applicant wants to do, instead of a fence, say he wants to plant vegetation along that front line, that’s between the two of them, but the fence itself, the only way that that fence could be placed on that property, the way it’s being described, is they would have to come back for a variance. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. URRICO-But it could be a four foot fence. MRS. MOORE-It could be a privacy fence. MR. KUHL-But Canale’s got property on both sides of this. So what is he really saying? MRS. MOORE-So the fence that they’re proposing is the one along the new proposed driveway area. That’s the way I read it. So it’s on the, I would call it the south side, and so you couldn’t put a fence. MR. HENKEL-How close were you planning on putting that driveway to that line? MR. PIDGEON-I’m going to guess six feet, maybe six, seven feet with the setback to the septic tank, about six feet. The whole neighborhood, the driveways are right on. So we’re not non-conforming. That’s for sure. MR. HENKEL-Yes, the lots are small there. 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’m in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Once you get it out I’ll tell you. It should be 980. It shouldn’t be 840. Right? The description of the proposed project is the right thing, 980 square feet on a 6,000 square foot property. Not down where it says Staff comments. I have no problem with the project the way it is. MR. MC CABE-I see, yes, but that doesn’t agree with the next Staff comments, right, which refer to the 6,000 and the 980. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So there’s one page of the Staff comments that’s out of line and we’re going to blame that on Laura. MR. KUHL-I’m in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now we’ll go to John. MR. HENKEL-All those lots on the State streets are fairly thin and small. There’d be no other way of putting a mobile home of that size on any of the properties without having some setbacks. So I would be for it. It’s a very small amount of setback. So I’d be for the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The project’s been well thought out. We only have one little setback that we’re dealing with. We can’t make mountains out of mole hills. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with the rest of the Board members. It’s a minimal request. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-It’s a minimal request. I’m in favor. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think it will clean up what’s basically a real cluttered area now. So I think it’s a good deal. So I’m going to ask Ron to make a motion here. MR. KUHL-Another one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald O. Morehouse. Applicant proposes to place an existing 980 sq. ft. mobile home on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot Project includes connection to municipal water and installation of a septic system. Site work includes placement for the mobile home, driveway, and installation of the septic. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the placement of a mobile home in the Neighborhood Residential zone -NR. Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The mobile home is to be placed 10 ft. from the rear property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 21, 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 this variance request is blending into the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. They’ve been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, again because of the lot size. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created, but because of the lot size we really can’t say it’s self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2021 RONALD O. MOREHOUSE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 21st Day of April 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. PIDGEON-Thank you, Board. MRS. MOORE-Is your meeting adjourned? MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 21, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) st Duly adopted this 21 day of April, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 24