Loading...
06-23-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 29-2021 Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Area Variance No. 34-2021 Seth Stark 2. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-55 Area Variance No. 35-2021 Zachary Vannier 5. Tax Map No. 297.17-1-60 Area Variance No. 36-2021 Hilary Haskell 9. Tax Map No. 308.7-1-70 Area Variance No. 38-2021 Joel & Stephanie Smith 13. Tax Map No. 308.10-2-11 Area Variance No. 39-2021 Ernest Hilpertshauser 16. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-64 Area Variance No. 41-2021 Hans & Lisa Hansen 19. Tax Map No. 302.18-2-9 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 06/23/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 23, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY BRENT MC DEVITT CATHERINE HAMLIN JOHN HENKEL MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL 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 rd Appeals on June 23, 2021. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. What we do is call each application up. We’ll read the application into the record. I’ll allow the applicant to present his application. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open the public hearing, seek input from the public on the particular application. When that’s done we’ll close the public hearing and we’ll poll the Board to see how they stand on the issue, and then we’ll proceed accordingly. Tonight, though, we have a little administrative item to take care of. So, John, could I have a motion? AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222 ROUTE 9L (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 884 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING, A 436 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, CONNECTING THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND REORIENTATION OF THE ROOF ON THE GARAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE OF 1,315 SQ. FT. WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TWO LEVELS AND A HEIGHT OF 18 FEET 11 ½ INCHES. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND MAJOR STORMWATER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK, HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGE, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND SIZE OF GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 8-2021; AV 76-2002; AV 43-02; AV 27-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-13-010. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture. Applicant proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary dwelling. The project includes construction of a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the south of the primary dwelling, connecting the structure with an existing detached garage and replacing the roof on the garage. The project also includes construction of a new detached garage of 1,152 sq. ft. which would include two levels (storage of vehicles on the lower level and a workshop above). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and major stormwater. Relief requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height of the alterations to the main home, number of garages, and size of garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: Tabled to the July 21st, 2021 meeting. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, just to make sure you understand the public hearing will be left open. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. MC CABE-Well the public hearing has been left open. AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 34-2021, Seth Stark. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2021 SEQRA TYPE II SETH STARK OWNER(S) SETH STARK ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 1640 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 280 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK TO REPLACE WITH A 280 SQ. FT. DECK WITH A COVERED ROOF. THE EXISTING DECK WAS COVERED WITH A TEMPORARY AWNING AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE COVERED DECK TO MINIMIZE WEATHER RELATED DAMAGE TO THE HOME AND DECK. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,516 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND BARN ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 137-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-55 SECTION 179-3-040 SETH STARK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2021, Seth Stark, Meeting Date: June 23, 2021 “Project Location: 1640 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a deck addition where the existing 280 sq. ft. open deck has been removed to replace with a 280 sq. ft. deck with a covered roof. The existing deck was covered with a temporary awning and the applicant proposes the covered deck to minimize weather related damage to the home and deck. The existing home of 2,516 sq. ft. footprint and barn are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-080 decks The deck is to be 28.7 ft. to the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and 60.2 ft. to the west property line where 100 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 may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home and the parcel size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for the front setback is 39.8 ft. and for the side setback is 46.3 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 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 not self-created as the house was pre- existing condition in a zone that requires 5 ac per lot. Staff comments: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) The applicant proposes to complete a deck addition to an existing home. The project included the removal of an existing deck and replacement of the deck with a new roof over it. The plans show the location of the deck, the roof overhang, and photos.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. For the record, we’d like your name. MR. STARK-My name is Seth Stark. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add? MR. STARK-No, I tried to be pretty thorough with my application. It’s a deck that was there. MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. STARK-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. MC CABE-You’re not any closer with the new arrangement than you were before. Is that a true statement? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-How old is that house? It’s got to be 18 something? MR. STARK-Yes. It’s close to 200 years old, right around there. At one point, it’s the home I grew up in. My parents dated it by the hardware on the doors. Some real old hardware. It’s constant. I love it, but something always needs to be fixed or painted. MR. HENKEL-Sure. At one time they probably owned a lot of that property around there, too. MR. STARK-Yes. That must have been the original farmhouse. Someday when I retire maybe I’ll have time to dig more into the history. MRS. HAMLIN-Actually I did have a question. I forgot. This is the house where you discovered the cistern underneath? MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. So have you been approached with any way that you need to deal with the cistern before building over it? MR. STARK-It was already half crumbled and filled with rock. MRS. HAMLIN-So it’s already filled. MR. STARK-It wasn’t like it was functioning. It’s too bad because what I did see of it was incredible mason work. It was shaped like an egg. MRS. HAMLIN-So it’s actually not just filled but it’s capped as well? MR. STARK-No. It was filled with rocks and half broken in and filled with dirt. I had no idea it was there until the current deck was falling apart. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. If I would suggest by Code do they need to look at that, to be capped? MRS. MOORE-So it has to go through the variance process first before he can get his building permit. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Once he completes this then he’ll go for this building permit with the Building and Codes Department. MRS. HAMLIN-They’ll check that out. Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, 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 in the audience who has input to this particular project. Roy, do we have any written? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no comment. 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 think this is a pretty straightforward replacement. There’s no further infringement from before, so I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with Roy. There’s no doubt, with it being a small piece of property, and with the setback being 75 feet, it’s really going to be hard to do anything there, and like Roy said, it’s not outside the perimeters of the house that exists now. So I’d be for it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-It’s important, obviously, to protect the history of the building. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It dates back to horse and buggy days. I don’t see where we should superimpose new regulations on that. MR. MC CABE-Nor do I. It’s a rather simple request as our requests go and so I certainly support the project. So I’m going to ask Brent for a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seth Stark. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 280 sq. ft. open deck to replace with a 280 sq. ft. deck with a covered roof. The existing deck was covered with a temporary awning and the applicant proposes the covered deck to minimize weather related damage to the home and deck. The existing home of 2,516 sq. ft. footprint and barn are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-080 decks The deck is to be 28.7 ft. to the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and 60.2 ft. to the west property line where 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 23, 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. Mature landscaping prevents view from the property and it is seeking to replace a 40 year old deck. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and this is the minimum request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. There was an existing deck that was approximately 40 years old and this is, frankly, an improvement to the property. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty, while it could be viewed as self-created, we don’t believe that it is. Again, the house has been in existence since 1850 and this would frankly be improving the lifespan of the area and of the property. 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. 34-2021 SETH STARK, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. STARK-Thank you all for your consideration. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 35-2021. Zachary Vannier. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ZACHARY VANNIER OWNER(S) ZACHARY VANNIER ZONING MDR LOCATION 88 MEADOW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED SECOND GARAGE ON THE 0.67 ACRE PARCEL. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,156 SQ. FT. AND 160 SQ. FT. SHED ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF AST 537-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 LOT SIZE 0.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.17-1-60 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 ZACK VANNIER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2021, Zachary Vannier, Meeting Date: June 23, 2021, “Project Location: 88 Meadow Drive Description of Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 576 sq. ft. detached second garage on the 0.67 acre parcel. The existing home of 2,156 sq. ft. and 160 sq. ft. shed are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks and second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and second garage in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage The garage is to be located 9.6 ft. from northwest property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and is to be 28.7 ft. from the southwest property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for having 2 garages. 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. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) 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 expand the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the setback is 15.4 f.t to the side setback and 1.3 ft. to the rear setback. Relief to have two garages. 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a detached 2- car garage with one garage door and maintain the existing 2 car attached garage. The applicant has indicated the garage is to be used for storage of a vehicle and tools. The plans show the location of the garage.” MR. VANNIER-My name is Zack Vannier. MR. MC CABE-So do you have anything to add? MR. VANNIER-I do. We bought this property from the Trumbles, vacant property, in 1986 and started building our home. Our children grew up here. We put a lot of heart and soul into this place and the fact of the matter is I don’t want to sell it. I want my kids to end up with this. We’re very serious about staying in this house. Unfortunately I’ve developed a couple of hobbies, building a car, and my woodworking projects have taken over the existing garage. My wife has complained about that. So I need another garage for storage, again, I really, we owned property in Hartford at one time, but declined to keep it. We just sold it.. We like where we’re at right now and we want to keep it for the rest of our lives. This will allow me to continue my hobbies at home. I’m going to semi-retire in about four and a half years, but just a couple of things that I really like doing. The garage is going to match the house exactly, cedar siding, same colors. The depiction shows, it’s a two car garage where only one door will be available because the whole neighborhood is rock. So I moved the garage just as far forward as I can, just as far west as I can because there’s a huge outcropping of rock right there. I call it the rock garden. So it’s just a matter of us staying there and taking care of a couple of little hobbies and we don’t need any more structures on the property. I couldn’t put it on the other side of the pool because there’s, the sewer is over there and the driveway is over here anyway. So it just wouldn’t work. MR. MC CABE-So let me ask you. Could you do with a smaller door? MR. VANNIER-A smaller door? MR. MC CABE-Yes. The problem you’re going to have here is you’re only on 2/3rds of an acre here. We have allowed second garages, but normally if you’ve got a lot of land, but you can get around this because if you put less than an eight foot door. MRS. MOORE-It’s less than a six foot door. MR. MC CABE-Less than a six foot door, then it’s not a garage, and so then it becomes an auxiliary structure and we’d be much more amenable to an auxiliary structure as opposed to a second garage because a second garage for two-thirds of an acre puts us in a bind because most of the lots then would be eligible for a second garage and that’s not what we want to do. MR. VANNIER-I propose garage doors, but seven high and nine wide. Correct? MR. HENKEL-How big is the door on the shed? I looked at the property from the front, but I didn’t get back there. MR. VANNIER-On the shed? There’s two 2 and a half foot doors that open up like this. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. VANNIER-So it’s about five feet. MR. HENKEL-Because depending on the size of the doors makes it a garage. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So is this something that you’d consider? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. VANNIER-Well I have to get a vehicle in here. I have my personal truck and my hobby car that I want to get in there also. Just a storage building. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So just a suggestion on my part. We’ll see if anybody else has any questions or any ideas. Does anybody else have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-The shed was put in when? MR. VANNIER-2004 I believe. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay, and you said it was on gravel? Did I read that? MR. VANNIER-I’m sorry. MRS. HAMLIN-It’s on gravel? Did I read that correctly? MR. VANNIER-It’s on crushed, no, it’s concrete. It’s a real shed. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. Would you consider giving up the shed in order to help this request? MR. VANNIER-I can’t. That’s a pool shed. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. VANNIER-The pool pump is in there. It’s right next to the pool. MR. HENKEL-And have you looked at the alternatives of adding on to the existing garage? MR. VANNIER-I can’t do that either. MR. HENKEL-Why is that? MR. VANNIER-There’s no way. It’s perpendicular to the house. There’s no way to add on to the garage. The garage is a story and a half. MR. HENKEL-You’ve done a nice job with that property. There’s no doubt. MR. VANNIER-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 see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project. Do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. Nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So no public comment. 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-Okay. I think that it’s, given our history with the size of the lot, it’s a pretty small lot to allow a second garage. It sounds like it’s 19 feet. I’m not even sure if that’s appropriate for an accessory building. So we presented some alternatives, and I don’t think I’m in favor of this as it is. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Unfortunately I agree with that, and I guess I was aware, but I hadn’t thought of what the Chairman offered up in terms of that door as being kind of a workaround to this issue. I fully appreciate what you’re mentioning relative to staying in the home that you had property in Hartford. You’ve done a wonderful job with the property, and I do understand where you’re coming from and it’s great to have hobbies. Okay. You could be doing worse things with your time out there. So I would like to try to find a happy medium that you could live with here, but the predicament that the Board is in is, you know, it’s a smaller lot, and if we do this we open a can of worms, you know, in perpetuity going forward for a lot of people in this Town to come forward. So I want you to have a project, but as it is here now, I would not be in favor of it unfortunately. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would have to agree with everybody else. I think the issue is the size of the lot and what you’re requesting. If you were going for something a little, one car garage, I would probably, but that’s not going to do it for you either I would imagine. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, definitely Brent put it very well and I would not be in support of this project as is, either. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I have to agree with everybody else. There were some feasible alternatives suggested. I would think about them and see if you could re-arrange where you have your vehicles parked and what you’re doing in the shop. Because you’re not going to get the second garage otherwise. MR. MC CABE-And I concur. It’s just, you know, although I’d like you to have the second garage, it just would cause too many problems for us. So right now you’re not doing well with the project as it stands. So you have a couple of alternatives. You can ask that this particular project be tabled until a later date so you can consider maybe some other way to approach this, or you can ask for a vote. You’re not going to fair well. Then you’ve got to start from scratch. If you table, then you haven’t lost anything in terms of your investment in this application and then ultimately you can withdraw if it just doesn’t meet your needs. So I need some guidance from you. MR. VANNIER-Well a one car garage doesn’t suit my purposes. There’s just no sense in building it. Furthermore we bought this lot from the original owners, the original setbacks were 15 feet. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. VANNIER-I don’t know why they got changed. MR. MC CABE-It’s not the setback that’s the problem here. It’s the second garage. MR. VANNIER-All right. I guess we’re done here. We can table it if you want. MR. MC CABE-So when would you like to re-apply? MRS. MOORE-I’m going to jump in. So it would be tabled to an August meeting and that gives that option for the applicant to check the need for it and go through some of those options and see how you’d like to proceed. So August. thth MR. HENKEL-Either 18 or 25. MRS. MOORE-I would do the first meeting, but it’s up to the applicant. I don’t know what his timetable is. MR. VANNIER-All right. While we’re here, let me throw this out here. Okay. Now you mentioned if I took the shed away, now I can get the garage where it belongs. MRS. HAMLIN-Well that’s just me. MR. VANNIER-I’m sorry? MRS. HAMLIN-That’s only me saying that. MR. VANNIER-I understand, but it’s still a second garage. MR. MC CABE-Right. That’s the main problem. MR. VANNIER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-And by definition, just so that you know, as our Chairman mentioned, the door size constitutes how we define a garage. MR. VANNIER-All right. I’m going to take my time and do some research, look around the neighborhood, see what’s there. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. MC CABE-So, can I have a motion to table, John? thth MR. HENKEL-So are we going to table to the 18 or the 25? MR. MC CABE-Yes, he can always re-table it if he’s not ready. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Zachary Vannier. Applicant proposes to construct a 576 sq. ft. detached second garage on the 0.67 acre parcel. The existing home of 2,156 sq. ft. and 160 sq. ft. shed are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks and second garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2021 ZACHARY VANNIER, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: thth Tabled to August 18 with any new information submitted by July 15. rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Sorry. We’ll see you again. MR. VANNIER-Thank you, gentlemen, ladies. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 36-2021, Hilary Haskell. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HILARY HASKELL OWNER(S) HILARY HASKELL ZONING MDR LOCATION 62 RICHMOND HILL DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 253 LINEAR FOOT FENCE TO BE INSTALLED ON HE PROPERTY TO ENCLOSE THE POOL AND BACKYARD. THE FENCE WILL BE A VINYL/WOOD PRIVACY FENCE AT 6 FT. IN HEIGHT. A PORTION OF THE FENCE WILL BE PLACED ALONG RICHMOND HILL DRIVE THAT IS CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD AS THE LOT IS A CORNER LOT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,699 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND THE SHED IS 320 SQ. FT., BOTH TO REMAIN AS THEY ARE. SITE WORK FOR PLACEMENT OF FENCE AROUND PROPERTY. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR TYPE OF FENCE, LOCATION AND HEIGHT OF FENCE. CROSS REF AV 58-2019; POOL 207-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-70 SECTION 179-5-070 HILARY HASKELL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2021, Hilary Haskell, Meeting Date: June 23, 2021 “Project Location: 62 Richmond Hill Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 253 linear foot fence to be installed on the property to enclose the pool and backyard. The fence will be a vinyl/wood privacy fence at 6 ft. in height. A portion of the fence will be placed along Richmond Hill Drive that is considered a front yard as the lot is a corner lot. The existing home is 1,699 sq. ft. footprint and the shed is 320 sq. ft., both to remain as they are. Site work for placement of fence around property. Relief is requested for type of fence, location and height of fence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for type, location, and height of fence in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-5-070 fence The applicant proposes to install a 253 linear feet 6 ft. high privacy fence with a portion to be along Richmond Hill Drive – 88 ft. The parcel is a corner lot where Richmond Hill Drive along the side of the home is considered a front yard where a fence can be no higher than 4 ft. and is to be an open fencing type. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) 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 for a compliant fence height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2 ft. in excess of the allowed fence height and privacy type. 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 proposes to install the fence to enclose a pool. The plans show the location of the fence and information about the type of fence. The applicant has indicated the lot is a corner lot and the fence would allow for the useable yard and pool area to be enclosed.” MR. MC CABE-So we need to know who you are. MS. HASKELL-I’m Hilary Haskell. I’m the owner of the home. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. HASKELL-Thank you for your time. I guess we didn’t realize when we purchased this lot on the corner at Richmond Hill all the kind of requirements of having a corner lot. We were here two years ago for the shed. MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty common, yes. MS. HASKELL-Yes, the corner lot kind of raises a little ruckus I guess. So essentially we’re building a pool. We did get signatures from probably 90% of our neighbors. MR. MC CABE-So do we have a copy of that? MS. HASKELL-No, I just went and had my child go around and get them. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So if you could give that to Roy. MS. HASKELL-And essentially we’re asking for six feet just because of the pool. Being on the corner lot it would be ideal if we could have a little bit of privacy. The four foot fence really doesn’t allow that. We love our neighbors. We love the corner, but it would be nice to have a six foot fence just to get that. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Anything else? MS. HASKELL-No. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty straightforward. We’ve faced this a number of times before. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Not of the applicant, and you’re not a Code officer, I know, but is it for safety purposes, do they need six feet when they have a pool? What’s required in the Code? MRS. MOORE-The pool itself, that’s a separate requirement. It’s my understanding it needs to be enclosed. MRS. HAMLIN-So the Code doesn’t say how high it’s got to be? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know what the requirement is. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-I would ask the applicant just a thought, and it would look funny if you just did it where you need the variance, but what if you considered something that had a design that was a little more open on the front. Like I’ve seen the kind where it’s like a latticework or something on the top. MS. HASKELL-We’d prefer the privacy just because of where we are. We have 30 people on our yard every day because we’re on the corner lot. So we’d like to have just that little bit of privacy. I know our neighbors are doing the same thing across the road. So there’ll probably be in next month as well when you have time next month, but it’s just, like I said, just to have the privacy with the pool. MR. HENKEL-Now Laura is it supposed to go only to the back corner as far, then it has to be opaque there, towards the, or no? They’re showing this going to the middle of the house on the one side. RICHARD RODRIGUEZ MR. RODRIGUEZ-Right. We have an egress window on that side. We don’t want to include that because we’re not going to put an alarm on that window. MR. HENKEL-I understand that, but doesn’t it have to go? MRS. MOORE-So it’s past the, this part is fine, but it’s that actual length of 83 feet that requires the six feet. MR. HENKEL-Right. Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-Because it’s on a different street. MR. HENKEL-I understand. Have you thought about putting the fence back to where the setback where it should be on the setback? MR. RODRIGUEZ-We’re 33 feet off of the road as it is right now. We’re only taking up 20 feet of the side yard. MR. MC CABE-Are you all set? 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 in the audience who would like to address this particular application. Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. It’s basically a letter saying that they agree to allow a fence to be put up on their property so close to the backyard, and they have 19 neighbors I’m counting here that have signed this. MR. MC CABE-That’s a big neighborhood. MR. URRICO-Did you say you have 30 people in your yard every day? MR. RODRIGUEZ-Pretty close. MS. HASKELL-Thanks to this little cherub in the back we usually have a pretty big crowd, yes. MRS. HAMLIN-You’re THAT house. MS. HASKELL-We’re THAT house. MR. MC CABE-So I want to commend you for going to the trouble of talking to your neighbors. So that’s a good start. 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-There’s no doubt they have the neighbors’ support and also we’ve dealt with this before with pools and it’s nice to have the privacy. So I agree with this project as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The Board has always been granting these variances in the past, and I think we understand when the public eye is on you, when you have two streets on the side like that it’s nice to have your privacy. So I’d be in favor of it, too. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with it as is, and I commend your son for doing all of the signature grabbing. He should run for public office someday, or not run, but I’m in favor of it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would vote to approve as well. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. As was mentioned we’ve approved such requests many times in the past. So I’m in favor of it also. So at this particular time, Cathy, I’m going to ask for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hilary Haskell. Applicant proposes a 253 linear foot fence to be installed on the property to enclose the pool and backyard. The fence will be a vinyl/wood privacy fence at 6 ft. in height. A portion of the fence will be placed along Richmond Hill Drive that is considered a front yard as the lot is a corner lot. The existing home is 1,699 sq. ft. footprint and the shed is 320 sq. ft., both to remain as they are. Site work for placement of fence around property. Relief is requested for type of fence, location and height of fence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for type, location, and height of fence in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-5-070 fence The applicant proposes to install a 253 linear feet 6 ft. high privacy fence with a portion to be along Richmond Hill Drive – 88 ft. The parcel is a corner lot where Richmond Hill Drive along the side of the home is considered a front yard where a fence can be no higher than 4 ft. and is to be an open fencing type. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 23, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and determined to go ahead with the proposal as presented. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because they are seeking privacy and they’re on a corner lot that’s a very unusual situation having two front yards. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created but would not outweigh the rest of the Board’s thinking here. 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. 36-2021 HILARY HASKELL, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MS. HASKELL-Thank you so much. Thanks for your time. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 38-2021, Joel & Stephanie Smith. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOEL & STEPHANIE SMITH OWNER(S) JOEL & STEPHANIE SMITH ZONING MDR LOCATION 527 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,796 SQ. FT. TO A DUPLEX. THE PORTION OF THE HOME OF 624 SQ. FT. WOULD BE THE IN-LAW APARTMENT WITH A NEW COVERED PORCH AND SEPARATE ENTRY AREAS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE AND DWELLING UNIT SIZE. CROSS REF RC 199-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.10-2-11 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-100 JOEL & STEPHANIE SMITH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2021, Joel & Stephanie Smith, Meeting Date: June 23, 2021 “Project Location: 527 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert an existing single family home with a footprint of 1,796 sq. ft. to a duplex. The portion of the home of 624 sq. ft. would be the in-law apartment with a new covered porch and separate entry areas. Relief requested for lot size and dwelling unit size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size & dwelling unit size in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-5-100 multiple family, duplex; 179-3-040 dimensional; 179-5-100 floor area The duplex unit is to have one unit of 624 sq. ft. where 750 sq. ft. is required. The existing parcel size is 2.77 acres where 4 acres is required for lots as there is only connection to water –2 ac per unit. 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 property being in the Moderate Density Residential zone which allows duplex units. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code where the lot size allows for at least 1 unit and the existing lot size 2.77 ac. Relief requested is 1.23 ac where 4 ac is required. 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 site has an existing septic and is connected to municipal water. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) The applicant proposes to convert 624 sq. .ft. of an existing home to an in-law apartment creating a duplex out of the existing home. The plans show the improvements to the home including a separate entrance nd and porch area for the new 2 unit. The plans also show the lot configuration with the existing home.” MR. SMITH-I’m Joel Smith. This is my wife Stephanie. Thanks for your time. We are looking to put an in-law apartment in our existing house. Our parents moved up from Florida to live with us. We’d like them to have some space and we’d like to do it without expanding on the house and the footprint that’s already there. It’ll have minimal impact to the appearance of the house. There won’t be a second driveway. Everything on the grounds will stay the same. We’re simply just looking for them to have their own living space. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Obviously there’s no separate utilities. MR. SMITH-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Well what is existing in that area where you’re putting the in-law apartment now? MR. SMITH-It’s just great room. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. MR. MC CABE-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 in the audience who has input on this particular project. Is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is nothing. MR. MC CABE-So 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’ve always been strongly in favor of age in place accommodation. I think that it makes it affordable for many families, rather than turfing people out and having to spend all that extra money every month. Duplex is an allowed use in the area. Even though it’s going to be a smaller dwelling, 624 square feet, I think it’s a reasonable request. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s almost a three acre lot. I don’t know if we have to put a stipulation as far as being checked later in the future if it’s still family living t ere. Is that something that has to be done, or no? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we’re going to consider it as a complete separate dwelling. MR. HENKEL-Yes, because it’s not separate electrical or anything like that. So, yes, I would say, yes, it’s a good project. You’re not looking for any setbacks. It’s an existing part of the house. So I would be for it. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m going to support this. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It’s actually a pretty minimal request. We’re not going out on a limb very far to approve this. So I’ll support the project also. So, Jim, I’m wondering if you can make a motion for us. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joel & Stephanie Smith. Applicant proposes to convert an existing single-family home with a footprint of 1,796 sq. ft. to a duplex. The portion of the home of 624 sq. ft. would be the in-law apartment with a new covered porch and separate entry areas. Relief requested for lot size and dwelling unit size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size & dwelling unit size in the Moderate Density Residential zone Section 179-5-100 multiple family, duplex; 179-3-040 dimensional; 179-5-100 floor area The duplex unit is to have one unit of 624 sq. ft. where 750 sq. ft. is required. The existing parcel size is 2.77 acres where 4 acres is required for lots as there is only connection to water –2 ac per unit. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 23, 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. The house will look exactly the same as it looks now. It’s not going to be a major alteration or addition. 2. As far as feasible alternatives, a duplex is an allowable use in the area and although we could have required they bring it up to Code and size, it’s not really necessary to increase it by that small a size. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial because it’s an allowed use in the zone. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There will be no real significant change whatsoever. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to create an in-law apartment, but it’s a reasonable request in this instance. 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; They’re not really adding on to the building. It’s staying the same size as it is presently. 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. 38-2021 JOEL & STEPHANIE SMITH, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. STEPHANIE SMITH MRS. SMITH-Thank you very much. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 39-2021, 323 Ridge Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ERNEST HILPERTSHAUSER OWNER(S) ERNEST HILPERTSHAUSER ZONING MDR LOCATION 323 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE OF 840 SQ. FT. AND TO MAINTAIN A 242 SQ. FT. SHED. THE GARAGE IS FOR VEHICLES AND STORAGE. THE SHED IS PRE-EXISTING AND REQUIRES REVIEW FOR LOCATION. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,078 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE GARAGE AND SHED SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 18-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 & GLENS FALLS LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-64 SECTION 179- 5-020; 179-3-040 ERNEST HILPERTSHAUSER & TAMMY CREEDEN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2021, Ernest Hilpertshauser, Meeting Date: June 23, 2021 “Project Location: 323 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a new garage of 840 sq. ft. and to maintain a 242 sq. ft. shed. The garage is for vehicles and storage. The shed is pre-existing and requires review for location. The existing home of 1,078 sq. ft. footprint is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for the garage and shed setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests the relief for setbacks in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-5-020 shed The proposed garage is to be 6.3 ft. and the existing shed is 3 ft. from the side 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. The project may be considered to have little to no 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 size of the parcel and location of the existing house. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for the garage is 18.7 feet and the shed is 22 feet. 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 to no 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 the construction of garage for storage of vehicles and to maintain an existing shed. The applicant provided plans of the proposed garage when it was found the shed will also require review. The applicant wasn’t aware a replacement shed required review or a permit. The survey shows the location of the shed and proposed garage.” MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-I’m Ernest Hilpertshauser. This is Tammy Creeden. Thank you guys and ladies for your time tonight. As you can see we’re just trying to put up a two car garage, but we need the setback relief. We’ve done a lot with the property. We were here before for a variance before for our dormer and just trying to make it look good. This is our last stage that we need to do. We did our pool and our patio and everything out back. Just need the garage and we can re-pave the driveway and get that all buttoned up and that’s pretty much what we’re looking to do. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. MC CABE-Okay. Pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. Why didn’t you consider attaching it to the house? Isn’t that something that you could do? MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-No because of the way our stamped concrete is in the back and everything. MR. HENKEL-I just thought maybe a part of it could be, but I understand. MS. CREEDEN-Well all our windows are on that side. We wouldn’t have any light on that side at all. MR. HENKEL-It’s nice to have it attached to the house. MS. CREEDEN-Believe me, I would if I could. MRS. HAMLIN-This is the only garage that you will have? MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-I thought so. MR. MC CABE-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 there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project. MR. HENKEL-We’re also talking about the shed setbacks, too, right? MR. MC CABE-Yes. It’s garage and shed. MR. HENKEL-Is there any way of moving that, at the same time you’re building that garage, moving the shed a little more? MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-It’s possible. It’s on a gravel bed. I just don’t know how far. It’s going to bring it out into the yard quite a bit, as far as moving it. I’ve got it tucked back in the corner where it is so it’s not out in the yard. MR. HENKEL-Because we’re giving you 22 feet of relief for the shed. Right? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s about the same relief as the garage. MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-And there’s a fence that runs right off the corner of that shed down through there. MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, is there any written comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is not. 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 Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-First of all you’ve done a really nice job with the property. I remember when you were here for the dormer and my dad lives down on Hunter Street. So I’m by your place a fair amount. As you indicated this is probably going to kind of be your last step of trying to button everything up and getting your garage. We need garages. We need to store stuff. We live in the North Country, whether it’s snow blowers, whatever the heck it is. So I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m also in agreement. I think this is a good project considering all the other work you’ve done. I see no problem with giving you a variance on this. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-A garage is an absolute necessity. I would like it better if the shed could maybe be moved back and closer to the new garage if feasible, but I wouldn’t hold it up as a result of that. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with my Board members. There’s no doubt everybody needs a garage and I’d be in favor of it as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-On a small lot you have those tight parameters you’re dealing with and there’s nowhere else you can put it other than where you propose to do it, and I don’t think that the shed is any hindrance either. No one’s going to see it from the road. It’s going to be hidden from view. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think you’ve done a nice job with this property and so we’d like to see you continue. So I’m going to ask Brent for a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ernest Hilpertshauser. Applicant proposes to construct a new garage of 840 sq. ft. and to maintain a 242 sq. ft. shed. The garage is for vehicles and storage. The shed is pre-existing and requires review for location. The existing home of 1,078 sq. ft. footprint is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for the garage and shed setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-5-020 shed The proposed garage is to be 6.3 ft. and the existing shed is 3 ft. from the side 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, June 23, 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 indicated, we all need a garage. It keeps in good character with the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. As mentioned it’s a tight lot and you’ve got what you’ve got in terms of dimension there. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It fits in with the neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. While the alleged difficulty could certainly be considered self-created, as we’ve discussed I believe it blends in well. It is not causing any problems, again, on that tight lot. 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. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2021 ERNEST HILPERTSHAUSER, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. HILPERTSHAUSER-Thank you. MR. MC DEVITT-Good luck. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 41-2021, Hans and Lisa Hansen. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HANS & LISA HANSEN AGENT(S) JAMES MC CANE OWNER(S) HANS & LISA HANSEN ZONING NR LOCATION 205 SHERMAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AND REBUILD 336 S Q. FT. OF THE EXISTING 912 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONVERT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 341-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.18-2-9 SECTION 179-3-040 JAMES MC CANE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2021, Area Variance No. 41-2021, Hans & Lisa Hansen, Meeting Date: June 23, 2021 “Project Location: 205 Sherman Ave. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove and rebuild 336 sq. ft. of the existing 912 sq. ft. building to convert to a single-family dwelling. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, The proposed reconstructed 336 sq. ft. portion of the building is to be located 4.5 ft. from the property line where a 15 foot 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 may be limited due to the location of the existing building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for the setback 10.5 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to convert an existing 912 sq. ft. building to a single-family home. The 336 sq. ft. of the existing building needs to be reconstructed to be building code compliant. The plans show the existing building location. The elevation and floor plans show the building converted to a single-family residence.” MR. MC CANE-My name is Jim McCane and I’m the agent for Hans and Lisa Hansen. MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. MR. MC CANE-Yes, it’s pretty straightforward. I don’t know if you had a chance to go over and look at it. It’s that ugly part on the end of the garage. I need to take it down. I need to build it. They must have thrown it up on the weekend. He plans on using the house. His father lives on Seward. I don’t know if you saw the big house. He wants to move his father into a one story flat house, and that’s the only option. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN- was a little confused just by the whole layout of the property when I went there. So basically this is a separate lot and it doesn’t have a house on it now. MR. MC CANE-It’s just got that garage. MRS. HAMLIN-That garage. Okay. All right, and the father lives over here on Seward right around the corner. MR. MC CANE-He owns all three of those properties together there. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. I just wondered. MR. MC CANE-His father is 83 and he’s got cancer. So he’s doing chemo and he wants to get him on a flat floor. MR. HENKEL-SO these were always all three separate deeds. MR. MC CANE-Yes, sir. I believe there was one deed with the three different properties on it. MR. HENKEL-So that means it was three properties or was it one property? MRS. MOORE-It’s three separate properties. MR. HENKEL-I know it is now. MRS. MOORE-I couldn’t tell you what it was previous to that, but right now it’s three separate lots. MRS. HAMLIN-Three buildable parcels. MR. HENKEL-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 seek input from the audience. It doesn’t look like we’re going to have a lot of input here. Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no public comment. 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 Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project, certainly appreciating that Mr. Hansen, Sr. has cancer. I used to see him at the “Y” a lot. I used to run with Doc Thompson and got kind of a legend in the jogging community in the area. So I am sorry to hear that. I think that this is a good project and I think it will work well for all concerned. MR. MC CABE-Jim? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, support the project. I think it’s a great idea. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I wish it could be off the line a little bit more, but it is where it is and I’d be supportive of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Since we’re replacing something that’s existing I would like to, as he says, see it moved in a little bit, but you’ve got to use what you have. So I will vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, support the project. I think it’ll improve the looks of that portion of the property and so I’ll support the project. So I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hans Hansen. Applicant proposes to remove and rebuild 336 sq. ft. of the existing 912 sq. ft. building to convert to a single-family dwelling. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, The proposed reconstructed 336 sq. ft. portion of the building is to be located 4.5 ft. from the property line where a 15 foot setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 23, 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. It’s basically an existing building as is. Just being replaced. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but in terms of the client’s needs we’re going to go forward as presented. 3. The requested variance is quite substantial, but we’re considering that in our approval. 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. 41-2021 HANS & LISA HANSEN, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: rd Duly adopted this 23 Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/23/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. MC CANE-Thank you guys, very much. MR. MC CABE-So you witnessed kind of an unusual affair here. Everybody agreed either to the positive or to the negative tonight. That’s a little unusual for us. 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 JUNE 23, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: rd Duly adopted this 23 day of June, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 23