Loading...
2011.08.17 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 51-2011 Gerald Monrian, Jr. 1. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-32 Area Variance No. 52-2011 Lynda Johnson 4. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-48 Area Variance No. 54-2011 Patrick Burke 7. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-70 Area Variance No. 55-2011 Janet Whalen 12. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-5 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS JOYCE HUNT JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY th MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. It is 7 o’clock on August 17, Wednesday here at the Queensbury Activities Center, and I’d like to call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this evening. For those of you who haven’t been here before, there is a piece of paper in the back that explains the process of how we call forward the applicants and go through our process here at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The first item on the agenda is the th approval of minutes, but we are going to postpone those until August 24. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2011 SEQRA TYPE II GERALD MONRIAN, JR. OWNER(S) GERALD MONRIAN, JR. ZONING MDR LOCATION 47 DIVISION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF +/- 2.26 ACRE LOT INTO 2 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF +/- 1.13 ACRES EACH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SUBD. 6-2011; BP 91-545 POOL SHED; BP 89-724 INGRD POOL; BP 89-387 DECK; BP 88-677 SHED WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.26 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-32 SECTION 179-3-040 GERALD MONRIAN, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2011, Gerald Monrian, Jr., Meeting Date: August 17, 2011 “Project Location: 47 Division Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of +/- 2.26 acre lot into 2 residential lots of +/- 1.13 acres each. Relief Required: Relief requested from setback requirements and from minimum lot size requirements. Parcel will require area variances as follows per §179-3-040: 1.Side setback relief – Request for 13.3 feet of side setback relief for the existing garage located on the proposed northern lot and 16.2 feet of side setback relief for the existing shed located on proposed southern lot. 2.Lot Size – Request for 0.87 acres of relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size for both proposed lots for the MDR District. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Existing conditions and the nature of the proposal appear to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.3 feet or 53% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the existing garage located on the proposed north lot may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the 1 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) request for 16.2 feet or 65% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the existing shed located on the proposed south lot may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 0.87 acres or 43.5% relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size for the MDR zone for both proposed lots may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Note: All variance requests are per §179-3-040 requirements. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and/or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Subd. 6 -2011: 2 lot subdivision Pending BP 91-545: Pool shed Approved 1991 BP 89-724: Ingrd pool Approved 1989 BP 89-387: Deck Approved 1989 BP 88-677: Shed Approved 1988 Staff comments: The proposed house for the southern lot has ample room for placement within the building envelope. According to the applicant, plans for a garage are not proposed at this point in time. Consideration to placing the house in a location within the building envelope to accommodate a future garage should be considered when applying for a building permit. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board did act on two resolutions. One was on the SEQRA and they said that there would be, the Board finds that the action about to be undertaken will have no significant environmental effect, and the Chairman of their Planning Board authorized the execution and signing and filing of a statement of non-significance. Also the motion by the Planning Board also based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal as well, and that was approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. For the record, if you could state your names, and if you’d like to add anything to what Roy has already read into the record, feel free to do so. MR. MONRIAN-My name’s Gerald J. Monrian, Jr., and I’m the one that owns the land. This is the one that’s going to buy the lot next door, my daughter, and that’s all we’re trying to do, and the garage that’s there, that was built in ’71 or so, I guess that’s when it was 10 or 15 foot from the property line back at that time. The shed came later on, after I bought the property, but the reason why I combined everything back then was because for tax purposes. The assessment went down like $60,000 when I put everything together. So it made my taxes a little bit cheaper, and that’s the only reason why I did that. Outside of that, that’s about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So this was the original lot dividing line? MR. MONRIAN-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-And you said you were going to sell it, not give it to her? MR. MONRIAN-I’m going to sell it to her. MR. JACKOSKI-Do any Board members have any questions? MR. KUHL-Is the shed going to stay on the south property or are you going to move it? MR. MONRIAN-No, that’s going to stay on their property. MR. KUHL-That stays there. So there is a plan to build? MR. MONRIAN-Right. 2 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. KUHL-And the house will be going into the envelope, and it will not have any variances needed, you’re going to put it where it should? MR. MONRIAN-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-When do you think you will build the home? DAUGHTER-We’re going to try for next year. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? MR. CLEMENTS-And we’re going to leave room for a garage also? MR. MONRIAN-Yes. We’re going to keep the house like the 25 feet over, or 30 feet from the other, south end of the property line, because it slants off a little bit. When they put their cellar up, they can put full sized windows on that side because it slants a little bit. You know, you went by today. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t think there’s a reason to poll the Board. Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to address the Board on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, has there been any public comment received? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no public comment, seeing no one in the audience, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I’d entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2011 GERALD MONRIAN, JR., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 47 Division Road. The applicant is proposing subdivision of a +/- 2.26 acre lot into two residential lots of +/- 1.13 acres each. Relief is requested from the setback requirements from the minimum lot size requirements for the parcel and side setback relief is necessary. The request is for 13.3 feet of side setback relief for the existing garage located on the proposed northern lot, and 16.2 feet of side setback relief for the existing shed located on the proposed southern lot, and, Two, the lot size, the request for .87 acres of relief from the two acre minimum lot size for both proposed lots for the Moderate Density Residential district. The Board has considered, and in this instance here it’s a family subdivision, and we always kind of listen to what families want to do with their property, and as the applicant has said, this lot once was two separate lots. It’s going to be basically reforming that lot on the same property line that once pre-existed. Existing conditions and the nature of the proposal appear to preclude any feasible methods by which to avoid an Area Variance, and although the relief is substantial, it’s because the zoning has changed since the original lot was formed previously. For the Moderate Density Residential zone it will fit in with that neighborhood. So we don’t really consider it to be, even though it’s a substantial amount of relief requested, it’s inconsequential given the fact that you guys can live with each other. As far as an adverse impact on the neighborhood, minor impacts on the neighborhood to no impact as far as I’m concerned. So I would move that we approve this Area Variance. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. Good luck with the house. 3 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. MONRIAN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2011 SEQRA TYPE II LYNDA JOHNSON AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONING WR LOCATION 347 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 937 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO INCLUDE ATTACHED GARAGE, STUDY, POWDER ROOM, AND HALLWAY SPACE REPLACING EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WITH CARPORT AND SHED SPACE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK, FAR AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE SP 56-2011, AV 93-2004, AV 68-2004, AV 9-2002, SP 43-1999 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 10, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.47 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040A; 179-13-010A DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2011, Lynda Johnson, Meeting Date: August 17, 2011 “Project Location: 347 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 937 square foot residential addition to include attached garage, study, powder room, and hallway space replacing existing detached garage with carport and shed space. Relief Required: Area variances for this proposal are as follows: 1.Side Setback – Request for 14.9 feet of side setback relief for the proposed garage/office with breezeway. 2.Expansion of a nonconforming structure - This request must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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, however, detriment to the adjacent parcel to the south may be realized due to the close proximity of the proposal to the property line. 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 include placement within the existing building envelope to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 14.9 feet or 74.5% relief from the 20 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the proposed garage/office with breezeway may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for the expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of this board as per §179-13-010. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the district may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV52-11 Setback relief Pending AV 93-04 Side setback relief for expansion Approved 12/15/04 A.V. 68-04 Setback relief for covered porch Denied 9/15/04 AV 9-02 Residential setback relief Approved 2/27/02 SP 43-99 1,650 sq. ft. expansion Approved 9/21/99 Staff comments: 4 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) The setback for the breezeway would be 10.3 feet at its closest point if taken separately from the garage/office; the expansion is considered one structure and as such setback request for 14.9 feet is presented to the board for approval. The project includes the removal of the existing shed and garage with carport. Overall permeability for the site will be increased from 65.7% to 66.1% or 160 square feet. The applicant proposes to reconfigure the driveway to include a portion reverting to grass as well as removing an existing walkway to the south and re-vegetate. The shoreline buffer could be considered a model for other properties. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board issued a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals according to its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot th be mitigated with the current proposal, and that was approved unanimously on August 16. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Good evening and while Roy has given us an extensive description of the project, is there anything that you would like to add at this time, or do you want to open it up to the Board? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, first introductions. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design representing our owner and applicant Lynda Johnson, and Michael O’Connor, attorney for the project. No, that’s certainly a thorough explanation. The point I would like to make is that basically the addition that’s being proposed, the new garage study and connection space, occupies effectively what is already there. There is an increase of floor area. We’ve had extensive discussions with Staff, getting that down exact so that we are not increasing the floor area. I think there was, in the description of the project, there may be some reference to a variance required for that, but that’s, in fact, not the case. We’ve stayed under the allowable limits. Permeability does increase. We’ve made some effort to, while increasing footprint area, we have decreased the impermeable area, and that was done through, as indicated, a reduction in the driveway, a reduction, removal of a walkway. So we’ve tried to be able to come back to the Board with less impermeable area, more permeable area, and still, again, occupying an area of the structure that basically is occupied currently. We’re not increasing the setback that currently exists by the existing structures. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. OBORNE-If I could clarify for the Board. Dennis is correct. The application description does state on the agenda that FAR relief is required, and that was placed on there prior to running him through the machinations of figuring out exactly what the FAR was, and he did prove that in fact he did not need FAR relief based on that, but by that time it was already posted and out there. As a result of that, it’s less relief. So it’s really not an issue in this case. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Staff. Anyone have any questions at this time? MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O’CONNOR-Steve, I have a comment to make, too. I came late to this, and after I came, I did submit to Staff, I don’t know if it’s in your packets, it probably came in too late for your packets, letters from both adjoining neighbors, the neighbor on the south and the neighbor on the north, saying that they consent to and have no problem with that. In fact, I understand that Mr. Allerdice is here, and his letter, he may want to add to it, states, “We are Wally and Sue Allerdice, and we live next door to Lynda Johnson. They live on the south, the side that you’re talking about, or were talking about, where we’re going to build. The addition she wants to add to replace the two buildings presently there is next to our driveway. We have reviewed the plans and are very pleased with the whole project. We hope that you are able to grant the approval that she needs as this would improve the whole neighborhood, and would be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye than what is currently there. Thank you. Sincerely, they both signed it. I also have a letter from the owner to the north of the property, and it states, it’s to the Queensbury Zoning Board from Mary O’Brien, re: Lynda Johnson application “Dear Board Members, I am in full support of the project that has been proposed to you by the Johnson family. They have been wonderful neighbors for many years.” It’s signed Mary O’Brien. I’d also note for the record that the County Planning Board said that there was No County Impact, and you already read the Town Planning Board recommendation of approval that was given last night. Those are the comments I would have, unless you have specific questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Board members? 5 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. KUHL-I just have one. What’s the height of the garage going to be? MR. O’CONNOR-Sixteen or eighteen feet. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it was seventeen something. Less than eighteen. MR. KUHL-Now, Keith, is that considered a garage or a structure? MR. OBORNE-It’s attached. MR. KUHL-So it gets the height of the house? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. OBORNE-Hence the breezeway. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. O’CONNOR-Well, the intention of the breezeway is that this is really to put an office on that property so that Mr. Johnson doesn’t have to work at his kitchen table. He does a lot of his work from home, with the businesses hat he runs, and I’m sure he doesn’t want to go in and out without having a connection. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions at this time? Seeing no other comments, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address this Board? Roy, are there any public comments? MR. URRICO-There are three public comments, two of which Mr. O’Connor just read in, and the third of which is going to be brought to our attention here. MR. JACKOSKI-By Mr. Navitsky. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We are not opposed to the variance application in this section of Cleverdale. However, we feel that there is the opportunity for some water quality improvements. On stormwater management, the application material states that there will be stormwater management controls, but no information is provided. We would just encourage to maximize stormwater management where possible. We did have a question on the shoreline buffer, but we have since observed the site from the lake and it is a, as Staff noted, it is a buffer that should be, other people should take note of. So we support that. On impervious cover, we recognize that they are removing that. However, it does exceed the allowable impermeable cover on the site. So we would encourage if that could be reduced at all any further through reduction of patios or walkways, again, and those are our comments. So we’d just like to thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Navitsky, and we won’t read your letter into the record, if that’s okay with you, or would you still like us to do so? MR. NAVITSKY-No, you don’t need to. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who’d like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, are there any other questions from the Board members? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re going to be well over, almost, just around 200 feet back from the lake where all the new construction’s going to take place? I think Roy and I were the only ones that reviewed it the last time when you re-did the house. That was a while back. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s approximately150 feet to the back of the existing house, to the road side of the existing house. So it takes place in then the next 55 feet back from that. 6 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-So as far as an impact on the lake, you don’t anticipate any runoff reaching the lake from anything new. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. If you observed the property, there’s sort of a distinct break from the house back to the road and the house forward to the lake. I would note that what you have obviously is the variance plan. Pending approval here we will be before the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. There is a site plan in their files that does provide some attention to stormwater management. So that is being addressed in that venue in front of that Board where there will be some attention given to stormwater management. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, seeing no other comments from Board members, it’s not appearing to me that we need to poll the Board, so would anyone like to make a motion? MR. KOSKINAS-I’ll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Koskinas. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2011 LYNDA JOHNSON, Introduced by John Koskinas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 347 Cleverdale Road. Approving the expansion of a nonconforming structure and granting 14.9 feet of side setback relief for the proposed garage office with breezeway. The findings include: One, that no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood will be created, and as a result of the close proximity existing lot structures have to the south side adjoining property, that no further detriment to that parcel will result. Two, that the applicant does not have reasonable alternatives not involving an Area Variance. Three, that the variance is not deemed to be substantial. Four, that the variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and, Five, that the applicant’s difficulty is considered to be self-created. I move we approve this variance. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2011 SEQRA TYPE II PATRICK BURKE AGENT(S) PATRICK BURKE OWNER(S) DEVIN SPENCER ZONING MDR LOCATION 337 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 400 SQUARE FOOT WRAP AROUND FRONT PORCH AS WELL AS A 336 SQUARE FOOT REAR ADDITION TO THE HOME WITH A 192 SQUARE FOOT DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 10, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-70 SECTION 179-3-040 PATRICK BURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2011, Patrick Burke, Meeting Date: August 17, 2011 “Project Description: 336 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 square foot wrap around front porch as well as a 336 square foot rear addition to the home with 192 square foot attached deck. Relief Required: Relief requested from front and side yard setback requirements for the MDR zone as per §179- 3-040. Parcel will require area variances and approvals as follows: 1.Front setback – Request for 8.0 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the proposed front porch. 2.Side setback – Request for 10.52 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed front porch. 7 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) 3.Side setback – Request for 10.50 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the rear proposed addition. 4.Side setback – Request for 10.50 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed deck associated with the rear addition. 5.Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board as per §179- 13-010F. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to location of the dwelling in regards to the building envelope. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet or 27% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the proposed front porch may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 10.52 feet or 42% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed front porch may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 10.5 feet or 42% relief for both the proposed addition and associated deck may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board. 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 may be anticipated as a result of this requested variance. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Found Staff comments: No immediate issues. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate it. Again, a very extensive narrative, and if you’d like to add anything, if you wouldn’t mind identifying yourself for the Board. MR. BURKE-My name is Patrick Burke, builder for the Spencers here, and we’re just looking to give these guys the space that they want to have. We’re up against, obviously, side and front setbacks for basically all parts of this addition that they want to have, and we’re just looking to go through the steps here to get this variance approved so we can further these guys dreams at the moment to do their addition. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have one. As you go through this construction process, at what point in time does the garage come down, before you begin? MR. BURKE-That’s going to have to be in the very beginning. We’ve got to demo the existing back porch, an eight foot bump out porch right now. That comes down as well as the garage. So that’s the first stage of. MR. KUHL-And you’ll be pulling out all the concrete, the footings of the garage? 8 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. BURKE-Yes, that all goes. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else have any questions on this project? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening, and seeing as though there is absolutely no one else in the room at this time, Roy, do we have any public comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-We have no comment of any type, public or private. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, we have opened the public hearing and we have closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Have you had any discussions with your neighbor on the, the neighbor closest to you concerning the project? MR. BURKE-To the left? DEVIN SPENCER MR. SPENCER-There is nothing actually going, the construction is going in the back and the porch is in the front. There’s actually nothing going to the side of their house at all. So, yes, we’ve talked to them. Their question to us was, what is the issue. I said, well, apparently you have to have a variance no matter what you’re doing, it’s the lot, but we’re not even going to there at all, building on to where they are. So MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Spencer. Anyone else have any questions? Well, I don’t think this one I need to poll the Board, either. So would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make the motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2011 PATRICK BURKE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 337 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 400 square foot wraparound front porch, as well as a 336 square foot rear addition to the home, with a 192 square foot attached deck. Relief requested from front and side yard setback requirements for the MDR zone as per Section 179-3-040. The parcel will require Area Variances, One, front setback request for eight feet of relief from the thirty foot front setback requirement for the proposed front porch. Two, side setback, request for 10.52 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed front porch. Three, side setback, request for 10.50 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the rear proposed addition. Four, side setback request for 10.50 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the proposed deck associated with the rear addition. Five, expansion of a nonconforming structure must be approved. Whether an undesirable change will be created in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. I think that this will be minor. Whether the benefit could be sought by some other means? Because of the situation of the dwelling and the lot, I don’t think so, and certainly it seems reasonable to want to improve your home and to increase the size. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. While the Area Variances might be moderate to substantial, this is a pre-existing condition. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect? There will be minor effects on the neighborhood. The difficulty may be considered self- created only in the fact that the Spencers want to improve their home. I move we approve Area Variance No. 54-2011. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, thank you. If we could ask Staff maybe to see if the Whalen application. MR. OBORNE-Well, Janet is not in the building at this point. 9 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think we’re going to wait, because I think we can postpone, just for a little bit, here, this particular application, and why don’t we move to a request that has been made of the Zoning Board to participate, under New Business, to participate in a joint meeting with the Planning Board concerning the Queensbury Partners project, and I would just read a memorandum that we have received from Keith Oborne. “The Planning Board Chairman, Chris Hunsinger, has requested a joint meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board to discuss the proposed development by the name of Fowler Square at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road. The development proposal has been before the Planning Board for conceptual review and will require multiple variance approvals as proposed. Staff request the two boards discuss this potential joint meeting and set a date agreeable to both entities.” In my st conversations with Staff, I’ve learned that the proposed date for this meeting is August 31. I believe the time is at 7 p.m., and it is here in the Activities Center. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why would we have it on a weekend when we know everybody is doing the last blowout of the summer? Because it’s Labor Day weekend. Right? MR. OBORNE-Well, I really have no clue as to, that has no bearing in my mind, but if that doesn’t work for the Zoning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m just saying it probably doesn’t make sense, people have got kids going back to college. They’ve got kids going to school, you know, and it’s sort of a busy time. It would make more sense for us, having not even seen anything at all. MR. JACKOSKI-And I should clarify, just so we know, I believe the applicant has been required to submit documentation by this Friday. MR. OBORNE-Yes. You will have materials before you prior to any joint meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-Pretty short notice, though. MR. JACKOSKI-We agree. MR. OBORNE-Well, if you have issues with that, as a Board, then offer up another date. MR. JACKOSKI-And I apologize. I mean, I felt that we could probably make this happen on the st 31. I’m actually going to be coming back in from Boston that day to make sure I can be here, but if other people can’t be here, then we probably should. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not going to be here. MR. KUHL-I will not be here. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron’s not here. Jim’s not here. MR. URRICO-What time is it? MR. JACKOSKI-Seven. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I would just make the point, it seems to me that this is such a large project, in that we have never seen anything like this before, anywhere in Town. So it’s probably important that we have time to digest it, and even, you know, to peruse the plans prior to the meeting. MR. KOSKINAS-Is there an agenda and an objective of this meeting? MR. OBORNE-The objective is to impart information to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. JACKOSKI-We’re not being asked to make any decisions. MR. OBORNE-You’re not being asked to make any decisions. MR. URRICO-So it’s just an information. MR. OBORNE-Yes, well, it’s a general discussion between the two Boards, in an open forum. It does require a public hearing. It does require noticing, because you are an appellate court, okay. You have to have a determination in front of you before you can review it, obviously. With that said, all that the Chairman of the Planning Board wanted to do was to bring you into the 10 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) loop, for lack of a better term, for information. This is the first, in my tenure here, that we’ve ever done this type of joint meeting, outside of the policies and procedures meeting. MR. URRICO-Well, we did one for Great Escape. MR. UNDERWOOD-We did one for Great Escape’s Master Plan. MR. OBORNE-I wasn’t here for Great Escape, but in my tenure here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Question, is this going to have a full EIS on it? I mean, I don’t know anything about the project other than what I read in the newspaper, and I think we’re all in that boat right now. MR. OBORNE-Well, I don’t think that a full EIS has been discussed at this point at all. They have not submitted an application yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, are we in a hurry then or what? MR. JACKOSKI-I think, Jim, what we’re trying to accomplish is get the information and get the project started, and I think it’s been at the Planning Board so long that I, personally, would love to have as much advanced notice about what this project is, because I understand there’s quite a few variances. So, I know seven Planning Board members are available. Right now with Rick we have six Zoning Board people available, if Roy is one of those six. MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m available. I just, I may be cutting it close, but I’ll be here. I’d like Ron and Jim to be there, but I also don’t want to stall the project. MR. OBORNE-Well, I think there’s merit to what Jim’s saying. What is the hurry. I mean, I can’t disagree with you on that, and I know that the Planning Board, all members of the Planning st Board are good on the 31. MR. UNDERWOOD-So when are we going to see this? We’re going to get a copy of this in the mail next week some time? MR. OBORNE-You should get this, again, the assumption is, is that the applicant is going to submit by Friday for you guys to get something to you the following week. MR. JACKOSKI-So if we, as members, were available to come to the Town on Friday, late afternoon, to pick up our packet, could we? MR. OBORNE-If it was available, absolutely. Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-So at least we’d have it over the weekend. MR. UNDERWOOD-At least we’d have some idea of what we’re getting into. MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-And you are sure it’s 7 p.m., correct? MR. OBORNE-It is 7 p.m. Yes. MR. KUHL-And it wouldn’t be possible to push it a week? st MR. OBORNE-If you, as a Board, if the 31 does not work for you as a Board, offer up another date. I have another meeting next Tuesday. I can offer that date up to the Planning Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any indication of how many variances are going to be requested? Like is it 10, 100? MR. OBORNE-Many. MR. UNDERWOOD-Like how many is many? MR. OBORNE-Well, they haven’t landed on anything yet, at this point, but many. MR. KUHL-How about this as a suggestion? Come up with a second date, just in case they don’t get their documentation in by Friday, you know, a second date out further. I mean, you st can still meet on the 31. 11 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. OBORNE-We need to keep their feet to the fire. If they want to submit something, it’s this Friday, and if they don’t get it, then they’re pushed out again. We have other applications that we need to look at, and the whole idea for this was to impart information, and to have a general discussion in an open forum. That’s all. It’s not to try to influence any or either of the Boards, just to give you information. MR. JACKOSKI-I think a joint meeting with the Planning Board is really a good idea because I understand they’re driving a lot of. MR. OBORNE-And that’s true, they are. They want that town square type look, you know, instead of what they initially proposed, which was just apartment buildings, that’s it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I think we have enough members here that are willing to participate st on the 31. So I’d like to officially note that we will be planning to hold this joint meeting with the st Planning Board on the 31 of August at 7 o’clock here in the Activities Center. We don’t need a motion or anything, correct? MR. OBORNE-That’s fine, no. MR. JACKOSKI-Just, also under New Business, I don’t know if everyone has been informed, but we have received two applications for an Appeal for next week. You got them all in your packets, right? Just to make sure that. I believe I’m going to be asking Mike Hill to attend the meeting. Craig Brown will be here as well as Keith. I mean, do we feel we need legal counsel? MR. KOSKINAS-What’s the concern? MR. JACKOSKI-On the two notices? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-We usually don’t, unless it’s something that we’re nervous about or something. MR. JACKOSKI-I certainly will support the Board no problem. It’s just these are my first notices as Chairman. So, with your guidance and tutelage, I can certainly get through it. Craig will be here. MR. OBORNE-He has to defend himself. MR. KUHL-But that one is the Joshua’s Rock, right, he’s challenging the authenticity of the? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, we really can’t talk about it. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. OBORNE-It would be prudent if you didn’t, put it to you that way. MR. KUHL-All right. I’m not going to be here. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think we can’t talk about it because the applicant isn’t here. MR. KUHL-Well, then the question that you’re asking is do we need legal counsel? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. Okay. Everybody’s shaking their heads no. Okay. So we will not ask legal counsel to be here. Well, we don’t have any additional business. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2011 SEQRA TYPE II JANET WHALEN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MDR LOCATION 15 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 384 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2011-276, BP 2011-293 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 10, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.23 +/- ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-5 SECTION 179-3- 040 MR. UNDERWOOD-Has anybody got a phone to call that lady up and see if she forgot? MR. OBORNE-I do not have a phone, at this point. 12 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t. So do we want to table her until next week or something? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that would be, well, that wouldn’t give enough notice. So you’d have to table that until September, and we have plenty of room in September. My suggestion, I st apologize, Mr. Chairman, would be the 21 of September. With no conditions. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I feel bad, but they’re not here. MR. CLEMENTS-Is there any reason why we can’t talk about it if they’re not here? MR. KOSKINAS-Why not. It’s on the agenda. MR. OBORNE-Are you going to open a public hearing? MR. KOSKINAS-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. OBORNE-That’s up to you if you want to do that, that’s fine, but it’s not typical protocol to do that. There is no applicant here. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think usually if the public’s here to speak, we always open it up, but nobody’s here, so we can just table it. MR. JACKOSKI-I’ll poll the Board on what you’d like to do. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’d go ahead with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Table it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. KOSKINAS-I’d like to review it, it’s a modest request. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think we can if she’s not here. MR. OBORNE-There is no representation here. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’ve got to have somebody to represent them. It’s not a wise move. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Table. MR. URRICO-I say we table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion, please? MR. OBORNE-If you deny this application tonight, then you have no legal standing whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion, please? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2011 JANET WHALEN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: st 35 Meadowbrook Road. Tabled until the September 21 meeting and contact the applicants and remind them. th Duly adopted this 17 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a re-submission deadline? MR. OBORNE-No, there’s no re-submission deadline. It’s just no conditions, really. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 13 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 08/17/2011) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Clements MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other business that anyone would like to bring forward? Okay. We are adjourned at 7:43. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 14