Loading...
07-25-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2012 INDEX Area Variance No. 23-2012 David H. Wilcox & Victoria T. Zeldin 1. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-42 Area Variance No. 34-2012 SBLB 10. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-49, 50, 51, and 58 Area Variance No. 36-2012 Glen & Jeane Guyette 14. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-28 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 25, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS RICHARD GARRAND LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Welcome to tonight's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting here at the Town of Queensbury Center. For those of you who haven't attended in the past, there is a sheet on the back table that explains the process. It's pretty simple. Each application will be called to the table. The applicant will listen to the application being read into the record. We will then ask the applicant questions, and then we will proceed from there. If there is a public hearing scheduled for the evening, we will of course open the public hearing. So the first matter on tonight's agenda is Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2012 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID H. WILCOX& VICTORIA T. ZELDIN AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ., BRIAN THAYER, DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) DAVID H. WILCOX & VICTORIA T. ZELDIN ZONING WR LOCATION 26 FOREST ROAD - ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,360 +/- SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO EXISTING 1,767 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING TO INCLUDE A SECOND GARAGE. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 2006-826 SFD, BP 2006-282 DEMOLITION OF SFD, BP 2006-160 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-42 SECTION 179-5-020D, 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This project has been heard by this Board in the past. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2012, David H. Wilcox & Victoria T. Zeldin, Meeting Date: July 25, 2012 "Project Location: 26 Forest Road - Assembly Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 3,332 +/- sq. ft. expansion to existing 1,767 sq. ft. single-family dwelling to include a second garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Floor Area Ratio - Request for 933 sq. ft. or a 4.9% increase above the 22% allowable FAR as per§179-3-040. • Second garage - Relief requested from number of allowable garages on a parcel as per §179-5-020D. 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 moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the granting of relief for both requests at the same time could set precedence for future requests in the general vicinity. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) 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 would be to construct a house within the FAR requirements and construct with one garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 933 square feet or 4.9% increase above the allowable 4,166 square feet for the FAR may be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for an additional garage or 100% relief from the requirement of only one garage permitted per dwelling as per §179-5-020D may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in 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, BP 2006-836 SFD Issued 12/1/2006 BP 2006-282 Demolition Issued 5/8/2006 BP 2006-160 Septic alteration Issued 4/6/2006 Staff comments: • As per the definition for an accessory structure, garages (temporary or permanent) having an opening or doorway of six feet in width or more, determines the need for a variance with this proposal. • The applicant has made changes to the foyer area, basement and second garage among others in response to the Zoning Boards concerns. Although the applicant's narrative states that only one variance is requested, in fact two are requested as a result of the above definition. • Please see Page V-1 for Floor Area Ratio breakout. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome back. If you wouldn't mind just generally explaining the differences of the plan now as compared to before, that would be great. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. With me at the table is Victoria Zeldin, her husband David Wilcox and Dennis MacElroy who's the engineer for the project. I put this up here, and I apologize if somebody comes in that has an interest, but I asked and nobody behind us, at this point, has an interest in this particular application. I always tell clients, when they're making a variance application, it's sometimes like hunting, and you never know whether you're going to run into a squirrel or a bear. When we came in here in May, we had a unique history for the property, which I think distinguishes it from any other property in that area or neighborhood which would not set a precedent if you did grant the variances. We had neighborhood support and we had no engineering or environmental issues. Even with the requested variances at that time, I thought we'd be successful. However, zoning is a compromise business so we listened and went back and studied our plans and sought ways to improve them, and we reviewed the minutes of the Mayl6th meeting in detail, and it's clear that we needed to address certain issues perhaps with a little bit more detail than we addressed them in May. The main issue seems to be who will the variance affect? We brought with us this aerial photo which was prepared by Warren County based upon a 2008 aerial photo. The property is not visible. This is the property right here. This is Forest Road. This is what I call the east side of Assembly Point, and the property is not visible at all from the lake from the east. A good part of this area here that looks like it's open is, in fact, wetland, and it probably will never be built on. It is some 320 feet from the west shore of Assembly Point, and we've got some photos in the PowerPoint presentation that show you that the existing structure, which is higher than what we propose to build for the addition, is not visible or barely visible. So we don't think that the addition that we propose is visible at all. This photo is not necessarily up to date because since the photo was taken, Mr. Leece, who has built this house down here, has built a substantial garage and structure on this part of his lot. So basically we are saying we really are not impacting anyone except those who have said that they're happy with the particular application. There's also discussion about restrictive covenants and whether or not they prohibited what we are proposing. Mr. Underwood said it was his recollection that homes were supposed to be single story. Well, I looked at the restrictions, and (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) the restrictions in Paragraph Five give a minimum square footage and says that it applies to, and this is a quote, all dwellings, regardless of being one, one and a half or two story buildings. So the restrictions don't prohibit what we're talking about, and hopefully that doesn't cloud anybody's question on it. We also had a discussion, then, about a setback of 60 feet from roads for garages, and part of the addition here is a garage. We tried hard not to make it a garage, but because the doorway that we propose is seven feet wide, it's still considered a garage by the Town. In reading Paragraph Two and Three of the restrictions, you can see clearly that the 60 foot setback applies only to freestanding garages. Paragraph Two says, no dwelling house or portion thereof may be closer than 20 feet to a street line. Well, this is not a freestanding garage. This is attached or it's part of the house. So what would be applicable would be the 20 foot setback. We actually are proposing 30 feet. Paragraph Three says, and there's a misspelling, it says no garage bar, and I presume they mean barn, or outbuildings can be less than 60 feet, but they're talking about separate freestanding buildings, and also, throughout the minutes, comments, or at least the underlying feeling that I got from reading the minutes, was that there's suspicion that the applicants intend to create a home with an attached apartment that they could rent out to others in the summer or other times of the year. Again, Mr. Underwood, and I don't mean to pick on Mr. Underwood's comments, but he was the most vocal that evening, in referring to the area over the garage, asked, is this a separate that you're going to rent out in the summertime, and Mr. Urrico also seemed to have, seemed to wrestle with the concept of having two entrances within the common entranceway, as though we were trying to set this up as a separate mother-in-law apartment or a rental apartment or something of that nature, and physically I can see, from the floor plan that was before you in May, how this concern may have arisen, and we've addressed that by changing the floor plan which you're going to see very shortly, and further, besides addressing the floor plan, I would repeat or reaffirm the testimony of the applicants that they will remove the kitchen from the area above the garage and that they have no intention of renting that area out separate from the addition that they're asking permission to build. What we're talking about here really is having decent storage provisions for a year round home that will contain a lifetime of possessions, plus all the toys that go with living in proximity to a lake and equipment to maintain the yard and property. If you look at the existing survey that's in your packet by Van Dusen & Steves, you will see that presently there are two temporary canopies, a shed and a lean-to, and that's a total of 800 square feet that is already fully used for storage of just the summertime items, and the applicants don't like to leave things out in their yard, and I don't think that's attractive for the neighborhood, and it's just not a neat way of living. They are asking for 1236 square feet of garage, if you will, for a year round house, with the agreement that they will remove that 800 feet that they already presently use for storage. So they're going to gain about 450 feet of storage if this is approved. As I said, the applicant's changed the floor plan to address the Board's comments and have put together a PowerPoint presentation to demonstrate it. To give you some perspective of the application, that the application's unique and should not be a basis for a precedent of somebody else claiming relief or the entitlement to relief on the same basis, you really have to look a little bit at the history, and if you look at Slide One, not knowing how well the electronic would work, we brought you a hard copy. You have two of the slides on each page. Slide One shows the camp as it was purchased in 1992 as a summer retreat. Slide Number, my page is Page Three. Are they still numbered that way? Okay. Page Three shows you what happened in February of 2006 that started this whole process, and probably if you take a look at that photo and you see how the adjoining neighbor cleared all their trees, the wind sheer changed in that neighborhood, and trees that were on his property ended up coming down on our property. Slide Number Four shows you the temporary RV that they brought to the site, and the applicants got Town permission for that. The applicants have tried to be compliant with Town regulations throughout their ownership of this particular property. That, unfortunately after four days, I guess, being on the site was struck by additional trees. Slide Number Five is probably the most important slide that I'm going to talk about. That is the septic plan that was presented to the Town in 2006, and it is the septic system that was approved in 2006. That's a four bedroom septic system, and at that time they also obtained building permits to build Phase 1, which was the garage and the living area over the garage. This is one of the main reasons, or one of the most important reasons why I think this property and these applicants are unique and are not the basis for setting a precedent. I don't think there's anybody out there that can come in and say that prior to this change of the definition in the zoning actually planned on having a four bedroom house on their property, actually installed the septic system, actually showed that they were going to install a well on the property, and actually built part of the building. They built the garage. So I don't think there's any property that will closely resemble this as being a basis or reason for being entitled to a variance. The next photo on six shows the garage as it was constructed in 2006, with the permit of the Town. That was prior to the change in the calculation of Floor Area Ratio in 2009, and without any thought about that they had still the plans that they would build a reasonable year round house with reasonable storage in that house. They initially came to us and talked about a full basement. We suggested that perhaps we treat it as a garage so that it wouldn't be considered as likely to be converted to living space, which seems to be the suspicion that if you have extra Floor Area Ratio you are automatically going to, someday, or (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) some successor, is going to create an additional bedroom, and since then we have even amended that. I'll let David walk through some of the other photos or slides. DAVE WILCOX MR. WILCOX-Thank you. Dave Wilcox. Some of the thinking that went into the design, Vicki and I, each of us, our careers were in the healthcare industry. We're aware of the challenges the elderly have to staying in their homes. We're trying to plan for the possibility that we'll live long enough that these concerns will become real for us. These concerns informed our design. Requirements for retirement living, mobility, access, avoid barriers, stairs. With alternatives, doorways need to be wide enough, access to storage with wheeled carts or wheelchairs so that we can move things in and out. We needed a basement that we can walk in, not something that we'd have to hunch over. Well, between this meeting and the previous one, I had the opportunity to crawl around in someone else's basement, and when we left here, I'd asked Mike, should I just turn it into a crawl space, and then I got in there and I said, I couldn't live in here. I wouldn't be able to store things. At this point maybe I could crawl around. So that's one of the issues that I had. The initial plan was the one you saw in May, and then we revised the plan because of the concerns that you had expressed and Mike alluded to. We reduced the height of the basement. We have converted the door in the basement access to a conventional door from a garage door. Both sides of that will be rarely open. It's predominantly just going to be a swinging door that you go in and out, move bicycles in and out. On an occasion we may need to bring in larger toys at the beginning or the end of the season kind of thing, and that's the reason for the size of the door. The alternative would be to not have the space and just leave our stuff out in the yard as Mike alluded, which we don't really like living in. We revised the design for the foyer. We understood the concerns. We have clearly integrated the foyer into the living space. It was smaller than the design that you saw in May. We've reduced the possibility, even though that was never our intention, of making this a duplex. The next two slides offer interior views to demonstrate the integration of the foyer. Here you can see, looking up to the second floor, you'll see the entry door on the right hand side, on the right of them, left picture on the right hand side you can see the foyer leading right directly into the living room. There's a coat closet on your right hand side, and on the next screen you can see looking down from the second floor directly into the living room. The connector was redesigned. We've done some adjustments. Six feet of that width has been reconfigured to become part of the garage space, that is it will be firewalled off as one needs to do to protect the house, the living area from the garage, clearly not living area. We have reduced the width of it down to 17 feet, even though it makes the stairway a little bit tight. We figure we can work around that, and you can see the thinking that we couldn't remove the connector entirely. There's no way to then have these transition spaces going from floor to floor and area to area without having that space. One could consider it not unlike the space that one sees in a traditional colonial where you enter in, there's a foyer area. There's stairs that go up and you have rooms off to the sides that's similar in concept. We have the existing space on the right. You can see how we've reconfigured the entryway slightly to take into consideration the change in the foyer area, and to the lower left you can see the change of the door which is recessed. That view doesn't show well but it's recessed with a slight porch which sort of mirrors the recessed porch that we have on the upper right side with the existing garage. On the rear you can see how we have modified the roofline. We've been able to, on the average, reduce the height of the roof by changing the pitch. We've removed a dormer which had a, you know, the large wall area facing in that left direction. So we believe that we've been able to make some modifications that will soften the view from Lake Parkway to the extent that people will even be able to see it. The impact. As Mike indicated, we believe this is a unique situation that will not have a negative impact on the lake or our neighbors, as many of them have so stated. For a bird's eye view of the proposal, it's a little difficult to see but almost square in the middle of the picture there's a little red rectangle which is our planned addition. You can see Lake Parkway and Forest Road, and it mirrors, there's a fairly large building in the upper left is oriented to the one that Mike mentioned. As you can see, we are well removed from the lake. The impact, this is the lake as you see it now, and then the view as we expect it to be when we're done. The building will be behind those trees where the arrow is. We belong to the LGA and the Fund for Lake George. We're sensitive to the needs to protect the lake and we hope that you agree that we've been working diligently to do that. We have also addressed some landscaping with Pete Watkins at Watkins Garden Center. He made some suggestions, and you can see the image here of a concept that he had. Our goal will be to soften the appearance from the road, use some perimeter plantings, trees where appropriate, bushes along the edges of the building. Just, I would note, this is not the current design. It was an earlier design that he had done, the pictures on, and I didn't ask him to update for this, but it gives you the idea that we are sensitive to it and wish to make it look nice. In conclusion, we request your approval of our request to implement a solution for the two catastrophes we experienced in 2006, and our solution for our goal to age in place. Our unique situation and solution can be a win for all. Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) MR. O'CONNOR-The slides, truthfully, are kind of sterile, but we're trying to give you an idea of how they are trying to incorporate the old structure into the new structure. I think there was legitimate concern about the old structure being isolated and being separated from the new structure. The foyer was shrunk from, I believe, 18 feet to 11 feet. The doorway which was there going into the living room was removed. That opening was widened so that the foyer is part of the living room. That, you can see out there and whatnot. There are fire rating concerns and that's the only reason that there's a door for the upstairs apartment area. There are three levels here now. They actually lowered the level of the floor of the basement area two feet, and they shortened the height of the basement from eight feet to seven feet to lower that floor to a level that would be level with the foyer. So the foyer is now level with the new addition. So it's not going to be a step up to that, but even with that, you still have to step down behind the shown staircase to get to the garage. There's a couple of stairs that go down there, and you obviously have to go up a set of stairs to get to the family room that's going to be above the garage, and that's why they still have 11 feet of foyer or connection, whatever you want to call it. At the top of that set of stairs there's a small platform, six foot, I think, by eight foot, and that allows the access to that family room and also allows an access out the back of the house to the existing screen porch. So they've done what they can do to meld this so that you don't have or should not have a concern about whether or not they are trying to set up a separate apartment, and again, to the point that this is unique and not precedent setting, I don't think you have anybody else that has this circumstance, trying to meld a structure that was built in 2006 with what they are proposing right now. So that's, I guess, the factual presentation. I will, if you will permit me, argue a little bit. There are five tests that you've got to consider, and I think if you look at each one individually, you should be satisfied. The first test is whether or not a change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Staff says minor or moderate. I believe there are none. The County Planning Department said there was no impact on Lake George, which I think would be the community. Neighbors, and I believe there are eight different neighbors, and they are shown with their properties outlined here, actually took the time, this is probably one of the most thorough presentations to a neighborhood that I've been involved with. Mr. Wilcox visited almost all of his neighbors. He showed them the plans, and they took the time, at least eight of them, to write letters of comment to this Board, not form letters, but actual individual letters saying that they did not believe that this was a change in the character of the neighborhood. They thought that this would be an improvement. The letter from Mr. Leece, who is the fellow that is immediately behind and has the large structure right there, says your plans look beautiful. I have no objection to your application. Mim Brown, who owns the parcel that is immediately in the middle and probably the most impacted by this addition, wrote a nice note: I have no objections to the size or height of your house. John Hodgkins, who I believe is right here, wrote: the size and intended use is consistent with our neighborhood. The new construction will be an improvement to the area and granting the necessary variances will not have a negative impact on the community, neighbors or the lake. The Maloneys, which are also on that same street, wrote, and they have more comments than this, they're at 26 Forest Road, we're 26, they're at 36, I'm sorry: We feel this construction would have no negative impact on the neighborhood. Actually it would add value. Jack McGillen wrote: The proposed structure is compatible with the neighborhood and will not negatively impact the neighborhood or the lake. Mary Ellen Tedeschi, and I probably didn't do a good job on her name, either, but I'll give Staff those letters. You have them, I think, in your file. MR. URRICO-I have two. MR. O'CONNOR-You have two. Well, these, they all went to. MR. URRICO-Were they previous letters? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, they were our packet. MR. OBORNE-They're in there. They're under public comment. MR. O'CONNOR-The modifications Dave and Vicki propose certainly is in keeping with the kinds of changes that are taking place over the years and will have a positive impact on the appearance of the neighborhood. Her husband, Fred, wrote a much lengthier letter and almost hit all five tests of applying for area variances. Whether he's been involved in an area variance for his property or not I don't know, but a very positive letter saying that it will not have any impact. Gerald Kileen, which is across the street, just up a little bit, said: The house will not negatively impact on our property or any other property in the area. Richard and Linda Trainer said: We feel the first phase of construction was well done, and we would expect the new proposed construction to also be the same, and again, we had the County letter saying that there was No County Impact. So I don't think there's any question that the character of the neighborhood, which is a single family home character, is harmed in any way, or the community is harmed in any way. The second test that you're going to ask yourself about is can the benefit be achieved by some method feasible to the applicant to pursue. We've looked at a lot of (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) different ways of trying to mesh this together as somebody suggested, and we really can't come up with a way of accommodating the three different levels that we're going to have. Basically we're trying to meld the old with the new, and this is what works. Obviously we could tear down the old and start over again, and we wouldn't have the height differential, but that would seem to be a great hardship to impose upon somebody. We could put in a five foot crawl space as opposed to a seven foot cellar, but I don't know the reason for that. I really don't. The only one that would impact would be the people in the house. It wouldn't impact the neighborhood. It wouldn't impact the community. You'd still have the same house, and whether, you know, I just don't know the justification when you weigh and balance the impact as opposed to the requirement. That's what you do. They want a home that they can retire to and age in, and a crawl space just doesn't work. They have a small boat and a bike trailer and they have a small trailer that the boat goes on. They have kayaks, canoes, and they intend, hopefully, to stay active. They have yard equipment and a year round house requires easily accessible storage and at the same time decent living space, and the actual living space of this home, without garage and without basement, is 2500 feet, plus or minus. That's not a real large home. Because we count the basement it gets way up there. Because we count the garage, it gets way up there. As I said, I'm probably repeating myself, we think the impacts are minimal. The history of the property is unique. It distinguishes this property from anybody else on that point, anybody else in that Shore Colony. We do not believe that you would be setting a precedent by allowing this to go forward. Is the area variance substantial? Our answer is no, and I think you judge that by the impacts, you don't judge it just mathematically. That's what all the case law says. Both the second garage are a goal of permitting, both variances really are part of the goal of permitting the applicants to store all their goods inside where they're readily accessible, and that's the whole reason for doing it. It's not the idea that they're trying to create a second home or apartment or something of that nature. We've said that the canopies and the sheds and lean- to will be removed if this is approved, and I really don't think it'll be better to require that the, all those goods and all that property be stored outside, and that's basically what we're talking about is your variance will allow some decent inside storage that's accessible. Will the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? No. Again, this same house could sit. It's just going to sit a little bit lower. Dennis MacElroy has certified that the septic system is in compliance, and he can tell us that the stormwater will be taken care of. They've also abandoned the idea of broadening that old driveway that ran to the area where we have the entrance into the basement. They're not going to do that. If they have a walkway from the front door to that driveway it'll be permeable, made of permeable material. There actually is, I think, a decrease in, it really has no impact at all. So I don't think there's anything of a nature, physical or environmental, that's going to be negatively impacted, and we're not talking, again, about anything visual, even, that's going to be significantly impacted, particularly as they've lowered the basement floor in order to gain that extra foot. Was the difficulty self-created? I think you can argue yes and no. You argue no because from the time they started their plans in 2006 and were reasonably expecting that they would be able to follow through on those plans, there was a change in the Ordinance, which they did not anticipate or expect, which is why they are here. You could argue yes because they don't have to be here, I guess, but I don't think that bars an area variance because they've made an application for a variance. So basically that's what I'd have comment. Dennis, for the purpose of the record, so we have a complete record, will you talk a minute just about the septic and the stormwater. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Thank you, Mike. Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. In 2006 we designed a Code compliant septic system for this property in anticipation of the future plans for that house. So that system was installed in '07 and was deemed compliant with the plans, as approved by the Building Department. Regarding stormwater, if this moves forward and is approved, the building plan that gets submitted for a building permit would require a minor stormwater permit. We've already done the background information, test pits and whatnot to show that, you know, we won't have any issues in terms of providing stormwater management for this layout as proposed. MR. O'CONNOR-So if you have questions that you'd like to ask of us, we'd be happy to try and answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-I guess I have a question. What is the SNORE room? MR. WILCOX-Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. MR. KUHL-Well, if that's your answer, how many bedrooms are you classifying this house as? MR. O'CONNOR-We're classifying it as three bedrooms, I believe, in the application. One in the area above the garage, and two in the addition. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But we have the capacity of having four, because that's the way the septic system is sized. MR. KUHL-Is that the way it is, Dennis, the septic is? MR. MAC ELROY-Four bedrooms. MR. KUHL-So what do you have, a 1200 gallon tank? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it would be 1250 for a four bedroom in Queensbury. MR. KUHL-So that's a snore room. So you're listing that as another bedroom? MR. WILCOX-That room does not have a closet in it. It's just large enough for a single bed and a t.v. and a bedside table. So we haven't called it a bedroom, but because the septic system was sized sufficiently, should a room be deemed to be a bedroom, we would have room within the system to handle it. MR. KUHL-You're opening up something brand new for me. I just wanted to make sure I understood what it was. My wife would put me in it every night, and my wife does it every night. I just didn't understand that. MR. WILCOX-But I need to give credit to the Northern Design people for having given us that idea. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. KUHL-I have another question. The first time you presented it, weren't you talking about no heat over the garage? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. And now you're going to make it a family room and it's going to be heated? Or is it? MR. O'CONNOR-Limited use, I think. MR. WILCOX-We would primarily use that space in the summer. We have not addressed, to be honest with you, the heating requirements for the building itself. Our anticipation, functionally, is that it'll get primarily three seasonal use, but we may discover as we go through the details of thinking this through that, you know, we haven't done yet with our designer until we get the approval. MR. KUHL-Well, I guess that's my question to you. Are you going to heat that area? MR. WILCOX-We have a gas fireplace there now so that we can heat it if we choose to. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. WILCOX-Yes. Any other questions from Board members? MR. KUHL-I have another question. The third access for the smaller garage, you're not going to put, is that going to be a walkway to that opening underneath the dressing room? Is it going to be asphalt? Is it going to be stone? MR. MAC ELROY--Correct. That walkway, that driveway that leads to that door opening coincides with the existing gravel. MR. KU H L-That's there now? MR. MAC ELROY-If you've been out there. MR. KUHL-That's going to stay? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Before we had proposed to widen that. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Now they're not going to. MR. KUHL-They're not going to. MRS. HUNT-I do have a question. We're here for two variances, the floor area ratio and the second garage and that's it. Correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any additional comment in the written public record? MR. URRICO-There are two additional letters. I believe since the last time we met. The other letters were read in, I believe, at the last meeting. Right? This one here is from John and Lindy Owen, and it's, "My wife and I reside at 202 Lake Parkway and are unable to make the meeting tonight. We are familiar with the proposed first and second plans for the addition to the above property. We find no reason to object to either set of plans. This addition will be an enhancement to the area. In addition the property is far enough away from the lake that it will have no effect on its quality." And then the second letter is from Winifred Katherine Maloney, and it says, "On behalf of the Estate of Eleanor D. Maloney, owner of camp located at 36 Forest Road, Assembly Point. I have the following objections, concerns regarding the revised changes proposed by Mr. Wilcox and Ms. Zeldin in their request for area variances and a second garage. One, the proposed design still looks like a duplex. There are separate exterior entrances and separate garages. Although Mr. Wilcox and Ms. Zeldin represent that the second floor will not be rented to third parties, a future owner may not honor that promise and could make any necessary interior changes to effectuate such rental. Two, if the goal is to have storage space, why is it necessary to have seven foot double doors in the proposed second garage? Surely a smaller door could be used to access that space, especially in light of the fact that the property already has a two car garage. Thank you for your consideration of my objections, concerns." Again, Winifred Katherine Maloney, Executrix. MR. O'CONNOR-The Owen property is this property right here. The Maloney property, we had a letter saying that they had no objections from the Maloneys. That's this property here. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I can clarify that. There's nobody living in that house right now. The previous owner is deceased, and Kathleen called me today and, you know, she had read the minutes and there are obviously a sibling issue there. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that it for written comment? MR. URRICO-That's all I have, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think certainly when we consider the Critical Environmental Area of Lake George, we're concerned with Waterfront buildings and new construction, but I think in this instance here Mr. O'Connor has pointed out the fact that this is located over 300 feet back from the lake, and I think one of the problems I've always had with the zoning up on Cleverdale and the associated area on Assembly Point is the fact that a lot of these interior lots really have no impact on the lake. I don't really feel that this lot, whatever was built there, would have an impact, other than the fact that I think what we're here for tonight, and that is the Floor Area Ratio and the second garage. Certainly I think we all recognize the fact that, you know, we went from one acre zoning to two acre zoning which, you know, puts the onus on everybody, and I think that when we looked at the Floor Area Ratio, what we're allowed, it's pretty reasonable, and in this instance here, I think you're asking for over and above what it is, but I think, as you've pointed out, you have a unique situation here with the way the lot is configured with the lower lot. You've met the height requirements and things like that at the same time. Although I'm not fully (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) satisfied that I would consider that someone in the future would turn this into a duplex, which I think could easily be done. I think there's lots of situations up in the area where similar circumstances, and as you pointed out to us, I think that you have made it apparent to me that you don't intend to do this, you know, and I think that we have to give you the benefit of the doubt on that also at the same time. I don't think it would be fair for us to just always assume that people are going to take advantage of Boards and take advantage of the rules and regulations and do an end run on this, too. As far as the second garage issue goes, it is a seven foot wide door. I would think it would be in your interest to store items down there that were not flammable. I don't think I'd want to store my lawn mower and chainsaws and stuff like that, and you have plenty of room in that garage because you have that excess area off to the side of the garage there where you can store your flammables and things like that. It is a large request, and I think what I'd like to do is just listen to what everybody else had to say. I'm sitting on the fence on it, but I'm somewhat in your court in regards to the fact that you have tried to change it. I recognize, too, the fact that the foyer has 17 feet wide and I think to accommodate the staircase and things like that up to the top of the garage, that's about as small as you could make it. I don't think it would make any sense to make it smaller to gain a foot or two more or anything like that. So I'm just going to wait and see what everybody else has, to throw out those ideas and see how everybody else feels. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think if the property were sloped the other way and you put that seven foot door in the back, that probably wouldn't be looked at as a garage. It would be an access to store your toys, but the way the property is, it is in the front. So, I mean, I don't see it as a second garage. see it as a place where you're going to store your toys. Your septic is built to handle the bedrooms you have, and, I mean, we can argue straightaway that the amount of footage you're adding on is an awful lot, but if the neighbors are all for it and it blends in, I'd be in favor of it. I wouldn't stop you from doing it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. From my standpoint, I think there's three important points. One is the shoreline setback, and that is required is 50 and existing is 333. So it's certainly far enough away from the shoreline. Permeability, the required is 75, the proposed is 76. So that would be in your favor, and the other point is that most of the neighbors are in agreement. So I would be in agreement. I would be acceptable to this, you know, want to approve this variance also. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm sensitive to the uniqueness of the property and the situation, and I'm satisfied that you've met us at least halfway or further to make this better, at least in our eyes, and I think I'm in favor of it at this point, given the amount of changes you've made and the types of changes you've made and the types of changes you've made, so I'd be in favor of it. I mean, other than cutting down your neighbor's trees, I don't know what else you can possibly do to prevent something like this happening. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes,just addressing the two variances, the Floor Area Ratio, I have no problem with, and the second garage, I think you did the last time mention that you wanted that one for the winter because that's where you'd be living in that part of the house. Is that correct? No? MR. WILCOX-I'm sorry,just ask that again because I didn't follow your question. MRS. HUNT-The second garage you would be using? MR. WILCOX-The second garage will be to store our toys. MRS. HUNT-Just to store? Okay. MR. WILCOX-At one time we had talked about a summer car versus a winter car, but that's not our intention, and I agree that we would not put flammables down there. MRS. HUNT-Well, I think you've done Yeomen duty in trying to meet all of our suggestions and I would be in favor. MR. O'CONNOR-We actually measured these trailers, and the seven foot would just fit in there. They're not motorized. They're small boat trailers. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Jim, you're neutral. Do you want to commit at this point? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion, please? By the way, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2012 DAVID H. WILCOX & VICTORIA T. ZELDIN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 26 Forest Road -Assembly Point. The applicant is proposing a 3,332 +/- square foot expansion to an existing 1,767 square foot single family dwelling to include a second garage. The parcel will require area variances as follows: Floor Area Ratio request for 933 square feet or a 4.9% increase above the 22% allowable FAR as per Section 179-3-040, as well as the second garage relief from the number of allowable garages on a parcel per Section 179-5-020D. Having considered the variance, the Board, in making its determination, does not find that there will be an undesirable change created in the neighborhood. Although it could be achieved by building a compliant building, we do recognize the unique nature of this site with the sunken part of the front of the building, and also the addition of the seven foot wide door for additional storage purposes. Underneath the front of the building there, and the Board, at this point, does not feel that we would really consider that to be a second garage, even though technically it is via the regulations. As far as impacts on the physical or environmental conditions, we recognize the fact that this will be a somewhat large building compared to what was originally on site there, but it's not within the ballpark estimates of what we would consider to be unreasonable either, and at this point in time I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2012 SEQRA TYPE II SBLB AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR/T. HUTCHINS - HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JERRY BROWN AND SBLB PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING HI LOCATION 26 LOWER WARREN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 120 FT. BY 200 FT. STEEL FRAME BUILDING FOR STORAGE OF AUTO PARTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FT. BY 50 FT. COVERED RAMP CONNECTING THE NEW BUILDING TO THE DISMANTLING BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE HI ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 41-2012; BP 2011-431 STOR. BLDG.; BP 2010-012 SHED; BP 2006-652 COWL ADD; BP 2004-044 ALT.; BP 94-620 WAREHOUSE; BP 89-305 STOR. BLDG WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 13.78; 0.21 VAC; 0.21 VAC; 7.54 VAC ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.19-1-49, 50, 51 AND 58 SECTION 179-3-040; SECTION 102 JUNKYARDS JON LAPPER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2012, SBLB, Meeting Date: July 25, 2012 "Project Location: 26 Lower Warren Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 120 ft. x 200 ft. (24,000 sq. ft.) steel framed building for storage of auto parts. Further, proposal calls for a 20 ft. x 50 ft. covered ramp connecting the above proposed building with existing +/- 15,700 sq. ft. dismantling warehouse. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side setback (existing garage) - Request for 50 feet side setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the proposed covered concrete ramp. 2. Side setback (proposed steel framed building) - Request for 50 feet side setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the proposed covered concrete ramp. Please note that the proposed steel framed building has approximately 25% of the western portion of the structure within the side setback of the building envelope. 3. Expansion of a Non-conforming structure - Expansion of a non-conforming structure 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. 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. A feasible method would be to combine the two lots in order to avoid the area variance requests. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the 50 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the proposed covered concrete ramp associated with the existing garage may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the 50 foot side setback requirement as per §179-3-040 for the proposed covered concrete ramp associated with the proposed steel frame building may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, Both Parcels: SP 41-2012 Expansion of Junkyard use Pending Existing Use: AV52-10: 900 sq. ft. storage shed Side yard setback relief requested Withdrawn SP 59-09: 900 sq. ft. storage shed Approved 12/15/09 SP 54-05: 7,500 sq. ft. Storage Bld. Approved 10/18/05 SP 16-02: 1,300 sq. ft. Addition Approved 4/23/02 SP 19-92: Fence Approved 6/16/92 Staff comments: • In order to avoid an additional area variance for permeability associated with existing junkyard, the applicant has offered to swap 1,325 sq. ft. of existing impermeable surfacing to permeable surfacing to offset the additional hard surfacing proposed with this expansion. • Applicant required to apply for a certificate of approval from the Town Board prior to the operation of a junkyard as per§102-4, Junkyards. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. OBORNE-I'd like to make an amendment to my notes prior to the applicant speaking. The permeability issue is a non-issue and it was from the beginning. Tom Hutchins and I did discuss (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) this, and it's actually impermeable going over impermeable. So that first comment under Staff Notes, please disregard that. With that, I'd turn it over. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, aren't they already operating with a permit to operate their operation? Is it because of an expansion? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. URRICO-1 wasn't quite finished. The Planning Board, based on its limited review, reviewed this on July 17th and they note that there are no significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they approved that seven zero. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everybody. For the record, Jon Lapper with Larry Brown, the President of Jerry Brown Auto Parts, and Tom Hutchins, project engineer. We're going to give you the short version and distinguish ourselves from Mike O'Connor. MR. JACKOSKI-No PowerPoint? MR. LAPPER-Any detail that you need we can provide, but I'll just tell the short story. We were here last year for a small variance for a storage shed on the other side of the property, and at that time in order to make the Board happy and the neighbors, Larry bought the property next door, and I know you've all gone to the site. What he did, what Tom designed to clean up what was an old parking area to begin with, with the trees and reducing the curb cuts, I mean, it really made Lower Warren Street look a lot better, which was the goal, and that's the goal of this project as well, the property on the other side, on the east side, which Larry and his brother purchased probably a year and a half ago has just been, you know, all growing wild with dilapidated buildings over the years. Before we closed on that purchase, we approached the Town Board for a re-zoning because that property was in CLI rather than HI next door, and in order to convince the Town Board that re-zoning to Heavy Industrial was a good idea, which isn't always an easy thing to do, we brought them to the site, all five of them separately, to walk through, to see the operation. This is, although it may be classified in Queensbury as a junkyard, it's truly an automobile recycling center where they take every piece of the car, this isn't what your typical junkyard, everything is UPC stickered, on-line. You call up, it's all computerized, everything is stripped, cleaned, all the fluids in barrels. He sells or gives away all the fluids. I mean, this is the way DEC says these things are supposed to be done, and unfortunately not the way everybody does them, and that's why we got the rezoning. So in terms of what Keith was mentioning, amending the junkyard permit to include this parcel, Town Board just rezoned it for us for this purpose. That's just a technicality and we're going to submit that to them, but the variance that we're here to talk about tonight, in order to, after distributing the cars in the garage and cataloguing and putting all these parts away for storage, some of which are now outdoors, and that could be more indoor storage, they need to be connected, and admittedly this is a variance that is completely our fault in terms of self-induced, that the center parcel is still in Jerry Brown, Larry's dad's name, and the sons, Larry and his brother, bought the parcels on either side. It's an estate planning issue. At some point, it should have happened already, that'll get conveyed to them, and it'll all be merged. We would certainly agree, as a condition, that when they own both of these parcels they'll be merged, but at this point they can't accomplish that. It's always been owned by his dad in the middle and it's just important for his operations to have that connection so that he can, in the winter keep parts dry and move them next door, and my main argument is that if we were to not ask for this variance and to comply, Tom could design a longer, narrower building that wouldn't be on the border of the property, and all that would be, it would be closer to the neighbors, if you will, so it wouldn't be any benefit to anybody by not asking for a variance. We're squishing it next to Larry's existing building, if you will, to use up that side setback, but the only one that's impacted is Larry's business. So we hope you'll see it at that, and if we need to get into any detail, we're happy to do it. MR. JACKOSKI-It's interesting that you use the residential clustering concept into the junkyard concept. So we appreciate that. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-How come the Planning Board got the visit and we don't? MR. JACKOSKI-No, Town Board. MR. KUHL-What we're really saying is if this were all one piece of property, you wouldn't be here? MR. LAPPER-Right. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) MR. KUHL-Get together with your father, straighten it out. LARRY BROWN MR. BROWN-I'm working on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes. There was a public comment made via a phone call to Sue Hemingway from Nanette Rushlow, and it says regarding the application she objects to the expansion and to the setback variance request. Does not want building constructed on the property line. Needs to stay within his means and that's why the laws were made to keep him within his boundaries. That is the only comment that I have. MR. JACKOSKI-And do we have any idea where the Rushlow property is or how this? MR. LAPPER-We believe that she's on Highland, the second building. MR. URRICO-Yes, I have the address at 1 Highland Avenue. MR. BROWN-It's right behind the antique. MR. JACKOSKI-The little square building there. Okay. MR. LAPPER-So essentially we'd be closer to her if we didn't do. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, and do you think that that person knew that the building was going on the other property line instead of? MR. LAPPER-Perhaps not. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Fine. Any other public comment? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. KUHL-Can I just ask one thing? The rest of this property, is this going to be used as a junkyard? MR. LAPPER-The same as the property next door, but it's pristine. I mean, there's no cars leaking into the dirt there. They get taken apart before they go out into the yard. MR. JACKOSKI-I'd like to poll the Board. Could I start with Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I have no problem with this. As I asked the applicant, if it were one piece of property, he wouldn't be here. So, no, I really have no issue. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I, too, approve. I think it's a good project, and I think that he runs a very clean operation. I'm impressed with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I agree with my fellow Board members. I have no problem. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think when we look at it in a sense of what we have in Town, you guys have sort of set the tone for what things should be, and I think we can consider it all a contiguous lot, even though it's separate parcels at the present time. I don't think it's every going to be used for any purpose other than what it's intended to be used for. So I have no problem with it. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think this is a clean and green operation. I think it's, like they've said, it sets the precedent for what should be there. MR. JACKOSKI-And for the record, Rick joined the Board here at eight o'clock. So, Rick? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Chairman, since I walked in in the middle of this, I'll be abstaining from this one. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and so obviously I'm going to close the public comment period. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And can I have a motion, please? MR. CLEMENTS-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2012 SBLB, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 26 Lower Warren Street. The applicant proposes construction of a 120 foot by 200 foot 24,000 square foot steel frame building for storage of auto parts. Further proposal calls for a 20 foot by 50 foot covered ramp connecting the above proposed building with the existing 15,700 square foot dismantling warehouse. The relief required is: Number One, side setback existing garage, request for 50 feet side setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the proposed covered concrete ramp. Number Two, side setback, proposed steel frame building, request for 50 feet side setback relief from the 50 foot requirement for the proposed covered concrete ramp. Please note that the proposed steel frame building was approximately 25% of the western portion of the structure within the side setback of the building envelope, and, Number Three, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Expansion of a nonconforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. In making the determination, the Board shall consider these four items. Number One, 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 may be anticipated. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Feasible method would be to combine the two lots in order to avoid area variance requests, and the applicant proposes that probably at some future point that will happen. Number Three, whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 50 feet of 100% relief of the 50 foot side setback requirement as per Section 179-3-040 for the proposed covered concrete ramp associated with the existing garage may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. However, it is next to the property that is owned by the group. Further, the request for 50 feet or 100% relief from the 50 foot side setback requirement as per 179-3-040 for the proposed covered concrete ramp associated with proposed steel frame building may be considered severe relative to the Ordinance. Finally expansion of a nonconforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts may be anticipated. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created, and I move for approval. Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2012 SEQRA TYPE II GLEN & JEANE GUYETTE OWNER(S) GLEN & JEANE GUYETTE ZONING MDR LOCATION 463 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,023 SQ. FT. POOL-SCREEN ENCLOSURE OVER (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) EXISTING POOL AND PATIO. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2001-311 INGROUND POOL; AV 37-2001 (POOL); AV 74-2006, AV 24-1994, BP 89-959 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.58 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-28 SECTION 179-3-040 MARK REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2012, Glen & Jeane Guyette, Meeting Date: July 25, 2012 "Project Location: 463 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposed construction of a 1,023 sq. ft. pool-screen enclosure over existing pool and patio. Relief Required: Requested relief: 1. Side setback (East) - Request for 1.0 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone. 2. Side setback (West) - Request for 7.8 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone. 3. Rear Setback- Request for 4.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement of the MDR zone. 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 appears to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 1 foot or 4% relief for the east sideline from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone as per§179-3- 040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 7.8 feet or 31% relief for the west sideline from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 4.7 feet or 16% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the MDR zone may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. 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 environmental conditions to 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, A.V. 74-2006 Lot size relief due to boundary adjustment Approved 12/20/06 A.V. 37-2001 Side setback relief for in-ground pool Approved 6/20/01 A.V. 24-1994 Rear setback relief for pool Approved 5/24/94 Staff comments: The proposal does not increase permeability as the structure is to be placed over existing non- permeable surfacing. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. REHM-My name is Mark Rehm. I represent the Guyettes here. Basically in a nutshell what they're seeking to do, they already have a pool with the patio, the concrete patio that's (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) surrounding it, and given the mosquitoes, the sun, etc., these are pool enclosures done by Robert Perkins. We came here before the Boards to get their business up and running, and now they're implementing it, and basically these applicants seek to put a pool enclosure over this pool so that they can enjoy it throughout the season without the bugs also. A good thing about these enclosures, Number One, they're built to the specifications to withstand hurricanes down in Florida. They haven't changed the design. They've modified the design in that during the winter they peel back the upper screens so that the snow may fall through. Bob Perkins has had one for four years. He's tested it at home. He enjoys it. He leaves up the side screens. There doesn't seem to be any impact there, and he finds that it works. He wanted to make sure if he was going to be selling product, it worked. I went up to the site myself with Craig Brown. He saw it. We visualized it. We went around. It looks like a very good product, and it's put together, quite simply, like an erector set. Although it's very strong, it can go up in about eight hours. It can come down in about half that time, four hours, maybe even less. So it's permanent but can be removed at some point in time if need be, and again, some of the other benefits of it, they can enjoy the sun, provides some sunscreen, believe it or not, and also it looks quite nice. I don't know if you've seen, very similar to the ones in Florida. They look nice, and it'll allow these applicants to enjoy the property very much. The impacts to the neighborhood, I think if anything it's going to look nice. I think it'll be a benefit and provide a benefit and perhaps some other people would feel that if they have a pool in the back they would enjoy having the same thing and enjoy what the Guyettes hope to enjoy. Can it be achieved by some other method? Well, the pool's where it is. We're trying our best to make it look as good and as usable to us as we can. So I think, you know, there really isn't any other feasible method, other than not have it at all and they would much prefer to have it if possible. Is the variance substantial? As you can see from the notes, perhaps the 7.8 feet relief from the west might be moderate, but the concrete already exists there. The pool already exists where it is. So we feel that that really doesn't pose a negative problem. Any impacts on the environment and conditions of the neighborhood? Can they be anticipated? Sure, but I think that it is an improvement rather than a detriment. Was it self-created? Perhaps, but they did get the approvals. They didn't know that they wanted this pool enclosure until it was presented to them. Now they would like to explore that possibility and they're ready to move forward with it. I think, other than the notes, that it does not increase permeability, I really don't have anything else to add other than perhaps answer questions if I may. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-My only question was what you were going to do in the wintertime, and I'm satisfied with what you explained. MR. REHM-Sure. Yes, they spent some time. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just wondered if it was built to withstand, and if you were going to leave it up I thought it was going to be a disaster, but that makes sense to take the roof off and not worry about it then. Keith, is it just a technicality that we wouldn't call this a temporary structure, I mean, other than somebody having a screen thing in their backyard for picnicking? I mean, it's the same difference to me. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I think Mark alluded to that with Craig's visit. He needed to make a determination, he did go over, he checked the structure on Mr. Perkins' property and, you know, it is a permanent structure, as Mark did state, and that's the difference right there. MR. REHM-It is. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think with the engineering on it it's going to be adequate to withstand anything and it's not just going to blow over in the windstorm, something like that. MR. REHM-And he tested it for years. MR. JACKOSKI-And they're all throughout Florida and Mississippi and Alabama. Any other questions from Board members? MR. GARRAND-How long do you expect these things to last, in this climate? MR. REHM-In this type of climate? Well, I know that Mr. Perkins has lasted for four years without a hitch. I think down in Florida it's tough to tell how long that they're built for because with the hurricane winds, you know, they're lost on occasion, but I'd say ten years plus, and parts can be replaced so that it looks nice. Screens can be replaced. So it's intended for the long haul. It's not something short term. MR. JACKOSKI-I assume it's not too inexpensive. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) MR. REHM-No. We wish it was. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-I can't see behind the easel, but I assume there's nobody there. Is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I have no problem with this proposal. I mean, the relief you need is not any more than you needed for the pool. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I don't think it's any big difficult decision here. I don't think the permeability issue is a problem because we're already impermeable around the pool with the concrete surface on it anyway. So I don't have a problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think Joyce is right. I don't think this request is substantial at all. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think they're very common in Florida. They're nice looking. You're going to save the mosquitoes. You just don't want them in your pool. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Or the frogs, right? Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, having polled the Board, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Could I have a motion, please? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2012 GLEN &JEAN GUYETTE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 463 Luzerne Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,023 square foot pool screen enclosure over existing pool and patio. The relief requested: One, side setback east, request for 1.0 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone. Two, side setback, west, request for 7.8 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the MDR zone. Three, rear setback, request for 4.7 feet of relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement of the MDR zone. In making the determination, the Board shall consider whether there will be any adverse effects to the neighborhood, and I think there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. As to feasible alternatives, I don't think so. The Guyettes want to have a place where they can enjoy their pool without the insects and without the sun. The requests, one foot, four percent is minor. The request on the west is moderate, and the request in the back might be considered moderate, minor to moderate, and I think they really, since they are no larger than the pool's boundaries now, they really are not substantial. There will be minor (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/25/2012) impacts on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the difficulty might be considered self-created. I move we approve Area Variance No. 36-2012. Duly adopted this 25th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. REHM-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't believe there's any other business being brought forth to the Board this evening. I don't see Mr. Salvador in the audience. So can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZBA MEETING OF JULY 25, 2012, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 25h day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Good night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 18