Loading...
04-24-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24Tr;2024 INDEX Area Variance No.23-2024 Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 1) 1. Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1 Area Variance No.24-2024 Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 2) 4. Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1 Area Variance No.21-2024 Jennifer Ivanov 6. Tax Map No.297.10-1-40 Area Variance No.22-2024 Jennifer Ball 10. Tax Map No.266.1-1-9.11 Area Variance No.25-2024 Furniture House North,LLC 12. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24TK,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD,ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RICHARD CIPPERLY RONALD KUHL MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE BRENT MC DEVITT,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT KEENAN MICHAEL MC CABE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I'll call to order the April24`h, 2024 meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. First we'll do a quick review of our procedures. In general,for each case I'll call the application by name and number. The secretary will read in the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes,as well as the Warren County Planning Board decision,if applicable. The applicant will then be invited to the table to provide any information they wish to add to their application. The Board will then ask questions of the applicant. Following that,we'll open the public hearing. The public hearing is not a vote. It's a way to gather information about concerns, real or perceived, and it's a way to gather information and insight in general about the issue at hand. It should function to help the Board members make a wise, informed decision but does not make the decision for the Board members. As always we'll have a limit on speakers, but I don't think we have that much going on here this evening. First on the agenda this evening is Seeley Machine, and that's Lot Number One,Area Variance 23-2024. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 1) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SEELEY BOOM WORKS LLC ZONING CLI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 7.25 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 PARCEL IS TO BE 3.04 AC AND WILL CONTAIN THE EXISTING 21,300 SQ.FT.BUILDING PORTION NOTED AS SEELEY MACHINE LLC;LOT 2 IS TO BE 4.21 AC PARCEL AND CONTAINS THE 15,000 SQ.FT.WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH AN EXISTING TENANT AND STORAGE. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WILL SEPARATE THE TWO BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE SHARED COVERED DOCK LOADING SPACE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE SITE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE WORK COMPLETED IN 2019. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 24-2024; SP 18-2024; SUB 3- 2024;SUB 4-2024;SP 67-2014;SP 65-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 LOT SIZE 7.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS&ED LEONARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 23-2024, Seeley Machine Inc. (Lott), Meeting Date: April 17, 2024 "Project Location: 75 Big Boom Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq. ft. building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC; Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq.ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage. The proposed lot line will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no changes proposed to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 3.04 ac parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3 The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the location of the existing buildings. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the entryway boundary line to the existing covered loading dock is 30 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision creating lot 1 of 3.04 ac and to maintain the existing building of 21,303 sf. There are no proposed changes to the existing site conditions, exterior storage, or parking area. The plans show the location of the existing building and site arrangement. Note-Project review is slightly different due to variance that is created with the proposed subdivision- tentative review process: 1. April 16`h Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Planning Board Recommendation 2. April 17`h Seeley Machine Inc. Area Variances -open public hearing, hear application, tabled application pending subdivision(the subdivision has to be completed to create the area variances) 3. April 23rd Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Preliminary Public hearing, SEQR&Final Stage 4. April24`h Seeley Machine Inc.Area Variances decision 5. April25`h Seeley Machine Inc. Site Plans decision" MR.HUTCHINS-Good evening,Board. Tom Hutchins,Hutchins Engineers,with Ed Leonard,co-owner of Seeley Machine and we went through the whole story last week with regards to, the driving force to separate these two buildings into two separate parcels,and if you want to hear that again,I'd be glad to do it,but keeping it brief, we're talking about Lot Number One, which would be this lot. We met with the Planning Board last night and they approved the subdivision to create this line bisecting the entire lot into Lot One and Lot Two. This application we're talking about Lot One which contains Seeley Machine. They've been there for how long,Ed? MR. LEONARD-Since 1995. MR. HUTCHINS-Since 1995. They have 30 some odd semi permanently installed machine tools. They employ a bunch of people and they want to stay in their building and just the logistics that we need to separate the two buildings into two separate parcels. Ed and Scott have worked really hard to pull this deal together with a lot of moving parts and technically we're asking for zero relief for this new line to go through the open canopy that connects the two buildings. There will be reciprocal access and maintenance easement for the two property owners to both have access through there and maintenance obligations of the structure,and with that,I'd turn it over to the Board and ask for your support. Ed,do you want to add anything? MR. LEONARD-No,I think you covered everything. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members? I think we had a pretty good explanation. People put their thoughts out last week. Seeing none,I'll open the public hearing. Anybody in the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You guys ready,I guess we'll do a vote on it,then. MRS. DWYRE-Would you like to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS.MOO RE-Does someone want to make that resolution? So Jim's asking,does someone want to make that resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does someone want to make the resolution? MR.KUHL-I'll do that for you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seeley Machine Inc. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq.ft.building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC;Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq. ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage. The proposed lot line will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no changes proposed to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 3.04 ac parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3 The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on April 17,2024&April24,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as we're separating Lot Number One from Lot Number Two because of the two existing buildings. 2. There really aren't any alternatives that we could have considered and whatever we did consider are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is substantial because of the way the Code is written and what we're asking for is a zero lot line. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is really self-created but there's a need to do this so their business can continue to operate. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2024 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 1), Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 24`h Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe MR.HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right, and Part Two of this operation here tonight is we're going to hear Area Variance No.24-2024,again,Seeley Machine. This is for Lot Two,which we just did Lot One on. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 2) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SEELEY BOOMWORKS ZONING CLI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 7.25 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 2 IS TO BE 4.21 AC. PARCEL AND CONTAINS THE 15,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH AN EXISTING TENANT AND STORAGE;LOT 1 PARCEL IS TO BE 3.04 AC.AND WILL CONTAIN THE EXISTING 21,300 SQ.FT.BUILDING PORTION NOTED AS SEELEY MACHINE LLC. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WILL SEPARATE THE TWO BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE SHARED COVERED DOCK LOADING SPACE. THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SITE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE WORK COMPLETED IN 2019. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 23-2024;SP 19-2024;SUB 3-204; SUB 4-2024;SP 67-2014;SP 65-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 LOT SIZE 7.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS&ED LEONARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 24-2024, Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 2), Meeting Date: April 17,2024 "Project Location: 75 Big Boom Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq. ft. building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC; Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq.ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage. The proposed lot line will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no changes proposed to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 4.21 ac parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3 The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the location of the existing buildings. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the entryway boundary line to the existing covered loading dock of 30 ft. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision creating lot 2 of 4.21 ac and to maintain the existing building of 15,755 sf. There are no proposed changes to the existing site conditions, exterior storage, or parking area. The plans show the location of the existing building and site arrangement. Note—Project review is slightly different due to variance that is created with the proposed subdivision— tentative review process: 6. April 16`h Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Planning Board Recommendation 7. April 17`h Seeley Machine Inc. Area Variances -open public hearing, hear application, tabled application pending subdivision(the subdivision has to be completed to create the area variances) S. April 23rd Seeley Machine Inc. Subdivision Preliminary Public hearing, SEQR&Final Stage 9. April24`h Seeley Machine Inc.Area Variances decision 10. April25`h Seeley Machine Inc. Site Plans decision" MR. HUTCHINS-The same explanation. We're talking about Lot Two versus Lot Number One. The numbers are the same. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron,do you want to do it again? MR.KUHL-Sure,I'm getting excited here. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seeley Machine Inc. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq. ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage; Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq.ft.building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC. The proposed lot line will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no proposed changes to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is to be on a 4.21 ac parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone. Section 179-3-040,Chapter 1S3 The relief requested is for a zero setback for the covered loading dock between the buildings where 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on April 17,2024&April24,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as we are, again,separating Lot Two from Lot One. 2. There are really not many feasible alternatives. Whatever alternatives were there, we've considered them. They seem to be reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is substantial as per the Code where 30 foot is required and we are granting a zero lot line. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2024 SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 2), Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 24`h Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe MR.HUTCHINS-Thanks a lot,Board. MR. LEONARD-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next upon the agenda is under New Business,project for Jennifer Ivanov. AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JENNIFER IVANOV OWNER(S) JENNIFER IVANOV ZONING MDR LOCATION 55 WINCOMA LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE OF 784 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,984 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 584 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREAS ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE EXISTING HOME HAS AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.85 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-40 SECTION 179-5-020 JENNIFER IVANOV,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2024,Jennifer Ivanov, Meeting Date: April 24`h, 2024 "Project Location: 55 Wincoma Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-car detached garage of 7S4 sq. ft. The existing home of 2,954 sq. ft. footprint with 5S4 sq. ft. porch/deck areas are to remain with no changes.The existing home has an attached garage to remain. Relief requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. The project site is located on a 0.S4 ac parcel in the MDR zone—Rolling Ridge Subdivision Section 170-3-040, Section 179-5-020 The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage and maintain an existing garage attached to the existing home where only one garage is allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the existing garage would not accommodate architectural addition. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for a second garage where only one garage is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The plans show the proposed garage location and the elevations of the garage. The existing garage plans are included as well." MRS. IVANOV-I'm Jennifer Ivanov. I'm the homeowner, and my husband Hank Ivanov. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything you want to add as to why you want to have the project completed? MRS. IVANOV-Florida girl. Doesn't like to go with the cars outside. Generally the premise is just that we've got four vehicles. We'd like to keep them inside. I've never been one of those families that have more kids toys and collected stuff in the garage. We've always parked our cars in the garage,and just have a desire to be able to do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay, any questions from the Board at this point? MR.HENKEL-Obviously you're going to have power there,to the garage. Right? MRS.IVANOV-Correct. MR.HENKEL-Nothing else,no water? MRS. IVANOV-No. MR.KUHL-But the reason for the garage is because you have four cars? MRS. IVANOV-We need it. MR.KUHL-Wow. MRS.IVANOV-He does have a car collection problem. MR.KUHL-Say no more. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? MRS. PALACINO-You made comment in here about the existing garage not working with some changes to the main home. Can you elaborate? MRS. IVANOV-So the structure of the home is such that if you're looking at the front of it,you come up, drive around the left hand side,you see the two garage bays in the lower left hand corner. There really is no logical space to add on to that property in a meaningful way to create an additional garage. That was really the challenge that we have. MRS. PALACINO-So you're really not looking to make an addition to the primary home. You're just looking for garage space for the kids toys. MRS.IVANOV-That's correct. MRS.PALACINO-Or your husband's toys. MRS. IVANOV-His toys. MR.HENKEL-There's no doubt,the way that house was designed,there's no way. HANK IVANOV MR. IVANOV-The roof line's problematic. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,it would look odd. MR. IVANOV-Yes. MR.HENKEL-I was there when Connie and Peter built that. Peter was a correction's officer. MRS.IVANOV-Gotcha. MR.HENKEL-He worked hard on it. MRS. IVANOV-It's a beautiful home. MR.HENKEL-Yes. MRS. IVANOV-Amazing sunlight,amazing windows. For our purposes,it needs two garages. MR.HENKEL-It's kind of a different design. MR.UNDERWOOD-Any other questions? All right. At this point I'll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Everybody's pretty straightforward as to what the purpose for this proposal is? So I guess at this point I'll have somebody make a motion. MRS. DWYRE-You've just got to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-You're not going to poll the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll poll the Board first. Roy,do you want to go first? MR. URRICO-I'm against it. I think it would set a bad precedent for that subdivision and for that area. It's not an exceptional large lot, and putting up a second garage, one that only allows one,I don't think is a great idea. So I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR.KUHL-I have no,I'll agree with it. I have nothing against it. MR. UNDERWOOD John? MR. HENKEL-I mean, I agree everybody should have a four car garage with every house because everybody's got so many cars and it would eliminate maybe having sheds and things like that,but like Roy said,it is kind of a small piece of property. I would rather see a little bit smaller second garage there,but I guess there's nobody against it in the neighborhood. Right? MR. IVANOV-Yes. MR.HENKEL-So I guess I would be on board as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Dick? MR.CIPPERLY-I guess I'm looking at less than an acre lot and adding a second garage,and I tend to agree with Roy that in this area it probably doesn't set a very good precedent. So I guess I would not support it at this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-If you look at the property and you don't see the two garage doors under the house,you wouldn't know that you had a two car garage,and I recognize that the area is smaller than it's on the books allowed for that size property. I would be in favor of it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I,too,will be in favor of the project. I think that second garages,you know,if you have two extra vehicles and they're sitting outside all year long,you know,whether it's boats,junk in the yard or whatever it happens to be, it makes more sense to put it under cover. I don't think it's a detriment to the neighborhood. I see it as a positive, and so I'll ask somebody to make a recommendation for this project. MR. MC DEVITT-I can take it,Mr. Chair. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jennifer Ivanov. Applicant proposes a 2-car detached garage of 7S4 sq.ft. The existing home of 2,954 sq.ft.footprint with 5S4 sq. ft. porch/deck areas are to remain with no changes. The existing home has an attached garage to remain. Relief requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. The project site is located on a 0.S4 ac parcel in the MDR zone—Rolling Ridge Subdivision Section 170-3-040, Section 179-5-020 The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage and maintain an existing garage attached to the existing home where only one garage is allowed. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April24,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. I believe that the facade,the look of this structure,fits in. It is not having any negative effect on the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed and considered for this application,but as discussed,we would believe this is the minimum request. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial in nature,but we do believe that,again,it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but for the aforementioned reasons, we would approve the application. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2024 JENNIFER IVANO V,Introduced by Brent McDevitt,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mary Palacino: Duly adopted this 24th Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) NOES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set. MR. IVANOV-Thank you very much. MRS. IVANOV-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Next upon the agenda is Area Variance 22-2024. This is a re-hearing for Jennifer Ball. Her agent is Hutchins Engineering. AREA VARIANCE NO.22-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JENNIFER BALL AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JENNIFER BALL ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 237 PICKLE HILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE NEW HOME IS TO BE 4,360 SQ. FT. WITH 765 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT. THE ATTACHED GARAGE IS TO BE 1,066 SQ.FT.AS PART OF THE HOME AND HAS THREE BAYS. THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED THE RENOVATION TO THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE INCLUDING THE FACADE THAT WAS UPDATED PER PREVIOUS APPROVALS. THE ZONING BOARD APPROVAL FOR TWO GARAGES HAS EXPIRED AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.-1-1-9.11 SECTION 179-5-020 LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. UNDERWOOD Just as a short explanation, the project was vetted by the Board last year. The variances were all given,but the project was not fulfilled because they didn't proceed with construction. So the expiration of the variance has to be re-heard again. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2024,Jennifer Ball, Meeting Date: April 24`h, 2024 "Project Location: 237 Pickle Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct new single family home with an attached garage. The new home is to be 4,360 sq.ft.with 765 sq.ft.porch/deck area footprint. The attached garage is to be 1,OS5 sq. ft. as part of the home and has 3 bays. The applicant has completed the renovations to the existing detached garage including the facade that was updated per previous approvals. The Zoning Board approval for two garages has expired as the construction of the home has not been completed. Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage.The project site is on a 12 ac parcel in the Rural Residential 3 acres zone. 179-3-040,179-5-020 The site has an existing garage 2400 sq.ft.to remain with no changes and to construct an attached garage of LOSS sq.ft.where only one garage is allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the existing garage location is towards the road side and the attached second garage is to be located with the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial as only one garage is permitted per parcel. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The plans show the existing garage at the road is to remain. The garage at the road side was approved previously with upgrades that have been completed. The attached garage was part of the original approval but has expired as the construction of the new home hadn't started. The plans show the new home with the attached garage." MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead. MR. DOBIE-Good evening,Board. Thank you for having us. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, and my clients Jennifer Ball and Daniel Davies are with me tonight. Thank you, Mr. Urrico, for reading that, and, Laura, for preparing those Staff Notes. It explains it quite well. I'll just detail it a little bit more,that we received our final subdivision area variance approvals in February 2021. The proj ect was a compliant two lot subdivision. The variances were with respect to the second garage,was to rehab the 40 by 60,used to be a truck garage for commercial use. That's obviously gone away and they've done a beautiful job of rehabbing that building,and they've done we'll call it Phase I,if you will,of the site work this past fall,the grading and re-paving,removing some gravel and the stormwater management has been installed for around the garage near Pickle Hill Road. So put the heat on me. I let this lapse. I didn't realize the one year applied to the building itself. I messed up. I thought the variance stayed with the land,if you will,because it was a subdivision,but because the variance was for the second garage that had the one year timeframe. So I missed that. We've worked on updating the plans. They've reduced the size of the home. Other than that,the project is identical to what was approved by the Board and the Planning Board as part of their subdivision review. So we're actually just over 1100 square feet smaller than the proposed main house with the attached garage from what was approved by the Boards in February 2021. So we're here to ask for your re-approval because they'd like to build the house this summer is my understanding. So I'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have,and thank you for your time tonight. MR.UNDERWOOD-Any Board members have questions? If there's no more questions,then I'll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess we're all set. I'll poll the Board. Ron? MR.KUHL-I have no issue with this. We approved it once before. Why shouldn't we approve it again. MR.HENKEL-It's a good project. MR. MC DEVITT-It looks good to me. MRS.PALACINO-I'm in favor. MR. CIPPERLY-I'm fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'm all for it,too. Does somebody want to make the recommendation? MRS. DWYRE-Mr. Chairman,would you like to close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Dick,do you want to do it? MR. CIPPERLY-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jennifer Ball. Applicant proposes to construct new single family home with an attached garage. The new home is to be 4,360 sq. ft. with 765 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint. The attached garage is to be 1,OS5 sq. ft. as part of the home and has 3 bays. The applicant has completed the renovations to the existing detached garage 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) including the facade that was updated per previous approvals. The Zoning Board approval for two garages has expired as the construction of the home has not been completed. Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage.The project site is on a 12 ac parcel in the Rural Residential 3 acres zone. 179-3-040,179-5-020 The site has an existing garage 2400 sq.ft.to remain with no changes and to construct an attached garage of LOSS sq.ft.where only one garage is allowed. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April24,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. This has been gone through before previously. 2. Feasible alternatives are really not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's identical to what was approved in the past and actually the main house is a little smaller. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty,once again,is really self-created they want a second garage. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2024 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 24th Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs. Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe MR. UNDERWOOD-You're all set. MR. DOBIE-Thanks,guys. JENNIFER BALL MS. BALL-Thank you,guys. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next up on the agenda tonight is Area Variance 25-2024, this is Furniture House North LLC,1066 State Route 9. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 FURNITURE HOUSE NORTH, LLC AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL(RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS) O WNER(S) FURNITURE HOUSE NORTH, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 1066 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED FACADE WORK INCLUDING PAINTING, WINDOW LOCATION,AUTO PART 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) ART FIXTURES, AND UPDATED LIGHTING FIXTURES. THE OUTDOOR PATIO AREA ROOFLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND THE PATIO AREA HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH CONCRETE. PLANTERS AND SEASONAL SEATING ARE TO BE ADDED TO THE OUTDOOR PATIO AREA NOTING ONE TREE HAS BEEN REMOVED CLOSEST TO THE STORE ENTRY. THE BUILDING WILL REMAIN AS A RESTAURANT AND STORE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF SEATING FOR THE RESTAURANT. SITE PLAN FOR ADDITION TO COVERED PATIO AREA AND UPDATED FACADE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK OF ROOF OVER PATIO. CROSS REF SP 20-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 LOT SIZE 2.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO.2969-1-10.12 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.25-2024,Furniture House North,LLC,Meeting Date: April 24,2024 "Project Location: 1066 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has completed facade work including painting, window location, auto part art fixtures, and updated lighting fixtures. The outdoor patio area roofline has been extended and the patio area has been updated with concrete.Planters and seasonal seating are to be added to the outdoor patio area noting one tree has been removed closest to the store entry. The building will remain as a restaurant and store. There are no changes in the number of seating for the restaurant.Site plan for addition to covered patio area and updated facade. Relief requested for setback of roof over patio. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback of roof over patio. The project site is located on a 2.76 ac parcel within the Commercial Moderate zone. Section 179-3-040 The roofline upgrade with new roof area is to be 45.5 ft.from the front of the building and 62 ft.to the patio roof where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the existing building location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 29.5 ft.for the building and 13 ft.for the covered patio roof from the front setback. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete several facade renovations including the expanded covered patio roof. The plans show the facade renovations including building color and features attached to the building. The survey shows the setbacks to the front property line." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board,based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that motion was adopted on April 23rd,2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ethan? MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. Here tonight representing Mario DiSiena and Furniture House North. Mario purchased 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) the property from the Suttons many years ago. He owns The Furniture House down on Saratoga Lake. Basically he took over the whole property. Suttons were still operating Farm Stand and Flat Bread. This was originally the restaurant that's there. Subsequently they stopped running the business. Mario bought the business, bought the building from them, and over the past 1S months or so has been extensively renovating the interior. It was a pretty bad state of repair inside. The sprinkler system is a dry system inside because it does do the attic and everything else. The compressor that keeps the air on was running continuously which shouldn't happen. I mean the compressor holds the air back against the valve to keep the water from getting into the system,and it's only there if there's a small bleed. They went through and replaced much of the piping because it was just draining out of the system and the compressor was fighting to keep ahead of it. So he spent a significant amount there. They've been through the whole building. There was a lot of rot that had happened just because the way the rooflines dove down and everything came back against the building. So he's gone through and done a whole bunch of that. The biggest thing, and I'm going to go up and point this out. The area where he's gone ahead and done the facade change is here. This was, do you have the old picture, Laura,the one you had up before? Yes,leave that there. So this is the original piece of that front facade,and when this was the outdoor dining area,originally this was all paved with brick. He's taken the brick out because it was completely deteriorated underneath, and this front fascia lines up with the fascia on the other side. Can you go back to the other picture, and we re-built it. This little roof here is where we ran into the problem. So this is the portion that you could see in there before and this roof, he extended it out to line this fascia line up and that's where he got into trouble doing this. The 75 foot setback line is here. So that's where we need. It's about half of that roof that he expanded that actually needs the area variance. So outside of that,everything stays the same. He actually has two building permits that are on the verge of being closed already. One of them was for the change of the windows on the front of the building and the other one was for adding bathrooms inside the building on the upstairs. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the car clips don't come into play at all,even though they stick out a little bit? MR.HALL-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-They're just considered ornamental. MR.HALL-It's considered ornamental. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. All right. Any questions from Board members? Okay. At this time I'll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED THOMAS J. MCDONOUGH MR. MCDONOUGH-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Thomas J. McDonough, 2S Twicwood Lane, and I'm here just to verbalize our support for Mr. DiSiena on his application. We own and operated Greycourt Motel for 60 years,and we sort of slowed down after that. We abut the property on the north of the premises by 400 feet and our residence also abuts the property 100 feet on the back. What Mr. DiSiena has done here,I'd almost say it's a miracle,from what it looked like before. He's done an excellent job and we support him as much as we can and our neighbors do also. I speak on behalf of my wife and myself. I think I stated my purpose. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Any correspondence, Roy? MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. So for the Board members it's simply the Travel Corridor Overlay, The 75 foot setback is what we're giving him relief for for that canopy and he's pretty much explained it. Seventy-five feet would be about half down the canopy. So I'll poll the Board at this time. I'll start with you,Dick. MR. CIPPERLY-Except that the application was probably not received from Jennifer Ball,probably from DiSiena Furniture. Other than that,I think it's a great project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-Yes,I have no difficulty with it at all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I think it looks great. MR. UNDERWOOD John? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) MR.HENKEL-The positives outweigh the negatives. Yes,it looks good. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR.KUHL-I'm in favor of the way it's presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I,too, am in favor of it. I don't think it presents any difficulty. Does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. DWYRE-Would you like to close the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.KUHL-Can I make that recommendation,Mr. Chairman? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Furniture House North LLC. Applicant has completed facade work including painting,window location,auto part art fixtures,and updated lighting fixtures. The outdoor patio area roofline has been extended and the patio area has been updated with concrete. Planters and seasonal seating are to be added to the outdoor patio area noting one tree has been removed closest to the store entry. The building will remain as a restaurant and store.There are no changes in the number of seating for the restaurant.Site plan for addition to covered patio area and updated facade. Relief requested for setback of roof over patio. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback of roof over patio. The project site is located on a 2.76 ac parcel within the Commercial Moderate zone. Section 179-3-040 The roofline upgrade with new roof area is to be 45.5 ft.from the front of the building and 62 ft.to the patio roof where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 24,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as these were additions that were needed as they were re-modeling. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize-the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's due to the 75 foot offset off the main road. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty you could say is really not self-created. There was a need as they did the construction. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2024) S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2024 FURNITURE HOUSE NORTH,LLC,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 24th Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe MR.HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Do we have any other business this evening? MRS. MOORE-I have nothing else. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess I'll end the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 24TH, 2024, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 24`h day of April,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood,Acting Chairman 17