Loading...
08-28-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28,2013 INDEX Area Variance No.42-2013 Mark Posniewski 1. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-20 Area Variance No.45-2013 Andrew Fedele 7. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-33 Area Variance No.43-2013 Greenwood Builders 15. Tax Map No. 290.00-1-83 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting this evening, August 28th. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, the process is quite simple. We'll call each application to the table. The applicants will join us here. We'll have the application read into the record. We'll ask Board members for some comments, clarifications from the applicants. We'll open up a public hearing when a public hearing has been scheduled. We'll poll the Board for comments, and then proceed from there. It's a relatively easy process. This evening, I don't believe we have any housekeeping issues. So we're going to go right to New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2013 SEQRA TYPE II MARK POSNIEWSKI OWNER(S) MARK POSNIEWSKI ZONING OLD: SR-30/CURRENT: MDR LOCATION 17 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD, BEDFORD CLOSE SECTION 5 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,096 SQ. FT. DETACHED 3-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 2008-422 RES. ALT.; BP 99-425 POOL; BP 87-729 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-33 SECTION 179-5-020 MARK POSNIEWSKI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2013, Mark Posniewski, Meeting Date: August 28, 2013 "Project Location: 17 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close Section 5 Applicant has constructed a 2- car detached garage in 2006 where the file indicates the attached garage was to be converted to storage the applicant is requesting an approval to have two garages on the site. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from the following section of code 179-5-020 Accessory Structures specifically for the number of allowed garages: #of garages Required Allowed 1 garage Proposed 2 garages one is attached at 506 sq. ft. and other is detached at 900 s .ft. Relief 1 garage Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited as the applicant had constructed the 2nd garage in 2006 with a Certificate of Occupancy issued in 2007. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant 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 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. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 11-315: Pool BP 06-574: 2-car detached garage BP 92-206: SFD w/2-car attached garage Staff comments: The applicant requests approval of an already constructed 2nd garage. The applicant has indicated at the time of construction it was anticipated the attached garage would be converted to a storage area however at this time both garages are used to store vehicles and storage items. The application materials show the location of the garages,elevation of the detached,and photos of both garages. SEQR Status: Type II' MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Is there anything else you'd like to add to the record at this time or would you like to just field questions from Board members? MR. POSNIEWSKI-No. I'm fine. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-Yes. What was the CO,the 2007 CO issued for? MR. POSNIEWSKI-It was for the garage. MR. KUHL-It wasn't issued for a storage compartment? MRS. MOORE-It was issued for the detached garage that was constructed in 2006, but reading through the building permit file,there's a small hand scratched note that indicates that the attached garage would be converted to storage,and it never was. MR. KUHL-So the CO he got in'07 was for a garage? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-So then what's he here for? MRS. MOORE-Because you are only allowed one garage per lot, per the Zoning Code. So relief is required. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR. POSNIEWSKI-May I speak? MR. KUHL-You're only allowed 1100 square foot for a garage, right, and this is 1406 feet he's going to get. MRS.MOORE-For two garages. MR. KUHL-For two garages. MRS.MOORE-But one garage is 1100. You don't cumulate the garages. MR. KUHL-So the CO was for a garage. MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. KUHL-And the little note in the file said he was going to convert the attached garage to something else? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-A little note,not a big note. MRS.MOORE-Not a big note. MR. GARRAND-Is our Building Department making their own determinations as to what's a garage and what's not? MRS. MOORE-I'm not sure. The individual that handled the CO on that has passed away. So I (lost words) to ask. MR. KUHL-May I call you Mark? MR. POSNIEWSKI-You sure can. MR. KUHL-Your intention was to take the attached? MR. POSNIEWSKI-Yes, I was, but then I can't match the brick on the house. So that's why I put those doors on there to look like French doors. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. POSNIEWSKI-So it looked like, and the Building Inspector at the time, that's fine. It looks fine, and that's, I left it at that. That was six years ago. I didn't know this was going to happen. I would have done this a while ago if I'd known I had to. MR.JACKOSKI-Why did this come in front of us? MRS. MOORE-Our Code Enforcement Officer was visiting that area and had a conversation with Mark over another subject,and this came to light. MR.JACKOSKI-Don't talk to the Town of Queensbury. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Why not? I used to work for Ken Collette. I built a lot of homes. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time for the applicant? MR. URRICO-Did your intentions change at any point here, or was it misrepresented from the very beginning? MR. POSNIEWSKI-They basically changed as I was going on. That's why when I talked to the inspector he said it was fine,what I did was fine. He goes it doesn't look like a garage anymore,you know, because no matter what I was going to do, it was still going to look like a part of the house, but the house is Adirondack rustic. They don't make that brick anymore. I wasn't going to put, because my new garage is heritage. It's close but you put them together it's night and day. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR. URRICO-But did you understand that, even at the time you presented this in 2007, having two garages on this property was against the Code. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Correct. The one garage that's attached to my house,you see how big it is. MR.URRICO-Yes,it's still a garage. MR. POSNIEWSKI-I can barely put two bikes in there. MR.URRICO-But it's still a garage. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Correct, you know, but the guy, he also told me that anything that has a door bigger than eight feet is considered a garage. My back sliding door on my house opens up eight feet. That's not a garage. MR. HENKEL-But doesn't it say that the attached garage is 506 square feet? MR. P 0 S N I EWS KI-That's what it says. MR. HENKEL-But is it? MR. POSNIEWSKI-That's pretty small, isn't it, for a vehicle? I'm just saying, it's pretty small, the garage that's attached. MR. HENKEL-What are the dimensions of that detached garage? MR. POSNIEWSKI-22 by 22 on the outside. MR. HENKEL-That's a very normal size of a garage. MR. POSNIEWSKI-For a little car. MR.JACKOSKI-Regardless of the sizes,we've got a garage. It's being used as a garage. Correct? MR. POSNIEWSKI-Partly. In the wintertime I pull my wife's car in there so it's out of the snow. MR.JACKOSKI-So it's a garage. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So the issue here in front of us is we have a parcel that needs two garages. The applicant appears to not be willing to make the current attached garage no longer a garage. Correct? MR. POSNIEWSKI-The garage that's on my house? MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. P0SNIEWSKI-I want to leave it the garage. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So that's where we stand. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-How many total square feet of garage is on this property? MR. NOONAN-1406 square feet,because he's got 900,the new detached one is 900 square feet, and then you've got 506 feet for the existing attached garage. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Yes. MR. NOONAN-That's 1406. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Staff, the reason we don't have a detailed, completed non-marked up survey is because we're not asking for dimensional relief. Correct? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-Not even in square footage. Correct? MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'd like to open up the public hearing at this time. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-There is no written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application this evening? Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to leave the public hearing open and I'm going to poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think it could be easily converted to storage. That's a benefit that's feasible. I don't think it'll provide undesirable change in the neighborhood. Is it substantial? It's 100% relief for a second garage. I don't see any adverse environmental impacts, and is it self-created? Yes. So I think it should be converted to storage only. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm unwilling to bend on this one. I know it seems harsh,but I've always gone by the premise that if you came to us right now without having done any work on it, I would not be in favor of it. So I think there could be possible more impact to the neighborhood than anticipated because it could change what people with.75 acres are requesting for garages, and I think there are feasible alternatives. I think it's substantial relative to the Code. I don't think it's going to have a physical impact,and I think it's self-created. So I'd be against the application. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-When I went and looked at the property, obviously you could see that the newer garage looked, clearly was an add on, or an additional building to the property,but I guess the issue I had with it is that it was granted a CO in 2007 for something built in 2006, and the few cases of extra garages that I've been on here on this Board is I feel like we ask all those extra questions today, in terms of what are you going to do with the extra space, what are you going to do with the extra sheds, are you going to convert them to storage,before we go any further,but he was granted it. We're here to approve the variance that he can still use the new garage. It's built. So I, at this point,considering it's built,he was granted a CO in 2007, I would, I guess,be in favor,but not love it. So, I'm going to have to say yes MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think this situation falls hard on what we did in 2006 and '07, because if we gave him a CO for the garage with the understanding that the old garage would have been storage, it should have been made storage before we gave him the CO. So as far as I'm concerned,he's got the CO for the second garage and he's going to use the first one as a garage. We failed, in '06. We do grant second garages,and based on that, I'm going to approve it,or I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I kind of have to agree. Now if one of the garages was turned into storage, what would be the allowable amount for a shed or an accessory building? MR.JACKOSKI-Five hundred square feet is what Mr. Brown is motioning from the audience. Thank you, Mr. Brown. So,Joyce,you would be in favor,or? MRS. HUNT-Reluctantly, I think I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'd just say after driving around the neighborhood I didn't see too many second garages, for one thing. I think his intention to begin with was to make that a storage and maybe 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) part of his living space, and I just think it's too far over the Code to allow a second garage like. So I'd have to be not in favor of it at all. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Mr. Chairman, actually if you go right down the street, your 17, I think 19 or 21 has a second garage as well. It's yellow. It looks like it fits in pretty good over there, in terms of the neighborhood and character, well done projects. They're not bad looking. I'm just throwing that back out there. They're there. I mean. MR. HENKEL-But percentage wise, it's not much, did you check how many houses were there and how many second garages were there? MR. POSNIEWSKI-I didn't do that. MR. HENKEL-Yes,it's like two percent,if that,of the total neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'm struggling, because I have, I believe in the employees of the Town of Queensbury, and I suspect that the Certificate of Occupancy was granted believing that that was going to be or actually was demonstrated to be storage space. So I'm struggling with that, in that effect. However, I have to go back and think about other applications we've had in front of this Town Board, this Zoning Board, and I often refer to it now as the Hatin principle, because it was a much smaller lot and a larger garage, and this neighborhood hasn't, that I know of, complained about this garage or this particular property in six or seven years. So there's no desire on the applicant's part to make that attached part storage like the original intent was noted. This is one of those situations where a large financial impact to the applicant is going to be sitting there. However, I feel like we are being put in a very difficult situation, because, would we have granted this particular detached garage to this particular parcel, and I think that our answer is yes. Unfortunately I believe that that's what we would probably have done, although we would have had a very split vote. So I reluctantly vote yes on this. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look for a motion. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2013 MARK POSNIEWSKI, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 17 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close Section 5. The applicant has constructed a two car detached garage in 2006 where the file indicates the attached garage is to be converted to storage. The applicant is requesting approval to have two garages on the site. Relief is being requested for a number of garages where he has one. He wants one additional. Looking for 100% relief. 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. 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 are limited as the applicant had constructed the second garage in 2006 with a Certificate of Occupancy issued in 2007. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. It would be considered substantial relevant to the Code. 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, and was this self-created. This may be considered self-created. I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 42-2013. That the existing area that is attached to the home continue to appear not so much like a traditional garage, that the doors that are on that facade now remain of that type so that it looks more like a residence, living space than a garage space (pictures as submitted with the application). Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 2013, by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? MRS. MOORE-I guess I want to advise the applicant that you're voting for an approval at this point, and that one of the opportunities is to make that into a storage area, and I just want to confirm that the applicant is aware that your proposal, that you're aware of what the process, you understand the process? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR. POSNIEWSKI-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So would anyone be interested in adding, as a condition to this approval, that the existing area that is attached to the home continue to appear not so much like a traditional garage, that the doors that are on that facade now remain of that type so that it looks more like a residence, you know, living space than a garage space? I mean, because we could go back to putting two garage doors on there. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Well,it only had one door to begin with. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,one door. MR. POSNIEWSKI-But that door looks really, you see the picture of the door, don't you? I have no desire on changing that door,or going back to a garage looking door. MR. KUHL-So he's saying he's going to do. MR.JACKOSKI-So we'll condition it as the applicant is mentioned that it is going to stay looking as it is. AYES: Mrs. Hunt,Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. You're all set. MR. POSNIEWSKI-Thank you,sir. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2013 SEQRA TYPE II ANDREW FEDELE OWNER(S) ANDREW FEDELE ZONING OLD: SR-30/CURRENT: MDR LOCATION 24 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD, BEDFORD CLOSE, SECTION 5 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,096 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE 3-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 2008-422 RES.ALT.; BP 99-425 POOL; BP 87-729 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-5-020 ANDREW&LISA FEDELE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2013, Andrew Fedele, Meeting Date: August 28, 2013 "Project Location: 24 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close, Section 5 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,096 sq. ft. detached 3-car garage that would be a second garage on the property. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from the following section of code 179-5-020 Accessory Structures specifically for the number of allowed garages: #of garages Required Allowed 1 garage Proposed 2 garages one is attached at 631 sq.ft.and other is detached proposed at 1,096 sq.ft. Relief 1 garage Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to expand the existing garage but it is not clear if there are site constrains such as septic or utility access. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial however the applicant has been using a portable shelter for items that did not fit into the existing garage. 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. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 08-422: Residential alteration BP 99-425: Pool BP 87-729: SFD Staff comments: The applicant proposes a detached 2nd garage that is to be 1,096 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated the 2nd garage will allow for the storage of vehicles, boats and similar items where some of the items had been covered by a portable garage for the past few years; this would address their future garage needs with additional vehicles for their children these items can be stored inside versus outside. The applicant has also explained to staff that the interior layout of the existing garage does not allow for an addition where there is only 17.5 ft. of usable space because there is a spiral staircase to the second floor, a stairwell to the basement and a laundry room wall further an addition to the rear or front would not lend itself to the architectural consistency of the home. The application materials include the location of the existing garage, site layout information, elevations drawings,and a rendition of a garage plan. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you'd please join us at the table. Good evening. Would you like to add anything at this time to the record or would you just like to field questions from Board members? MR. FEDELE-I think we're good to go. MR.JAC KO SKI-Very well. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. HENKEL-Now when this house was constructed with that detached garage, are those, the dimensions that you have here,were they, or did you guys add something in there like a staircase? LISA FEDELE MRS. FEDELE-No,that's how we bought it. MR. HENKEL-That's kind of a strange two car garage there. MRS. FEDELE-It's like a car and a half. MR. HENKEL-But I noticed there were two cars in there when I went by on. MRS. FEDELE-Well,the only way we can get two cars in,we have a truck,we have to back the truck in and it has to go, we can't, well, we have to back it in and it's about three inches off the front wall and about four inches off the back wall. There's no using the passenger's side at all, and you have to back it in because if you pull straight in then you have to crawl over to get out the passenger's side. MR. HENKEL-Seventeen feet is tight. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR.URRICO-Will you be using the second garage as storage space or as a second garage? MR. FEDELE-As a second garage. MR.URRICO-So you can fit four cars into your garages,or a combination of boats,cars, and. MR. FEDELE-Yes, we're currently storing our boat elsewhere, but we'd like to store it in our own garage. MR. KUHL-What are you going to be using the existing garage for,if you get this relief you request? MR. FEDELE-Most likely one vehicle and a snow blower,and whatever else. MR. KUHL-But you'll still use it as. MR. FEDELE-It's to be a garage,yes. MR. KUHL-Your wife's car will go in and your truck will be. MR. FEDELE-Yes,pretty much. MRS. FEDELE-Actually, I drive the truck. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Roy,is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "We are writing in response to the letter sent concerning the applicant Andrew Fedele's proposed construction of a 1,096 sq.ft.detached 3 car garage. The public hearing is set for Wednesday, 8/28/2013. We have lived in Bedford Close for close to 17 years and we love our neighborhood. Over the years there have been a few detached garages added to some of the properties and these have been 2 car garages. We do not have an issue with a detached garage and Mr. Fedele's plans are beautifully constructed. We understand the need to have a place to keep a truck,van and boat. We are a bit concerned about the size of this garage at 1096 sq. ft. We would prefer to see it 900 sq. feet or less. The location of the proposed structure will stand out visibly on the property with few trees and a lot that does not go back very far. It would be more aesthetically pleasing to have the garage angled to break up the look of a ranch house, rather than along the same line of the house. Additionally,trees and shrubs added would help soften the look of a garage. It is requested that if any flood lighting is to be added that it be pointed down so as not to shine in other neighbors yards. Thank you. Sincerely, Bedford Close neighbors" And there's another little note. It says "On August 21St Staff Land Use Planner Laura Moore discussed the Fedele application with a neighbor who had received a notice. The neighbor Ms.Jones had questions about location of the 2nd garage on the property and wondered if it is possible to angle the building so the garage doors are not directly facing the road or neighbor's property across the street." That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That's it for written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Yes, sir. Welcome, and if you could state your name for the record,please. RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-Yes. My name is Richard Jones. I'm the neighbor that lives at 33 Honey Hollow Road, directly across the street from the proposed garage property. We basically don't have a problem with them building a second garage. We've looked at the plans. The plans do indicate a structure that's going to be compatible with their existing house. Our biggest concern is the orientation of the garage. The Bedford Close neighborhood, there's very few garages that face the street. The orientation of the garage as they're proposing faces directly at our house. When we sit in our living room or our sunroom we're looking right at the overhead doors. We will be looking at the overhead doors of that garage. We would like to see the basic garage pushed back and oriented and rotated on a 45 degree angle off the corner of the existing house. That would cut down the visibility from the street. It would still enable them to have adequate access from their loop driveway in the front of the house. Their septic system is in the front of the house. So there's nothing back there that they can basically interfere with as far as underground utilities. I believe their portable structures were in the backyard, because I don't remember seeing their portable 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) structures on that side, but that's basically our concern. We're going to sit and look directly at the front of that garage,and as I said,aesthetically it's fine but we don't want to look at overhead doors. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir, and may I ask, regarding that orientation of the garage, do you feel they'll have adequate access to be able to back their boat and trailer and truck in there? MR.JONES-Yes. I actually have a site plan that I would like to share with the Board. MR.JACKOSKI-If you could give that to our secretary, Roy, down at the,well, or not, and,thank you, Mr.Jones. Is there anything else you'd like to add at this time? MR. JONES-No, I just would say that, again, similar to the neighborhood letter that was sent, they had done a fair amount of site work in the front of the property and the rear of the property and they've done a nice job landscaping,but they took down some major trees which would have helped hide the garage at that location unfortunately, and again,we would like to see landscaping added to basically cut down on the effect that it would have from site issues off the road itself, and the neighborhood, as I said, have very few houses where the garages actually face the street. The only houses that basically do face, have garages facing the street, are usually corner lots, but most everyone, even on some of the corner lots, they've angled the garage so that it's not having a major impact on the street by itself. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Having seen no one else, I am going to leave the public hearing open. MRS. FEDELE-Would it be possible for us to get a copy of? MR.JACKOSKI-You can have mine. MRS. FEDELE-Can we say something? MR.JACKOSKI-Of course. MRS. FEDELE-As Mr. Jones said, we've done a lot of work on the yard, anticipating hopefully being able to do the garage. We have purposely not done landscaping in that area yet because we knew we'd have to have building equipment and everything else, and then after the fact we plan on doing landscaping and bringing in a couple of more trees. We had to take some trees down. We had to take more trees down than we wanted because we had trees that were diseased, and they had said that we could either have them taken down while they were there or we they would be calling back soon to come back and (lost words). So we did take some big trees down, but we've also planted some other trees to hopefully that will,you know,but the, and we were not going to have it directly straight on. We were going to have it at a little bit of an angle,but not quite to this extent,because this kind of puts it like right in the middle of our backyard,but we had planned on having it more of a bit of an angle, because the way the driveway comes in, it comes in at an angle. So then the garage would have been, so it wouldn't be completely straight on with the street. MR. FEDELE-We did leave two trees at the end of the driveway, which kind of canopy over the driveway and would limit any view back anyway from that point. MR.JACKOSKI-I think we're all also dying to understand the whole pool thing,and the lot lines. MRS. FEDELE-Okay. Here's the deal. We moved here two years ago, and we jumped into a hornet's nest,that's all I can tell you,with this house. MR. FEDELE-Had we not been trying to put a garage in,we never would have known about the pool. MR. HENKEL-It can be a community pool. MRS. FEDELE-Well,apparently. We were asking Chris if we could just use it for the summers. MR. FEDELE-Chris Gaunt on that side. MRS. FEDELE-Apparently when it was put in 10 years ago, well before we got here, they used the wrong stake or something. MR. FEDELE-They're 34 feet apart. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MRS. FEDELE-Yes. MRS. FEDELE-So our pool is where it is and his pool's directly behind this on the other side of the fence,so there's no moving anything because there's two pools in the way. MR. FEDELE-And it's being worked on,or so they tell me. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm just wondering. Okay. So is there any consideration on your part to make this a two car garage instead of a three car garage as mentioned in the letter? MR. FEDELE-Not really, because of what we see as future growth, and I talked to other neighbors about just that. I said, well, we could go for a variance for a two car, but I said then we'd be right back here in about two years, asking for an addition on to it to make it a three car, and I'd just as soon do it all at once. The design of it,we tried to stick with what our house,we have a hip roof on our current garage. This thing has a hip roof and a gable. We have a gable on the house. MRS. FEDELE-And it only has two doors to make it look more like a two car, and the one door is back a foot. MR. FEDELE-Yes,it has some dimensional. MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt it looks really nice, but you're looking for 1727 feet, square feet of garage space. MR. FEDELE-No, no, no. That's the original plan. That's not what, we modified the plan. We shrunk it down. It started out as a six car garage. Total space? I'm sorry. Yes. MR. HENKEL-Total space,what you have written here. Yes. MR. FEDELE-But again, the 600 that they give us currently, it's not usable garage space because of where we can pull vehicles in. What they consider garage space, we also have, off to the side, we have a fridge,a freezer standing over there. There's no way to get a vehicle in there. MRS. HUNT-I have a question for you. You say you want the three car garage partly for storage. Would you be against turning your attached garage into just storage? Then it wouldn't be a second garage. MRS. FEDELE-We can't get a boat into our. MR. FEDELE-We would still like the attached garage,just for the convenience of not having to walk over to the (lost words)through the snow and such,for wintertime convenience. MR. URRICO-See, our task is to provide you with minimum relief, as minimum as possible, and you're asking for a maximum, second garage,three car garage. MRS. FEDELE-Well,we stayed within the limits that were. MR.URRICO-No,you're above it. That's why you're here for a variance. MRS. FEDELE-No,we stayed within the limits of an additional garage. MR. FEDELE-Eleven hundred square feet or less,as we understood it. MR. HENKEL-That's total garage space. MR. FEDELE-No,that was additional garage space. MR. HENKEL-Right,okay,but not a second garage. MR.URRICO-If it was the only garage. MRS.MOORE-Each garage can be 1100 square feet. MRS. FEDELE-Correct. Each garage. So we're under the maximum. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR. FEDELE-And honestly I'm just looking, we've got three kids. There's, I mean, there's five bicycles. There's a snow blower. There's a ride on tractor. There's the boat. There's. MRS. FEDELE-We're just trying to keep from having a garage and a shed, because there are several houses in our neighborhood who have a garage, they have additional sheds in the backyard, they have,you know, all these extra outbuildings. We were trying to consolidate,to keep it looking nice. MR. FEDELE-And we did hide the shed. MRS. FEDELE-And we did our best to hide it. MR. FEDELE-As best we could. We had it out in the middle of the backyard,backed up to the fence, right opposite our backdoor neighbor's shed. So that their shed protected, or hid our shed from them seeing it,but then we re-landscaped, and when we did,that shed's not going back there again. So if it went anywhere,it would go at the back end of the driveway,and I don't want to do that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time for this Board, is the applicant suggesting that they would like to keep to the original plan in which they had,which was the under 1100 square foot second garage oriented on the lot where they've shown it in the application, or is there any consideration of angling it as the letters from the neighbors, although we don't know who all those neighbors were or are,but certainly Mr.Jones has spoken to the same. MR. FEDELE-Not to that extent right there. MRS. FEDELE-So it wouldn't be in the middle of our backyard. MR.JACKOSKI-Is there an opportunity to simply slide it to the northeast at that angle? MR. FEDELE-Back towards the back corner? MRS. FEDELE-And to angle it the other way. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I'm simply just saying just move it, there's 48 feet of distance there. Make it 35. I'm just picking a number. I don't know exactly. MRS. FEDELE-We could move it back. MR. FEDELE-Keep it at a 45. MR.JACKOSKI-Keep it at the 45,but slide it closer to your lot line to the northeast. MRS. FEDELE-I don't know if we'd be able to get into the,well,we probably wouldn't be able to still be a 45 degree angle to get into the,to be able to get in,unless we turn it this way. MR. FEDELE-You realize we haven't seen this before. MR. JACKOSKI-Neither have we, and you certainly have the opportunity to request a tabling for us to re-hear the application. That's no problem. We could always grant you that opportunity, and if you want, I'd be more than happy to poll the Board so you can get the opinions of the Board members and then you can make a decision. Fine. MR. FEDELE-Just with the original. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Sure. We'll open up some discussion with the Board members,and I'll poll the Board, and I just want to remind everyone,the public hearing has been left open. I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm going to stay consistent on this. I think I've been fairly consistent all along, and say that I would be against it,and I would be against it because I think there would be impact to the neighborhood. I think there are feasible alternatives. The relief, to me, is substantial. It's less than a five acre lot, and we're asking for a second garage on it, and I don't see there being any environmental hazards that I can see,and it's self-created. So I would be against it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd also be against it. Back in the late 70's,when Northern Homes first developed that development, there was supposed to be no second garages or detached garages. It's going to cheapen the neighborhood,cheapen the property. That's a nice project,but. MR. FEDELE-Can I throw something in? MR.JACKOSKI-Let us just go ahead and finish the polling. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Same here. Benefits can be achieved by other means. Undesirable character, the neighbors seem to think so. Is it substantial? Most definitely. Is it self-created? Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-The angle that's at the end of your driveway right now, is that the angle you were thinking about putting it on,because there's a little bit of an angle there. It's not a 45,but there's a little bit of an angle. MR. FEDELE-Right. MRS. FEDELE-It's going to be at a bit of an angle,not to that extent. MR. NOONAN-Okay. I mean, if you're going to house things that were once covered by temporary coverings, boats,you know, toys, other cars, and you're going to put a significant amount of money into that project, it's going to look cleaner. It's going to look neater. I personally would be okay with the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think, you know, Lisa, you did state that you were going to cock it some, but yet what you're presenting here is just straight on off the street, and we just granted another one. I can't see where we really can say no to you,but if your intention was to try to take care of what Mr. Jones was interested in, which is cock it somewhat, then I think you should present it that way. I mean, I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I think there are feasible alternatives,and I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-I think I'm leaning against it, too, because, as presented, and I think it's because a three car detached garage, to me, seems to be that line of where I feel there are alternatives and other feasible opportunities for you, focusing more on trying to be in keeping with the neighborhood and minimizing those garage doors directly off the road. So I think I'd be, as presented, I'd be against the project as well. Now,you probably haven't been in front of this Board before. So after hearing the comments of the Board and listening to the polling of the Board members, you certainly have a couple of alternatives. One is to ask us to go to a vote, and I think you've heard where that vote might go. Secondly, you have the opportunity to simply ask us to table the project because you'd like to reconsider the input of the neighbors and the Board members and try to come up with a feasible alternative that you'd be happy with, or you could also simply withdraw the application. MR. FEDELE-Can I ask you a question? MR.JACKOSKI-Of course. MR. FEDELE-Three different people said there are feasible alternatives. Obviously we didn't see them or we would have looked at something else. Could I get an offer of what one might be? I'm just asking because I'm at a loss here. MRS. HUNT-I suggested turning the attached garage into storage. Then it would not be a second garage. MR.JACKOSKI-And I made reference to angling it, as Mr.Jones and the neighbors have suggested,to help with the neighborhood. I am a little concerned with the appearance of a three car garage. I know that you are at those limits, but you're also here because all those limits are just guidelines. This Board is here to try to find the balance,and. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MRS. FEDELE-There are three car garages in our neighborhood. MR. FEDELE-Attached. MR.JAC KOSKI-Attached,but not five cars. MRS. FEDELE-No. MR. KUHL-Can I give you an alternative? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. KUHL-You could have two doors and more depth with the same, you know, 1100 square feet, plus that little bit of cocking. MRS. FEDELE-We just have two doors. MR. KUHL-You have three garages. You have a double door and a single door. That's all I mean. I mean make it appear to be a two car garage. Put wider space in between it. Make it deeper. MR. FEDELE-Yes,can we table it for now? MR. JACKOSKI-You certainly could. I do want to note that the public hearing has been left open. The applicant has requested a tabling of this application until they get additional consideration and thought. I'd look for a motion to grant that request by the applicant. MR. KUHL-I can make a motion that we table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2013 ANDREW FEDELE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 24 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close, Section 5. Tabled to the first meeting in October with new material to be submitted by September 16th. At the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 2013, by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any specific date that Staff would like us to table it to? MRS.MOORE-Right now there's tentatively two agendas,the 18th or the 20th. MR.JACKOSKI-But they would need to submit new materials,which the deadline is September 15th. Right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, the August deadline has already passed. So I think it would the October meeting,is that what we're saying? MR. FEDELE-So we're not building this year. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,do we have a specific date that we want to table it to? MRS.MOORE-Do you want to table it to the October meetings? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know. Is the Board comfortable tabling it to a September meeting, knowing that there'll be new materials? Is that possible, Laura? MR. HENKEL-If they can get their stuff in,yes. MR.URRICO-I won't be here for the second meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm not comfortable. We've already missed that. So I think it has to be material, new material submitted by September 15th or whatever that date is, and then table until October. MRS.MOORE-October,and you can do the first or the second meeting. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So we'll amend the motion to table it to the first meeting in October. Thank you. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-And I believe, Laura,that first meeting in October is the 18th. MRS.MOORE-October's meetings are the 16th or the 23rd. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, the 16th. So you still could meet the construction season. It would be tight. Okay. Thank you. Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2013 SEQRA TYPE II GREENWOOD BUILDERS, LLC AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) H. THOMAS JARRETT ZONING MDR LOCATION EAST SIDE OF RIDGE RD. JUST NORTH OF HAVILAND RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 16-ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS; ONE (LOT NO. 3) TO BE LOCATED OFF STONEHURST DRIVE AT THE EXTENSION OF THE 50 FT. WIDE PAPER STREET. PROPOSED LOTS 1 AND 2 TO BE LOCATED ON RIDGE ROAD WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND DIRECT ACCESS ON A PUBLIC STREET FOR LOT NUMBER 3. DRIVEWAY ACCESS WILL BE THROUGH STONEHURST DRIVE. CROSS REF SB 2-2013; FWW 1-2013; TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH SEPTIC VARIANCE; SET PH ON AUGUST 5, & PH SCHEDULED AUGUST 19, 2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2013 LOT SIZE 16.02 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.00-1-83 SECTION 179-4-050; CHAPTER 183 &CHAPTER 94; 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT&GARY SCOTT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2013, Greenwood Builders, LLC, Meeting Date: August 28, 2013 "Project Location: east side of Ridge Rd., just north of Haviland Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 16-acre parcel into three residential lots; one lot (lot 3) to be accessed off of Stonehurst Drive at the existing 50 ft. wide paper street. Proposed lots 1 &2 to be located on Ridge Road with a shared driveway. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from the following section of code 179-4-050 Frontage specifically for road frontage access: Frontage and access on Public Streets Required 50 ft. Proposed 0 ft. Relief 50 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the proposed lot configuration for the 3-lot subdivision. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial however the lot configuration avoids work with the wetlands and minimizes curb-cuts onto Ridge Road. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) 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. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SB 2-13: Pending FW 1-13: Pending Septic Variance: Pending-8-19-13 Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision where lot 3 requires a variance for physical frontage access on an unimproved paper drive accessing Stonehurst Dr. The applicant has indicated the proposed configuration minimizes curb-cuts to 2 on Ridge Road where lot 3 will access Stonehurst Dr. The materials submitted show the lot configuration, proposed house location, wetland areas, driveway and other site details. SEQR Status: Type II' MRS. MOORE-This application was also on for a septic variance, and that septic variance with the local Board of Health has been tabled to September. So I would suggest that you do open your public hearing,hear information from the applicant,and then table it to the September meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. We'll listen to the applicant's request. Welcome, Tom. Welcome, Gary. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, a partners in Greenwood Builders and owner of the lot, and Gary Scott, President of Greenwood Builders. We're not here for a garage in Bedford Close. So we'll clarify that right out of the gate. This is a 16 acre parcel on Ridge Road which is proposed to be subdivided into three lots. Two of the lots as you can see on the on the border are fronting on Ridge Road and would be accessed from Ridge Road, and the two houses would be on Ridge Road. The third lot is in the rear. It actually is a large lot, over eight acres in size,and it would be accessed off Stonehurst Drive,through that 50 foot paper street,which was the intent of the subdivision when it was created. The house on that rear lot is proposed in that location, which gives us compliant locations for septic, well we believe for septic, and for stormwater as well as all the other site utilities. The frontage in that area, where the access is proposed, is only the 50 foot paper street. We have 100 foot of frontage on Ridge Road which is compliant, makes the lot compliant. However, accessing the lot through that frontage on Ridge Road would require three times the length of driveway and we'd have to go through wetlands to do it. So there's really no feasible alternative to using the Stonehurst Drive entrance which was planned by the Planning Board at the time when that subdivision was created. So that's our request. We can address any questions you have tonight, and obviously you're going to table it for next month. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-The way the Ridge Road lots are presented, you're going to have people putting pools and decks in the Corps wetlands. You guys know Corps wetlands are to keep areas from flooding. I think something should be written into the deed where there's no decks or pools off the backs of these houses. MR.JARRETT-Well,the wetlands are actually quite a ways behind the houses, and there is language on the plan saying no encroachment, no disturbance of those wetlands whatsoever. So,we can add more language if you wish,but there's. MR. GARRAND-No pools,no decks off the backs of the houses. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) MR. JARRETT-Well, they won't be in the wetlands right there. The wetlands are back here, quite a ways from the houses. MR. GARRAND-It says the setbacks go, according to the drawing I'm looking at,the setbacks are not that far off the back of the houses here. MR.JARRETT-That's a 75 foot structure setback,and that setback is. MR. GARRAND-Decks,pools,nothing within 75 feet of the wetland? MR.JARRETT-You're talking about within the setback,not within the wetland itself. MR. GARRAND-Yes,within the setback. MR.JARRETT-That won't affect the buffer,that would not affect flooding whatsoever. MR. GARRAND-That whole area is like a floodplain, though. I've been back there in the Fall, or I'm sorry,the Springtime. MR.JARRETT-Actually the area back here in the wetland is, right. This area up here on Ridge Road is not. That's higher and dryer,but you're right,back here is,absorbs a lot of water. MR. GARRAND-In the Springtime. I've seen it in the winter and the spring. I haven't seen it in the summer. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-What's the square footage of each lot as far as buildable? MR. JARRETT-Each lot is, there's more than two acres of buildable area on each lot. Each of the front lots is four acres plus in size, and the rear lot is eight acres in size,but each lot of the three has more than two acres of buildable area. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Yes. MR. JARRETT-Laura, could I clarify your Staff Notes? You're saying frontage and access. We have it's just access,right? MRS.MOORE-Just access. Yes. MR.JARRETT-Okay. I was a little confused. MR. JACKOSKI-Hearing no other Board member questions at this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience,first,is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No written comment at this time. MR.JACKOSKI-No written comment at this time. Is there anyone herein the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I don't know that it's necessary to poll the Board. Do any Board members have any questions at this time? Comments, clarifications, recommendations, suggestions? Nothing. So the applicant has requested a tabling to the September 18th meeting. Is there anyone willing to make a motion? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'll make that motion. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2013 GREENWOOD BUILDERS. LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: East side of Ridge Rd.,just north of Haviland Rd. Tabled to the September 18th ZBA meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/28/2013) NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR.JARRETT-Thanks. MR.JACKOSKI-That is the end of our meeting this evening as far as applications are concerned. We are going to adjourn the meeting, I believe,officially. So can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 28.2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 28th day of August, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Noonan,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Garrand,Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Hunt,Mr.Urrico,Mr.Garrand NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. AN HOUR WORKSHOP FOLLOWED WITH THE ZBA AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF RE: ZBA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 18