Loading...
10-16-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16,2013 INDEX Area Variance No.45-2013 Andrew Fedele 1. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-33 Area Variance No. 53-2013 David J. Corlew,Jr.&Tracy J.Tabor 7. Tax Map No. 308.9-1-10 Area Variance No. 54-2013 Jerry&Linda Steves 12. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-59 Area Variance No. 55-2013 157 Mannis Road, LLC 16. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-7 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 10/16/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT KYLE NOONAN MICHAEL MC CABE,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order, this evening, the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda tonight, Wednesday, October 16th at 7 p.m. here at the Activities Center. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it is actually quite an easy process. We will call each application to the table. There is a sheet in the back that does explain the process and the agenda. We'll ask the applicant for any additions to the application that they might want to address to the Board. The Board will probably ask some questions. We'll open up a public hearing when the public hearing is scheduled, and then we'll generally poll the Board and move forward with some kind of an action for the evening. So it's relatively harmless. This evening we have some brief housekeeping to accomplish. So I'd like to ask for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of August 21St. MR.URRICO-So moved. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 21, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2013, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: r. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-The next item we'd like to do is approve the meeting minutes of August 28th. I need a motion. MR.URRICO-So moved. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MRS. HUNT-Second. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Joyce. August 28, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 28,2013, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-So the first item on tonight's agenda is Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: 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) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-33 SECTION 179-5-020 ANDREW FEDELE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This has been in front of the Board in the past. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening,and, Roy, I don't know if you want to read any more into the record. MR.URRICO-Do you want me to? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think we have to. It's been read into the record in the past, and the application has not changed substantially. Correct? MRS. MOORE-It has not. You've reviewed the information that's been provided that shows that it's been altered in its location to have it at an angle now. MR.URRICO-Maybe I should read in the Staff comments. MR.JACKOSKI-That seems fair, Roy. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2013, Andrew Fedele, Meeting Date: October 16, 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. The application was tabled at the August 28th meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to develop an alternative plan. 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. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) 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 limited due to the existing house configuration and the interior useable space of the existing garage. The applicant has indicate the existing garage has 391 sq. ft. of useable space where the remaining area includes access stairs to the 2nd floor and then to the basement, and access to the laundry area. 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. S. 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 has provided additional information for the board to consider. The information includes a floor plan of the existing garage with dimensions and noting only 391 sq. ft. of the garage is useable space; in addition photos are included showing the vehicle and storage arrangement that occurs currently. Another drawing depicts the orientation of the garage to be angled of off of the side and rear property lines with 12 ft. to the side property line and 30 ft. to the rear property line as well as a suggested planting plan. A floor plan and elevation drawing depict the roof configuration for ventilation and that within the new garage 700 sq. ft. is garage space and 396 sq. ft. is storage space -with the plans showing one large garage door and one smaller garage door. The applicant has also included a photo of all the items to be stored between the attached garage and proposed 2nd garage. The applicant proposal now requests a different orientation of the detached 2nd garage that is to be 1,096 sq. ft. The applicant has updated the application with drawing and photos indicating 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. The applicant has explained this would address their future garage needs with additional vehicles for their children and those items that 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 font would not lend itself to the architectural consistency of the home. The original application materials include the location of the existing garage, site layout information, elevations drawings, and a rendition of a garage plan. The revised information includes photos, original site plan, proposed reorientation of the building with a proposed planting plan. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome back. Was there anything at this time, I know we've discussed the application before and we heard public comment. Is there anything else you'd like to add this evening before we open it up for Board member questions? It's pretty straightforward the way you've presented it. Okay. Are there any Board member questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a question. Now you say you're going to store a boat. Are you going to store the boat on the trailer inside? MR. FEDELE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay,now,what's,the trailer looks pretty big. How big is that boat? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR. FEDELE-It's a 21 foot boat. MR. HENKEL-It is? Okay. With no cutty or anything underneath it? MR. FEDELE-I'm sorry? MR. HENKEL-Any kind of a cutty,or is it just a regular? MR. FEDELE-It's a deck boat. MR. HENKEL-Okay,because I was going to say, otherwise the height would get in the way when you get into a regular garage. MR. FEDELE-Yes,no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. FREER-The arrangement was provided by a neighbor. Is the neighbor satisfied with the new arrangement? MR.JACKOSKI-And we do have public comment. So we will, of course,have the public come up and address the Board,too. MRS. FEDELE-We do have a letter from one of our neighbors,stating that they were approving. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Do we have that letter in the record, Roy? MR. FEDELE-No,you don't. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you give it to Mr. Secretary, please, and we'll have that read into the public comment period also. MR. FEDELE-And there's a,well,you can,a handwritten comment on there as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before we do open it up for a public hearing? Okay. I would like to open the public hearing again. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular matter? And I do see a hand. Welcome back. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-Good evening. My name is Richard Jones. I'm the landowner right across the street from this property. I had several meetings with Andy with regard to the layout for the garage, the orientation, planting on the site, that type of thing, and basically we were able to come to an agreement on both the orientation of the garage, rotating it about 45 degree, approximately, from the property line, and then providing some fairly substantial planting both in the island and on the perimeters of the garage as well. So I think we're, as neighbors, satisfied with what he's done. We certainly would be interested in talking to the Zoning Board at some point in time about the issues of exterior storage for boats and that type of thing in the Town of Queensbury, because it's becoming very problematic. In my neighborhood alone, within a block, there's probably a dozen boats that are stored outside and it's very unsightly. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I would have to recommend that you actually speak directly with the Town Board, because this Board is actually only an appeals organization and therefore we really have no ability to talk about that. MR. JONES-Yes, I realize that, but basically, you know, with what they've presented, the color, I assume, is going to match the existing house, the roof color would match the shingles on the existing house. So basically with that,the architecture of the building I think would be,compliment what they have right now for the house. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you very much. MR.JONES-Thank you. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? Okay. Roy, could you read in the public comment received? MR. URRICO-Yes. This letter is in response to your public hearing notice regarding the above captioned property. This is 24 Honey Hollow Road. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the public hearing scheduled for October 16, 2013. We would like it on record that we have reviewed the plans for the proposed garage and are not opposed to the variance for the second garage as requested by Mr. Fedele. Thank you for your time and service. There's also a handwritten comment here. It says, P.S. If possible bring garage forward and have a greater side setback to the LaBombard backyard,and this is signed Cathy LaBombard. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. Any other comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-That's it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have,the public hearing will still remain open. At this time I'd like to, I assume the applicant doesn't need to add anything to those public comments because we already talked about them before we opened up the public comment period. So at this time I'd like to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, to me I understand, the criteria calls for several things, and one of the items is a change to the neighborhood, and I think offering a second garage on a piece of property, giving it permission, would certainly start the chain flowing in terms of requests from other property owners in that neighborhood seeking a garage. We've already heard there's a problem with boats being stored there, and that is true, but the problem is the amount of items people have, rather, as opposed to the places they have to store them, and it only calls for one garage in this neighborhood. It's a relatively small piece of property in comparison to some others that we may have granted a second garage to. So that's one of the things. The benefit sought by the applicant, the feasible alternative is not to have a second garage. I know we have a lot of things to store, but unfortunately the Code does not allow for it. I think the request is substantial. We're talking about 100%relief of a second garage,and so I would be against it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I was actually in favor of it the first time around. It does look like you've thought more about what your neighbors think, and I'm certainly more in favor. I can't be any more in favor of it at this point. I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I pretty much agree with Mr. Urrico. I would be more favorable for something much smaller. I understand there's never enough space, especially the garage the way you have it now, that's kind of useless for two cars. It does give you some storage and enough for at least one car,but the way the project with a three car garage of that size,definitely not, I'm not in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Since the last meeting, I went and visit, I have friends that live on Honey Hollow Road, and I went and visited, and I had visited them many times, and they were able to manage the two cars and use that space and I've been thinking about it and I would be against a three car garage being added to that property. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. A smaller structure. Undesirable change in the neighborhood. Previously the Board has granted second garages actually in this neighborhood, one of which is even used as a business. Is it substantial, 100% relief, yes, it is substantial. It's quite a reach from what the Code currently is, and as a gentleman previously brought up, it's an issue that should be addressed by the Town Board, not this Board. This Board is simply tasked with hearing appeals relative to the Code. Will it have adverse physical or environmental effects, I don't think so. Is it self-created? I believe it is. On the basis of the balancing test, I can't be in favor of it. Furthermore, I've traditionally never voted in favor of second garages on lots smaller than five acres. Usually the second garages are requested for lots where people need machinery and stuff to maintain the property. In this case, I just don't think it's necessary. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm impressed that the applicant approached his neighbors and came up with a reasonable compromise. I would be in favor of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. We have a majority of noes, but I'll still give my opinion. My thoughts are that the third garage is excessive. I do like the fact that the neighbors have,you know, agreed with it,but the lot is a small lot, and I'm curious about whether or not you resolved your issue yet on the other property line? MR. FEDELE-The pool? MRS. FEDELE-It's being taken care of. It's out of our hands at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-But, I mean,will it increase the size of your lot? MR. FEDELE-It will increase,yes. Not substantially,but. MRS. FEDELE-34 feet off the other side. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. I think three cars for that parcel,that size structure and in that neighborhood is too large. So I guess I would not be in favor either. MRS. FEDELE-If we were to do different plans for a two car garage, I mean, a two car structure? MR. JACKOSKI-It makes me feel better. We never, especially when the neighbors have approved, they're feeling comfortable with it, I think the two car would probably allow it to be off the line more, as the neighbor suggested. MRS. FEDELE-Well, we've, even with that, we had already (lost words) 15 feet, we told them we'd have no problems moving it over. MR. JACKOSKI-It's just a lot of structure. When you look at that aerial, it's a lot of structure going straight across that parcel. MR. FEDELE-If I can address. What we asked Mr. Jones to do, well, I don't know if I asked. We were talking and we have an island in the middle of the driveway. If we build that up enough, you're not going to see anything behind it. It won't matter what we put back there, two car, one car, no car, I mean, nothing will be showing. So, with trees at the end of the driveway, trees part way up the driveway, anything we put behind it would not show from the road anyway. So we were trying to accommodate both the neighbors across the street, the neighbors next door, and we were trying to avoid what's probably going to happen. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would any other Board members at this time like to comment? Okay. Hearing none, I think, we can certainly take action or you can simply request to withdraw your application without prejudice. MR. FEDELE-Okay. Let's just do that. MR.JACKOSKI-We could table it,too,but. MR. FEDELE-We tabled it and we came back with a different approach. We had two things to address. One was the size, the other was the visibility. We've addressed the visibility. With the size,the reason we didn't change it,we liked this plan. It dovetails very nicely with our house, and if we were to change it, it changes the roofline of it, and to do that wasn't what we were looking for, and keep it away from boats, boat storage and temporary sheds and all that, but that's what we're trying to avoid. MR. HENKEL-What sized garage would you need to put a 21 foot? The trailer itself is probably, what,about 27 feet, 28? MR. FEDELE-It's right at 26 and change. MR. HENKEL-So you could still get away with a smaller structure,then. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR. FEDELE-But when we do that,that changes,we have about six inches,currently, of a ridge vent, that's it, and so once we shrink it down, then we change how it sets up. Now the other thing, I know before we were addressing what is, quote unquote garage space versus storage space. We were looking at that. If we were to take part of it and put like French doors or sliding doors on the front of it, something other than a garage door, would that pass muster, still the same size structure? MR. JACKOSKI-No, I'm struggling with the size of the structure. I guess the question for the Board at this time is, because it's important to let the applicant go back to the drawing board if they're going to, so we're not wasting everyone's time. Could they come back to us with a simple two car garage and have it be approved? I'm not asking orientation or any of that other stuff. Simply will we approve a second garage on this lot? MR. HENKEL-I would definitely give it better consideration, yes. Two car garage, 26 by 26 or something of that sort would be a fair. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? No. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm still against two car. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'm not saying I'm 100% for it, either, I'd have to see the application. Unfortunately, I don't know until I see what you would present to us. I see a lot of structure on a very small lot. MRS. FEDELE-We were trying to avoid what we're having to currently do, which is a temporary shed to cover these things,and we were trying to do the best thing for the neighborhood. MR.JACKOSKI-There's always offsite storage,too. MRS. FEDELE-It's the cost. MR. HENKEL-It's cheaper than building a garage. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So you've asked to withdraw the application? MR. FEDELE-Yes,we'll just go that route. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So how do we want to handle that, Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant has verbally said that they're withdrawing their application, and it's duly noted as part of the Board. MR.JACKOSKI-And we don't have to take any action,right? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.JACKOSKI-To accept it. Okay. Thank you for trying. Again, I do appreciate it. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2013 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID J. CORLEW, JR. & TRACY J. TABOR OWNER(S) DAVID J. CORLEW, JR. & TRACY J. TABOR ZONING MDR LOCATION 20 TWIN MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2013-332; BP 2012-573 DECK; BP 91-845 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.9-1-10 SECTION 179-5-020 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2013, David J. Corlew, Jr. & Tracy J. Tabor, Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 "Project Location: 20 Twin Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft.freestanding garage that does not meet the required setbacks. Relief Required: Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts and 179-5-020 Accessory Structures Front Setback Side Setback(MDR) Required 30 feet 25 feet Proposed N 12.67, S 13.16 SW 12.9, SE 15.74 Relief N 17.33, S 16.84 SW 12.1, SE 9.26 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 may be limited because of the current site layout with landscape areas around the home and orientation of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal to moderate relevant to the code. 6. 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. 7. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2013-333: Inground Pool BP 2013-332: Garage BP 2012-573: Deck BP 1991-845: Septic alteration Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 576 sq. ft. detached garage where there is currently no garage on the site. The garage does not meet the required front and south side setback requirements. The applicant has indicated the garage location is arranged with the current driveway and could not be located with the current septic and pool locations. The applicant has included a photo rendition of the garage to be proposed showing location in relation to the home and pool area. Elevation drawings were included indicating the dimensions of the structure. The application materials also included letters from neighbors supporting the application. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy, and I am going to note that the applicant's representatives have provided us with some color photographs this evening and some copies of the various letters for each of the Board members to have personally, but I believe they're already included in the public comment folder? MR. O'CONNOR-They're in the application. We attached them as an exhibit to the application. MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants, David Corlew and Tracy Tabor, who are here with me at the table. Basically, this is a setback variance application, and we are asking for relief from the front setback from Twin Mountain Road and side setback from lands that are bordered by Lands of Fred Smith on the southerly boundary of their property. MR. JACKOSKI-And, Mr. O'Connor, just before we go any further, I think Mr. Garrand is requesting that he recuse himself. MR. GARRAND-To avoid the appearance of any improprieties, I'm just going to recuse myself. MR. JACKOSKI-Simply due to family relation. So Mr. Freer is going to join us this evening. Okay. Continue on. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you look at the test and the balancing of the interest of the Ordinance or the Town and the interests of the applicant, the first one is will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be detrimental to nearby properties. I think if you take a look at the letters that we have submitted, we have shown the plans to all of the neighbors and we actually have, I believe, eight different neighboring properties that have said they have no objection to what's proposed, and I think a lot of it is based upon the history of the present use of the present use of the property. Both the applicants are in the landscaping business, and they take great care of their property, and it's looked upon, this two car garage, which is a modest two car garage, will be well taken care of, it'll be well landscaped, and fit into the neighborhood, and won't be detrimental to the neighborhood in any manner. I think we have people that are immediately on the north, or the people that are behind the property. We have people immediately to the south. We have two families there. We have the three families that would be across the street on the west side of Twin Mountain Road, and there's one other neighbor down the street on Twin Mountain Road who has also signed. There are a couple of the other neighbors who have been approached and said they have no objection. We just didn't get letters from them. So we think that what we're proposing will be beneficial to the neighborhood as much as anything else. Can the benefit be achieved, the second test is can the benefit be achieved by some other method. If you look at the plot plan that we submitted to you, this is a typical house where the people have tried to have a pool, and want a garage. The house is a modest house on this lot. It's a good sized lot. The pool was not located other than where it was because of existing patios and because of the location of the septic system. The septic system, we believe, is directly behind the house. You can see where the leaching area, the septic tank and what not is between that and the house. So it would be difficult to locate the pool in any other part of the yard. Also there are islands in the yard, if you've been up and looked at the property, islands of landscaping, extensive landscaping. We also looked at the fact that we had an existing driveway that came in along the south side of the house, that we wanted to utilize and not change what had been there. We have substantial plantings that demark that driveway that we did not want to disturb. Those are the trees or bushes that are shown to the north. It's a six foot wide hedgerow. We think that we looked at a lot of different alternatives, tried to locate this someplace else. I know we've had a couple of different plans, and I don't think there are any other feasible alternatives to the applicant. Is the relief requested substantial? We do not believe it is. The property immediately to the south, if you look at the plot plan, is property of Fred Smith. His property goes out toward West Mountain Road. In fact I think it goes to West Mountain Road. He only has a narrow entrance on the south of our property, and if he locates a house, it will be toward the West Mountain end of the property. So he would not be interfered with in any way. If you drove all the way down Twin Mountain Road,you will see that some of the other development of the properties along that road are as close or closer than what we propose for our particular garage. So we do not believe it's substantial,given the fact that there is no significant impact. The next test was will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and I think Staff has agreed with us that that is not likely. Minor to no impacts, and we don't see any impact that we're going to have. Again, this is going to be well landscaped. It's going to be attractive to the neighborhood. It's going to be an addition to the neighborhood. The last test is whether or not it was self-created. Yes and no. When this property was purchased, the house was already located. So they've tried to develop the property around the existing house,and the septic was already there. So they're trying to fit within the widget that not necessarily they created. If they had everything set back further,they probably would have been happier, but they're trying to make it so that it works with the house, with the traffic flow on the property, and is an attractive addition, and that's basically it. We would answer any questions that you have. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open up the public hearing? Hearing none, I will open the public hearing this evening. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Roy, is there any written comment. I mean, should we read all these letters into the record? MR. URRICO-Well, there are 10 letters. Five of them are the same. One of them is different and others are different as well. MR.JACKOSKI-So how about we lump the five together. MR. O'CONNOR-I have no problem. I think they're all in favor. MR.URRICO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And they are of the seven families. I've got to keep counting, one, two, three, four, five,six,seven. They are the eight families that are in the immediate area MR.JACKOSKI-I think of most importance would be reading the letter of Mr. Smith on August 2nd. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Would that be okay? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. URRICO-"I, Mr. Fred Smith, state that as a south boundary neighbor to Mr. Corlew and Mr. Tabor I have no objection to their request for a revised Area Variance setback for the purpose of constructing a 24 by 24 foot garage located in the southwest quadrant of the property at 20 Twin Mountain Drive. Fred Smith" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Okay. Acknowledging all of the written positive comment for the project, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, at this time I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd definitely be in favor. What they're asking for is two small reliefs thereon the front and the side,and it would definitely enhance the curb appeal,give them some privacy for their pool,and it would be definitely a good thing. They're not asking for much. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mr. Freer? MR. FREER-So, using the criteria, I don't think it'll create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, in that it's pretty much the only feasible, as you suggested, given the other constraints of septic and pool and lot configuration. So I don't really think it's feasible to do some other way. I don't think it's substantial. I think it's modest or minor. I'm pretty sure it won't have a negative impact on the physical or environmental conditions. I didn't see any runoff problems or stormwater issues or any of the t things that we normally look at with regard to the environment. Is it self-created? Yes,but given that,the criteria in the balancing test, I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes, I think it's a modest request and I think it's the minimal relief requested, and I don't see it as self-created. I think that the layout of the buildings that you have created your problem, and I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR.URRICO-I'd be in favor of it. I think it's a minimal request. MR. JACKOSKI-And I agree with all my fellow Board members. So, I think we have a unanimous thought on the project. So at this time I'd like to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And ask for a motion. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 53-2013, David J. Corlew, Jr. &Tracy J. Tabor, Tax Map No. 308.9-1-10 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David . Corlew.Jr. &Tracy 1. Tabor for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to construct a 576 sq. ft. freestanding garage. Relief requested from setback requirements of the MDR zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 16.2013: Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? There won't be an undesirable change produced to the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? We don't think that there's a more feasible way to produce the benefit. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? We think that the request is moderate to small. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We believe that the difficulty is self-created. Obviously,you could not put up a garage. So it is self-created. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance will far outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 53-2013, DAVID J. CORLEW, JR. & TRACY J. TABOR , Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. No conditions on the approval. B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. We did, as part of the application, request a waiver for landscape plan, stormwater plan and grading plan,which is on your checklist,and I presume that in your approval. MRS.MOORE-That's for Site Plan. MR. O'CONNOR-We put it in both. MR.JACKOSKI-And I noticed that in the letter,but it will be most pertinent to the Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I don't think we go to the Planning Board. We were told we didn't have to. MRS.MOORE-I'm sorry,no. I'm thinking the other project. I apologize. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-So I guess the question is,why is it on the checklist? They did present a request for a waiver of all that stuff. They probably didn't need to,right? MR. O'CONNOR-It's on the checklist. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Well, I guess we'll duly note that we did approve the request for a waiver. You're all set. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2013 SEQRA TYPE II JERRY & LINDA STEVES AGENT(S) KEVIN MAYNARD OWNER(S) JERRY & LINDA STEVES ZONING MDR LOCATION 15 GREENWAY NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 182 SQ. FT. 3-SEASON PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE (SOUTH) YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF BP 2013-379 PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2013 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-59 SECTION 179-3-040 JERRY STEVES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 54-2013,Jerry& Linda Steves, Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 "Project Location: 15 Greenway North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 182 sq.ft. 3 season porch 3 season porch. Relief Required: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179-3-040 Establishment of Zoning Districts Side Setback/MDR zone Required 25 feet Proposed S 18 ft. Relief S 7 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 may be limited due to the existing house configuration of windows and doors. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal 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 2013-379: Porch Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 182 sq. ft. 3-season porch to the rear of the existing home. The addition does not meet the required south side setback. The information submitted shows the location of the addition, setbacks to the property line, a drawing of the addition elevation with windows and access. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. URRICO-Also it should be noted that the Warren County Planning Board said that the issues appear to be of a local nature involving local issues. The staff recommends No County Impact based on the information submitted. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. It's a pretty straightforward application, but is there anything you'd like to add at this time,or would you just like to field Board member comments. MR. STEVES-Just go ahead with Board member comments, I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir. Are there any questions at this time from the Board members before I open the public hearing? Okay. Why don't I open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Roy,was there any written comment? MR.URRICO-Not that I see,no. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I'm not seeing anyone. So, I mean, everybody 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) understands where the location of this porch is going to go on the schematics that were presented, right? All right. So why don't I poll the Board. Joyce, I'm going to start with you. MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I think there'll be minor impacts to the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives are limited because of the layout of the building. I think the request is minimal. There'd be no physical or environmental impacts to the neighborhood, and it may be self-created, but I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Joyce. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problems. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problems. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think this satisfies the criteria. I think there'd be a minimal impact to the neighborhood,and there's no substantiality to the variance request. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-I'm also in favor. It's a very minimal. So go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mr. Henkel. It is a very minimal request. It will have absolutely no adverse effect on the neighborhood whatsoever. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Okay. I have polled the Board,and given the results of that polling, I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look for a motion from the Board. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 54-2013, Jerry & Linda Steves, 15 Greenway North,Tax Map No. 302.5-1-59 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from jerEy& Linda Steves for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Queensbury in order to construct a 182 sq. ft. 3-season porch. Relief requested from minimum side (south) yard setback requirement. They are requesting relief of required 2 5 feet setback,proposed is 18 feet. They're requesting relief of 7 feet. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 16,2013 Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant 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 house configuration of windows and doors. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The relief requested may be considered 43 minimal relative to the Code. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This difficulty may be considered self-created. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 54-2013,JERRY& LINDA STEVES, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. No conditions on the approval. B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2013,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, Staff? MRS. M00 RE-Clarification. As this is per the resolution prepared by Staff, there's a comment under Item Six, this benefit would outweigh, and you're proposing no conditions as part of this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the resolution is amended as Staff has suggested. Thank you for that, Staff. MRS.M00RE-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Our attorneys will be happy. MRS.MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, and I commend you for actually coming forward and doing this the right way and getting the permits and stuff ahead of time. So I appreciate that. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. 1s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2013 SEQRA TYPE II 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC c/o THOMAS HUGHES, MD AGENT(S) MICHAEL O'CONNOR OWNER(S) 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC c/o THOMAS HUGHES, MD ZONING WR LOCATION 157 MANNIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 740 SQ. FT. DOCK SURFACE AREA AND THEN CONSTRUCT A NEW 700 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH A 629 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. THE NEW DOCK WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE ONE TO BE REMOVED. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM DOCK WIDTH. CROSS REF SP 54-2013 (SUNDECK) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.99 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-7 SECTION 179-5-060 (4) MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2013, 157 Mannis Road, LLC c/o Thomas Hughes, MD, Meeting Date: October 16, 2013 "Project Location: 157 Mannis Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 740 sq. ft. dock surface and then construct a new 700 sq. ft. dock with a 629 sq. ft. sundeck. The new dock would be constructed in the same location as the one to be removed. Relief Required: Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179-5-060 (4) Docks Boathouse and moorings -specific to width. Dock Width Required 8 feet Proposed 40 feet Relief excess of 32 feet 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 may be considered with installation of two compliant docks. The applicant has indicated other options are limited as they wish to replace what is already there and maintain the existing boat docking with whips. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Although the shoreline length of 190 ft. could allow 2 docks according 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, SP 54-13: Sundeck Staff comments: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) The applicant proposes the removal of an existing dock to construct a 700 sq. ft. dock and to construct a 629 sq. ft. sundeck. The width of the dock is to be 20 ft. where 8 ft. wide is the maximum size allowed.The plans show the location of the dock/sundeck structure with elevations. The Board may consider a condition that there be no further docks allowed on the property. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, on October 15th, based on its limited review, made a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was approved unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourself,please. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the purpose of your record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent the applicants, and with me are Richard Hughes and Tom Hughes. 157 Mannis Road is not a commercial LLC. It is a family LLC. The seven members of the, seven children of Dr. Hughes are the actual members of it. We think that we meet all the tests that you apply to this when you balance the benefit to the applicant as opposed to any detriment to the neighborhood or the community. They basically are trying to replace the existing dock. The existing dock has been there probably 70 or more years. I know it was there when I was about 15 years old, and it was there well before that. I know it was there, and we've seen photographs of it. They had some repairs over the years, and if you went up and looked at it and actually walked to the edge of it,you will see where they drove eye beams down the side of it trying to keep it together, and it just isn't staying there with the ice, snow and everything else that happens to it. So they need to replace it. They actually are downsizing it when they replace it. Right now it is larger than what they propose. The existing dock is 840 square feet, and they are going to make this one 800 square feet, with the area beyond the mean high water mark being 700 feet as opposed to 740 feet. It's a dock, as I said,that's been there for years and years. If you take a look at your test, it's not something new. It won't change the character of the neighborhood,and it won't be a detriment to nearby properties. If you look at the second test,as to whether this can be achieved by some other method,this is probably the most,or the least intrusive configuration for a dock that you could put on that property. There are two dimensional requirements that you have in our Ordinance that effect docks, at least two that are pertinent to what we're talking about tonight. One says the dock complex cannot be wider than 40 feet, and it says that any piece of the dock can't be wider than eight feet, and what they are encouraging is put out two piers that would be eight feet wide, and the back piece would be eight feet, and that way you would achieve meeting the other requirements of not having over 700 square feet, but in this case, what you would end up doing is having the dock protrude out into the lake another 20 feet, and instead of having the sundeck that we propose, running parallel to shore being out into the lake. We think that what we propose is really the most feasible. There's over 190, actually there's 237 lineal shorefront here. They actually are entitled to two docks on that property. They could ask for a lot more dockage,just change the configuration of it and not be asking for any variance, or need any particular variance for it. So they've looked at the alternatives. They know what they've done. I've got a picture of the Hughes. They were a little younger than they are sitting at the table here. These are the seven members of the LLC, and if you look in the background of it,you will see one of the posts of the former boat cover that was on there, and if you take a look,that's a rendering that somebody did of the old boat cover that was on there. I will say when I was about 15,we used to go out there and jump off the roof. It's very deep off that dock. We also have two letters, I don't know if they're in your record or not. If you look here, this is the Hughes property, and I believe that we have letters from Vittengl's, which goes all the way over to here. Ken Minges is here tonight. He (lost word) told me that he did not have any objection to the plan, and this complex here is also owned by one of the members. If you go, probably if you look at, probably seven, eight hundred feet of frontage who have spoken and said that they have no objection. They don't believe it'll change the character of the neighborhood, and it won't have a detriment on the community, and even, Tom has just told me, O'Keefe's are even on the other side of Vittengl. So we made an effort to tell the neighbors what we were doing, explained to them why we were doing it. They've got to replace the dock. Right now it's not safe with the iron sticking out of it. You can't moor a boat to it safely. You may end up, on a bad day, with a boat that's got a puncture in it. So, something has to be done with the dock. Is it substantial? This is an odd shaped configuration. I admit that to you, but given their dockage rights, and what they've requested, it really is not substantial. They are still going to have 700 square foot of surface of dock. They are just going to arrange it differently than what the Ordinance indicated. I was,truthfully, surprised because of the dimension that says you can have a dock up to 40 feet wide. Why the piece coming out to the lake is the width, but rather than fight the argument,we've submitted this application to you. Will it have any impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? No. Actually more natural 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) shoreline is preserved and maintained because they're only going to use this one dock. As I said, they've got 237 feet of frontage. They could have two docks there,or two dock complexes there. Is the difficulty self-created? Not really. This is repairing an existing dock. We also have the rule in our Ordinance that says that if you're going to repair more than 75% of the dock, it's considered a new dock. This dock needs more than 75% repair,but it's there. It's the same location. We're not changing the location. We're making it a little bit smaller. We're making it as compliant as we can, and I don't know if there are any real alternatives. If you went out and looked at the property, you're not necessarily involved in the sundeck. The Planning Board looked at that last night and I asked them for comments and whether they had any objection to it,because they're going to get the application next week, because you have to go for sundeck approval from the Planning Board, and nobody had any objections to it. It serves a couple of purposes. The residence of 157 Mannis Road is the residence if you come through the cut to go to the lake,it's the resident that's on the right,and if you look at the stairs going up there, it's not easy to up and down, up and down. They need to have something down at the water where they can gather, and that's as much purpose as anything for the cover that's going to go there,and that's as simple as it is. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, Mr. O'Connor,thank you. Are there any Board member questions at this time? Yes? Rick? MR. GARRAND-Cribbing. What's going to be done with that? MR. O'CONNOR-Cribbing will be underneath the dock. MR. GARRAND-New cribbing? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I believe that they've indicated that they think that they're going to take out most of the cribbing that's there. That's gone wacky,too. MR. GARRAND-Okay. It's been there for a while. It usually does that. MR. HUGHES-I was told that there are regulations for construction to allow for wildlife (lost word) pass through,so the cribbing has to be reconstructed to fit regulations. MR. GARRAND-So fish can get in and out and crayfish and all that stuff that you have down there. MR. O'CONNOR-It has to be open-sided cribbing. It's not a solid crib, and there's a distance, I think, that they maintain from the actual shore so that there's area behind the crib also for amoebas to get into the shore and come back out. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-I've just got a question, and this is probably a Staff question. We always talk about stormwater, and I know you're not talking about the sundeck with this, but wouldn't the sundeck have something to do with, wouldn't there be stormwater coming off that? How come there's no place for the stormwater to go off the sundeck? Whereas when you've got a home near the lake, you have to worry about stormwater. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think the answer to that is that the water, if the deck roofing wasn't there, was going to drop into the lake anyway, where if it's on a house, it was intended to drop onto the land. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-This used to be a concrete patio of the same size of that wood deck that was there, but that was one of the things that fell apart early on, and that roof was taken down for safety reasons, too. That used to be a concrete patio. I never knew there was deck cribbing underneath it, but they had it rigged up so that there was steel and concrete and,you know, four by four, six by six blocks,sidewalk blocks. So we're not adding anything new,as far as anything that's impervious. We're actually making the impervious area less by 40 feet. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? Okay. I am going to open up the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Roy,is there any written comment? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR. URRICO-I have two written letters. "I have had the opportunity to review the proposed project at 157 Mannis Road and have no concerns regarding its implementation. Thank you." And I cannot read the names on either one of these. MR. HUGHES-One is Vittengl's that we just pointed out,and the other one's from Dr.Jim O'Keefe and his wife. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-They're both the same? They're both the same letter. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? Mr. Minges? Welcome, Mr. Minges. KEN MINGES MR. MINGES-Thank you. The Hughes family has been on the lake much longer than I have, and I've been there 33 years, and I'm also involved with the Glen Lake Protective Association as an environmental chair. So I always have a tendency to look at things and size them up to determine whether or not it's going to be good for the lake, as well as my property, but I think that with any kind of structure like this which is deteriorating, whatever they've designed, I've not seen it, but I would assume that they are going to do it properly, and that it would be a much more attractive as well as probably much more stable replacement. I have no objection, as long as environmental concerns are addressed through construction. MR. JACKOSKI-And that'll happen, of course, with the Planning Board and the building permit application. MR. MINGES-Right. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Minges,would you like to see the drawings of it? MR. MINGES-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board? Okay. I'm going to call the applicant back to the table. I'm going to poll the Board at this time. Rick, I'm going to start with you. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Let's go through the balancing test. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. This is pretty much a reconstruction. I think the biggest issue here is I think the detriment to any area would be more if we actually changed the orientation of this deck and didn't build it almost in kind as to where it is. Undesirable change in the neighborhood or character. I don't foresee any. Is this request substantial relative to the Code? It may be deemed as substantial. Is it self-created? Age and weather conditions have pretty much taken a toll on the existing dock that's down there. I don't believe it's self-created. So I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I would be in favor, but I think to protect ourselves, we should have the stipulation that there not be a second dock on the site. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Mr. Garrand, and I'd just like to point out that this is why the Zoning Board exists, that we can take a look at a Code or law that may be, create a more detrimental problem if we followed it than reasonably looking at the alternative which they have done, and I agree that this would not have an impact on the neighborhood or whether this,the relief requested is not substantial when you consider the Code. I think this is a better alternative. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have to go through and look at it. I'm thinking, the very first off, (lost word) probably put in before current zoning was in effect. If I look at it,if my math is correct,that's 400% that we'd looking for. I think there probably are feasible alternatives that could match the current Code, too, and it could start a precedent going forward with other properties on the lake. I would not be in favor. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I have no problem with it. Go forward. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I agree with my Board members,fellow Board members, I would have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-So I must say that one of the nice things for me is I've boated on that lake for many years, and there's nothing that represents North Country Americana more than watching that watching that whole family out on that structure in the middle of summer enjoying what that lake is all about, family. So I'm 100% in favor of restoring what was thereat onetime. So I'm in favor of it. So we do have a polling of the Board. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look for a motion. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, can I address just one suggestion by one of your Board members? That there be some stipulation that there be no other dock on that property. We have not made that part of our application, and we would object to that. You may end up with a small dock for a fishing boat or something of that nature, fishing platform or something. If it's anything that's out of the ordinary, we would have to come back to this Board. That's an entitlement that we have as a property owner, and I would not stipulate or offer to give that up. I think that would be unnecessary. MR.JACKOSKI-And I could say to you that I would support not having that condition at this time. MR. GARRAND-How about the other Board members? MR.JACKOSKI-That's what I'm going to ask next. Do we want to have that stipulation in there? MR.URRICO-It's not an issue with me. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we are going to remove the potential condition that might have been added to the motion. So, Mr. Garrand,go ahead and make the motion. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 55-2013, 157 Mannis Road, LLC c/o Thomas Hughes,MD, 157 Mannis Road,Tax Map No. 289.18-1-7 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 157 Mannis Road.LLC c/o Thomas Hughes. MD for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-060 (4) of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to remove an existing 740 sq. ft. dock surface area and then construct a new 700 sq. ft. dock with a 629 sq. ft. sundeck. The new dock would be constructed in the same location as the one to be removed. Relief is requested from the maximum dock width. The required relief is for 40 feet,or 32 feet in excess of the 8 feet allowed. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 16.2013: Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) The Board does not believe that any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood will be produced. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? In trying to keep with the same orientation as the pre-existing deck,benefits cannot be achieved by any other means. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? Relative to what the letter of the Code is, yes, it is substantial. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? It might actually improve the environmental conditions in the neighborhood by removing what's there now under the water line and replacing it with basically some cribbing that will allow wildlife to go through. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? As previously stated,we don't believe it is self-created. Time and weather have taken a toll on it. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh any resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community; The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 55-2013, 157 MANNIS ROAD, LLC C/O THOMAS HUGHES, MD , Introduced by Richard Garrand,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. No conditions on the approval. B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 16th day of October 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you very much. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUGHES-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador has asked to address the Board for five minutes. Welcome, Mr. Salvador. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, and good evening. Some time in September it was called to the Town Supervisor's attention that the San Souci still had not commenced their holding tank installation, and he assured me that he had a promise from them to initiate the work on the 15th of October. That day came yesterday and is gone and nothing has started. Mr. Montesi is out of town, so I haven't had a chance to connect with him,but this thing is going on and on and on, and the problem is that we allow, this Town allows the applicant to use the improvements, in the absence of a CO, simply because he renews his building permit annually to the tune of$25. Now this isn't the first applicant that has played this game. It's gone on before. So anyway, I'll follow up on that and keep you posted. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador, I just, if you wouldn't mind, didn't we have in a motion a specific deadline in which they must install this septic system improvement by? MR. SALVADOR-Initially there was no schedule. This goes back to 2009. There was no schedule. Now I don't know that a firm date was fixed,other than maybe just a promise. MR.URRICO-I don't recall exactly,but I thought when we,they came before us. MR.JACKOSKI-For that deck on the back of the side of the building. MR.URRICO-One of the conditions was by the end of the season? MR.JACKOSKI-I would swear that we had discussions where they were going to improve the siding on the building by a specific date, and they were going to begin utilizing the septic, a new septic system or an improved septic system, whatever it was called, by a specific date because the public at that time was frustrated with the progress as well. Can Staff follow up on that and report back to the Zoning Board on that? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Yes,can you direct Building and Codes to look into that? MRS.MOORE-Yes. I'll provide you at next week's meeting,if not sooner,a copy of the resolution. MR.JACKOSKI-And maybe a Reader's Digest version. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. New subject. The project across the street here, the Queensbury Partners project, was approved by the Planning Board, and again there were some very specific conditions of approval, and this is an area where we seem to lack sufficient follow up to make sure that the Board, whether it's your Board or the Planning Board's, stipulations are enforced and fulfilled, and I have here your copy of a letter that I've just written to Craig Brown reminding him of a particular stipulation that I feel is going to be very,very difficult for the applicant to meet. In any case, it deals with the right hand turning lanes out here, Blind Rock Road and they've agreed to put in a right hand turning lane, and also furnish a left hand turning lane out of Blind Rock. So that's going to take a bit of work and expense,but the applicant has agreed to it. Now the interesting part about this agreement is that the Planning Board stipulated that the turning lanes be put in at the inception of the project. Now the project had its incipient moment back in 2011. So that's not possible, but I think we can conclude that what they meant was at the beginning of construction that the turning lanes should go in. They should be the first thing because the turning lanes will facilitate construction. There's going to be a lot of activity on that intersection during construction, and not only that, the contractor will have that kind of equipment on the site as he does rough grading and roads and things like this that, you know, a project begins with, but the follow up and making sure that it's properly designed, the permits flow, those are County roads out there. Bay Road and Blind Rock are County roads. So the County has to play a role in that, too, but again I'll leave you with your copy of this letter this evening. At the Town Board's last meeting, they adopted a resolution, hopefully, that will bring to a conclusion this issue of the Town's jurisdiction on the navigable waterways, and this resolution, supporting an amendment to the New York State Navigation Law regarding regulation of docks, boathouses and moorings on Lake George, and what they've done is they've authorized Town Attorney wishes to request that the New York State legislature amend such provisions to add the phrase the Towns of Lake George and Queensbury in Warren County. This resolution begs the immediate question, what about the other towns in Warren County, and how about the other two counties in the State that border on Lake George? I just don't see the legislature addressing an issue just for two towns in one of three counties, but anyway,that's what they've approved, and also that this,the particular legislation that's going to be 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) amended is Section 46-A Paragraph Two of the Navigation Laws. I'll read the statement I prepared here. It's the easiest thing for me to do. "At last the Town Attorney has designated his section of the New York State Statutes which he has concluded require amending in order for the Town to have legal jurisdiction over the permitting of boathouses and boat docks on Lake George." By the way, the resolution says moorings also. Now local government has never, has never regulated moorings on this lake, on Lake George. I don't know why they want to get into it all of a sudden. Okay. It is extremely important to remember that towns never had said jurisdiction and won't have the jurisdiction until some kind of a law is amended that authorizes them to do it, and so the question arises, what do we do in the meantime? What do we do in the meantime? Craig Brown tells me, I'm waiting for advice. Before we get into his choice of statute,you should recall that the Appellate Division's ruling which was adverse to a town's claim of jurisdiction, declared in part that towns lack jurisdiction because they were regulating boat docks and boathouses within their Zoning Ordinance. That's the key, and there's no indication that this resolution that was adopted by the Town is going to do anything about getting this regulatory program,if it goes through, out of the Zoning Department, Planning and Zoning. The other part had to do with the State having preemptive jurisdiction over boat docks and boathouses, even if the town's regulated by Ordinance other than the Zoning Ordinance. Now,you know, we have speed zones on Lake George, and those speed zones are in there by authorization from the local towns. What they're doing, the town, in authorizing those speed zones, is not doing it within their zoning jurisdiction. You haven't read anything about speed zones in the Zoning Ordinance. It's not addressed. So the Town does this outside of its zoning jurisdiction, and there is a provision in Town Law, Section 130 Paragraph 17, that allows towns to do, establish these what they call Vessel Regulation zones, and regulate the speed, and that's what they did. Now it was easy for the towns to do this because the placement of the buoys they got from the DEC. The DEC offered to do that, and the Park Commission and the Sheriff and the State Police enforce the speed limit. So the Town has nothing to do but just adopt this resolution and we have these buoys, and they're all over the lake. You've seen many of them. Why are these two Towns requested to allow, by regulation, boat docks and boathouses to a distance of 1500 feet from the shore when there is currently in place a State regulation, 6NYCRR Part 646, Sub Part 646-1 Section 646-1.12(i) restricting the placing of boat docks and consequently boathouses no further than 40 feet from the mean low water mark. You play with that every time. So here they are, they want jurisdiction, boat docks and boathouses out to 1500 feet, and the problem is these are vessel regulation zones, and they're trying to tack onto it boathouses and boat docks. The other thing about this, the Town law Section 130 Paragraph 17 says that no such ordinance, rule or regulation shall take effect until it shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Conservation Commissioner. Now can you see the Conservation Commissioner agreeing to the towns regulating boat docks and boathouses when we have a State agency, his agency,the Lake George Park Commission already doing it? It just doesn't make any sense, and my concern is that, again, we're going to be chasing this around, because the resolution says Resolved that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Supervisor's Office to forward certified copies of this resolution to the New York State Governor,the President of the New York State Senate,the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, Senator Elizabeth Little and Assemblyman Daniel Stec. We're going nowhere with this, going nowhere, and so anyway they've done it, and Lake George is included in this resolution of the Town. I haven't heard anything in Lake George about such a resolution, but it'll probably come up Monday night in their meeting. Again, what do we do in the meantime? MR.JACKOSKI-Well,until Counsel directs us otherwise,we remain status quo. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me? MR. JACKOSKI-Until Counsel directs us otherwise, with applications that are in front of us, we remain status quo. We have no choice. MR. SALVADOR-But this is admission that you don't have jurisdiction. MR.JACKOSKI-I can't speak to that. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Is there any other business this evening in front of the Board? MR. SALVADOR-I'll pass out the. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. I request a motion to adjourn. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/16/2013) MR.URRICO-So moved. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 2013, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 16th day of October, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 24