Loading...
12-18-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18,2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 60-2013 David&Michele DeSanto 1. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-57 Area Variance No. 64-2013 Dodge Watkins 11. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-54 Area Variance No. 65-2013 Larry W. Clute 13. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-55 Area Variance No. 61-2013 Jamon Stone 13. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-5.4 Area Variance No. 62-2013 Michael&Tammy George 17. Tax Map No. 265.00-1-73.1 Area Variance No. 63-2013 Pam Altman&Guy C.Johnson 22. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-20 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 12/18/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN JOHN HENKEL JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR.JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Welcome. For those of you who haven't been here before, this is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for Wednesday, December 18th here in the Queensbury Activity Center. On the back table there is an agenda along with a sheet of paper that explains the process. It is quite simple. We're going to call each application, read it into the record, have the applicant at the table here talking with us for a moment, open up the public hearing when a public hearing has been scheduled and noticed, and then the Board members will decide whether or not they're going to move forward with the project or request additional information, make a motion and then move on to the next application. So it's relatively simple and harmless and we're going to start this evening right away with some housekeeping which is the approval of the meeting minutes for October 16th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 16, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16, 2013, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Followed by the approval of the 231d of October. October 23, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2013 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID &MICHELE DE SANTO AGENT(S) CURT D. DYBAS OWNER(S) DAVID & MICHELE DE SANTO ZONING WR LOCATION 31 MARLEY WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING 1,121 SQ. FT. HOME WHICH INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BP 2013-540 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 053 OF YR. 1967 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-57 SECTION 179-3-040 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2013, David & Michele DeSanto, Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 "Project Location: 31 Marley Way Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,121 sq. ft. home which includes construction of a second story addition over a portion of the home, an addition to the north side of the home and installation of a full basement. Relief Required: Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179-3-040 establishment of districts and section 179-13-010 continuation Rear setback west Front Setback north Continuation Required 30 ft. 30 ft. non-conforming structure requires Proposed 21 ft. 26 ft. an application for a variance if the Relief 9 ft. 4 ft. expansion does not meet the requirements of the zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited to minimize site disturbance and to locate a compliant septic system. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor 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 13-540: Septic alteration BP 053: 1967 Staff comments: The project will increase the number of bedrooms from 2 bedrooms to three bedrooms with the addition having the 2 new bedrooms and the first floor maintains one bedroom. The 2nd story is only over a portion of the existing home and the plans show a full basement to be installed under the dwelling. The plans and survey should be revised to denote the correct setback designation as the site has two front setbacks North and South then two rear setbacks West and East all with 30 ft. setbacks. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Curt,how are you today? MR. DYBAS-Good evening, everyone. My name's Curt Dybas, representing David and Michelle DeSanto. The DeSantos, Mr. DeSanto's family has vacationed up here for about 50 years. His parents retired to this area about 25 years ago, and his mom still resides in Queensbury. So, the reason to look for this area for a future retirement home, ended up seeking out property on Glen Lake. They purchased this property in the Fall of 2012, and proceeded to clean it up. Laura has the map up on the screen, and there were three out buildings that were on this property, two of which I understand have sleeping quarters in them. One had an added bathroom. They've all been removed. The DeSantos removed everything, cleaned up the site. The site had not been maintained for years, I remember that from working in the neighborhood. The lawn's been mowed and has been kept up all, you know, all summer. I got involved in the design process this past spring, and with the cost restraints we were facing, the original building was always part of the schemes that we came up with. Some of them were more ambitious than others, and were rejected because of cost. The scheme that you have before you, which is the final part of this variance, removes the existing six foot deep porch which is on the north side. That porch is on piers. Structurally it's deteriorated. (lost words) Code compliant with snow load, and it's just not functional being six foot deep, and also the rear porch, entry porch that's on the structure would be removed. So we take that original structure and we make a cape out of it, and we put a 10 foot addition on the north, which serves as part of the great room and also a dining space. In doing the 10 foot addition to the north, which is toward the lake, the existing porch is 30 feet, another 10 is part of the 4 feet relief we need from the 30 foot front yard on Birdsall. The rear yard west side, I don't know,this property is unique because it's surrounded by a road on three sides, and it has two front yards and two side yards, and it was just read into the record, and I still don't know how one is rear opposite front. I'm not even going to get into that,but the west side is currently 21 feet, and that would remain as it is right now on the site, so that they are the two variances that we're looking for,west side, 11 feet of relief, and to the north on Birdsall 4 feet of relief to construct the 10 foot addition. The FAR ratios are well within Code. I think it's .18 with a full basement, and this application was originally submitted utilizing an existing crawl space that's underneath the existing house, and the addition was going to be on a crawl space, and prior to distribution to Board members, my client asks, what happens if we do a full basement, can we do a full basement? And I said I've got to check and see if I can still modify the app, which they permitted me to do. I re-did the pages, changed the FAR ratio from.11 to .18 and there is a full basement which would be under the existing and the proposed addition. Again, the total FAR is .18. There is a private well on the property which would be re-used. There is permit in place for a new Code compliant wastewater system for four bedrooms. The DeSantos wish to have the capacity for one more bedroom, basically for garbage disposal, spa or possibly expansion of an additional bedroom in the future,but the system is put in for four bedrooms. So,that is what I've placed before you this evening, and are there any questions? MR. JACKOSKI-And before we open it up to Board member questions, I just want to make note that some of the documentation may, here, have my name actually on it or reference it in the records and that's simply because my wife and I owned property that adjoined this property at one time, but we no longer own it. MR. DYBAS-I wasn't even aware of that. MR.JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. HENKEL-Actually I've got a Staff question. Are those two Town roads there? Isn't that, the Marley Way,isn't that a right of way? MR.JACKOSKI-I'll answer it because I owned it, and it is quite complicated. Birdsall Road is a road by use only. It is not a deeded road. As far as I understand this particular parcel does not actually have frontage on Birdsall Road, which is why it has the 31 Marley Way address. My former lots actually encompass the entire paved road. So it's a little tricky here, and you can see it actually on the survey,that the road itself doesn't actually touch this parcel,the macadam that is. The dirt road itself is a road by use. It is a deeded road by use to this parcel. Actually there are two parcels here, which is going to be one of my questions, have they been combined, and there is a notation in the deeds that says that if that dirt road ever becomes a paved Town road, that this parcel would then actually expand into half of that dirt road. So they would actually expand their property to include part of that road. So it is, right now these are roads by use, and the dirt road they do have a deeded access to. MR. HENKEL-So then why is there considered two fronts? There would not be,right? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Right,that's the fun part. MR. DYBAS-I was told by definition, Laura could clarify this,that by definition this lot has two fronts and two rears. MR.JACKOSKI-That's correct. MR. DYBAS-And I was just told,you know. MR. HENKEL-Because I was up there on Monday and I noticed that the road was snow blowed, so the Town. MR. JACKOSKI-It's not a Town maintained road. It's not a Town road, but because we have roads, we have properties in this Town that are on deeded right of ways, that would be considered the front yard. MR. DYBAS-Steve,the lots have been joined. In September of 2013,they were joined and the deeds are recorded and I believe they are in your packet. MR.JACKOSKI-And the combining of the lots was because of the wastewater system? MR. DYBAS-Because the wastewater is on the easterly lot,because of well separations. MR. GARRAND-The survey says proposed 1,000 gallon concrete effluent tank. What's in there right now? MR. DYBAS-Who knows. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So it's going to be a completely new wastewater system? MR. DYBAS-Completely new, and it has been permitted. I have the building permit drawings with me if you'd like to see them,you know,for a new system that has been permitted by the Town,and I know part of the application requirement was that it had to be permitted before the application would be (lost word). MR. GARRAND-Okay, and question for Staff. The submitted 2173 square feet does include a full basement? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. URRICO-Can I clarify one thing,based on what you just said, Steve? If the road ever becomes a Town road and the property gets expanded onto what is now Birdsall Road? MR. JACKOSKI-No, what will happen is, according to the deed, that whenever the dirt road that is currently called Marley Way. MR.URRICO-Marley Way. MR. JACKOSKI-On that tongue that is there, you can see that tongue, they actually would then own 50% of that tongue. The line would adjust accordingly so that they would own to the centerline of the road. MR.URRICO-So that is not one of the setbacks that we're considering tonight? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. Right now we've got the most restrictive environment, which is the right way to do it,because I doubt that's ever going to become a Town road. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. KUHL-I have a question. How do you propose to do this construction? Are you going to jack the house up and make a new foundation and put that house down? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR. DYBAS-That is correct, providing that there is costs involved to put a full basement under it. We may go back to a crawl space when final costs are presented,but, no,you are correct,jack it up, put a new foundation under it,put it back down. MR. KUHL-But the new foundation will be bigger than the structure you have there now. MR. DYBAS-No. MR. KUHL-You're going out towards the lake, aren't you? MR. DYBAS-Yes, but the variance, the variance before you is that four foot expansion toward the lake, which would include the foundation with it, because Queensbury measures to foundation, to the best of my knowledge,that's what setback is measured to base of foundation. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. DYBAS-And even if it's a crawl space,that will still be the foundation. MR. KUHL-Well,your Plan A is to do a full basement,correct? MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Your Plan B is a crawl space? MR. DYBAS-Well, let's do, Plan A would be to leave the existing crawl space and put the addition under a new crawl space. If funding,if costs permit, Plan B would be to jack up the existing portion of the house, put a new foundation in which would encompass the addition and set everything back down. MR. HENKEL-And that's not going to change the relief anyway. MR. DYBAS-No. MR. HENKEL-It's going to be the same. MR. JACKOSKI-Curt, can you explain the square footage calculations? Because even I'm struggling with these. The house is basically 24 by 32. MR. DYBAS-No, 24 by 34. MR.JACKOSKI-The survey here says 24.2 by 32.5. MR. DYBAS-That's the existing building. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So what is the new footprint going to be? MR. DYBAS-Twenty-four by thirty-four. MR.JACKOSKI-So if it's 24 by 34, and you're adding 10 feet. MR. DYBAS-No, I'm giving you the total new, 24 by 34 deep. MR.JACKOSKI-I want the final built. MR. DYBAS-That's what I just said, 24 wide by 34 deep. MR.JACKOSKI-Twenty-four wide by thirty-four deep. MR. DYBAS-Wait a minute. I take that back. Thirty-two wide,thirty-four deep. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. So the 32 is the overall width, I get that. MR. DYBAS-Yes, 34. MR.JACKOSKI-Thirty-four is the overall length,which includes the two feet on the front. So I get all that. So if I do my math of 34 times 32, 1 end up with approximately 1100, 1088 square feet,that's 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) the first floor. The second floor, Laura, you've got to help me correct that, but the second floor is how many square feet? MR. DYBAS-It's less, I don't have it offhand,but it's less than 500 square feet. MR. KUHL-It's only two bedrooms,and there's no dimensions on here. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I get that, so I'm going to argue that maybe it's somewhere, those bedrooms are somewhere around 12 by 15-ish,plus the bathroom. MR. KUHL-It would be 32 across by 12 deep. MR. JACKOSKI-If you guessed 500 square feet and we're guessing, I don't understand how we end up with only a 1200 square foot house, I'm sorry, 1152 square foot house. Laura, I need your explanation for that. MR. GARRAND-We're adding a full basement and a second floor. How do we only get 31 square feet out of it? MR. JACKOSKI-So, Curt, I'm referring to Page Two of the Site Development Data. I see a building footprint of 1121 square feet. I see a proposed addition of 31 square feet for a total new square footage of 1152,but if I do the basic math, I'm well over 1600. MR. DYBAS-The reason for that, and I have to apologize, is that page never got changed, when I updated the calculation. I did the third page, which is the FAR, but I never did that second page. That's what happens when you do these things (lost word). The proposed total floor area with basement,if you go to Page Three under the FAR ratio. MR. KUHL-2683? MR. DYBAS-2683. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. DYBAS-And that's basement, first floor and second floor. The numbers on the top of Page Two are incorrect. Because the proposed additional square footage would have to include the basement. So it would be 31 plus 1,088. So it's 1100. MR. HENKEL-Does that include that little breezeway that you have to enter the side on the west side? MR. DYBAS-Yes, 36 square feet. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Laura,that little breezeway as it's now been dubbed. MR. DYBAS-It's a covered porch. MR.JACKOSKI-Isn't that part of the setback requirement? MR. KUHL-They don't need a variance. That's on the east side of the property,right? MR. DYBAS-It's on the east side,that's correct. MR.JACKOSKI-Am I turned around? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I guess what they're saying is it goes this way. That's fine. MR. DYBAS-Sorry about that. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Well, that helps us clarify some stuff on our end. So the septic system is going to be replaced? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR. DYBAS-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-They're not going to rely on the current septic system that is there? MR. DYBAS-No,that's gone. MR.JACKOSKI-So it's my understanding that one of the neighbors,Tom Valente,has actually drilled, or is drilling a well on that vacant lot there, and that's not noted on this property, this survey. Do we know anything about that? MR. DYBAS-No, I do not. MR. JACKOSKI-And according to this, the Cassant property's well is 100 feet away from the new septic wastewater system. Correct? That's what the survey is showing. These lots are so small and everything's so crammed in here,we just want to make sure we're doing the right variances for the right application, and if you'll recall,we had a lot of detailed discussion about the Merritt house and all these variances. MR. DYBAS-She has an approved drawing. I need this back because (lost word). MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we have this. MR. HENKEL-We have it right here. MR.JACKOSKI-So we have 100 feet here. Right? This is going to that point there. Is that 100 feet to there? Okay. Good,and we do know where their septic system is? MR. DYBAS-I assume the surveyor did. I mean,his well is way over here. MR.JACKOSKI-No, I know. MR. DYBAS-And I know nothing about what's going on over here. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. DYBAS-But, I mean,there's 100 feet, Steve. I mean. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,this is 50 feet here, and that's 10 feet. So that's 60. Forty feet puts that quite a ways into that lot. That's what I'm worried about. MR. DYBAS-I don't know anything about it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. DYBAS-We were not aware of that(lost word). MR. JACKOSKI-Laura, what does that do if that well has been drilled on that parcel? Does that mean we have to go back to the Board of Health? MRS.MOORE-It would have to go back to the Board of Health. MR.JACKOSKI-But not us. We could still move forward with this application. MRS.MOORE-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MRS.MOORE-It's up to the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open up the public hearing at this time and ask is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Larry, can I pick your brain? Hi, Larry. Do you know where your septic system is in relation to your well, and is your well actually in the front of your parcel? LARRY CASSANT MR. CASSANT-Yes, my well is, it's on the left hand side of my house, just past my driveway, the circular driveway, and my septic is on the right hand side of my house. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Mr. Cassant,when we're looking at the drawing of your parcel where you see the little hand right now, Laura, if you move that hand closer to the house in question. Come back to the corner of his lot,right there,that's where your well is, or is that where your septic is? MR. CASSANT-It's hard for me to see that really well. I believe that's where my well is. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and then your septic is over to the other side. MR. CASSANT-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Good. Thank you. Any further questions? There if there is no one else here in the audience who's willing to address the Board at this time, I am going to ask, is there any written comment received? If you could deliver it to us. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'm concerned about the second story blocking my lake frontage view. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll read this into the record for you. Is that all right, Roy, or do you want to read it in? MR.URRICO-No,go ahead. MR.JACKOSKI-I don't want to take away your responsibilities, Roy. MR. URRICO-"Dear Town of Queensbury/Adirondack Park Agency: We would like to express our concerns regarding the applicants David and Michelle DeSanto's proposed decision to renovate an existing 1,121 square foot home, which includes construction of a second story addition. We are against this decision as we feel it will devalue our property by obstructing our lake view. Sincerely, Lawrence Cassant Vickie Cassant" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That public comment has been read into the record. I'm going to leave the public hearing open and ask Curt to please come back to the table. So I'm going to poll the Board, just in general,just to see where we think we're going to move with this application, and I'm going to start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I am a little concerned about what the potential height of this house is. I'm not really sure. I meant to ask the applicant about what the total height is going to be. MR. DYBAS-Twenty-five and a half feet. MR. GARRAND-Twenty-five and a half feet. Can benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? I suppose the house could be moved back. This seems like it's new construction and there is, you know, some leeway with moving the house. If the house is going to be off a foundation, the foundation could be re-poured. If this is going to be a basement by their choice, it could also be moved. Will it have adverse environmental impacts on the neighborhood? I think the improved septic system will have a positive impact. Is this difficulty self-created? It might be deemed self-created. Is this variance the minimum necessary? Yes, I'd say it's pretty minimal. MR.JACKOSKI-And so,would you be in favor at this time,or not? MR. GARRAND-Yes, I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think they're asking for minimal relief. Re-building on the footprint is something that'll save them money. They're re-using what they have and adding on to it. My concern is whether or not it's going to be a crawl space or a walk out basement. As long as it stays where it is, I'm happy with it. I don't think the height is too much. So I would be in favor of it. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-What's the current height of the house, Mr. Dybas? MR. DYBAS-Sixteen feet. MR. NOONAN-Sixteen feet. Yes, like some of my other Board members already said, I'd mirror some of their thoughts,and I'd be in favor of the project as is. MR.JACKOSKI-Mr. Henkel. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also in favor of it. I think it's definitely going to be an improvement, definitely improvement on the septic tank system there, and I'd have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm okay with the variance. I am concerned about the calculations, and because it's a right of way, granting specific relief maybe jeopardized the calculations are incorrect. Because we're dealing with a right of way. So I just want to make sure that all those numbers are right before we grant specific relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I think that Mr. Garrand raised a couple of interesting points, Curt, that I didn't think about is if they are going to put a foundation under this, why couldn't they shift this house to the east? Or if they're going to jack it up anyway, I mean, it's upon,why couldn't they just slide it to the east? MR. DYBAS-Just another cost. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,what would the cost be? MR. DYBAS-I don't know,but jacking is one thing. Moving it is another. MR.JACKOSKI-But isn't it easier to dig a house that's not,that you're not digging under? MR. DYBAS-Normally when you jack,you shore a jack crib outside of your excavation, so the house is minimum of about four to five feet above grade. Then you do your excavation,your foundation, everything, and drop it straight back down. Now when you start talking a move, now you've introduced another element into the move. Whether you do it by wheels, skids or anything else, you're just adding costs to something, and as I said before, this could very well end up on the crawl space because it costs, the final numbers will predicate whether it's a full foundation or not. moving it,it just keeps building (lost word) a number, that's all. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there going to be future applications concerning a garage? I mean, why wouldn't they be planning for a garage? MR. DYBAS-Well, if you do not need a, well, if it's going to be a retirement home, there will be a garage, but preliminary calculations says you do not need any variances to build that garage. So if the time does come, you'd be within your setbacks. You'd be within your height and you'd be within your FAR ratios. So I don't know of anything else in the Code that would require a variance. You have to remember, even with a full basement, your FAR is only .18. You still have about 600 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not disputing that, and I guess if the house were to shift to the east, that would raise an issue with the neighbor who mentioned that they'd like to maintain as much of their view as possible. MR. DYBAS-Probably. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,moving it to the east would cause more restriction on their view. But that of course mentions that if there's a garage to be built in the future,then there goes that view. MR. DYBAS-No,but the garage would only be the height of the present house. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any further discussion? MR. NOONAN-If you had a crawl space,would that lower the 25 and a half foot top height or no? MR. DYBAS-No, because we would re-use the existing crawl space, which sets the height of the building. MR. JACKOSKI-And should we put a contingency in that should they decide to replace the entire structure, that these variances would no longer be applicable, because then they could build in a compliant location? MR. HENKEL-Could we do that? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,of course. MRS. MOORE-I guess in Staff's point, if that does happen and they still need variances, they're still going to go through the application process. You can, I guess your condition that they cannot come back for variances? MR. JACKOSKI-No, what I'm saying is that if they end up deciding to tear the whole thing down and just start from scratch,you know,these variances run with the land. They're not tied to the type of building. So if all of a sudden they turn around and build a whole new structure in a non-compliant location simply because we're trying to be generous in allowing them to minimize their costs, if they tear it all down because it's not worth saving,then they need to make it in a compliant location or come back to us for a variance. MRS.MOORE-I understand. I apologize. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look to Rick for a motion. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David & Michele DeSanto for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to renovate an existing 1,121 sq. ft. home which includes construction of a second story addition. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements; Tax Map No. 289.17- 1-57 SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday.December 18.2013; 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? No,we do not believe it'll produce an undesirable change. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Trying to use the existing foundation, no. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I would say it's minimal. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? With the new septic system, it should be an improvement. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? With the owner trying to use the existing foundation,I don't believe it's self-created. 6. 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. 60-2013, David & Michele DeSanto, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. That if this becomes a complete re-build, tear down of the old structure, leaving the majority of the existing structure for the 1St floor,that the applicant will return to this Board or potentially move the house into a compliant location. 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. 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; D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. 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 18th day of December 2013,by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I think we can't say complete because that would mean just leaving one wall wouldn't be a not complete, so I think it has to be a little bit more specific, that they're leaving the majority of the existing structure for the first floor. MR. GARRAND-I stand corrected. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,you leave one wall and it's no longer a complete teardown. MRS. MOORE-And can you add as per resolution prepared by Staff, simply because there's other items that are identified. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-And the motion's modified to also note as per resolution prepared by Staff. MRS.M00RE-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And thank you, Curt, and your homes always look great and they are really going to add some charm to the neighborhood. So thank you. We have two applications this evening that are going to be tabled due to the Planning Board matters in front of those applications last evening. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2013 SEQRA TYPE II DODGE WATKINS AGENT(S) MATT STEVES- VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) DODGE WATKINS ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE,TWICWOOD PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE AND 5 TWICWOOD LANE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM 2 - 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) ACRE REQUIREMENT FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXISTING SHED ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF AV 65-2013 CLUTE, SB 6-2013; SB 13-72 PHASE 2 MODIFICATION; BP 2008-438 SHED; BP 2006-389 RES. ADDITION; BP 2006-140 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MR. JACKOSKI-Now we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening for that particular project, and I believe I have to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning that application, even though we're not going to move forward with it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to comment? You're more than welcome to. Thank you, and while she's coming to the table, Roy,is there any written comment received? MR.URRICO-For that? MR.JACKOSKI-For that particular application,yes. MR.URRICO-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Hello and welcome. LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-Hi. I'm Linda McNulty, 14 Twicwood Lane. At the time that Larry Clute was building this house,there was a lot of adverse comments from our neighborhood because originally when Mr. Senate owned the property it was to have been kept as one parcel because of the side load garage. So now there are issues because of a shared driveway. The line adjustment,boundary line adjustment. This is kind of Mr. Clute's own doing. When he built that house,there was opposition against it. They could not find anything in the old records indicating that that was in the proposition that was put before the Board for voting at that time. It was discussed, however, because one of the attorneys in our neighborhood brought it up, and it was never really resolved to our satisfaction. However, Dodge Watkins and his wife apparently never really had any kind of, I would guess, survey done of the property so that they knew where there boundaries were. I think it's going to be an issue with the driveway coming closer to the hill. The Dodge's are okay. The other issue is a utility building was put in there and Mr. Clute was made by the Town to take the one down that was there before he built the property. So why is another one allowed? MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MRS.MC NULTY-I guess that's basically it for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments, and can Staff answer any of that for us regarding that particular utility building,or should we try to refer to Craig? MRS. MOORE-I would, yes, refer it to Craig and I'll look into it and have information available, you know,share these comments with the Planning Board as well. MR. GARRAND-Also look into the possibility that there were conditions placed on the construction here,if a shared driveway was one of those conditions imposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we'll have Staff and our Zoning Administrator look into those comments for you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one,is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-There is no written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to move on to the next application which is very similar. It's Larry Clute. AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2013 SEQRA TYPE II LARRY W. CLUTE AGENT(S) MATT STEVES -VAN DUSEN &STEVES OWNER(S) LARRY CLUTE ZONING MDR LOCATION 5 TWICWOOD LANE, TWICWOOD PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE RELOCATION OF THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 5 TWICWOOD 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) LANE AND 3 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXISTING SHED ON THE PARCEL. CROSS REF BP 2012-201 192 SQ. FT. SHED; AV 64-2013 WATKINS; SB 6-2013; SB 13-72 PHASE 2 MODIFICATION; BP 2000-455 SEPTIC; BP 96-215 INGRD POOL; BP 6488 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-55 SECTION 179-3-040; 179- 5-020 MR.JACKOSKI-And I suspect that the public comment received on the prior application is similar to this application,so that is noted for the record,that Maria can type that again The public hearing is open for that application. Is there anyone else here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning that application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So on both of these variance applications I've noted that we have opened the public hearing and we are keeping the public hearing open and they are being tabled until when? MRS.MOORE-Until January's meetings. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and we just don't know the dates yet? MRS.MOORE-I do not know the dates yet. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I guess it's open ended and we'll wait for Staff to assign dates to them for us. Is that okay with everyone? All right. There's housekeeping. That's done. MRS.MOORE-I apologize. You need to make a,you need to vote on that tabling. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2013 DODGE WATKINS & AREA VARIANCE NO. 65-2013 LARRY W. CLUTE, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2013, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a motion for both. I think we can do them as both because they're tied to each other. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2013 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JAMON STONE OWNER(S) JAMON STONE ZONING SR-1A ZONING ORD. EFFECTIVE DATE: 9/19/1988 LOCATION 183 MEADOWBROOK ROAD,LOT 3 OF SUBD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT FREESTANDING GARAGE WITH STORAGE LOFT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SR-1A ZONE EFFECTIVE SEPT. 19, 1988 FOR THE SUBDIVISION FOR WHICH THIS LOT EXISTS IN. CROSS REF SB 7-1995 SCHERMERHORN SUBD.; BP 2012-051 DECK; BP 2011-308 ABV. POOL; BP 2003-099 RES. ALT.; BP 98-392 DECK; BP 97-037 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-5.4 SECTION 179-5-020 JAMON STONE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2013, Jamon Stone, Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 Project Location: 183 Meadowbrook Road, Lot 3 of Subd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 24 ft.by 24 ft.freestanding garage with storage loft. Relief Required: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179- 3-040 Establishment of districts and section 179-5-020 Accessory structure. Side Setback-SR-1A zone Required 15 ft. Proposed 6.0 SW, 6.1 SE corners Relief 9 SW, 8.9 SE corners 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 orientation of the existing home and existing driveway. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderation to 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 12-051: Deck BP 11-308: Above ground pool BP 03-099: Residential alteration BP 98-392: Deck BP 97-037: SFD SB 7-1995: Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 576 sq. ft. detached garage to be constructed to be in the same line as the existing driveway. The parcel is located in a subdivision 7-1995 where the zoning requirements were for SR-IA sides requiring 15 ft. setbacks. The garage is located too close to the south property line where relief is needed for the setback requirement. The applicant has indicated the front and rear gables will have a windows, the south and north side of the building will each have a window and the garage doors will have windows. The garage will be consistent with the home having shutters on the windows where appropriate. The plans show the garage height is to be 17 +/- ft. with elevations and layout of the building. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR.JACKOSKI-I'd like to call the applicant to the table. Hello. MR. STONE-Good evening. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a pretty straightforward application. Do you want to add anything to it at this time,or would you simply like us to ask some questions if we have any? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR. STONE-You can go ahead and ask questions. You've pretty much laid out everything that's involved. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions,at this time,from Board members? MR. KUHL-Wouldn't this variance have to be added for height because it's over 16 feet? MRS. MOORE-Waterfront zone, the Waterfront zone is the only place where 16 foot height is a requirement for the accessory structure for a garage. Not this zone. MR. KUHL-Really? Okay. MR. HENKEL-I don't really understand why you're really even asking for a variance. I mean, that could be easily moved over and actually even (lost word), I mean, what's the reason? I mean, I understand the asphalt there,but. MR. STONE-Yes, when they built the houses, the two houses that are there have an adjoining driveway, and that was part of that subdivision. They won't let me move the driveway, so in order to move the garage over to the 15 foot, I'd have to really make that driveway extend like diagonal into the yard and then turn it into the garage, or completely separate it from the existing driveway that's there,which is joined with the 177 Meadowbrook. MR. KUHL-Or add nine feet of asphalt on to it. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. KUHL-You'd end up with an asphalt patch alongside the garage. What do you think about that? MR. STONE-Yes, that's not something I would be interested in doing. Really all I'm trying to do is replace the existing parking with a garage,you know,without having to do too much extra. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I personally wouldn't want to see you put more pavement in there because it is a wetland area, and it's,you know, notorious for having issues in that area. The less pavement the better. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further comments or questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience, as I open the public hearing, that would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there written comment? MR.URRICO-We have no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment at this time. I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board and I'll start with Roy. MR.URRICO-I'm okay with the application as presented. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with the application. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-No,no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think the applicant doesn't have any feasible alternatives. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'll go along with reservations. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with the application. MR.JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, is there any further comment by any Board members? I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look for a resolution. Can't we just say resolution as prepared by Staff? MRS.MOORE-With the,you would need to complete the Items One through Five. MR.JACKOSKI-The checklist, I know. MRS. MOORE-You don't, and you don't necessarily have to read each question, if you just want to respond to each question,that is up to you. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jamon Stone for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to construct a 24 ft. by 24 ft. freestanding garage with storage loft. Relief requested from minimum side setback requirements for the SR-1A zone effective Sept. 19, 1988 for the Subdivision for which this lot exists in. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,December 18,2013; 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 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 orientation of the existing home and existing driveway. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the Code. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? That minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This difficulty may be considered self-created. 6. 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. 61-2013,Jamon Stone, Introduced by Kyle Noonan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. 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; 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) B. 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; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. 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 18th day of December 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. STONE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2013 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL & TAMMY GEORGE AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) MICHAEL & TAMMY GEORGE ZONING RR-3A LOCATION BAY ROAD, O'REILLY SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,302 +/- GFA SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ALONG WITH A 2,200 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) FREESTANDING GARAGE WITH 300 SQ. FT. BEING WORKSHOP AREA ON THE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 67- 2013; SB 14-2006 MODIFICATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 54.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-73.1 SECTION 179-5-020D DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2013, Michael & Tammy George, Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 "Project Location: Bay Road, O'Reilly Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,302 sq. ft. single family dwelling with an attached garage along with a 2,200 sq. ft. (footprint) freestanding garage with 300 sq. ft. being workshop are on the parcel. Relief Required: Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts and 179-5-020 Accessory structures. Second Garage Required 1 Garage Proposed Freestanding 2ii4 garage Relief One additional 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. 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 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) available to enlarge the proposed garage on the existing home, however the size may be not be consistent with the architectural scheme of the proposed home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested 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, SP 67-13: Pending SB 14-06: Subdivision Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage where only one garage is allowed. The applicant has indicated the proposed home with the attached garage that is to be 947 sq. ft.will not meet the needs for vehicle and residential items storage. The plans for the garage indicate the height is 25 ft. with 1,900 sq. ft. of the building for garage space and 300 sq. ft. is to be used for workshop space. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board made a motion to recommend on behalf of that Board to the Zoning Board for this variance and it was introduced by Donald Krebs and seconded by Brad Magowan. The Planning Board based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was carried unanimously on December 17, 2013. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Pretty simple project with along application. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Mike and Tammy George, the owners and applicants for this variance request. Mike is with me at the table, Tammy's in the audience. As explained, it's a single family residence on a 54 acre parcel, off of Bay Road, about eight tenths of a mile north of 149. The Georges would like to build their residence, single family residence there, and have the need for a second garage for storage. The regulations require one garage per principle dwelling. This request, therefore,you know, requires a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So it's pretty straightforward. Do any Board members have any particular questions for this applicant at this time? MR. NOONAN-Yes, I have a question. Is the proposed project, is it out of sight from Bay Road? It looks like the driveway goes and it goes downhill it looks like? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct,yes. The residence is about 260 feet or so from the road. MR. NOONAN-So it curves,it's downhill,it's wooded. It's out of sight from the road. MR. MAC ELROY-It's setback from the road. Correct. I won't say that you won't seethe structures, but it's set back and there is some vegetative buffer between. MR. NOONAN-It's been cleared. So you can see it pretty good. You'll be able to see it pretty good. MR.JACKOSKI-But, I mean,there's no requirement for screening or anything. MR. NOONAN-Right. Yes,but you'll be able to see it. MR. KUHL-Mike,what are you going to put in the garage? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MICHAEL GEORGE MR. GEORGE-RV,boat,snowmobiles. MR. KUHL-What about the workshop? MR. GEORGE-Just for whatever. I've got classic cars also, nothing in particular, I mean, you know, just personal use. MR. KUHL-You're not running a business out of it? MR. GEORGE-No. MR. KUHL-You have one RV? MR. GEORGE-Yes. MR. KUHL-And you have two 14 foot doors? MR. GEORGE-Yes, I mean,really I don't need two 14 foot doors. MR. KUHL-I could park mine in the second. MR. GEORGE-I've got room for yours. MR. KUHL-No,but if the dimensions of this garage were an issue,would you reduce it? MR. GEORGE-Well, I really(lost words). MR. MAC ELROY-We are asking for a variance for the second garage. That's clear. That's why we're here, but in terms of size of garage, it's compliant with what is allowable for lots of greater than five acres,which it certainly is. MR. JACKOSKI-And I would assume you've got to have some significant equipment of some sort to maintain all those wooded acres. Correct? MR. GEORGE-That's absolutely true,yes. I do have a tractor and bush hog and (lost word). MR. KUHL-So you're filling up my side of the garage, is that what you're doing? MR.JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Any plans to subdivide this property? MR. GEORGE-Not at this time. MR. GARRAND-All right, because what we don't want to run into is a situation where we have, you know,a small lot with a large garage on it. MR. GEORGE-Well, I mean, there's 54 acres there. So (lost words) somewhere down the road decided to subdivide it, there's pretty substantial area to subdivide. At this point I have no intentions of that. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. I mean, I don't think the intent ever would be to subdivide so that the garage would be separated from the house. MR. GEORGE-No,absolutely not. MR. MAC ELROY-It's,the garage is with the house for their personal use. There is 54 acres. So it's certainly possible that subdivision of a lot similar to the one to the north, that this was the parent lot of the, if you see up in the northwest corner there are two 3 acre lots,but that was subdivided as a six acre lot about five years ago, and there's a single family residence on that property. So, you know, it's a three acre zoning. It's certainly possible that another lot could be, say for instance, to the south maybe there'd be an area. So there isn't anything that would preclude subdividing that in the future,but there'd be no intent to subdivide it so that the garage was separate from the house. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR. GARRAND-Yes, I understand the need for having a garage to maintain a large piece of property for all the equipment necessary to maintain it, but,you know, if at some point this gets divided up into,you know, 20 separate lots,there's no. MR. GEORGE-I have no intentions of that whatsoever. MR. URRICO-If you received a variance for the second garage, what will happen to the existing garage? Will you expand the house into that garage? Will it be maintained as a garage? What will happen to it? MR. GEORGE-No,the house that we propose to build has an attached garage. MR.URRICO-Will you keep it as a garage? MR. GEORGE-Yes. MR.URRICO-So you'll have two garages. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing this evening for this particular application. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR.JACKOSKI-No written comment. MRS. MOORE-I can add that I did have conversations with neighbors, and they all asked a similar question about will there be a business operating out of the site, and I explained that the applicant had no desire to operate a business, and it's not an allowed use, unless it comes through Site Plan Review, and I don't believe that's an allowed use through the RR-3A zone, so I explained that to them,and I explained the same to the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but under the current regulations it is what it is, and what is allowed is allowed. Okay. Public hearing is still open. I'd like to poll the Board, if that's okay. I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes, I have, I think it's a good request, and I think he's got enough property to warrant it, and as long as it's for personal use, and you don't have to give me the second half. It's okay. I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, normally a second garage scares me, but not on 54 acres. I think the application is fine. I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I do agree with my fellow Board members. I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I've always believed that second garages are a bad idea on lots that are smaller than 10 acres. So this is 54.8 acres. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Are you hinting that he could have five garages? MR. GARRAND-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Henkel. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR. HENKEL-Yes, you know I'd like to see a little bit smaller garage. As long as the property isn't subdivided, I guess it would be fair. I'd go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problems with the application. Fine. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Good. So we're going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael & Tammy George for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020D of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to construct a 2,302 +/- gfa single-family dwelling with an attached garage along with a 2,200 sq. ft. (footprint) freestanding garage with 300 sq. ft. being workshop area on the parcel. Relief requested for a second garage. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,December 18,2013; 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? I don't believe so. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? I don't think so. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? Not really. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is. 6. 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. 62-2013, Michael &Tammy George, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. 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; B. 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; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. 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. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) Duly adopted this 18th day of December 2013,by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-My one comment is you've had two Board members bring up the issue about additional subdivision in the future, and you're satisfied with the fact that it's 54 acres with this additional garage. Are you considering that as a condition, or do you have any other thoughts before you continue your motion? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think that we've got to be very cautious with that because as we know about the parcel just across the street, the parcel up on the hill, the white home across the street there, there was an Article 78 filed against us because we tried to make those kinds of restrictions, and it wasn't allowed to be enforced and so the Town lost, and I don't see how we could possibly add that to this application. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-I don't remember the name of the applicant. MR. GARRAND-Also subdivision has to go through Site Plan. Right? They could also. MRS.MOORE-We could discuss it at Site Plan as well. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MRS.MOORE-Okay. I just wanted to. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No, that's fine, I think it's good to have that clarification, but I don't see how we could make that a contingency. MRS.M00RE-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. Welcome to the community. MR. GEORGE-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 66-2013 SEQRA TYPE II PAM ALTMAN &GUY C.JOHNSON OWNER(S) PAMELA ALTMAN &GUY C. JOHNSON ZONING WR LOCATION 24 GUNN LANE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED AND PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING 120 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED ON THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2002-012 SFD; BP 2002-013 DEMOLITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 66-2013, Pam Altman & Guy C. Johnson, Meeting Date: December 18, 2013 "Project Location: 24 Gunn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed and proposes to maintain existing 120 sq. ft. storage shed on the property in its current location. Relief Required: Parcel will require variance relief from the Zoning Code section 179-3-040 establishment of districts and 179-5-020 accessory structures. Side Setback-south Front Setback Permeability Required 5 ft. 30 ft. 75% Proposed 2 ft. 10 ft. 71% Relief 3 ft. 20 ft. 4% 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) 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 location of the house and septic system. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate 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 02-12: SFD BP 02-013: Demolition Staff comments: The applicant has submitted a variance application as required per an enforcement action to request setback relief for the existing shed. The applicant proposes to maintain a 120 sq. ft. shed that was constructed in 2011 to remain in the current location and to request relief from the required setbacks. The applicant has indicated that the shed location is due to the location of the septic system and driveway. The applicant provided photos and a narrative explaining that the shed is used for storage for lawn mower, bicycles and other items that need storage. The information submitted includes neighbor support for maintaining the shed in the current location. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is the applicant here? If they could come to the table, that would be great. Hi and welcome. It's a pretty simple application. I suspect you just want the Board to ask some questions and move on. Correct? MR.JOHNSON-Sure. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-On that shed, you have a roof that overhangs on the south side, right, that has like kayaks underneath it or something like that? MR.JOHNSON-Some lawn spreading,seed spreading stuff. MR. HENKEL-Yes. Now if you put a plumb line on the edge of that roof and that drops down, is that going to be on that person's, your next door neighbor's property, or is that still on your own property? MR.JOHNSON-I think it's on our property. MR. HENKEL-Because I know that extends out. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MS.ALTMAN-I think it's like one or two feet on that side. MR. HENKEL-Because all you have is two feet over there,right? MS.ALTMAN-But that's our neighbor, Rosemary Faulkner. MR.JOHNSON-Rosemary Faulkner. MS.ALTMAN-Who,she's one of the neighbors (lost word) letter,she's fine with it. MRS.MOORE-It looks like on your existing shed the survey indicates this roof overhang. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and it looks like the gravel drive is over, but the neighbor is comfortable with you folks doing this and they're in support of it. Right? MR.JOHNSON-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-And I believe, Roy,you'll be reading something into the record. Right? MR.URRICO-I don't see any supporting letters. MR.JACKOSKI-Maybe we read it in the application. MRS.MOORE-It's within your application. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. Okay. Sorry. MR.URRICO-I have a question. How did we arrive at this without a variance to begin with? MR.JOHNSON-In 2011 we constructed the shed and it's been there ever since. MR.URRICO-You didn't have to come to the Town for approvals at that point? MR. JOHNSON-We had our builder who built our house construct the shed, and we asked him if everything was fine with this location and zoning, and his information was off, and a neighbor, I guess,called the Town and sent Bruce out and that's how we landed here. MS.ALTMAN-The neighbor called with issues inquiring about,a neighbor who doesn't live there. MR.JOHNSON-She owns the property across from us but she doesn't live here. MR. JACKOSKI-And I suspect that the contractor understood that the shed was the square footage that was allowed without a building permit and so he just simply didn't pay attention to the lot line. MR.JOHNSON-Correct. MR. HENKEL-And the setbacks. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. MS.ALTMAN-We apologize. We did not know that it was,you know,in Code (lost words). MR. HENKEL-Yes,it's a nice looking building. MR.JOHNSON-We tried to make it look like the house. MR.JACKOSKI-Naughty contractors. On the naughty list,right? MR.JOHNSON-Good guy,but this year he's on the naughty list. MR. HENKEL-It's nice when you built the house you built so faraway from the lake. That was nice. MR.JOHNSON-I think that was a requirement. MR. HENKEL-It's 50 feet,isn't it? Shoreline,and you have 62 there. So that's nice. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. I'll read the "PETITION TO SAVE THE BEAUTIFUL SHED AT 24 GUNN LANE IN CLEVERDALE We, the residents of Gunn Lane, request a setback variance to allow the beautiful storage shed at 24 Gunn Lane to stay in its current location. We appreciate the investment the Johnsons made on the shed,because it is an attractive structure that gets their lawn mowers, quads & gardening supplies out of view. We appreciate that the shed was tastefully designed with red wood shingles and a green roof to match their house and blend in with the natural Adirondack beauty of our street. The current location is the only logical location they could put a shed on their property, and they did not realize they needed a variance for this location. We appreciate that the shed was placed where it is,because that location has no negative impact on the environment, as it is as far as possible from the lake. Any other location would negatively impact the environment, would look terrible and out of place, and would require more significant variances for being along the shoreline." And this is signed by, I'm counting 13 neighbors. MS.ALTMAN-Everybody who lives on the street signed it. MR.URRICO-Okay. MS.ALTMAN-And our immediate neighbors on either side also wrote a letter. MR. URRICO-Okay, and I have another letter. It says, "To Whom It May Concern: I will be out-of- town and unable to attend the Town of Queensbury's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Wednesday, December 18, 2013. However, I would like to comment on the variance request being considered for 24 Gunn Lane. We have no objection to the shed at 24 Gunn Lane remaining in its current position provided that the Zoning Board acknowledges in its minutes that other Gunn Lane property owners, including those at 23 Gunn Lane,who do not currently have an allowed shed and previously did not build one due to the clearly published front yard setback requirements, also will be seriously considered for allowing their same-sized sheds next to the road with the same dimensions and front yard setback as is currently found for 24 Gunn Lane's storage shed (all structural/housing locations being roughly equal). If the shed at 24 Gunn Lane is allowed to remain in its current position (when it could be moved back away from the road), then the owners at 23 Gunn Lane also plan to place a storage shed at the same relative location directly across from 24 Gunn Lane's shed. I have discussed this with Craig Brown and did not build a shed there last summer due to the front yard setback requirements. However, we have wanted to build a shed close to the road as well so that we could put an easily-accessed snow blower inside the shed and also block the view of the 24 Gunn Lane garbage cans that are seen from our porch. If we were able to read and call about the proper setbacks required, it appears highly unlikely that our neighbors were unable to collect that same information from reading the Town Code and speaking with Town employees prior to putting their shed close by the road and paving into Gunn Lane itself. Members of the Zoning Board should be aware of the history of unauthorized yet apparently still allowed buildings on this same block of Gunn Lane that continue to have an impact on traffic and property use. When our family purchased 23 Gunn Lane in 1994, our direct neighbor to the north agreed to remove one of his three cottages at 14 Gunn Lane in return for permission by the Zoning Board to place a large house down on the water on his same property. That house was built on the waterfront in 1995, but the 3rd cottage never was removed from the inadequate acreage next door to 23 Gunn Lane (zoning was one house per single acre at that time). The Zoning Board also should be aware that, in 1981, when permits were required and obtained by our family for new construction at 38 Gunn Lane,the property at 30 Gunn Lane had a small shed in the front yard close to Gunn Lane. With no notice to the neighbors or then-required permits, that shed since has been converted and expanded into a full stand-alone apartment with bathroom, sleeping area, and working kitchen. Currently, on both sides of 23 Gunn Lane there are unauthorized and fully used dwellings and this shed becomes the 3rd known unauthorized structure sitting next to the roadside on this small block. It should be noted that there was a side yard setback variance granted by the Zoning Board when the current house was built at 24 Gunn Lane that significantly reduced the lake view (and marketability) from 23 Gunn Lane. It was stated that this house would be lived in by its applicant, yet it turned out to be a builder's spec house, sold immediately by the builder to its current owners. On several occasions, I have called the Town to discuss a garage or storage shed to be placed on our property at 23 Gunn Lane. I have been told and fully understand that a shed up to 120 sq. ft. must be at least 30 feet from Gunn Lane and must obey the side setback requirement of 5 feet. Our main point: If the Zoning Board grants a variance for 24 Gunn Lane, after the owners already have placed their shed in its roadside location without a variance, then 23 Gunn Lane (having no garage, shed, or other second building on the property) also should be allowed and 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) granted these same rights to a similar permit at this time upon application (since the same shed allowances apply to both properties). Finally,we ask that any granted 24 Gunn Lane shed variance not be used in the future to hinder the approval of other similar sheds on the same block or directly across the street that will be requested through the proper permitting process. Sincerely, Robin Inwald for The Inwald Family(Inwald Enterprises, LLC)" MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any additional written comments? MR.URRICO-I hope not. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here in the audience who does want to address this Board after hearing the written comments? I'm going to leave the public hearing open, and I think, at this time, I need to make note that much of that last letter had a lot to do with zoning enforcement, and that isn't the responsibility, at this time, of this appeals Board. So while we certainly can take that information into consideration, the application in front of us here tonight is simply this shed that is currently constructed and whether or not we are willing to go through the balancing test and determine whether or not we're going to approve it as constructed and as it is located. Okay. Are there any Board member comments at this time after hearing all the letters? So I think I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Starting with me. MR.JACKOSKI-All right, Ron,that's the third time tonight. Do you want me? MR. KUHL-No,no,it's okay. It's on the record. You said Ron. MR.JACKOSKI-Beating up on Ron night. MR. KUHL-It's a neighbor's opinion and that's their opinion of what they're looking at. No, I think you have a nice structure here, and I think it's, you're asking for relief, but it's, you know, if we would push it back 20 feet on the other side of your gravel driveway,you know,you could make it compliant. MS. ALTMAN-The driveway comes out behind the (lost word) the shed, here's the driveway, and then here's the house, and there's a small area. MR. KUHL-I think it was my time to talk here, but that's okay. You just have to relax. I really, all said and done,you could move it, but I don't see it necessary to move. I think it's good where it is, and I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I would be in favor with a condition on it, that they don't have any more impermeable areas on the property from this point on. I think permeability's a big issue down there. I don't think anything else should be built on this property. It's already overbuilt. So I wouldn't be in favor of it unless there was a condition attached to it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the application as is. I've heard a lot and it seems okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Okay. I'm going to go back to my Zoning Board roots and pretend that this is coming to us with clean hands and not after the fact like it has. If this had come to us from the beginning, I would never approve something this close to the edge of the road. I think it does have the potential to change the neighborhood by creating a defacto new standard for the neighborhood. I understand the mistake was made,but it's still a change in the zoning of what's required here. So I think there's going to be, more than minor impacts to the neighborhood can be anticipated. I think feasible alternatives are to move it. I'm sorry, and the relief requested is more than moderate relative to the Code. So I would be against it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I have to kind of agree with Roy. I mean, I think it's a nice looking shed. I went and looked at it. I think if you were to have come to us beforehand it probably wouldn't have been 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) a problem, but I think it's going to create a lot of problems in the neighborhood and I'd say at this point it's probably trouble to move it,but it's going to have to be probably moved. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have to agree with Rick. I think I would approve it based on the fact, the condition that there would be no more impermeability. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. How hard would it truly be to move it? MR. JOHNSON-There's really not much of a spot to put it there. We would walk out our side door and walk almost directly into the shed when you turn the corner. Otherwise, the left side of the property is a septic field. We certainly don't want to put it on the lake side. MR. HENKEL-So you're saying the septic field is on the what side,on the side here,or over here? MR.JOHNSON-It's on the north side of the street side. MR. HENKEL-Okay, and it couldn't be moved closer to the house on that same side along the property line? MR.JOHNSON-There's a driveway and then there's really nothing. There's like maybe 10 feet there and a big oak tree that's shared between our house and the Faulkner's that would have to come down. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that, as I think about what Roy suggested, this would be a tough sell to this Board if it was coming as a planned project,you know, before you actually did it. I'm wondering, I like what Mr. Garrand has suggested about the permeability calculations remaining flat as to what they are right now for the future. Certainly you can come and request a variance to increase those non-permeable surfaces. Would you be willing to remove the overhang of that roof that is over onto the neighbor's property? MR.JOHNSON-Sure. MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any other comments at this time? I'm reserving. MR. HENKEL-I'd be more amenable if they did that,too,because it is overlapping their property. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I think that's the, I love the fact that your neighbors have all been together and that you've all come to agreement that this is acceptable and they're all happy with it and the adjoining neighbors are, you know, in favor, but I am concerned about setting precedent up there, and we know we've had some issues up there. MRS. MOORE-Just a reminder that you take each application on its merits from that particular applicant,and it's not precedent setting. I mean, I see the perception. However. MR. HENKEL-We're not looking at a lawsuit or something if we? MRS. MOORE-It's not necessarily the lawsuit. It's the idea that the Zoning Board's, their discretion and their decision making process is on each application not cumulative, I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so, I mean, it's a lot of relief for me, and as I look at this with the restrictions of this very narrow lot, and the road that is there,knowing where the wastewater treatment facility is, if you'd be willing to remove that overhang so that it's no longer,you know,that, I realize you don't want to,but if you would at least clean that up. MR.JOHNSON-No problem. MR.JACKOSKI-I think I'd be okay with the application if we made that a contingency. So with Rick's impermeability concerns, I think that's a valid concern. I'd approve a motion with those two contingencies in it. So I'm going to close the public hearing I think. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look for a motion. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Pam Altman and Guy C. Johnson for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to maintain existing 120 sq. ft. storage shed on the property in its current location. Relief requested from the minimum side and front yard setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Side setback relief is required 5 feet, asking for 3 feet; front setback 30 feet, requesting 20 feet; permeability 75% required, proposed is 71%,4%is relief requested. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed. December 18,2013; 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? Neighborhood support doesn't seem to think there's undesirable changes in 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? There are other means feasible. The applicant has agreed to conditions to mitigate the effects of this project. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? Yes,I deemed it substantial. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't believe it will have any. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,it is self-created. 6. 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. 66-2013, Pam Altman and Guy C. Johnson, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The applicant has agreed to remove the building overhang, on the south side, on the side which it technically goes over the property line as it would extend out. B. The applicant has also agreed to no further impermeable area within the property. To maintain the current permeability on the property. C. 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; 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 18th day of December 2013,by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-And Staff is raising a red flag. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/18/2013) MRS. MOORE-Yes, I just have a clarification. That the removal of the overhang on the south side specifically,or the overhang all together? I think it's just the south side. MR. JACKOSKI-It is the south side, it is the side in which it encroaches, technically goes over the property line as it would extend out. Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr.Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. Sorry to put you through the process, but it's done. Any further Board business? Congratulations, everyone. 2013 is official for us, and I need a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF DECEMBER 18, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th day of December, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. MR.JACKOSKI-Has everybody completed their training for 2013? Besides me. MRS.MOORE-If you have not. MR.JACKOSKI-I have not. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I have, tomorrow evening at 6 I'm doing a SEQR piece. That would be included as part of your training. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 29