Loading...
05-28-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28,2014 INDEX Sign Variance No. 3 0-2 014 Hacker Boat Co., Inc. 1. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-76, 77,and 78 Area Variance No. 39-2014 Peter Sankey 6. Tax Map No. 296.7-1-14 Area Variance No.40-2014 Michael Hayes 9. Tax Map No. 295.10-1-29 Area Variance No.42-2014 Dawn&Andy Pliscofsky 15. Tax Map No. 278.00-1-43 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 05/28/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN RICHARD GARRAND HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-I'll call the meeting to order. For those of you who have not, in the past, been to a Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, it's quite simple. On the back table there is an agenda. There's also a sheet in the back that explains the process. We'll be calling each item forward by applicant. We'll listen to the application be read into the record when appropriate. We'll have the applicant speak to the Board. The Board will ask questions. We'll open a public hearing when a public hearing has been advertised. We will then poll the Board and act accordingly from that point on. Fortunately there's no housekeeping to do this evening. So we're going to go right into New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 30-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HACKER BOAT CO., INC. AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) COUNTY OF WARREN & WARREN COUNTY EDC ZONING CLI LOCATION LOTS 1-3 OF STONE QUARRY ROAD (GOLDEN ARROW IND. PK.) APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 78 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WALL SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 26-2014; FWW 2-2014; SB 12-03 QEDC (GOLDEN ARROW IND. PK.) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 2.63; 3.63; 11.81 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-76, 77 AND 78 SECTION CHAPTER 140-613 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-This is an Unlisted SEQR. So we'll be doing SEQR this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 30-2014, Hacker Boat Co., Inc., Meeting Date: May 28, 2014 "Project Location: Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Stone Quarry Road; Golden Arrow Industrial Park Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 78 sq. ft. wall sign. Relief requested from maximum allowable wall sign size requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Chapter 140 Signs -size of sign greater than 30 sq.ft. Maximum allowable wall sign Required 30 sq.ft. maximum size allowed Proposed 78 sq.ft. Relief +48 sq.ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) 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 limited as the applicant intends to install the sign to be consistent with the size of the building. 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 26-14: 90,000 sq. ft. bldg. phase 1 and 40,000 sq. ft. bldg. addition for phase 2; approved 4-22- 14 FW 2-14: Project activities within 100 ft.of designated wetland; approved 4-22-14 SB 12-03: 10 lot subdivision, Golden Arrow Subdivision now Queensbury Business Park 8-17-04 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 78 sq. ft. sign on a proposed 90,000 sq. ft. building. The proposed building is setback 50 ft. from the Queensbury Avenue property line where the sign will be facing the road. There is a monument sign proposed for the entrance to the site on Stone Quarry Road. The information submitted shows the proposed sign and location on the building. Relief requested to have a sign larger than 30 sq.ft. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome,pretty straightforward application. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Those are the words I was going to use. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers and Mike Dowd as the project manager for Hacker Boat. The variance request may be considered substantial in terms of the Code, but we think in terms of the building it is not substantial. We don't think it's oversized and we don't think it's garish. Mike, do you want to add anything? MIKE DOWD MR. DOWD-I think that says it all. As you can see on the drawing it's to scale, and it kind of reflects anything smaller would be lost on the building itself. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. JARRETT-And one note, the building is compliant with zoning, and it received site plan review and approval. So we really need something of that magnitude to make the building work. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open a public hearing? MR. URRICO-The Code does not make an exception for the size of a building. It just says one wall sign at that size. MR.JARRETT-Correct. Absolutely,but the building is compliant. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) MR. URRICO-So your only reason is that the size of the building is that big, not that it's, you need something that big for it to be seen. MR. JARRETT-Well, as Mike said, if the sign was compliant in size, it would be lost on the building and it really would not serve Hacker Boat at all. MR.URRICO-But,like I said,the Code doesn't make an exception for the size of a building. MR.JARRETT-Correct,that's why we're in front of you. MR.URRICO-Right. MR. GARRAND-But is 26 feet really necessary? MR.JARRETT-Seventy-eight. MR. GARRAND-It says the sign is 26 by 3. MR.JARRETT-Well,you can see the size. It's really not oversized compared to the building. MR.JACKOSKI-Is the entire rectangle going to be illuminated? MR. DOWD-The rectangle, actually,is just a limitation of the software we use. MR.JARRETT-The white background won't exist. MR. DOWD-The only thing you're going to see is the green letters, and there's no intent of illuminating the sign itself. MR.JARRETT-They're not internally lit,for sure,and there's no plan right now to light it up. MR. DOWD-For the most part this facility's going to be used nine to five, seven to five. Customers that fly in will fly in see the building. They'll see that when they come out of the airport that you're going to expand and they'll pull in and they'll leave. Other than that, there won't be any big lights on it. We don't have night traffic, so on and so forth. So the impact to the surrounding area would be minimal at night. MR. HENKEL-That's the only sign? There's not going to be a sign on the road? MR. DOWD-There's going to be a sign on the park,a small monument sign. MR.JARRETT-There is a monument sign,yes. MR. DOWD-It'll reflect kind of the nature of the park. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I am opening the public hearing,and, Roy,is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-I do not see any written comment. MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no written comment, is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I do have someone. DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-I'm Don Daniels. I live in Queensbury. I've had several businesses and over the years not having large enough signs has always impacted my business. So I'm kind of a proponent of, and this is kind of a small sign as far as I'm concerned, but I think it's a reasonable sign for that building, but I notice over the years businesses that are up and down on Route 9 in different areas, if you have a little tiny sign on your store and people are driving by, everybody's advertising another business that has a bigger sign,watch for Wal-Mart or watch for something else, and we're just south of it or just north of it,to try to get attention to their own place because they have such a little dinky sign on some of their businesses, and people do look for signs. The smaller the sign,the smaller the print,when people are driving down the road you look at that print,but you're gone by 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) that fast and you can't even tell what it says sometimes so you slow down or you turn your head to see what it says. So it's kind of dangerous but if you have the larger sign that you have, the larger print,people can catch that with their peripheral vision and spot where it is right away so it's easier for people to slow down and get in a driveway. That's my comments. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. MR. DANIELS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll ask Mr. Jarrett back to the table. Any additional comments or questions from Board members? I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I have no problems with the sign. I think it's fine. I think it's great. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with it. I think the sign is appropriate for the building and the location. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think the sign could be a little bit smaller. According to the drawing, it's going to be pretty close to the road and it's going to have visibility with a monument sign. So I think we could go down on size on the sign. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So, I mean, the request is substantial when you talk about square feet, but it's not like you're asking it to hang over the ceiling of the roof or the side. So the diagram looks fine to me. Obviously it's self-created, and the sign situation of one size fits all is probably something that could be looked at on a context. So I support the variance request. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I think the sign is too big. I think it needs to be scaled back per the Code. It's way over. I would be against it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm in favor of the project. I think it's reasonable. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And we have to do SEQR. MR. GARRAND-Sure. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 30-2014, Hacker Boat Co.. Inc. based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand_who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mike McCabe: Duly adopted this Wed..May 28,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-And now I need a motion for approval or disapproval of the application. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) Approve Sign Variance No. 30-2014, Hacker Boat Co., Inc.,Tax Map No. 303.16-1-76, 77,and 78. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hacker Boat Co..Inc. for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 78 sq. ft. wall sign. Relief requested from maximum allowable wall sign size requirements. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 30-2014, Hacker Boat Co.. Inc. based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand_who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mike McCabe: Duly adopted this Wed..May 28,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: None A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,May 28,2014; 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 sign variance? No. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Benefit could be sought by other means but it doesn't really seem practical. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Substantial compared to the Code but it does not create garish view. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We think not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Certainly it is. 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 Sign Variance No. 30-2014, Hacker Boat Co., Inc., Introduced by Mike McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: 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. 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; 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 sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign 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 Wed.,May 28,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski MR.JACKOSKI-We do have approval. Thank you. MR.JARRETT-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2014 SEQRA TYPE II PETER SANKEY OWNER(S) PETER SANKEY ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 60 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION OF 320 SQ. FT. DECK AND GAZEBO TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 13- 335 DECK & GAZEBO; BP 10-149 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 LOT SIZE 2.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.7-1-14 SECTION 179-3-040 PETER SANKEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 39-2014, Peter Sankey, Meeting Date: May 28, 2014 "Project Location: 60 Blind Rock Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to continue construction of 320 sq. ft. deck and gazebo to an existing single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance section 179-3-040 establishment of districts: Side Setback Required 75 ft. Proposed 62.6 ft. Relief 12.4 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 considered limited as the home is located on a 2.0 acre parcel the Rural Residential 3 acre zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts 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, 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) BP 13-335: Deck&Gazebo, On Hold BP 11-046: Solar panel installation, 3-21-11 BP 10-149: 3,320 sq.ft.single family dwelling& 1,080 sq.ft.garage, 12-19-11 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete an existing gazebo and deck area to an existing home. The applicant has completed most of the deck area and stopped work on the gazebo portion when it was explained the project did not meet the setbacks. The survey provided shows where the deck and gazebo are located with the required setbacks, plan view of the deck and elevation. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy. If you could identify yourself for the record. It is a pretty straightforward application and we'll probably just ask you some questions. MR. SANKEY-Okay. Peter Sankey. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? Having no questions, I will open the public hearing which has been advertised for this evening. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is. "I am Peter Sankey's adjacent neighbor at 56 Blind Rock Road. Five years ago, prior to the current RR-3A zoning, the setbacks were significantly less restrictive. Few homes in the area comply with the current zoning. Mr. Sankey's encroachment of the 75 foot side setback per his application is insignificant compared to the neighbor's setback encroachments formerly in compliance. A neighborhood of predominantly half to two acre existing homes being re-zoned to RR-3A never made much sense. I support Mr. Sankey's area variance request. Sincerely, R. Kent McNairy" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other written comment? MR.URRICO-I don't see any other. MR. JACKOSKI-No other written comment. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, is there any further discussion with Board members or do you want me to poll the Board? I think we've all seen the project. Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start in reverse order this time,and we'll start with John. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd say they're only asking for relief of 12 feet, and no one is going to bother there, it's pretty far from the sides, and no one really behind him. I don't see any problem with it. I'm in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think if you had come to us with clean hands, I would not have had a problem with it at that point,either. So I would be in favor of it at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, similarly, I think we could live with this. It's always a little bit disturbing to me that we're doing some of this stuff after the fact, so I wish that people who are working know the rules and what they need to get before they get started, but if you came to the Board with this request before you started, I think it's reasonable and I would support it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-One of the five criterion is does it produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character of nearby properties. This is not going to change the character of the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) neighborhood really in any way, shape or form, and the most affected neighbor, Mr. McNair, doesn't have a problem with it at all. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with it. It seems like a reasonable request. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. So,having polled the Board, I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Approve Area Variance No. 39-2014,Peter Sankey,60 Blind Rock Road,Tax Map No. 296.7-1- 14 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Peter Sankey for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to continue construction of 320 sq. ft. deck and gazebo to an existing single-family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 28,2014; 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 changes 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? The benefits sought by the applicant may be achieved by other methods but it is built, so there are not feasible alternatives. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The request is not considered substantial. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? This proposed area variance will have no adverse impact on the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This is not considered self-created as your request may be considered a result of the re-zoning. 6. 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; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 39-2014, Peter Sankey, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: 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. Duly adopted this 28th day of May.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,again,for your patience. We appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL HAYES OWNER(S) MICHAEL HAYES ZONING MDR LOCATION 1069 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL IN THE SIDE YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED TO INSTALL A POOL IN A YARD OTHER THAN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF BP 14-116 IN- GROUND POOL; BP 13-357 PORCH; BP 04-533 GAZEBO&DECK; BP 04-378 ADDITION; BP 96- 776 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 88-811 GARAGE ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 LOT SIZE 1.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.10-1-29 SECTION 179-5-020 MICHAEL HAYES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 40-2014, Michael Hayes, Meeting Date: May 28, 2014 "Project Location: 1069 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of an in-ground swimming pool in the side yard. Relief requested to install a pool in a yard other than the rear yard. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance from section 179-5-020 Accessory Structures: Pool placement other than in required rear yard Required Rear yard Proposed Side yard Relief Placement in side yard 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. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the arrangement of the house on the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requested 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 impacts 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 14-116: Pool, Pending AV 57-13/13P 13-357: Remove existing deteriorated 358 sq. ft.porch and replace w/new 358 sq.ft. porch in the same location. Front setback requirement for the MDR zoning district, 10-23-13, 12- 19-13 BP 04-533: 638 sq.ft.gazebo, 8-25-04 BP 04-378: 256 sq.ft.residential addition-family room, 8-17-04 BP 96-776: septic alteration, 12-17-96 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a pool in the side yard where pools are required to be placed in the rear yard. The applicant has indicated placing the pool in the side yard would be less disturbance where the rear of the yard would need to be regarded to accommodate the pool. The plans show the location of the pool and indicates there will be a fence surrounding the pool. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record,please. MR. HAYES-Michael Hayes. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Hayes. I assume you just want us to ask you some questions. MR. HAYES-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions at this time from Board members before I open a public hearing? MR. NOONAN-Mr. Hayes,do you have any children? MR. HAYES-No. MR. NOONAN-No children, okay. I was just asking, based on placement of the pool, where that is might be safer there,you can see outside the house what's going on as opposed to farther out. So, I was just curious. MR. HENKEL-How high is the fence going to be,the privacy fence? MR. HAYES-It's going to be a six foot privacy. MR. HENKEL-Okay,and that's going to be all around the pool? MR. HAYES-Yes. It's going to be all the way around and it actually connects in the back of the house. So it'll be one wide open area with two gates,two locked gates. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) MR. HENKEL-Okay. You're not going to change that to a four foot. MR. HAYES-No,we want privacy. MR. HENKEL-Okay, because I would definitely feel better approving it if it's going to be a six foot fence and not a four. MR.JACKOSKI-And, Staff,is a six foot fence allowed? MR. HENKEL-As long as it's not beyond the corner of the front of the house. MRS.MOORE-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,as long as the house meets the setback requirements. MR. HENKEL-Well,we did the porch on this,too. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we don't have a determination from Craig saying that the fence would require a variance,correct? MRS.MOORE-You don't. MR. GARRAND-We'll find out. MRS. MOORE-Because the six foot fence is in the front yard, that is information that needs to be shared with Craig for him to determine if a six foot fence can be allowed in the front yard there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So you may need to check with our Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown, to determine if six foot is allowed. MR. HAYES-Okay. Is that saying if we move forward, you know, if everything's approved and we move forward, I can start building? MR. JACKOSKI-I can't tell you that, sir, I'm only the appeals part. You just need to call Mr. Brown, okay. MR. GARRAND-You just wouldn't be able to put the fence up more than likely. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we could condition this approval with a six foot fence. Correct? No, because we'd be violating our own zoning. Right. Yes, okay, fine. Hey,we're trying. Okay. So, any other questions at this time from Board members? MR. MC CABE-I guess I have to ask,why can't it go in the back? MR. HAYES-The backyard has a little bit more of a grade. It's sloped in the back. The tree line, there's not a lot of room between, even though the property line shows there may be enough space, the tree line,between the tree line and the house there's not a lot of space there and with the grade, there's,you know,virtually no sun back there and the grade would have to be completely changed. I think we'd actually have to remove a lot of trees to do it. MR. MC CABE-Is that in the Adirondack Park? MR. HAYES-We're just south of the Adirondack Park. MR. HENKEL-The grade's about 40 feet from the back of the house. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I looked at it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I am opening the public hearing. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No written comment. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-With no written comment, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to poll the Board. Harrison? MR. FREER-Well,it would be good to have a fence. So, I mean, I think we're in a catch 22. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,we can just have a four foot fence instead of a six foot fence,correct, Staff? MR. FREER-Okay. It's still tempting, as kids ride their bikes back, you know, try to keep it away from public view. So I don't see any big detriment to having it on the side, and my only sense is that I would prefer to have a six foot fence if it complies with the Zoning Ordinance. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Honestly I think the pool could go closer to the house and farther back towards the back of the yard. It's going to have to be, if this is an in-ground pool, there's going to have to be excavation anyway. I mean, it doesn't have to be,this is literally putting the pool 65 feet from West Mountain Road, and the Code basically wants to avoid pools on the roadside, facing the road. I think there are feasible alternatives. MR.JACKOSKI-So you're a no? MR. GARRAND-No. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with Rick. I think if you could move that back just a few more feet, and definitely a six foot fence, I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-And just so we all understand, the variance here is to place it in the side yard, it is not necessarily regarding setbacks. Okay. MR. MC CABE-Well, so I guess the question is, does the backyard have to be right in back of the house or if the setback moves the pool back even with the back of the house, does that make it into the backyard? MR.JACKOSKI-Staff? MRS.MOORE-Well,it's still a side yard. MR. MC CABE-So does the backyard have to be within the boundaries of the house, or does the backyard start with the back of the house? MRS.MOORE-It's my understanding it's the back of the house. MR. MC CABE-So they could move it back and that would relieve the request of being in the side yard. MR. JACKOSKI-I think what the applicant is saying is that they can't move it back enough. So that some of the pool is going to stay forward no matter what. MR. MC CABE-Most of the trees are right behind the house. So if you move to the side of the house then that's a pretty big open area as I recall. MR. HAYES-The tree line runs all the way across my whole back property. So the farther back I go, the closer I am to the tree line. MR. MC CABE-So I guess what I'm saying is if you move the pool back to this area here, it would be in the backyard,so it would be basically the same orientation,just more,further back from the road. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, Mike,so would you be in favor of the application as presented or not? MR. MC CABE-I think, I don't like the application as presented being that close to the road and I feel that the pool would be more desirable if it was back further from the road. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) MR. NOONAN-I'd probably take a different approach than my fellow Board members, but I'm sure you've been looking at spots for a while to figure out where this pool's going to go. You figured, you probably knew that it couldn't go in the side yard and you'd have to come here, thought long and hard and realized that's where you wanted the pool, and you've got the screen room there, deck, and,you know,the fire pit. I understand why you'd want to walk out the house, onto the deck and into the pool. So I'd be in favor of this application. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-If he's only allowed to put a four foot fence up, he can put higher hedges around to block the fence,right? MR.JACKOSKI-Landscaping,yes. MR. URRICO-You could still use landscaping, a combination of landscaping and the four foot fence. So if you only get the four foot fence,you can still use some landscaping to hide the pool. I think I would be in favor of the application as presented, provided he puts some sort of a fence around it. If you're not allowed to put a six foot fence around there,then a four foot with some landscaping. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have a three, three tie. Guess who's responsibility it is to solve this matter. I like what Roy has suggested, that if the Zoning Administrator determines that a four foot high fence is all that can be erected in that side yard on the road side,that we use taller landscaping to condition this approval, that is six or seven feet tall hedges, shrubbery, whatever it is, to help create that height and privacy, but still meet the Code for fencing. I think that was a good alternative. I would like to see that you push it back as far as you can, and I do agree with fellow Board member Kyle that given what's already there on site, that that's probably the right location for the pool. I'd be in favor of the application. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Approve Area Variance No. 40-2014, Michael Hayes, 1069 West Mountain Road,Tax Map No. 295.10-1-29 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael Hayes for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of an in-ground swimming pool in the side yard. Relief requested to install a pool in a yard other than the rear yard. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 28,2014; 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? It won't create an undesirable character change. The worry is more on the safety standpoint than how to make it not evident from the street for passers-by, especially in my past life; kids who think that they need to go in swimming pools without any safety net. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? He put up a good argument that if you want to use the pool in the short season we have here,we don't want to spend it in the shade,so I don't think it does makes sense to achieve it by some other way. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It's a yes or no approval for the side yard. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,I think saving the trees and cutting down 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) fewer trees and doing less grading is the right answer in terms of environmental impact. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes 6. 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; 7. 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. 40-2014, Michael Hayes, Introduced by Mr. Freer,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mr.Urrico: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following conditions: A (1). If a 6 ft.fence height is not allowed parallel with the road at the front of this property and it's only a 4 ft. fence that is allowed, the Board is conditioning this on 6 ft. plus shrubbery or landscaping materials to raise that height above the 4 ft. fence and mask the 4 ft. fence to create privacy. The shrubbery should be the length of the fence and they can pick their own materials but they do need to be 6 ft. plus high. This should create the sense that they are masking that 4 ft. fence and they are going to have a hedgerow or shrub row there creating the privacy. A (2). The pool is to be no less than 65 ft. off of the boundary line in the front. 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 28th day of May, 2014,by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So you're dictating the pool and not the landscaping distance? Because I think I misunderstood. I thought I heard you say something that the landscaping should be less, or no more than 65 feet. You're saying the pool itself? MR. JACKOSKI-I think it's the pool itself. I mean, the landscaping can be forward. I don't know, Craig hasn't made the determination. MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to make sure that I heard it correctly, because I heard something different. MR.URRICO-If he's allowed a six foot fence. MR.JACKOSKI-He should definitely put a six foot fence. MR.URRICO-He does not need the landscaping,then. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MR.URRICO-Yes. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-So, but the resolution is such that if a six foot fence height is not allowed parallel with the road at the front of this property and it's only a 4 ft. fence that is allowed, the Board is conditioning this on 6 ft. plus shrubbery or landscaping materials to raise that height above the 4 ft. fence and mask the 4 ft.fence to create privacy. Does that make sense? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Do you want to do a number of trees or do you want to do the length of that fence? MR. JACKOSKI-The shrubbery should be the length of the fence and they can pick their own materials but they do need to be 6 ft. plus high. MRS.MOORE-And it should create the sense that it's a privacy fence. MR.JACKOSKI-This should create the sense that they are masking that 4 ft. fence and they are going to have a hedgerow or a shrub row there creating the privacy. MRS.MOORE-That helps. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-I think we all know the intent. We've just got to get it right. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DAWN & ANDY PLISCOFSKY OWNER(S) DAWN & ANDY PLISCOFSKY ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 631 ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 250 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 11-465 SHED; BP 99-404 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 93-352 SEPTIC ALT., BP 92-559 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.00-1-43 SECTION 179-3-040 DAWN&ANDY PLISCOFSKY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. Dawn &Andy Pliscofsky, Meeting Date: May 28, 2014, "Project Location: 631 Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 250 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in the RR-3A zoning district. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from the following sections 179-3-040 Establishment of districts and 179-13-010 Continuation: Front Setback Required 100 ft. Proposed 53.23 ft. Relief 46.77 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. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) 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 on the property and the zoning setback requirements for a home constructed prior to zoning. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code requirements. 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 impacts 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 not self created as the house was built prior to zoning and due to the shape of the lot a majority of the existing home does not meet the required setback. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, AV 102-92: 400 sq.ft. addition to the living room. 19'front setback relief, 10-21-92 BP 11-465: 160 sq.ft.shed, 10-3-12 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 250 sq. ft. residential additional to an existing home. The addition does not meet the required front yard setback. The applicant has indicated the addition will help with enlarging the kitchen and another bath. The applicant has provided plans that show the location of the addition,floor plan of the interior,and elevations. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Hello. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MRS. PLISCOFSKY-Dawn Pliscofsky. MR. PLISCOFSKY-Andy Pliscofsky. MR. JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward application. I'm going to ask the Board members if they have any questions for you at this time. Is there anything you'd like to add to the record at this time? MRS. PLISCOFSKY-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any Board member questions? I'm going to open the public hearing at this time. Is there any written comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to poll the Board. Roy,you're first. MR. URRICO-Yes, I don't see any problem with this application. I think the variances are caused because of the zoning changes there. They're seeking to improve their home. I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with the application. I'd be in favor of it,yes. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-It fits the house. The situation was created long ago when the house was built. So I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I don't see any negative impacts. They have four acres to work with, over four acres,and it's reasonable. Go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think this house pre-dates the zoning. The zoning was enacted after this house was built and then the State came through and did their taking. I don't think this is self-created at all. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I agree. I don't think it's self-created. I don't think it'll do any harm to the neighborhood or the environment,and I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward, pretty easy, right? Okay. I am going to close the public hearing this evening. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. Approve Area Variance No. 42-2014, Dawn &Andy Pliscofsky, 631 State Route 149, Tax Map No. 278.00-1-43 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dawn & Andy Pliscofsky for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 250 sq. ft. residential addition. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in the RR-3A zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 28,2014; 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? The requested relief is for 46.77 feet from the required 100 foot setback. 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 no other feasible means since this house does pre-date the Zoning Code. There is really nothing that this homeowner can do short of moving the house back. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It might be deemed substantial relative to the Code but, like I said, the homeowner's did not create this. The enacting of the Zoning Code created this. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't think it is going to provide any 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) undesirable change, what-so-ever in the neighborhood when you look at the scope of a 41/2 acre lot. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I do not believe that it is self-created at all. I think it is a result of the Zoning Code, the State taking land, and the original placement of the house. 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. 42-2014, Dawn &Andy Pliscofsky, Introduced by Richard Garrand,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mike McCabe: 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. Duly adopted this 28th day of May,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MRS. PLISCOFSKY-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. PLISCOFSKY-I didn't realize, too, we had to get a letter from the Park Agency, and we got the letter on the 25th of this month saying they had no interest. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. If you'd like to provide a copy to our secretary, Roy, feel free to do so. Thank you again. Is there any other business that Board members would like to address this evening? We do have Staff wanting to address the Board. MRS.MOORE-I have your June 4th Staff Notes with me to hand out. MR. GARRAND-The revised ones? MR. GARRAND-Revised? MRS.MOORE-You have new packets. That is all I had. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So Staff is going to be handing out packets concerning our June 4th meeting for those of you who signed up this evening to attend that meeting on June 4th. It is here in this building in this room at 7:30 p.m. Roy,will you be there on the 4th? MR.URRICO-Yes. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/28/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So could I have a motion to adjourn,please MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 28, 2014, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 28th day of May, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 19