Glens Falls ZBA gives conditional approval for carport and setbacks, denies 8-foot fence at 26 Terracotta Ave

The Glens Falls City Zoning Board of Appeals on Dec. 15 conditionally approved two side-yard setback variances for a homeowner seeking a rear carport and a hot tub but rejected a requested 8-foot fence.

The applicant, Joshua (Josh) Funk, told the board he wants to replace a worn fence with an 8-foot privacy fence, install a hot tub adjacent to his deck and build a carport at the rear of the property. Funk said neighbors provided signed letters in support and described measures to keep runoff off adjacent yards: "I plan on creating a drainage system in the form of a gutter, and then run that down into the backyard," he said.

Commissioners pressed for exact dimensions, a property survey and confirmation that the change would not increase impervious coverage beyond zoning limits. Commissioner 12 and others said a survey and percent-coverage calculations should be required before permits are issued. Commissioner 12 summarized the board’s intent for the carport: approval would be "subject to the survey, verification, and building permits being issued."

On the carport side-yard request the board approved a motion for conditional approval. The motion—made with conditions that the applicant provide a recorded survey, verify carport dimensions (discussed at roughly 9–10 feet wide by about 22–25 feet long), increase green space (removal of the old slab before construction), and route drainage to the backyard rather than onto neighbors—was moved by a commissioner and seconded; the transcript records the vote and the chair announcing, "Motion carries."

The separate variance for a hot tub (a one-foot side-yard setback where five feet is required) was discussed as tied to the same survey and conditions; commissioners indicated those conditions should apply. The transcript does not include a separate roll-call showing individual yes/no votes for that hot-tub item, but commissioners discussed treating the items together and applying the same contingencies.

The applicant’s request for an 8-foot fence where 6 feet is allowed drew more divided comment. Some commissioners noted a nearby existing 8-foot fence and the applicant’s strong neighbor support; others warned about establishing precedent for taller fences. After a motion and second, the roll call produced aye responses and then three recorded 'no' responses. The chair said the motion "does not pass" and explained a four-vote threshold was required for approval; the board denied the 8-foot fence variance.

The board urged the applicant to secure a professional survey and return with the precise dimensions and permeable-surface calculations before final permitting. Funk told the board he would obtain the requested survey and provide the required dimensions and percentage calculations for permeability.

The board’s action allows the applicant to proceed with the carport and hot tub requests only after the conditions are met; the fence request was denied.