Loading...
08-21-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21,2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel&Ellen Nichols 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 and 19 Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners, LLC 2. RE-AFFIRM VOTE Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35 Area Variance No.40-2013 Dawn Sweet 4. Tax Map No. 309.7-2-26 Area Variance No.41-2013 C. Christopher Mackey 10. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-6 Area Variance No.44-2013 Lawrence&Frances Eichler 18. Tax Map No. 278.00-1-57 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21,2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL RICHARD GARRAND HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to tonight's meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Queensbury. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, on the back table there is a brief explanation on a piece of paper of how the process here works. It is quite simple. I will go through some administrative things, housekeeping things. We'll call to order any Old Business, followed by New Business, and for each application that we bring to the table, we'll ask the applicants to sit here and we'll read the application into the record. We'll ask the applicant questions. We'll then take comment from Board members, followed by a public hearing when public hearing is noticed, and then we'll take the application from there, whether or not we vote on it or we vote on it or we table it. So without any further delay. We'll start this meeting this evening, and we do have some administrative things to take care of first, which is the approval of the June 19th meeting minutes. Can I have a motion? KATHLEEN SONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND-Point of order. I filed an appeal on Monday and have not heard any response. That appeal was against the Zoning Administrator's determination that a public hearing did not need to be re-opened,and no one has responded to that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and for the record,your name is Mrs. Sonnabend? MRS. SONNABEND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. I've been advised by Counsel that there is no ability to hear your appeal. There was no decision made by the Zoning Administrator, and the item that we have on tonight's agenda is strictly an administrative matter. MRS. SONNABEND-Even though there's been new information. MR.JACKOSKI-There is no new information. MRS. SONNABEND-Back in December, I put it out there. MR.JACKOSKI-Mrs. Sonnabend,we heard all that information at the last meeting. MRS. SONNABEND-You didn't hear what the Town came out with after your last decision. MR.JACKOSKI-Well, Mrs. Sonnabend,unfortunately, administratively, I have. MRS. HUNT-Maybe you could read that in. MR.JACKOSKI-No, actually I'm not going to address this project at this time. I am going to deal with the meeting minutes,please. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 19, 2013 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2013, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2013,by the following vote: MS. HEMINGWAY-Joyce,you were absent at that meeting. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS REQUEST FOR FURTHER TABLING TO SEPTEMBER 25,2013 MR. JACKOSKI-The next item tonight is the continuing delay and postponement of the Nichols project for the Blue Moose Tavern at the corner of Glen Lake Road and Route 9, and the applicant has asked that we table this application to October 23rd. If we do do a motion, I would request that in the motion we note that this is the last time that this application will be tabled by this Board. Can I have a motion,please? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: To the October 23, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. This is the last time it will be tabled. Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2013,by the following vote: MR. FREER-It says the 25th on this. MR.JACKOSKI-All right, Staff,you told me 23rd. MRS.MOORE-It is the 23rd. I apologize. That was September 25th. Now it's tabled to October 23rd. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. HUNT-Should I mention,and this is the last time it will be tabled? MR.JACKOSKI-Staff,we're okay to do that,correct? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean it's been a long time. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC RE-AFFIRM VOTE UPON RECEIPT OF WARREN COUNTY PLANNING RECOMMENDATION MR.JACKOSKI-Lastly,administratively,we do have the item concerning Queensbury Partners. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Chairman. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, Mr. Salvador MR. SALVADOR-There is no provision in the Town Law or in the Town Code Chapter 179 for the ZBA to re-affirm previously determined ZBA matters. That matter currently was a nullity, and there's no way that you can re-affirm a nullity. I think you need a new hearing on this matter. It 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) states in the program here is the reason for the re-vote, the re-affirmation is the Planning Board recommendation had not been received; the Warren County Planning Board recommendation had not been received. There are other matters that have come to light since then with regard to that. Recognize that what you have received from Warren County in the meantime is not the Warren County Planning Board determination, recommendation. It is something that comes from Warren County Planning, whatever that is. In any case, I think this matter of the re-affirmation should be discontinued tonight and you should have a new hearing on this matter. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Would Staff like to add anything to that at this time? MRS. MOORE-Just to explain that a memo that was dated back in February 14 of 2011,there was an opinion that indicated the County may be a local law assigned review and proposed zoning and planning actions incurred by a municipal body to its Planning Department. So there was an opinion letter. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Mr. Salvador, we have talked to Counsel about this. Counsel has advised us to proceed as we are going to proceed this evening. That is from Town Counsel and I must adhere to my Counsel's opinions. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. I'm just making a point that a reaffirmation of a previous decision that was obviously a nullification is not in order. That's not provided. There's no method in Town Law or in your Zoning Ordinance to provide for this. What do you do,just pull it out of the air? MR. JACKOSKI-But there's also nothing in the Zoning Ordinance, if I'm correct, saying that we can't do this. Correct? MR. SALVADOR-That you can't what? MR.JACKOSKI-That we can't do this. MR. SALVADOR-You can re-hear it. You can't re-affirm it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. We've heard your statements. MR. SALVADOR-Re-hearing includes a public notice and a public hearing. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that, and there is no public hearing scheduled for this evening. There has been no public hearing advertised for this evening, and we are not going to have a public hearing on this matter this evening. Staff,is there anything else you want to add at this time? MRS.MOORE-No. You may wish to read the Staff Notes. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, this is an Administrative matter. I believe that we can simply go into the motion that's been provided by Counsel to us and move accordingly. Rick, could I have a motion, please. MR. GARRAND-Certainly. MOTION BY RICHARD GARRAND TO REAFFIRM THE VOTE TAKEN ON JULY 24, 2013 FOR OUEENSBURY PARTNERS,LLC AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SECONDED BY RONALD KUHL, Upon referral to and receipt of a recommendation from the Warren County Planning Office which provides a finding of No County Impact, I move to reaffirm the vote taken by the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for the Queensbury Partners Area Variance file number AV 61-2011. Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2013 by the following vote: MR. URRICO-Could I ask for some clarification? I know this is a tough matter, but what are we reaffirming? MR.JACKOSKI-We are doing nothing more than reaffirming the way we each voted. MR.URRICO-That the vote was taken? MR.JACKOSKI-And the way each of us voted. Yes. That's correct. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, Kyle Noonan was here that evening. I would think that Harrison should abstain from the vote. MR. FREER-That was my intent as well. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,sir. Thank you. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NOES ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2013 SEQR TYPE II DAWN SWEET OWNER(S) DAWN SWEET ZONING NR LOCATION 44 MALLORY AVENUE APPLICANT HAS CONVERTED A SINGLE- FAMILY INTO A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY/LOT REQUIREMENTS FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2009-281 DECK; BP 2007-535 PERC TEST; BP 2007-621 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2013 LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.7-2-26 SECTION 179- 3-040 DAWN SWEET, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2013, Dawn Sweet, Meeting Date: August 21, 2013 "Project Location: 40 Mallory Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has converted a single-family into a two-family dwelling on a parcel in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from the following section of code 179-3-040 NR zone specifically for the density and lot size requirement: Density -due to not on town Lot size -due to not on town sewer and water sewer and water Required/Allowed 1 unit Required 0.5 acres Proposed 2 units Proposed 0.43 acre Relief 1 unit Relief 0.07 acre Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the location of the property being in the Neighborhood Residential zone which allows duplex units. The units are connected to a septic system and Town water where the code requirement is for connection to both Town sewer and water. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code where 1 unit is allowed for the existing lot size. The relief requested for lot size may be considered minimal relevant to the code. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 09-281: Deck BP 07-535: Perc Test BP 07-621: Single family dwelling Staff comments: The applicant requests approval of an already converted single family dwelling to a two-family unit. The information submitted shows the conversion where upstairs is one unit with 2 bedrooms and the downstairs is the second unit with one bedroom. The applicant has indicated both units have separate entrances and the driveway has room for each of the units. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MS. SWEET-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a pretty straightforward application. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time or would you simply like Board members to ask you questions? MS. SWEET-Well, I would like to say that when I built my house in 2007 I was living by myself, and then about 18 months ago my daughter and her family fell on some very hard economic times. So I let them move in, and I'm helping them as much as I can, and so I decided to finish my basement for some refuge, and that's pretty much where I am. I did not know that I needed a variance. I apologize for that. I have no excuse, really. I just didn't know. I put a kitchenette in there. That's the issue before you. I would like to ask the Board to grant me a variance. I do believe my daughter and her family will be staying quite a long time, and I would like to be able to have that respite. If you can do that, I would appreciate it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this time are there any questions from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Are there separate utilities,separate electrical? MS. SWEET-No, I pay everything. No,it's just me. MR. HENKEL-So you're really not going to make it a two family per se. MS. SWEET-No. MR. GARRAND-Is there adequate egress from the basement for purposes of Fire Code? MS. SWEET-Dave Hatin and I are working on that one window now. MR.JACKOSKI-So I suspect that one of your windows is simply too small to be considered egress. MS. SWEET-Yes. It's going to get done in two weeks,yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And so they technically would not issue you a Certificate of Occupancy for the second part of the two family home until that happens? MS. SWEET-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Now is the septic system proposed,is this going to be changed or no? MS. SWEET-No,it's pretty big, I guess. It was adequate. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Because it shows here three spurs of 55 feet. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MS. SWEET-If that's what's there. MR. HENKEL-Because this could almost be considered a five bedroom because we've got two offices. MS. SWEET-Well, my daughter is a college student,and she has one upstairs, and I work from home 90%of the time. So have to have space. There's three of us living in the home. MR. FREER-So is the entrance to the basement apartment or the first,on the side of the house? MS. SWEET-The rear. MR. FREER-And the rear? MS. SWEET-In the rear. MR. FREER-And what's on the side? MS. SWEET-The house,to the house. MR. FREER-Okay. So there's two entrances to the upstairs part,one to the side and one in front? MS. SWEET-There's two to the basement as well,but,yes. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. GARRAND-What happens when they move out? MS. SWEET-Nothing. I go upstairs. MR. HENKEL-Because actually you're really not asking for a two family if you're not changing it to a two family dwelling. MS. SWEET-I'm not. MR. HENKEL-You're not going to have separate utilities. MS. SWEET-No. It's a technical thing. No, I'm not ever going to do that. MR. HENKEL-You're just converting living space into a basement,basically. MS. SWEET-Right. I don't rent my house,and I never plan on renting my house. MR. HENKEL-Thank you. MS. SWEET-Never. MR. KUHL-Staff, down State we call this a mother/daughter. I mean, is that technically what, I mean,we have no classification up here. Do we? MRS.M00 RE-Neighborhood Residential does allow for duplex. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS.MOORE-So their only deficiency is like.07 of a percent. They're only lacking (lost words). MR. KUHL-But if we approve this as a two, are we going to make her,then,get separate utilities and add more cost to this? MRS.MOORE-I believe that's a separate issue that's handled by Building and Codes. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,a landlord can provide utilities, I believe. MR. HENKEL-That's what I'm saying. Why call it a two family. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Well, it's my understanding that it's a two family because there's, I mean,technically it is a kitchenette. I mean, we all know, who hasn't finished off their basement. I'm sure there's people in the audience who've finished off their basements and the Town's not supposed to know about it. Right? MR. HENKEL:-You can finish off a basement but you can't touch the cellar. That's how it goes. MR.JACKOSKI-And this is a tough one. I think we all are in agreement we don't agree that it's a two family,but that's what it's going to be classified. Any further comments from Board members? MR. FREER-Did we get any, next question is comments, public comments. Has there been any public comments? MR. JACKOSKI-None, I haven't opened it up yet. Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing for this application. Roy,have there been any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "Honorable officials,As a neighborhood resident who received the public hearing notice, I am writing to state my strong objection to 44 Mallory Avenue, Queensbury, NY being given a variance to be a 2 family home. Records show that this house is on a narrow lot and has a septic tank which is already two strikes against it. While driving by it appears there are already many cars parked at this property,which has no garage nor no true driveway. The cars are parked on crushed stone right tight on the neighbor's property. After searching public records I have found that there has been some recent trouble at this house - that an individual was recently cited for illegal shootings on this property. As parents of young children,this sort of activity bothers us very much. A 2-family house with renters is traditionally not as stable nor as safe as a single family home. This area is a very nice 1-family community. We recently bought into this neighborhood specifically due to the 1-family designation. We abide by all Queensbury laws and regulations,we get permits when we have work done and we expect our neighbors to also. When neighbors blatantly break the law, by converting a one family residence in a one family neighborhood to a two family we don't expect Queensbury officials to give them a pass for doing something illegal. We expect that our town officials will do the right thing and deny this request and make them convert this back to a single family residence, as code calls for. All of the honest tax payers in this neighborhood will greatly suffer if you allow this. Allowing a 2-family designation will lower all of our property values causing all of us to all lose much money on the value of all of our homes. And it will most likely see more problems at this property as renters come and go. I cannot state any stronger my opposition to this. I ask you to deny this request and make t hem return the property to a 1-family residence, which public tax records show the current owner built this as. Please do the right thing. Do not set a precedent for law breakers; instead protect the investments of honest citizens. Thank you." But I don't see it signed. MS. SWEET-May I address that? MR.JACKOSKI-Not yet,if you don't mind. Let us get through public hearing. Then we'll come back. MR.URRICO-I don't see any signature on this. So it's just anonymous. MR. JACKOSKI-So regarding this particular public comment, I should note that we, as a Board, should take note that it wasn't signed by any particular neighbor,that there is no return address on the envelope,but we did receive it, so we feel it's necessary to read it into the record,but I think it's important that we don't know whether or not this party who wrote this even lives in the neighborhood,but they say do,but we just don't know. Is there any other public written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I will leave the public hearing open temporarily, and I will just state that I think it's important that we take into consideration as a Board public comment as it may relate to the neighborhood characteristics changing, but I, myself, as a Board member here this evening, this isn't truly a single family neighborhood, as Staff has pointed out to us,that duplexes are allowed in the neighborhood. Correct, Staff? MRS.MOORE-Correct. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I can't substantiate any kind of quote unquote trouble in the neighborhood. So I certainly heard it,but I won't take it any farther than that. Okay. So would you like to comment on the public information? MS. SWEET-Because there's no signature, I really can't say where that came from, but I can tell you that there was much trouble at my home for about a week, until my son-in-law was evicted due to abuse. MR.JACKOSKI-You don't have to get into that level of detail with us. MS. SWEET-I understand. I just want to say that he contacted every public official about anything that ever went on,and yes,that is probably where that came from. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any further comments from Board members? MR. URRICO-I'd just like to verify from Staff. Duplexes are allowed in this neighborhood,but do we know how many currently exist in that neighborhood? MS. SWEET-There's two. MRS.MOORE-I don't know. MR. HENKEL-On that street there's two? MS. SWEET-Well, I thought it was on Mallory Extension, but actually I drove by there tonight. It's on Sunset,the next street over. MR. HENKEL-Because I rode that, I didn't see any. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'd like to poll the Board at this time before I close the public hearing, and while Staff is looking up the,if she can find any additional information. MS. SWEET-Sunset. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy, I'll start with you. MR.URRICO-Yes. As Ron stated earlier,downstate we refer to this as a mother-in-law apartment or something along those lines, and to me this is closer to that than a true duplex, but that being the case, even if it were a duplex, if the neighborhood zoning already allows for it, then I think we're okay with that. I don't think the changes are going to be that serious. I really would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have to agree with Mr.Urrico. I have no problems with this. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce,thank you,no problem. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I don't have any problem with it also. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm looking at the balancing test, and I'm kind of wondering undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties. I'm wondering if traffic is, traffic and the amount of cars in the driveway would be against it. Whether it's substantial? No. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects? It might tax the sewage capacity. Is it self-created? Yes. On the balancing test, I don't think it passes on the balancing test. Normally I think I'd be in favor of it. On the balancing test, I'd have to say no. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'll hold you to your word, what you said was that if your children move out, you're not going to rent it. MS. SWEET-No. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. KUHL-I'll hold you to your word. Based on that, I'll approve this,but in reality,you've got to be conscious of what's going on around you. MS. SWEET-I understand. MR. KUHL-I understand it's the parents' responsibility to pick up their children. I, on the other hand, put a one way sign in my driveway. I invite them back for Sunday dinner,but I've never been put in your situation. I don't know it, but based on what you're saying and your honesty, I will approve it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I rode by there today; I didn't see any other houses that weren't single family houses on that street. I agree with the danger of us approving a two family housing and then the next thing we know we're being criticized for the property values in the neighborhood and changing the complexity of the neighborhood. So I don't support it. I wish there was a way that we could call it a mother-in-law suite, but going the whole route of a two family house designation doesn't feel good to me. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. Okay. So I'll address some things that Rick brought up, because I think they're important. If this didn't have the kitchenette in it and this family chose to live as all of one,so to speak, and share a kitchen,they'd have this many cars in the driveway,they'd have this many people using the septic system,they'd have this many people sleeping in the various bedrooms. So I don't see that that is a technicality. I agree with Ron that I'm concerned about it becoming a two family. I wonder if the motion could state that when it is no longer occupied by family members that it is no longer a two family home. Would you even be willing to do that? MS. SWEET-Absolutely. Yes. No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-So is that possible, Staff? I know it makes it difficult, but if neighbors, later on, want to raise an issue about it, it's certainly there noted that it was never approved for anything but family. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Garrand brings up a good point. It can be confirmed with counsel how that should be worded. MR. GARRAND-No, I was just saying it's related to the variance requested. So we can add that as a condition. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-And I think Staff would certainly work with the applicant to,but I think our intent is well understood. Is it possible that the Board would be willing to do that? MR.URRICO-Yes. It seems kind of unenforceable,though. MR. JACKOSKI-It may be, but it allows the neighborhood to actually file a complaint and move forward. Okay. I am going to close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And could I have a motion,please. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2013 DAWN SWEET, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 44 Mallory Avenue. The applicant has converted a single family into a two family dwelling on a parcel in the Neighborhood Residential zone. They are allowed one unit. The proposal is for two units. The lot size is required to be half an acre. It is 0.43 acres with a deficit of 0.07 acres. In making this motion, I'd also like to add that the applicant has agreed that once these family members do move out, it will revert back to a single family home. Now, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. The applicant can't very well make the lot 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) bigger and make that aspect of it compliant. Will this produce undesirable change to the character of nearby properties? I think the applicant has agreed to mitigate that by allowing it to revert back to a single family home. The neighbors won't have to worry about a constant stream of different tenants coming in and out. is it substantial? Not by any means. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects? Honestly that might depend on how long the kids are there. Is this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 40-2013. Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck with everything, and Staff will follow up with you and with the requirements. Okay. MS. SWEET-Yes. Thanks. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2013 SEQRA TYPE II C. CHRISTOPHER MACKEY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE; J. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) CHARLES MACKEY ZONING WR LOCATION 15 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,600 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE EXISTING DWELLING WHICH WILL RESULT IN A 4- BEDROOM HOME. PROPOSAL INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD FLOOR AND NEW ENTRY WAY TO HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A WR ZONING DISTRICT. SP 44-2013; SP 22-2011; SP 24-2003; SP 46-99; AV 4-2003; AV 5-2003;AV 78-1999; BP 2004- 546 2-CAR ATT. GARAGE; BP 2003-980 BOATHOUSE; BP 2000-257 PARTIAL DEMO OF HOUSE; BP 2000-258 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 99-611 RESURF. DOCK; BP 2000-256 ALT. & ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.31 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-6 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 JON LAPPER&DENNIS MACELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2013, C. Christopher Mackey, Meeting Date: August 21, 2013 "Project Location: 15 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,600 sq. ft. residential addition to the existing dwelling which will result in a four (4) bedroom home. Proposal includes construction of a third floor and new entryway to home. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from the following section of code 179-3-040 WR zone and 179-13-10 Continuation specifically for the shoreline setback and continuation related to shoreline requirement: Shoreline setback-addition Continuation-related to shoreline Required 75 ft. Required No increase or expansion can violate or increase non conformity Proposed 17 ft. Proposed Addition does not meet required shoreline setback Relief 58 ft. Relief Proposed addition 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 as 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) the proposal is an addition to an existing structure that currently does not meet the required shoreline setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code however the addition is to an existing building and minimal disturbance is limited to the structure and an area accessing the home. 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 22-11: Addition of 2 terraced areas adjacent to sfd -hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline 3 22-11 SP 24-03: Convert boathouse to boathouse/sundeck with stairs Modification-1-20-04 SP 24-03: Covered Boathouse Approved 5-20-03 AV 5-03: 696 sq. ft. storage building. Relief- maximum allowable accessory structure requirement 1-22-03 AV 4-03: 190.7 sq. ft. addition to existing L-shaped to create an F-shaped dock, relief from maximum dock surface area 1-22-03 SP 46-99M: Eliminate garage/storage structure & connecting foyer; add detached garage located as an extension of the parking pod previously approved and a covered porch 2-28-00 SP 46-99: Addition/alteration to existing residence. Expansion of non-conforming structure 9-23- 99 AV 78-99: See 46-99 Approved 8-23-99 Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 1,600 sq. ft. addition to an existing structure where the addition will not meet the required shoreline setback. The applicant has indicated the addition is for a 3rd story that includes a new entryway to the home and the height will be no higher than 28 ft. The plans show the addition and existing structure, elevations and lot layout. The project is subject to site plan review for expansion of a non-conforming structure in a critical environmental area. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-Also, from Queensbury Planning Board,we have a motion,based on its limited review, that they didn't identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. At least one member is keenly aware and concerned about the addition/modifications to a pre-existing structure within five feet of the lake. And this was approved unanimously with one abstention. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. It's a pretty straightforward project,but if you feel you'd like to address the Board and add anything, please feel free to do so, and identify yourself for the record. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. For the record,Jon Lapper, Dennis MacElroy and Chris Mackey. On its face, this is a building that's very close to the lake. So it seems like substantial relief, but we'd like to explain why what is proposed here was really carefully thought out and the minimum that could be done to achieve the goal. I know you would have all gone to the site before tonight's meeting, and the area where you park in the driveway and then have to go down the steps into the house, this is a year round house for Chris and has been for the last 12 years. It's not great in the summer and it's really bad in the winter. So one of the main goals here is to have an entranceway that is at grade, at the grade of that driveway area, and as the application stated, the height that is proposed is 28 feet. So we're not seeking height variances. This is just as high as you're allowed to have, although granted this was a pre-existing structure that's close to the lake than can be built now. Chris sought approval to renovate the structure when he bought it in 1999, and created what's there now. In terms of the visual impact, because of being close to the lake, some of the mitigating factors are that you have the boathouse that is in between the, you know, if you're looking at this from the lake, which is really the only receptor, if you're looking at the boathouse, there's also some substantial trees right along the shoreline between the house and the property, but most importantly, except for that entranceway that has to be built between the driveway and 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) the house, everything else is being built on the footprint, and is actually being built farther back. The application stated that it was, the closest point of the house is five feet to the lake, but the closest point of this top floor addition will be 17 feet from the lake. So it's pushed back. It's set back farther than the structure is now, and in terms of stormwater and impervious surfaces, everything that's being built, except for that 300 odd square feet of disturbance for that new entranceway, everything is being built on the existing structure, and that's why I argued that this was designed to minimize the impact. In terms of the visual impact, I think that this picture is very telling. This is the view that I'm sure you all saw when you come down the driveway; you can see the drive, the garage,plus the existing house. The area of the house with the windows is already on that top floor. So that would be replaced by what's here. So there's already some structure at that height, and what you're really blocking by the structure is just the view of the garage, because if you're looking at this thing from a couple hundred feet out in the lake, what you see is the house with the garage up above it. So all you're really doing is blocking the view of the garage for the most part here. So it's really not a visual change from what's there now. Dennis did design stormwater facilities to just address the 300 square feet, the only impervious surfaces that are being changed as part of this project, and the house was already designed. The septic system is compliant. It all pumps way up the hill. It's a 1.3 acre site. So we're not talking about a floor area variance. We could accommodate a much larger house on this site, albeit it 75 feet back, and if somebody were to do that, which of course is not the plan, based upon the investment in the site now, but if somebody were to do that, you could have a much more visible house that would be farther from the lake,but you would see it because it would be up on the hill. So the goal is to make this more livable, but to stay within the confines of what's there now, and the reason for the variance is just that this house was built back when people were building houses along the lake. We were at the Planning Board last night. There were five members and five were very supportive of it after we had a thorough discussion, and one was talking about the fact that maybe it could all be re-located,but I don't think that's realistic here based upon what's there. So that's the general discussion. I'd like to have Dennis walk you through the specifics and then Chris is here to answer any questions as well. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you,Jon. What you have in your packet is Sheet V-1,the variance plan, and on that shows the proposed conditions. Also within the drawing is a survey which shows the existing conditions. So back to V-1 is this heavy line,the outline is the hatched area is the proposed addition, and that falls, as Jon indicated, within the footprint, for the most part, of the existing structure. To the rear or to the roadside there is the area of the proposed entry, which is an approximate 325 square foot area that is new impervious. That, in itself, does not trigger stormwater management. It's not; it's an exempt project in terms of stormwater management. These are site plan issues, but I'll just note that we are providing, and have provided on the design packet that's gone for site plan review, stormwater management devices for that additional area, just as the rest of the property has stormwater management. So that's not really an issue. If you've seen the property, it is a well maintained, well landscaped property, and I think that the owner's desire to expand the living space and to provide easier access to the structure is at the root of this. It's a pre-existing,lawful nonconforming structure, and that's what he got into when he bought this property,and everything else that goes along with that. Hence,we're here for this request. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to add, or should we just open it up for Board member comments? MR. LAPPER-Chris would like to make some comments. CHRIS MACKEY MR. MACKEY-I think most significant is the fact that I do live at this residence with my teenage son year round and the access. When I built the house, and I was 38 years old, didn't really seem like it was such a big deal, but as you age and you begin dealing with the stairs and the snow and the ice, and you have a few guests that slip and fall over the years, I'm not getting any younger, and I am also getting married and my fiance will be moving into the home with me, and it just seems like the right thing to do,particularly from an access perspective,to change the entry into the home. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions, at this time, from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-So you're saying the original house only had two bedrooms, and now you're adding two more? MR. LAPPER-No,there's three existing now. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you're going to put new one bedroom in the new? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MACKEY-When I bought the house, there were four bedrooms, two on the main level and two on what I'll call the lower level or basement, and when the house was renovated, it went from four to three,and we're adding one. MR. HENKEL-The septic system,obviously,is designed for four bedrooms? MR. MACKEY-Yes. MR. HENKEL-It's very nicely maintained,there's no doubt. It looks nice. MR. FREER-And what year was the house built do you know? MR. LAPPER-Originally? MR. MACKEY-I think it was either'51 or'54. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. GARRAND-When was the second garage built? MR. LAPPER-It's in the Staff Notes. 2004. MR. MACKEY-'03. MR. HENKEL-Is that considered the storage building? MR. MACKEY-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-But it's now a garage? MR. MACKEY-It's a storage building. MR. HENKEL-I didn't see any cars in there. Cars were parked down by the house, in the garage there,but probably in the wintertime that would be a good place to park them. MR. MACKEY-The problem is that most of it, if you look at the ramp,you can't even get a car on the left hand side. If you looked in there right now you'd see there's no room for any cars. MR. GARRAND-Yes,your drawing area doesn't list it as storage area. It lists it as garage. MR. MAC ELROY-The choice of words that the surveyors made when they described it. It certainly looks like a garage,but it was approved and is used as a storage building. MR. LAPPER-No,but that's a good point. The survey is wrong. It shouldn't say garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further Board comments before we open up the public hearing? Okay. I'd like to open up the public hearing at this time. Roy,is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. Additional information should be provided to determine mitigation of potential adverse impacts to the environment from the proposed project, specifically the capacity of the onsite wastewater treatment system. Furthermore, the Zoning Board should view the project as an opportunity for water quality improvements for the significant impervious cover within the shoreline setback. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-080 Criteria for Granting an Area Variance and §179-14-050 Imposition of Conditions, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. It is unable to determine the mitigation of potential negative impacts to the environment based on the submitted application materials. The application states that the onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) is adequately sized for a 4 bedroom house and can accommodate the 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) additional bedroom proposed. The Zoning Board should be aware that the applicant received Planning Board approval for an outdoor spa in March 2011 and a condition of that approval was to connect the discharge of the spa to the septic system. (Copy of the approval motion is attached) It should be noted this connection is not shown on the submitted site plan and compliance with previous conditions of approval should be verified. In addition, it should be determined if the OWTS has adequate capacity for the 4 bedrooms and the outdoor spa without hydraulic overload to the system. This information is necessary for the Board to make a determination regarding the potential environmental impacts of the current variance application. Finally, no information is provided regarding stormwater management for impervious surfaces, which many are located within the shoreline setback. The Zoning Board of Appeals should condition this application to mitigate existing impacts to the lake by requiring stormwater management for all impervious surfaces. In closing, the Lake George Waterkeeper recommends the Zoning Board of Appeals table the application pending the submission of additional information including: 1) Compliance with March 2011 Planning Board Site Plan Review conditions of approval; 2) Certification of hydraulic capacity of OWTS for a 4 bedroom house and the outdoor spa; and, 3) Requirement of management of stormwater runoff from all impervious surfaces. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper" And the second letter is, "We are neighbors of Chris Mackey to the south and we are very familiar with the existing property and have reviewed his proposed addition which is the subject of the variance application. We fully support approval of this application as it will do nothing but enhance the property appearance. David R.White" I don't see the address here, but. MR.JACKOSKI-But he's on Wild Turkey as well. Correct? MR.URRICO-Yes. MR. MAC ELROY-Rocky Shore. MR. JACKOSKI-Is it Rocky Shore? That's all the written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board regarding this particular application? Seeing no one, I will leave the public hearing open, and if counsel could maybe just address some of the Water Keeper's comments. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I'd point out, first, that that's a very benign letter for Chris, compared to what I usually see,some technical issues. Those are all really site plan issues,but the simple answer is that the hot tub gets drained once a year at the end of the season. It's 400 gallons. So that wouldn't have to accommodate, you wouldn't size your septic system larger for that. It was connected to the system as required. Chris just wasn't, didn't see that. Dennis included in the packet, at least for the Planning Board, I don't know if that went to the Zoning Board, an analysis to verify that it is a four bedroom system that was constructed way away from the lake, when the renovation happened. So that's all set, and as Dennis also said, even though this project is exempt from the stormwater regulations, he has provided stormwater infiltration devices for the new impervious surfaces, and there are a whole host of existing stormwater devices on the site for the existing house. So, you know, this is not going to create any stormwater issue, and I hope you'll see that, in terms of the visual issue, even though it's close to the lake, just because it's being built on top of the existing house with the trees,with the garage behind it,the boathouse in front,that this really is not going to be a burden on the neighborhood, and really just the best way to fix that access issue and add a master bedroom, but still keeping it under 28 feet, certainly not the case of somebody trying to build a huge house on the lake. Still a very modest plan on a good sized lot. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Counselor, do you have any information on the stormwater that's being implemented here,because I didn't get anything in my packet on it. MR. LAPPER-You mean about? MR. GARRAND-Additional stormwater controls for this expansion. MR. MAC ELROY-It's included as part of the site plan application. There's additional area to the rear,the entry area,which is the new impervious. We've got infiltration trenches in that area, along with the relocation of the existing vegetation that is currently in that area would be removed to accommodate the new structure but then replanted in that area. So that all is addressed. It's a site plan issue. It's included,certainly,as part of that application,and. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. GARRAND-Yes, part of our task is unwanted environmental impacts, and that's what I'd like to get covered here, and,yes, the Water Keeper did make some interesting points here. I mean, it is a big lot, but the grade on this lot is tremendous. You've got a 26 foot difference between the house and where the septic system is alone. It's quite a bit downhill. MR. LAPPER-That's not a bad thing because the septic gets pumped all the way away from the lake. MR. GARRAND-Yes, it's a good location for the septic. I'm just concerned about the grades down here. I've been down here four seasons, winter, spring, summer, and fall, and,you know, I've been down here in rainstorms,too,and seen the effects down there. MR. LAPPER-And that's why just building on to the roof doesn't change what's there now, but Dennis,could you describe some of the existing stormwater facilities that are on the site? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, there are infiltration trenches. There are vegetated berms and areas of vegetation to accommodate. MR. LAPPER-Along the lake. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, along the lake, along the sides of the property as well, and when this project was originally renovated, when this house was originally renovated in a 1999 or 2000 application, there were stormwater management controls provided within that design. Those were implemented within the construction. When this 2011 terrace project to the west side of the property was proposed and approved and two years ago there were, again, it didn't rise to the level of a minor project. It technically was an exempt project, but there is a rain garden that's provided, as far as that stormwater management. While, again, regulation wise it might not have been required, the applicant obviously wanted it and included that within the project, and if you were able to see that part of the project, there is new impervious, obviously, within the terrace area, but there's a rain garden with the plantings below that that is meant to accommodate that. So I think the applicant is conscientious. You just have to look at the property and see that it's properly maintained and well vegetated. MR. GARRAND-I think what the Water Keeper was probably looking for was more vegetation, something. MR. JACKOSKI-How much more, I mean, if I look at the plans, if you're out in a boat and you look at this property, they've got some great trees along that shoreline. I mean, this property isn't one of those long stretching green lawns that we are so,that we see so frequently here. MR. MAC ELROY-I think Chris' comments, he's maybe a little premature in his letter because these are typically site plan issues that are addressed at,in the site plan application. He doesn't get access to that application because it's not scheduled, hopefully it'll be in the September or subsequent month's agenda,but he doesn't have access to it,so he poses the question. MR. GARRAND-So you're saying he posed the question sight unseen or? MR. LAPPER-Because we're not on an agenda, he didn't get to see the, I don't know if that's right or wrong, but that's just how it works. So he looked at the, just like your question, Rick, about the stormwater. That's all on the site plan application for the Planning Board, but it's not all on your application. So Chris only looked at your application which doesn't address stormwater issues. MR. MAC ELROY-If an application hasn't made an agenda,then it's not available for. MRS. MOORE-I'll have to confirm that, but agendas indicated, in reference to the Planning Board level,to seek a recommendation,it was on an agenda for that. MR. MAC ELROY-He told me that once, Chris, I believe, that was his response when I said, well, these were site plan issues, I don't get to see that until it's on an agenda. MRS. MOORE-That information is available, once they see an agenda available on a certain application,anybody can come and review that file. MR. JACKOSKI-So does the applicant; just let us digress for a moment. If the applicant has to come to us,are you saying that their site plan application is already in as well? MRS.MOORE-Yes. 1s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-It has to be in. MR. LAPPER-Because of the recommendation. MR. KUHL-Yes,but your site plan V-1 drawing is different than we have. MR. MAC ELROY-That's a variance plan. The site plan is S-1. Yes. To make a point. MR. GARRAND-It sure would be nice to have that information,wouldn't it? MR. LAPPER-Here's the S plan and here's the V plan. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,well,look it, folks,we're not site plan,we're not Planning Board. So we've got to try to stay focused. MR. LAPPER-We want to let you know that it's there. MR.JACKOSKI-No,and I think that's on the record that you've identified that it's there. MR. MAC ELROY-Let I just make a point about that, if I can get on my soapbox just a little bit. That creates a situation where an applicant, before he gets a variance, goes to the expense of developing a site plan to do this process. MR. LAPPER-For the recommendation. MR. MAC ELROY-For the recommendation, right, and that's,you know,there's a certain uncertainty that that's, that the applicant has and bears that expense to be able to go through the process as it exists in Queensbury. Not necessarily criticizing that. I'm just making you aware that that's, you know,from an applicant's side,that's what they're faced with. MR. LAPPER-But getting back to where we are, and Rick's question. The stormwater is provided. It's just that it's on the plan before the Planning Board and not before you, which, you know, probably doesn't make sense. MR. URRICO-I think the Water Keeper's concern, at least the way I read it, is that he's concerned about the change in the environmental conditions in the area. That's where it becomes germane to what we're dealing with here tonight, and,you know,we're going by what you're saying rather than what we're seeing. MR. LAPPER-Yes,that's valid, and there is stormwater infiltration for the new, it's in the back of the house farthest from the lake where that entrance is, but it's on the other plan, so, I mean, it's certainly a legitimate comment, but in terms of, because we're building on a roof, or proposing to build on a roof, it really isn't, not much of a change here in terms of the environmental issues. That's already been infiltrated. MR. MAC ELROY-It's not even a jurisdictional. MR. LAPPER-Because it's such a small square footage of disturbance, but nevertheless Dennis designed it to try and do the right thing. This is just a difficult access to this house, and this'll really clean it up,you know,hopefully not impacting the environment and mostly at the back of the house and not as close to the lake as the front of the house already is now, and we really just don't think, because of how it's set into that lot, with the garage behind it, that it's going to be much of a visual change at all, and we certainly don't have neighbors who are up in arms about this. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members before I poll the Board? I'll poll the Board. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think you're doing a good job of adding on to your house. It gets a little upsetting from us when you already have drawings that you already paid for that we don't get to see to just speed this process along. I have no doubt, Dennis, that you have stormwater controls when you're doing it. You come here quite often. It's just kind of like, but anyway, I think you're doing a good job,and I'd be in favor of this. I have nothing against it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm in favor of the project. It looks great. Go for it. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I'm also in favor. I think it's a safety factor that's very important as you get older. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,going down the test, I see minor impacts to the neighborhood. I don't see much in the way of feasible alternatives, and although it seems substantial, I really don't think there's much change, really, in what was there before and what's there afterwards in terms of relief. I see minor impacts to the environment. I'm trusting that you've done the right thing here based on the design and what appears to be happening,and I think the difficulty was self-created,but on balance, I think I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-We're going to have to trust Mr. MacElroy that the proposed stormwater controls will mitigate any potential impacts on this. So I would like to echo Mr. Kuhl's comments. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Harrison? MR. FREER-I originally,when I looked at this,was sort of aghast at 17 feet, but I'm satisfied. I think you guys are doing the right thing. MR.JACKOSKI-Of course I say yes. So we're moving forward. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-Before you proceed, there's one legal issue I have to address. Because it's a shoreline variance, the APA gets to look at this, and the APA is practical difficulty. The old standard from 1991 that used to be yours before the balancing test. This comes up all the time in Bolton when they review a shoreline variance, or it used to happen five years ago where they would be slapping the Zoning Board because it didn't address practical difficulty. So, as part of the resolution,because this has to get submitted,APA,we don't need a variance from them,but they get to review,they get 30 days to review your variance because it's on the lake. Their standard for practical difficulty as it relates to this application, in my opinion, is because of that slope issue, because of the access issue, but I would appreciate that a resolution would just use those words,that there is a,recognizing that there is a practical difficulty because of the grade access into this site,still not 28 feet,but that there is a practical difficulty based upon the land itself, and that's just important so that it doesn't get bounced back to you from the APA. MR.JACKOSKI-Do we have to worry about County impact on this one? MR. LAPPER-It would have gone to the County. MR. GARRAND-We didn't get the County's rubber stamp. MR. LAPPER-Laura, there's a list of projects that don't go to the County now. Subdivisions don't go to the County anymore. MR. URRICO-It's already been to the County, and their Staff Notes say it appears that parts the existing structure is closer to the lake than the new floor. The issues here appear to be of a local nature involving local issues. Staff recommends a no county impact based on the information submitted according to the suggested review of the NYS General Municipal Law Section 239 L applied to the proposed project. MR. JACKOSKI-Just dotting our I's and crossing our T's. Thank you, Roy. Okay. I have closed the public hearing, and is anyone willing to make a motion on this project, given counsel's recommendation of what the wording should be? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2013 C. CHRISTOPHER MACKEY, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) 15 Wild Turkey Lane. The applicant proposes construction of a 1600 square foot residential addition to an existing dwelling which will result in a four bedroom home. Proposal includes construction of a third floor and a new entryway to the home. The relief required, 75 foot is what's required. Proposed is 17, and the relief is 58. Whether an undesirable change could be produced because of this, I think there'd be minor impacts in the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives are limited because the home is an existing structure and does not meet the required shoreline setback. The relief may be considered substantial, but considering part of the relief is for an overhang, and it's for safety reasons, I think that mitigates that area. There will be minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood and the difficulty may be considered self-created,but safety is a big factor there. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 41-2013. The application was approved due to the practical difficulty because of the grade on the site to address access to the home. Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2013,by the following vote: MR. FREER-I thought we were going to say practical difficulty of entering the property. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we can modify. Staff? MRS.MOORE-Practical difficulty because of the grade on the site to address access to the home. MR. GARRAND-For safety reasons. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the Zoning Board is going to modify Joyce's resolution just slightly to add what Staff just quoted back to us, that the application was approved due to the practical difficulty, etc. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. I appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2013 SEQRA TYPE II LAWRENCE & FRANCES EICHLER OWNER(S) LAWRENCE &FRANCES EICHLER ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1323 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 300 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION TO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2013-246 PORCH ADDITION; BP 99-602 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 99-434 OVERHEAD DOOR WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 8.45 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 278.00-1-57 SECTION 179-3-040 LARRY EICHLER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2013, Lawrence & Frances Eichler, Meeting Date: August 21, 2013 "Project Location: 1323 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 300 sq. ft. porch addition to single family dwelling which does not meet the front setback. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from the following section of code 179-3-040 RR-3A zone specifically for the front setback requirement: Front Required 100 ft. Proposed 80 ft. Relief 20 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited because the house has been constructed in area that already does not meet the front setback. The RPS data indicates the original structure was constructed in 1875. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal. 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 attributed to the pre- existing location of the home and the 2009 zoning change. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 13-246: Porch addition BP 99-602: Septic alteration BP 99-434: Overhead door Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct 300 sq. ft. screen porch addition to an existing garage and attached covered porch. The applicant has indicated the entire house is within the 100 ft. setback and there is no other location that the addition could be located without needing a variance. The information submitted shows the addition,the layout of the existing home,and photos. SEQR Status: Type II MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If there's anything you'd like to add at this time, or it's a pretty simple application. MR. EICHLER-It's straightforward, really. Looking at that graphic there gives you an idea of what the problem is. All of the buildings on my property are within the 100 foot front setback line, and I've got another eight acres that have nothing. MR. GARRAND-I've got a couple of questions. MR. EICHLER-Sure,go ahead. MR. GARRAND-In the future, could this be converted into like living space? I mean, it looks like it's going to have a. MR. EICHLER-It's not in a spot where it would be likely to be, because it basically butts on an unheated garage,and a breezeway. It's not attached to a heated portion of the house. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Well, it just seems like at some point it might be nice to have additional living space off the back,maybe. MR. EICHLER-It's not proposed to have water or sewer. It's just a screened in porch. It's not even a three season. It's just going to be screened. It's not going to be (lost word). The breezeway is screened,that it adjoins to, and it abuts to a garage that's unheated and is not physically attached to the house other than through an open breezeway. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I will open the public hearing. Roy,is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "I wish to submit this letter in support of the variance application submitted by Lawrence and Frances Eichler seeking an area variance for construction of a minor addition to their residence. I regret that I cannot be present at the August 21st ZBA meeting, as I will be attending the Wilton Planning Board meeting as Counsel to that Board. This letter is obviously on behalf of myself individually and not as Queensbury Town Counsel or Counsel to the ZBA. The Eichlers seek to build an addition to the rear of their existing single-family residence. They reside at 1323 Bay Road and I reside at 1324 Bay Road, almost directly across the street. I am essentially the Eichlers' only neighbor, as we are both fortunate enough to have substantial amounts of wooded property between our houses and any others. I am the only neighbor who can see the Eichlers' house and even I will be unable to see the addition, as it will be completely screened from my view by the existing house. Simply stated, it is difficult to imagine any variance application for which the benefit to the applicant so clearly outweighs any potential detriment to the neighbors, neighborhood, or surrounding community and it seems clear that your balancing of the applicable criteria should result in approving this variance application. The addition will only serve to enhance this property and allow the Eichlers more enjoyment of their home. The Applicants' addition will literally not be visible to anyone else and I respectfully urge that their variance application be approved. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, Mark Schachner" MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you, Mark. Any other comment, Roy? MR.URRICO-No. MR.JACKOSKI-No other written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I am going to poll the Board quickly here,and I'll start with Joyce. MRS. HUNT-I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't see how benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. This proposal is for the back part of the house, and there's no feasible alternative for this gentleman. No undesirable change. It's minimal. No adverse impact. Is it self-created? He didn't build the house there. So it's not self-created. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I have no problem with it. Good luck. MR. EICHLER-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Town Counsel says it's good. I'm good. MR.JACKOSKI-As an individual, I might add. Ron? MR.URRICO-As an individual, I agree with his balancing test. MR. KUHL-Yes, because of the location of the house, there's no other way to do it. I have no issue with it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion,please? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2013 LAWRENCE & FRANCES EICHLER, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) 1323 Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 300 square foot porch addition to a single family dwelling. Relief requested from the minimum front setback requirement for the Rural Residential Three Acre zone, and on the balancing test. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. As previously stated, no. Undesirable change in the neighborhood or character of nearby properties. None whatsoever. Is this substantial? It's minimal. Adverse physical or environmental impacts? None whatsoever. Is this self-created? No. This gentleman did not build this house in its current location. I move we approve Area Variance No.44-2013. Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. EICHLER-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other business tonight from Board members? MR. GARRAND-I've got a question for Staff. Can we start getting those sheets, in our packets every month we get a sheet with the County impact on them, and it's just a copy that we always got in our packets for years and years. MRS.MOORE-You would have gotten for Staff Notes? MR. GARRAND-It was included in our packet every month, and it basically said,you know,gave us a list of the projects and. MRS. MOORE-Right now because there is no County Planning Board, it's done by Staff(lost words). Their comments do not necessarily come in at the same time that we send our Staff Notes out. If they're in, I can e-mail you a set of them. MR. GARRAND-Okay. E-mail would be fine. I check my e-mail frequently. MRS. MOORE-I do have one other item. Surveys. Right now your application materials say a certified survey is required, and there are certain instances,when I'm working with an applicant on a pre-application,will say they'd rather not do that survey, and I stress to them how important that is. However, there's times when the survey is, or the request is a numerical request versus a distance request, and I've seen that they've asked for a waiver from that. So I'm curious as to what the Board's input is in that situation, if you, if that's acceptable for them not to have a survey or for them to ask for that waiver, and do you want that waiver ahead of time request to you prior to them being placed on the agenda? MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So there's a whole bunch of things going on here, folks, and let's try to, because I'm involved in this on a regular basis with Staff. Some things that have been coming up regarding surveys is, as Laura presented, but we're also finding folks who are claiming a significant economic hardship, and we've got one coming up to us in September where, I can't remember the, I guess we shouldn't talk about the details. Let's just say that the relief request was minor. However, it was a technicality that they needed to go through dimensional relief. They wanted to use their neighbor's survey which showed their entire parcel on the survey, but it wasn't certified to the applicant. It was certified to the neighbor,because they simply didn't want to have to pay the $1500 to $2000 to do the survey. I went back to the applicant and said, no, we need a survey. I'm sorry. I feel really bad about this, but there's not much I can do unless you want to wait for us to have a Zoning Board meeting and of course then they missed their application deadline which was the 15th of the month, and we'll have a discussion about whether or not we could allow some kind of dimensional relief using a survey that really wasn't specific to the parcel we were dealing with. Then there are other times when, and we'll take this eight acre parcel that we just went through, how many acres are out back there, you know, for some crazy reason they would want to put a second garage, and it's, you know, it's within the building area that they're already in. It's not within the 100 feet, they're going to build it within the 100 feet, but we're already so close to the road with everything else, you know, do we really need to make them do a survey again because they're going to put the garage 95 feet off the road. I mean, it's within the 100 so it's got to have a variance,but are we going to make them go through that kind of an effort to have a true survey, and we've said in the past that any dimensional relief requires a survey,period. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. GARRAND-We've been burnt before by not having surveys,though. MRS. MOORE-If you do the waiver request prior, or you do something similar to sketch plan,where the Zoning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, sketch plan, but we're not Planning Board. We're Zoning Board, and that's got to be a determination by Craig saying you need a variance. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I'm trying to think of a way that you would be presented with that information (lost word) request a waiver. In one case, (lost words) economic hardship, there are fixed incomes in certain areas of our community,that this truly is a (lost word) expense. MR. GARRAND-If they're building something, they can afford to build something, though, I mean, that's part of the cost of building something. MR.JACKOSKI-But if a deck is going to cost$300 to build,and the survey's going to cost$1800. MR. KUHL-But can't they, I mean, we always talked about the smaller lots on the west side of the Northway when they want to replace on mobile with another mobile. When they have their old survey,they can draw on it,right? MRS.MOORE-I haven't heard that,but this is a similar instance where (lost words). MR.URRICO-If they don't have a survey,how do we determine the dimensional relief? What's being used,then,as the measuring device? MRS. MOORE-The drawing, whatever drawing they have available to them, that comes from, say, someone else's survey or say there's a septic issue, it's a drawing that's been prepared for the septic. MR.URRICO-But, I mean,they come to the Town first,right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.URRICO-So they're saying I need relief,but I don't know how much, and then how do you figure out what it is,just by their drawing? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Well, I could do that. I mean, I know we're talking about the exception, but there are people that will use that to their advantage,too. MR.JACKOSKI-Believe me, I keep saying no. MR.URRICO-I believe you. MR.JACKOSKI-And Staff keeps saying but. MR. URRICO-I mean, we've had instances where the survey has been off, and I'm thinking of one Assembly Point about 10, 12 years ago. It actually went to court, and it was the survey that saved us,and the notes,you know,the Staff Notes. MR. JACKOSKI-And sometimes these surveys bring to light certain things that we, as a Board, may not know are there. MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Better off(lost words) to be hidden. MR. URRICO-I'm comfortable with you making the decision on a project by project basis, and if you want to grant a waiver based on economic hardship,or,you know. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I know, and I'm struggling with it because what I don't want to do is offer the exemption, and then find out when we're getting here, we're all sitting here saying, but we don't know what the number is, we can't do this application with them. We've just delayed it a whole month for them and increased their cost. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. GARRAND-Well, you know, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, if we don't need the survey, then they get their, you know, appeal pushed through. If they do need the survey, then it's just an additional cost that they can incur later on, but at least we've made a determination. We'll know,as a Board,whether we're comfortable with that appeal or not. MR.URRICO-I mean,what does the Town use for its tax maps? It uses estimates as well? MRS.MOORE-The parcel RPS data. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,it's mapped by the County. Correct? MRS.MOORE-Through the deed. It's through their deed. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. Swan&Dixon do that up at the County. MR.URRICO-So is that something that's accessible to us if we needed that,in lieu of a survey? MRS.MOORE-But it's not a survey. It's their parcel map. MR. JACKOSKI-Based on the deed description, and not all deed descriptions are up to today's modern descriptions. MRS. MOORE-There is, I think I'd have to do a little more research, contact surveyors and see if there's opportunity to say is a corner is the only, do they do a survey of a corner of a building to the setback. Have this Board look at that information and can a survey,surveyor actually do that. MR. URRICO-I know we don't recommend people, but are there surveyors willing to work on the cheap,you know,they're starting out and maybe they're willing to do things for us. MR. GARRAND-And they've got a pretty good cartel around here. MR.URRICO-Yes,but,you know,there are graduates all the time. MRS. MOORE-So I guess I just need to do a little more research and see if I can come up with some additional information for the Board. MR. GARRAND-But for now the Board and I are going to continue to require surveys for dimensional relief. MRS. MOORE-I have two other items. Draft resolutions. In this evening's packet you had a draft resolution prepared by Staff in reference to the Queensbury Partners. Would you like to see additional draft resolutions for any of your further applications,samples of them? MR. JACKOSKI-Application specific? I don't think we should, given that we don't want to have any preconceived that we were going to move forward one way or another. MRS. MOORE-Right. There's no, not necessarily,you'd be filling in the blanks with those questions, but the draft resolution would be identifying your criteria,specifically(lost words). MR.JACKOSKI-Are you getting,are you finding that our resolutions are hard to implement? MRS. MOORE-Sometimes and I can provide samples, maybe in the next packet. You can choose to not use them,but to give you an idea of what they may look like. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,the Planning Board has the secretary do all the resolutions. Is that correct? MRS.MOORE-And they're actually prepared by Staff prior to their meeting,and then they can add. MR. GARRAND-So are their decisions. MRS.MOORE-Could I provide that to you so you could provide comment back to (lost word). MR. JACKOSKI-I guess we could certainly, as a Board; I'm just worried about having a resolution that doesn't suggest a decision one way or another. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR.URRICO-See, I thought that's what the five criteria. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. URRICO-The resolution needs to have those items in the resolution, and actually should be in the,when you poll the Board it should actually be in what people say as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I'd like, I mean, oftentimes you'll hear Roy or Ron, I mean, all of you do go through those criterion in order to confirm the record,which I think is important. MRS. MOORE-The resolution (lost words) you would have to (lost words) resolution as prepared to get to those criteria (lost word) specific answers and your responses are necessary, so they're not confused later on. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, how about we allow Staff to try it this next time, and then give feedback. Would that be reasonable? MRS.MOORE-That would be reasonable. Maybe I'll (lost words) for a couple of them. MR. URRICO-I think you should also run it through Town Counsel, just in case there's something that would go against us in a future ruling because it was already prepared. Somebody could argue that,you know,it was prepared,the wording was already prepared for us. MRS. MOORE-And I (lost words) information in reference to the Planning Board in another community it was highly recommended that the Planning Board have prepared resolutions for their meetings on a regular basis. That Planning Board does not do that,but. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know how we're going to do it with, so much of the information changes that night. MRS. HUNT-Don't we have six other people on the Board checking. I mean, often we'll have someone on the Board say, well, I want to add this, and you could always chime in, right, as you have in the past? MR.URRICO-Well,it doesn't hurt to look at it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, let's look at it and try it the next time, but please be aware of what we're concerned about. MRS. MOORE-Yes. The next item I have is letters to the Board members. We have instances where members of the public come up prior to the start of your meeting and physically hand you letters. MR. GARRAND-I don't want to be forced to read something before a meeting. I don't think anything should be entered into the record that's handed to us as the meeting is started. MRS.MOORE-Yes. So do you want to have a process where that information is,you have a secretary of the Board. That information can be,direct them, please hand it to. MR. GARRAND-The secretary. MRS.MOORE-The information is actually provided to the Staff. MR. GARRAND-It should be provided to Staff with enough time to disseminate the information to the Board, so that we don't get this information the night of the meeting, oh,here's new information right here. MRS. MOORE-In this instance, in cases where the information is Joe Public providing you a letter of comment on an application. MR. GARRAND-Yes,that's a Staff,secretary. MRS.MOORE-I wanted to make sure that that was what you would like to do. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so I think that's an important thing to talk about, because Mr. Salvador this evening handed us some documents,and I tried to stop him,and I said,you know,that's,before you pass this out, if it's anything to do with an application or it's anything to do with something we're 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) going to be talking about this evening, I really want you to give it to Staff, and he was adamant that it wasn't about anything to be talked about tonight, and he was just delivering it because he felt that he was told in the past that to provide the Board with that, any kind of information,he was told that he couldn't use Staff to do it because they weren't his private postal service, or something to that effect was what he suggested to me. So let's make sure we're clear on how this is going to work. If we're going to request information in advance for our packets and everything, it goes through Staff, and anything can be submitted to Staff. Correct? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And if there is public comment to be brought to our attention regarding maybe how we conduct ourselves, such as maybe Mr. Koskinas decides to send us all a statute or something, does that go through Staff,even though it's not an application? MRS.MOORE-It can go through the Staff. MR.JACKOSKI-Or does it go through Roy? MRS. MOORE-It should go through Roy so that he can distribute it with a copy to Staff. What happens is that when an individual furnishes you with something, I, Staff, don't necessarily have a copy of that. MR.JACKOSKI-Right and do you have even the stuff that Mr. Salvador presented tonight? MRS.MOORE-I don't know. So,that's my quandary. MR. JACKOSKI-It was not application specific tonight, either. Well, not application specific, administrative specific. MR. FREER-Re involved agencies, Queensbury Partners. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,that was an administrative,there wasn't an application in front of us tonight. MR. FREER-You're right. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant comes in provides you information. They're directed to give their information to Roy. Roy, or your secretary indicated that the information, at least one copy goes to the Planning Board vault and he can distribute all other information to the Board members. MR.URRICO-Usually I just leave it in the file. MRS.MOORE-Okay,or leave it in the file. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think, for example tonight, when I said to Mrs. Sonnabend that we, there was no new, I think it was no new information that we were, I don't know what the word was, no looking at tonight, you know, I didn't want to get into any of the, you know, Salvador dropped a whole bunch of stuff on our desk. There's all kinds of new information that, a lot of projects have new information after we vote on them, but they're not in front of us anymore. I mean, things do change over time. So I don't know what we should do. I mean, Roy,do you feel? MR.URRICO-That's what the Staff's job is. I mean,after we're done. MR.JACKOSKI-We're done. MR.JACKOSKI-We're done. MR.URRICO-And there's new information,and there's a new,it has to change. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff has to advise us that they're going to, right, and Craig has to have a determination made. MR. GARRAND-Or these applicants coming before us and then handing us a bunch of new information that doesn't meet the deadline. MRS.MOORE-They're directed up front during pre-app that do not do that to you. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. GARRAND-Because I won't even read it. They're going to give me new information, John has handed me stuff before I won't even read it. I turn around and throw it in the bin. It's not relevant. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, that's why tonight we specifically said we're not dealing with this new, any, I mean,we're not dealing with it. MR.URRICO-I've had letters sent to my house. MRS. MOORE-You receiving a letter from the public, if that individual wants it part of the record, it needs to be submitted for the file. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes and I don't believe I got these. I guess there's letters from Mrs. Sonnabend. Is that correct? I don't believe I actually got one. So I don't know where she sent mine. MR.URRICO-I didn't get one,either. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy,you didn't get one. MR. FREER-I got one. MR. GARRAND-Yes,John Caffry put something together for us. MR.URRICO-So it's probably in the dead letter office or something. MR. JACKOSKI-So some of us, and there's a situation where some of us got it, some of us didn't, and had they provided it to Staff and had Staff actually present it to us, then we wouldn't be in this situation,but I don't even know what the letter says. MRS.MOORE-And it's really up to them to make it part of the public comment. MRS. HUNT-It was about comment on the administrative item we had. So that was a moot point. MR. JAC KOSKI-Unfortunately because we weren't opening up the public hearing and we weren't going through new information. MRS. MOORE-I'll move on to my final (lost word). Environmental conditions. Dennis has routinely not provided you with stormwater information and you've made it, as you discussed this Item Number Four of your criteria environmental conditions. Do you prefer that they provide some information to you? MR. JACKOSKI-I think they need to. I think it's relevant because of the balancing test, and Rick is right. That would make it a lot easier for us knowing it was there, even though we all know that the Planning Board is going to address it,and we all know the Planning Board is going to address it. MR. KUHL-We assume,but if they've already paid for it,why not give us a copy? MRS. MOORE-Because in his instance he's talking about distance or some variance requirement. You're specifically pulling this information out of criteria number four. So it is relevant to this criteria number four. MR. GARRAND-And he's increasing impermeability on the site,we've got to consider environmental conditions on a steep slope site. I mean,we're no information. MRS.MOORE-I don't mind asking, I wanted to clarify that that's. MR. JACKOSKI-Even if it's an exempt situation. That's my difficulty is it's purposely exempted, so that you don't get caught up in it. MR. KUHL-I hear you. I hear you. MR.JACKOSKI-So I don't know,because I like to see it,too. MR. KUHL-Look at how much time we spent over Chris' letter with them sitting here, at least 20 minutes. MR.JACKOSKI-Right. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. KUHL-And if we would have had a drawing,you know,we wouldn't have to assume that Dennis was really doing it. If there's a drawing that Dennis already paid for, and he has, the drawing's not coming after us. It's already in there. Right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-I think you're right. MR. GARRAND-And, Laura, previously the Board made a resolution, several years ago, from no more than five appeals per evening. MR.JACKOSKI-Five appeals? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.URRICO-Five applications. MR. GARRAND-Per evening. MR.JACKOSKI-That was before my time. MR. GARRAND-That was,doesn't that carry forward? I mean,we've never rescinded that. MRS.MOORE-No,but you've never openly decided that you don't want to hear more than five. MR. KUHL-I'll take seven if I don't have to have a second meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I think that's what I've heard from this Board is that if we can get away with, I hear what you're saying. So I guess this Board should decide, you know, if Staff and/or I, when we're putting these agendas together, determine that,gee,we could six or seven and not have to have a second meeting,do you want me to hold it down to five with two at the second meeting? MR. URRICO-Well, as a person that gets up very early in the morning to go to work, we do ten o'clock, ten thirty, eleven o'clock or eleven thirty, you know, I'm looking at two hours sleep, three hours sleep the next day. I don't know about anybody else. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-We're not at our sharpest at 10, 10:30, 11 o'clock at night. MR.JACKOSKI-So hold it to just five a meeting. MR. URRICO-I mean, it's good for the people that are like a seventh person on the agenda, because they're going to go through pretty quick. MR. JACKOSKI-So let me ask you this. If I look through the agenda items and it seems like they're pretty, seems, I'm not making any pre-determined decision,but it just seems like,gee,this is a three foot sign,this is a deck that's really,is it okay to put a sixth or seventh one on? MR.URRICO-Like a duplex where gunshots were fired? MR. JACKOSKI-That could be a little more tricky, but, you know, I don't want to put on a Valente project,a Queensbury Partners project,an Aviation Mall expansion,a Chili's and. MR.URRICO-As far as I'm concerned,just keep it in mind,that's all. MR.JACKOSKI-Keep it in mind. MR.URRICO-If it looks like there are some explosives. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy's saying at least keep it in mind,or do we need to need to repeal whatever it was you guys did? MR. GARRAND-I don't think we should re-affirm it. I don't think having seven one night and then seven the next meeting is practical for us. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MR. URRICO-There was that one night where we had Queensbury Partners and who else we had, we had like two or three long ones the same night, and people were, it was not only for us, but the people that are out there. There were people waiting until 11:30. MR. GARRAND-Yes,in uncomfortable chairs all evening. MRS.MOORE-You can always table your meeting. MR.JACKOSKI-But not the night when everybody is sitting here waiting. We can't do that. MR. GARRAND-Yes,and with public hearing already announced. MR.JACKOSKI-I have a hard time doing that to the public and to the applicant. MRS. MOORE-I know. I'm just saying that that opportunity does present itself, and that you make your, as much as the audience made quibble about it, you may hear them saying well that's nice because then they will have it heard when you're refreshed. MR. GARRAND-I'd just like to keep it five or less,just to keep us fresh,you know. MRS.MOORE-If it happens to be more than five,you know. MR. GARRAND-It goes into the next meeting. MRS.MOORE-The next meeting,but you may have a special meeting,a third meeting that month. MR.URRICO-We have had instances. MR. GARRAND-And we also used to push these things off quite a distance,too. MR.JACKOSKI-Let's not go backward. Let's go forward. MR. GARRAND-That's not a bad option. I mean, if you get a bunch on the agenda that are like, you know,a foot here. MR.URRICO-Does it look like we have a lot coming up? MRS.MOORE-No. MR.URRICO-We don't. So right now it's not an issue that's prominent. MR. GARRAND-Just keep it in mind,you know,five,and talk to the Chairman. MR.JACKOSKI-Who likes long meetings. MRS. MOORE-So with this agenda we had here, we had two administrative items and then four items that were actually on the table. MR. KUHL-You could have had five items plus the two administrative. Administrative was wham, bam,right? MRS.MOORE-Typically. So do you count administrative items as an item? MR.JACKOSKI-I wouldn't. MR. KUHL-(Lost words) see how you do. You said on Wild Turkey that you could observe the house from the lake. Were you on the Town boat? Because I'd like to sign up. When can I sign up for the Town boat? MR. JACKOSKI-On my boat. I have no problem taking anybody out on the boat to see any of the properties if they want. One of the things that has come up recently is, when we were talking with the Assessor about the lakeshore properties is,it's amazing that Bolton doesn't require variances to these buildings being built next to their property line, which in this case was seven feet off of their line,but I'm not touching that. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2013) MRS.MOORE-That's all I have. MR.JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 21,2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 21St day of August, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt,Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-We're adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 29