Loading...
10-21-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 21, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice Combs 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Area Variance No. 31-2015 Wassey Family, Inc. 2. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-14 Area Variance No. 41-2015 David Miner 10. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-1.21 Area Variance No. 52-2015 Britt Patch 16. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-75 Area Variance No. 54-2015 Ed Hermance & Cynthia Robertson 21. Tax Map No. 309.7-1-27 Use Variance No. 57-2015 New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC (AT&T) 25. Tax Map No. 279.00-1-48 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) OCTOBER 21, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEPHEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN RICHARD GARRAND RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. It is seven o'clock and I'd like to call to order the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for today, October 21St. Welcome everyone. For those of you who haven't been here before, it is actually a very easy process. We'll read the application into the record, Roy will read it into the record. We'll ask the applicant to join us here at the table. We'll listen to the various comments that the Board members have. We'll then open up the hearing to the public when there is a public comment period noticed. We'll either leave the public hearing open or closed, depending on how we poll the Board and where we think the project is going to be moved. So we have a little bit of housekeeping to do this evening. We have the approval of meeting minutes for September 16tH APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 16, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next item on the agenda under housekeeping is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE: AV 11-2015 MAURICE H. COMBS The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Maurice H. Combs. Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. SEQR Type I; Planning Board has done SEQR A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 and left open; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015, at the request of the applicant Maurice H. Combs, and agent Thomas Hutchins, P.E. Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) To the first meeting in the month of March 2016, with paperwork to be submitted by the middle of February. Duly adopted this 21St day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Now if only every one of these next items would go that fast. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2015 SEQRA TYPE II WASSEY FAMILY, INC. AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) WASSEY FAMILY, INC. ZONING WR LOCATION 62 REARDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING GARAGE TO THE FOUNDATION AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE. THE REVISED NEW GARAGE IS TO MAINTAIN THE BASE FOOTPRINT OF 385 +/- SQ. FT. THE NEW GARAGE WILL ALSO HAVE A CANTILEVER FOOTPRINT OF 512 +/- SQ. FT. (32' 3" X 24' 3"). THE NEW GARAGE WILL HAVE AN AREA FOR VEHICLE STORAGE AND AN UPPER LEVEL FOR COMMON SPACE AND OFFICE AREA; THIS EXTENDS INTO THE LAND AREA TO THE EAST. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, PERMEABILITY AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF. BP 09-54 BP 90-802, BP 90-255, BP 89-283, BP 474 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-14 SECTION 179-5-020 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2015, Wassey Family, Inc., Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 "Project Location: 62 Reardon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage to the foundation and to construct a new garage. The revised new garage is to maintain the base footprint of 385 +/- sq. ft. The new garage will also have a cantilever footprint of 512+/- sq. ft. (32'3" x 24'3"). The new garage will have an area for vehicle storage and an upper level for common space and office area; this extends into the land area to the east. Relief requested from property line setbacks, height restrictions, permeability and for expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179- 3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional requirements for WR zone requirements, 179- 5- 020 Garage. Relief requested from minimum side setback, permeability and height requirement. Minimum property Maximum height Permeability line setback Required 12 ft. 16 ft. allowed 75% Proposed 5' 1" Southside 23 4 ft. 62% Relief 6' 11" Southside 7.4 ft. in excess 13% APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVISED: The applicant has revised the plans so the height of the structure has been reduced to 23.4 ft. where previously proposed at 28 ft. In addition the applicant has increased the area above the garage to a 512 sq. ft. addition reducing the permeability by 0.9% Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the height of the building. The lot size and configuration may require variances for any new development on the site. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new 460 sq. ft. garage with a game and storage area of 516 sq. ft. as shown on the revised plans. The garage footprint will be the same where the upper floors will cantilever over the garage area on the front and rear of the building. The revisions also show the height to be reduced to 23.4 ft. from 28 ft. and the proposal is only for the garage and a 2nd floor removing the 3 d floor storage. The applicant has indicated there will be no plumbing in the proposed building." MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Mr. Herbert Wassey, owner of the property. This is a revised application from the one that we were here a couple of months ago with. We heard the results from the Board and the discussions that we had, dropped the roof pitch down a little bit, dropped the overall ridge height down, made the knee walls smaller. We've got six foot knee walls on each side as opposed to a full eight foot wall, and we took away all the storage above. In taking away the storage we just pushed the back wall out four feet to take into account for that extra storage space that we had up above, just so that we had the same net number. It does change our permeability a little bit. The area is cantilevered so the area underneath it is still dirt because the top of it does change that permeability. So, anything that you wanted to add? HERBERT WASSEY MR. WASSEY-The last time you had addressed the issue of consistency with the neighborhood and so I took some pictures. I made two copies. MR. JACKOSKI-And how close are these properties that you took photographs of to your house? MR. WASSEY-One is the next door neighbor. MR. HALL-One is right next door. The other one is just down the street. Three houses away. It's Seeley's house. MR. KUHL-And the reason for these photos are what, sir? MR. WASSEY-Well, it shows that the height is above 16 feet from the secondary structure. So it is consistent. MR. JACKOSKI-You think this one is over 16? MR. WASSEY-That's a nine foot garage. MR. JACKOSKI-Do the Board members have any questions at this time before I re-open the public hearing on this project? MR. KUHL-Is there going to be heat in this building? MR. WASSEY-There might be a pellet stove. MR. JACKOSKI-And no plumbing, correct? MR. HALL-No. MR. HENKEL-There's no way of improving any permeability there at all? Can you put more plantings in front of the camp, on the lakeside? Can you put anymore plantings in front of the garage towards the lake? There's got to be some way to increase the permeability somehow. You can increase it a little bit more than the 62%, right? Sixty-two percent is pretty tough. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) Being on the lakeside. I wouldn't mind it as much if it was across the street, but from the lakeside. I didn't really walk in front of the house. I mean, I walked, I was by the garage. MR. HALL-Everything out in front is all landscape zone, all the way out, from the end of that retaining wall that's behind the camp all the way out is all permeable. Without taking away parking area, that would be the only way to change that. There's only two parking spaces there. Coming down that driveway really is the only spot to turn around. MR. HENKEL-With that kind of square footage of the property there you'd think there's got to be some way of increasing the permeability there somehow. MR. HALL-It's so steep, that's the biggest problem. MR. HENKEL-I mean, if you did move the soil a little bit, is it all rock? MR. HALL-No, we haven't really hit a whole lot of rock there. The septic area is behind the existing garage. Everything was pumped up to get it away from the lake. MR. HENKEL-You do have quite a bit of property there. MR. JACKOSKI-Before we get into revising the project, let's open the public hearing and see if the public has any comments. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-The public comment period is open and I'd like to invite anyone to the table. If you could state your name for the record, please, and your address. JOHN BUCHANAN MR. BUCHANAN-My name is John Buchanan and we live directly to the south at 66 Reardon Road. MR. JACKOSKI-You're an adjoining neighbor on the lake? MR. BUCHANAN-On the lake. The garage on the other side, the brown Adirondack side of the garage is my dad and I'm here representing him. So I guess, and this will only take a couple of minutes. I tried to follow the rules. That's just kind of who I am. I'm a little confused by this. I moved back into Town after 35 years three months ago, four months ago. A couple of people came up to me and said the people next door, I hadn't met Mr. Wassey, were going to convert their garage to an apartment for their son to live so he could go to college. So I listened to that and it didn't seem very credible to me. Before I moved back here I thought of converting my father's garage for living space for me, and it's not allowable. The next thing I heard is that Mr. Wassey needed more storage, okay, but I was curious, the first picture there is a three car garage which Mr. Wassey owns, and I have no idea what's in it. It's not my business, but when you've got a one car garage next door, a three car garage adjacent to that, and a property which appears to be a rental property. So then I came to the meeting. I looked at the drawings. It's a pretty elaborate garage. I listened to my neighbors and understood that he got a variance on the north side so that he could expand the house, and the reason I included a second and third picture is subsequent to the last meeting I had the property surveyed so I could understand where the property lines are, and you can see their retaining wall sits right next to my dad's property line, and the garage as stated on your documents is 5 feet 1 inch away. So it almost seems like we're trying to take this property and stuff as much into it as possible. First it was storage. The last meeting it was maybe a man cave. Tonight it's storage again, and I'm wondering, is it a garage or is it kind of a living space and a garage, and I'm not really taking a side here. I think if you double, sort of, the height of that garage, and you can see where it sits next to our property, it isn't going to be, you know, hidden. It's kind of nestled away now. That will bring it out a little bit. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Buchanan, you have a little bit of a time limit. MR. BUCHANAN-Yes, that's it. What I wonder is, what are we trying to decide on here, and are we trying to decide whether he can build a garage or are we trying to decide whether he can build a garage with some additional living space. MR. JACKOSKI-And we're aware of that. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. BUCHANAN-That's it. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for your input. Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one else, I am going to leave the public hearing open for the time being. Would you like to address any of the comments that you heard from Mr. Buchanan? MR. HALL-No, we can address. The five foot one inch setback is existing. We recognize that. That's a pre-existing condition. The retaining wall that's on there is a pre-existing condition, and it is right on the line. We understand. That's right on the line. As far as the upper portion of the space above the garage, the garage is strictly for storage downstairs. The upstairs is, as Herb had mentioned before, is a finished space. It does not have any, it's not living quarters. It's only going to be for his recreation purposes or things like that. I've been speaking with Herb as we've been sitting here. There is an asphalt walkway that runs from the asphalt parking surface down to the back of the camp. We could take that portion away, that non-permeable and put in a set of like stepping stone walkways that would increase the permeability at least between t parking area and the actual camp. That would increase our permeability on that. MR. GARRAND-Is that a runoff issue? MR. HALL-No, because it's so far away, and everything that's from that, that retaining wall behind the camp, all the way down to the lake is all landscape stone anyway. So there's no hard surface there that everything runs through. MR. GARRAND-How much permeability would you gain? MR. HALL-Off the top of my head, we'll get back at least what we're, you know, covering with the addition. It appears as though, based on the scale of the drawing, it appears as though there's about a four foot wide walkway and it may run around 50 feet. So we're getting about 200 square feet of permeability back. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, is there any way to get rid of all the hard surfacing that surrounds the house by the retaining wall? MR. HALL-That's all, it's all landscaped stone. MR. JACKOSKI-That great big? MR. HALL-Yes, that's all pea stone. MR. MC CABE-That's hard surface. MR. WASSEY-If you want me to remove the paving steps, I can. MR. JACKOSKI-That's all hard surfacing. Pea stone, that's real hard core solid rock. MR. MC CABE-I mean, is there a need for that? MR. WASSEY-Pea stone and stepping stones, concrete stepping stones, I can take that away. MR. HALL-It's just a walkway. We can take that out, but then that walkway that goes from the parking area down, that's all asphalt right now, and that could go away. MR. JACKOSKI-So what's being stored in the storage section of this storage building? MR. HALL-In this one? Would be kayaks and lawn furniture, stuff that goes down by the dock, canoes, things like that. MR. JACKOSKI-No automobiles. MR. HALL-I don't believe you're putting an automobile. MR. WASSEY-I'm putting an automobile in the garage section. In the other section will be, a kayak in the off season, but in the other section would be some antique furniture. Like I said, in a couple of years from now my wife and I are going to retire here. So we have furnishings that we'd like to give to our children. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. HENKEL-This is rental. It's a property you rent out. MR. WASSEY-Right now. MR. HENKEL-Because you have another home. You're not going to use this as an overflow bunkhouse for more people if they come in. MR. WASSEY-This is going to be for retirement. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'm going to poll the Board at this time, unless we have more questions from Board members. MR. URRICO-Well, I have a question about the height. I know you've gone from a 12 foot variance down to 7.4 feet, but why can't we do better? It's less than half the original difference. MR. HALL-We took the full height of the building away. We dropped the roof pitch down so that we were at six foot on the exterior walls, which was, that's my height at the exterior wall, and I can't, if I get much lower than that we start, I mean, as it is I have to build a dormer to get the exterior door in on the south side of the, north side of the building. So in order to get any lower than that we're going to really not have any head room space. MR. URRICO-But you're asking for two significant variances, three actually. MR. HALL-Yes. We knocked the building down from 28 to 23, which was, if we get much lower than that we're going to have a shallow pitch on that roof. MR. JACKOSKI-And you don't think the lot was overdeveloped? MR. HALL-We're not really changing the footprint of what's there. MR. JACKOSKI-But you are changing. MR. HALL-Just the upper floor. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'm going to ask for a volunteer to give their opinion on the project as it sits now. Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I actually did not have an issue with the first proposal on the project. So I appreciate the effort you've gone through to, having listened to the Board and lowered the height requirement, I do appreciate that. That was probably an effort on your part. A couple of issues have been brought up over and over again. This idea of a rental property, I don't have a problem with that. Your current property is a rental. It's allowed. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think it should be a part of what we're deliberating on. As for what was brought up, the pea stone that's covered with these large cement squares, they serve a purpose I'm sure. They're not continuous. I don't think they would cause runoff into the lake if there's pea stone underneath. I wouldn't feel the need to say I would want you to take them away. I am still in favor of this project as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. Any other volunteers? MR. KUHL-Yes. This is a strange piece of property in the fact that you own two homes there, you know, first one you say you're going to live in. Now you say you're going to live in this one. That's your choice. I don't, I mean, the pictures that you brought up are all pre-existing. Your neighbors were there before and some of them had apartments over their garages. I understand that. If you're just going to be using this for storage as you say I'd be in favor of it, but if you're going to put another person in there, I don't think the property is large enough for two families. So if you're stating here today, you're going on record and saying I'm just using this for storage, I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other volunteers? Rick? MR. GARRAND-I applaud the applicant for making the change on the height. That was my major obstacle. I also would like to see, as Mr. Henkel suggested, permeability increased. I'd be in favor of this with a permeability increase and the condition of no bathrooms with this. As Mr. Kuhl had stated, we don't want a second residence on the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you saying no bathroom or no plumbing? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. GARRAND-No plumbing, and the applicant already said that they were willing to swap out the permeable for part of this property. We just need Laura to give us an idea of what we can approve as far as, or a number we can put down. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Rick and Ron over there. I'm also for the project if we can get that permeability up there and I think you've done a good job with just pushing the roof down a little bit. It's a good project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 appreciate the fact that the applicant has made efforts to make the expansion more conforming, but I still have a problem with the height. Even at 23.4 feet, we're almost 50% beyond what's allowed, and that's a little bit too much for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in agreement with Mike. I think there's too much going on here. I do agree that there may not be any changes to the neighborhood either environmentally or in the character, but I do think that we're asking for too much in terms of variances. In addition to the property line setback which is pretty much the same footprint that was there, the height is still way over what it should be, and permeability, even with the changes, is going to be too much. So I would have to come down on the negative side on this. I also think that the relief requested could be considered moderate to substantial, and that's given what's already been done on this property before. I think that's just way too much. MR. JACKOSKI-Andy? ANDREW ALLISON, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ALTERNATE MR. ALLISON-1 think I'd be in favor of it as long as it's not going to have plumbing in it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm not sure we're going to count Andy's vote because that's eight of us. I'm struggling with it even, you know me, I'm trying to be as consistent as possible but where there's smoke, there's fire, and if this family doesn't own this project, two years from now, three years from now, we don't have any assurances that future owners aren't going to convert that space into living space, and it's not easy to regulate. It's not easy to monitor, and it pits neighbor against neighbor when then there becomes an issue because we don't do anything unless there's a formal complaint. So I just don't want to set the stage for that going forward. I do think it's too tall on a narrow piece of property. I do think it's too close to the property line. They are big variances in my opinion, so I vote no on the project as it sits. However, we have four yes votes that may need a little bit of tweaking. So I'll seek counsel from Staff. MRS. MOORE-1 have, in reference to permeability, the existing permeability is 62.9%, and if it's not getting any greater than that. MR. HALL-We will remove hard surface in equivalent to what we were adding for the, we'll get rid of the asphalt. MR. MC CABE-So you're still staying at 62.9. MR. HALL-We'll get rid of the asphalt walkway from the parking area down to the area behind the camp, and we'll take up the walking stones. I mean, I can measure that and give you an idea of it. I just don't know, off the top of my head. MR. JACKOSKI-So we are tasked with granting variances that are numeric. So do we want to set a target permeability for this client to work towards and then they'll have to figure it out on their own? MR. HALL-We're at 62.9 existing. If we pull up that asphalt that's going to be 200 sq. ft. I'd say we can get back to 64. MR. JACKOSKI-So do we want to go for 66? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. HENKEL-That's still a little bit too much for me. I'd like at least 10%. That's still too much for me. MR. HALL-What I can do, John, is we can see how much asphalt needs to come out to do that, provide a revised plan. MR. JACKOSKI-To do that we're going to have to have another meeting, or we can get you to 65% if that's where everybody's at. You can figure it out on your own. Board members? MR. URRICO-At what point does it have to be re-advertised? MR. JACKOSKI-It wouldn't have to because they're creating less of a variance. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're okay. We're not granting more of a variance. We're reducing the required variance. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So what I'm thinking and hearing from Mr. Garrand's proposal is we're going to approve this. MR. HALL-65%, yes we can get that. I'm sure we can get that. I thought you were trying to get to 70%. MR. GARRAND-That would be great. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that Mr. Garrand thinks so. All right, guys, you've got to tell me what to do. MR. NOONAN-If I may, I would love to see this project be approved, but I think as a Board if we can agree to 65%, I'm in favor of that. MR. HENKEL-As long as it will not be living space, as a condition, no living space. MR. JACKOSKI-So let's clarify that please, because living space is not well defined in the Code, correct? MRS. MOORE-Right. So the applicant has indicated that that could be a rec area as well as storage space, and that's, I'm talking about the upper floor. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're going to suggest that there's no sleeping quarters, that there's no, living space could mean that they're standing up in there, they're living there. MR. HALL-It is meant to have a pool table or a ping pong table or something like that up there. MR. HENKEL-I don't have a problem with that. No sleeping quarters. MR. HALL-No sleeping quarters. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that better, Staff? MR. URRICO-I just remember something years ago that had something to do with windows. MR. HALL-Yes, if you don't have egress windows it can't be considered habitable space. That is correct. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's for fire purposes. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I need a motion, please. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Prior to your motion, could you just clarify what your conditions are before you make the motion. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Rick. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. With respect to Area Variance No. 31-2015, our conditions are that this not be living space or slash bunkhouse as stated by one of the Board members. This area is not to have plumbing, and the applicant has also agreed to reduce the height and increase the permeability as conditions of approval. MRS. MOORE-Your permeability you're proposing, the applicant has agreed to 65%. MR. GARRAND-Minimum 65% permeability, which is better than what we have currently on site. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Wassey Family, Inc. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage to the foundation and to construct a new garage with a game room. The revised new garage is to maintain the base footprint of 385 sq. ft. The new garage will also have a cantilever footprint of 512+/- sq. ft. (32'3" x 24'3"). The new garage will have an area for vehicle storage and an upper level for common space; this extends into the land area to the east. Relief requested from property line setbacks, height restrictions, permeability and for expansion of a non- conforming structure. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 and Wednesday, October 21, 2015. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. I don't think this Board sees any change to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and what the applicant is looking for cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Almost anything this applicant tries to do on this property is going to require a variance given the constraints of this property. 3. Is the requested variance substantial? Given the changes we've proposed for this project, I'd say it's moderate 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't foresee any. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. I think we could deem it as self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) / would be outweighed by (denial) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a. That this not be living quarters in this structure, including sleeping quarters. b. This structure is not to have plumbing. c. The applicant has also agreed to increase the permeability a minimum of 65%. d. If the applicant does anything to the foundation, any change in the foundation, that the variance for the setback is no longer valid. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) 9. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2015, WASSEY FAMILY, INC. Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St day of October, 2015 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-You need to identify your conditions. MR. JACKOSKI-I thought he did it in the beginning. MRS. MOORE-In the motion. MR. GARRAND-Again? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'd like to add something to the motion, something to be considered by the Board. In the past we've approved various footprint applications, and once we do that, then the applicant's turn around and demolish the complete foundation and do a new one, so they have a whole new structure. I'd like to suggest that if they do anything to this foundation, that the variance then is not applicable and that they could move the structure in towards the center of the property. This happens to us on Bay Road. That house got approved with all those variances and then they actually tore it all down, poured the foundation out and started all over again, but our deliberations were based on the existing footprint. They built to the existing footprint but a brand new foundation because it was going to cost to move the foundation, but then they did it anyway. So I just want to, it's up to you guys, but to me if you're going to move the foundation, then they should move the structure. If they're not going to use the existing foundation, that would be another condition. If the existing foundation gets changed in any way, it's updated, modified, whatever, re-poured, then they could move the structure. MR. HALL-It's an existing cmu foundation. As far as we can see from the inside and the outside it's in good shape. We're just going to bring in block. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, it happens all the time. Everybody tells us they're going to use that foundation, so they avoid the cost and then the turn around and tear it up. I'm done, if everybody else is done. MRS. MOORE-So the condition that you've asked for is that. MR. JACKOSKI-If there's any change in the existing foundation, that the variance for the setback is no longer valid. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Call the vote. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-I think the building is going to look great. It's wonderful to see use of architecture going on the lake. Thank you very much. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2015 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID MINER AGENT(S) KRISTINE WHEELER OWNER(S) DAVID MINER & GINETTE MINER ZONING MDR LOCATION 590 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 787.11 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWABLE. CROSS REF BP 2015-181 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE; AV 64-08, AD 4-04, BP 07-276, BP 09-320 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 9.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-1.21 SECTION 179-5-020 KRISTINE WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2015, David Miner, Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 "Project Location: 590 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 787.11 sq. ft. second garage. Relief requested from a second garage where only one is allowable. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179- 5- 020 Accessory Structure-Garage. Relief requested for number of garages. 2 nd Garage Required 1 Proposed 2 Relief 1 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited for addition to the existing home due to the configuration of the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts are anticipated from the proposed project. The applicant's parcel is over 9 acres and the additional garage will allow for lawn equipment storage to maintain the property. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 787.11 sq. ft. second garage on a 9.16 acre parcel. The applicant has indicated the building will be used to store lawn equipment to maintain the property. The proposed building will be located so no tree removal is required. The applicant has also indicated the building will be consistent with the existing home. The plans submitted show the location of the garage and elevations. Updated 10/14/15 The applicant has provided a letter explaining the review of the August 26th meeting minutes, the discussion of future subdivision and demolishing of other structures on the parcel. The applicant has indicated any future subdivision would be subject to the planning board review and if needed, zoning board review. The applicant also points out a previous approved variance that allowed an applicant to maintain a shed and a proposed second garage. The applicant proposes no modification to the application for the request for second garage. The applicant has indicated the second garage allows for the storage of equipment to maintain the property." MR. URRICO-Do you want me to read that letter in at this time or wait? MR. JACKOSKI-We probably should wait. MR. URRICO-Until comments. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MS. WHEELER-Hi. My name is Kristine Wheeler. I'm representing Dave Miner. I submitted Dave's application. The tone of the previous meeting was primarily related to our future plans to subdivide the property as well as demolition of the existing shed that's currently there. I felt the financial implications of both of those concessions were just too great for me to be able to make a decision on unilaterally without the family of the applicant and the applicant themselves. So at this time I hope to discuss a little bit about what the family has decided and what we have determined. We contend that this is a project for a second garage on a nine acre parcel of property. The family has no intentions of subdividing this property. We don't want to restrict the ability to subdivide it in the future, should the applicant become ill in the future and need a one story home in order to get himself through his older years, or if the family has to move the property. It's more of a family decision as opposed to a decision on our part, but I can assure the Board, if the Board is afraid of future subdivision of this property, the best chance for that not to happen is for it to be maintained in his ownership. He doesn't want to subdivide it. With regards to the shed, the shed was actually a little bit more frustrating concession. Only because the family felt that it was environmentally irresponsible to tear down a perfectly good building. So that is not something that we're willing to compromise on. We don't think that the building materials and, to make it somebody else's problem is appropriate. So it's difficult for me moving forward to kind of talk about changes or other concessions we'd like to make. Just a reminder that this property is on Luzerne Road. There's a variety of different properties in the neighborhood. We're three houses down from a church. The gentleman diagonally across the road from us operates a manufacturing business. The house three houses down from us somebody has their own business where they have tents and that type of rental business. The property is adjacent to a mobile home overlay district, and the property is also adjacent to Clinton Ridge subdivision where, that seemed to be the Board's concern that would be where the impacts would be on this subdivision. As the project stands, there should be no impacts to Clendon Ridge or the mobile home that is adjacent to us because they shouldn't be able to see it with the project that we have in place. The only impacts would be to somebody driving along Luzerne Road. We feel that the applicant has made a good effort in the past to maintain a very high quality home. He is meticulous. He wants to keep this property meticulous, and after last winter he injured himself getting to his snow blower, which is back in the wooded area of the property. He was hoping to have something a little bit more permanent or a little bit closer to the house without having to build a temporary structure closer to the road. So we're certainly willing to discuss anything relating to the building, but that's where we stand as far as the subdivision. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any Board member comments at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-I've just got a question. What about those temporary buildings in the back? You've got an instant garage type thing, canopy. MS. WHEELER-They will be gone. MR. HENKEL-They're going to be gone. MS. WHEELER-Once the garage is built. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing and have Roy read anything he would like to into the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Well, I want to ask Ms. Wheeler if she wants me to read this letter into the record, or have we covered it? MS. WHEELER-I don't think it's necessary. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I will seek a volunteer Board member to comment on their thoughts on the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-I'll volunteer. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. MR. MC CABE-1 supported this project initially. I thought, you know, a second garage was very attractive and certainly the size of the property warranted it. However, having read this letter, I no longer support this project. We often ask for concessions from the applicant. It's a give and 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) take. We aren't bound by precedent. Each application stands on it's own, and I resent the fact that I feel you're trying to force us into a decision here without our normal due process. So I would not support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other volunteers at this time? MR. NOONAN-I'll go next. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-1, ultimately after we deliberated last time, when we were chose to make a decision I supported the project. As it is, with the shed staying, I will state that I support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-First of all, I applaud you for stating in the record that you're not going to subdivide the property, and, based on that, I'm in favor of the project the way it's submitted, as long as it's not subdivided. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well, in the 10 years I've been sitting here I've had applicant after applicant tell me that they wouldn't subdivide and it's happened over and over again. I would be in favor of this, provided that there would be a condition that this lot not go below, say, five acres, because that's usually what you need a large second garage for, to maintain a property of that size. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of this application for a second garage on nine acres. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Well, I don't know Mr. Miner but I go by his property a lot and I know he's definitely very neat and doesn't clutter anything, but I agree with Mr. McCabe on what he said about his statement on the letter, but I definitely, I'd be in favor of the project as long as they do away with the temporary buildings. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to look at the project on the merits of the project and not necessarily the tenor of the letters that were received, comments that were made. It's nine acres. We've allowed second garages on parcels like that in the past. I don't like its location, but there's not a variance here regarding the setbacks. So listening to my fellow Board members I'd be in favor of this project as well as it is identified. I don't know how we'd stop the subdivision, but I do like Rick's condition. I don't know how Staff would feel about that, but can we condition it that this garage remains part of at least five acres of this nine acres? MRS. MOORE-1 mean, the process, if it went, it would have to come back before the Board if the applicant chose to change that condition. They'd be coming back before you to modify the application for the variance as well as the subdivision. So it would be back before the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-And three years from now when the applicant or new owner owns the property, and they come to us for a subdivision and it's a new Board, would Staff identify to that new Board that there was a lot of deliberation regarding this second garage being put on this large parcel? MR. URRICO-I'm going to still be here. MRS. MOORE-Yes, that information is part of the history of the parcel. MR. JACKOSKI-But would it actually be identified? Because we get a lot of notes about a lot of other stuff, but would it actually be identified that we really struggled with it back at this time? MRS. MOORE-You can ask the applicant to put the condition on the final plans, so that whoever picks up that parcel property information. It would be on the final plans that were submitted, and so if someone were to come in with a building permit, and that information was pulled, or if someone came in with another review project, then that file would be pulled to have that information. That's the only way that information would show up. So if someone went to purchase it, and the applicant wasn't available at that time, it wouldn't necessarily mean that 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) that new purchaser would have that information. Hopefully they would, but it doesn't guarantee that. MR. JACKOSKI-But at least it's in the record. Is the applicant okay with that? MS. WHEELER-During the last meeting we had discussed three acres and we took the time to put together a subdivision. We put together several subdivision possibilities when we were working on that, and there's, you know, my contention is there is no project that would not have to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're currently at two acres on this particular parcel. Even a minor subdivision would have to come to the Zoning Board of Appeals because really two acres parcels on Birch Road aren't terribly marketable and to be honest with you, and that's really the only that we have left on this parcel. So, I mean, we want to be able to have the ability as a family again, you know, to make lot line adjustments, and if we divide the two, if we divide the parcel in two between my house and my parents' house, and then we leave town, we want to be able to have the ability to do that. If that means one parcel is going to be four acres, one parcel is going to be five acres, we haven't done that. Again, I appreciate the Board's concern that the parcel is going to be cluttered and we have the same concern, which is why the subdivision has been minimal over the last 30 years that he's owned the property, but I'm asking for the opportunity to not have to make those decisions sitting here with an application about a garage. MR. HENKEL-Does Laurel Lane come into your development, I mean, into your piece of property, too? MS. WHEELER-There is a, there may be a right of way or an easement. There's a pile of dirt in there. MR. HENKEL-Yes, because that property goes right back into Clendon Ridge. MRS. MOORE-Okay. M S. WHEELER-But again, the family doesn't have the money to put in roads and utilities. This is a guy who's a blue collar worker, who worked in a mill for 30 years. We are not going to put a road in to Laurel Lane. We can't financially do it. MR. JACKOSKI-But you reserve the rights to have that, right? So listening to the discussions with the applicant at this point, I'm going to change my vote on this to a no. I think this is a segmentation issue on this parcel, and I'm going to leave it at that. So I need a motion. MRS. MOORE-The public hearing, has that been closed? MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is closed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Miner. Applicant proposes construction of a 787.11 sq. ft. second garage. Relief requested from a second garage where only one is allowable. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 26, 2015 and Wednesday, October 21, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) 2. Feasible alternatives are possible and reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Should the lot be subdivided and the lot that contains the garage fall under five acres, then the garage must be removed. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2015, DAVID MINER, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St day of October, 2015 by the following vote: MR. NOONAN-The Board also imposes the following condition: construction of this proposed structure is to maintain with a minimum of five acre parcel, should this property be subdivided. MS. WHEELER-Can I make a proposal to put a time limitation on there? MR. JACKOSKI-Talk to us about that? MS. WHEELER-If we're going to restrict it to five acres, can we put a time limitation that it would expire five years of ownership, and then we can talk about the number? MR. JACKOSKI-I think the useful life of the garage is a lot more than five years. MS. WHEELER-And again, I guess what I'm concerned about is if somebody comes in and wants to subdivide the property, that applicant may be amenable to tearing down the garage in exchange for a subdivision, and again, we're sitting here, we don't have intentions to subdivide. So I'm trying to what if in my head a project that doesn't exist at this point, which is difficult to do. We have all the other key points, you know, we are both living there. We have permeability that's good. We're not going to put water in there. We're trying to protect the family asset in the event that we have capital to pay for long term care, and this is a very personal application for me I guess is what I'm saying. While I'm not unwilling to make concessions, I'm willing to make concessions, but I'm making concessions about a subdivision, and that's, I guess, where I'm. MR. JACKOSKI-The reason we're asking for that is we wouldn't grant a garage this large, a second garage this large to a one and a half acre parcel. M S. WHEELER-And that's fine. We agree with that. If we were, can we do a condition where if the parcel is less than five acres the garage would be removed? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. MRS. MOORE-Or that the parcel, if it were to be subdivided, would have to come back for review. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but you know what happens? We all feel sorry for the applicant because of the financial constraints, Laura, and that never works in protecting the Town and the neighborhood which is what the Zoning Code is actually intended to do. MRS. MOORE-You're going through each of the criteria. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. GARRAND-I think that's a reasonable proposal, that if the parcel goes below five acres, the garage, the applicant agrees to remove the garage. MR. JACKOSKI-It was your condition. So if you're okay with it and Kyle can verbalize it, we're good. MR. GARRAND-You're happy with that? MS. WHEELER-I'm happy with that. MR. NOONAN-I'd like to amend the resolution to state under conditions, the Board also proposes the following condition. Should the lot be subdivided and the lot that contains the garage fall under five acres, then the garage must be removed. MR. JACKOSKI-Is everybody okay with that as written? Okay. Let's move on. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2015 SEQRA TYPE II BRITT PATCH OWNER(S) BRITT PATCH ZONING MDR LOCATION 8 GREENWAY NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 771 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO INCLUDE A 400 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND MUDROOM. PROJECT INCLUDES A SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO GARAGE AREA AT 600 +/- SQ. FT. AND A 360 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY DORMER AREA TO THE MAIN HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2007-346 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 7958 YR. 1983 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2015 LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-75 SECTION 179-3-040 BRITT PATCH, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2015, Britt Patch, Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 "Project Location: 8 Greenway North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 771 sq. ft. addition to include a 400 sq. ft. garage and mudroom. Project includes a second floor addition to garage area at 600 +/- sq. ft. and a 360 sq. ft. second story dormer area to the main house. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance from section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements. Relief requested from minimum side and rear setback requirements of the MDR zone. Setback- front Setback —rear Setback —front Setback—rear Greenway North Greenway North Greenway Circle Required 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. Proposed 19.1 ft. house/ 11.5 ft. 19.5 ft. 26.3 ft. 15.2 ft. front porch* Relief 10.9 ft./ 14.8 ft.* 18.5 ft. 10.5 ft. 3.7 ft. *Staff revised on 10/20/15 to include front porch setback 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the parcel is a corner lot and all setbacks are 30 ft. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate overall. 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. The applicant has indicated the project removes an older garage and rehabs the main part of the house. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing single car attached garage to construct a 771 sq. ft. addition that includes a 2 car garage and mudroom on the north side of the home. The project also includes a bonus room above the garage and a new 2nd story dormer on the east side of the main home. The applicants parcel is a corner lot where relief is required for the setbacks of having two fronts and two rears. The applicant has provided drawings of the existing and proposed conditions. The survey shows the setbacks of the existing and proposed addition. The 2nd story dormer is shown on the building drawings as being no closer than the current home. The setback requirements will need to be updated to show 30ft setback requirement on all property lines." MR. JACKOSKI-I know you've sat through two difficult proceedings. There's no problems. Relax. It's a very straightforward application. So is there anything you would like to add at this time or just have Board members ask you questions? MS. BRITT-I've never done this before. So if you just want to ask me questions I'll just do the best that I can do because I can't promise to be able to answer to the knowledge that everybody else has answered to this point in time. I don't have that knowledge. So I can do the best that I can do. MR. JACKOSKI-Do Board members have any questions on this application at this time? MR. KUHL-What caused you to want to do all this? MS. BRITT-Well, originally I bought the house as a house that I was going to take and flip as you so call say, but since then I went through some health issues last year that I recently had a scare a couple of months ago that those issues were back. So I started to think about my finances and my family and it came to my realization that it would be in my best interest to downsize a little bit and try to make this property something that my family would have the room to live in should I get sick again and need to have one income based on this house. MR. KUHL-So you're going to occupy the house? MS. BRITT-Yes. MR. KUHL-Thank you. That wasn't too bad, right? MS. BRITT-No, not yet. I'm terrible at public speaking so I just get nervous. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else have questions at this time before I open the public hearing? It is a fairly straightforward application. So, all right, I am going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? If you could please come up to the table. Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN STREETER MS. STREETER-Hi, I'm Marilyn Streeter and I live right next door to the property. I'm 10 Greenway North, and I'm just wondering how much room there's going to be between the two car garage and my property. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-I believe 11.5 feet. MS. STREETER-11.5 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and what is required, from what I understand on that side, is 10 feet. MRS. MOORE-Actually it's all 30 because it's a corner lot. MR. GARRAND-It's a corner lot. MR. JACKOSKI-But I thought it was 10.5 when we you got to the, I'm sorry, I thought it was 10 feet when you got behind the house and past the front yard. Yes, see where that line is right there? MRS. MOORE-This one, right. This line. MS. STREETER-I'm just thinking about the side. MRS. MOORE-So she's thinking about the side. So there'd be 11.5. MS. STREETER-It would be facing our bedrooms, and I'm wondering whether there's going to be any windows on that side of the structure, MR. GARRAND-There appears to be a dormer window. Do you want to see these drawings on this? MS. STREETER-On that side? MS. STREETER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's your side. You don't have drapes on the windows? MS. STREETER-1 just don't like the idea of, you know, windows facing windows into bedrooms. We have a second floor bedroom. We also have a bottom. MR. HENKEL-Most of those houses are all pretty close. MS. STREETER-They are. MR. HENKEL-I was looking at a lot of the properties, and a lot of them are 10 feet, even closer than that, to other people. It's not like it's something that's going to be different than the rest of the neighborhood. MS. STREETER-And is that just going to be for storage or is it going to be a living area? MR. HENKEL-No, it's a bonus room. I think she's got it written down as a bonus room, I think, like a gathering room. MS. STREETER-Okay. So it's within limits, right? Everything's within limits? MR. URRICO-There's no variance for the height. There is a variance for that side. MS. STREETER-For that side. MR. URRICO-Yes, and the distance will be 11 and a half feet, from the side, from the property side. How close is your house to the property line? MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know how much room you have on your side? MS. STREETER-Not very much. Not very much at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you think it's about the same as she has? I mean, are you going to have equal or are you going to have less? MS. STREETER-1 have less. I'll have less. I have more on the other side. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we've heard your concerns and they're certainly very valid concerns, and we will certainly deliberate about those things. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MS. STREETER-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board? Is there written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-There's a record of a phone conversation between Maria Gagliardi at the Planning Department and Nancy MacDonald at 3 Greenway Circle. Ms. MacDonald would like the Board to know that she is glad that the applicant is someone who has done such a wonderful job with her property. She is confident that the project will be done in a manner that benefits the whole neighborhood and she is very much in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Staff, I want to clarify the drawings that we've received in our packet if you could. There is a 10 foot setback perimeter identified on this map and survey provided. MRS. MOORE-So my Staff Notes indicate that that needs to be updated to show 30 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So my question is, is the 30 foot lot line just a setback, right? Around the entire parcel? MRS. MOORE-Unfortunately it's a corner lot. There's no sides. It's all fronts and rears. MR. HENKEL-There's like a cul de sac behind it that sticks out. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand it. I could understand if we interpreted our Code to suggest that the front of the house then, to me, if I'm looking at Greenway North, the front of the house is the front yard, and I get it's a front yard, 30 feet back, but when you get to that point of the house where it becomes the side of the house, I'm sorry, to me that would be a normal side setback, but if our Code isn't written that way to allow that interpretation, then so be it. So is there any chance that you could eliminate that dormer off that side of the garage with the windows that face? MS. BRITT-Well, everything's open to be changed how it needs to be. In all honesty, that's going to be like my move theater system that I have. So that window I'm going to put my screen right there. So it's really not a huge ordeal to remove a window. MR. JACKOSKI-But it's not a bedroom, and you've got to be careful because you also have to understand that you have to have a certain daylight requirements to each room. So you've got to make sure you have enough window space to work against the square footage. Am I correct in saying that? MS. BRITT-So there has to be a window up there somewhere kind of? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, that's what I'm believing. MS. BRITT-This isn't going to be a bedroom or anything that's going to be lived in at all points in time and I'm not going to be looking into other people's windows, so to speak. I mean, in all honesty, that room's only going to be used, I own a business so I work all the time. I'm thinking Thanksgiving when my family comes over, we go up there if I have like a dinner that we might have a couple of friends over, to keep them out of the house because I'm a neat freak. I like to keep people, the dirt, in one area of the house in all honesty. That was my intent for the room, to put kind of a tv up there with maybe a pool table, and then everyone can kind of congregate in one space, not that I entertain often. MR. JACKOSKI-That would look very peculiar architecturally, but I'll leave that up to Andy. Doesn't that look peculiar? I'll seek some volunteers to comment on this application. MR. KUHL-Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's an improvement to the structure that's there, and my own greatest fear would be that this is going to be overbuilt for the rest of the neighborhood, but that's the applicant's prerogative to do that, but I think it's a good project and I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other volunteers? MR. HENKEL-I would also be in favor of the project as is. I think it would definitely be a nice upgrade to the neighborhood and make everybody's home worth a lot more. So I would definitely be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. The one thought was would there be a way to make up the space that, where that dormer is on this side, make it over here. I thought it was going to be a sticking point, but I don't know if it's going to be a sticking point now. I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I would just ask that the applicant respect the wishes of the neighbor during this construction and she if she can't do something to mitigate her concerns. Otherwise, I'm in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. I think it'll be an improvement to the neighborhood and the neighborhood is such that all the lots are pretty small and anything that you do is probably going to be nonconforming. So I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Britt Patch. Applicant proposes construction of a 771 sq. ft. addition to include a 400 sq. ft. garage and mudroom. Project includes a second floor addition to garage area at 600 +/- sq. ft. and a 360 sq. ft. second story dormer area to the main house. Relief requested, the front from Greenway North: required 30 feet; the house is 19.1 ft., the front porch is 15.2 ft.; the relief will be 10.9 ft. and/or 14.8 ft. The rear setback from Greenway North: 30 feet is the required; 11.5 ft. is the proposed; the relief is 18.5 ft. The setback from Greenway Circle: 30 feet is required; 19.5 ft. is proposed and the relief is 10.5 ft. The setback in the rear: 30 feet is required; 26.3 feet is proposed; the relief required is 3.7 feet. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 21, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this is actually an improvement from what is there. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited from the standpoint of making the improvements. 3. The requested variance is not substantial due to the corner lot constraints. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2015, Britt Patch, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21St day of October, 2015 by the following vote: MR. KUHL-The setback from Greenway Circle: 30 feet is required; 19.5 ft. Shouldn't that be 19.1 feet and not 19.5 because of the front measurement? That's the way I read it. Right? The back part of the house is 19.5, the front is 19.1 on Greenway Circle. MRS. MOORE-Right. She's placing a dormer on the back side of the house. So that's why. MR. KUHL-Okay. Relief requested is 10.5. I've got it. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MS. BRITT-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-All right for all the students in the audience, I'm sure you're dying to get out of here, right? If you want to stay, you can stay, but I'll be more than happy to say you've fulfilled your obligation if you want to leave. It's your call. If you want to leave, you better leave now because it's going to be a long next two discussions. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2015 SEAR TYPE II ED HERMANCE & CYNTHIA ROBERTSON AGENT(S) LARRY CLUTE OWNER(S) REDTAIL HAWK HOLDINGS ZONING NR LOCATION 13 COLUMBIA AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 873 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AV 58-2014 EXPIRED APPROVAL; BP 2009-003 DEMOLITION; BP 92-045 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.11 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.7-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2015, Ed Hermance & Cynthia Robertson, Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 "Project Location: 13 Columbia Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 864 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from the minimum allowable setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179- 3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional requirements for NR zone. Relief requested for Front and Rear setbacks. Front Setback North Rear setback-south Columbia Ave Required 20 ft. 15 ft. Proposed 9 ft. 8 ft. Relief 11 ft. 7 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size of the lot and the requirements of the NR zone. The applicant has indicated the house size is 864sq. ft. and a front porch as shown on the survey. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an 864 sq. ft. home on a 0. 11 acre parcel. The parcel is a corner lot where the relief requested is for the front on Columbia and rear setback. The plans show the location of the home with a revised survey of 9/2015 and an elevation drawing without the porch. The applicant's previous approval AV 58-2014 expired in August of 2015 where the applicant was required to reapply for the variance relief for the project." MR. CLUTE-I'm Larry Clute. Over lack of paying attention, like you said, the thing expired. I wasn't paying attention to the one year time frame. I came in and applied for a permit and was informed I was expired by a couple of weeks. The situation hasn't changed. It's still the same lot. It's still the same house. I've done this in that neighborhood. They're all pre-existing sized lots. They're all small lots. It allows the affordability factor which is what I do, but again, I was two weeks off. MR. JACKOSKI-Two weeks you lose it all, Larry. MR. CLUTE-1 understand completely. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's a very straightforward application. Are there any Board member comments at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-I have a question of Staff. We just went through a discussion on corner lots, and this one talks about 30 feet, or 20 feet, right. MRS. MOORE-It's a different zone. MR. JACKOSKI-It's NR. MR. GARRAND-One's MDR and one's NR. MR. KUHL-Mr. Clute, I have a question for you. MR. CLUTE-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-You're going to be building? MR. CLUTE-1 am. Well, that's if we get this meeting here. MR. KUHL-Well this, where's the walkway? Where's the driveway? You've got a box in the middle of a piece of property. I mean, how do we accept a drawing like this? Are you going to put a driveway over here or a walkway over there? MR. CLUTE-No, the driveway is already in existence on the lot, Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes, you're going to follow that one, the one that's in existence? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you I have to. There's a pre-existing septic system that Queensbury's already approved and accepted. It's on that empty parcel. So that the pre- existing driveway that is in place will stay in place. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. KUHL-Would it be possible in the future when we address each other that you would come up with a complete drawing? You seem to be Mr. 80% when you submit. Because this is not the first time. MR. CLUTE-No, I understand completely. MR. KUHL-Just put that in your mind, if you would, sir. MR. CLUTE-I'll share the responsibility. When I speak with Matt Steves who puts these drawings together, we'll be more careful. MR. KUHL-Thank you, sir. MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Whereabouts is that septic according to the house you've got plotted now? I mean, how far is it away? We're moving that house over, is it possible some day you could put a garage in there without a variance? MRS. MOORE-He's going to need a variance. MR. CLUTE-The lot constrictions would require the variance. Even if I move the septic system. MR. HENKEL-Less of a variance. Where is that septic going to be? MR. CLUTE-Well, the septic is 10 feet off the house and it's dropped off the back side. If you come off, towards the back property line we're exactly 10 foot. We put the house exactly 10 foot, but if somebody, say the owner wanted to put a garage on, or even a breezeway or something that's going to have to have a variance, they have to eliminate that septic system. This is an interesting question, though, this particular client. I never approached it. I stuck with the affordability. Period. Here's the dollars and cents, and everything costs, new septic system. This client is considering the possibility of adding the garage. Not with me. They've already discussed it, and I'm telling them the same thing that I'm talking with you about. With the septic system, that's literally what they have to do. They have to do. They have to eliminate the septic system, but still come in and re-visit this site with you guys in order to achieve this. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-If they're going to move the septic system and put a garage on it, it's a corner lot. MR. CLUTE-Right, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other discussion? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. I'm sorry we cannot attend the public hearing dated October 21, 2015 to express our objection. We are writing to cast our objection to give relief from the minimum setback requirement to a single family dwelling on 13 Columbia Avenue (Tax ID # 309.7-1-27). We are the home owner of 21 Nathan Street that is in the immediate vicinity with Columbia Ave. The lot is way too small for a single family house, even too small for a trailer house. To allow the construction in a lot that is only half the size of a single family will deteriorate the living condition and well-being of the neighborhood, as well as the Town of Queensbury. Minimum allowable setback requirement for Queensbury zoning district means "Minimum". Please stick to the zoning code. Thank you for your service. Sincerely, Xiao Li Carol Yang" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. KELLY NORMANDIN MS. NORMANDIN-I'm Kelly Normandin. I live right next door to this lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Which one, the one down where the, to the left? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MS. NORMANDIN-Yes, that side of the corner lot, it's on Feld Avenue. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MS. NORMANDIN-And as I know, and everybody else knows, it's on a pie-shaped and my concern is it's too small for a single family house, which I've stressed my concerns to Larry myself, several different times, and I know the septic is in the front part of that lot because they've dug it up to find it. So if they're going to put a garage there at some point in time, where are they going to put a septic system? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, and that would all go through zoning and planning when that happens, if that happens. MS. NORMAN DIN-Right. That's my concern then is just it's a small lot. MR. GARRAND-He's going to need a variance for just about anything he does on this piece of property. MS. NORMAN DIN-Because I know the fence was on my property and it had been moved. Part of the fence was on part of my property, and the fence had been moved, which I've asked them a number of times to do, but they just did it because I found out that they had sold the lot or whatever to have this house built, but my concern is still that it's too small for a single family home being there. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening? Seeing no one else, I'm going to leave the public comment period open. I'm going to seek Board member comment. Would anybody like to volunteer to go first? MR. KUHL-Yes, I will, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. MR. KUHL-I was in favor of this the first time. I think it's a good use of a piece of property that's sitting there empty. I understand the concerns of the neighbors, but I would, if I were in the neighborhood I'd want to see that lot built on rather than left empty. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I was also in favor of the application the first time and I'll be in favor of it this time, but I wanted just to add something, that there are no assurances that a garage automatically gets approved. There are some lots that just don't have the room for a garage. So when you talk to your client you might want to emphasize that. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 supported the project the first time, and I support it this time. I also feel that a well-constructed structure on this property looks better than a bare lot. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I was also for the project the first time. I'm for it the second time. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 don't think I was present the first time, about a year ago, but I am in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I thought the neighbor made a good point that there are some serious constraints on this lot, and that any proposals moving forward on this lot should be looked at very closely by the municipal boards, but I would be in favor from a previous decision on this. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think that's key, because it is re-affirming. I agree. Any further development of that parcel or structure is going to require Zoning Board and Planning Board discussion. All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. MC CABE-I'll make a resolution. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ed Hermance & Cynthia Robertson (Agent: Larry Clute). Applicant proposes construction of an 873 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from the minimum allowable setback requirements for the NR zoning district. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 21, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the structure will be an improvement to the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because of the size of the lot. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because many of the properties in this area are on tight lots. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2015, Ed Hermance & Cynthia Robertson; Agent: Larry Clute, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 21St day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. CLUTE-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 57-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS, PCS, LLC AGENT(S) PHILLIPS LYTLE LLP; THOMAS F. PUCHNER, ESQ. OWNER(S) KUBRICKY CONSTRUCTION CORP. ZONING MDR LOCATION 1359 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF A 130-FOOT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ON A VACANT PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION FOR PLACEMENT OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN AN MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 55- 2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 9.23 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 279.00-1-48 SECTION 179-5-130C THOMAS PUCHNER & PAUL REID, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 57-2015, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, Meeting Date: October 21, 2015 "Project Location: 1359 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation and operation of a 130-foot wireless telecommunications facility 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) and related equipment on a vacant parcel. Relief requested from restriction for placement of a telecommunications tower in a MDR zoning district. Relief Required: Parcel will require a use variances as follows: 179-5-130 Telecommunication Towers — designated areas where relief is requested to locate the tower in a MDR zone that is not one of the allowed zones for a new cell tower location. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: The four (4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. AT&T Wireless is consider a public utility under New York decisional law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of "personal wireless services" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a use variance: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. The applicant has provided detail information about the gap in service of this area and the ability to place a structure with minimal impact to the surrounding area. 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. The applicant has provided that service gap will be reduced by the placement of the structure and the height of the structure. 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. The applicant has provided site evaluation materials as outlined in the code. In addition the applicant has been working with the APA with site and environmental review process. The applicant's project may be considered to be at a minimal and still provide the capacity needed for the area of coverage. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize a 10,000 sq. ft. area to install a 130 ft. monopole cellular tower and associated equipment. The applicant has indicated that the area will be fenced in with a 40 x 60 ft. area and to include an equipment shelter and a generator. The site is a new cell tower and is subject to a use variance for utility usage. The application provides details of reviewing sites that have an existing tower for shared use and locating in areas that allow new towers where neither met the needs of placement of a new tower. The applicant has provided a visual analysis and gap coverage maps. The project is located in the Adirondack Park and is already in the review process where the APA has asked for the local review to be completed before they proceed. The applicant is also completing the necessary materials for NYSDEC as the project site has an existing mining permit that is subject to modification with the DEC." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met and based on its limited review it did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on October 20, 2015 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. PUCHNER-My name is Thomas Puchner. I'm an attorney with the Phillips Lytle law firm, representing New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, AT&T. I have with me two additional people to help tonight. I have Paul Reid who is a site acquisition consultant from Centerline Communications. Paul did the investigation of sites to potentially fill this gap in coverage and the leasing work for this site. So Paul knows a lot about the background of where things are on sites. I also have Amir Parikh Parikh who is an engineer for AT&T and he's been involved in the background part of analysis, the metrics of this site and whether it works. He can answer questions in that respect. This is a 130 foot monopole tower. It's a not a guide wire tower. It's not a cross bridge type of tower, a lattice tower. It's a sleek monopole kind of tower. The purpose of this is to fill a gap on Route 149. It is an obvious gap from people that live in the area. It's shown very clearly on the map. The site that we're talking about is an existing gravel mine that's owned by Kubricky Construction. We have the lease with them. The mine is being reclaimed. This project is proposed for a portion of the site that has already been reclaimed. Other sections will in the future be reclaimed, but any of that work will not impact the tower 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) project. The site is MDR which doesn't allow towers without a Use Variance. We met yesterday with the Planning Board and received the Use Variance recommendation on the Use Variance. So that's where we are, and, you know, I'm happy to take a break and answer questions or I can go through a full presentation. I can talk about RF and visual analysis. It's all in the packet. MR. JACKOSKI-We've done, obviously, cell towers in the past. We're not an expert, but somewhat prepared, and I do know that it's the MDR zone, and I suspect that a gravel mine isn't allowed in that zone either. MR. PUCHNER-1 assumed that that's pre-existing. I didn't take it back that far, but I think the APA permit as I mentioned had a '71 date on it. MR. JACKOSKI-So we know there's commercial activity on that parcel. So any other questions? MR. KUHL-Is this going to be a single source tower or are you going to have any colocation on it? MR. PUCHNER-It's going to have colocation. It's designed for at least three, and there are four. Height is an issue in the Adirondack Park. We need to be 15 feet above the tree cover. It's really line of sight. You don't think of it that way, but it is. So we want to be high but we don't want to be too high because we do APA towers all the time for AT&T. Height is a major issue. MR. KUHL-Is anybody under contract to do that here? MR. PUCHNER-For the additional carriers? Not yet. MR. KUHL-Not yet. MR. PUCHNER-But if you build it they will come. MR. KUHL-Yes, we need it. MR. HENKEL-Is that something you would add height to as trees grow? MR. PUCHNER-Towers do get modified. This particular tower is designed structurally to support the loading that's proposed. They're designed specifically for a need, but the engineers can and do modify the towers. If you go up, a lot of times, most of what we're doing we try not to build new towers. We try to add things to the buildings with existing towers. All of the time that requires structural modifications and analysis. We work towards that if we can, and if it makes sense, we do it. MR. JACKOSKI-So across the street is the Town landfill or whatever you want to call it these days, and the Jenkinsville Road corridor there, and that land also is much higher than what you're proposing. Is there a reason you didn't think of those taller areas? MR. PUCHNER-1 don't have an answer for that off the top of my head. It's really not that much higher than where we're located. We come up, if you're coming up Ridge Road, you get onto Ridge and you're pretty much at the higher area there. The site where it's located, the intent of the tower, it actually does sit down, there's another ridge on Queensbury Country Club's property, the abutter to the north. So actually the little extra height, it's 15 or 20 feet or so. It helps us with the APA and the visual impact of that. It provides quite a bit of screening. So we get enough coverage from the location that we're at now. We don't have to get up into where the landfill is, even though it may be a little higher. MR. JACKOSKI-So will the Cingular boost, and unfortunately I'm a Verizon guy. So my phone going up Route 9 1 get no coverage whatsoever at the east short of the lake as you head to the north. Will this tower allow for coverage due north to the shore of the lake? MR. PUCHNER-It's going to cover most of the roadway. MR. JACKOSKI-Ridge Road north. MR. PUCHNER-It does most of that, and I can show you the prop maps for that. Okay. So this is, this shows, so this is the existing coverage and this is what you're talking about. So these colors, green is the best we can get, and that's called Neg 75 db is the measurement. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) Neg 85 is a little bit better. That was what you would need for like a commercial type building, like this building, for example, masonry construction, not wood frame. I'm sorry, typically you need green for that. Yellow you need for residential construction. Red, which is Neg 95, you'd need typically for in vehicle coverage. That's what you want to see. When you hit white it's below Neg 95. That's when you start having dropped calls or you can't make calls. Okay. Basically that's inadequate service. It's not perfectly uniform but that's the story. So that's the existing AT&T coverage. All of these round lit up circles are online towers, and you can see the RF propagation radiating from them. The other ones that are not lit up, this is our tower, our proposed tower. There's another one down here, Hudson Falls, Glens Falls/Route 9, Luzerne Mountain, this one has been approved. This is coverage with other towers that are proposed in the area other than Queensbury, and that's just designed to show you that even if we build everything that's already currently on the table, that's not going to cover the gaps. So this is with Queensbury east, and so here you see this gives you RF coverage all along the east west corridor and north south for the most part. You see there's some gaps up towards the lake. It's the best you can do at the moment, but we're always looking to improve. MR. JACKOSKI-So could you go back a slide? MR. PUCHNER-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-And that was your suggestion that that is what the coverage might be with all of the proposed towers that are in the works? MR. PUCHNER-Everything that AT&T has on the dashboard of the prop map which was 2014. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. Whatever happened to the tower that was on the Top of the World? MRS. MOORE-That's been constructed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That is not an AT&T tower. That's why it's not showing on this map. MRS. MOORE-That's right. MR. KUHL-We also approved one on French Mountain. MR. PUCHNER-I'm not that familiar with that. Is that the Cronin high rise? Is that what we're talking about? MR. GARRAND-No. MR. URRICO-It's up near the lake on the east side of the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. Once you said AT&T proposed, I got it. It's a simple application. I get it. MR. PUCHNER-All right. Good. I like that. So this is just, we always want to talk about what are the alternatives to this, in terms of existing. Like I said, we always try to build on prior structures that have been built, towers or tall buildings. This is an SBA tower at 22 Wescott Lane that's close by, but with that one turned on you can see that it doesn't cover the area as well, and then there's another box tower that's tall. That's like a radio tower, very tall tower, a little bit to the west. Again, if we were to collocate on that tower, it still doesn't do the job to fill this particular gap. So, and then the last prop map that I have for you is if we were to select a site that actually complied with zoning, the closest one is at this Hicks Road location right here. That's near the airport, I believe, and as you can see, it helps that neighborhood, but it's not going to help this gap along the main road. There's a careful review process for them. I'll tell you that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We're good. MR. PUCHNER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So the last question I will have for you is it says the AT&T equipment building, so when you collocate or join your tower, are they going to have their own buildings? MR. PUCHNER-Yes. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. REID-Yes, there's room in the compound, within the fenced compound, for probably three little equipment shelters. The best practice, sometimes we do it differently, but usually they have their own shelters. MR. HENKEL-You start with one shelter and you bring one shelter. MR. REID-We'd put one shelter up for AT&T. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Do we have any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-1 do. Question for Laura. The Notes list this as an Unlisted action. MRS. MOORE-It's not applicable in this case because of the APA. It says it twice and I apologize. That's not accurate. MR. GARRAND-That was actually going to be my next comment. SEQR is not, it's a Type 11. SEQR is not necessary. MRS. MOORE-Because the APA is handling that. MR. GARRAND-A couple of questions. What section is, the APA says you've got to have a re- vegetation agreement for neighboring properties? Is there an agreement in this packet that I missed for re-vegetation, for the neighboring properties, not for the Kubricky properties? MR. PUCHNER-Yes, it's a no cutting restriction which, let me see if I can find it. MR. GARRAND-1 think the note said no cutting and re-vegetation if stuff does get cut. The next question is, who does the back haul for this? AMAR PARIKH PARIKH MR. PARIKH-The back haul, typically these days we do fiber, or what we call ether net. So I'm not exactly familiar with who the provider is in the area because I don't usually find that information out. Typically that's something we get to at a later stage, once the application is approved and we start looking at, you know, what the next steps are. So I'm not exactly sure right off the top of my head, but generally for the type of technology that we are building on towers these days we typically look for fiber back haul. So the back haul is designed in such a way that we can get close to, you know, enough capacity to support the 3G and the 4G technologies that we typically build these to. MR. GARRAND-Okay. This plan is going to have to be built out there for the back haul to that site. MR. PARIKH-I'm sorry, what? MR. GARRAND-Basically fiber's going to have to be run out to that site. MR. PARIKH-So a lot of times we have dark fiber that needs to get lit up. So, again, it's a process that we go through once the tower sort of gets built, or simultaneously. MR. GARRAND-That's a logistics issue. Okay. The re-vegetation for the neighboring properties. MR. PUCHNER-Exhibit J would be the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. I'm looking ahead and I'm not finding the terminology about re-vegetation. Do you recall reading that or are you just asking? MR. GARRAND-Yes, I saw it in here somewhere. It says re-vegetation in no cut areas. MR. PUCHNER-Yes, but that would be covered by the Declaration in Exhibit J, and that's, APA requires that for all new towers at this point. MR. GARRAND-So you're stating you're going to comply with the APA requirements? MR. PUCHNER-Yes, and it's filed on the record. This is in the Warren County Clerk's Office. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is. "I am writing on behalf of my wife and I to voice support for the above application. Nancy and I live at 1547 Ridge Road, and cell service on our side of Town has been lacking for far too long. The site at 1359 Ridge Road will fill a gap in service in our region which badly needs to be resolved. There is but 1 residence in somewhat close proximity to the proposed tower, but the remaining adjoining lands would have no impact whatsoever. I have long been a proponent for a tower to be located at the Town's transfer station somewhat across Ridge from this property, but it appears a private landowner will benefit from the income that the Town might have been able to enjoy on its property. Nonetheless, the tower is long overdue and needed. I urge the ZBA to approve this application to improve cell coverage on the east end of Town. Please not that I do not represent the applicant or the land owner. This letter is purely for the interests of my wife and me! Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Sincerely, Matthew F. Fuller, Esq." And the second one is from William VanNess to Sue Hemingway, and it's just a comment. "Good morning, Sue: Just a heads up on the Cell Tower; I have spoken with the attorney about space on the tower for an Emergency Services antenna and he said it would be no problem because they normally will allow this at no charge to the municipality. Is this something we can incorporate into the agreement? Thank you." That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other written comments? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled. There are no audience members here. Unless Harrison wants to speak. HARRISON FREER MR. FREER-Mr. Reid on your numbered, I'd note that there is no such place as Patten Mills, NY. That's another street near there. MR. REID-Okay. Sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-I did receive an e-mail, which I don't normally get, but I got an e-mail asking for me to read this into the record. So this is from the across the street neighbor Bill Dutcher, 1382 Ridge Road. I would normally have Roy read it in, but unfortunately it's on my cell phone. It says, Hi, Steve. I just opened my mail to see that there is a hearing tonight on the New Cingular Wireless request for variance on the cell tower on Ridge which is literally across the street from our Americade offices on Ridge and even closer to the residence of Dan and Kathy Gwinup, my next door neighbor to the south of my property. Our office at 1382 Ridge is a higher elevation than that sandpit. So the proposed 130 foot tower might be only 90 feet or so above our office staff. I'm concerned about the negative health impact of microwave transmissions near our office there. Also I'm unsure what impacts transmissions might pose to our office and functions. I cannot attend tonight's hearing and am unable to find an e-address for this letter on the Queensbury Town site. So I'm e-mailing you directly as the Chairman. If the tower will be much higher than my office, maybe the negatives are not an issue, but until it can be determined whether the strong microwave transmissions might cause health or business problems, I will have to object to the variance. Thank you, Bill Dutcher. So I'm guessing you're suggesting that tower is tall enough as to not cause concerns with their business equipment or their employee's health. MR. PUCHNER-Environmental RF, as the Board probably knows, is regulated by FCC regulations under the Telecommunications Act. The field is entirely. Having said that, the regulations that are in place are extremely health effective. This tower is 126 feet. So they're about eight feet to one hundred and twenty-two feet to the bottom tip of the antenna. FCC conditionally excludes any further analysis of a tower that is over, I don't want to misstate this, 30 feet above the ground. So the regulations are extremely protective to begin with, but we're almost 100 feet above what that would be, and there's obviously some distance, it's well set into the parcel. So I think that answers the health concern. We also have a submission in our package, if not we can get it to the Town, but these things have been signed off on as far as RF interference. It shouldn't be an issue as far as that goes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any other Board member comments? I'm going to seek a polling of the Board. Any volunteers? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) MR. KUHL-I have no problem with this proposal as stated. I think it's an improvement to the cell requirements of the area, something everybody wants, but there's always some people that will think it's too close to their property. I'd be in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm also in favor. I think it's a good use of the piece of property. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of the project. It's out of the way. I'm not sure what else you'd do with this particular area. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement. I think this is a good project. I think cell tower usage is important not only to security but to a lot of businesses today. They require, and certainly homeowners need it for their own personal business as well. It's no longer just an extra service. It's the main connection for a lot of people. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I've only got one issue with this, and that's that the tower is located in an MDR zone. I think anywhere else in the Town it wouldn't be acceptable to have a cell tower in a densely populated area, but given that this is a very sparsely populated uncovered area of Queensbury where the tower's going in an unused sandpit, I think that's the only criteria that really makes it acceptable going in the MDR zone. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of it. My thoughts are similar to Rick's. There are no immediate neighbors to that, and the only issue might be down the road if that area is subdivided, for the health of it it might be an issue. I was able to sit through a couple of different conferences on this in the past, and particularly the impacts and what everyone should look, and there aren't those issues in this area. So at this point I guess I'd be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I had initial concerns with the MDR zone, but I've got to look at that area and say, why is that an MDR zone? Nobody's going to want to locate across from that landfill. Nobody's going to want to locate necessarily in the sandpit, even though I know we've got one now on Sweet Road. So, you know, Sweet Road old sandpit is being developed by Cerrone, is it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-But you've got all the gas stations and you've got just an awful lot going on in that area that makes this a perfect fit. I do believe it's going to be a perfect fit, and I'm thrilled we're going to have the ability for people in that area to use their cell phones for emergencies. I think it's great that I'll be able to contact two school board members who live in the middle of that white zone. So I'm very happy. Just hurry up and get it done. MR. PUCHNER-The comment that was read about emergency services. AT&T works with emergency services all over the place. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're just suggesting at this time, there's no agreement yet, but in the history, we certainly are aware that they've been more than accommodating. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion, please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC (AT&T) for a variance of Section 179-5-130C of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation and operation of a 130- foot wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment on a vacant parcel. Relief requested from restriction for placement of a telecommunications tower in a MDR zoning district. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2015) The four (4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. Verizon Wireless is consider a public utility under New York decisional law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of "personal wireless services" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a use variance: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service in an area that is not serviced well at the present time. It is our finding, 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. Basically to improve cellular coverage in an area that is not covered well. It is our finding, 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced any problems. It is our finding, Based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant [ HAS ] demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations to obtain a use variance. Based upon all of the above, RESOLUTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 57-2015 NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS, PCS, LLC (AT&T), Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21s' day of October, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you very much. MR. PUCHNER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other items this evening for the Board? Hearing none, can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21s' day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 33