Loading...
12-16-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 16, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 PZ-0031-2015 Robert& Renee Little (Trustees) 2. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-19 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) DECEMBER 16, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN RONALD KUHL RICHARD GARRAND HARRISON FREER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to welcome you all to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this evening, the 16th of December. For those of you who haven't been here before, it's a very easy process. We'll do some housekeeping that's on the agenda. We'll call up Old Business. Then we'll call up New Business. For those of you who have applications in front of us, you'll join us at the table. Roy will read the application into the record. We will ask questions of the applicant. We will then open a public comment period when there is a public comment period advertised. We, as a Board, will then decide how to move forward after the public comment period and take action accordingly. The good news for all of you students out there is you couldn't have picked a better night. We have one application in front of us, but I understand you have to be here for two hours. So we'll have to delay it as long as possible. Turn out the lights because we're not going to be here. We hope to be here for like maybe 20 minutes. So, having one item on the agenda. We have only the approval of the meeting minutes of November 18th to do. May I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 18, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2015, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on tonight's agenda was Old Business, the Burnett Family Trust. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 SEQRA TYPE II BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) THOMAS R. KNAPP, ESQ. STAFFORD, CARR & MC NALLY, P.C. OWNER(S) BURNETT FAMILY TRUST & ESTATE OF DAVID BURNETT ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION; LOT SIZE 28,639 SQ. FT. LOT A AND 28,754 SQ. FT. LOT B; NO CHANGES TO EXISTING HOMES OR FEATURES, DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE, WATER FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS, AND LOT A FOR NOT HAVING PHYSICAL ROAD FRONTAGE. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE, PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF TWO LOTS FROM THE ONE PARENT LOT. CROSS REF SIB 8-2015; BP 2004-677 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179-4-050; 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-We are going to table the matter until. MRS. MOORE-The first meeting in January. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-The first meeting in January with a December typical submission deadline which has already passed. MRS. MOORE-We're okay. MR. JACKOSKI-They're all okay. So can I have a motion to table the application? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from the Burnett Family Trust. Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision; lot size 28,639 sq. ft. Lot A and 28,754 sq. ft. Lot B; no changes to existing homes or features, driveway. Relief requested from minimum road frontage, water frontage, lot width requirements, and Lot A for not having physical road frontage. Also, relief is requested from minimum lot size, property line setbacks for the WR zoning district. Subdivision approval is required for the creation of two lots from the one parent lot. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015, BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AND ESTATE OF DAVID BURNETT, Until the first meeting in January 2016; Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. On to New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 0031-2015 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT & RENEE LITTLE (TRUSTEES) AGENT(S) PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING, LITTLE & O'CONNOR OWNER(S) ROBERT & RENEE LITTLE REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 20 PIONEER POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,305 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,730 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT (2,975 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK, PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS, MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR), AND FROM MINIMUM FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW WELL, TIE-INTO EXISTING COMMUNITY SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER MEASURES, AND INSTALLATION OF SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND 15 PERCENT SLOPE. CROSS REFERENCE SP 67-2015, TBOH SEPTIC VARIANCE 7-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.30 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, TOM HUTCHINS & JACE BROWN, REP. APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0031-2015, Robert & Renee Little (Trustee), Meeting Date: December 16, 2015 "Project Location: 20 Pioneer Point Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,305 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construction of a new 1,730 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with main floor and basement (2,975 sq. ft. floor area). Relief requested from minimum setback, permeability requirements, maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and from minimum frontage on a public highway for the WR zoning district. Project includes new well, tie-into existing community septic system, stormwater measures, and installation of shoreline plantings. Project subject to site plan review for work within 50 ft. of the shoreline and 15 percent slope. Relief required Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040: Establishment of districts dimensional requirements for the waterfront residential zone. FAR Permeability West side Front setback Shoreline Frontage setback 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) Required 22% 75% 20 ft. 30 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Proposed 24.2% 69.4% 8 ft. 14.4 ft. 25.6 ft. 0 ft. Relief 2.2% 5.6% 12 ft. 15.6 ft. 24.4 ft. 50 ft. excess Criteria for considering an area variance pursuant to chapter 267 of town law In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the proposed home to be more compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed removes a preexisting nonconforming structure and installs stormwater management, upgrades the septic and installs a new well —all improvements to lessen the environmental impact. The project may be considered to have an impact with the number of variances requested. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes to demolition an existing home 1305 sq. ft. footprint to construct a 1730 sq. ft. home. The new structure will contain two floors with a 3-bedrooms. The project includes disturbance of 10,300 sq. ft. including grading and stormwater management measures to be installed. The project involves construction of a building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. The planting plans shows the some planted areas to be located around the home, permeable pavers, reinforced grass drive area and shoreline plantings." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the purpose of your record I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I am representing the applicant, the Littles. With me at the table is Tom Hutchins who was the project engineer; Jace Brown and Nicole Simpano from the Phinney Design Group, the designers, architects for the project. I also would say that I'm related to the applicant and a neighbor immediately adjacent to the property, and I have submitted letters from the other two neighbors that adjoin this property, Jane and Terry Barton and Colleen and Mike Hogan Clark. They are on the west side of the property, south side of the property and I'm on the south side also. Also in the audience is Betty Little who is immediately adjacent to me, who is also a neighbor. In fact, Betty, I and the Littles share a common septic system that we've installed this past summer. It's on my property that we all have given out cross easements to pump from each of the three residences to the system. Recently also I would just say, as far as the environment goes, the Hogans and the Clarks, the Hogan, Clark and Bartons have installed a community septic system also. So everybody on the point now has an up to date compliant septic system. That's one aspect of, when everybody decided they were going to undertake what they were undertaking. The variances that are being requested, the property is unique and anything that was done on that property is to be done on that property requires pretty much the variances that we're asking for. I don't think they're substantial. We're asking for a minimum floor area ratio variance. Setbacks, as will be demonstrated by Mr. Brown, we are maintaining the existing setbacks, although the setbacks all require variances. I think since we made our first presentation to the Planning Board and we are ready to do that, we've modified the project so that we don't need a permeability variance. We will be compliant. We will have 75% permeable. So I think that we can drop that from our request. I think the other issues are really frontage on a Town road. Everybody on that point, most of the properties on the lake aren't directly on a Town road. There's an interior system that ends at the end of Fitzgerald Road, probably about eight, nine houses that go down to the east along Rose Lane. They used to call it Rose Lane. I'm not 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) sure what they call it now, and then there's our six houses that are on Pioneer Point, all have no frontage. We have a right of way to our property. So that's something that would be required for any building permit on any of those properties. The impacts itself of what we're requesting are not significant, and I say that as the attorney for the applicant and also as the neighbor. The project from the rear is going to appear to be an 18 foot high structure, and I say rear. The Code says front, the back of it, away from the lake. The lake side has two story exposure, and it's set up so that you really only get that from a very short point of view, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Jace, why don't you go through the property. MR. BROWN-Good evening again, Jace Brown with Phinney Design Group. I'll lead you through our planning process for this project, knowing, coming into this with the Littles, that this was going to be impossible without a variance, we gave it a great deal of consideration to minimizing the impacts that we could, given the parameters of the lot. As you can see here, this is the existing home on the lot, Glen Lake here at the top of the page, and then the abutters around it here. The existing home has a deck and a large covered carport, two small additions and two outdoor shed structures. When we did our initial lot analysis, as you can see this area right here is the actual permitted buildable area on this lot. It's impossible to build anything other than a shed, basically, on this lot. We did explore as many alternatives as we could to obviously minimize the impact of anything that we were going to build, to keep it to a minimum. The strategy that we found that was best with this property was to use the existing structure to create, effectively, new setbacks that would be as minimal in nature as they are right now. So we took the existing condition to the side setback to the front and to the lake and said we're not going to make any of those conditions worse in the composition of the new house. So in maintaining those, that created this new envelope right here. It's about 20 feet 10 inches from the lake, four and a half feet on the Hogan side; 13 feet 11 on the front of the property and the required 20 foot setback is maintained on the east side of the property. This is the proposed residence within that. As you can see, the design of the house has been managed to have a series of setbacks that enable it to be rotated so that it gets no closer to the water than the other house. In fact it's six inches a little bit further away than the previous home, and we are no closer to any of the neighbors than the current house. So that was our analysis of the best approach to fit the new program onto the house. The most substantial addition, in terms of special requirement for what they were asking for, is basically the addition of a garage. That's what this area is. If you look at the numbers between what's there and what we're asking, it's basically a one car garage. The outdoor sheds are being eliminated. They're consolidating that storage need in here, and then as anybody who lives around here knows we really do need a garage to accommodate wintertime use in any capacity for this home. In terms of the height and the siting of the house, we did look at where the existing house is, use that, again, our basis for where to site the new home. We knew that, given, again, the nature of the lot, in fact there's a lot of activity. There is somewhat of a flat spot at the top. Knowing that we were going to try to get a two story program into this, we created, effectively, a small terraced area that would enable us to capture some of the stormwater. This illustrates where the effective excavation for the home would be, and then this is the 28 foot height requirement. The entire program that's proposed fits within that 28 feet, even though this is on a sloping site. In terms of the home itself, this is the lower level, walk out patio area, facing the lake. In the lower level they have two guest bedrooms, a modest rec room, small hallway, bathroom, laundry, mechanical. Garage, of course, is on a slab. The first floor, modest living space, dining, kitchen, open to one another; mudroom, first floor master bedroom, garage and powder room. This is those steps in the front enable us to keep that condition no worse towards the front, and in terms of the appearance of the house, this is a massing study that was done. One of our principle concepts with this home was to, again, as Mike mentioned, allow the house to really appear from all the neighbors on land to really be exactly what it is right now, which is a one story structure with a low pitched roof. We're maintaining that. So very minimal visual impacts in terms of the land side. Knowing, again, that we need to get windows, egress, light into the basement, we brought the patio, and instead of being right in front of the house we've hooked it around the corner. So from the point where most people would see it from the water, you really can't even tell that it's a two story structure. That patio's hooked off to the side of the lot. There was quite a bit of woods. You don't really actually see that from the water. This view is meant to illustrate what the house really looks like from inside the cove that it would wrap around to the east side of the lot. This here where you can see that lower level, we have in this view point, we have eliminated the trees, we will not be eliminating them in reality, just simply for clarity so you could see that. I'll give you an idea of what the house looks like from the lake in a photo realistic view in just a moment. The landscaping scheme, and Tom will talk about this in a little bit more detail, we are maintaining the existing tree line. To the east side of the lot there is an easement that stretches across the entirety of the front of the lot, which enables access to the Hogan property right here on the west side. This looks like a garage. It's actually a storage shed. They tend to park cars on the driveway right here. Right now this entire area is crushed stone. It's a very large area of crushed stone. We're going to be greening that up in this proposal, introducing quite a bit of plantings on the front. We do, of course, need to maintain paved 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) access to the garage. We've kept that sort of to a minimum with a walkway going to a front door. We do need to make this all something that somebody can drive and maintain that access for the neighbors. Therefore we're introducing the concept of using reinforced grass. This is something that you can drive on all season, but allows us all the permeability on the lot right there. The addition of that is what kind of made us get underneath that requirement. So we are now no longer asking for a permeability exception. On the lake side we have permeable patio. The steps that come down from the first floor to the lower level are actually creating that retaining wall, which actually shelters that view of that area from the lake. So the existing natural grade right here is maintained. There's a very large feature oak tree right here. We would like to save that tree if we can. It helps to shield the house from the lake. It's a kind of character defining aspect of the lot. So we'd like to maintain that, and then there is an existing walkway down to what's currently a small almost, don't want to call it a dock, but it's a very small, like a six by eight dock that's in rather rough condition. Our proposal is to simply re- surface that with permeable material. There is an existing concrete retaining wall down there as well. Our proposal is to reface that with native stone rather than leave it as exposed concrete block. Thought being that to disturb that would actually create a worse condition for the lake than if we simply resurfaced it in its current location. The terracing that's occurring from that is helping to retain the stormwater, and then we're introducing an extensive shoreline planting system all the way up this slope. So we're doing much more than what you'd typically see on a lot that slopes gently down to the lake. We're really bringing it right up the hill, thinking of this all being native plantings. Things that are going to really, again, minimize impact, minimize runoff, and reduce visual impacts as well as create an outdoor enclave for the Littles. I want to be clear that we're not asking for a dock. If, in the future, they did want one, we have considered the fact that the current location would be nonconforming. It would be too close to the neighbor. So the pathway that's down there right now extends to this point. With the idea if in several years they wanted to do a dock this would be an easier location. They wouldn't have to rip the shoreline apart in order to accommodate that at a future date. That's the landscape, and then the elevations, the building. This is the quote unquote front facing the neighbors; the garage front door, kitchen, living area, low vaulted living room. Turning around this side of the house, the left is the north elevation, the chimney, and here you can see the topography sloping down to the water line, and again that set of stairs that's helping to shield the outdoor living space from the water. Rear elevation, this is what the house looks like straight on. Again, that set of steps. This is a little deceiving because in reality it is rotated away a little bit. So this is actually a little bit more protected than would appear right there, and then in terms of what that actually looks like from the water, this is a picture taken in the summer of the lake. This is the proposed house right here. These are these windows right here. All of this lower level space, as you can see, is heavily occluded back in this pocket right here. That's that existing oak tree that was mentioned, and this is the cove that the one neighbor on the one side has current access to. The vast majority of open water on the lake is out this way. So with that I'll leave it for Tom to touch on the engineering. MR. HUTCHINS-Just very briefly, Jace covered a lot of the items that have been put into this design. In terms of improvements, low impact type principles, we've incorporated into this design, we've maximized the infiltration of stormwater. Presently there is essentially no stormwater management practices on site, with the exception of a sloping site that essentially runs down to the lake. We've incorporated a great deal of infiltration capacity. We've incorporated permeable patios with stormwater storage beneath. Essentially all of the walking surfaces outside, with the exception of the stair treads, are permeable surfaces. We've minimized the amount of gravel in the gravel and hard surfaces within the finished site. Obviously there are rights of way across this property, and a portion of this property, and we've maintained those. We've maintained those. We've minimized permeable, or impermeable products there. As Jace said, we've incorporated reinforced turf for an area that is within that right of way but realistically will see very little vehicular traffic, perhaps some overflow parking or something for the people to actually access there. They wouldn't travel on those portions regularly where we've put the reinforced turf, and in that situation reinforced turf is a great application, and again, all five of the houses, including this one on the Point have new septic systems that were installed this year which are enhanced treatment systems. There are, each house has its own septic tank, pump station if it needs it, depending on gravity, and they all flow to a combined absorption field which is, which utilizes an enhanced degree of treatment. So again we're seeking relief from lack of road frontage, the shoreline side setback, shoreline setback, side setback and front setback and a minimal relief on floor area ratio, and with that, unless there's anything to add, I'll turn it over to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open up the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Yes. Are you going to put a generator in it because of your pump station? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) MR. BROWN-It's right here. MR. KUHL-Will the house have a generator? And their driveway, is that going to be asphalt or pavers? MR. HUTCHINS-At this point it's shown as gravel. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HUTCHINS-And it's designed as asphalt. The driveway itself is designed as asphalt, shown as gravel. We've utilized pavers on the patios and the walkway, but not the driveway. MR. KUHL-Where did you pick up the five percent? Because you said you don't need a permeability variance? MR. HUTCHINS-On your submission, this is the right of way, 20 foot centered on this property line. In the original submission where we had requested the variance this is all gravel surfaced, down through here, and the gravel is wider here, and there is a stepping walkway around here. This section of it, from here back, has been converted to reinforced turf. This has been narrowed up slightly and this walkway has been on this section. Here's our reinforced turf. So that allowed us to make up five percent. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-I've got a couple of questions. On the lakeside, you're going to have to do some excavating to get the walkout basement there. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, they will have to excavate down. MR. GARRAND-How far is that from the lake where they're going to be excavating? MR. HUTCHINS-Thirty feet, Jace? The closest point of the finished house is 23 feet, but the large portion of the excavation is on the other side. MR. GARRAND-It looks like they're going to have to take out quite a bit of soil in order to get the design to fit. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and they'll be able to work with the design. MR. BROWN-Yes. So the excavated area is actually a little bit back further than it might appear on the landscaped area, landscaped plan because the patio is actually being raised a little bit there. So that's actually going to enable us to kind of get a silt fence out in front of this, you know, protect that area thoroughly, use the excavated area to create that small terrace, which actually helps with the slope, and then in terms of the actual distance, the actual excavation would probably be about there. Yes, like Tom said, I'd say 28 feet. MR. GARRAND-And you're also not going to remove any of those trees on? MR. BROWN-So there are no, there's a really, just a couple of little scraggly birches in there right now. MR. GARRAND-Yes, it's the other side I was concerned about. MR. BROWN-None of these are going to be removed. Those are all existing. We did have to trim the tree line back a hair. I think it shows that in that drawing, and there is a shed right there. It's really, from a surveying standpoint it's really more limb pruning. I don't think we're going to take out any substantial trees right here. There are no substantial trees down here, and we're going to be actually planting more than exists there right now. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I think those trees kind of aid in the runoff that comes off of that area. MR. BROWN-They do, and this is a pretty heavily forested portion of the neighbor's lot. So we're trying to keep that intact as much as possible. Obviously with this being the 20 foot setback that was a consideration that right now we're asking for relief on this side because that's where the house is. There are no trees over here. We could have easily said let's move the house towards the center of the lot to kind of make all things being equal, we actually felt it was more important to leave that tree line intact on that side of the lot, and this is the generator located right there. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time? Harrison? MR. FREER-So do you have any idea of the additional cost, or the cost savings or was it a wash, in terms of cost, to take this approach versus taking a, you know, less analytic approach to just replacing the house with a two story and not having to go down in the details of the variances? MR. O'CONNOR-1 think any place on this site, if you were going to put on any size footprint, you'd be here for the same variances, and I think this strategy actually creates less impact. MR. FREER-I agree, Mike. My question really has to do with, okay, so, you know, you talked about. MR. O'CONNOR-This is more expensive than trying to build a two story on the top of the hill. MR. FREER-Yes, and that was sort of my question. Is this a 20%, 50%, double the cost? MR. BROWN-There's an extensive amount of landscaping involved with this scheme. That was a discussion that we had with the owner, and the way they're envisioning using this property is they really want to use the outdoor, and I think there's a value in that, and in many respects that's as expensive as building some of the interior improvements that you otherwise could have made. So, in other words, yes, we could have made the house larger at the expense of the landscape, you know, to quantify that would be a little difficult right now, but in general, I mean, this approach definitely is not the most cost effective solution to be blunt. They're taking great pains to be compliant. MR. FREER-Well, that's my point. It's obvious, if it wasn't double the price, you know, we should use this as a model, because you obviously had to pay more for just the walls for your powder room, right? Instead of making one powder room. Okay. Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? There's a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There are a few things. I'd like to read in the motion that the Planning Board passed last night, unanimously. Based on its limited review, they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was December 15, 2015. And Mr. O'Connor also submitted two letters that were sent to his office. "To Whom It May Concern: We are aware of the Little building project. We are also aware of the variances required. We have no objections to this project. Jane and Terry Barton" I don't know what their address is. I'm sure you can find out, and then "Michael O'Connor: I am writing to express my support for the proposed demolition and subsequent construction at 20 Pioneer Point, Queensbury, on Glen Lake, which is adjacent to my property. I have read the Town of Queensbury notice that included the project description, specifically noting the proposed increase in square footage. I do not have any objections to this proposal. Please contact me if you have any further questions, or need clarification of my support for this project. Colleen S. Hogan 19 Pioneer Point, Glen Lake, Queensbury, NY" MR. O'CONNOR-Barton's address, I believe, is 17. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. KUHL-Can I ask Mike one more question? Mr. O'Connor, how do we know, as a Board, that you're not going to shut off the septic some day on these people? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm a good guy. We have a mutual maintenance agreement that runs with the land. It says that everybody has equal rights, or not equal obligations, but has obligations to maintain the septic system. At this point I believe the discharge from their pump station and then beyond the discharge from their pump system, it's a mutual party agreement, and we share, I started to say, everybody has equal rights to use and the obligation is based upon the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) number of bedrooms that are, I have three of the eight bedrooms that serves my system. So I pay three eighths. MR. KUHL-So, in fact, if the house was sold to a non-family member, it would be covered is what you're saying? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it would. MR. KUHL-Thank you, and of course that agreement was drafted by O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Little & O'Connor. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-For Little & O'Connor, and I think the agreement for Hogan, Clark and Barton has been recorded. Mine's in the process of coming back from California to be recorded. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? MR. GARRAND-I've got a question for Staff. Without the request for relief for permeability, would you still consider it substantial, taking out the permeability? Because that seems like the big one, the six percent. MRS. MOORE-Moderate. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this point I'll poll the Board on what they think of the project. Does anybody want to go first? MR. KUHL-I'll start if you want. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MR. KUHL-Yes. I mean, this is a nonconforming structure to start out with. It's a small lot, and I think any improvement, and the thoroughness with which Mr. O'Connor brought everybody along for, you know, to make it an O'Connor meeting for two hours, no, excuse me. No, all kidding aside, thank you very much for your thoroughness and I think more lake properties need this kind of thoroughness. Thank you, and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd definitely agree with Ron, too. It's definitely a nice project and presented very well. They've done everything they possibly can to make it a better project than what's there now, and I'd be definitely all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Again, to mirror my Board members, I mean, I look at it as a pre-existing, nonconforming structure that's there now is going to be replaced, I guess, with another nonconforming structure, but everything that you've done to be aware of what made it nonconforming because you've minimized the environmental impacts, and the delicate nature of our open waters. I think you've done a good job with that. So I would be in favor of this project as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-In the beginning, first reading through this, I agreed with the Staff Notes that it was substantial given the amount of permeability relief they were requesting. I thought it was a little excessive. I like how they're using grass in a lot of these areas and actually meeting the permeability requirements. I don't think it'll produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood, and I also agree that it's probably, at this point, moderate relief they're requesting. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with my fellow Board members. I think this passes the test. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I agree it keeps, it's with the spirit of zoning, and I would even suggest that it be as good a model as I've seen with how to re-develop in sensitive water residential area. MR. JACKOSKI-And I agree. I think Phinney Design Group has become somewhat of a standard bearer for the Town of Queensbury in developing plans for difficult lots in our various lakefront properties. So I thank them for taking the time to really focus on what we need to do as a Town to develop our properties as environmentally sensitive as possible. So thank you, Phinney Design Group, for doing that. So I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for approval. MR. GARRAND-I'll make it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert and Renee Little (Trustees). Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,305 sq. ft. single-family dwelling and construction of a new 1,730 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with main floor and basement (2,975 sq. ft. floor area). Relief requested from minimum setback, maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and from minimum frontage on a public highway for the WR zoning district. Project includes new well, tie-into existing community septic system, stormwater measures, and installation of shoreline plantings. Project subject to site plan review for work within 50 ft. of the shoreline and 15 percent slope. On the relief requested for floor area ratio, it's 2.2 requested; on the west side setback it's 12 feet requested from the 20 foot setback; on the front setback it's 15.6 feet requested; on the shoreline it's 24.4 feet request, and on the frontage they are asking for 100% relief, but given the fact that this is more or less a community area owned by a couple of families, I don't think that's really significant. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 16, 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I don't believe it'll produce any whatsoever. I think it'll be an improvement. The current house is kind of dilapidated. The roof looks like it's falling in. There's wires hanging over the roof. It looks like it's collapsing in on itself. 2. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant: As stated by the engineer, any structure here is more than likely going to require relief given the topography and the outline of this lot. 3. Is this request substantial? No, I think it's moderate. 4. Will it have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? To the contrary. I think it'll help given that this won't be on its own more than likely failing septic system. It'll be on a brand new community septic system. 5. 1 think we might deem this self-created because the applicant is coming to us with this application. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0031-2015, Robert and Renee Little (Trustees), Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm a little short on my two hours. Should I speak further? Thank you. MR. BROWN-Thank you all for your time. MR. JACKOSKI-So the next item, we have a couple of more things for the agenda this evening. Number One, we're going to look at the calendar. If you notice the calendar of events for 2016, the Zoning Board meetings, the Planning Board meetings, the deadlines for submission of applications, and deadline of Planning Board meeting dates. So do you have any questions with any of the calendar at this time anyone on the Board? I also want to note that Mr. Garrand's last meeting this evening with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. We want to thank him very much for his service over the years and for his position of Vice Chairman of the Zoning Board of the Town of Queensbury. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-And we have Staff asking us for one more thing. MRS. MOORE-You actually need to make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-To adopt the calendar. Yes. So can I have a motion to approve the calendar as prepared by Staff for the Year 2016? MOTION TO APPROVE THE YEAR 2016 CALENDAR Introduced By Ronald Kuhl, Seconded By John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else here who has business? We do want to make a request to go into Executive Session to discuss some legal matters. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LEGAL MATTERS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We are now back into general session. Can I have a motion? MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROACH TOWN COUNSEL TO START THE LEGAL INQUIRY TO THE WILLIAM AND PAMELA ROBERTS PROPERTY (4 HOLLY LANE) TO MAINTAIN OUR STANDING, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-So we have a motion to move forward with legal counsel to maintain our legal rights associated with the 4 Holly Lane property decision by Judge Krogmann. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2015) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2015, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 12