Loading...
05-18-2016 015/18/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 2016 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice Combs 2. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust 10. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Area Variance PZ-0071-2016 Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises 19. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Sign Variance PZ-0072-2016 Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises 19. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Area Variance PZ-0074-2016 Big Bay Lodging, LLC 23. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 Area Variance PZ-0067-2016 Frank & Kathi Miller 26. Tax Map No. 289.6-1-35 Area Variance PZ-135-2016 Anthony M. Muscatello 31. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-30 Area Variance PZ-0139-2016 Great Meadow Federal Credit Union 34. Tax Map No. 296.20-1-10 Area Variance PZ-0138-2016 Joseph P. Gross 35. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-17.2 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 015/18/2016) MAY 18, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone, welcome. I'd like to call to order our meeting this evening of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday, May 18th here at 7 o'clock in our Activity's Center. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually a very simple process. There is an agenda on the back table and some explanation of our process, but in short we'll go through some housekeeping matters. We'll look at our Old Business applications. We'll open up our New Business applications and any other business to be brought before the Board. For each application we'll ask the applicants to join us here at the table. Roy will be kind enough to read additional information into the record for Old Business and the complete application into the record for New Business. We'll then listen to the applicants present their project if they need to. The Board will ask questions. We will open up public comment when public comment has been advertised and for each of the matters this evening a public comment has been advertised. After public comment, we will have the applicant re-join us at the table. We'll possibly ask more questions or ask the applicant to explain to us some of the information that we've learned from the public comment period. We'll then decide to poll the Board and take action accordingly. By polling the Board we'll learn as to whether or not the application may be approved, denied or maybe a request to be tabled. So we'll move right on this evening with some housekeeping matters, and the first matter is I need a motion to approve the minutes of April 20th APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 20, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next matter is the meeting minutes of April 27th April 27, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 27, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We'll move right on to finally to our first application this evening. The Old Business matter of Morris Combs. MR. MC CABE-Do we want to table the Great Meadows application first? 015/18/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-We'll do that right after this one. Is there anyone here for Great Meadows? Fortunately not. So that's good. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015 SEQRA TYPE I — ZBA CONSENTED TO PB 3/18/2015 MAURICE COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) MAURICE COMBS ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD 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. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF SB 6-2015; UV 71- 1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 9.09 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS & DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2015, Maurice Combs, Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 "Project Location: 636 Corinth Road "Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 7 lot subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel with lots ranging from 1.01 ac to 1.45 ac. The project proposes 1,080 ft. cul-de-sac town road (1.18 ac) that has a single access on Corinth Road. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts Moderate Density Residential lot size requirements. Lot size-MDR Required 2.0 acres Proposed 1.45, 1.18, 1.21, 1.14, 1.04, 1.01, 1.02 Relief .55, .82, .79, .86, .96, .99, .98 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. The lots border the Bedford Close housing with lots ranging from less than 0.5 ac and not more than 2.0 ac for some lots. 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 available to reduce the number of lots so lots can be a more compliant size. The applicant has indicated the number of lots due to the surrounding areas of Bedford Close and Hudson Pointe. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The requested relief varies from almost acre to a half an acre. The project site at 9.24 ac reduced by 1.18 ac of roadway leaves 8.06 ac for a total of 4 parcels in the MDR zone —for 2 ac requirement. The applicant has indicated the water district extension was granted so each lot will be connected to municipal water. 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental impacts. The plans included clearing areas, rain gardens on each parcel, and drywells for the proposed town road. 3 015/18/2016) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty maybe considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 7 lot subdivision with a proposed town road on Corinth Road. The applicant is requesting relief to create lots less than 2 acres. The zoning code requires lots in this zone to be a minimum of 2 acres if not connected to town sewer and water. The parcels are proposed to be connected to the Town water system and will have on-site septic systems. The plans show the proposed arrangement of each parcel in the subdivision. The applicant has received approval for a water district extension associated with the proposed project. Applicant requested tabling for a full board." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please, and add anything further that you want to. MR. PHILLIPS-My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm a lawyer in Glens Falls. To my left is Maurice Combs who is the applicant. To my right is Tom Hutchins the engineer. So we're here to present this variance application that has an interesting history to it in that it's been with Maurice Combs or his family going back to 1958 and over that period of time, with time going on, it's been re-zoned many times. The last re-zoning taking place to provide minimum lot sizes were required for two acres if the lot didn't have water and sewer. So when we were here before we did not have sewer, excuse me, water. We could not assure the Board we had water. Since that time the water district, the Town Board has agreed to extend the water district to include this property. So we have ticked off one of those shortcomings that we had the last time we were here. On the sewer side of things, we still don't have sewer, but we do have deep soils, and Mr. Hutchins will talk about the deep soils, and we believe that with proper engineering that the soils will carry the sewer requirements of this zone, I mean of this property, particularly because even though one acre is not two acres, there is enough room for that purpose. As you look at the proposal on the board you'll see that what is being proposed is a subdivision and development compatible with the adjoining Bedford Close development and in many cases the lots in this subdivision are larger in size than many of the lots in the Bedford Close subdivision. Not far from this area is the Hudson Point subdivision, and that, too, would be compatible with what we are proposing here. So this is a proposal for a high quality subdivision and development. We think we're going to fit into the neighborhood. In terms of seven lots versus four lots, the reason for it is that it is hard to make economic sense out of four lots, and if there were four lots, it basically would be spaghetti lots along the Corinth Road, and they would, of course, satisfy setbacks, but it would be a different kind of subdivision, whereas we think that this proposal with the road would be more compatible with the neighborhood. So also since we were here last we've done some other engineering things that Tom Hutchins is going to talk about. So I will turn this over to him at this time. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. A couple of comments on some modifications we have made that aren't necessarily reflected on your plans because you're looking at the same submission. I've met with the Highway Department and we've reduced the road asphalt width from standard 24 feet to a 20 foot section. It doesn't sound like a lot but it saves 4,-000 square feet or so of impervious area and cuts down our asphalt area by some 15%, which is a nice step, and it's more than adequate for the road serving these two properties. The problem with this road, if we want to build a nice road, we want to build a nice road to Town standard, but it's hard to build a road for a few lots. So we think we've gotten to a balance here that still works and we've been able to reduce the width of that road which is good both from a building standpoint and from an environmental standpoint because it really doesn't need to be 24 feet wide. Again on drainage, I was there with the Town's designated engineer. He witnessed all of the test excavations we had done. They were excavated to a depth of eight to twelve feet, depending upon where we were and whether we were going in them or not, and we found no evidence of groundwater problems. There was no water whatsoever. I found no evidence of groundwater being mottling in any of those areas. The area is notoriously deep well drained sands, and although it is in an area that borders, as you get closer to the mountain you start to get, the water table starts to come up, and we found no evidence of any potential drainage issues here. Our stormwater design has been reviewed, or it's been through the Town Engineer one pass, and we're working on some of their comments, but there is nothing there that's going to present a technical, something that we can't technically get through. SEQR review, again, the Planning Board conducted a Type I coordinated SEQR review and passed a Negative Dec last year, and we have since added, in order to help the concerns of some of the neighbors, we've shown a 50 foot, it doesn't show on your plans, but we've shown a 50 foot buffer area behind lots three, four, five, six and seven. That 50 foot area is about 1,000 feet long. This shaded area through here, we've offered that as a no activity buffer area that will 4 015/18/2016) serve as a buffer between the adjoining properties. It doesn't sound like a lot. That's over 1.2 acres of land that would constitute a buffer and separation from adjoining properties. Again, Dennis mentioned the water district extension. That is big. Whatever happens here we'll have Town water wherever it is on this parcel. The district has been extended. It's been passed by the Town Board. It's been filed. That's a done deal. So that's a good thing, and with that, I guess unless you two have anything to add, I'd turn it back to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that. Is there any Board member questions at this time before I open the public comment period? MR. HENKEL-So the permeability is actually going to go up to what? Do you have any idea? MR. HUTCHINS-The site permeability, the permeability of the overall site? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-1 don't know. It wouldn't be tremendous, but it would increase. It's already very high, and it would go up a little bit. MR. HENKEL-And I walked it after about a three day rain period and while it was raining I walked it and I saw no visibility of any kind of puddling or anything. So I think it's got good drainage. MR. KUHL-How many pits did you do, Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Seven. MR. KUHL-Seven, and this buffer area, will anything be growing in there or whatever's there now stay? Is that what you're doing? MR. HUTCHINS-Well, our intent is to offer it as a buffer area, a wooded buffer area that wouldn't be suitable for structure. People couldn't put structures in it and it would be a condition of ultimately the subdivision approval, and, yes, when there's a dead and diseased tree somebody needs to be able to take it down and still be their property, but the intent would be to leave it wild, un-manicured, and a buffer. MR. KUHL-And you know that most people would do a wood pile back there or they would store their boat back there or they'd put a shed back there. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, and I've experienced it before, and I'm not saying it's an easy thing to enforce because it isn't, but we're willing to go there and make it work. MR. FREER-So, Tom, with the reduced road, do the lot sizes change? MR. HUTCHINS-No, because Lot Eight is actually I think it's 1.1 acres. That's the right of way that goes to the Town. That's a 50 foot width right of way, and that doesn't change. That's the property that the Town owns, but we have narrowed the asphalt up. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other members questions before I open the public comment period? We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'll open that up. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning that application? We do have several long letters to read into the record, but if there's anybody here that would like to address the Board. So, Mr. Jones, is it necessary to read the letter in? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-Why don't you read the letters. There's actually two letters. Read those in first. MR. JACKOSKI-Read those in first, then we won't have to duplicate all that information. Is that what you're saying? MR. JONES-Yes, that would be good. Yes. MR. URRICO-It says, "We the residents of the adjacent Bedford Close neighborhood are extremely disappointed that the applicant for the proposed residential subdivision did not address the concerns or comments from either the residents of the adjacent Bedford Close I:~ 015/18/2016) neighborhood or the members of the Zoning Board that were voiced at the meeting on May 27, 2015. The applicant has not proposed a reduction in the number of lots or an increase in the size of the lots. Based upon this we are adamantly opposed to the development as proposed and request that the zoning board "not approve" the requested variance application. Our reasons for requesting this denial are as follows: 1. The property is zoned as an MDR district and requires a minimum lot size of two acres because the lots would not be connected to Town or municipal sewers. As proposed the lots would have on-site septic systems. The current zoning ordinance was developed with the purpose of protecting the environment of the Town by establishing density limits for residential development based upon the availability of municipal sewers. As stated in the environmental assessment form which was submitted for the proposed subdivision, this property and the majority of the Town is located over a principal aquifer. The intent of the two acre requirement is to protect the principal aquifer from the introduction of pollutants from on-site septic systems in areas of fast draining soils. The soils in this proposed development are considered to be fast draining soils. 2. The applicant has stated that no undesirable change will take place in the adjoining neighborhoods or properties because the character of the neighborhood has been defined by the lot sizes of the adjoining Bedford Close subdivision and the lot sizes for the most part exceed the sizes of those in Bedford Close. This may be true but one must realize that Bedford Close was approved and ultimately developed over thirty years ago under entirely different zoning requirements. At that time all of the potential impacts from the density of residential developments in areas of the Town without Town or municipal sewers was not fully understood and few if any realized the impacts that it could have on the principal aquifer located under the Town. Bedford Close was also developed with specific guidelines and deed restrictions in place regulating the architectural style and exterior materials that were to be utilized for the residence as well as clear cutting stipulations. The development as proposed has no defined design guidelines or clear cutting and vegetated buffer zone requirements indicated. 3. The requested variance should be considered substantial in nature because by current zoning only four lots would be allowed. The variance is requesting an approval for seven lots which would be an increase of 75%. Most of the proposed lots are slightly over one acre which is nearly a 50% request which again should be considered substantial. 4. The variance as requested would have an impact on the adjoining neighborhoods and district as the adjoining Bedford Close neighborhood has been plagued by a seasonal high water table in the early spring. The proposed stormwater management plan for the development indicates that nearly 30% of the stormwater will be controlled and infiltrated by the use of rain gardens on each proposed residential lot. The plans indicate that each lot has two rain gardens and also indicates that each lot owner is to provide the maintenance needed in order to ensure continuous and effective operation of the stormwater control practices. It is our belief that these rain gardens will fail to be maintained properly and will result in additional uncontrolled stormwater runoff that will impact the adjoining neighborhoods. The applicant has proposed and received approval from the Town Highway Department to reduce the roadway to twenty feet in width to reduce the impermeable surfaces. We believe this should be reviewed by the Town Emergency Services before any reduction in width is approved by the Zoning Board. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. The applicant indicates that the property has been under their family ownership for over 50 years during which the zoning laws have changed many times. The property owner has had ample opportunity to attend the public hearings and voice their exceptions to any revisions in zoning that were proposed that would impact their property. 6. To conform to the zoning and not require a variance the property could be subdivided into four conforming lots that would all be accessible from Corinth Road. This option would not require construction of any roadway, installation of utilities or extension of the Town water district thus saving the applicant major development costs. This option would also save the Town from future maintenance for the water and storm drainage systems and roadway saving the taxpayers money as well. In summation the zoning ordinance as currently adopted is very explicit with the requirements for lot size and the resulting density for residential developments in an MDR zone. The requirement for lot sizes of a two acre minimum must be adhered to. Even though the environmental impacts from a seven lot subdivision may be considered minimal the cumulative effect of continued approvals of variances to increase the density of residential development will ultimately have a major impact on the quality of the environment in the Town. An approval of this variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals will set a very dangerous precedent for future residential developments that are proposed in the Town of Queensbury. Sincerely, Concerned residents of Bedford Close" And there are, I'm told, 46 signatures on this letter, and one more letter. "My name is John Morabito and I reside at 19 Brookshire Trace. Unfortunately I was not able to attend the meeting tonight but I wish to state a few issues that exist with this proposed development. 1) To allow a 30% increase in the number of houses allowed makes a mockery of the zoning laws. 2) There is no mention of any buffer zone (trees, fence, etc.) between the new houses and the existing Bedford Close development. 3) There is a large man-made ditch that runs behind my house and the Sistis' house and maybe beyond. What was the purpose of this ditch? (Water runoff)? 4) The applicant has had trailers on his property for over 20 years 6 015/18/2016) and a perpetual garage sale. This is not being "a good neighbor". I hope whatever decision is reached the Board takes into account the needs of the Bedford Close community." MR. JACKOSKI-Is that it, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Jones. MR. JONES-Thank you. For the record, Richard Jones. I reside at 33 Honey Hollow Road. MICHELLE GIORGIANNI MRS. GIORGIANNI-Michelle Giorgianni, 15 Brookshire Trace JOE GIORGIANNI MR. GIORGIANNI-I'm her husband Joe. MR. JONES-Basically we are opposed to the subdivision as it is currently proposed. We're disappointed in that they made no attempt to modify anything with the number of lots or the lot sizes in the proposed development. They are proposing a 50 foot buffer. I really think that it should be a no cut buffer. If that's the type of thing that they are proposing, I would assume that it would be a deed restriction as part of the subdivision approval and it would go with each lot that the buffer would be pertaining to. With regard to the roadway width, I understand why they're reducing it, but my primary concern is emergency services access, and I really think that the fire company should have a say in whether that thing should be reduced or not. We have some very large emergency service vehicles that I think would have difficulty navigating that roadway, especially the cul de sac. Basically the current zoning, it requires the two acre lots, and it could be developed with two acre lots. Is it the most sensible development, probably not, but it could be developed that way, and for them to say that it's not a self-created hardship is really not true. They have that option. With that option they'd have no infrastructure costs at all in regard to development of the site, and if there's no infrastructure that would be added from utilities to roadway, the cost to the Town for upkeep on those properties would be nothing, and right now I find it very difficult to accept that the Town would be willing to approve a seven lot subdivision with approximately a quarter acre of, or a quarter mile of road with all of the infrastructure utility that needs to be maintained for the sake of three lots to appease the developer. With that I'd turn it over to either one of you for comment. MRS. GIORGIANNI-I know our concern is definitely the buffer. Right now our home butts up to Lots Three or Four, I'm not sure which one, along with our neighbors on either side of us, and we have the enjoyment of having a fully wooded area behind us, the wildlife, birds, all kinds of animals, and our fear is that someone is just going to come in and the builder is just going to clear cut this property and that would basically leave us with just empty backyards, and that's very fearful to me. MR. HENKEL-How much of a buffer do you have between you? MRS. GIORGIANNI-We've probably got maybe a 50 foot buffer, but we've chosen not to clear our trees out. Our neighbors have. So they would have no buffer at all. None. MR. GIORGIANNI-My concern was the water. He mentioned seven pits they dug this spring, but we had very little snow this winter and we've lived there 20 years. We have two big sump pumps in our basement and there have been springs where there's been three or four inches of water in our basement and I'm just concerned that, with the septic they're putting in and the runoff, instead of just plain old water, we're going to have sewage in our basement or runoff from septic tanks, and, you know, it's not a well-drained area, and this is certainly going to make it worse, I believe. The last few years have been dry, but I don't think that's a normal thing. MR. JONES-With the Bedford Close development, when it was developed by Northern Homes back in the `60's and 70's. they created covenants that were put into the deed for the size of the house, the architectural quality, the materials that were utilized in those residences, and if they truly want to compare it to Bedford Close, then I would challenge them to add covenants into their deed for each property that would do those types of restrictions. It has proven to be successful in Bedford Close, and I think the quality of the homes and the way they're maintained is very telling of the fact that that does work. 015/18/2016) MR. URRICO-Are all the covenants the same in Bedford Close or do the different sections have different covenants? MR. JONES-I'm not sure. I think they're all the same. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anything else? MR. JONES-No, that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. We appreciate it. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening that would like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I am going to leave the public comment period open and invite the applicants back to the table, please. Mr. Phillips, is there anything that you heard during public comment that you would like to address at this time for the Board? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, I whispered to Mr. Combs whether or not he would consider a covenant, and he said he would, and so I don't know whether that would be a Zoning Board determination or whether that would be something that the Planning Board would like to look at. Certainly he's looking to have a high quality subdivision here, and in order to keep it that way for a protracted period of time, he would consider the covenants. I think that Tom is going to deal with the aquifer issue because that's something that I know that he looked at. So go ahead, Tom. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, just a quick comment on that. The commenter was correct. The area is located over a mapped principal aquifer as mapped by New York State DEC. I have here a copy of their map and can I show you, or can I add it to the record? It includes West Glens Falls, Hudson Falls, Fort Edward, part of Queensbury and a little bit of Moreau, and it basically follows the northern, north of the Hudson River, and this is a map of that aquifer. So, yes, it is over a principal aquifer, the definition being a formation, or geological formation where significant quantities of drinkable groundwater could likely be extracted if somebody was looking for a place to extract groundwater. MR. JACKOSKI-Based on your map you have in front of you, is this particular property we're sitting on this evening over that aquifer? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I believe it is. I believe it is. It's close. Queensbury's kind of cut in half. It's a little hard to tell. It's a pretty small scale map. MR. JACKOSKI-But being that Bedford Close and this subdivision are way over there. MR. HUTCH INS-Certainly everything between the Northway and the base of the mountain. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anything else? MR. PHILLIPS-No, I think that those were the main things, and as Tom indicated before, the 50 foot buffer is now part of the application so Mr. Combs is not relying on the municipal buffer. He actually is proposing, as part of his application, the 50 foot buffer. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you help me understand what your definition of that buffer is? MR. PHILLIPS-Tom, why don't you go through that. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, we haven't really defined it. We've offered it up here to, I mean, my thought was certainly a no occupy zone with structures, and to be maintained natural and wild. If that's a no cut, that's okay. I mean, we just have to be permitted to get rid of dying, diseased vegetation, that's all. I know that's a difficult thing to enforce in the world, and. MR. JACKOSKI-And a no cut means no cut, or does it mean no cut things that are smaller than, or larger than six inches? Does that mean that you're going to have manicured lawns in that section? What does that mean? I don't understand what you're asking me to evaluate. MR. HUTCHINS-No. It would not mean manicured lawns. It would be left natural state and we wouldn't cut wooded vegetation unless it was diseased and had to come down. 8 015/18/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Before we get into covenants, if that's even something the Board would consider, I think it's probably important that you have no additional information for the Board, is to poll the Board and just see if they're even somewhat close to accepting the quote unquote eight lots, seven buildable, and start from there, if that's okay with you. So, Board members, I think I'd like to hear, as we poll the Board, what your thoughts are on the application as it is presented, and I'll seek volunteers to begin that discussion. MR. KUHL-With two acre zoning, I think that the applicant has not shown any effort at all to get close. He's asking for relief. I mean, the biggest lot he has isn't even an acre and a half, and I would not be in favor of this. I think he's asking for too much relief. I don't think he's shown enough effort into getting closer to two acres. I'm not going to re-design your application here, but I think you could have done a better job. So I would not be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've gone around the area. I've looked at Goldfinch, they're third acre. Bedford, like they said, is three quarters to an acre and a half. If there were no Town water there, I would definitely not be in favor, but with the Town water there, I think it's very reasonable what he's asking for, compared to the area, what he's going to do there for the buffer zone and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other volunteers? MR. MC CABE-I've considered this, and again, I looked at the existing lots, but I also understand that times have changed, and the Board put the two acre restriction in there without a sewer system to protect the community, and I think, again, looking at the lots, you know, I'd feel much better if at least a couple of them came to one and a half, but I simply can't accept the one acre, you know, basically the average one acre lot. So I would not be in favor of this proposal as it exists. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I agree with the fact that seven lots is too many. The request for relief is too much, and that the septic/sewer issue is one of the driving forces behind what went into the zoning. I understand that you won't have to have wells which is good and protects. However, I believe there's too much relief requested here and I wouldn't support it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Underwood? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think if we look at the past history of the Town, any time we've done subdivisions in the past where we've had multiple housing proposed we have created in many instances, like I'm thinking Queen Victoria's Grant especially where you have community property that exists in the background of the lots between the adjoining subdivisions. That green space is a no cut zone which I think could be achieved here also. I think that by trying to shoehorn seven lots in here with the way that the road curves in to your turnaround, I think if you remove those two lower lots on the southwest side there, I think that five lots could be, the houses could be slid back. You could create that 50 foot no cut buffer zone that would be a communally operated area where no one could go into that area. In other words, the property lines would end before that 50 foot area begins. That would be part of the subdivision that would be owned jointly by everybody within the subdivision, and I think that that could create the buffer zone that people are requesting from the previously created homes in Bedford Close on that east side over there, but at the same time the aquifer request, I mean, the soils on the west side are old acustern soils from glacial Lake Albany. They're hundreds of feet thick, you know, probably well over 100 feet down to the level of the Hudson River at that point. I don't think that there's any real concern that I have with percolation or anything like that from the septic systems. You are going to have Town water. So there's not going to be any issue with somebody driving a well and having to worry about their well water being polluted or anything like that. So I would think if you reduced it to five buildings on there, that's giving you slightly more than you're due with the two acre zoning and I think that's fair. MR. JACKOSKI-So as presented, Jim, you're a no? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think it's a bad idea to try to change zoning through variances. I think this is what this is about. I think what was done 30 years ago, since 30 years ago there've been at 9 015/18/2016) least two Comprehensive Land Use Plans and several revisions to the Town Code. So this is not something that was intended to be grandfathered. This was something that was given consideration of two acre lot subdivision, and I think in trying to present seven parcels in this section really is trying to get away with something that I don't think the Town intended to happen, and I think it changes quite a bit the character of the neighborhood and I also think it's a substantial request and I would be against it as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So looking at the balancing test, as we go through those details, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? There's no doubt a smaller subdivision could be created. So there are other alternative benefits available. A four lot subdivision is probably worth more than a single large lot that they have now. The undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties may not be an undesirable physical or visual detriment because of the other homes that are in the area, but the detriment could be the addition of seven septic systems into that area and saturating the soils is possible. Whether the request is substantial. It is certainly very substantial when most of the lots are 1.02, 1.01, 1.04, and 1.14 acres, versus two, which is almost certainly a 50% reduction in size. Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect? Well, we've talked about the environmental potential effects. As far as physical is concerned, that means visual, certainly the density there is going to be greater. The physical impact, depending on if they had covenants that could suggest homes similar to those in Bedford Close, maybe that would mitigate that, and whether the alleged difficulty is self- created? There's no other way but to determine than that this is self-created. It is a request by the applicant to actually create the subdivision when they could just sell the lot itself or continue to hold it as they have for the last 60 or so years. So hearing the will of the Board, at this point there is a majority of the Board members who have voted no as to the current application, and I think lot size has become, again, the most critical factor. So I'll turn it back over to the applicant as to what you would like us to do. MR. PHILLIPS-The sense of the Board is loud and clear, and so we would like to table the application at this time and take this project back to the drawing board to see if we can come up with something that may be acceptable. MR. JACKOSKI-And so that the Board is clear, I need the Board's understanding here. The Board is not willing to review this application again if it comes to us with seven, six, five, how many lots? MR. HENKEL-Five. MR. KUHL-Five. MR. JACKOSKI-So don't bring the application back with seven or six. MR. PHILLIPS-That's even more clear. MR. JACKOSKI-Just trying to help. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So I have a request by the applicant to table the application. 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. Planning Board: Subdivision review required for subdivision. SEQR Type I —ZBA consented to Planning Board as Lead Agent on March 18, 2015; A public hearing was advertised and held on: April 22, 2015, August 19, 2015, October 21, 2015, March 16, 2016, and May 18, 2016 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 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: '10 015/18/2016) Tabled to the first August meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with paperwork to be submitted by the July deadline. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: MR. HUTCHINS-It'll be until whenever we can get it submitted and come up with a concept. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So until September? MR. JACKOSKI-No, we'll give them until August and they can always request an extension and we can vote on that in July. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 SEQRA TYPE II BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) DEBORAH SLEZAK 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 SB 8-2015; BP 2004-677 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179-4-050; 179-3-040 DEBORAH SLEZAK& MATTHEW BERRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2015, Burnett Family Trust, Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 "Project Location: 11 Andrew Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision; lot size 28,661 sq. ft. Lot A and 28,730 sq. ft. Lot B. Relief requested from minimum road frontage, water frontage, and lot width requirements. 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. Applicant has submitted additional project information. The document includes details on the history of the existing parcel being at one time two parcels, an average acreage of parcels, lake frontage and square footage of living area near to the project site. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —Waterfront residential, 179-4-050 frontage where Lot A does not have physical access. Parcel will require area variance as follows: Road Water frontage Lot width Lot size Lot A Lot B side frontage side setback Setbacks Required 150 ft. 150 ft. 150 ft. 2 ac 20 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 87 ft. Lot A 90 ft. 87 +/-ft. Lot A 28,661 Lot A Lot B patio 2.8 each sq. ft. (0.66 ac) 5.19 ft. ft. covered Lot B 90 ft. porch 6.2 ft. Lot B 28,730 sq. ft. (0.66 ac) 015/18/2016) Relief 63 ft. Lot A 60 ft. 63 +/-ft. Lot A 58,459 14.81 ft. Patio 17.2 ft. each sq. ft. (1.34 ac) porch 13.8 ft. Lot B 60 ft. / Lot B 58,390 sq. ft. (1.34ac) 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 as the intent is to separate the two buildings onto individual lots 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 may have minimal to no impact to the neighborhood where it is residential along Lake George. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: The applicant requests relief for the subdivision of a parcel with two existing homes where variance relief is required. The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 1.32 acre parcel located in the waterfront residential zone. The real property information on the parcel indicates the cottage is on the south property and the cabin is located on the north parcel. The applicant has submitted additional information about the project site and the history of the two camps. Applicant requested tabling for a full board." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, again. How are you? MS. SLEZAK-I'm well, thank you. Again, for the record, my name is Deborah Slezak and I'm representing the Burnett Family Trust and the Trustees Stephen Burnett and Barbara Burnett. MR. BERRY-Good evening, Board. My name's Matthew Berry. I, along with my client Shari Burnett, she's the administrator of David Burnett who also has a 50% interest in this property. MR. JACKOSKI-So is there anything you'd like to bring to the attention of the Board since the last few times that you have been in front of us? MS. SLEZAK-Well, first of all I would just like to observe that, yes, I was here the meeting before last. You had an abbreviated Board, and we had asked to have the matter tabled until tonight so that you have a full complement before you. My client, the co-tenants of this property, had submitted a booklet to the Board. I hope that those that, yes, thank you, that weren't here last time have had a chance to review it and absorb the information that my client had put together, and in that, most especially I hope that you were able to look at the data that he compiled, most specifically the information that shows that should the Board approve this subdivision, this variance, excuse me, not subdivision, and the result would be Lot A and Lot B, the resulting two parcels would be very much in keeping with the parcels in their neighborhood, and as such they would not be in variance with the parcels around them. It is our point, and we come here together as a team in lock step if you will to ask that in granting this variance that you consider that an undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood 015/18/2016) as if you look at the application, if you look at the information that's been submitted, there are, in fact, already two cottages on the property. So as a result the impact if granted will be minimal. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method. In other words there is no other feasible alternative for the applicant to pursue. The property has been held as tenants in common as between the two brothers. Sadly the one brother has died and now his estate needs to be settled. This requires selling the estates one half interest in the property, and so in order to achieve that goal we need to subdivide the property. In order to subdivide the property we need this variance to be granted. The requested area variance is not substantial. In this case the Board can make this finding based on the documentation and analysis contained in the applicant's submission. Again I would draw your attention to the data in Steve Burnett's booklet that he gave you. The resulting two lots would be in keeping with the others in the neighborhood. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood due to the fact that the property already has two cottages located thereon. In this case the variance, if granted, will have a minimal, if any, impact. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The hardship, as demonstrated in the application, is as follows.. The property was held as tenants in common as between the two properties. Again, I know I'm repeating myself, but the one brother has died and now his estate needs to be settled. This requires selling the estate's one half interest in the property. The brother, Stephen Burnett, does not have the desire to sell his one half interest. He intends to hold on to his interest and therein lies the problem. We have two owners with two very different interests, needs and desires. In addition, the underlying situation of the two cottages was created in 1921 and 1923 respectively when the two cottages were both built. Please note these dates pre-dated zoning, the dates when these two cottages were built. In addition, the gift of the property to the two brothers in 1987 was something that they, the current owner and the estate, did not create. Their parents unilaterally gifted them the property. In any event, please note. Should you consider this a self-created hardship, this consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the ZBA, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. As you may know, a number of years ago the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that a self-created hardship was only one factor to be taken into account when considering an application for an area variance. It should not be considered the determinative factor, and I have case law. It's Matter of DiSienna vs. Board of Zoning Appeals of Hempstead. So you can consider it a factor, but it's not necessarily the make or break factor. It's not determinative necessarily. In summary, we ask that upon balancing these factors the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grant the Area Variance application as it is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and because the granting of the Area Variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Town Zoning Ordinance and it will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Thank you. MR. BERRY-Good evening, Board. I would echo the sentiments and for the sake of brevity, I'd just simply point out that if this subdivision is granted, the only thing that's going to change here is the owner on the tax parcel for the cabin that my clients currently occupy. The environment will not be changed. The character will not be changed. It'll simply be the Smith family instead of the Burnett family in that cabin. Other than that, everything else is going to stay the same. There are no other alternatives. There's no other ways we can fix this unfortunate situation. Now I would argue to the Board that this is not going to set a precedent. These are such unique facts for this parcel, for this family, for the way this is owned and has been owned for 100 years, I don't think there should be any fear in the Board's minds that by somehow granting this, this is going to create a precedent for others in the community to say, hey, the Burnett Family Trust was able to do this in 2016. It's 2018, why won't you allow us to do the same thing. We're not seeking subdivision to create a new structure or increase density. We're simply seeking subdivision to allow the estate to be settled, an so that the parcel can be sold and be transferred to a new party occupying the same property. So thank you for your consideration. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public comment period? MR. UNDERWOOD-Were there any covenants when the family granted the property to the two sons about what was going to happen with the future property as far as disposal of it or changing hands? MS. SLEZAK-No. It was simply a deed from the parents to the two sons as tenants in common. I believe you have a copy of that. I'll double check. MR. KUHL-It's interesting, your comment, Mr. Berry. You, as a lawyer, would turn around five years from now and use this to say, well, look, down the road so many years ago they got less than the required acreage so why can't we. So I can't agree with you. I mean I understand, in concept, what you're trying to do. I do get that, but you're asking us to give you an awful lot of relief for almost a reason that doesn't have to happen but that's what you're asking for because '13, 015/18/2016) the current owners don't know how to get out of this any other way, but you're asking for relief. Now, in the packet that I have, I have something here from Stafford, Carr and McNally. Do you all have this document? Because down in the fifth paragraph it says the request for this subdivision is a result of the wishes of the owners and the partition actual currently pending in the Warren County Supreme Court. What is that telling us, that this request for this subdivision is at a Warren County Supreme Court level? MR. BERRY-No. What happened was both my client and Ms. Slezak's clients filed partition actions two years ago because they didn't know how this was going to go. It's at that point when we first met with Judge Muller he suggested, well why don't you go to the Town and seek subdivision versus trying to do partition and/or having a judicial sale of the property. So that's what is the genesis of us being here. MR. KUHL-But that judge could have ruled that if you can't come to some common understanding it's going to be sold on the court steps? Is that what you're suggesting? MR. BERRY-Exactly. MR. JACKOSKI-So that is an alternative to the current owners. MS. SLEZAK-Yes, but it's not. MR. JACKOSKI-Preferred. MS. SLEZAK-Yes, because my client, who you've met here before, is someone who's very much interested in keeping this property for himself, for his children and for his grandchildren. Unfortunately, is it Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-Yes. MS. SLEZAK-You said they didn't have any other alternatives. If my client could afford to buy his nieces and his nephew out, he would do it in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, he is a person who, you know, he's worked all his life. He's now in his 60's. He's looking at retirement. He just doesn't have a deep enough pocket to purchase them out, and from their perspective, they need to get a certain amount of, they need to get what it's worth. So to say that there aren't any alternatives, in a perfect world, if Mr. Burnett had X number of dollars, he could pay them X number of dollars and it would work out. Unfortunately, we don't have that type of accounting here. We don't have that type of money here to make it work out that way. So what is the alternative we have? If the property can be subdivided, my clients, Stephen and Barbara Burnett, can keep their half. Their desire is to have this, hopefully, in perpetuity to pass the property on to their families. Their nieces and nephew hope to sell their half interest. I don't know what the debts of the estate are, but is pay off the debts of the estate and split the proceeds. Does that make it more clear as to what's happening? MR. KUHL-I can give you a Plan C, you know, I mean, we can go on to Plan A, B, C, D. This is not the only alternative that you have. I mean, the Warren County Court says they may sell it at the steps. There are other alternatives. Why can't the people that have the second piece rent it out and take the revenue, you know, and leave it the way it is? If you can't get a subdivision, what are you going to do? But anyway, and I'm not offering you alternatives. I'm saying there could be a Plan C. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the current assessment of the property? MS. SLEZAK-The tax assessment? I don't know. I don't have a tax parcel. MR. JACKOSKI-What do you think the assessment of the tax properties, plural, together, will be after subdivision? More, or do you think it'll be less? MS. SLEZAK-We are currently looking at having the property appraised, but I don't know what the appraisal is. I don't have a tax bill. Do you have a tax bill? MR. BERRY-No. MS. SLEZAK-Obviously there's a difference between what it's assessed at and what the appraisal is. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand that, and the homes and septics are close, but what I'm asking is, do you believe the value of this single parcel will increase with subdivision? 015/18/2016) MR. BERRY-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Right? So what is it worth, with all due respect, as a 50% owner? Are you going to find somebody to buy out 50% and come into that partnership or tenants in common? Probably not, but in reality, what is the value to the heirs of only owning 50%? It's diminished compared to fair market value because you can't have an arms-length transaction. Probably, correct? So you suggested that there would be absolutely no change here if we grant this subdivision. You're just going to have two cottages. Do you believe that somebody's going to take that older cottage and leave it as is or do you believe they're going to develop it and create a larger home on the property and actually have more concentrated use of that parcel? MR. BERRY-Well, I believe that's, well, if they want to do that, they understand. MR. JACKOSKI-But you said to us nothing will change in the future., All you're doing is subdividing. Nothing will change in the future without your permission. Actually, no, they don't have to come to us for a variance. MR. MC CABE-Well, sure they do because if we grant this split and they've got a nonconforming structure. So anything that they do is going to have. MR. JACKOSKI-As long as they meet the setbacks, I don't believe they have to come back to the Zoning Board. MR. MC CABE-Yes, they're going to be below the lot size. MR. HENKEL-Plus it's on a slope greater than 15%. MR. JACKOSKI-But there's certainly a development aspect now going to be granted to that parcel. MR. HENKEL-They'd have to come back for variances. MR. BERRY-And I think that's my understanding of the current Code here in terms of Zoning is we could sell this to the Smith family tomorrow for whatever they're willing to pay for that share of the property. They want to increase that, demolish it, they understand, and I hope their attorney would let them know before they bought it, if you intend to change the structure whatsoever you better get Town permission. MR. JACKOSKI-And do you know how hard it is for a Zoning Board to not face an Article 78 when we have to go through a balancing test to reasonably allow somebody to develop their property? It's pretty difficult for us to just say, no, you must keep that old parcel. MR. BERRY-1 think if it's under these confines where it's already going to be smaller than the two acres by quite a bit, I would argue that you have justification. MS. SLEZAK-Can I tell them that, I'm going to ask my co-counsel a question. We just had an idea to proffer to the Board. If you should agree to approve this variance, we would agree to a conditional approval, and what I mean by that is in your resolution you make it conditioned upon whoever purchases the second parcel, I think we call it Parcel B., would have to come back to the Board. We've agreed that they'd have to anyway, but they could only build on the footprint of the current cottage, and whatever other restrictions you might build into the resolution. Proactively. If that would make the Board feel better. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'd have to refer to Mr. Underwood. I don't know that the courts would allow us to perpetually have that. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think we can put those conditions on, and I recall, I think a long time ago, Roy, maybe you can remember this one. We had something like this down in Antigua Point on Lake George where almost the same exact scenario was proposed. I'm just trying to recall when it was. It was a long time ago, but I think that at the same time we had real concerns about doing this because if we constantly subdivide based upon the number of cottages presently on site, you know, I think what we have to do is we have to look at what the site is and what the site is capable of holding. That is it's a single, it essentially would hold a single camp or a single home on it, and I think for us to perpetuate the two houses there like that's the norm is wrong in the current Codebook, you know. '115 015/18/2016) MS. SLEZAK-But can't this Board give us a conditional approval and then we will refer to the Planning Board for subdivision? I think the Planning Board can give us conditional subdivision approval and that subdivision approval can have conditions on it, and perhaps that can be, the subdivision approval can be conditioned upon, and we could list those things in the resolution. I'm just trying to find a way to make this work. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you look at it, it is what it is. It's two cottages on a single lot at the present time, and if we divided it in half, it would still be two single cottages there, but the answer is, as Steve brought up, what happens when somebody wants to come in and re- develop? Because as we know that's usually the case going forward with time, as time marches on. A 1920's camp is not going to remain there much longer in this day and age. So I think we have to look at it from this practical viewpoint. If we're going to preserve Waterfront Residential property, which is desirable, it's not our purview as a Board to subdivide and create subdivision. That's a Planning Board issue. So maybe we should refer this to the Planning Board for their two cents on this. MR. MC CABE-1 don't agree with that, personally. The way I see this is, you know, what's the Town going to get out of this? And what the Town is going to get out of this is one house on one property. And we've had all sorts of problems with two houses on one property in the past, and so for the good of the community, I would certainly approve this, just to get, and there's a bunch of properties that are pretty small in that area. I would favor this, just to get out of the two houses on one property. MR. URRICO-But I can safely say for the sake of argument that what the Town intended was one house on two acres of property, rather than two houses on two acres of property. MR. MC CABE-That's true, but. MR. URRICO-What the intention was that eventually we would come to this point and make the decision not to allow two cottages to exist on one piece of property, parcel, and the question is do we accept the argument here or the case as it is, understanding that from here on there's no chance that we can ever make this one house on two acres? Once we agree to this then we're always, perpetually going to have two houses on two lots, which is what you're saying, but there's no chance that it will ever meet the zoning. It'll never. MR. MC CABE-And the nature of the property. You'd never really get two acres cut out of that that would be usable anyway. So I guess I'm on record of supporting this to get to the point where we have one house on one property, and I would say we could gain more, you know, one of the problems is, the statement was made in the original meeting that there are two different septic systems, but we know nothing about those septic systems. So you could give the Town a further boost if you would document for us what each of these two septic systems, you know, the nature of these two septic systems. So now the Town is gaining one house on one property, plus we're also gaining documentation of the septic system, and I think that would be a good gain for the Town and I would really support it if we did that. MR. JACKOSKI-So my frustration is this. This is a million plus dollar benefit. Town of Queensbury is at 100% assessment. The assessor's got this property, given the topography and everything else, assessed at a million dollars. I don't know of a single parcel on the lake with 90 something feet worth less than a million, a million two, as a teardown. This is a million dollar decision for the applicants. That's really what they're after. They may tell us they need to do all this other stuff, but there's a million dollars here. It's a lot of money. I'm not saying that we can make decisions based on money, but what I can tell you is you do have alternatives to this, and there is a significant amount of relief here. One of the things I would suggest is we would require brand new septic systems that are up to Code, if we granted these variances. If we really want to protect the lake and part of protecting the lake is minimum shoreline requirements and minimum lot line proximities, maybe we require as a condition brand new septic systems for both parcels. Any other questions from Board members before we open this to public comment? We do have public comment scheduled for this evening. Are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-Not that I see. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. Is that fair, unless you want to add something else? '16 015/18/2016) MS. SLEZAK-Well, I would ask that if you're going to suggest that we put brand new septics in from the get go, I would ask that we first be able to do a septic test and see how they're working on both sides before we just unilaterally tonight say, if the Board approves of this, that we have to have a brand new septic system on both sides. MR. JACKOSKI-What would constitute failure of working in your mind? How often is the cottage used? I mean, part of the problem is the current way that the cottage is being used versus the way the owners may use it could be a significant change in impacting the capacity of the current system. There's no way for us to document that and test that. MS. SLEZAK-But, when a person buys a house, caveat emptor, if you're going to buy a piece of property that's worth, you're saying it's worth, as a whole, a million dollars. If I'm going to buy a million dollar house or cottage or piece of property, I'm not just going to go in and buy something and hope that the septic works. I'm going to hire an attorney who's going to put contingencies in there and I'm going to have a septic test done. I'm going to hire a person. They're going to go put dye down the well, or down the drain to make sure that the septic's working, and on my side, if the septic is working, they should be able to test it and prove to the Town, through a person who does septics, that it's working. So I would argue that before we unilaterally say they both have to, on both sides, put new septics in, they should be able to demonstrate whether or not the septic is working. MR. JACKOSKI-I wouldn't care if your septic was working, I do care. If you leave it as a combined project and it's as is, then, well, I can't do anything about it, but if I'm going to subdivide the property, and give you the opportunity to have two separate parcels, I'd like you to have new septic systems. MR. HENKEL-According to the paperwork in here it's said they've failed to even find it. MS. SLEZAK-On which side? MR. HENKEL-So are they separate? MS. SLEZAK-Yes, there's two. There's one behind Parcel A's cottage. MR. HENKEL-According to the paperwork in here they said that it's. MS. SLEZAK-Where? MRS. MOORE-There's information that says that there's two septic systems in there. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but if they can't find the location, how do they know there's two? MRS. MOORE-They do have the locations. MS. SLEZAK-They do. At the last meeting Mr. Stephen Burnett testified on the record as to the one, I'd have to review the minutes. MR. HENKEL-So what would the year be? Does he know when that was upgraded or when was it put in? MS. SLEZAK-He testified as to it. I'd have to look back through the notes from last month. MR. JACKOSKI-Maybe the Board members don't even want to do new septic systems. So unless there's something else, we appreciate your comments. MS. SLEZAK-Right, and I just wanted to have my say. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board at this time. Would anybody like to go first with their comments? Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm already, and again, I think that the Town gains here by having one house on one property, and I feel for the applicant here. This has come about because of the death of a family member, and it helps them to, and I understand what happens when the family starts going down and spreading out and I feel that they should be able to resolve this situation, and so I would support the applicant in dividing the two properties. I would feel much better if I had documentation on the septic system on each side. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else like to volunteer their comments? ,1.7 015/18/2016) MR. HENKEL-I also agree with Mike. I think to settle this dispute, it would be a good idea to put a house on each, on its own piece of property. I think for future development it will definitely be difficult for them to come in front of us because of the slope and that. So I think it would be really hard to do much with this piece of property, and I agree with the septic systems. I think they should definitely make sure that they're good working septic systems on each piece of property. I'd be for the project in that case. I'd support it. MR. FREER-So I complimented, the last time, the amount of effort that went into the database and gathering. However, I believe this is looking backward in our charters to look currently forward, and I remain convinced that this is way too much relief and that there are other alternatives and that this sale of the half of the property will turn into, I'll call it a McMansion, but it certainly would change what's there, 100 year old cabin, that things have changed since those days and since that inheritance took place and the lake is a different place and our charter is to make sure of the protection of the lake per the Zoning Board. So you're asking us to take a lot that's nonconforming and split it in half, and I don't support that. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would have to agree with Harrison. I think this needs full subdivision review by the Planning Board also because I think for us to create something nonconforming and make two nonconforming lots out of something that's already nonconforming is the wrong way to go with this at this point. I think that, you know, if you could guarantee that they were just going to remain cottages, that would be one thing, but we know that that's not going to be true with the value of the properties up on that lake. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're a no. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Unfortunately we're supposed to take every situation on its own merits, and I recognize the unusual circumstances that we have here, but when we look at the balancing test, there still are a lot of, there are at least two, maybe three, areas where we have alternatives. I mean, I don't think the neighborhood's going to be changed, but there are feasible alternatives and it's a substantial request, and it's basically self-created. I don't expect this to change the neighborhood in any shape or form unless we subdivide this lot or subdivide it into two separate parcels, and something bigger is requested down the road, in which case we do change the environment of the area as well. So I would have to come down no on this unfortunately. I think the presentation is well documented, but I just think there's too much relief here to say yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I believe you're asking for too much relief. You don't even have, you couldn't even put separate driveways in the way it goes up from the road. I think you're asking for too much and it's kind of a shame that the third generation people can't figure out a way to make it work. You're not even minimum on the minimum acreage. You're less than that, and you're wanting us to cut it in half again. I wouldn't be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-So given the will of the Board at this time and given this is the fourth time in front of the Board on the application, I'm looking to you as to what you'd like us to do. MS. SLEZAK-Put it to a vote. Please vote yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Board members, this particular application most likely needs us to spend a bit of time to create the resolution. So I'm going to ask that we take five or ten minutes here. Unfortunately for the audience we're going to have to take a break here to craft a resolution that is very carefully worded and meets all the criterion of the balancing test because should this matter go to court because I suspect it may from the attorneys involved and the estates involved, we want to make sure that we have performed our duties and established what the record is about the balancing test in particular. So is anyone willing to lead, Jim, do you think you could help us? You've got so many years of experience with this, if you don't mind, we're going to take five or so minutes to sit down and draft a resolution. So, Jim, I don't know how you want to do it. I apologize to everyone. We're going to come up with a resolution. Welcome, everyone. We are reconvening the meeting this evening for 8:20. After attempting to draft a resolution as requested by the applicants, in order to take a vote, the Board has decided that it's going to require the services of Counsel to the Town Board to draft a motion to take a vote on, and so we're going to do that at the following meeting which is next Wednesday, and then will that be the first order of business? ,18 015/18/2016) MRS. MOORE-We can make that the first order of business. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll make that our first order of business. We'll give counsel a week to help draft a resolution for us, given the record. MS. SLEZAK-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-We do anticipate doing the balancing test for all six variances. We are going to do our best to be as thorough as possible to go through all six. Knowing that we've got to do all six, Board, does everyone believe the four times the applicants have been in front of us we've actually touched on throughout the record the balancing test for all six? We all know that we're starting with the minimum substandard lot size, the smaller shorefront. We've heard from the Water Keeper I believe. Obviously the setbacks, septics, topography, road frontage, we've gone through all those things. Correct? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion, please, to table the matter for a vote, using counsel to draft the resolution to vote upon, by someone please. MR. FREER-I'll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. MRS. MOORE-Just to confirm, that's May 25tH MR. JACKOSKI-That way we'll be voting on it on May 25tH The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from: Burnett Family Trust & Estate of David Burnett. 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. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on; September 16, 2015, November 18, 2015, December 16, 2015; January 20, 2016; March 16, 2016, and May 18, 2016 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. 51-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the May 25, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for a vote using (Town) Counsel to draft a resolution to vote upon. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Hopefully we'll get through this so you can take it to the point where you've got to take it. MS. SLEZAK-So that's May 25th at seven o'clock, and I'm assuming it's not going to be on the Planning Board's agenda tomorrow since there's no? MRS. MOORE-Correct. '19 015/18/2016) MS. SLEZAK-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0071-2016 SEQRA TYPE II RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THREE MAIN BUILDINGS, SHED AND SOME SITE GRADING TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS IN THREE PHASES. PROJECT REVISED: FIRST PHASE A PORTION OF AN 8,200 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO BE 4,300 +/- SQ. FT. WITH PARKING FROM MAIN ST. TO PINE ST. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING PARCELS CREATING TWO PARCELS. FIRST BUILDING FOR FOOD SERVICE AND RETAIL. SECOND/THIRD PHASE TO BE REMAINDER OF THE FIRST BUILDING 4,200 +/- SQ. FT., THEN SECOND/THIRD PHASE IS A TWO-STORY BUILDING 2,700 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT (5400 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA) WITH A DRIVE THROUGH (500 +/- SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED; BLDG. 2 REQUIRES RELIEF FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (PINE STREET SIDE) AND DRIVE-THRU WINDOW GREATER THAN 500 FT. FROM 1-87. CROSS REF SP PZ-0073-2016; SV PZ-0072-2016; SUP PZ-0068-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24; 0.42; 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.10- 1-47, 48, 49 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-7-030; 179-7-070; 179-10-040 MRS. MOORE-Prior to you reading that into the record, I just wanted to advise you that the Board did, the Town Board, modify the language of the Zoning Code. So the applicant no longer needs an Area Variance, but the applicant still is proceeding with the Sign Variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Which would then become an Unlisted SEAR. MRS. MOORE-It is already identified as an Unlisted SEAR. MR. HENKEL-No Area Variance needed for the drive thru. MRS. MOORE-No Area Variance for this Board to review at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're going to go to Item Four on the agenda. MRS. MOORE-Correct. SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0072-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN (SUBWAY AND FUTURE TENANT NAMES) WITH A 5 FT. FRONT SETBACK ON MAIN STREET. SEAR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AV PZ-0071-2016; SP PZ-0073-2016 SUP PZ-0068-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24; 0.42; 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION CHAPTER 140 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. PZ-0072-2016, Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises, Meeting Date: May 18 2016 "Project Location: 75-79 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign (Subway and future tenant names) with a 5 ft. front setback on Main Street. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from sign setback restrictions for the Main Street zoning district. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required-setbacks Applicant proposes a 45 sq. ft. sign to be located 5 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 015/18/2016) 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 sign variance. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The zoning code requires free standing signage to be a 15 minimum setback from the front property line. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to consider to the location as the project is being completed in phases. 3. Whether the requested sign 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 may have an adverse impact on the main street corridor per code that may be mitigated with less signs. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign to contain the space for multiple tenants. The sign is to be 12 ft. in height with the panels 13.25" x 69". The Code identifies the sign to be of durable materials and recommends type - wood, metal, stone, brick or similar traditional sign materials; a resin or composite materials that give the appearance of traditional materials may also be used." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anything else you'd like to add to this very simple application? MR. LANSING-My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering, also here with the applicant Russell Faden. We are requesting the Board's consideration for a variance on the sign. Our thoughts for our request for your consideration on the sign is that the building's already in accordance with the Main Street zone. The goals of the Main Street zone, in our understanding, are to push the buildings as close to the roadway as possible. We have done that with the application. As far as the sign location, if the sign was constructed in strict accordance with the zoning law, the sign would be behind the front fagade of the building. It is our opinion that not only would this be a detriment to the site because it would not provide identification for the various businesses on the parcel, but we also feel there's safety concerns as well. The motorists traveling on Main Street we feel should be able to see the sign and be able to identify the tenants and be able to slow in an appropriate amount of time to get to the site. So we feel by pushing that sign out, not only does it help the businesses in the plaza and create that identification for the businesses in the plaza, but it creates a safer environment for the signage also. So we're requesting our relief from the 15 foot setback to five feet. So ten feet relief overall. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I don't think you need a sign. All you've got to do is smell Subway and you're all set. MR. KUHL-Come on, now, that's not nice. MR. JACKOSKI-It's nice. Nice fresh rolls being baked. MR. KUHL-Now will there only be six tenants in these buildings or will there ever go more? I mean, you have Subway up on top and you have five blanks. MR. LANSING-At this time we don't know. This is a two phased plan. It could be three tenants or fifty-six. At this time we just don't know. It really depends on how much space a future tenant may need. MR. FREER-What happened to the bank? MR. LANSING-The bank is still there. At the last meeting there was discussion about, we had two buildings on the western side of the parcel. There was a discussion about trying to pull the building in front, make it a two story building. So what we did is we took the building in the back 015/18/2016) and basically stacked it on top of the building in front. So we now have a two story building in accordance with the Board's recommendations. MR. KUHL-Going back to my question, is it possible that if you were to have eight or nine people in the project, you'd have to split signs and people wouldn't have the same size as the Subway sign? MR. LANSING-Correct. MR. KUHL-I mean, but what you're asking us to do here is that's the maximum that's ever going to be, world without end, forever and ever? MR. LANSING-Correct. MR. KUHL-That's a yes? MR. FADEN-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Because right now there's plans for five rentals. There's three in one building and then one on one at this time? MR. FADEN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-So five not six. MR. FADEN-Yes, and we're going to construct on the 4,000 sq. ft., but we could have one tenant say, I want to have 4,000 sq. ft., but there could be three pads. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, and then that large tenant, so to speak, could want. MR. HENKEL-That larger sign. MR. JACKOSKI-That makes sense. Okay. Any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have to do the SEAR? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I'll poll the Board real quick here on what their thoughts are about the application. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think, looking at it from a practical sense this is a logical place to put the sign. I don't think that we need to worry about the setback because I think the setback is determined by where Main Street is and where the sidewalks are, that's the only place you can put the sign. So it makes sense to keep it where it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I'm good, and I'm glad to see that you tried to keep with the spirit of the two or three story Main Street zoning. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no problem. I think it's a good application. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd say it's the only place you can put the sign really. 015/18/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think it meets the balancing test. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for SEAR. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0072-2016 RUSSELL FADEN / FADEN ENTERPRISES BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted 18th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Now we'll do a motion for approval of the application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Faden / Faden Enterprises for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign (Subway and future tenant names) with a 5 ft. front setback, where 15 is required, so the relief is 10 feet, on Main Street. SEAR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested from sign setback restrictions for the Main Street zoning district. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ-0072-2016 Russell Faden / Faden Enterprises based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted 18th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 and Table to May 18, 2016 Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? None, because there's not really another practical location for the sign. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? Not really. He has the right to advertise his business. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Not at all. We think it's basically minimal. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. We believe that it'll fit in nicely. 5. The alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is self-created. 015/18/2016) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0072-2016 RUSSELL FADEN / FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions/ comments>: B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. FADEN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0074-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD BIG BAY LODGING, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING MA, LLC OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING CI-18 LOCATION BIG BAY ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,095 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 89-ROOM, 4-STORY (66 FT.) (HILTON HOME2) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP PZ-0054-2016; BP 2012-240 COWL BLDG (TACO BELL SITE) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE BASED ON 2.3 ACRE(S) OF 6.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0074-2016, Big Bay Lodging, LLC, Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 "Project Location: Big Bay Road, southeast of intersection of Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15,095 sq. ft. footprint; 60,380 sq. ft. floor area, 89-room, 4-story hotel (66 ft.) (Hilton Home2) and associated sitework. 1:,4 015/18/2016) Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for minimum road frontage requirements. Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets. 1. The building is proposed to have zero road frontage on Big Bay Road where 50 ft. is required. 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. The neighborhood character is mixed with commercial and residential uses. The applicant proposes to use the new access drive that runs from Corinth to Big Bay Rd. The use may be considered in keeping with the neighborhood limiting access. 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. The project site development may be considered limited as the option would be to have the access drive on the hotel property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief would be considered moderate in relation 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 Cl zone is an existing area of intense commercial development. The code indicates the purpose is to provide continued infill of commercial development for improvement and appearance of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant has completed a variance application for the development of four- story hotel where relief is requested for physical access. The 2.3 acre parcel is part of a parcel rearrangement of 8 parcels to 3 —lots. Lot arrangement is to be Lot 1 of 1.29 acres includes the Taco Bell restaurant, a vacant Lot to be 4.40 acres to include the access easement roadway and separately the hotel lot of 2.3 acres." MR. JACKOSKI-So obviously a very simple application in front of us this evening. Is there anything you feel you have to add to the record or would you like us to just ask questions? MR. BOYEA-Yes, very simple, for the record Chris Boyea with Bohler Engineering. I'm here with the hotel owner, Bobick, and, yes, since the last meeting that we were here, the Zoning Code has been changed and adopted. It severely reduced all the variances that we were here looking for previously. We are here tonight seeking only one variance, and that's just having an entrance that is not on our frontage that would service the hotel. That is being done based on Town recommendations that have gone through the Planning Board process to combine and consolidate and share access, to limit the number of curb cuts on both Corinth Road as well as Big Bay Road. Just for future well thought out planning so that there will only be one curb cut in any and all properties that are developed here on this piece should use those for good access planning, and that's really the reason why we're here tonight seeking that relief. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any Board member questions at this time before I open the public comment? Seeing none, I'll open the public comment. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no public comment, I will keep the public comment period open. I will note that this is an Unlisted SEQR coordinated with the Planning Board. MRS. MOORE-SEAR has been completed. 015/18/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, and I'll seek a polling of the Board. Would anybody like to go first? Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 see no problem with the request. It makes sense and I'd support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no problem. I think it's just a necessity because they're trying to save curb cuts. I would agree with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else? MR. FREER-1, too, agree. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with the Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm on board. MR. JACKOSKI-Moving on, I'll close the public comment period and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I'll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Big Bay Lodging, LLC — Hilton Home2. Applicant proposes construction of a 15,095 sq. ft. footprint; 60,380 sq. ft. floor area, 89-room, 4-story hotel (66 ft.) (Hilton Home2) and associated sitework. Relief requested from minimum road frontage requirements. Planning Board Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit required for commercial development of a hotel in a Cl zone. SEQR Type Unlisted — ZBA consented to Planning Board as Lead Agency on February 17, 2016; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 and Tabled to May 18, 2016; 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 zoning laws have changed and comprehensive planning has gone into making this part of a well-planned out development effort. 2. Feasible alternatives are not needed and the way it's presented makes sense. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because again of pre-coordination with Town planners and engineers to minimize curb cuts and healthy traffic flow and safety on the access road. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is-not self-created because of coordination with the aforementioned agencies. 1:'6 015/18/2016) 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) 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. PZ-0074-2016 Big Bay Lodging, LLC, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. Good luck. Move forward. MR. BOYEA-Yes, thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ -0067-2016 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK & KATHI MILLER AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) FRANK & KATHI MILLER ZONING WR LOCATION 22 NACY ROAD — WEST SHORE OF GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION OF A (2,604 S. FT. FOOTPRINT); (3,925 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA) SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WELL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDELINE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. SITE PLAN: PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT., 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF SP PZ 127-2016; BP 2014-204 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.31 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.6-1-35 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; FRANK & KATHI MILLER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0067-2016, Frank & Kathi Miller, Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 "Project Location: 22 Nacy Road — west shore of Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of a (2,604 sq. ft. footprint); (3,925 sq. ft. floor area) single-family dwelling. Project includes installation of new septic system and well. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum sideline and shoreline setback requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio, and the minimum permeability requirements of the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The proposed home is to be located 53 ft. 7 in. from the shoreline where 60 ft. 7 in. is the required setback; 12 ft. 7 in from the north side and 9 ft. 9 in. where a 20 ft. setback is required, permeability is proposed at 64.4 % where 75% is required; and floor area is proposed at 3,925 sq. ft. (27%) where 3,163 sq. ft. is maximum allowed (22 %). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 015/18/2016) 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. The applicant proposes removal of two buildings to construct one building and the building is closer to the shoreline than the two adjacent buildings. 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 for a smaller building to have to be compliant with code requirements. 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 may be considered to have minimal impact to the neighborhood. The applicant proposes a new septic system and well. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. The applicant is proposing demolishing and a new build. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and other buildings on 0.33 ac. parcel to construct a 3,925 sq. ft. —floor area home. The plans show the existing and proposed home location, elevations, and floor plans. The applicants has indicated a new septic and well are to be installed as part of the project -where the new well installation disturbance is near the shoreline." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Frank and Kathi Miller, owners of the property at 22 Nacy Road. I see Laura got ahead of me and passed out some of the stuff that we had made changes based on our recommendation last time. We were at the Planning Board last night, they asked for a couple of recommendations. One was to move the project back to at least where the existing house sits from the shoreline and to try and further reduce some of the impermeability. So the drawings that you have there, the revised site data, indicate that we've been able to do that. The drawing that I have up here is the existing site layout. The blue areas that are indicated on here represent the existing buildings that are on the lot as they currently exist. The building in the back is a two story. It's a garage with a small apartment above but it's pretty much storage. The Millers pretty much just use that for storage right now. The camp itself is a seasonal camp, and that's the building that they're looking to replace. The line that's shown here as a purple arc, the Sicards got a subdivision approval in 2013, and we were contacted last week by Tom Jarrett who's the engineer for the Sicard subdivision and just requested that we show where the well, the proposed well location is on Lot Number One of their subdivision so that we could get, make sure that we don't infringe on the 100 foot buffer with our septic. So since our previous, since the original drawings that you've got, we've redesigned the septic to become a bed septic system, which is indicated as the orange box down here. We've also, today I moved the building back to the 60 foot 7 inch which is what the existing building is, the setback from the shoreline. So I've moved that building back and that, therefore, decreased the amount of driveway. In talking with the Millers yesterday and talking with the Planning Board yesterday, we also changed the driveway from a paved drive to a crushed stone drive. I realize that by Code that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter, but it is, it was a request and it was something that we talked about with the Planning Board last night. So it was one of the things they were looking for. This drawing is the proposed drawing, and the green lines indicate the setbacks of the existing buildings. So what we've tried to do is we've tried to keep the footprint of the proposed building inside what the existing setbacks of the existing buildings are. The red line there is obviously the required setbacks by zoning. So while we realize that we are outside of what's required, we've tried to keep within what was already there. The footprint of the building, the upstairs portion is a three bedroom house. The only access to the basement is through the garage or through the entrance from down below. You can't get from the main floor of the house down to the downstairs without going out into the garage and down or going outside and around. The downstairs is mainly the storage that they're losing in the building that's right on Nacy Road. It's literally two or three feet from Nacy Road. So that's the majority of what's going on downstairs, and that's kind of the synopsis of where we are. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public comment period? �:"gig 015/18/2016) MR. UNDERWOOD-Your basement is walkout on the front? MR. HALL-It is walkout on the front. MR. UNDERWOOD-So you would have the potential to put more bedrooms down there at some point in the future or rec rooms, etc., etc. MR. HALL-Yes, and that's the reason for the increase of floor area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because when I look at the narrowness of the lot, keeping in mind that it's .31 acres is the size of the lot, it's severely undersized, and I think what you're doing with your current design is you're trying to put in, maximize the size house onto the lot based upon what's previously existing there. That's essentially what you're doing. It's shrunk back slightly a little bit from the margins of the property lines on each of the side lines. I'm glad that you moved it back so that it's more like the average of the houses on either side of you because I think we've always kind of used that as a general rule of thumb when we do this, but my big concern is this. You're about 800 square feet on your floor area ratio, which is significant, you know, it's not minimal or anything like that, and I understand why you want to have the three bedrooms upstairs, but I think you could go back and re-design and have access to the cellar created from upstairs down to the down below and you could put a bedroom down there, thereby you could shrink the size of the house back slightly from the margins of the property line. MRS. MILLER-Our issue is that we want to live on one floor. We currently live in a two story, four bedroom colonial and we want to downsize. So we want one floor, almost like a ranch, you know, and that's basically what we were looking to do in this house. This does not really utilize the basement for any kind of living, but to have all of our living on one level. Because we're getting older. MR. HENKEL-How much of the house is built on that slope? MR. HALL-How much of the house is built on the slope? Well, this portion of the lot slopes really shallow. It doesn't really get steep until you're over in this area, and then from here actually forward it gets steep. Laura, you had a picture up there that was from the water, that was fairly telling, that kind of shows. So this one's taken from the water looking back up, and the rock, the walkway, the stairs that you can see are what I've got indicated here as the brown portion, and then there's two retaining walls, two stone retaining walls that you can see in that, and the top retaining wall where the orange and green chairs are is the lowest elevation of the patio, and that's where we're actually starting from and building up from there. So our height is actually less than what's there. What's there is above the 28 foot height, and our proposed building is 27 ft. 6 to the rear. We flattened out the roof slope so that we could stay under that. I know how you hate height variances. MR. KUHL-But from the lake the house is going to look like a three story? MR. HALL-No. Two, a two story. The front elevation of the house is right here. This is the front elevation looking from the lake up towards it, and this is the back elevation looking from Nacy Road. From Nacy Road it's a single story ranch with the overhead door for the garage the main entry into the bedroom here. From the lakeside there's the lower patio, the upper deck and the screened porch. MR. KUHL-Where are the three bedrooms? MR. HALL-They run right down the side of the house. They run right down the side of the house. One, two, and then the master's up front. Right there. MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm actually one of your neighbors. I live next to the log house. I have the yellow house, and when we were building that house, the builder said to my wife, why don't you put two bedrooms downstairs, and my wife said, no, live in the basement? Because what he wanted to do was extend the great room and to this day my wife says we should have done that. So I echo what Jim is saying about what you're trying to do. I'm getting older also and I like living on one floor, and I made the other two bedrooms small enough so nobody would move in. They would just come and sleep a couple of nights. MRS. MILLER-That's exactly what we're doing, too. MR. KUHL-Eight years ago my mother-in-law moved in, okay, but she passed away a year ago October. I believe you could accomplish having your objective, which is living on one floor, but 015/18/2016) have the visitors sleeping on another floor and reduce the size so you're not asking for so much relief, and, you know, you could talk to my wife about downstairs because she's sorry she didn't do it. Okay, and I think, didn't Conway do that in their house, also, Conway? MR. HALL-Yes, they did. I did theirs. MR. KUHL-So you might consider that, that you're trying to overbuild a lot, and I understand what you're trying to do, but I believe that there are alternatives. Okay. MRS. MILLER-One of the purposes of having the basement is that we use that garage building, you know, that one that sits right on the road, that's for our storage, for kayaks and, you know, boating and snowmobile and, you know, we even bring stuff over from Queens Lane where we live now and put it in there, the Christmas decorations and so the whole purpose of having that space under the house is to replace the space, instead of putting it in the garage or putting a shed on the property is putting everything under the basement, and having that walkout access just, you know, to easily put it in there. That was the whole purpose. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other Board comments? MR. MC CABE-You mentioned that the driveway was shrunk. So does that mean that the permeability is not 64? MR. HALL-It moved up to 66.4. MR. MC CABE-1 see it. MR. JACKOSKI-And how many cars can now be parked on the property? MR. HALL-Two in the garage and two in the driveway. MR. JACKOSKI-So it says currently on the new application four and two. MR. HALL-Steve, did you see the revised part four here? MR. JACKOSKI-I just wondered why it didn't change. MR. HALL-You could probably fit four in that driveway if you stacked them in. The driveway that's there now, they can park two cars up here and then they can park all the way down this driveway. Interestingly this driveway actually bleeds over onto the other lot, and obviously when that gets taken up all that hard surface comes out and gets replaced with permeable, but that's not on our lot, so we can't count it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? We do have a public comment period for this evening advertised. Is there anyone here in the audience 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 is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll leave the public comment period open. Is there any other comments from Board members before I poll the Board? I'll poll the Board. Would anybody like to go first? MR. HENKEL-I understand what you're trying to get out of this, but I don't think the property will support it. So I'm not really in favor. The permeability is what bothers me, and also the FAR variance. I think you could get what you want with a little less square footage. So I would not be in favor as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have a problem with this thing, too. I would okay the setbacks, but the permeability and the floor area is a problem for me. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 30 015/18/2016) MR. URRICO-Yes, I think the floor area ratio needs to be adjusted. I think it's way too much for the size of the property, and that alone will cause me to say no. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would echo the same arguments that have been made by my previous Board members. I think that we can reduce the size of this and bring it into conformity with the floor area ratio. It's a very small .31 acre lot, and I think that it should reflect a building that fits on a lot of that size. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes I agree with what's been said so far. Not that it has to go to zero, but it's more substantial than I can support at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, your comment about storage, you're asking for an awful lot of relief. I think you're asking for too much, and I think you do have alternatives. So I'm not in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-I suspect the applicant is going to request a tabling, but I'm not sure of that. MR. HALL-Yes, I think that's probably a good idea. MR. JACKOSKI-Having a request from the applicant to table the matter, do you want to table it until August, July? MR. HALL-We'll try and turn it around as quick as we can, but I would say probably August is going to be our best bet because obviously we're not going to make the MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think Ron made the suggestion of looking at the alternatives that were created I think one or two parcels to the east of you guys, there, too. MR. HALL-Yes, the Conways. Yes, I did Conways design. MR. UNDERWOOD-Take that into account also, but I think it's important, you know, I live on the lake, I live up on the other end of the lake, and I think that some of the newer created houses on the lake do not reflect, you know, kind of reflect your request for this oversized for the lot type home, and I think that, you know, as retirees, everybody downsizes. You can get by with a lot less. You have a good architect. I'm sure he can help you through the process of figuring out what will work and what we can approve. MR. KUHL-Would permeable pavers help you, is that crushed stone? MR. HALL-By your Code crushed stone is still considered to be non-permeable. MR. KUHL-Non-permeable. So, I mean, you could consider permeable pavers. MR. HALL-We talked about that. The problem is the cost for the permeable pavers and having them on that angle is, I mean, we've still got a bit of a slope coming down in here so the crushed stone would work out, obviously. MR. KUHL-But it's still impermeable. MR. HALL-By Code it's considered non-permeable. MR. KUHL-I mean, which is kind of off your alternatives. MR. HALL-The only problem with the permeable asphalt is it's right next to where we're putting the bed system. MR. KUHL-Wouldn't work, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So we do have a request by the applicant to table. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank & Kathi Miller. Applicant proposes demolition of existing structures and construction of a (2,604 sq. ft. footprint); (3,925 sq. ft. floor area) single-family dwelling. 31 °� 015/18/2016) Project includes installation of new septic system and well. Relief requested from minimum sideline and shoreline setback requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio, and the minimum permeability requirements for the WR zoning district. Site Plan: project within 50 ft., 15% slope. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 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 PZ-0067-2016 FRANK & KATHI MILLER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in August with paperwork to be submitted by the proper date in July. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just to confirm it would be the first meeting in August. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we have to table it to a specific meeting, or can we give you the flexibility it's in August? MRS. MOORE-I understood it had to be specific. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the first meeting in August it is. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. MILLER-Just before we go, if you can imagine this building on the right will be gone someday. You know what I'm talking about. MR. KUHL-You know what they used to tell me that that house was the second oldest on the lake. MRS. MILLER-Well, the main house they told us was built in 1900, and people that lived in that house year round, and when we bought it we went, how did they do that. MR. KUHL-The oldest one was that little green one. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ 135-2016 SEQRA TYPE II ANTHONY M. MUSCATELLO AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ANTHONY M. MUSCATELLO ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 91 MANNIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 936 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH 2 BAYS AND WORKSHOP AREA. EXISTING HOME WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. SITE PLAN: CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT.; 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF. SP PZ-0128-2016; BP 87- 781 ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7.89 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-30 SECTION 179-5-020 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ANTHONY MUSCATELLO, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-135-2016, Anthony M. Muscatello, Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 "Project Location: 91 Mannis Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 936 sq. ft. detached garage with 2 bays and workshop area. Existing home with attached garage to remain. 015/18/2016) Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Applicant proposes construction of a 936 sq. ft. detached garage with 2 bays and workshop area, second garage. Existing home with attached garage to remain. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage, A detached garage second garage is proposed, where only one garage is allowed Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the design of the existing home and topography of the parcel. 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 936 sq. ft. detached garage with two bays and a workshop. The existing home with a 702 sq. ft. attached garage is to remain with no changes. The applicant has indicated the existing garage is configured so it is under the home where an addition would not be feasible. The location of the second garage is adjacent to the existing driveway area and a portion of the new garage would be over existing hard surface area. The plans indicate the parcel is 7.89 acres and the garage elevations are provided." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Mr. Hutchins. A very simple application, but if you'd like to identify yourself for the record and add anything, please feel free to do so. MR. HUTCHINS-Gladly. Tom Hutchins with property owner Anthony Muscatello and I guess I concur it's a very simple application and would turn it over to the Board. Unless you'd like a detailed explanation. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there Board member questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-What would be the purpose for the excess space you need? Do you have a defined need for it like old cars or something like that? MR. HUTCHINS-No, it's a residential garage. The garage that currently isn't really functional, and you can explain a little bit. The use is a residential garage with a small workshop. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I know previously we had a request for Mike Swan's house which was just coming in uphill from you on the other side of the swamp, and Mike's I think when we granted the second garage on his property at the time he had an antique truck, he had motorcycles and stuff like that, and I think, you know, the rationale when we granted that one was he had a large lot also. I live at 99 Mannis Road down the road from you, but I can see, having previously granted a request for one of these for somebody right next door, in essence, I don't really see that the request is that dramatic. It's not going to be used for commercial purposes or anything like that. 313 015/18/2016) MR. HUTCHINS-It's not going to be used for commercial purposes, and it'll be quite screened from the road. You'll be able to see it if you look for it but. MR. UNDERWOOD-But, I mean, you're on seven and a half acres there. MR. KUHL-Are you putting water and electric in? MR. HUTCHINS-No. Electric, no water. MR. KUHL-And you're stating here in no uncertain terms this is for personal use and not a business, Anthony? MR. MUSCATELLO-It's for residential use. MR. KUHL-It's basically for personal use? MR. MUSCATELLO-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience to provide any other public comment, I will leave the public comment period open and I will poll the Board. I will start with Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no problem with this as long as he understands for personal use and no commercial. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with that. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-He has a large lot. His immediate neighbor to the south has an attached garage. So I see very little problem with granting this request. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, I will close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Anthony M. Muscatello. Applicant proposes construction of a 936 sq. ft. detached garage with 2 bays and workshop area. Existing home with attached garage to remain. Relief requested for a second garage. Site Plan: construction within 50 ft.; 15% slope SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016; 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 31,11 015/18/2016) 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. The neighbor to the south has previously created a second garage and that did not create any difficulties for the neighborhood. This garage that's being proposed would not be seen from the road because it's pretty well screened by trees on this driveway and the entranceway. 2. Feasible alternatives would be to not create another garage but at this point in time it does not seem that denying this request would be in keeping with the review. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it is a second garage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because he does want a second garage but it's been explained why. 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, while not the minimum necessary, he could build a smaller garage, but it seems to fit the seven and a half acre parcel present. 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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. PZ-0135-2016, Anthony M. Muscatello, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, Anthony. Move forward. MR. MUSCATELLO-Thank you. MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0139-2016 SEQRA TYPE II GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) K-TWIN HOLDINGS ZONING Cl LOCATION MEADOWBROOK ROAD — NORTH SIDE OF QUAKER ROAD, WEST SIDE OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,915 SQ. FT. NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR A BRANCH OFFICE/CREDIT UNION AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. BUILDING TO ALSO HAVE A 24 FT. BY 24. FT. UPSTAIRS OFFICE AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT AND/OR SHORELINE (WETLAND) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT. SITE PLAN: NEW COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE SP PZ-0131-2016; FWW 0132-2016; AV 5-2008; SP 7-2008 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 LOT SIZE ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1- 10 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-We have a request to table. Can I have a motion to table. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Great Meadow Federal Credit Union. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,915 sq. ft. new commercial building for a branch office / credit union and associated site work. Building to also have a 24 ft. by 24 ft. upstairs office area. Relief requested from front and/or shoreline (wetland) setback requirements for the Cl zoning district. Site Plan: new commercial structure 3115 015/18/2016) SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016; 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 PZ-0139-2016 GREAT MEADOW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of September 21, 2016 with paperwork to be submitted by the August submission deadline. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0138-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JOSEPH P. GROSS AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) JOSEPH P. GROSS ZONING CURRENT: CLI SUB. APPROVAL: LI-1A LOCATION 27 SILVER CIRCLE — OFF BIG BAY ROAD — SUBDIVISION OF FRANK KINEKE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY 5,040 SQ. FT. (2,520 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT) ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 69,095 SQ. FT. GROSS ELECTRIC OFFICE BUILDING. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND SITE ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLI ZONING DISTRICT. SITE PLAN: NEW CONSTRUCTION TO AN ALREADY APPROVED SITE PLAN. SP PZ 140- 2016; SB 11-2002 FRANK KINEKE 2-LOT INDUS. SUBD.; BP 2015-272 COWL BLDG.; BP 2014-528 COMM'L HEATED BLDG.; BP 2009-044 COWL UNHEATED STORAGE BLDG.; BP 2004-783 NEW OFFICE BLDG.; BP 2004-365 STORAGE BLDG. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 LOT SIZE 3.43 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-17.2 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ -0138-2016, Joseph P. Gross, Meeting Date: May 18, 2016 "Project Location: 27 Silver Circle — off Big Bay Road — subdivision of Frank Kineke Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a two-story 5,040 sq. ft. (2,520 sq. ft. footprint) addition to the existing 69,095 sq. ft. Gross Electric Office building. The existing buildings and site are to remain with no changes. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the CLI zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, The proposed building addition is to be located 11.83 ft. from the west side property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. 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. The new building addition is located next to an existing vacant property that is currently for sale by the owner. 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 36 015/18/2016) may be considered to reduce the size of the building or adjust the lot lines as the adjoining property is the same owner. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact where the SWPPP will need to be updated to include the new impermeable surface. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self - created Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a two- story 5,040 sq. ft. floor area addition to the existing 5,420 sq. ft. footprint office building that is part of 69,095 sq. ft. Gross Electric building facility. The plans show the location of the addition, elevations and floor plans." MR. JACKOSKI-Ethan, hello, welcome. MR. URRICO-I think I need to correct the existing footprint is 2,520 square feet, right? MR. GROSS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HALL-Good evening. Ethan Hall, principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture, representing Joe Gross who is away in Alaska. What Joe's looking to do here, they've taken on some additional staff. The office space that they have, they're bursting at the seams. They're everywhere on there. So they need to put an office addition on it. He's currently renting some space down in Albany and he'd like to bring those people back up here to get them in-house. We looked at a couple of different options, and the best option is to put the addition on the west side of the building. We looked at trying to do it on the east side of the building, but that's where his septic system is. So there's not, without relocating all the plumbing and doing everything with inside the building, there's no way to put it on that east side. He is asking for a side yard variance. He is asking for the side yard variance from himself because he does own the next lot.. We looked at doing a boundary line adjustment to make that happen, the problem is on the 30, how big is that piece of property, 30 acres? MRS. MOORE-This adjoining one. MR. HALL-That one there. It's a good size piece. The problem with doing a lot line adjustment is because it's on the cul de sac. It reduces the front yard, what would be the road frontage, and it makes it an illegal lot. So we can't really move that property line. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no questions from Board members, I'd open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing that there's no one in the audience to address the Board on this, there's no public comment from the audience, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, I'll leave the public comment period open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with this. It seems like a minimal request. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have no problem with it. 3./, 015/18/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 have no problem with the Gross project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Same here, small relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joseph P. Gross. Applicant proposes construction of a two-story 5,040 sq. ft. (2,520 sq. ft. footprint) addition to the existing 69,095 sq. ft. Gross Electric Office building. The existing buildings and site are to remain with no changes. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the CLI zoning district. Site Plan: new construction to an already approved site plan. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016; 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 it's hardly noticeable with the size of the building. 2. The requested variance is not substantial. It's a small relief. 3. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There's several commercial properties here. It will not be noticed. 4. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 5. 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; 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 7. The Board also proposes the following conditions: b) 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. PZ-0138-2016 Joseph P. Gross, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski 38 015/18/2016) NOES: NONE MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other business to be brought before us this evening? MR. FREER-What was the expectation for counsel's input for Burnett? MR. JACKOSKI-I think the record is clear and Jim was working with Counsel to create the motion, establishing the balancing test for all six variance requests. It will be lengthy but it needs to be that well documented and carefully crafted. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this last one we had with the Millers with two buildings on one parcel, I mean, I think you recognize when you have overbuilding on a small site and then you go and create this situation where you can have even more overbuilding on two nonconforming sites, you know, there's a multiplier effect with what you're doing. MR. MC CABE-Well, what you're neglecting is that any time they do anything they have to come before the Zoning Board because it's a nonconforming lot. So they can't do anything without getting permission. MR. HALL-Actually, they actually just asked me that, you know, can we remodel what's there, and I said, you can, you'd be right back here. MR. JACKOSKI-So we can't discuss that project without the applicant here. So can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 18, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you everyone. Great night, and, Jim, if you need my help on that, don't hesitate to call. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 39