Loading...
10-19-2016 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2016 INDEX Area Variance PZ -0209-2016 Michael Dorman 1. Tax Map No. 295.11-1-5 Area Variance PZ 222-2016 Rick Austin 8. Tax Map No. 266.1-2-56 Area Variance PZ 229-2016 Harold Gordon 11. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-88 Area Variance PZ 219-2016 Julie Jarvis & Mike Baird 20. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-44 Area Variance PZ 237-2016 Edmund & Jamie Brochu 28. Tax Map No. 301.14-1-82 Sign Variance PZ 238-2016 Smart Wash of Queensbury LLC 34. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-12 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) OCTOBER 19, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone and welcome. I'd like to welcome you to our Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Wednesday October 19th here at the Queensbury Activity Center on Bay Road. It's a relatively easy process. There is an agenda on the back table. We'll call to order the applications as they exist per the agenda. Old Business first followed by New Business. We'll ask the applicants and their agents to join us here at the small table. Roy will be kind enough to read everything into the record that needs to be read into the record. We'll ask questions of the applicants. We'll open up a public hearing when a public hearing has been advertised and for everything this evening there has been an advertisement for a public hearing, and after we conduct the public hearing we may poll the Board to see which way the Board is leaning on every project. We'll close the public hearing if appropriate and take action accordingly. It's a pretty simple process. It shouldn't take that long, but one never knows. So we'll start this evening right away with some housekeeping. We do have a request to approve the meeting minutes of September 21St APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next item we have this evening is under Old Business. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0209-2016 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL DORMAN AGENT(S) TOM CENTER — NACE ENGINEERING P.C. OWNER(S) MICHAEL & KATHLEEN DORMAN; MONTY & BARBARA CALVERT ZONING MDR LOCATION 35 BONNER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.54 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS (REVISED). PROJECT IS FOR THREE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. PROPOSED LOT SIZES: LOT 1 TO BE 0.40 AC.; LOT 2 TO BE 1.23 AC.; LOT 3 TO BE 0.60 AC. WITH A HAMMERHEAD ON LOT 2. PROJECT INCLUDES WATERLINE EXTENSION AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS FOR EACH LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT SIZES FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB PZ-207-2016 PRELIMINARY STAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.11-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL & KATHLEEN DORMAN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT 2 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0209-2016, Michael Dorman, Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 "Project Location: 35 Bonner Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 2.54 acre parcel into 3 lots (revised). Project is for three single- family homes. Proposed lot sizes: Lot 1 to be 0.40 ac; Lot 2 to be 1.23 ac, and Lot 3 to be 0.60 ac with a hammerhead on Lot 2. Project includes waterline extension and septic systems for each lot. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirement for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum required lot sizes for the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements. The MDR zone requires 2 acres per lot when not connected to town sewer and water. The applicant proposes on-site septic and municipal water. The lots sizes proposed are Lot 1 to be 0.40 ac; Lot 2 to be 1.23 ac, and Lot 3 to be 0.60 ac. 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 applicant has indicated the lots are similar sizes to the adjoining parcels along the same street. 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 size of the lot and the zoning requirements for development. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Where relief requested for lot 1 is 1.6 ac, lot 2 is 0.77 ac, and lot 3 is 1.40. 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 have minimal impact where the design includes stormwater and erosion control measures. In addition, the Town Highway and Town Water Department are reviewing the project. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision of a 2.54 ac parcel where 2 ac per lot is required. The applicant has revised the plans from a 4-lot to a 3-lot subdivision as part of the Zoning Board's previous discussion. The applicant has indicated the lots are similar to the neighboring lots and has provided the subdivision proposed prior to zoning. The project includes development of a hammerhead turnaround, the extension of Bonner Drive and the extension of the waterline." MR. DORMAN-I want to reiterate why we're doing this to start with. This was in the plans when we first bought the property, as tenants in common, with our neighbor across the street. The idea at that time was that they would eventually sell, which they have, to us and we were going to be able to divide it, give our sons each a lot and hopefully have another lot to pay for the infrastructure that is required. We had come here last time asking for four. I have presented a map that is on file with the Warren County that shows the design for the finish of Franklyn Manor II, which is our development. Okay. So I'm not sure if that is considered relevant or not. So that would be the first two lots as they are on our proposal. We just took them as they were, the hammerhead and left the one big lot at the end. Again, the reason that we can't financially afford to do the costs of the hammerhead, the water and the telephone pole, by only having two lots, we want to give each kid one. The other one is for a friend of my oldest. They're all Queensbury graduates. The two boys that are going to build immediately are corrections officers in the area. We think it's a good add to the community. Okay. I didn't bring Mr. Nace, Mr. Center or anybody because I'm just trying to get the lots, and then we'll go back, if you have 3 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) questions on water drainage and stuff, Tom had told me that they would remain as they were on the original proposal from August. The only thing is I believe that the road would be shortened a little bit. We're not sure of the exact amount, but from what it was, I think it comes back 10 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-And that would be covered in Planning Board anyway. MR. DORMAN-Okay. I didn't know. Now the last time we had, it was a public hearing, and I had all of my immediate neighbors except for the Kleins that were in favor of what we're trying to do by closing off the road and everything. Now I spoke to, before we sat down that night, we had words in the back with, and the first one I talked with was Mr. Klein, and he said to me that his only objection would be that he would be all right if there was one house on his side, but off the division. He abuts the lower property on the street and the one to the left, okay. When I talked to Dr. Klein, his concern was that his property was constricted for whatever it is, four, five acres, but Dr. Klein's property is a result of Mr. Kruger building Shallow Creek and the tradeoff was he's allowed .28 and .27 acre lots, but he had to leave the last piece five acres. So there was no bearing on Dr. Klein as to the size. That was how Queensbury told Mr. Kruger that he could divide. So I don't think that should be an issue with Dr. Klein at the time. Again, our lots on Bonner are .4. The lots on Shallow Creek are .27 and .28. 1 believe the smallest one is .4. I'm not sure, the larger one may be .48, and the last one I believe is 1.1. Any of the work and stuff, you know, that will all be done. MR. HENKEL-.4, .6 and 1.23. MR. DORMAN-Okay. I knew the one was larger. So I know that last time I think it was Mr. Henkel had asked that I had come back and you said it would be, at that time all right with you, too, definitely, but I need to have it three for what we're trying to do. We're putting the two smaller ones next to the two houses that already exist, and we're making a larger piece the back piece that will abut the Friehofer property. We moved the house over so it isn't along the Klein side, but ultimately we've done everything that will get your approval for what we're trying to do. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any Board member questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. If this was an approved subdivision in 1967 how come, no, it wasn't? MRS. MOORE-Well, so it's approved, prior to. MR. DORMAN-Prior to everything, but that's what was approved, and that's where we originally decided to buy was, okay, I see that this is on file, and we assume, okay, I've got two. Maybe I can get two more, maybe I can't, but at least I'll be able to divide. MR. HENKEL-Why would you decide on the hammerhead rather than go rounded, a roundabout or something of that, where it's rounded. Isn't that safer for emergency vehicles and that? MR. DORMAN-1 let Mr. Center and, who's the head of? MRS. MOORE-So it's Town Highway Department. MR. MC CABE-The plow's going to push the snow up onto that hammerhead. MR. DORMAN-He was okay. He thought that was fine. The way it is they're going to go to the bottom of that hammerhead. They're going to swing in and push that way. Which is away from the house and everything. If you do the cul de sac that you have drawn there, you're going to take away property. MR. HENKEL-Well, I wasn't doing a cul de sac per se. MR. DORMAN-1 mean, if you can fit it in there. MR. HENKEL-I think that would make more sense. A plow could go like that and not, it doesn't have to do any backing up for any emergency vehicles. MR. DORMAN-Like I said that was between Highway Department and Nace Engineering, and the Highway Department okayed it and that's why they continued it on in this drawing, okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. KUHL-Yes. What's the chance of a school bus making a U-turn in that hammerhead? MR. HENKEL-They pick up on the corner of Bonner. MRS. DORMAN-There is one disabled bus that comes down the street. MR. HENKEL-I was going to say, sometimes they need to come down there. MR. DORMAN-It's a smaller bus. A smaller bus comes down for one child. MR. KUHL-Okay. You mentioned something about Franklyn Manor 11. What bearing does that have on this? MR. DORMAN-It is Franklyn Manor 11. MR. KUHL-Oh, it is. Okay. That's this subdivision? MR. DORMAN-That's this development, the second half of Bonner Drive was called was Franklyn Manor 11. MR. KUHL-I didn't know. I'm new here. All the other ones have 100 foot frontage and your Lot Number 1 has 87 and .28. How come you don't have 100 foot on that? MR. DORMAN-Do you not have 100 when you come around the hammerhead? MR. KUHL-You have 100 on the back end. On the far side off of Bonner, and then you have 87.28 up on the front. I'm just curious. Why isn't that 100 like all the rest if this is Franklyn Manor 11. All the rest have 100 foot fronts, don't they? MR. DORMAN-It's 87 to the point, and then it looks like it's 17 to the end of the hammerhead, which gave is 100. MR. FREER-So they're using this as road frontage. MR. DORMAN-If the hammerhead is part of the road, then that road goes to the end of it, and that gave it the 100. MR. KUHL-Okay. Now you're going to extend the Town water? Is there sewer in here or just water? Just water? MR. DORMAN-No sewer. I think that's why you'll see four test pits were dug. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. DORMAN-We would extend the hydrant which is on the corner to wherever the Town wanted it, where they saw fit. MR. KUHL-And you're saying, you're telling us that you went to the Highway Department and they approved this hammerhead as being a safe thing? MR. DORMAN-The last time I was here in August there should have been a letter from the head of the Highway Department okaying that. MR. KUHL-Is that, does Staff know that? MRS. MOORE-1 know that the conversation has occurred. So that may be addressed in the actual subdivision process about the hammerhead, but I don't, this hammerhead has been proposed in other projects. So I don't. MR. HENKEL-We didn't have that in our paperwork, I'm pretty sure. MR. DORMAN-It was discussed. MR. HENKEL-Right, but I'm saying as far as the Highway Department, we didn't have a piece of paper that he had come to an agreement, the Highway Department, Tom Vanness. 5 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. KUHL-You also brought up Shallow Creek at .2, whatever. Why bring up Shallow Creek? We're talking about Bonner Drive. MR. DORMAN-Because that was to explain Dr. Klein's concern that he had to have a bigger piece of property and that was the reason had to stay the size it was. There was a tradeoff with the Town of Queensbury for Mr. Kruger to be able to build .28 and .27 homes down on Shallow Creek, and that's why I brought that up. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. DORMAN-Because that was the only neighbor that I had that was in dissent. MR. KUHL-Is that of any significance here? MRS. MOORE-It's reference information. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. HENKEL-I still think it would have been better to have a rounded. A hammerhead just doesn't make sense. I can't believe they allowed that. The backing up, you have emergency vehicles backing up. A plow has to back up instead of going around. That doesn't make sense at all. MRS. DORMAN-But they currently do that now. MR. HENKEL-I realize that because that's a dead end. MRS. DORMAN-Right. That's our property. MR. HENKEL-If you're going to finish that off, you might as well have a roundabout or, where it's easier for a plow to continue running, instead of backing up to anyone. You eliminate the problem of someone getting hit or that, you know, but that's what we're here for. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-What was the total acreage that you had when you filed before? MR. DORMAN-The exact same amount. MR. URRICO-You had 2.54? MR. DORMAN-2.53 or 2.54. MR. URRICO-Yet the lots average between 1.4 and 1.5, and here we have two lots that are under one acre. MR. DORMAN-No, no. The lots averaged. .4, .45, 1 believe. MR. URRICO-The notes I'm looking at from last month show the four lots being, the relief requested. Okay. Never mind. Gotcha. MR. HENKEL-Yes, most of those lots in that development are quarter acre to a half anyway. MR. DORMAN-All on Bonner Drive are .4, .48, 41. 1 just looked at them tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-I have one more question before I open the public hearing. What is the likelihood that you'll utilize a pass through of your larger lot to get to the flanking larger lots that your neighbors own? MR. DORMAN-That proposed at the east, that way? It's going to be my oldest son's that goes through his property and he's not going to let anybody, and if you want it in there, there'll be no access. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I think it's essentially landlocked unless they come in that parcel to the north, you know, the thin one that, it's enough for like houses on one side of the street, you know, the adjacent parcel. 6 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we've approved subdivisions here that we thought nobody would ever build a house on before. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. I mean, if you were going to idealize the whole thing you would look at the greater picture, you know, you have the old Finch Pruyn property down to the south. You have Frieberger's property which is in the back and then also wraps and goes around the north, north of Bonner Drive onto West Mountain Road. So, I mean, it idealized, you would have it so that everything kind of interconnects through, but this obviously isn't going to have an interconnect. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, you say obviously it isn't, but what's going to stop it from happening in the future? Especially when you've got 1.23 acres and you could say half an acre away and put an access road. MR. DORMAN-Are you asking for the piece of property that's the larger of the three? Why that won't have a connection to the road? MR. JACKOSKI-What I'm saying is what would ever stop a connection from being put there? MR. DORMAN-Can it be in the deed? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it can certainly be in our subdivision. What I'm getting at is there's a lot of land that certainly wraps around there. MR. DORMAN-Yes, it does. It's all one. It's all the Freiberger's. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but wouldn't it be nice to have a little access right through your property to gain, you know, to do a couple of building lots out there? So my question is, is there an intent to have a pass through lot, any of your property to those parcels? MR. DORMAN-None whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be okay with that being a condition of approval? MR. DORMAN-As a matter of fact, we're kind of happy that it will make that just be, a road could only go through Bonner and Lehland. MR. JACKOSKI-We don't disagree, but that's what we're thinking about is we, what we're doing here, especially given these smaller lots, and, Number Two, you may not own the property forever. So somebody could do that. So my thinking is that we need to condition this subdivision, if we approve it, no drive through access to the adjoining properties. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any additional written comment? MR. URRICO-1 do not see any. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. I guess I'm okay with the changes that have been made. I know some of it doesn't make sense, like John said. I'd be in favor of what the application looks like now. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 consider this just finishing off the Bonner Drive development. There's no difference between what the applicant's proposing and what already exists on Bonner Drive. So I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I think it's a good ending to the subdivision. It's acceptable. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? 7 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it finishes out Bonner Drive, and it mirrors what's in there. My only concern is that there's room for emergency vehicles to turn around. As long as the Highway Department has looked at it and they approve this hammerhead design as being capable of handling emergency vehicles, and I also did take a look at Shallow Creek Road, and I know that the young people that get on the school bus can walk out there. I don't know if that's too far for the first graders or kindergartners or second graders, but the bigger critters can walk out to Shallow Creek, and I know that the bus can turn around in that roundabout. Given what I said, I would approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. It sort of meets all the criteria as reasonable for us to grant the variance, and sol support the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the Chairman brings up an interesting point because if you look at the original plot of the subdivision with that roundabout turn as John suggested also, you know, that turnaround in there would allow for an interconnect with the property to the east side of there, which realistically, if you were thinking long term, would make more sense, you know, and if that were the case, if that's what we were going to allow, you would only be allowed two lots, one on the north side of it and one on the south side. So you'd be down to two lots, but in this case here, the applicant has shown us that, you know, he is not building, you know, he's going to build one lot more than what we had requested last time, but I don't think that those lots are out of character for the end of the drive and you have to remember also it's at the end of Bonner Drive. No one would know, whatever size lot you built down there. It's going to have no bearing on the future. The only thing it's going to encroach on is that property in the back which has no bearing on your request because I think your request is reasonable. So I would approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-So, hearing the Board, I'm going to 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 Michael Dorman. Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 2.54 acre parcel into 3 lots (revised). Project is for three single-family homes. Proposed lot sizes: Lot 1 to be 0.40 ac; Lot 2 to be 1.23 ac, and Lot 3 to be 0.60 ac with a hammerhead on Lot 2. Project includes waterline extension and septic systems for each lot. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirement for the MDR zoning district. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum required lot sizes for the MDR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements. The MDR zone requires 2 acres per lot when not connected to town sewer and water. The applicant proposes on-site septic and municipal water. The lots sizes proposed are Lot 1 to be 0.40 ac; Lot 2 to be 1.23 ac, and Lot 3 to be 0.60 ac. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on August 24, 2016 and left open; October 19, 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 this variance basically maintains the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not feasible because of size constraints. 8 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) 3. The requested variance appears substantial but not when you consider the existing neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) No pass through ingress and egress will be constructed through any of the approved lots. 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 PZ-0209-2016 MICHAEL DORMAN, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th day of October 2016 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-The Board proposes the following conditions. No pass through road will be constructed through any of the approved lots. MR. JACKOSKI-I'd like some clarification. Mike, if you don't mind, instead of saying a pass through road will be built, can we just say pass through ingress and egress to flanking properties? MR. MC CABE-I'll amend my resolution to substitute pass through egress or pass through road. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. MR. DORMAN-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ 222-2016 SEQRA TYPE II RICK AUSTIN OWNER(S) RICK AUSTIN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 0 SUNSET TRAIL (PICKLE HILL ACRES) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,800 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN 864 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.98 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-56 SECTION 179-3-040 RICK AUSTIN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 222-2016, Rick Austin, Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 "Project Location: 0 Sunset Trail (Pickle Hill Acres) Description of the Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,800 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 864 sq. ft. attached garage. 9 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum front and side setback requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements— Rural Residential 3 acre zone The proposed home is to be located 60 ft. from the front property line where 100 ft. setback is required. Then the north side yard setback is proposed to be 66.1 ft. where a 75 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. Minor to no 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 as any new development on this parcel would be subject to a request for variances. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 40 ft. in the front yard and 8.9 ft. at the north side yard. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created as the parcel is a pre-existing nonconforming parcel with an existing garage. The parcel was part of a 1964 subdivision that pre-dated the zoning in the area. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a single family home of 1,800 sq. ft. with an attached 864 sq. ft. garage. The relief requested is for setbacks for the RR3A zone that is associated for parcels that are 3 ac or larger —100 ft. front and 75 ft. side are the required setbacks. The parcel was part of the Pickle Hill Acres Subdivision. The applicant has provided a survey, proposed home layout, and information on the septic and well location." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything you'd like to add to the record, or would you just like Board members to ask questions? MR. AUSTIN-Just ask questions I guess. You pretty much summed everything up. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Board members, do you have questions on this particular project before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Good evening, Rick. I have no questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? This is a straightforward application. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. No written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? GEORGETTE FOLLEY 10 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MRS. FOLLEY-Well, I live next door. I'm going to live next door. I've looked at his house plans. MR. JACKOSKI-If you wouldn't mind, would you like to identify yourself for us? MRS. FOLLEY-I'm Georgette Folley. I've looked at his house plans. Have you people been up to see the lot? Okay. A lot of trees on it. He's going to have, his bedroom's on the north side, and so it's going to be against my living room. It's not going to impact me at all. He's asking for a variance of how many extra feet? MR. JACKOSKI-Eight to nine feet on that side and 40 feet on the front. MRS. FOLLEY-It should not impact my house at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MRS. FOLLEY-He won't clear cut that lot. MR. AUSTIN-No, we're going to leave buffer zones on both sides. MRS. FOLLEY-Have you seen the trees? He's going to pay the bill for cutting the trees down. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? Anyone else here in the audience? I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll poll the Board about this application. I'll start at the other end this time. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the request. I mean, I think the relief that's necessary here is because of the change in the Code since the size of the lots were pre- determined. It's a practical application of where the house should be. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Harrison? MR. FREER-What he said, yes, it makes sense. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think it's a good request. It blends in with the neighborhood, and I'd be in favor of it. MR. HENKEL-I understand you're requesting in the front because there's quite a grade in the back, but if you moved the house in the back it would be a problem. So he's looking for 40 feet of relief there. So I have no problem with that. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. 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 Rick Austin. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,800 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 864 sq. ft. attached garage. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum front and side setback requirements for the RR-3A zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements— Rural Residential 3 acre zone The proposed home is to be located 60 ft. from the front property line where 100 ft. setback is required. Then the north side yard setback is proposed to be 66.1 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; 11 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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 of the longstanding subdivision. It blends in very well with the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. 3. The requested variance is minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty you might say is self-created, but it's only because of the older zoning regulations. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ 222-2016 RICK AUSTIN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 19th day of October 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. MR. AUSTIN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ 229-2016 SEQRA TYPE II HAROLD GORDON AGENT(S) MORGAN GAZETOS OWNER(S) HAROLD GORDON ZONING WR LOCATION 2780 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A 120 SQ. FT. DECK ATTACHED TO A DOCK. A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED PRIOR TO ZONING REVIEW. AREA VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WERE DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY AFTER THE FACT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DECK AT THE SHORELINE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW — HARD SURFACE WITHIN 50 FT. OF A SHORELINE. CROSS REF SP PZ 228-2016; BOTH 133-2016 (BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; LEGACY BP 2014-059 AND SP 34-2013); BP 2004-363 DECK; BP 92-645 CARPORT; BP 88-412 SUNROOM ADDITION; BP 85-356 SFD; BP 91-847 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.69 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-88 SECTION 179-3-040 MORGAN GAZETOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; HAROLD GORDON, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 229-2016, Harold Gordon, Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 "Project Location: 2780 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval to complete construction of a 120 sq. ft. deck attached to a dock. A building permit was issued prior to zoning review. Area Variance and Site Plan Review were determined to be necessary after the fact. 12 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from setback requirements for the deck at the shoreline. Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements The shoreline deck is located 0 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required, on the north side property line 23.5 ft. and on the south side property line 19 ft. where a 25 ft. setback is required. (Side setback information has been forwarded from LGPC site inspection —a survey would provide the actual distance) 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 applicant has indicated a concrete pad in the same area was removed and the new wood deck to connect to the dock was constructed. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the deck size on the sides. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for the north property line, 1.5 ft. and the south property line 6 ft. 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 has provided plans that show the location of the deck under construction. The applicant has worked with Staff for submission of the variance and site plan materials for the review. The LGPC recent site visit has indicated the dock is non-compliant and at this time it is not clear if that would impact the deck location." MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record and if you'd like to add anything or if you'd just like us to ask questions. MR. GORDON-Good evening, members of the Board. I'm Harold Gordon, the applicant. This is Morgan Gazetos who's our agent and the dock builder. The only thing I would like to add, and whatever questions, obviously, is what happened here is it was anticipated and planned that this was replacing a very ugly potentially polluting concrete pad of the same size, not in exactly the same position. Very close, and it was in reliance on the fact that it could be replaced with a less impervious, much more aesthetically pleasing structure that this whole thing apparently happened, and Morgan here can explain to you exactly what the steps were that took place, but essentially what I think we were attempting to do, and what we were hoping to do was replacing that ugly unsightly concrete pad with a deck that's not really impervious and is more pleasing, and my neighbors on either side are in full support of this. They're not here tonight, but they certainly don't object. MR. UNDERWOOD-What's the position of the Lake George Park Commission at the present time? Is that something that's been resolved? MR. GORDON-It has been, sir. I spoke with, this week, the initial submitted drawing. I got a note from the surveyor. I was in a hurry. I didn't wait for his final drawing. I kicked it a little bit. So I just had to bring it back over. So, yes, we worked all of this out. 13 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. UNDERWOOD-So they were thinking the projection lines off shore? MR. GAZETOS-I've got a diagonal number that I'm supposed to be to the mean high water mark, to the back of the dock, it was supposed to be just to the setback line, and I went over, and we went out and saw it. MR. GORDON-It would also slightly reduce the amount of square footage that would be above the high water mark. So it'll actually go to 102 and three quarters, versus the 120 here. MR. GAZETOS-And I actually gave Laura the new drawing last time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did they give you any indication as to whether the new materials were more acceptable than what was presently on site then, as far as the deck? MR. GAZETOS-So when he came to do the pre-site inspection he was pretty clear about all this comes out, all of it comes out. I better not find out you put it in the same. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-Yes. What's the size of the pad that's there now, cement pad that you're replacing that with wood? What was the square footage of that? MR. GAZETOS-I'd say about 110. MR. HENKEL-So now you're increasing it by 10 square feet. MR. GAZETOS-I'll back up for a second, and you have to bear with me because this has never happened before. I've been doing this for about 10 years, but I went, you know, followed the normal procedure, went to the Park Commission and got my permit. Came to the Town of Queensbury, handed my packet from the Park Commission. Got my permit. I went out there, put my cribs in, and I tore up the 110 square foot pad. So the initial design is this shoreline deck should have been 100 square foot perfect. So when I built it, I said I kicked it a little bit. To be able to get the deck square, that's how this was all figured out is I came in here to see Dave Hatin, and I said, hey, to get it square I'm going to need two and a half feet or whatever it is, and that's when I was talking with him, Craig Brown comes in, and he says time out, and that's how we got here. So we were already under a permit. So the extra 20 square feet was because when we originally came to this meeting I didn't know I was out of compliance at that point. So now once I move it back in compliance with the LGPC, I'll be 100, 102. So, yes, it's less than the existing, than the previous concrete pad was. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have any surveys that show where the existing concrete pad was? MR. GAZETOS-It might have been in the packet. MRS. MOORE-The survey that you do have in front of you, that's dated, the setback distance are accurate. It's the size of the pad is not eight feet in width. It is five feet in width. So maybe, one of the suggestions is having an updated survey. MR. HENKEL-It says eight and a half. MRS. MOORE-The new one is about five feet by twenty. MR. JACKOSKI-But this survey says the proposed deck is eight and a half by twenty. MRS. MOORE-And that's inaccurate. MR. GAZETOS-So that's inaccurate. MR. HENKEL-So we're at five by twenty, which is 100. MR. GAZETOS-That's exactly what it is, because it's there. MR. HENKEL-That's needed to build this? MRS. MOORE-It's already done. MR. GAZETOS-It's there. 1 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. HENKEL-It's going to be a boathouse eventually. MR. GAZETOS-Hopefully, yes. I didn't know I was going to need a variance when I got my building permit. I thought I was all set to go. So that's why I went ahead and built this and tore up the pad. MR. JACKOSKI-So will you really need this deck when you have a boathouse? MR. GORDON-To a certain extent, yes. It would provide the access. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand stairs and landings, but I don't understand decks. MR. HENKEL-Because you're going to have, a part of the deck will be in the water also, right? Because you're going to have an "L" shape, right? So why would you need that on the land part, that other part? MRS. MOORE-The Planning Board and the Zoning Board no longer have jurisdiction on the docks. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. So it's a sticky wicket, because we're going to put a hard surface new deck on land within our Town of Queensbury, but the future plans seem to be the intent of having a deck up on top, which to me, if we're talking about the usage, and we're trying to get them the most peaceful enjoyment of their property, they're going to really need this variance, but do they need this deck in order to enjoy their property. MR. GORDON-Well, we haven't been granted a deck at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but unfortunately you took out the concrete, and because it's brand new deck it requires a building permit and it requires all that other stuff. MR. GORDON-No, I do understand that completely. This whole thing went sideways. MR. HENKEL-Well, couldn't we put in a condition that he would be allowed to build this deck on land if he doesn't get. MR. JACKOSKI-It's already built. MR. HENKEL-Right, but he could also take it out. If he doesn't get the approval for the deck on the boathouse. MR. JACKOSKI-What kind of shoreline re-buffering have you done? MR. GORDON-So as far as along the shoreline south there's a riprap that goes up the first few feet all the way along it. MR. JACKOSKI-So are you familiar with the Code in Queensbury that requires the first 30 feet off of the mean high water mark to be re-vegetated with certain criteria? MR. GORDON-We actually have a number of plantings along in there already, but that certainly wouldn't bother us. We'd like that. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, I went to the site, I didn't see the existing vegetation also. I mentioned this that potentially the Planning Board or the Zoning Board may identify additional landscaping needs on the shoreline. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that part of our Code? MRS. MOORE-It is, but you're also taking into account the existing vegetation on that site, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I don't have a problem with them utilizing the existing vegetation in order to meet the criterion but there may be more requirements to meet. I don't know, I mean, we have those three levels of vegetation, tall, medium and short, right? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-I didn't see it. Did you put in the 30 feet? MR. GORDON-There are three large white pines. 15 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-I saw those, but I didn't think that they were within 30 feet. MR. GORDON-Yes. For sure. Probably within 15 feet, and there's some additional plantings, also. MR. JACKOSKI-You can't cut those trees down, right, unless they're diseased or dead? MR. GORDON-We have no interest in doing that. They're very beautiful. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. 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-We don't have anything from the neighbors? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Well, yes, this, taking old stuff out and then putting noncompliant stuff to replace it doesn't feel good to me, but it sounds like you've moved forward. I guess I'd like to hear from the rest of my Board members, but I'm pretty strict about maintaining the Code when it comes to Lake George setbacks, and this doesn't pass the grandfathered test in terms of, I mean, that's the argument you're using is that this impervious surface was grandfathered or was there before, but we're trying to improve not continue to have noncompliant stuff replace old noncompliant stuff, and this is noncompliant. So I'm going to listen to the rest of the discussion before I make an up or down recommendation. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I was afraid you were coming this way. I'm just a little confused about whose jurisdiction we should consider here. I understand that docks are no longer our purview, but this is so closely attached to the location and this variance that I'm having a hard time separating them, and when the LGPC says they're not going to, that this is still noncompliant, I have a hard time granting relief for something that is also not going to be compliant, you know, that we're granting relief for something that is not within the relief requirements, especially since it's a new project. So at this point I'm going to have to say no. MRS. MOORE-Can I just interrupt? The Park Commission and the applicant have met recently, as of yesterday, and there's information that was handed out that explains that. MR. URRICO-All I see is a map. That's it. MRS. MOORE-They're in agreement with that map. MR. URRICO-But it doesn't say that they're in compliance. MRS. MOORE-With the Park Commission? It's a permit that they're applying for. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily a compliance issue. MR. GORDON-The Commission has issued an order that it shall be compliant within 30 days. We don't have any choice, nor did we ever expect not to be. It was just a mistake that was apparently made. MR. GAZETOS-We applied for the permit here and we thought we were doing the right thing. We went, I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea that we set out to build this and then after the fact do this. 16 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. URRICO-1 believe you, but it doesn't change the fact that it should have been in compliance and it's not. So I'm going to say no. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-When I consider this, I believe that the applicant made an improvement to the neighborhood, took care of an old structure and replacing it with a much more visually pleasing structure. I don't think it's fair to burden the applicant with any additional expense here because he proceeded under the idea that he had the proper permits. So I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I struggled when I read this, and my struggle was how could this applicant go this far, spend this much money? It was almost like they were looking for the final CO and whoever came out and said, no, no, it's wrong, that's the shame of this whole thing, and also I don't have a picture of what was there. I have to take you at your word that this is a better structure, and it is a nice structure by the way. I did walk on your lawn. I waved at your neighbor. So my point is yes, you know, it appears to me that you made an improvement, and I think that it's good, but I find it, I struggle, I struggle that this applicant has to go through all these hoops. That's our fault. Whoever gave the building permits, if this gentleman built it to the requested, per the spec he handed in, and the measurements were all there, or somebody missed the boat, and this is not by default, because I think you've made an improvement. It just angers me, excuse me, it upsets me. I don't mean to get angry, but I'd be in favor of this. I think they've had to jump through a whole lot of hoops that they shouldn't have to, but I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm still sitting on the fence on this because, correct me if I'm wrong. So you're eventually going to propose to have a deck over the top of this thing also? MR. GORDON-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why was that not part of the original application? MR. HENKEL-That's Bolton Landing. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. GAZETOS-We go to the LGPC for the water line. We come back to you guys for the structural. So if I go to do this, should we get approved, I'll draw for this. Get someone to do the trusses or whatever, and then bring it back to the Town of Queensbury for the permit, but I find it at least easier sometimes to do it in stages. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you anticipate any problems with the Lake George Park Commission when you go back? You have to go back to them, I assume, also? MR. GAZETOS-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because any time we do a segmentation of a project it seems like that's when we get into difficulties, and I think that you initially proceeded correctly because I don't think there was any question that you thought you were all good to go, you know, and I think that I would agree with Ron. I think that at some point in time along the way somebody raises the red flag and says, hey, you tore this out, now you've got to come in and get a variance for this, and that, in essence, is what we're here for this evening. So I think that what you've done is a replacement for what you had. I think it's an improvement over the situation that previously existed. So I don't see why we would question our judgment as to the negativity of it. I think if you had come before us and applied for a variance for this deck with a 0 setback from the waterfront, I don't think that we would have approved it, but I think that they went for the building permit and I think that Craig was the one that raised the red flag. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I'm still waiting to hear from everybody else, you know. It just seems like something did not happen in the correct sequence here, you know, that should have. MR. JACKOSKI-John? 17 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. HENKEL-This is a tough one. I agree with all my Board members here. You have a very large piece of property. You've got a deck off the house. You've got a nice level piece of property. You enjoy the lake. I would really not be in favor of that project being that close to the lake. This is a tough one. I mean, it's not your fault. It's tough. I'm not sure I'm in favor or not in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, we have three passes, two yeses and one no. So I guess the Chairman gets to talk a little bit. So unfortunately I'm a stickler. We don't often approve docks, decks, patios or anything within 50 feet of the shoreline. This one being right at the shoreline, knowing that there's an opportunity to have a rooftop deck, I just can't find myself approving this. It's not personal. It's just shoreline, the first 30 feet are pretty much sacred in my mind, as Harrison has said. I live on the lake myself. I don't have a deck on my shoreline. I wish I did, but I don't. I watch my shoreline erode away every year a little more and a little bit more, but I don't have any hard surfacing in front of my property there. So I am not in favor of the application. I understand you had a concrete pad there, I do, but you didn't have a big boathouse there. You're going to be able to enjoy that boathouse. That is the improvement. I'd like to see you do some shoreline re-buffering. That is in our Code. You can look it up as to what's required. I greatly you appreciate you not looking to cut down your trees. I wish more of the residents on the lake would do that. Every winter, every fall, we'd watch the trucks come in and take the trees down because nobody's watching them, too late. So I appreciate your candor with wanting to keep them, but I'm going to be a no vote on this one as it sits. MR. GORDON-Mr. Jackoski, if I could be heard for just a second. We had a pad on the lake, and in reliance on the Building Department we tore it out. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. MR. GORDON-And we have no guarantee. We hope to get a sundeck where we can enjoy the lake because as you know we're quite a distance from the water, and we went to great expense to build this much more aesthetically pleasing, not really impervious because it's a deck over water, as opposed to a concrete deck that just goes into the lake, but we could have left it there and had exactly the same thing. So as Mr. Underwood was saying, that's exactly what we were seeking to do and we got permission to do it, spent a lot of money to get it done, and it's that kind of a hardship that we feel is appropriate to come before a Board such as yourselves and ask for some equity and some fairness, and the very position of a ZBA is to allow variances from the stickler rules, as it were. So I am appealing to the Board in general to say that this is simply a very unfair thing that the Board has within its jurisdiction and that's our, to rectify, and that's what we're asking to do, and obviously we've spent a great deal of money, and jumped through, as Mr. Kuhl said, a lot of hoops and hurdles just to get here to this point. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think any of us would disagree with anything you've said. MR. GORDON-We're asking for fairness. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. And for me as a Board member, I have to grant the least amount of relief necessary for you to enjoy your property. That's my task, least amount of relief necessary. And I truly believe that your long term, range, plans negate the necessity of this deck. MR. URRICO-Steve, may I suggest re-polling the Board because some people didn't give their definite opinion. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. I just wanted to make my opinion and then we'll go forward. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to go back and start in the order that we started. I'll start with Harrison first. MR. FREER-Yes, so, you know, I think the Board normally looks at already builts and says, at least in my mind, I do a sanity check that had it not been built, would we approve it? And the answer, I think, too, is correct, there's no way we would approve a zero to the lake. I understand your dilemma and there's plenty of blame to go around it sounds like. So I guess my question to you is, is there a way to make this deck smaller as a way to protect the shoreline more? MR. JACKOSKI-So before we get into those theories about what could be done, let me just say this to the Board. I think it's imperative that we realize and recognize that had we still had 18 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) jurisdiction over boathouses on the lake and dock, and this application came to us as a complete application, non-segmented, non-split between municipalities, would we have required that pad to have been pulled out to begin with, in order to get that boathouse built? That's the real question. In my mind, we would absolutely have told them they had to take that concrete pad out in order to build the boathouse. Not that we don't have that ability. That's where I struggle, and you know, you know, 50 feet. That's it. We'll work with shoreline re-buffering. We'll work with some other stuff. Maybe some ridges, whatever we have to do, but that's the reality of it. So the question would be, the long term plans, if that boathouse were still within our jurisdiction, I think everyone on this Board would say that concrete pad would definitely have to come out. And not been replaced with a deck. So you're still on hold on the current application? MR. FREER-Yes. I don't support the current application. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, I think you were next. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think everything's been said that's been said so far, supports the fact that, you know, if we had jurisdiction over the waterfront, which we no longer do as far as boathouses go, but this is the foreshore where we do have it, I think that I would be in agreement that we would never have allowed this to proceed without removal of the concrete. So the big quandary for us is do we go with the Lake George Park Commission's recommendation, and it looks to me like they've signed off on this as being okay, but I mean, I think that that's over and above, that's not their purview. The foreshore's our purview. So I mean, we're still the ones calling the shots on the foreshore. So we have to reach a decision on this. So I'm going to wait and see what everybody else says. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Well, if this came to us as a proposal, I would not accept it, but I think they really didn't do anything wrong, they didn't think they did anything wrong. So he's got a nice piece of property there. He hasn't done anything bad to the lake. I've got to feel sorry for them and I'd say it's acceptable. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm not going to support it. MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is still open. What is the timing you believe you're going to be building your boathouse in? I mean, this deck is set up in order to pull off, correct? MR. GAZETOS-Part of the deck was, if we walk down, you saw from the water, but for those of you who walked down the stone path, the pad went from the end of the stone path, worked its way to where the dock is now. So you see how the stone path, it connected through where the dock has to be to stay in compliance with the LGP C. So that was sort of that piece, your boat, you need something there, and then depending on, you know, it's a pie shaped lot if you know it. So the dock is right on that north setback line, and then the boathouse would be setback to setback, and then it's not a very big boathouse. I mean, 27 by, 33 by 15 or 16. It's not a huge, so when you go to look at adding a set of stairs, one of the things was how do you put a set of stairs underneath it, keep them behind the mean high water line without, because you know how the stairs come up through the deck on there, you kill so much space around it, with the railing. So we were trying to find a way to somehow access it, and if we put the stairs on the lawn, we have to come see you guys again. MR. JACKOSKI-What's the minimum landing pad you would need for a stairway to your upper deck? MR. HENKEL-He's got three and a half feet wide for the stairs. MR. JACKOSKI-But a pad would probably be four by four. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GORDON-The other thing I'd like you to know is we don't know if the Lake George Park Commission is going to approve the deck, but in order to do that, and to accommodate what they're planning, people have said, we moved it back so that, we've compressed it as much as can possibly be compressed, so that we wouldn't block any of the lines of sight of our neighbors. There's some irony there because my neighbors are very much in favor of this. They don't care about the line of sight, but the Lake George Park Commission does. So we 19 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) compressed the deck as much and pushed it back into the shore as much as possible, hence the need to utilize what was the old pad, and now of course is the new pad, and that's how we got pushed into this particular configuration, and then Morgan went to your building department and they said, absolutely. You're just replacing a better structure, you're replacing a worse structure with a better one. MR. JACKOSKI-What was the, because I don't know, I didn't see the concrete pad. So that's part of my struggle. What was the water side of the concrete pad? How much land, how much exposure was there of that concrete? Was it a wall? Was it a retaining wall? MR. GAZETOS-No. So you saw it where the "L" is and there's that little spot there that pokes out. So it came out to there, and then went off towards where the new dock is. MR. JACKOSKI-So it was actually in the water? MR. GAZETOS-It hung over. It was really tall. It was full of garbage, but I mean, somebody built a box and they filled it, so it went up to almost, just a hair past the mean high water mark, and then headed to the north. It was connected to the, they had the big metal hinges, that dock was a floater at one point and someone had staked it. MR. JACKOSKI-It's just tough. You've got to understand it's not personal. It's not anything to do with, we think your parcel is a great parcel of property. It's precedent. It's balancing test, and meeting what our tasks are here. MR. GORDON-Mr. Jackoski, I understand, and I'm not trying to argue this thing to death, but it is a balancing act, and it is, to balance the equities, nobody loses here as far as our neighbors are concerned, as far as we're concerned. We're improving something that was there, that was ugly. We could have utilized. We could have painted it or something, made it look somewhat better, but it's an eroding piece of garbage, I guess, as Morgan said, and the balancing is that we've spent a great deal of money through no fault of our own. It happened. I'm certainly not blaming anybody here, but we got the greenlight to do what we thought was better, and now it's not an impervious structure. It's a structure that's got, because it's decking, it lets water through, and it looks nice, and because we've had to compress, we hope compress, for the purpose of putting a deck on, to the minimum possible, it made it necessary to put the deck where it is, as opposed to integrating into part of the overall deck in the high water mark, or in the water. MR. JACKOSKI-How much does a 100 square foot deck like this cost? MR. GAZETOS-Seventy bucks a board. It wasn't even that was the worst part, it was the excavation, obviously. MR. JACKOSKI-About how much would that cost? MR. GAZETOS-Eight, nine thousand. MR. URRICO-Steve, I've reconsidered. I will be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Harold Gordon. Applicant requests approval to complete construction of a 120 sq. ft. deck attached to a dock. A building permit was issued prior to zoning review. Area Variance and Site Plan Review were determined to be necessary after the fact. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from setback requirements for the deck at the shoreline. Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements The shoreline deck is located 0 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required, on the north side property line 23.4 ft. and on the south side property line 19.3 ft. where a 25 ft. setback is required. (Side setback information has been forwarded from LGPC site inspection —a survey would provide the actual distance) SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; 20 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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 new structure replaces an old structure that was decaying and visibly not attractive. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered but are not reasonable because a large portion of the construction has already taken place. 3. The requested variance is certainly substantial when compared to the Code, but mitigating circumstances have intervened here. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and in fact we think there's been an improvement because of the nature of the new structure. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It was created by the agencies who issued the building permits initially. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ 229-2016, HAROLD GORDON,_Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th day of October 2016 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just a clarification. The survey now shows 23.4 feet and 19.3 feet as the setbacks. MR. JACKOSKI-And they should have 20 feet setback on the one side? MRS. MOORE-Twenty-five feet on each side. MR. MC CABE-So that will come under the information provided by Staff, right? AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. I'm glad it's over with for you. You're all set. Approved. MR. FREER-Be careful next time. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the key, just in commenting is, when you go in to do projects, don't do them segmented. Even though that sometimes seems like a good game you play with the Park Commission, it's better to be upfront about the whole thing from the beginning because I think that way you're going to get through the hoops. MR. GAZETOS-You know what it is, it's, a lot of times it's the numbers are so big. You guys know. You do this all the time. When you say it's going to cost eight, nine thousand dollars they look at you like you've got nine heads. MR. JACKOSKI-A typical boathouse dock, I mean, I've seen them on the lake, cost $90 to $110,000. MR. GAZETOS-I appreciate it. 21 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. GORDON-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ 219-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JULIE JARVIS & MIKE BAIRD OWNER(S) MIKE BAIRD ZONING CLI LOCATION 414 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A 30 FT. BY 60 FT. PORTION OF AN EXISTING 2,530 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A DOG KENNEL. PROJECT INCLUDES A 454 SQ. FT. FENCED-IN AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DOG KENNEL USE LESS THAN 200 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF ALSO REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE LESS THAN 10 ACRES AND LESS THAN 1-ACRE PER PRINCIPLE USE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR KENNEL. CROSS REF SPECIAL USE PERMIT PZ 221-2016/SPR PZ-220-2016; BP 2010-370 DECK; BP 2000-3448 FREESTANDING SIGN; BP 98-507 SFD W/ATT. GARAGE; BP 94-371 DEMOLITION 1-CAR GARAGE; BP 99-268 DEMOLITION SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2016 LOT SIZE 1.4 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-44 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-10-040 JULIE JARVIS & MIKE BAIRD, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 219-2016, Julie Jarvis & Mike Baird, Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 "Project Location: 414 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to utilize a 30 ft. by 60 ft. portion of an existing 2,530 sq. ft. building for a dog kennel. Project includes a 454 sq. ft. fenced-in area. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for dog kennel use less than 200 ft. from the property line. Relief also requested for lot size less than 10 acres and less than 1-acre per principle use. 179-3-040 Establishment of Zoning District—density One acre per principle use is required in the CLI —Commercial Light Industrial. The project site has an existing Sign business and a single family residence. A portion of the existing building will include the existing sign business and the kennel facility. 179-10-070 Special Use permit specific standards Kennel use requires 10 ac and to be setback 200 ft. from property line. The current lot size is 1.4 ac. The fenced in area of the kennel is to be 4 ft. 11 in 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 project area has existing residential, commercial, industrial type uses. 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 existing site conditions. This includes having an existing two principle uses on a lot where a third is proposed and the parcel is 1.4 ac in size. The lot size relief 1.6 ac for principal use and 8.6 ac for kennel use. The existing building and proposed fenced in area is less than 200 ft. from the property line for kennel usage. Relief requested is 195 ft. 1 in. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 22 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) 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 will have minimal environmental impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to operate a kennel facility for up to 35 dogs in shared spaces. The project involves utilizing a 30 ft. by 60 ft. portion of an existing 2,530 sq. ft. building for the dog kennel. The applicant has indicated that dogs will be taken on leash to the 454 sq. ft. fenced-in area and then brought back inside. The plans show the interior arrangment of the kennel spaces and the fence is shown on the site drawings." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record and add anything if you wish, or just wait for Board member questions. MR. BAIRD-We have a cover here that we were encouraged to read. It will explain things. My name is Mike Baird. I own the property Mike Baird signs, and I've been there for 38 years, and I'd like to turn it over to Julie Jarvis. She is the dog whisperer. MS. JARVIS-Hi. My name's Julie Jarvis and I've been a resident of Queensbury my whole life. I'm a licensed veterinary technician and I'm a huge animal lover. At the present time I have a mobile pet sitting business called Room for Paws. I have a large clientele and they have been urging me to open a dog boarding business as they trust me with their dogs. My dog boarding business used to be located in Diamond Plaza in the Town of Moreau. Since I left that location last year I've been offering mobile pet services, but I wish to resume the boarding. When I made a decision and I decided I wanted to open my business off of Exit 18, as there are presently no boarding kennels off of this exit. This also is where I reside. I saw where kennels are not on the list of approved business uses in that corridor, which is Commercial Light Industrial. I decided to present the option of adding kennels to the list of approved businesses in that area to the Town Board. I went door to door in the area with a petition explaining this request and I obtained signatures of the local residents and business owners. I was met with no resistance and actually a lot of excitement from the local residents. In February of 2016 the Town Board approved this request, and the district was amended to include kennels in the list of approved uses in that area. So after looking for a couple of sites, I was fortunate to be offered a place to open my kennel at an existing building known as Mike Baird Signs. We decided it was the perfect location as it is a pre-existing compliant structure within the vicinity of where I was looking. It's next door to my original location choice, in a high visibility area surrounded by other businesses, and on the same property where we both reside out back. As stated in the application packet, the sign business will continue its operations in the front section of the building. The proposed dog kennel will be located in the back, 30 by 60 sq. ft. area. The property has commercial parking and the back part of the building where the kennel will be located has no windows, which we feel is a plus. I've been working on this project for nearly nine months now, and it's occurred to me along the way that not only is the location ideal and only one mile off of Exit 18, but there is a true geographical plus in this location. If you drive from Exit 18 one mile towards our proposed boarding facility and continue down Corinth Road and then turn right onto West Mountain Road heading north until you meet Aviation Road, turn right again and proceed to Exit 19, I started to notice the abundance of residential developments inside the whole corridor who have dogs and no nearby boarding facilities. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a question. I know you're going to put a fence behind the building, but why wouldn't you put a stockade fence also along the property line? Because when dogs can see something, they're going to bark. So if you have a. MR. BAIRD-You mean where I drew the picture of the proposed fence? MR. HENKEL-Well, between the property lines. MR. BAIRD-Right. There is a fence there now. MR. HENKEL-Well, it's not six feet, though. MR. BAIRD-No, not six feet. 23 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. HENKEL-And the other thing is why would you want to leash the dogs from the kennel area to inside the building? Why would you not want to have it accessible so you can go right in the building? You're taking a chance. There's a busy road there. They can take off. MR. BAIRD-That's for her. She can answer that. MS. JARVIS-Right. That's actually a mistake. We're actually proposing putting a door on the back that leads out to the fenced in yard so the dogs. I wanted that purposely for the exact reason that you're saying. MR. HENKEL-Also, would you be willing to like, say you're asking for 35 dogs. Okay. Would you be willing to like, just to see how it goes, 25 dogs, see how it goes for a while? Because you're talking about a fairly small piece of property, and pretty close there. It's not like you've got, what's the property, 122 feet wide or whatever. MR. BAIRD-Right. MR. HENKEL-That's kind of close to your neighbors. Just to see how it goes, and then if it goes good, could you adjust that like in the first year, if it goes well, to the 25, we could increase it to the 35? Do we really want to give them that many right away? I mean, can we change that, make that a condition? MR. KUHL-What experience do you have with dogs? 25 versus 35? MR. BAIRD-Here's a question to help with your question. Julie is the dog person. I'm the artist, but I'm constructing, helping with everything. When we went over this construction, with the fence and the door and the whole thing, just to make sure something isn't missed, when the dogs would be taken outside, there would not be even probably five or ten or twenty, twenty- five, thirty outside at one time. So when the quest for 35 at the most, and it may not be 35 at one time inside with no windows. Outside it's just a temporary relief, come back in. There are no dog runs. There are no wire runs. There's no outside kenneling in this project. I just really wanted to make sure you knew that part. There will not be 10, 20 dogs outside at one time. I live out in back. That's not going to happen. MR. KUHL-Is that your home in the back? MR. BAIRD-It is, sir. MR. KUHL-Okay. We live out back now. MR. HENKEL-I don't have a problem with the project. I just thought that was a lot to ask for. We've got three things going on. You've got two businesses and a home on one piece of property. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be okay if it was conditioned that, it was approved as long as you remained residents of the property? MR. BAIRD-Say that again. I think that's fine. I want to hear it again. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be okay with the approval being conditioned that it is approved and can exist as long as you are residents of the property? MR. BAIRD-As in not selling the home. I'm not going anywhere. I would agree with that. Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. URRICO-So the outside area is a run for them, or for them to do their business there, do their business outside? MR. BAIRD-That's the only reason. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BAIRD-And it's taken care of daily. Out in, very few at a time, never 10, 20, 30 dogs. MR. URRICO-And is it going to be run 24/7, 7 days a week? 2 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. BAIRD-It's overnight boarding. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. KUHL-And the fencing you're going to use on this area, outside area is going to be plastic, not see through? MR. BAIRD-1 already have a structure from Afsco Fence. MR. KUHL-So bottom line the dogs are not going to be able to see through. They're not going to bark when we go by and wave at them. MR. BAIRD-The truth is for the neighbors, which, not that it means anything. Nobody lives there right now, someday they may. The fence is for me. MR. KUHL-Okay. No, I think that would be important, having no experience with dogs, but having friends with dogs that seem to bark when they see things. MR. BAIRD-From what I understand, Julie explained to me, I was around the Planning Board when we went through this. I'm not a dog person. She is, and I asked her about barking and she explained this to me. When you take dogs out, they're not really needing to bark. MR. JACKOSKI-There's a different focus. MS. JARVIS-Yes. MR. BAIRD-And I didn't know that myself. MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. Do they have to go in front of the Board of Health with this? MRS. MOORE-No, it goes back to the Planning Board for the Site Plan and Special Use Permit. That's where I've typically seen the number of dogs limited is at the Planning Board level. MR. KUHL-Okay. That's a Planning Board thing? MRS. MOORE-That's where I've seen it occur. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? We have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning the application in front of us? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll take a polling of the Board. I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Please don't. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll start with John. MR. HENKEL-I have no problem with the project. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-We're asking for a lot of relief here. The 50 feet versus 200, one acre versus ten. It's a little bit beyond my comfort range. So I don't favor the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. When I first read this the other night I said this is a lot of relief asking this Board, and we've had problems with kennels on large pieces of property, and the main thing is barking dogs, and even though everything's copasetic now, this relief runs with the property, and things change, you know, and we're burdened with the fact that we sort of threw the Town 25 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) Code of 10 acres and said it doesn't matter, we threw the 200 foot and said it doesn't matter, and so I'm not comfortable supporting this project either. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The last time we had a controversial one like this was Gosline's just across the corner here on Blind Rock Road, and I think that one there had a lot of people higher up. I think the issue here is, I think that, you know, if I were going to approve this, I would do it in a conditional manner, and I think that, you know, when you're looking at 35 dogs, and I think you've explained that you're only going to allow one or two dogs out at a time for the walkway and stuff like that, but it seems to me that it's a pretty small walkway, as far as the impact on the immediate neighborhood. I think the number one thing with dogs is always going to be the bark factor, you know, and I think that conditioning this, I think that the numbers, and I think that that's something that the Planning Board should probably look at, too, is it adequate, the space provided for up to 35 dogs, and that's just a number that's picked out of the sky, as far as numbers go. I think that it would be better to condition this and say, hey, look, start with 20 dogs, and then go up again in the area and go to 25 and then at the end of the year go to 30 or just immediately, that's a Planning Board issue. That's not really our purview to set those standards, but at the same time I think we always have to be careful in a close proximity to other neighbors, you know, and I think the 10 acre zoning was designed for that fact, so you had no, so you had a minimum effect, in a greater sense, than you would here. I think that you're maximizing the effect, and if it's a negative effect it's going to have a huge effect. So I wouldn't be ready to approve it at this time. MS. JARVIS-Can I add something? MR. JACKOSKI-Let me get through the polling of the Board first. MS. JARVIS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I think once the Town Board considered changing the zoning for this, that had to be a consideration because it goes hand in hand with the kennel. So I'm going to be in favor of the project because I think the zoning was changed specifically to allow the kennel in this location. I don't know if we have too many 10 acre parcels in a Commercial Light Industrial zone, especially in that area, and if that's a problem, then it has to go back to the Town Board for re-zoning because then they didn't cover the whole consideration factor. So, but I'm going to go by, they got permission for this now, so I'm assuming that the 10 acres is okay, and I'm going to be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. With the 10 acre, I think you're asking for too much based on what we have in our standards. Now I sympathize with you because I think it's a good utilization of the property, but if we grant this relief, we're going to leave ourselves wide open. So I can't in all goodness approve it. I'd be against it, based on the standards today. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have four noes at this point, and I know you said you wanted to add something. MS. JARVIS-Yes. I just wanted to discuss, I know that the main concern with most people, and I know that you've had problems with other kennels and such with noise, but I just wanted to emphasize that what I'm offering is not a traditional kennel. Dogs are not going to be outside. They're going to be inside. All the time, except when they go outside to relieve themselves, which is going to be a very minimal amount of time, and also most kennels, the way they do it is they put dogs in separate cages or runs. They are individual, and being a licensed vet technician I've worked with dogs for years. I've boarded dogs and I know their behavior and when they are separated, they do not like it. They bark. That's why we propose to have eight separate pens with a few dogs in them playing together, and that cuts down on the noise because that's what makes dogs happy, and that's why my customers, they get what they want, and I've done that before, and it's very successful, and the noise level is right down. MR. JACKOSKI-So are you aware of some of the sound and acoustical problems we've had with previous kennels where we've made them engineer and build their buildings that force them basically to buffer the sound significantly? I know you're retrofitting an existing building, but as Mr. Underwood suggested, the project on Blind Rock, I mean, they spent a lot of money building a building to assure us of sound issues. 26 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the other one we had was the one over on Queensbury Avenue, when that guy decided he was going to board dogs over there. That was the second instance that we had of one. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay with the 10 acre thing. I think that what Mr. Urrico suggested, I believe he suggested it, was it is a light industrially zoned. So that kind of negates for me the residential aspect of it. MR. HENKEL-And that side of the street is not many residents, unlike Tails Wag Inn which is definitely a residential area. MR. JACKOSKI-But I think it is interesting, Staff. Do you recall, I mean the Town Board understood they were proposing a kennel for this parcel, or was it the parcel next door? MRS. MOORE-It was the CLI zoning, and, yes, read through the minutes, and they didn't discuss it as 10 acres. They just, as part of the CLI zoning it was in there. MR. JACKOSKI-Because of the intent of the Light Industrial zone. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So on this one, I know I don't normally vote unless there's a tie, but I'm in favor of it, but we don't have enough votes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll go back and re-consider because I think that what we can do, too, is we can go based upon the judgement of the Town Board and we can include that in our language that puts the onus on them, because I think that, you know, in the past we've been clear about having greater acreage necessary, and if that's their wish that they want to proceed this way with Commercial Light Industrial, then I guess that's the direction they wish us to proceed also. MR. JACKOSKI-And Harrison, I know you mentioned it goes along with this property, but I want to condition it based on that it is owner occupied. MR. UNDERWOOD-And our suggestion could be, too, that there be a probationary period. In other words, like during the first year that any instances of complaints be noted and dealt with by you, because the onus is on you if you want it to succeed. MR. BAIRD-1 have no problem with what you're talking about. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that would be reasonable. MR. FREER-As a matter of clarity, it sounds to me, what I thought I heard was the Town Board approved kennels in Light Industrial before this parcel was selected for this project. Is that right or wrong? MS. JARVIS-No, it was actually the parcel next door was the one I was originally going to buy, but that's neighboring, the fence he's talking about, the fence in between, that was my first choice for what I was going to buy was next door. MR. BAIRD-That turned out to be extremely too much money to purchase and it was all laid out, and through talking to a member of the Town Board, it was approved for the same corridor, pretty much identical. MR. JACKOSKI-How much land was it? MR. FREER-How much land? MR. BAIRD-It's actually on the actual survey. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. Jim, can you do it? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Julie Jarvis & Mike Baird. Applicant proposes to utilize a 30 ft. by 60 ft. portion of an existing 2,530 sq. ft. building for a dog kennel. Project includes a 454 sq. ft. fenced-in area. 27 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for dog kennel use less than 200 ft. from the property line. Relief also requested for lot size less than 10 acres and less than 1-acre per principle use. 179-3-040 Establishment of Zoning District—density One acre per principle use is required in the CLI —Commercial Light Industrial. The project site has an existing Sign business and a single family residence. A portion of the existing building will include the existing sign business and the kennel facility. 179-10-070 Special Use permit specific standards Kennel use requires 10 ac and to be setback 200 ft. from property line. The current lot size is 1.4 ac. The fenced in area of the kennel is to be 4 ft. 11 in. setback. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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 Town Board carefully considered that the Commercial Light Industrial zone would be appropriate for such a functioning boarding for a kennel. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. The request is based upon the size of the lot and the current use of the building and re-use of that building, adding a third use in that current building, and we find that to be reasonable. It's a minimum request. They could have asked for a larger kennel, but it's up to 35 dogs at the present request. 3. The requested variance is substantial as far as the setback's considered from the property line. The kennel use requires 10 acres and it's to be setback 200 feet from the property line. The current lot size here is only 1.4 acres and the fenced in area of the kennel is to be 4 feet 11 inches setback from the property line, but because it's Commercial Light Industrial we know that it will have no detrimental effects on the neighbors because there's no neighbors living next door currently. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. And as explained by the applicant they will be walking one to a few dogs at a time, and not creating a situation where lots of noise would be created by barking outside the building. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of the current use of the building and because it's an excess use in addition to what's normally permitted for single use only. 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) That the Zoning Board of Appeals asks the Planning Board to specifically pay attention to monitoring your compliance and any disturbances within the neighborhood because of your kennel. b) That the property remain the primary residence of the operator of the kennel. c) 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 PZ 219-2016, JULIE JARVIS & MIKE BAIRD, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19th day of October 2016 by the following vote: 28 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. UNDERWOOD-Under conditions I would propose like a one year probationary period. If there are no issues, the Town Board will follow up to correct any issues as necessary, but I do not anticipate any at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to comment on a couple of things. I'd like to add an additional condition that the property remain the primary residence of the operator of the kennel. MR. BAIRD-Just specifically I have no issue with that, but if there was no more dog kennel, that's what you're basing it on. If that business was no longer 10 years from now, then. MR. JACKOSKI-It wouldn't matter, but if you sell the property and someone wants to take over the kennel or they want to rent out the house to someone else, at that point that won't be considered owner occupied. MR. BAIRD-You answered my question. MR. JACKOSKI-Number Two, Jim's condition about monitoring and having the Town Board determine whether there are issues, that's all relevant and the real question becomes, how do they measure and monitor this and what is it that we're going to task them with. I mean, one complaint because someone says a dog ran across the road and scared them to death. Is that enough to say? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think if there's a significant issue with noise as noted on numerous occasions obviously they're going to have to modify the procedures used by them to walk the dogs, and I think because the dogs are going to be contained inside the building for probably the bulk of the time that they're boarded there, I don't foresee that there would be any issues with that. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, Jim, you, in the past, have made some good recommendations to the Planning Board. Could we, instead of making it a condition of our approval, note it to the Planning Board that we want them to pay particular attention to that matter? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We can bring to the attention of the Planning Board our concerns and the fact that there should be some monitoring of the situation, you know, and we don't anticipate any negativity, but should there be, then you would have to modify the procedures used to operate the kennel. MR. JACKOSKI-So how we're going to structure this now is there's one condition, and that is the owner occupied part, and then Mr. Underwood has suggested, and we'll bring it to Staff's attention as part of our resolution, that we'd ask the Planning Board when they look at your project to specifically pay attention to monitoring your compliance and not causing any disturbances within the neighborhood because of your operation of the kennel, and let them work on how they want to do that. MR. BAIRD-We're talking about basically noise. MR. JACKOSKI-It could be noise. It could be stray dogs. It could be many things that because you are operating on such a tight and confined space. It's just formal. MR. BAIRD-Right. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MS. JARVIS-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ 237-2016 SEQRA TYPE II EDMUND & JAMIE BROCHU OWNER(S) EDMUND & JAMIE BROCHU ZONING CURRENT MDR LOCATION 76 PEGGY ANN ROAD (PEGGY ANN PARK SUBD) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN THE ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 240 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION AS WELL AS A 288 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE GARAGE WHERE A VARIANCE IS STILL REQUIRED FOR SETBACKS. THE BUILDING HAS A DOOR WIDTH GREATER THAN 6 FT. AND IS THEN A SECOND GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 95-489 SFD WARREN COUNTY 29 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.14-1-82 SECTION 179- 5-020 EDMUND & JAMIE BROCHU, PRESENT MR. HENKEL-And I'm going to recuse myself, Edmund, because he's my brother-in-law's brother and I've known you since I was about 10 years old. So I've got to sit out this one. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle, you're on. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 237-2016, Edmund & Jamie Brochu, Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 "Project Location: 76 Peggy Ann Road (Peggy Ann Park Subd.) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain the already constructed 240 sq. ft. garage addition as well as a 288 sq. ft. second garage. Applicant proposes to relocate garage where a variance is still required for setbacks. The building has a door width greater than 6 ft. and is then a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for setbacks and a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage The applicant requests approval of second garage that is 288 sq. ft. and located in the north east corner of the lot. A recent survey shows the garage to be over the property line where the applicant proposes to move the building so there is a 5 ft. rear setback where a 30 ft. setback is required and a 5 ft. side setback where 5 ft. is the required setback. In addition, the 240 sq. ft. garage addition is a fourth bay. 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 project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 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 feasible alternatives may be limited as the applicant is attempting to store garden equipment and antique truck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed. 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 to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to relocate a 288 sq. ft. garage building to the rear of the property where a variance is required. The applicant has indicated that neighboring properties also have their sheds located nearby. The applicant has requested to maintain a 240 sq. ft. garage addition that is subject to building and codes requirements. The plans show the location of the existing detached garage and the garage addition." MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Go ahead. Introduce yourself and add anything you'd like to add. 30 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. BROCHU-My name is Edmund Brochu. This is my wife Jamie. And this 288 square foot garage, I had considered it as a shed. When I purchased it, I purchased it used, and just kind of, it's something that you pick up and move and kind of never entered my mind of it being considered a garage. So I purchased it. Somebody else actually arranged to get it moved for me. I told them I wanted it in the back corner of the yard. Because of where the neighbor's fence was, it was in on his property line about five feet. The guy made a decision to drop it. It actually went on to his lot. Now that we have it surveyed. So I do propose to move it the five foot setback on the side, and the only thing that I'm hoping to gain, and he had said five feet. I want to keep it 12 feet to be able to put another trailer behind to, you know, keep it hidden, but I've gotten letters from all my surrounding neighbors, you know, saying that they don't have any issues with this, and today I actually went, in about an hour was able to find five properties with actual, you know, garages separate from the house attached garage also. So I don't think what I'm asking for is kind of out of the ordinary. I do have a lot of vehicles. My wife has a vehicle. I have a vehicle. A company vehicle. We have a summer convertible car, and I just purchased a 1928 antique truck. So not to be somebody like, you know, on Veterans Road or something, I'd like to keep things tidy around the house and tucked away. My tractor isn't just a normal, you know, Sears Craftsman garden tractor. I have a Kabuto tractor with a front end loader on it. So it's not something that's easily tucked in just a small bay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. FREER-Yes. Do you know what the lot size is that you wouldn't need a waiver for a second garage? MR. BROCHU-No, I don't. MR. FREER-So your lot is? MR. BROCHU-It's approximately half an acre. MR. FREER-Half an acre. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're talking like 10 acres, right, for an agricultural use, something like that. MR. FREER-So if you have less than 10 acres. MR. JACKOSKI-When do we allow second garages? MRS. MOORE-We don't, period. MR. JACKOSKI-But we do on large parcels. MRS. MOORE-Not per the Code, no. MR. JACKOSKI-Barns, garages, we don't? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. KUHL-Well, if this were a two foot, three foot door, it wouldn't be a garage. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. How wide is the door? I didn't measure it. MR. BROCHU-It's got an eight foot garage door on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Believe me, you're not the first to come in front of us with an eight foot garage door on a shed. MR. KUHL-What do you plan on putting in the building in the back? MR. BROCHU-The Kabuto tractor and lawn equipment. MR. KUHL-Okay. So all of your other toys are going into garage one, two, three and four? MR. BROCHU-Yes. And they're not all toys. They're, like I say, a company car. 31 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. KUHL-The company car gets parked outside and let the weather wash it up. Jamie, you're letting him have too many toys. MR. BROCHU-And unfortunately the way my garage is situated, you actually have, you can't park cars in front of it and actually be able to use the garage. So everything has to stay out at the end of the driveway for you to maneuver to get into the garage. MR. JACKOSKI-I can see that. It looks like you've got a lot of stuff parked outside. Is that overflow? MR. BROCHU-My dad made me a motor head. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "I was made aware of the situation that my neighbors Ed and Jamie Brochu are in regarding the shed in their backyard. Ed has informed me that he is applying for a variance to clear up the situation. I want to state that I have no issues with the shed and its placement. Regards, Kathleen Orsak 74 Peggy Ann Road, Queensbury, NY 12804" "Our neighbors Ed and Jamie Brochu have informed me that they are going for a variance in regards to a shed that they installed on their property. They explained the reason for this variance was because the shed will not meet the required setback on the back of their property if approved. I am writing this letter to inform you that as a neighbor on the property line in question, that we do not have any issues with the request that they are making in regards to this variance. George Sankey 2 Judmar Lane Queensbury, NY 121804" "My neighbor Ed is telling me that he is going through the process of a variance for the shed he put on his property behind me. He said the reason for this is that it will not meet the requirements for the setback from the property line. I am writing this letter to let you know that I do not have any problem with the proposed location of the shed. Sincerely, Patrick Vitlo" And "This is a follow-up to our phone conversation regarding the pending variance issue at 76 Peggy Ann Road and the placement of Ed and Jamie Brochu's shed. I am one of the direct neighbors to Edmund and Jamie Brochu. I wanted to note that I have no issue with the current placement of their shed as of September 20th 2016. As of this date the location of the shed is at the back corner of the Brochu and my property. I prefer that the shed remain where it is currently located. To move it up into the Brochu's property would cause the shed to be much more visible to me. I would greatly appreciate it if the Brochu's were able to keep the shed in its current location as it would be an eye sore in any other location along my property line. If there is any further information required please let me know. Best wishes Robin Kenny 23 Lady Slipper Drive Queensbury, NY 12804" That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-So while we've certainly discussed at length the garage/shed, we haven't discussed the other matter in front of us, which is the addition of the 240 square foot garage addition. Could you walk us through that, please? MR. BROCHU-That was something that was thrown on 18 years ago to house lawn equipment and tractor, just, you know, like I said, something that had gotten thrown on and we're trying to resolve all that. MRS. MOORE-That portion was information from the Director of Building and Codes. MR. KUHL-Did they look at that to see if it was built to Code? MRS. MOORE-I believe he's been out there and inspected that. MR. BROCHU-Yes. They did stop out there, and Dave said that I needed to get through this process first and then he would address making sure that whatever upgrades we would need to make to it. MR. KUHL-Has Staff had a discussion of that with Dave Hatin? I assume Dave Hatin is who you're talking about? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the process for the applicant to come before the Zoning Board for the variance, and it's not, this particular portion of the garage, there's no variance that was required. What triggered the variance was obviously the shed in the back. MR. JACKOSKI-But why do we have to approve a 240 square foot variance tonight? 32 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MRS. MOORE-You're not, it's not part of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Well it says it is. Doesn't it? MRS. MOORE-There's no setback. It's part of his garage. MR. JACKOSKI-So why is it even on here? MR. URRICO-It says relief requested for setbacks and a second garage. MR. BROCHU-It's probably on there because when I put in the application, I wasn't familiar enough to know that that wasn't part of the variance process, and once again, I'm just trying to get to a point of being compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-How many total square feet of garage do you have on the property? MRS. MOORE-It's less than what's required. I mean, or less than the maximum allowed. I looked at it. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff can assure us that it's less. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is less. MR. JACKOSKI-\All the garage on the property is less than what is. MR. KUHL-We're only allowed 1,000 square feet. Right? MRS. MOORE-1100. MR. KUHL-1100. MRS. MOORE-So the garage that's attached to the house, that's less than 1100, if you look at this, and then the additional garage, that's different. I'm not looking at the size of the garage, in like two different units. MR. JACKOSKI-So what you're saying is the 1100 applies to each structure? MR. KUHL-Total. MR. UNDERWOOD-If it didn't have the six foot door it wouldn't qualify as a second garage. MR. JACKOSKI-So does the Code say it's 1100 square feet per parcel or does it say 1100 square feet per structure? MRS. MOORE-I'd have to look at it. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Well let's look at it. MRS. MOORE-It wasn't a part of that. MR. KUHL-Well, the other thing is, shouldn't the structure that's being asked for a variance be compliant? If this garage on the house is noncompliant, it should be made compliant before they ask for a variance, shouldn't they? I mean, what came first, the chicken or the egg? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just trying to make sure we don't have an issue with this square footage. Not that I don't agree with you. That's what I'm looking at. It just seems to me we've got 520 square feet of garage in front of us and there's still three bays to go. Correct? MR. BROCHU-I'm sorry, say that again? MR. JACKOSKI-You have a four bay garage, and a shed garage. MR. BROCHU-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-The shed garage and the newest of the four bay garage totals 520 square feet. Correct? MR. BROCHU-Right. 33 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-That means the original garage of three bays can only be 580 or less. MR. KUHL-Right. MR. BROCHU-The three bays can be up to 1100. MR. JACKOSKI-This is what we're asking Staff to confirm for us. Is it 1100 square feet per parcel or 1100 square feet per structure on each parcel. MR. BROCHU-Well, and I guess that would bring up the question, because like I said, easily in an hour today I found five properties that. MR. JACKOSKI-We know. We go through this all the time. We're just making sure that we're, unless the Board doesn't care. I mean, it's up to you guys. All right. Let's poll the Board. I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Basically when I look at it the extra garage which is really a shed but it's a garage because the door is too big, the applicant already has it. So it's not something that he's thinking about constructing, and so I don't think it's fair to make the applicant re-do that to have a six foot door. I still look at it as being just a utility shed, and there's plenty of utility sheds in and about that neighborhood. So I'm willing to overlook that fact that it has an eight foot door on it and call it an extra garage, and I don't see a problem with the setbacks. I think they're reasonable, considering the property, and so I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The fourth bay on the building, you said that's been there for 18 years? MR. BROCHU-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did somebody just drive by and notice it like the Assessor? MR. BROCHU-The Assessor, when they saw the, once again, I'm considering it a shed, you know, noticed it on the back of the garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Because I think the issue with the shed is, you know, we've gotten to this issue, just about everybody ends up with a shed in their backyard, and as far as I'm concerned, I think that, you know, when we have that trigger based upon the size of the door that's on the shed, I think lets it go. To me it's a semantic call. I don't think anybody's going to go around an inspect like every shed in Town to note all the oversized doors that have been created, and we've had this instance over the years numerous times where somebody buys a bigger piece of lawn equipment, can't fit it in through the door. They've got to go to a bigger door and then their neighbor turns them in. So in a practical sense I think we have to be realistic. I don't see that it's a big deal. So I'd be in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Well, one of the things that I process, in terms of my determinations, are if there's any neighborhood. So I commend you in getting feedback from your neighbors and certainly there must be a good neighborly attitude because they all wrote letters. MR. BROCHU-We all take care of each other. So, I mean, it's a good neighborhood environment there. MR. FREER-And so this isn't sort of a quirk, that second garages on half acre lots are not normally something that we look favorably on because it's 100% more than the Code, but in this case, given those two points that it's really a shed with a big door and that the neighbors are all in support, I can support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, in reality, I mean, the building in the back, if it had a different door, it would be a shed, you know. The third garage up on the front of the house, you know, did you do it 18 years ago, did you build it? Here we are looking to give a variance on something that may not be compliant. That I have the issue, but I'll go past that because that's a Staff issue. That's not your issue. You're going through the process, but Jamie you're letting him have too many toys, but, no, I would go along with this, I would. 3 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, it is concerning that we're providing a variance for something that's non- compliant, but I don't see this as being egregious and I think it's common in neighborhood we're seeing. One of your neighbors suggested leaving it where it was. That one letter that I read said that you don't have to move it at all. MR. BROCHU-Well, and it's on their property basically. MR. URRICO-I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I have to agree. I would be in favor. 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 Edmund & Jamie Brochu. Applicant proposes to maintain the already constructed 240 sq. ft. garage addition as well as a 288 sq. ft. second garage. Applicant proposes to relocate garage where a variance is still required for setbacks. The building has a door width greater than 6 ft. and is then a second garage. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for setbacks and a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage The applicant requests approval of second garage that is 288 sq. ft. and located in the north east corner of the lot. A recent survey shows the garage to be over the property line where the applicant proposes to move the building so there is a 12 ft. rear setback where a 30 ft. setback is required and a 5 ft. side setback where 5 ft. is the required setback. In addition, the 240 sq. ft. garage addition is a fourth bay SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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 essentially all this exists right now. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because the equipment already exists and there's not a lot of room to work with. 3. The requested variance is not substantial although one of the setbacks appears that way, but it's just a fact of the topography. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ 237-2016 EDMUND & JAMIE BROCHU, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: 35 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) Duly adopted this 19th day of October 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-All that for a unanimous. Wow. SIGN VARIANCE PZ 238-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY LLC AGENT(S) MICHAEL GREENOUGH OWNER(S) SE REALTY CO L.L.C. ZONING Cl LOCATION 708 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 90 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE BUILDING FACING QUAKER ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ALLOWABLE MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SPR 51-2015; SIGN VAR. 1425 YR. 1988; BP 2003-113 SIGN; BP 847 YR. 1970 SIGN; BP 727 YR 1970 SIGN; BP 725 SIGN; BP 679 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2016 LOT SIZE 3.83 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-12 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MICHAEL GREENOUGH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ 238-2016, Smart Wash of Queensbury L.L.C., Meeting Date: October 19, 2016 "Project Location: 708 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of 90 sq. ft. wall sign on the building facing Quaker Road. Relief requested from allowable maximum sign size and minimum setback requirements. 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 Applicant proposes a 90 sq. ft. wall sign where the maximum size allowed is 30 sq. ft. wall sign is allowed. The sign location is less than 100 ft. from the front property line where the existing building is 89 ft. Criteria for considering a Sign 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 sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the size signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 60 sq. ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 90 sq. ft. wall sign to replace an existing wall sign for the car wash facility. The plans show the existing signage that has been since removed and the proposed signage." 36 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. GREENOUGH-Hello. Mike Greenough, Greenough Paving and now Smart Wash and my wife Beatrice. The reason for this is, and I know we're not quite 100 feet from the property line, but we are 100 foot from the road. The property line's in that ditch off of Quaker Road. But we do sit behind the two existing buildings that are next to us, which is Garvey Auto Body and the Hertz that were built after this carwash. So they sit closer to the road. So it makes the setback a little further so you can't see the sign quite as well. So I'm just requesting for a little bit larger sign. Whatever max is allowed, because bigger is better for us, and that's, I think, why the carwash, I think, has pretty much failed, you know. The whole facility's being re-done as we speak, but I believe that's why it's been going downhill and hasn't been kept up, but whichever that is, we're trying to make the appearance better. BEATRICE GREENOUGH MRS. GREENOUGH-And clean it all up. And we've got new bathrooms installed and everything, paving. MR. GREENOUGH-Yes, has anybody been by there at night yet? I mean, there's light that was approved by the Board that all these new vacuum arches that were put up, and they're lit up now, and I mean it looks phenomenal. It's a huge difference to this facility from what it was, and it was built, I worked there in '93 when I was a kid, and now I own the facility, but it was the same equipment, the same building that nothing's been changed since 1988. So we're trying to make that improvement and make it a little bit better. MR. HENKEL-Is that Ken Ermiger that had that? MR. GREENOUGH-Actually Ken and Mike. They were partners and then they signed off. Mike, they traded some properties and, you know, Ken had the other carwash and Route 9. Yes, I've known Mike quite a while, and actually I worked for Ginsburg's back when it was originally built. Mike Ginsburg. So I'll be the third Mike. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members? There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open it up so the public here in the audience can address this Board. Are there any written comments, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comments, I'll poll the Board. This is an Unlisted SEAR. So we will be doing SEAR. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a pretty extraordinary request because it's three times what we normally allow on the wall, and my only suggestion would be, you know, I think that with the very large "C" and the very big "H" on there, I think that's what really kind of pushes it over the limits for me. If you brought the "C" down so carwash, and all those letters down at the bottom were the same all the way across, I would be more inclined to think about approving this, but I think as it currently exists, I don't think I would approve it. MRS. GREENOUGH-The reason we did the "C" and the "H" so big was because it matches our sign by the road. MR. GREENOUGH-It's our logo. MRS. GREENOUGH-That's our logo. MR. JACKOSKI-Got it. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. So I'm not a big sign gestapo, but it is a significant variance, but it looks fine to me, and one of our challenges is the minimum relief which obviously that is not. So as it is, I think I would not be in support of it at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. You're asking for an awful lot. You could modify it and it would be. So I think you could make the change. So I wouldn't be in favor of it the way it is now. 37 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'd probably be in favor of it if you weren't going to put up like three other banners out there, and everybody always does that, put these banners up and these other signs. So the way it is I would not be in favor of it either. I would be in favor of a small sign also. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I took a look. There's some other wall signs in the area that are pretty good size. I think it's attractive, and it kind of fits the building. I have no problems with the setback, and I think the sign is attractive enough to approve the additional size. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think it's oversized. I think it needs to be brought down somewhat. I would not be in favor of it at this size. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this moment you've heard the view of the Board. Generally what I suggest to applicants are there's three things that usually can happen at this point. You can withdraw your application completely. You can ask for a tabling of your application and go back and reconsider the size of the variance that you're requesting, or this evening, and I don't know if it would be possible for this Board to do that, but you could ask right now for less relief than you're currently asking for, or you could ask us for a vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think part of the issue for us is that, you know, if we allowed you to do this, then everybody on Quaker Road would come in and say, well, I want three times the size of what I have right now, my 30 foot 2, you know. So we have to be careful about, when you asked the question about the minimum variance necessary, all right. So, in other words, if you came in and asked for 40 square feet as opposed to 30 square feet or 300 square feet versus 400 square feet or something like that, that's more reasonable in keeping with what we're supposed to do. Right now there's a maximum that we allow for road signs, and so to ask for 900, which is three times what's allowed, you know, it's pretty excessive. MR. GREENOUGH-Yes, so, I mean, I think originally it used to be 100 square feet. So, I mean, there's probably buildings out there that are still may have some of that. So I don't think I'm trying to go over the top, and the building's so tall, and the new vacuum shoot, it's not visible. So, you know, I guess what, in your opinion, do you think would be a good square footage, aesthetically? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm guessing if you came in and you asked for twice what was allowed, you know, that might be substantially different than three times what was allowed, you know, and we might re-consider that. But you'd have to ask the general. I would just through that out there. I don't know what the Board's going to say. You might ask the other Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-We're not going to poll the Board and get our opinions. We have to let the applicant tell us what they want. MRS. GREENOUGH-1 just want some clarity, I guess. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can ask for less than what you've done, but if you come back to us with a variance request, it's got to be substantially different than what you requested the first time. So consider that. MRS. GREENOUGH-The setback is 100 feet from the property line. Correct? From the road? MR. KUHL-Yes. MRS. GREENOUGH-In order for you to not have to do the 30 square feet. Then, what, you can go. I mean, what do they allow you? I guess what I'm saying is, we're 89 feet from our ditch. So if we are, we're like 11 feet off from the 100 foot. So once you're at 100, what do they allow you? MR. JACKOSKI-30 feet. MR. KUHL-Same 30. MR. JACKOSKI-You're not allowed any before the 30. 38 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. That's inaccurate. So you're allowed up to 200 as a maximum if you're 100 feet. There's an increment. As long as you're an incremental, you have to be further than 100 in order to go up to 200 feet. MR. KUHL-The 89 issue comes up a lot because, you know, you've got some common area in front of you that's not yours. That 89 is not an issue here. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that's what most Board members are feeling. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think anybody has a problem with that. MR. KUHL-Yes, I mean, that's, you're stuck with that. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll be very honest with you. I've driven by your facility several times and nothing catches my eye more than all those blue. MRS. GREENOUGH-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So, quite frankly, I don't even think I'd see through the sign, through all of that apparatus and see the sign. All that apparatus, to me, brings the focal point right to your facility. As far as the other buildings flanking it, I've never, ever noticed that they were further ahead, were hiding the building at all. There's so much road frontage. MR. GREENOUGH-Yes. So you feel that, I guess I could ask for 60 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-I can re-poll the Board and I don't have to re-advertise because the relief that you're asking for, we would be granting less than the request, but I can't guarantee you one way or the other. I can suggest it to the Board. I can try to poll the Board, but, again, you know, or you can take time to think about it and come back. MR. GREENOUGH-1 thought about it before coming. I said, well, what's my second choice. MRS. GREENOUGH-But how long would that take? Because we're trying to do a Grand Opening. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, you can ask us right now. MRS. GREENOUGH-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can ask for less than what you requested MR. JACKOSKI-You can build 30. MR. GREENOUGH-No. MR. JACKOSKI-We can give you the 89 feet thing. That's no problem. MR. GREENOUGH-Ninety would be, I think it's seventeen and a half feet by five feet, and I think with the dimensions. It's about 88 square feet. MR. FREER-So what you heard from us. MR. GREENOUGH-Yes, I'm trying to balance it out here in my head. MR. FREER-And I'll just echo what they're saying is three times doesn't pass muster. Twice you probably, at least some people on the Board would be okay with that. MRS. GREENOUGH-Okay. So I guess that's what we're asking, right? MR. GREENOUGH-So I guess, you know, 60, 65 square feet. MR. KUHL-Say one number. Say one number. Don't say give or take. Just about. MR. URRICO-How about 55 square feet? MR. GREENOUGH-How about 60? 39 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Look guys, we keep doing this. I don't like this negotiating. I'm going to give the applicant one chance to talk to this Board again and offer to re-consider. MR. GREENOUGH-Sixty square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Sixty square feet. So the applicant has modified their request to this Board to reduce their request. MR. KUHL-For an Area Variance. MR. HENKEL-It's a Sign Variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Keep going. I'm going to poll the Board again. I'm just going to go right down the row here with a yes or a no that you'll favor the 60 and you're not worried about the 89. I'll start with Jim. Yes, or no? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think I would go with the 60 as long as there are no other additional wall signs ever proposed on that wall. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, we can't do that legally. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think the case in point being your competition down the road who has a million signs on their property and it's way over the top crazy, whereas this is pretty, as the Board member said, pretty succinct and pretty much, you know a square deal. I think that's going to give you the benefit of having something a little bit bigger, but you're not getting anything more later. MR. GREENOUGH-No, that wall would be it. Simplified, Car Wash is the biggest word. The name doesn't even matter. That's what it is. MR. FREER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Five yeses, two noes. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a SEQR resolution. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE PZ 238-2016 SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY LLC 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted 19th day of October 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Clarification that it's now a 60 square foot sign. You may have said that. MR. MC CABE-1 did not say that, but that's what I meant. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Now that we've completed SEAR, I need a motion for approval of the 60 square foot sign for Smart Wash Car Wash. 0 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Smart Wash of Queensbury LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 60 sq. ft. wall sign on the building facing Quaker Road. Relief requested from allowable maximum sign size and minimum setback requirements. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from sign setback restrictions for the Commercial Intensive zoning district. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required Applicant proposes a 60 sq. ft. wall sign where the maximum size allowed is 30 sq. ft. wall sign is allowed. The sign location is less than 100 ft. from the front property line where the existing building is 89 ft. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ 238-2016 Smart Wash of Queensbury LLC 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted 19th day of October 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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? No, I don't believe there will be. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? No, they really can't. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Although it is twice as much as required, we think it is not that substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, it won't as it's going to be the only wall sign on the building. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? You might say it is but they're trying to get attention to their building. 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 PZ 238-2016 SMART WASH OF QUEENSBURY LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. 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; 1 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) B. 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; C. 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' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. 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 19th day of October 2016 by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would just say make sure that we add that there will be no further requests for signage on the building. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, given that, do we have Board members in agreement that that is a condition? I have Jim saying yes. Ron? MR. KUHL-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I don't consider that a needed condition. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I also don't think that's necessary. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 don't think it's necessary. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy said no. So we don't have enough votes. So we're going to take it off. We're going to leave the original motion as stands. Staff, I'm sure, is relieved with that. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. You're all set. MRS. GREENOUGH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Enjoy it. The property looks good. MRS. GREENOUGH-Thank you. Stop in and see us. MR. GREENOUGH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other business in front of the Board? Do I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury Zoningoar of Appeals 10/19/2016) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 3