Loading...
12-21-2016 ui m QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 21, 2016 INDEX Area Variance PZ 252-2016 Michael & Holly Dansbury 1. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-31 Area Variance PZ 254-2016 Michael & Elaine Feeney 7. Tax Map No. 252.-1-21 Area Variance PZ 255-2016 Seerena Coombes 11. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-39 and 56 Area Variance PZ 268-2016 William E. Bergman 18. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-29 Area Variance PZ 260-2016 Brian Olesen 22. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-13 & 14 Area Variance PZ 266-2016 William A. Mason 31. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-25 Sign Variance PZ 261-2016 AJ Signs 32. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-44 Use Variance PZ 264-2016 MH Imperial Homes— Gregory T. Hewlett 35. Tax Map No. 290.5-1-55 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 ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 DECEMBER 21, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL HARRISON FREER JAMES UNDERWOOD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to welcome you all to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 7 o'clock here in the Queensbury Activities Center. For those of you who haven't been here in the past it's quite a simple process. There's an agenda on the back table with some guidelines with how we conduct ourselves. What we'll do is we'll take care of some housekeeping tonight. In this case tonight we'll certainly do all New Business. There is no Old Business on the agenda. I will call each applicant up to the small table here with their associated agents. Roy will be kind enough to read everything into the record on the application. At that point we'll either ask the applicants to offer any additional information they'd like to offer or for Board members to simply ask questions. When there is a public hearing advertised, which on every single application this evening there is a public hearing, we will open the public hearing. We will listen to the public hearing from those who are here in the audience. We will ask Roy if there's been any written comment that he's received. He'll read that into the record. We'll ask the applicants to address the public hearing discussion, and then hopefully we'll get to a point where the Board will be polled to see where we'd like to go with the application. Typically there's obviously a motion at that point whether to deny or move forward or offer a postponement of the application should the applicant wish us to do so. So, having said all that, we're going to get right into the approval of meeting minutes for November 16, 2016. May I have a motion for approval? APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 16, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 21 st day of December, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Having no other housekeeping to attend to, we're going to work right into the New Business for this evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ 252-2016 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL & HOLLY DANSBURY AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS OWNER(S) MICHAEL & HOLLY DANSBURY ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 9 HEMLOCK ROAD — OFF GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 572 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE AND A 48 SQ. FT. KITCHEN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,012 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT); 1,772 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) HOME. THE PROPOSED GARAGE WILL HAVE A STORAGE-LOFT AREA ACCESSIBLE BY INTERIOR STAIRS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, FAR, PERMEABILITY, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION IN A CEA. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION IN A CEA. CROSS REF BP 2000-838 RES. ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-31 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 252-2016, Michael & Holly Dansbury, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: 9 Hemlock Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 572 sq. ft. attached garage and a 48 sq. ft. kitchen addition to an existing 1,012 sq. ft. (footprint); 1,772 sq. ft. (Floor Area) home. The proposed garage will have a storage-loft area acessible by interior stairs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements, FAR, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone Proposed is a 572 sq. ft. attached garage and 48 sq. ft. kitchen addition. The garage addition is proposed to be 6.67 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The proposed Floor area ratio is 25.2 % where a maximum of 22% is allowed. Section 179-13-010 Continuation —expansion of a non-conforming structure The proposed additions to an existing not compliant are expansion of a non-conforming structure. 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 existing detached garage is to be removed and the new attached garage moves further from the property line. 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 existing home is noncompliant for permeability and setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for setback may be considered moderate where 6.67 ft. is proposed and the relief is for 13.33 ft. The Floor area relief may considered minimal where 25.2 % proposed were 3.2 % in excess is proposed 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant has included permeable pavers. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a residential addition of a garage and kitchen. The addition is to be on the north side of the home. The first floor area involved is the existing kitchen, a bedroom and covered porch —where the bedroom and kitchen will be flip flopped and will be adjacent to the new attached garage. The plans show the existing and proposed floor plan." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. DYBAS-Good evening. For the record, Curt Dybas, representing Michael & Holly Dansbury. Just about everything's been read into the record. The Dansbury's are wishing to remodel this residence which they've owned since '99 into a more suitable year round residence. It is year round, but very dated, and they want to create a small master bedroom on the main floor. There's a bedroom down there now, but it's a lot smaller. As read into the ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 record, they want to flip the bedroom and the kitchen so the kitchen will be adjacent to the garage for reasons they are coming in from the garage directly into the kitchen, and a 48 square foot addition onto the kitchen, basically to make it more usable. Other than that, within the existing house there's no changes. There's one structural thing that has to be repaired, the 22 by 26 two car garage on the east side. There is a storage loft. The space is there to have that storage. There is virtually no storage existing in the residence right now. It has a crawl space basement which dates back to, I understand, you know, 1900's and it's not suitable for storage. So they would like to have this storage loft above the garage for storage of stuff, and minimal change to the outside of the house as far as character. No change on the lakeside at all. There is a 2001 wastewater system was approved and installed. They currently have a well point in the basement which they are going to replace with a new well because they just don't have the water flow that they need. That's pretty much the project in a nutshell. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Is there any way of making that, I know you're making the permeability a little bit better there. Is there any way of stretching that even more? You're giving up, you're asking for like about 16.4%, roughly. Is there any way of making that permeability any better than that? I know it's limited there. You're taking out some asphalt and putting some permeable pavers. MR. DYBAS-If you visited the site. MR. HENKEL-I did. MR. DYBAS-There's quite a bit of a steep grade there. There's a lot of turning involved. MR. HENKEL-There is. MR. DYBAS-One of the problems with permeable pavers, they do not hold up well in the turning on a grade. I don't have an answer for you without some more research, but my experience is that it doesn't hold up well on slopes in turning. MR. HENKEL-I'll agree with you on that one. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? MR. KUHL-In this drawing you talk about 24 square foot reduction. Where is that 24 square foot reduction? MR. DYBAS-In what? MR. KUHL-Well, on the overall square footage? It's being reduced by 24 square feet. Where is that coming from? MR. DYBAS-I don't see where? MR. KUHL-On your site development data. MR. DYBAS-Yes, go ahead. The porch, the existing porch that's on the north side of the building, we're going to remove it and put in the new porch and make that 24 square feet smaller. If you compare the 1St floor plans with the existing and the new, the dimensions I believe are on there. You will find the 24 square feet. MR. KUHL-Okay. Because you're shortening the porch? MR. DYBAS-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay, and the outside entrance to the basement is now going to be inside the garage? MR. DYBAS-Correct. MR. KUHL-Thank you. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. This is Area Variance Number PZ 252-2016. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. This says, "Hi, Laura, thanks for taking the time to speak with me today. I also spoke with Sue Hemingway. To follow up my review of the plans you directed me to on the Queensbury website, please note my items of interest with respect to this project are two- fold. On Page 15, the power and utility lines coming off my property (noted on the drawings as owned by Gordon Single, the previous owner who sold to me in 2004) are currently running across my driveway, in my line of sight from my home, and are dangerous as they are low hanging and running through my tree line. It is my belief that power and utility lines running to structures on the Dansbury lot should stay along the back of their property line and tie into their structures from the back of their lot and not across my lot. On Page 17, the septic is identified as being potentially relocated and the wastewater field is shown on the northeast corner of the lot. I would like to just note that my well is in a direct line behind the wastewater field and would like to ensure the required distances remain between our water source and any wastewater or septic discharges. My contact information is: Donald Brass 2910 Sunset Way, St. Pete Beach, FL 33706 Please advise me of any decisions made that will impact my areas of concern. Have a wonderful holiday. Thank you, Don Brass" And he gives his address as 2910 Sunset Way, St. Pete Beach, FL. So I'm not sure where that is in relation. MRS. MOORE-It's a neighbor to the north of them, and I've had a couple of conversations with him, and he now understands that it's the septic tank that's moving, not the field, and so he's aware of that and there's not a distance issue. The Dansbury's field has already been installed. It's just the tank issue that's being moved. In reference to the utilities, he's just asked the architect and that neighbor if they can work on, when the utilities get taken down from the existing garage and when they get replaced, is that we make sure, see if there's something that we can do so it's no so low on his property. I think those were the only two items. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you do underground utilities there and avoid those lines? MR. DYBAS-It's my understanding that this was discussed some time ago when the Brass' built the garage and the apartment, burying the utilities from the pole over to the Dansbury's, and I don't know what transpired. Both neighbors get along fine, and I don't know if it was a cost issue or what, but it's like, I've already checked. Let's forget about moving the pole. The primary line is critical and make sure that it was secondary below primary. One possibility is we raised the grade, raise the feed to the house, which would be the garage would be higher, which we could raise the wire up, or feed the house from the mid-section off a secondary by the neighbors to the west of Fasulo's are fed. That's something we'll work out. MR. JACKOSKI-And so with the apartment this is really considered a two family house, right? MRS. MOORE-No, not this house. That's the Brass', yes. MR. DYBAS-There's no apartment here. And the question on the septic, Dansbury's put this system in in '01 and the Brass' next door drilled their well like in '04 or '05, after the fact. So I don't know distances and everything else. MR. JACKOSKI-No other written comment, right, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Board members, should I just poll the Board? Okay. Anyone want to go first? MR. MC CABE-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Mike. MR. MC CABE-I took a look at it. Kind of limited options because it's a pretty small lot, house. I actually think it's an improvement doing away with the old single garage and making it integral to the house, and so I think it's an improvement to the neighborhood. So I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? a ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support the project. It's definitely an improvement. Permeability is going up a little bit, which I'd like to see go a little bit more, but it's acceptable and I agree with the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. Our charge is to give minimum relief, and I'm not in favor of the project as state with a two car garage. If you moved it to a single car garage, however, I'd be in favor of it. So I'd be against it the way it's presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to keep in mind what they're proposing here, and the porch and the kitchen addition is on the back of the house not on the Iakeshore. So it's not really going to have a negative effect on the lake. The setbacks currently existing on the property are going to be improved slightly from what they are. The only big issue that I have is the floor area ratio, because we'd be exceeding it with the 25% as opposed to the 22%, and again, that's the garage that Ron noted. The fact that the garage is a two car. I think that, you know, I would like to hear what the rest of the Board members have to say, but I think at this time, too, the need for a two car garage, I mean, everybody wants one, but this is a .21 acre lot, and I think you have to keep in mind, we have to keep some kind of a handle as to the impact of extra building above the 22% floor area ratio. So I'm going to wait to see what people say. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm going to wait to see what you say. I sort of take both of what my colleagues have said and I can really go either way on this. It's not ostentatious, but it's a little lot and we keep nickel and diming the development there. The fact that you've done it in the back is good, because the lake, in my mind, is the most important part of that, but when we keep approving floor area ratios for people that build on nonconforming lots, I don't think we're being true to our charge. So I'm on the fence on this one, pardon the pun. MR. JACKOSKI-Save me, Roy. MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think it succeeds in passing the balancing test. Everything considered, it's minimal relief, even though it goes beyond the floor area ratio. It's not by a lot. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So would the applicant be okay with a single car garage? And clean up the FAR? MR. DYBAS-A year round house with a one car garage. MR. JACKOSKI-But it's a tiny, tiny lot. MR. DYBAS-Part of that FAR ratio is that storage loft, too. Which is, it's a storage space. It will always be a storage space. It's not connected to the house at all, and you've got five foot walls and a 70 foot ridge. MR. JACKOSKI-But that's why we've done the 22% is those storage type spaces that would otherwise be saved with only 20%. So, I mean, we've allowed for that in the 22 that those are just non-usable spaces. Based on the way it's designed. MR. DYBAS-It's non-usable, but part of that storage is stuff. I mean, I'm struggling because I agree with Jim, Harrison and Ron. So, I mean, if they had a one car or one and a half car garage down to the 22% I'd be okay with all the other variances, but that's just my opinion. We could take a vote and see where we go. Jim, do you want to, you said you wanted to wait until you heard what we all said. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't think it would be unreasonable to lower the size of the garage down. At the same time we have to ask ourselves how many people don't have a two car garage that live on the water. I mean, that's pretty much a given, and I think the fact that they have those two big trees in the front on the lakeside, I think any water coming off the roof from the garage is going to be absorbed. I don't think it's going to have any kind of an impact. It's got a brand new septic system in the back, too. So I guess I'd reluctantly say I would go for it, an extra floor area ratio. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? a;b ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. FREER-Yes, again, I can support this, but like I said, it's really close to my threshold of saying floor area ratio. I didn't realize what you just said, but that ameliorates my concern a little bit. It's not living space. It's just storage space. So I could support it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael and Holly Dansbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 572 sq. ft. attached garage and a 48 sq. ft. kitchen addition to an existing 1,012 sq. ft. (footprint); 1,772 sq. ft. (Floor Area) home. The proposed garage will have a storage-loft area accessible by interior stairs. The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements, FAR, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone Proposed is a 572 sq. ft. attached garage and 48 sq. ft. kitchen addition. The garage addition is proposed to be 6.67 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The proposed Floor area ratio is 25.2 % where a maximum of 22% is allowed. Section 179-13-010 Continuation —expansion of a non-conforming structure The proposed additions to an existing not compliant are expansion of a non-conforming structure. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 21, 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 garage and the exterior in the rear of the property will actually be an improvement. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not practical because of the small size of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The property is already nonconforming and the requested setback is actually improving and the proposed floor area ratio increase is not that great. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is 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) That no external accessory structures will be allowed on this property after the re-build. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ 252-2016, MICHAEL AND HOLLY DANSBURY, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 Duly adopted this 21St day of December 2016 by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-Should we put conditions on it, no more sheds or anything like that, though? I mean, it's something. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that reasonable, to put in a condition on the approval that there are no additional out or accessory structures? MR. DYBAS-That's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-So please note that in the resolution we are going to add. MR. MC CABE-Yes, so I'll amend my resolution to include the condition that no external sheds will be allowed on this property after the re-build. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's re-phrase it, not shed but accessory structures. MR. MC CABE-Accessory structures. That's what I meant to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel NOES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You're all set. Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ 254-2016 SEQRA TYPE II MIKE AND ELAINE FEENEY AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) MICHAEL AND ELAINE FEENEY ZONING RR-5A LOCATION LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,600 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A FIVE-ACRE PARCEL WITH SITE WORK INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVEWAY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER DEVICES THAT ARE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM THE WETLAND. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HARD SURFACING AND PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 5.64 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 252.1-21 SECTION 147 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 254-2016, Mike and Elaine Feeney, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: Lockhart Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,600 sq. ft. single-family residence on a five- acre parcel with site work including construction of a driveway. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief for installation of stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from wetland. Parcel is located in the zone RR-5A. Section 147-11 Stormwater Management —Supplementary additional requirements for projects within Lake George Park The applicant proposes stormwater infiltration devices closer than 100 ft. to the wetland. Swale #2 is to be 37 ft. and Swale #3 is to be 38 ft. and the code requires devices to be 100 ft. or greater from the wetland. 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. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited as the applicant is working with the APA to develop the access drive and meet the APA requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Swale # 2 is to be 37 ft. and relief requested is 63 ft. and Swale #3 is to be 38 ft. and 62 ft. of relief is requested. 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 impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the development of a 5.6 ac parcel for a 2,600 sq. ft. single family home. The project includes the disturbance for the installation of a well, septic and an access drive. The applicant has been working with the APA to satisfy requirements for access near the wetland." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design here with property owner and applicant Michael Feeney. This is a project requesting a variance from what is a stormwater regulation in the Town's Ordinance Chapter 147. What the Feeney's would like to do is develop this lot. It was originally subdivided back in the 80's and Mike is I think the fourth or fifth owner of that property that's never been developed. Mike would like to build a single family residence. The nature of the lot is it comes off of Lockhart Mountain Road and there's a low point where there are wetlands and then back up the hill to the building site, which is about 600 feet or so off the road. The nature of that work makes it a major stormwater project because of the length of the driveway, the amount of related disturbance. So a major stormwater project requires a 100 foot setback from stormwater infiltration devices. We have two as shown on the original design that fall within that setback. So we're here for that request for that variance. I would note that as this is subject to review by the Town Engineer for the Site Plan Review process we're also going through some comments or a comment in particular that came from Chazen's review, made us juggle things a little bit so that the current design actually eliminates one of those spaces, and I'd like to proceed with the variance and probably the resolution is written just pending Chazen's ultimate judgement on what we re-submitted, but it would only be lessened if it was, we followed that revised plan. Instead of having two basins that fell within 100 foot we would only have one, but 1, again, in discussing this with Laura earlier today, I felt that that would be the better way to proceed. If we end up lessening it, all the better. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Pretty straightforward. Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-I've got one. Why are you changing the, I didn't get a chance to walk the property. I just looked at it from the road, but what's the reason for the change of the road, of the driveway? You have an existing driveway and now you're changing it and putting a new driveway in. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. It's really a matter of building it to a more reasonable and safe grade. What would be there, if you simply surfaced the existing grading, you'd be dealing in, ultimately, in slopes of 16 to 20%, and what we're proposing through our action with the APA is to raise that grade, or raise the grade of the driveway, therefore lessening the vertical slope and making it, softening it a little bit, and that's the desire of the property owner. It's a reasonable stand to try to achieve 12%, and we've actually gotten some input from the local fire company supporting that. MR. HENKEL-It looks like you're disturbing more property that way, but understandable. I didn't get a chance to walk it, but I looked at it from the road. It makes sense. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before open the public hearing? ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. KUHL-Yes, Dennis, what's the APA status on this? You've got to come here first and then go there or? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, APA requires that we've at least made the application to the Town. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-Which was done actually back in, we were in an October meeting of the Planning Board. Through the review by Chazen it was identified that we should, because of the stormwater design, we should require a variance. Now we're here with you and hopefully back tomorrow with the Planning Board to complete that. To answer your question, we're still in the process of the APA review, and I think we're closer. I think we're almost there, but I haven't got that final word that they're in that permit writing mode. MR. FREER-In the letter it says there's been four or five owners to this land and it's never been developed. Has it been the wetlands problem that's prevented? MR. MAC ELROY-1 can't really answer why the others didn't buy it and build on it, but no, it was two owners ago, Mike being about the third, that initially had some interaction with the APA that resulted in an enforcement action. So as to, you know, why those owners or the subsequent didn't build, I'm not really sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is the concern with the APA, is that the distance of the swales from the actually roadway? MR. MAC ELROY-No, APA doesn't have a concern about that. Just the Town Engineer. MR. UNDERWOOD-The Town does, but the APA wanted an approval? MR. MAC ELROY-No, the Town or APA? MR. UNDERWOOD-The Town. MR. MAC ELROY-The Town, or Chazen just simply commented that they were within the 100 foot setback that required a variance because it's a major project. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that's just because of the length of the road, too. Right? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, you have to capture the runoff where it's generated. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, you don't want it running down the whole length of the road. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL KELLY MR. KELLY-Good evening. My name's Paul Kelly. I'm the adjacent landowner. I just wanted to make it known that I'm in favor of the project, and we're interested in the approval from both the Boards and hopefully the APA is on board as well. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address this Board? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and after hearing the public comment, I'll poll the Board and see what their thoughts are. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, on balance I think I'd be in favor of the project, pending the approval of the APA. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? ,nay ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. KUHL-Yes, I'm in favor of it as is. I think it's a good project for the property. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm all for it also. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Sounds like the applicant has tried to satisfy the agencies and I'm impressed that he got the neighbor to speak. So I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support the project as well, and I just want to follow on Mike in terms of my view. Having happy neighbors is very helpful, and so I appreciate you coming out and I think that's good for the community that folks can make that kind of input. I support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the applicant has engineered this so the driveway, because the long length of it is much less of a slope than exists, and I think that's an improvement on the situation. I think the infiltrators make sense, too, because that captures water all the way down. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mike and Elaine Feeney. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,600 sq. ft. single-family residence on a five-acre parcel with site work including construction of a driveway. The applicant requests the following relief for installation of stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from wetland. Parcel is located in the zone RR-5A. Section 147-11 Stormwater Management —Supplementary additional requirements for projects within Lake George Park The applicant proposes stormwater infiltration devices closer than 100 ft. to the wetland. Swale #2 is to be 37 ft. and Swale #3 is to be 38 ft. and the code requires devices to be 100ft or greater from the wetland. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 21, 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 shape of this property and the length that the road is going to have to be. 2. Feasible alternatives are strictly limited, again, because of the width of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be self-created. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 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 254-2016, MIKE AND ELAINE FEENEY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21St day of December 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. MR. MAC ELROY-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ 255-2016 SEQRA TYPE II SEREENA COOMBES AGENT(S) RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE; ETHAN P. HALL OWNER(S) SEREENA COOMBS ZONING WR LOCATION 108 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 552 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW 422 SQ. FT. DECK TO AN EXISTING 1,454 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT); 1,934 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA) HOME. ADJOINING LOTS TO BE COMBINED. EXISTING CAR PORT REQUIRES VARIANCE REVIEW; CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR A SECOND GARAGE (CURRENT CAR PORT). IN ADDITION RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND SETBACKS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ADDITION IN A WR-1A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2007-261 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-39 AND 56 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 255-2016, Sereena Coombes, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: 108 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 552 sq. ft. second floor addition and a new 422 sq. ft. deck to an existing 1,454 sq. ft. (footprint); 1,934 sq. ft. (floor area) home. Adjoining lots to be combined. Existing car port requires variance review; currently outstanding. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the following for a second garage and setbacks to the garage (current carport). In addition relief requested from maximum height restrictions and setbacks for the residential addition in a WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirements WR zone The applicant proposes a 552 sq. ft. second floor addition and a new 422 sq. ft. deck. The new addition height is proposed to be 28 ft. 4 in. where a 28 ft. height maximum is allowed. Also the addition is to have a front setback of 19 ft. 2in where a 30 ft. setback is required, an east side setback of 15 ft. 1 in. where a 20 ft. setback is required, and a rear setback of 12 ft. 6 in. where a 30 ft. setback is required. The existing carport is located is 7 ft. 1 in. where a 30 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage An existing carport on the site was constructed prior to the current owner's purchase and the review was not completed. The relief requested is to maintain a second garage a carport in the current location. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 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. This is an extension of the second story and the front deck area. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the project is an addition to an existing home on a 0.18 ac parcel where any improvements would probably require additional review. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. New addition and deck is proposed to be 4 inches in excess of the allowed height of 28 ft. relief for front setback is 10 ft. 10 in, east side is 4 ft. 11 in, and rear 17 ft. 6 in. The carport relief on the west side is 12 ft. 11 in. Relief for maintaining a second garage -carport. 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 impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a residential addition include an expanded 2nd floor, a main floor deck addition and to maintain a carport. The applicant has indicated the two parcels are to be merged as one parcel. The addition allows for the rearrangement of bedroom space. The plans show the existing and proposed conditions of the site and home." MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Sereena Coombes, the homeowner. The project is some additions to the home. There's currently a very small bedroom on the first floor that both of her boys are sharing. The addition is to take and put that bedroom on the upper floor so that the boys have more room. They're still going to wind up sharing a bedroom but they're keeping that there, opening up the downstairs to more usable space for them downstairs. The addition for the roof is over the existing deck. It's just to enclose that, keep it so that they can use it at least three seasons, and then the deck on the main floor comes off on the front of the house and it's over what's a landscaped area now. So it's not really changing anything there. It's just getting it up at floor level so that they don't have to go down steps to get to it. The existing carport I believe was done by the previous owner. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HALL-And done without a variance. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HALL-So she kind of inherited that problem and we're just trying to tidy that up, I think. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, if the lots weren't combined, that's quite an overbuild of the property. MR. HALL-If the lots were not combined. The lots are going to be combined. That's part of it, and so the floor area ratio issue, I think, goes away. MR. JACKOSKI-What are the septic system issues there? MR. HALL-The existing septic system was put in. We've got the drawings that were done for that. It was put in in 1999 1 believe, under a permit. We've had IBS there. They've checked the system. They've dye tested the system and there's no issues with it. Because it's an existing two bedroom and it's remaining a two bedroom there's no alterations required. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the current capacity of that septic system? ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. HALL-It's a 1,000 gallon tank and it's an eight foot drywell in diameter, six foot deep with stone two feet all the way around the outside. MR. JACKOSKI-So I remember when the Merritt house was done there was a lot of controversy over all the septic systems in that area and all the wells in that area. Have there been any well issues? Are there any septic issues? MR. HALL-I know that Sereena has, that her well is in front of the house, and it has a monitoring, it's being monitored by the adjoining neighbor is that correct? SEREENA COOMBES DR. COOMBES-Well, Bill and Carol, via variances, were going to contest my water, and I wasn't here for that meeting obviously, and I know that three years in a row it's been fine, and I think we're only at the third year at this point. There hasn't been any issues with it at this point. MR. KUHL-They had to test it what, for the first five years after that new house? DR. COOMBES-1 think it's yearly for three years, and then every three years for an additional. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that, again, necessary at this point? DR. COOMBES-1 think potentially not. It's been fine for three years. Their septic is below where my property is. Their well is actually more at risk from their septic system than mine is. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, could your septic system, because of its capacity, you know, I think when we were looking at these variances and all that's going on at the Miller house, as I call it, it was hardly ever used, but now it seems like it's getting used a lot more. So does that septic system have the potential capacity of effecting the actual well that's on that property? It's not 100 feet away, correct? MR. HALL-The existing septic system on this lot is not 100 feet from its own well. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So you've got a compounded issue here of your well's too close to your septic and the neighboring well's possibly too close to the well. So who knows who's doing what at this point. MR. HALL-And that was the reason for having it tested and under a continuous monitor. DR. COOMBES-But I think it's reasonable that with the increased use of my property that the Merritt's property test their water. I probably need to test my water, and if there became an issue then we can expand the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I don't know the home. Does it have a dishwasher and dryer? I mean all those things are part of the current home? DR. COOMBES-There's no dishwater, but there is washer and dryers. MR. HALL-Washer and dryers. Currently there is a big tub in the master bedroom or in the upstairs bedroom and that tub, as part of this project, comes out and goes away. So that, the potential for their being a couple hundred gallons worth of water going through it is diminished. They're all water saving fixtures that are in the facility. MR. JACKOSKI-So you don't think that the current septic system on this particular parcel is able to handle a three bedroom capacity? MR. HALL-I do not. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's a two bedroom at best. MR. HALL-It is a two bedroom, correct, and that is now and it will remain that way. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So talk to us a little bit about the combining of the lots. Because we know there's lots of issues there. We know about the dock issue. We know about all the things that hare happening. So combining the lots, I mean, granted, you get to do whatever you wish. W. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. HALL-There are some easements across the property from what I understand, lake right easements, and that will remain in effect. The use of the lake rights are still being honored by that. It's just the combination put them under one deed. MR. JACKOSKI-So when you did all the calculations for permeability and everything, you included all the roadways that are already there for those lots? MR. HALL-That is correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And the driveway that comes off of the right of way, I don't know if you call the front of your property Birdsall Road. MR. HALL-The front is Birdsall. That's what we're considering the front, and then we are considering Birdsall Road as part of our permeable, impermeable. We're increasing our permeability on the side, the west side of the existing carport. It drops off and it's completely concrete right up to the property line. We're going to pull all that out to give water a place to go when it comes off that roof so it doesn't run down the driveway the way it does now. It's kind of the intent to get rid of that there and make that area more permeable. DR. COOMBES-By putting that deck out front I don't need that patio space on the side anymore. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you plan on making any improvements to your benefit that actually come on to what is known as the beach lot? MR. HALL-No, I don't believe there's the ability for us to do that. DR. COOMBES-1 don't believe that with combining the deeds that there's any ability to build on there with all the setbacks. MR. JACKOSKI-But Mr. Miller was able to create driveways and all of that stuff even though that was beach lot property. So there's always a way. Just checking to find out if you plan on expanding forward closer to the lake, you know, all that good stuff. DR. COOMBES-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-There's really not a variance needed for the front setback because that's not really a Town road. That's really done through your property. MR. HALL-We bandied this about. Technically you're correct. However, the property line as it stands right now does go across the front on this side or on Sereena's side of Birdsall. So we decided to throw that in as,just to cover it. MR. HENKEL-The Town doesn't own that. MR. JACKOSKI-Technically 911 should have been a Marley Way address, technically. That parcel does not front on Birdsall Road. MR. HALL-Yes, only because Birdsall Road just. DR. COOMBES-And I believe, from the electric company I mean I am a Marley Way, but I believe Steve Miller changed the address to Birdsall Road address. MR. JACKOSKI-Must have been more prestigious. MR. HALL-Well, is Marley Way, isn't that a private right of way? I believe the sign says. MR. JACKOSKI-The mailing address. MR. HALL-Is it, is it maintained by the Town? MR. JACKOSKI-No. MR. HALL-That may be why, because Birdsall, I think, is maintained by the Town. So that may be why they do it. I don't know. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. KUHL-Ethan are you doing a whole new roof or are you just extending it out over? MR. HALL-We're going to have to do at least part of it, and by doing the one side because of the way the new addition fronts over the top of it, and then extending the front out over the existing deck, we'll probably wind up doing a good share of at least that side. We may not have to do all of the east side of the roof, but it'll depend on the color of the shingles and how closely they match. MR. JACKOSKI-And you have to have the carport. I mean, this Board has been typical of second garages and second sheds and all these other things. I mean, this is crammed right on this part of the lot. MR. HENKEL-That would eliminate that variance on that side, too, if you made it smaller. MR. HALL-It's very, very tough for us to take any of it away to make it smaller. I mean the posts are right on the edge of the driveway. There's really not enough room underneath. There's room maybe to park one car to keep it out of the weather, but it is open on all three sides. The other thing is that part of our second floor expansion is going to use that support of that end of the carport. So taking it away kind of takes away my support system. MR. JACKOSKI-So it would be a three open sided carport forever, or are you going to end up going back? Because the variance says you can build that close to the line, and so you could easily then just go and apply for an application to close it in as a garage. MR. HALL-Is it your intent to ever enclose it? DR. COOMBES-No. MR. HALL-I don't think there's ever an intent to enclose it. I think it's. MR. HENKEL-If you enclosed the garage in the back you wouldn't be able to get to the garage in the back, then? MR. HALL-Correct. Well, you can get to it from Marley. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, Marley Way. So you'd be okay with us conditioning it that it would always remain a carport? DR. COOMBES-Yes. MR. KUHL-Well, how come your drawing shows a garage, Ethan? MR. HALL-There's an existing garage there. There's an existing garage on the back of the property, and then the carport. MR. KUHL-I guess I didn't see it from Birdsall. MR. HALL-From Birdsall you really can't see it. It's in the back. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address this board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM MERRITT MR. MERRITT-I'm William Merritt. We're adjacent property owners. We share property lot lines and we are in full support of the project. The required variances seem reasonable. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else here in the audience who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, there are two. "I am writing in support of the Application of Sereena Coombes (Area Variance No. PZ 255-2016). 1 live across Marley Way from Dr. Coombes and have lived at my current address as my primary residence since 1987. Like all areas that involve Lake access, our neighborhood has been evolving from modest seasonal camps to dna ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 more elaborate houses suitable for year-round use. Most, if not all, of the houses in this neighborhood are located on substandard lots and need at least one area variance for almost any improvements. The improvements proposed by Dr. Coombes are compatible with the character of the neighborhood and seem like a creative way to accommodate a family that is growing up. Granting the requested variances would not be detrimental to the neighborhood but would likely be significantly beneficial to the Coombes family. Thank you. Sincerely, Ann Russell" 26 Marley Way. And this one says, "We are direct neighbors of the applicant as our property borders the Coombes property to the East. Additionally our home is situated in the closest proximity to the Coombes home. We will not be able to attend the ZBA meeting, however we want you to know that Ms. Coombes has shared her plans with us and based on such, we are writing in support of her application. Kindly take our support into consideration as Ms. Coombes works to improve her property to better fit the needs and desires of her family. Respectfully, David and Michele DeSanto" 31 Marley Way. That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So I guess at this point, hearing public comment, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Yes, as I just said, it's good to get feedback from the neighbors, especially when it's positive, and I think that this is a reasonable approach. It is a small lot and it's not as close to the lake as some of the other. Now that you've combined it with the beach lot, I can support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'll be in support of the project also. I think what we need to keep in mind is that the house is about 195 feet setback from the water which is, the waterfront regulations are promulgated basically to protect the lake, and this is going to have no impact on the lake. The size of the project is within the scope of what anybody would do that's reasonable. It's not like way over the top and I think over height four inches is minimal. That doesn't amount to anything. MR. HALL-if it wasn't existing, I wouldn't be asking for it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Almost all the setbacks that you're asking for are already currently existing on the property. It's not like you're making up new ones or encroaching or getting in somebody's face next door with your close proximity with your neighbors. I'd support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-The neighbors are happy. It's an improvement to the neighborhood, and there's some environmental improvements. So let's not delay the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, the support of the neighbors only serve to support my position, which is in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I'd be in favor as stated. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I support the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Before I close the public hearing, are there any conditions you want to put on? I mean, were you suggesting that you could eliminate the well testing, or do you want to keep it open? DR. COOMBES-1 was suggesting that we could eliminate it. MRS. MOORE-1 think that's a condition of the Town Board. The Board of Health. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, we brought it up. I think we put it as part of our variances with Merritt. Correct? MRS. MOORE-That they test? ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII III IIIA . III 6 MR. JACKOSKI-That they test, yes, because there was so much activity on that smaller lot. I think we put them on as conditions of that variance. It doesn't matter at this point, right? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-So I mean the Town would still have to go through, as far as septic systems, that they approved as the Board of Health? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-I thought we were going to make it a condition of it remaining a carport? MR. JACKOSKI-So it's okay to make it a condition that it remain a carport and not a garage or a shed or living quarters. MR. KUHL-Well, do we know that the carport is built to standard? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think it is. MR. KUHL-Well, then how can you recommend that we approve it? MR. HENKEL-As long as it fits the Code, as long as. MR. KUHL-Well, that's what I'm saying, Staff, does it fit the Code? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-So it meets standard? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. HALL-As far as the Building Code goes, it's probably over-engineered. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. HALL-The entire roof system is made out of LBL material, as opposed to non-bolt plumbing. They're 11 inch or 12 inch deep LBL members, 16 inches on center that span like 19 or 20 feet and we can even park the car on top of it and it wouldn't hurt it. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's talk about that now. Are you suggesting that she's going to have a parking garage? MR. HALL-We would condition it. Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sereena Coombes. Applicant proposes construction of a 552 sq. ft. second floor addition and a new 422 sq. ft. deck to an existing 1,454 sq. ft. (footprint); 1,934 sq. ft. (floor area) home. Adjoining lots to be combined. Existing car port requires variance review; currently outstanding. The applicant requests relief from the following for a second garage and setbacks to the garage (current carport). In addition relief requested from maximum height restrictions and setbacks for the residential addition in a WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirements WR zone The applicant proposes a 552 sq. ft. second floor addition and a new 422 sq. ft. The new addition height is proposed to be 28 ft. 4 in. where a 28 ft. height maximum is allowed. Also the addition is to have a front setback of 19 ft. 2in where a 30 ft. setback is required, an east side setback of 15 ft. 1 in. where a 20 ft. setback is required, and a rear setback of 12 ft. 6 in where a 30 ft. setback is required. The existing carport is located is 7 ft. 1 in where a 20 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage nQ ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 An existing carport on the site was constructed prior to the current owner's purchase and the review was not completed. The relief requested is to maintain a second garage a carport in the current location. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 21, 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 and in fact we believe this will improve the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but they're limited because of the size of the property and the slope that it's on. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. At best it's moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we think that there'll be some improvements in the runoff. 5. Is 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) That the carport will always remain an open carport. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ 255-2016, SEREENA COOMBES, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 21St day of December 2016 by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-Did we add the condition that the carport will not be a garage? MR. MC CABE-Did we decide that's what we want to do? MR. JACKOSKI-I think so. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I meant to say that, but I forgot. So in addition we'll condition that the carport always remain a carport. MRS. MOORE-And I would add to that an open carport. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. The carport will remain an open carport. MRS. MOORE-A typo error that shows up in the resolution for the carport. It is a 20 foot setback and not a 30 foot setback. So that should be corrected. MR. JACKOSKI-So noted. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. HALL-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ 268-2016 SEQRA TYPE 11 WILLIAM E. BERGMAN OWNER(S) WILLIAM E. AND MICHELLE L. BERGMAN ZONING SFR-30 YRS. 1982 ZONING LOCATION 138 EQUINOX DRIVE — COURTHOUSE ESTATES, SECTION 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 540 SQ. FT. POOLHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR A POOL. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC FOR POOLHOUSE AND OTHER ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SB 7-84; SB 7-84 MODIFICATION; BP 2006-138 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-29 SECTION 179-3-040 WILLIAM BERGMAN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 268-2016, William E. Bergman, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: 138 Equinox Drive — Courthouse Estates, Section 3 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 540 sq. ft. poolhouse and associated site work for a pool. Project includes new septic for poolhouse and other alterations to an existing home. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable size for an accessory structure and from minimum property line setback requirements. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement —Courthouse Estates SUB SFR30 1982 zoning/MDR zone The applicant proposes a 540 sq. ft. pool house that is proposed to be located 13 ft. 5 in from the rear property line where a 20 ft. is required. 179-5-020 Accessory sheds—no more than 500 sq. ft. in total on parcels less than 3 acres. The proposed pool house is to be 540 sq. ft. where the maximum size allowed is 500 sq. ft. for lots less than 3 acres. 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 available to reduce the building size and location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief for the rear setback is proposed to be 6 ft. 7 in. Relief requested for the pool house is 40 sq. ft. in excess. 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 to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a 540 sq. ft. pool house. The plans show the location of the pool house and the floor plan." MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Bergman, welcome. MR. BERGMAN-Hi. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII III IIIA . III 6 MR. JACKOSKI-It's a very straightforward application. So I assume you just want the Board members to ask questions. MR. BERGMAN-Sure. MR. KUHL-He didn't introduce himself so we don't know who he is. MR. BERGMAN-Hi. My name's William Bergman. I'm the current property owner. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any questions from Board members on this application? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I do. The pool equipment building that you've got on the side here next to the master bedroom, isn't there an A/C unit there? MR. BERGMAN-That is a proposed pool equipment location. Since this drawing, we decided to put the pool equipment, meaning the pumps, etc., enclosed in the pool house. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. BERGMAN-Or closer to the pool house, rather. MR. HENKEL-Makes sense. MR. BERGMAN-Yes. The only reason that was drawn there was the builder of the home set it up to be there. We kind of went with it initially. We've since decided to change it. MR. HENKEL-I was going to say it looked like there was essentially an air unit there now. MR. BERGMAN-There is one. There is one on the side, yes. MR. URRICO-Could we reduce the pool house to 500 feet so you don't need a variance? MR. BERGMAN-To be honest, I was not aware of the 500 square feet, but, yes, yes we can. MR. KUHL-Mr. Bergman, is there a septic system going out for this, or are you going to hook it in to your existing? MR. BERGMAN-Yes, there is a septic system for it, and it's going to be, as you look at the drawing here, it would be to the west. MR. KUHL-Of the swing set? MR. BERGMAN-Correct. The flow of the land goes that way. It makes the most sense. MR. URRICO-So if you reduce it to 500 feet, will that decrease the amount of variance you need for the rear property line? MR. BERGMAN-It could. It could. If we went from say 18 to 16, there's two feet there. We're thinking about reducing the whole thing period. MR. URRICO-Really? MR. BERGMAN-Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BERGMAN-The reason for the variance request in the back is just the size of the lot, and what we have going on with the pool in proximity to the pool, etc. The people that live in the back, the Crawfords, they have a large fenced structure in the back there. MR. URRICO-That's theirs? MR. BERGMAN-That's there's. MR. HENKEL-That's over six feet in height. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. BERGMAN-And that would actually be to the right of this a little bit. I spoke with John, of course. I spoke with all the neighbors. He's a big fan of the project. He thinks it's actually going to create more privacy because the back of the building is not open. It's just the back of the building. There'll be a fence around the whole thing. There'll be landscaping in front of the fence. So it'll be very private. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. FREER-I think why not treat it so that you don't need the variance for the size. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, it's 40 feet. It's splitting hairs. MR. HENKEL-I would have no problem with the size, but I would like to see you try and keep that setback, though, because that's quite a party house. A lot of noise there at night and it carries and you've got neighbors, because the lots are fairly small within less than an acre. So that would be the only concern I'd have. I have no problem with the size of the setback. MR. KUHL-Yes, but after dusk comes we get quiet. We don't get noisy. MR. HENKEL-It carries. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't think it's going to matter, three feet or four feet. I could understand 75 or 100, but the neighbors have to be okay with where it's located. MR. BERGMAN-They are. MR. JACKOSKI-So 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? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I can tell you I had two phone calls from neighbors that were within the 500 feet, but they were definitely not immediate neighbors, and they just were questioning its location and the project, and I explained it to them and they had no issues with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Laura. MR. HENKEL-So what are we deciding on? What's going to be the size of it? MR. MC CABE-It sounds like we're just deciding on the setback, relief of six feet seven inches. MR. HENKEL-So is he staying within the size of the 500 feet or is he still going to stay with the same project size? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay as presented, but it's up to you guys. MR. URRICO-No, he's offering it, and I would like to see it reduced. MR. BERGMAN-We could do that, to meet the 500 foot. MR. JACKOSKI-Say 500 feet and how much farther from the back lot line are you willing to go? MR. BERGMAN-I'd like to keep the 13 foot 5. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. Okay. So we're taking off the variance associated with the extra 40 square feet and we're going to remain with all the setback variance requests. Okay. MR. HENKEL-That's fair. MR. JACKOSKI-Do I need to poll the whole Board, or are we okay with all that? MR. MC CABE-I'm okay. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. JACKOSKI-Have heard that, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval as noted. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William E. Bergman. Applicant proposes construction of a 540 sq. ft. poolhouse and associated site work for a pool. Project includes new septic for poolhouse and other alterations to an existing home. The applicant requests relief from the maximum allowable size for an accessory structure and from minimum property line setback requirements. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement —Courthouse Estates SUB SFR30 1982 zoning/MDR zone The applicant proposes a 540 sq. ft. pool house that is proposed to be located 13 ft. 5 in from the rear property line where a 20 ft. is required. 179-5-020 Accessory sheds—no more than 500 sq. ft. in total on parcels less than 3 acres. The proposed pool house is to be 540 sq. ft. where the maximum size allowed is 500 sq. ft. for lots less than 3 acres. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 21, 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 house will actually improve the situation by putting the pool house in the backyard to the neighboring neighbor to the rear of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. The applicant has reduced the size now to the 500 square foot size. Still wants to keep the basic 13 feet 5 inches from the rear of the property line setback. 3. The requested variance is not considered to be substantial. Many other properties in Courthouse Estates also have pools with similar setbacks. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district created by this project. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not 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; All the neighbors in the immediate area of the property are okay with the project also. 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 268-2016, WILLIAM E. BERGMAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St day of December 2016 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-You heard the motion as stated. You're okay with it? MR. BERGMAN-Yes. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ui m MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. AREA VARIANCE PZ 260-2016 SEQRA TYPE 11 BRIAN OLESEN AGENT(S) TODD GRIMM OWNER(S) FLINTLOCK CORP. ZONING Cl LOCATION 1540 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION TO EXISTING 12,000 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR USE AS AN INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE AND RETAIL FIREARMS STORE. APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,200 SQ. FT. ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT, SIDES, AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR USE AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT. CROSS REF SP PZ 258-2016; SUP PZ 259-2016; BP 2015-375 C/O SPIRIT HALLOWEEN; BP 2014-391 C/O SPIRIT HALLOWEEN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2016 LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288-8-1-13 & 14 SECTION 179-3-040 TODD GRIMM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BRIAN OLESEN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 260-2016, Brian Olesen, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: 1540 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes renovation to existing 12,000 sq. ft. commercial building for use as an indoor shooting range and retail firearms store. Applicant also proposes construction of a 1,200 sq. ft. addition. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum front, sides, and rear setback requirements in the Commercial Intensive Zone. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement Cl zone The applicant proposes a 1,200 sq. ft. addition and the Front is proposed at 53.6 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required, side yard south proposed at 6.5 ft. where 20 ft. is required and rear setback proposed at 16.4 ft. where 25 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 due to the location of the existing building on the site. In addition the interior layout of the existing structure may not be conducive to an alternate arrangement of the shooting tunnels. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 21.4 ft. in the front yard, 13.5 ft. on the side yard, and 8.6 ft. on the rear 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. The applicant has completed a special use permit addressing the criteria for noise and safety for installation and monitoring. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: The applicant proposes the renovation of an existing building and a 1,200 sq. ft. addition for the operation of an indoor shooting range with retail sales and training classrooms. The applicant has provided a survey showing the addition location and the interior arrangement of the building." ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. OLESEN-My name is Brian Olesen, the property owner. MR. GRIMM-Todd Grimm, the agent. MR. JACKOSKI-It's fairly straightforward. Maybe you could give us just a little bit more information about the addition, how it encroaches and all that good stuff. MR. GRIMM-Yes. Basically the industry standard for a pistol range is 25 yards. That would allow NRA competitions to be held there. The Winchester Marksman Program would be able to participate there as well. So at 25 yards is kind of critical to the project and us being able to offer a wide range of different activities and events there. I would note that in terms of the front and rear we're basically mirroring what's already there. The building has currently a 16.4 foot setback on the back. The addition does maintain that 16.4 foot as well as the 53.6 front. So those numbers aren't really changing. I understand that it's because of the addition that we have to apply for the variance. The big number is, of course, on the southern end of the building where that goes down to six and a half feet. We looked at different options for the direction of fire, and that is really the only way that it can be done with that jog in the back of the building, where it narrows down from approximately 80 and it tapers all the way down to about 40. It just really limited it, not to mention there's a drop interior, just about where that bend occurs the elevation drops three feet from, the smaller area is about three feet higher than the lower area. So it just didn't work in the other direction. The slope in the back is what really killed us. It drops off very substantially, very quickly. I believe that they probably even did some fill and what not to get the back side of that building initially stable. MR. JACKOSKI-Have you had discussion with the neighbors to the front about? MR. GRIMM-To the south. That's the billboard company. MR. OLESEN-We reached out to them to a realtor. I believe it's owned by Lange Media, and they are now subleasing to LaMarr, and they, what they'd like to do is, what was offered was to switch properties. We have a billboard at the northern end of the property, subdivide that off, give them a piece there, but they were not interested. MR. JACKOSKI-So they haven't given you support for the current addition being so close to the lot line either. MR. OLESEN-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? Having none, I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TRACY KUEBLER MS. KUEBLER-Hi. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. KUEBLER-Yes. I'm Tracy Kuebler, owner of Pirate Island Daycare which is 1571, right kind of diagonal from the business. So my obvious reason is daycare center and shooting range. Kind of a concern. MR. JACKOSKI-Which is? MS. KUEBLER-As parents maybe not wanting to bring their kids to my business because of that. MR. JACKOSKI-Because of the indoor? MS. KUEBLER-Correct. That I don't think it's a good asset to the area being that it's a family oriented vacation spot as well. MIKE STEVENS ,..„a ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. STEVENS-Mike Stevens. I own the property. I own the former Leo's Lobster which we're planning on re-opening, maybe next year. I own this piece of property and I'm telling you right now I fully believe that you're going to have to make up your mind here whether you're going to have a shooting range. We have a daycare center that was in operation for over 25 years and shut down for four since Leo passed away. She's put her heart and soul and money into it. We're scheduled to open January. The call's coming in now from the public that were going to come there with kids, flatly say we're not bringing our kid there. They're not going to bring a kid there with guns being fired down, a few hundred feet down the road under any condition. Sol can plainly see where we're going to be put in between a rock and a hard place because I'm going to lose a tenant over it, and I'm not going to be happy. So I think it's a great idea for people to go shoot their guns, but I don't think that's the spot for it, and I ask each and every one of you, when you go home, you talk to your significant others and ask them if you had a one year old or two year old, if you would allow them out in that playground which is, which is within spitting distance almost to it and let your kids play around in there while live rounds are being fired. It's just the thought of the thing, safe or not, it's just not going to fly for the business. It's going to kill this business, period. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any other written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no other written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-This has to go through Site Plan Review, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes, they were before the Planning Board last night for the recommendation. MR. JACKOSKI-They saw no significant impacts that they couldn't mitigate. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. GRIMM-1 was just wondering if we could make a few comments in regards to. Back when I started the first process, Brian and I own the range down in Green Island. I started the process in 2013, November. A month and a half later the tragedy at Sandy Hook happened, and I kind of thought this is going to be the end of the project. Green Island is going to want nothing to do with this at this point. At the first public hearing meeting about it Ellen McNulty, the Mayor, stood up and paraphrasing just a little she said to the effect of I personally don't like guns, but I feel it's very important for people who legally own guns to safely go and use their firearms, and I think that kind of speaks volumes to the fact that she didn't like it, didn't like firearms, but was willing to look past her personal, her own beliefs to kind of, you know, have an open mind about the situation. To that, to date we have not had one single complaint. There hasn't been one single complaint filed or issued in the Village of Green Island, either with the police department or the Mayor's office. Additionally there is a daycare in Green Island, in a strip mall, if I had to guess, within 100 yards of the range, and we've had no complaints from them. MR. OLESEN-Well, it's a totally encapsulated system, also, which is, goes through OSHA, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms. So as far as any type of safety issue, there's absolutely none. It's been, that building itself which I've owned for, I believe, three years, is set up in a perfect manner, which if you look at the direction of fire, it has nothing to do with our neighbors except as a billboard. The range in Green Island which was set up in the same way this is, has almost three quarters of a million rounds of ammunition. So I mean as far as a safety concern, there absolutely is none. MR. GRIMM-One of the other concerns that I encountered when I was doing the process in Green Island was a lady felt like this was just going to become a Wild West cowboy town with guys walking down the street with guns slung over their shoulders and open carry. State law prohibits all of that, and that's part of, you know, our target market, everybody shooting pistols. It's the State law. MR. OLESEN-They're licensed by the State. MR. GRIMM-So in terms of people just openly displaying and flashing guns, that sort of interaction. MR. JACKOSKI-So you have to check licenses for people to fire them? So if they were to buy guns at a gun show they couldn't fire them there if they didn't have licenses for them? ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. GRIMM-Yes. So in New York State you have to have a pistol permit issued by your County of residence to even touch a pistol, and what we do in the process in Green Island, even if they're' just coming as a walk in member, they're not joining as a member, we take their driver's license and pistol permit and photocopy that. That gets stapled to their range application so it's on file so that we know that this person is licensed by the State of New York to carry a pistol. There aren't the same requirements for a long gun in New York State. In other words you don't have to be licensed by the State to carry a long gun, which would be a rifle. MR. JACKOSKI-So if people were to come and visit your facility, there could be people coming out of their cars and into your parking lot and guns could be visible as they transport them into the facility? MR. OLESEN-No, that's against State law. MR. JACKOSKI-Long guns? MR. OLESEN-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-How would they get them into your facility? MR. OLESEN-They have to be cased. MR. GRIMM-Either a soft or a hard case. MR. OLESEN-We don't allow long guns to be shot. If you're looking at the retail, which I believe is not going to be a problem to go in there, at the retail level, guns will come in by shell trade and they will be cased. MR. GRIMM-This is a pistol only range. So there will be no rifles. MR. OLESEN-Yes, no long guns come to the actual range itself. MR. KUHL-How about the noise. MR. OLESEN-Totally controlled. MR. KUHL-How? MR. GRIMM-We have ballistic foam, which basically is the same material you'd find in egg crates, cut at pyramids to look like triangles poured horizontally generally across a two by two sheet of it. It's glued to the walls, and what that does is it stops that reverberation, that twang and the boom sound that you hear. It diffuses those wavelengths, and there's also going to be, between the range and the Route 9 side of the building there'll be an additional wall constructed, two by four, two by six, whatever the architect designs and that'll be insulated as well. So that'll additionally. MR. OLESEN-All the walls are poured themselves, block walls. MR. KUHL-But this noise absorbing material, it's the entire wall, or just two foot? MR. GRIMM-No, I'm sorry, the panels that we utilize are just two foot, but, yes, it gets the entire wall. MR. JACKOSKI-So can you hear anything out in your parking lot? MR. GRIMM-To say that you can't hear anything, that would not be true, but to discern what it is, if you were just walking by and didn't know that the facility was an indoor range, you would have a hard time, you wouldn't recognize it as a gunshot. MR. KUHL-What's the decibel rating? MR. GRIMM-Well, in Green Island we couldn't exceed 86 decibels at the property line, and we did that without an issue, and the range there is actually around 20 feet from the property line, and the Village came down and took a sound meter. MR. JACKOSKI-So you think parents dropping their kids off at the daycare facility will hear your facility? ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. GRIMM-Across the street? No, absolutely not. We have a strip mall right next to us in Green Island. There's never been a complaint, and there was some apprehension initially, but, knock on wood, the facility was designed in a way which we've had no problems whatsoever, but, you know, you're talking about a substantial cost, a substantial investment to guarantee that. MR. KUHL-What are your hours of operation, your intended hours of operation? MR. GRIMM-Ten to six. MR. KUHL-Ten a.m. to six p.m.? MR. GRIMM-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did you guys have this previously reviewed by the Town Board? Did they sign off on this? MR. GRIMM-I'm assuming, we were here last night. MRS. MOORE-They came to the Planning Board. The discussion about the Town Board is in reference to allowing a use. So if that's what you're looking for. MR. UNDERWOOD-They approved it, then? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-So it's now going to the Town Board? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. KUHL-They got a use approval? MRS. MOORE-So in the Code now it says for an indoor shooting range you need to go through Site Plan and Special Use Permits. So the applicant has already done the first part, the Planning Board recommendation, but there's requirements under the Special Use Permit that outline air quality, noise control and monitoring of the noise control and safety concerns. So those are three items that were highlighted, but there's other items. MR. JACKOSKI-But the Town didn't specifically approve this project? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-They simply modified the Code to allow this kind of project. MRS. MOORE-That's what I'm trying to say, yes. MR. FREER-So how many lanes are in this range? MR. GRIMM-Seventeen. MR. FREER-Okay. So you could get your 25 yards for almost all of them by just renovating the building and losing that angle where you don't have the, where say on your chart, the ones toward the bottom you could extend that and get your 25 yards without having the addition on the backside. Right? Because you're asking us to allow for a variance to within 6.5 feet of that property line. Right? So did you look at how many lanes you could get if you didn't have? MR. GRIMM-In other words if you turned it from the street to the back of the property? MR. FREER-No, to just move into retail for 14 or 13 lanes, turn your retail a little. Do you know what I'm saying? Instead of asking for the variance, you'd lose a couple of the ones up high, right? Because you'd back up into the wall. You could fit most of it in there MR. GRIMM-The handicap ramp there makes that difficult, and the air lock system. You have to basically enter the range from the side because of the way that the air, the fresh clean air blows into the range. It comes in on that back wall. MR. HENKEL-So what are you saying, you want them to fire to the north instead of the south? ••a ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. JACKOSKI-No, he's just saying slide the lanes, just get rid of the addition and kick it all to the left and reduce his retail space. Right? MR. FREER-Right. But you'd lose a couple of the ones on top. Right? Because you couldn't slide them all the way back. MR. GRIMM-Yes, correct. MR. OLESEN-1 see what you're saying. Exchange the buffer from the front to the rear and come across on the, where that jog is straight back. MR. FREER-Yes. You're shooting this way. Correct? MR. OLESEN-Correct. MR. FREER-Okay. So what I'm saying, if you lost the last couple of things on top, you could slide it back, get your 25 feet and re-design your retail space. Twenty-five yards, I'm sorry, you know, maintain your, I understand your issue with wanting to be NRA sort of licensed, you know, qualified. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you stagger, and I'm just going to say the first group of, I'm going to call it the bottom seven or eight lanes, could you take those lanes and shift them to the left, thus reducing your addition as it encroaches on the south line, so that you start your addition where the first gray line is, where the pointer is, somewhere in that vicinity, so you have less relief. MR. FREER-That makes sense, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Quite frankly I think with a billboard property next door, the 16 feet, I don't know that I care that we're that close to the property line. MR. OLESEN-One of the things we have to be concerned with, and we've looked at this many different ways, was air flow and air quality. Because we are tested by OSHA regularly, which we have to, at our expense, submit the test and the only issue we have is how the building comes at an angle in order to get correct air flow where we can give the licensing services a guarantee. When Carey's came in and went to the building, that's the way they suggested the layout for the absolute cleanest air quality, which, believe it or not, the air quality is actually cleaner because this system cost $440,000. Very expensive but it's state of the art, and that's one of the biggest things that we have to be conscious is that we're always within that realm with OSHA. MR. GRIMM-And two things. That area on the west that I think it might be labeled as a lounge, that kind of created an additional buffer to the Route 9 side to help soak up noise. It's a dead air space. Dead air space is the best noise absorbing media. In addition to the block wall with the wood frames, insulated wall to the other side of it, and again, you have to enter the range from one of the sides. It can't be from the rear because they have what's called a radio diffuser which would go in like the upper corner of the building and it's a half moon shaped device that the fresh air blows out, and so that basically creates an enter tidal wave of air coming out which basically sweeps all of the contaminants out with it. So to put a door where you would come in to the back at the corner there would disrupt that and there wouldn't be able to get any kind of air flow. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know if the plaza down at your other facility has any kind of issues with attracting tenants because of your business down there? MR. GRIMM-They're full. MR. OLESEN-Especially this property. That property is right on the roadside, on one of the main thoroughfares in Green Island, as far as the location. This property is sunk down. That's the reason we purchased it, it was absolutely ideal for the purpose and how it's set up. It's not ideal as far as visibility from the road, but for my purpose, it's kind of tough to beat. MR. GRIMM-1 think initially in the process, when it might have been John Strough when he reached out to Sean Ward and Ellen McNulty, Sean especially was very complimentary to the additional business that our customers were bringing to Green Island. There was an article in the Post Star. MR. JACKOSKI-So maybe The Loft is going to sell some more hamburgers. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 MR. KUHL-No, I mean, the concern that we have to have here is for the neighbors. I mean, and if they have little children, they can't be upset with harsh noises. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, at this point, we've had public hearing. It's open. I'll poll the Board, if you don't mind, to see where the Board's headed, and then I'll either close the public hearing or keep the public hearing open. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I think it's a tough situation. We're dealing with issues beyond the scope of what the Board is tasked with. We're here to voice a judgment on the 1200 square foot addition and the variances that it's causing. So we're tasked with trying to reduce that size in some way, and I would really like to hear an opportunity to reduce the size of that addition in some way so that the variance is not quite as stringent or quite as expansive as it seems to be to me. So right now I'm wavering on saying no. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-For many years in Queensbury the High School sponsored a shooting team, you know, they had a range right down in the cellar of the school, and the only reason that the program doesn't exist in the present time is because they had lead contamination and had to deal with it. So they just ended the program. So I think that, you know, shooting sports have a lot of negativity within the greater community. I think a lot of people that aren't familiar with rifles or guns or hand guns have a real aversion to anything coming into the area, but I think the Town Board, when they looked at this situation here, I think that they looked at the Green Island situation, as you said, and I think there was a balancing here of whether this was an acceptable activity. We're a summer area. There is quite a big demand for shooting sports. We have Dunhams Bay Fish and Game Club, you know, locally, with outdoor shooting, but we haven't had the experience of an indoor range, and I think that, you know, for our purview here this evening is to look at the setback requirements and decide if those are reasonable, and I think with a commercial building set below grade here, if somebody came in and proposed the additions on this building for any other purpose, I don't think we would have a problem approving them going forward and I think that when you guys come in for Site Plan Review with the Planning Board I think they're the ones that are going to listen to you guys that are in opposition to the project, and I think at that point you have to make your case. They have to make their case and the Planning Board is going to be the ultimate decider of whether this is allowed. As far as I'm concerned, I think that in proposing this, it's an expensive proposition going forward, I don't think you would be doing it if you didn't think it was going to be successful, you know, from your standpoint, but at the same time we haven't dealt with this before so it would be up to the Planning Board to figure out whether this is okay or not. So at this point I would be in favor of approving this. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-When I look at it, you know, if it was just a regular building, I would normally approve these setbacks, and so I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, without really doing some research on other firing ranges around the country, which is not really our concern, that's like Mr. Underwood was saying, that's not really our concern, I would, again, like Mr. McCabe's saying about what we're considering here with the setback, I have to agree with them, that's what we're considering, and I think it's needed for this facility to work correctly. So I'd be in support of the way it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it's a good utilization of the building. My concern is the noise for your neighbors, and again, that goes into your Site Plan Review, but for them, there should be some way to measure your other location, too, and even if you have to take them there and show them the noise. The noise, we can't have little children fearful, and, I mean, as presented to us, yes, I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. So I, personally, am not a gun advocate, but in trying to do the minimum Area Variance, my question was how I could possibly achieve it without getting closer to the property line, but, you know, given this discussion, I agree with I think the balancing test that a� ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 apply for us, and they're different than the Planning Board which they're going to have to take that on. I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-So, before I respond, Staff, can you tell me, the retail side of this venture, the gun sale side of this venture, would be allowed regardless of whether or not they had the shooting range there? MRS. MOORE-Yes, through Site Plan Review. It's not a. MR. JACKOSKI-Only through Site Plan Review. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So the fear of people coming in and out, buying guns, all that other stuff, and not necessarily being, daycare center, parents having concern of that, that retail environment could exist regardless of what we do this evening. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm in favor of the project. So, Roy, I'll go back to you because you kind of left it up in the air. MR. URRICO-Yes. You guys are pretty smart. So I think I could go along with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-I'll make that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, thank you, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brian Olesen. Applicant proposes renovation to existing 12,000 sq. ft. commercial building for use as an indoor shooting range and retail firearms store. Applicant also proposes construction of a 1,200 sq. ft. addition. The applicant requests relief from the minimum front, sides, and rear setback requirements in the Commercial Intensive Zone. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement Cl zone The applicant proposes a 1,200 sq. ft. addition and the Front is proposed at 53.6 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required, side yard south proposed at 6.5 ft. where 20 ft. is required and rear setback proposed at 16.4 ft. where 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 21, 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. This property is located below the road level and off in the back and as long as the applicants are going to be putting noise diffusing materials inside it shouldn't change the character of the neighborhood. 2. Several feasible alternatives were discussed about reducing the addition but my belief is that if that addition is there, there should be some additional buffers on the side where they've said they're going to allow. They're not going to move it towards the wall. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. They're going along with the existing property lines and they're not encroaching on any more of the offsets. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty might be deemed 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 260-2016, BRIAN OLESEN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21St day of December 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck with the Planning Board. MR. OLESEN-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-So we've been at this for an hour and forty minutes. Do we want to take a break? Take a quick break. Do we want to change up the agenda and put this next one last? DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES THE LAST HOUR OF THE MEETING WAS UNTRANSCRIBABLE WHAT FOLLOWS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE REST OF THE MEETING AREA VARIANCE PZ 266-2016 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM A. MASON AGENT(S) WILLIAM A. MASON OWNER(S) RICHARD A. MASON ZONING WR TAX MAP NO. 10 SENECA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 768 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION AND 56 SQ. FT. FOR TWO ENTRY LANDINGS TO AN EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT & FLOOR AREA) HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND SETBACKS. PROJECT IS PART OF TAKUNDEWIDE MASTER PLAN. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION IN A CEA. CROSS REF BP 94-572 SEPTIC ALTERATION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 21, 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.05 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-25 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 WILLIAM MASON, PRESENT (Michelle Hayward sat in for Steve Jackoski as he recused himself) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ 266-2016, William A. Mason, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: 10 Seneca Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 768 sq. ft. second story addition and 56 sq. ft. for two entry landings to an existing 768 sq. ft. (footprint& floor area) home. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability, floor area ratio, and setbacks. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement WR zone The applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story over the existing 768 sq. ft. main floor. The new construction includes two landing entryways where the west at 32 sq. ft. is 6.7 ft. from the property line and the second landing at 24 sq. ft. on the south side is proposed to be 5.5 ft. where a 10 ft. setback is required on all sides of the property. In addition relief is requested for permeability where 64 % is proposed where 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 68% based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited as a result of existing conditions and nature of the variance request. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the entryway on the west property line 3.3 ft. and on the south entryway is 4.5 ft. The permeability relief is in excess 11 % and the floor area also in excess of 46%. In regards to the Floor area —the applicant has explained the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres is common area for the association members —in addition the master plan indicates the 18.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 2nd story addition of 768 sq. ft. and two entry landings. The project occurs in the Takundewide cottage development off of Cleverdale Rd. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted an MOU with Takundewide HOA outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other cottages on the site where the increase floor area is the proposed 2nd floor mirroring the style of the other housing. The submission includes photos of the existing home and the floor plans with an elevation of the proposed addition." RESOLUTION The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William A. Mason. The applicant proposes construction of 768 sq. ft. second story addition and 56 sq. ft. for two entry landings to an existing 768 sq. ft. (footprint & floor area) home. The new construction includes two landing entryways where the west at 32 sq. ft. is 6.7 ft. from the property line and the second landing at 24 sq. ft. on the south side is proposed to be 5.5 ft. where a 10 ft. setback is required on all sides of the property. In addition relief is requested for permeability where 64 % is proposed where 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 68% based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed. Relief requested for permeability, floor area ratio, and setbacks. The project is located in the Takundewide cottage development. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Takundewide Homeowners Association (HOA) outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other cottages on the site where the increase floor area is the proposed 2nd floor mirroring the style of the other housing. The Board reviewed the submission that included photos of the existing home and the floor plans with an elevation of the proposed addition. In regards to the Floor area — the applicant has explained the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres is common area for the association members —in addition the master plan indicates the 18.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 21, 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 ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ 266-2016, WILLIAM A. MASON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 21St day of December 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE SIGN VARIANCE PZ 261-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AJ SIGNS AGENT(S) AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) MICHAEL AND SUSAN KAJDASZ ZONING Cl LOCATION 156 QUAKER ROAD (R.O.W. WARREN COUNTY DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE EXISTING 50 SQ. FT. MONUMENT SIGN WITH A NEW 48.1 SQ. FT. SIGN THAT IS 12.8 FT. TALL. SIGN IS TO BE PLACED IN RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE THE OLD SIGN WAS LOCATED WITH THE ADDITIONAL 8.4 INCHES TO BE ON OWNERS PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR SUCH SIGN AND A SECOND SIGN. PROPOSED SIGN WILL HAVE A ZERO LOT LINE SETBACK. CROSS REF DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS: WARREN COUNTY ROAD 254 PERMIT NO. 1617 EXPIRATION DATE 8/30/2016; BOTH 87-2016 FREESTANDING SIGN; BOTH 88-2016 WALL SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.55 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-55 SECTION 179-4-020 TOM WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ 261-2016, AJ Signs, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: 156 Quaker Road (R.O.W. Warren County Dept. of Public Works) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace existing 50 sq. ft. monument sign with a new 48.1 sq. ft. sign that is 12.8 ft. tall. Sign is to be placed in right-of-way where the old sign was located with the additional 8.4 inches to be on owner's property. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum required setbacks for such sign and a second sign. Proposed sign will have a zero lot line setback. Section 140-Signage Cl zone The applicant proposes to install a 48.1 sq. ft. sign that is to be located 17.4 ft. at the front property line to the road. In addition the sign will extend 8.4 inches onto the owner's property. The sign exceeds the 45 sq. ft. maximum allowed and does not meet the 15 ft. setback from the front property line. The applicant has received a Warren County DPW work permit to so a new sign cannot be any closer to the road as the current sign. Sign width total is 8.5 ft. In addition the site has an existing sign for Key Bank and this would be a second sign on the site. 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 the neighborhood are anticipated. The applicant is removing the current sign and replacing with a new sign. 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 sign size and location. In regards to location the site is adjacent to the bike bridge and the applicant expressed concern on visibility for west bound traffic. ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the size of sign is 3.1 sq. ft. in excess. Relief is requested to have two signs were only one is allowed. Also requested is the placement of the sign extending into the right of way at 17.4 ft. where relief is 14.3 ft. in excess plus 17.6 ft. onto the row. 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 physical or 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 to update the signage on the site for St Peters Health Partners, Albany Cardiology and CWI Day services site. The sign will is proposed to be located in the same location as the previous sign with a larger width and monument instead of a pole. The applicant intends to maintain the existing Key Bank sign as is. The submission shows the location of the signage and type of signage." RESOLUTION The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ Signs, Agent for Michael and Susan Kajdasz for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to replace existing 50 sq. ft. monument sign with a new 48.1 sq. ft. sign that is 12.8 ft. tall. Sign is to be placed in right-of-way where the old sign was located with the additional 8.4 inches to be on owner's property. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum required setbacks for such sign and a second sign. Proposed sign will have a zero lot line setback. Section 140-Signage Cl zone The applicant proposes to install a 48.1 sq. ft. sign that is to be located 17.4 ft. at the front property line to the road. In addition the sign will extend 8.4 inches onto the owner's property. The sign exceeds the 45 sq. ft. maximum allowed and does not meet the 15 ft. setback from the front property line. The applicant has received a Warren County DPW work permit to so a new sign cannot be any closer to the road as the current sign. Sign width total is 8.5 ft. In addition the site has an existing sign for Key Bank and this would be a second sign on the site. SEQR Type: Unlisted Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ 261-2016 AJ Signs, Agent for Michael and Susan Kajdasz 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St. day of December 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 21, 2016; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE PZ 261-2016 AJ SIGNS, AGENT FOR MICHAEL AND SUSAN KAJDASZ, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 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; 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 21St day of December 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE USE VARIANCE PZ 264-2016 SEQRA TYPE II MH IMPERIAL HOMES — GREGORY T. HEWLETT OWNER(S) MH IMPERIAL HOMES — GREGORY T. HEWLETT ZONING MDR LOCATION 128 SUNNYSIDE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 16 FT. BY 68 FT. MOBILE HOME ON PARCEL THAT IS NOT WITHIN A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT AND OUTSIDE OF MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REF RC 754-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 055 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-55 SECTION GREGORY T. HEWLETT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance PZ 264-2016, MH Imperial Homes — Gregory T. Hewlett, Meeting Date: December 21, 2016 "Project Location: 128 Sunnyside Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 16 ft. by 68 ft. mobile home on parcel that is not within a Mobile Home Overlay District. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from placement of a mobile home in the MDR zoning district and outside of a Mobile Home Overlay zone. Section mobile home 179-4-020 —mobile home overlay district The applicant proposes to place a mobile home on a parcel that is not within the mobile home overlay district Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has indicated the property was purchase in 2004 for $38,000 and sold in 2015 for $28,000. The letter provided by the Real Estate Sales Associate explained the average market listing is 135 days and the property has exceeded this by four times the amount of time (540 +/- days). The site was marketed for a 1,350 sq. ft. to-build ranch home at$211,992. 2. Whether the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The applicant has supplied information from a Real Estate Sales Associate who has suggested the site be as ui m uimuiuim III ur '' VIII 6 marketed for a manufactured home. The Sales Associate has indicated the property has been on the market for 17 months at a competitive price and potential buyers became disinterested after seeing the surrounding neighborhood. Noting the neighborhood consisted of manufactured homes and some small unimproved home that had excess wear and tear. 3. That the requested Use Variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the surrounding neighborhood contains smaller homes and includes a pre- existing manufactured home. The applicant has explained that construction of a new home or placement of a modular home would exceed the market value of the existing neighborhood. The applicant has listed the allowed uses in the zone and the viability where most uses would not be supported by the lot size and specific residential uses (stick built or modular) would require a higher valuation than the property worth. 4. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a 16 x 68 sq. ft. manufactured home on the site where the previous mobile had been removed from the site. The applicant has explained the neighborhood consists of smaller homes and granted the use variance would allow for the placement of the mobile home on the site and associated septic and well." RESOLUTION The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from MH Imperial Homes — Gregory T. Hewlett for a variance of Section(s) 179-4-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes placement of a 16 ft. by 68 ft. mobile home on parcel that is not within a Mobile Home Overlay District. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from placement of a mobile home in the MDR zoning district and outside of a Mobile Home Overlay zone. Section mobile home 179-4-020 —mobile home overlay district The applicant proposes to place a mobile home on a parcel that is not within the mobile home overlay district. Applicant withdrew application: no further action is required by the Board. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2017 MOTION TO APPOINT ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2017, Introduced by Steve Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21St day of December 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico MOTION TO APPOINT MICHAEL MC CABE FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2017, Introduced by Steve Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 21 st day of December 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ui m Steven Jackoski, Chairman