Loading...
04-19-2017 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-23-2017 David P. Discenza 2. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-18 Area Variance Z-AV-25-2017 DDDJ Enterprises 5. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.13 & 308.12-1-7.2 Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC 15. Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55; 58, and 61 Area Variance Z-AV-24-2017 Chris Carte 22. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-5 Area Variance Z-AV-27-2017 James R. Glendening 26. Tax Map No. 297.18-1-1 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JIM UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to begin this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Our agenda this evening is on the back table. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite an easy process. There is an explanation of it in the back, but basically we'll call each applicant to the small table here. Roy will read the application into the record. The applicant will add anything they'd like to add at that time. The Board will ask questions. When there is a public hearing scheduled, and for everything this evening there is a public hearing scheduled, we will open the public hearing, seek public comment, leave the public hearing as appropriate, poll the Board, see where we're going with the application and then take action accordingly. So we have some housekeeping matters to deal with first this evening, and I'll start with the March 22" approval of meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 22, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 22ND, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 1911 day of April, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda this evening under housekeeping is approval of the meeting minutes of March 29th March 29, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 29th,2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 19" day of April, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good news for everyone here this evening is there is no Old Business for the Board to attend to. So we'll start right away with New Business. We'll start with David Discenza, Area Variance No. Z-AV-23-2017. It is a Type II SEAR. It is located at 3 Stevens Road, Ward 4. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-23-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 DAVID P. DISCENZA OWNER(SJ DAVID AND MICHELLE DISCENZA ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 STEVENS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WHERE 3 UNITS RECEIVED APPROVAL. PREVIOUS APPROVAL IN 1991 FOR A DUPLEX AND IN 1992 FOR A THIRD UNIT. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THE SITE OR BUILDING. CROSS REF P-SP-24-2017; SP 35- 91 DUPLEX; SP 4-92 FOR 3RD UNIT; BP 91-461; BP 91-462 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20448 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVID DISCENZA, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-23-2017, David P. Discenza, Meeting Date: April 19, 2017 "Project Location: Stevens Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 4-unit apartment building where 3 units received approval. Previous approval in 1991 for a duplex and in 1992 for a third unit. No changes are proposed to the site or building. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from density in a MDR zone of 2 acres per unit. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant proposes to maintain a 4- unit apartment building where 8 ac in the MDR zone would be required and the parcel is 2.29 ac. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the 4t" unit has existed since 1992. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 5.71 ac. 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 the environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain a 4 unit apartment building where current regulations of the MDR zone require a minimum of 2 ac per unit if not connect to Town sewer and water. The plans provided are from the 1992 submission materials and is the same as the recent photo from real property file. The applicant proposes no changes to the building or site." MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. MR. DISCENZA-Good evening. Dave Discenza from 14 Chippewa Circle, and I am seeking the variance as it clearly states. I'm not proposing to make any changes to the property. I've owned the property for 13 years and I recently was I the process of listing it for sale and that's when it came to light that only three units had been approved for that particular property. When I purchased the property back in 2003 it was assessed as a four unit by the Town, and I believe in checking with the Assessor's Office it's been assessed as a four unit since 1993. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-So you didn't make the conversion yourself? MR. DISCENZA-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is it currently fully occupied the building? MR. DISCENZA-There's currently one unit open, and the reason being why I haven't filled it is because I'm listing it for sale. I have had a couple of people that are interested in owner occupied. So I have not listed, you know, I have not filled that unit, but the other three units have been, they're occupied. The one unit in question has actually been occupied for I believe about seven and a half years. MR. UNDERWOOD-So are you going to have to subdivide to sell it or are you going to keep it all as one contiguous lot with the other buildings down there? MR. DISCENZA-No. It's all one, it's the four unit plus the four bay garage. Yes, and I own the driveway, where Stevens Road ends, I own the access, I think I own 50 feet on each side of the access. MR. HENKEL-All four units on separate utilities, or are they sharing? MR. DISCENZA-No, all four units are on separate utilities. They share, I provide the heat for the building. There's two furnaces in the building. MR. HENKEL-I was going to say, I was two gas meters. MR. DISCENZA-Right, and those are for the furnaces. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. DISCENZA-1 pay the heat in the building. One furnace heats one side and the other furnace heats the other side, up and down. MR. HENKEL-I guess this would be a Staff question, too. So that's been approved and it passes the Code for four units and fire and all that? MRS. MOORE-The fourth unit will be inspected during this process. If approval is received to have that fourth unit,that fourth unit will be inspected. There hasn't been any outstanding issues connected. MR. HENKEL-You're saying they were considered a four unit back in? MR. DISCENZA-1993. MRS. MOORE-Yes, so I'll explain that in the minutes, when it went before the Planning Board, the applicant had had an application physically for four units. During the meeting of that, of the four units,they verbally said I only need three. So the Planning Board said three. So the original application said four. The Board gave them approval for three because the applicant only asked for three at that time. How it became a fourth unit, there's no record of it becoming a fourth unit under a site plan review process. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here for the public hearing? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, I just didn't read the motion in from the Planning Board. Based on its limited review it did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was seconded by David Deeb on April 18, 2017 and approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll leave the public hearing open. I'll start polling the Board. I'll start with Michelle. MR. UNDERWOOD-She's not on tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. We'll start with Jim. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don't think there's going to be any significant change from what it's been. I mean, the only question I would put to Staff is, you know, it looks like it has three separate units for septic on there, you know, with a fourth unit I don't know if that triggers anything, but there doesn't appear to have been any issues with that to date. So I don't think I would have any problem re- approving that you have four units in that. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with what Jim says. I mean, it's at the end of the road and it looks like it's been operating like this for a long time. So I'd have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support this variance. It meets the criteria. It's not really changing the character of the neighborhood certainly, and it sounds like it's more clean up. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-It is quite a bit of relief they're asking for. They only have 2.29 acres and the requirement eight acres, but I would say as long as there's no problem with the septic, if the building can take the four units, I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 don't have a problem with the project. I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 guess I'm in agreement with the rest of the Board. I'm just glad that the fourth unit will get reviewed at some point here. It seemed like it missed that review process the last time. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Okay. I'll 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 David P. Discenza. Applicant proposes to maintain a 4-unit apartment building where 3 units received approval. Previous approval in 1991 for a duplex and in 1992 for a third unit. No changes are proposed to the site or building. The applicant requests relief from density in a MDR zone of 2 acres per unit. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant proposes to maintain a 4- unit apartment building where 8 ac in the MDR zone would be requires and the parcel is 2.29 ac. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017; 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. We're simply maintaining the neighborhood as it exists. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but are not considered reasonable, again, since the property already exists. 3. The requested variance could be seen as substantial but not really because, again, it's existed in this form for quite a period of time. 4. There is certainly not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall 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 Z- AV-23-2017, DAVID P. DISCENZA, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of April, 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any conditioning that's necessary, Staff, for compliance with the septic? MRS. MOORE-The applicant actually goes back before the Planning Board. If you wish to have it a condition, I've already talked to the applicant, I've talked to Dave Hatin, so it will be addressed, and my understanding is it's in working operation at this time. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you so much. The next item on the agenda this evening is DDDJ Enterprises, Area Variance No. Z-AV-25-2017, a Type II SEQRA. It is located as Lot 3, West Drive — of Luzerne Road in Ward 4. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-25-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 DDDJ ENTERPRISES AGENT(SJ ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(SJ DDDJ ENTERPRISES ZONING CLI LOCATION LOT 3,WEST DRIVE—OFF LUZERNE ROAD (DKC HOLDING, INC.);240 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,000 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED POLE BARN FOR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL STORAGE FOR AN ALREADY IN USE CONTRACTOR'S YARD. PROJECT INCLUDES ADDITIONAL SITE CLEARING FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE, A NEW ACCESS ROAD FROM LUZERNE ROAD THROUGH AND EASEMENT WITH ADJOINING LOTS 308.124-7.2 AND 308.124-7.12. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS ON WEST DRIVE PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A CONTRACTOR'S YARD. SITE PLAN REVIEW MODIFICATION OF PARCEL 308.124-7.12 FOR EASEMENT ACCESS. CROSS REF P-SP-26-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 5.15 ACRES AND 6.65 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.124-7.2; 308.124-7.12 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL & DAVID HOWARD,JR., REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-25-2017, DDDJ Enterprises, Meeting Date: April 19, 2017 "Project Location: Lot 3,West Drive— off Luzerne Road (DKC Holdings, Inc.) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for equipment and material storage for an already in use contractor's yard. Project includes additional site clearing for outside storage, a new access road from Luzerne Road through an easement with adjoining lots 308.12- 1-7.2 and 308.124-7.12. Relief requested from road frontage requirements on West Drive. Planning Board: Site Plan review required for construction of a new building and development of a contractors yard. Site Plan Review modification of parcel 308.12-1-7.12 for easement access. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the development of lot on West Drive. 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant proposes to use an existing 5.18 ac parcel with 71.55 ft. of road frontage where 100 ft. is required. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have minor to no impact on the neighboring properties as the access on West Drive will not be used for construction traffic. The applicant has indicated all construction equipment will be utilizing the 40 ft. easement from Luzerne Road. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The project proposes two entrances where the West Drive is for office staff usage and the Luzerne Road access is for construction and associated equipment traffic. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests approval of a contractor storage yard and construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for equipment and material storage for contractors' yard. The project includes additional site clearing for outside storage and a new access road from Luzerne Rd. through an easement with the adjoining lots." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. This motion was adopted on April 18, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is David Howard, Jr., a partner in DDDJ Enterprises. The property is at the rear of the Luzerne Road storage. It's a four lot subdivision that was done some time ago in the CLI zone. There was recently a boundary line adjustment that was done for the storage, that there's another storage building that's being placed behind the mini storage, and when that boundary line adjustment was done, that's what created this road frontage issue. When the initial four lot subdivision was done, it had enough road frontage on West Drive, but when the boundary line adjustment was done, that created a deficiency. So we're here for that road frontage deficiency on West Drive. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-What's the amount of traffic that's going to be added to West Drive? MR. HALL-Little to none. MR. KUHL-Yes, I got little to none. Give me numbers. Little doesn't work. We have big trucks, little trucks, big cars, little cars. MR. HALL-Pickup trucks and small cars only. Any other construction activities are going to take place going through the easement drive. There may be one or two trips a day with a pickup truck or a small car, but for the most part, and most of the guys coming in to pick up the construction equipment are going to come in on the easement road to pick up their stuff and they'll back out. MR. KUHL-I mean, if we had to write that in, if you get approved, that would be a good thing. I mean, you're saying that no big trucks are going to go on West Drive. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. HALL-Correct. MR. KUHL-You're going to just have automobiles or small trucks. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Everything will be parked inside the perimeter of that property? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. HENKEL-How high is, I notice you've got topsoil and that. How high is that going to be? Is that going to be a huge pile, like 30 feet high? MR. HALL-Right now it's about, what, 10, 12 feet maybe? I think that's about it. I mean, the topography of the land doesn't really, I mean, this is really for them to stockpile material to take it to another job site or to bring stuff from a job site, drop it off and then use it at another time. MR. HENKEL-Are there any rules on that, what height can be allowed in an area like that? MRS. MOORE-1 mean, it's an industrial zoned area. MR. HENKEL-But like we have height variances for a house of 28 feet. MRS. MOORE-Not that I'm aware of. MR. HALL-No, but there are some things that have to be identified as far as stormwater goes. Any of those piles that get left like that for any certain period of time are supposed to be, you know, they have to be maintained, to be kept from runoff. So we've taken care of all of that in our stormwater management plan. MR. HENKEL-Are there going to be any repairs going on in that garage or anything? MR. HALL-No, this is just for the storage of the vehicles. Just to get them out of the weather so that they're not outside. That's the biggest thing. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing that's scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is not. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy? MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. I didn't see him. Welcome, Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'm Michael O'Connor, for the record. I represent Coby McDonald, who, two years ago, bought the lot immediately west, or east of the lot over which this easement is going to run. At that time, Mr. McDonald obtained a right of first refusal to actually buy the lot on which they propose to put the easement. Within the last week was the first notice that Mr. McDonald had that there was apparently a contract between I believe Mr. Howard and Mr. Clute, which would give us the trigger for our right of first refusal. We don't know the terms of that. We've had some problems with that. I will tell you that over the last two, three days we've had a number of telephone calls back and forth between different parties. I have not spoken directly with Mr. Howard or to Mr. Clute, but I have talked to people who have spoken on their behalf, and I think we have resolved our differences, but I would like to have some conditions put on your approval that would assure us that the resolution would stay in place. Ultimately I think what will happen is Mr. McDonald will complete the purchase of that lot over which the easement runs, and he will allow a permanent easement to Mr. Howard or whoever's interested in having that easement for that construction traffic to run along the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) side of the line, the side of their line. In fact, I think the road or the easement will be entirely within the setback from that sideline. So it shouldn't interfere significantly with the development of the lot itself. We had some concerns because of the requirements of separation of driveways that we would have a problem with, to establish an independent driveway for that lot, for the activity that would go on, the principle activity, that would go on that lot, but we've been assured that there is no problem with that separation. The conditions that we have agreed to with those that we've spoken to is that the easement will be non-exclusive. So that in the future if we have to use that for access to the lot after we purchase the lot we can use that easement ourselves, but the easement will be temporary. It will cease to exist as of 4/18/2019 without further action by anyone, and that's to ensure the fact that we do come to a conclusion that allows us to purchase the property. In fact, I think they have to go back to the Planning Board for site plan approval, and we hope to even have it done before we go back to the Planning Board. The waiver that Mr. McDonald is giving at this time to non-exercise of his right of first refusal on the contract to convey the easement will not in any way effect the existence of continuance of his right of first refusal which would remain in full force and effect to purchase the lot. Those are three conditions that they seem to agree to. We're willing to agree to them, and I think we've come to a resolution that we're going to be able to, everybody will come out of this with something of what they want. So I'd like to have you impose those conditions as part of your approval. MR. JACKOSKI-May I ask if the people that you represent are not able to come to terms and create a permanent easement after the temporary easement expires, what happens to all that construction traffic? MR. O'CONNOR-They'll have to go on West Drive. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Or you can condition your thing that the variance that you're allowing will also expire. That will also make them come to a point where they've got to come to this terms, either that or table this and let us get the agreement in place. They apparently have a contract. They apparently have triggered this. They aren't going to be able to proceed if they don't settle this thing. MR. JACKOSKI-I recognize that, but I don't want to be in a position as granting any relief and finding out that what we all relied on heavily during our discussion was where is that traffic going to be, and how much is there going to be, and if there's a chance that it's going to end up being a different traffic scenario on West, then I'm not going to be in favor of this. MR. O'CONNOR-Then I'd ask you to table it for a month and see if we can resolve it. Mr. McDonald who has an interest in the property is not an applicant. He has not signed the application. I think the signature of everybody who has interest in the property is required for a variance application. MRS. MOORE-My understanding it's the owner. Just because they have a contract doesn't mean. MR. O'CONNOR-You can ask your counsel that. MR. JACKOSKI-Anything else, Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else in the audience that I missed? MR. UNDERWOOD-Steve, I would just make a point of reference for the Board members, and say that, you know, I think in this instance here we're being asked for a specific amount of relief, and that's for relief from the road frontage requirements. We don't have anything to do with the outcome of what you're saying here. I mean, I think that, you know, we could grant relief based upon the fact that we feel at this time we're justified in doing that, but I think that in lieu of this sort of secondary problem that exists here, it looks to me like that's something that they have to iron out. They're not going to proceed with a need for this road if they don't build anything back there. In other words, if it doesn't come to fruition. In other words, like we're not going to hold them up. MR. JACKOSKI-My opinion is that if we don't have concrete ways of diverting the traffic and splitting the traffic between construction and light truck cars, it's all going to be construction and cars down that one road, there's not enough road frontage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. So why don't we get you to clarify that. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. HALL-Yes, I've spoken with both Larry Clute and Matt Steves today regarding this. Matt Steves being the surveyor that's involved with it. They both assured me that they've spoken with, their attorneys have spoken with Mike. They've all agreed in principle to what's going on with it,to granting the 40 foot easement and making it into, eventually into a permanent, but it's just a matter of dividing up that line and making sure that that line winds up in an area where that would become a permanent easement at some point. MR. UNDERWOOD-In other words, he's asking us to do a temporary. MR. HALL-What they're proposing is a two year, it has a twilight to it, but as Michael said, by the time we get back to Planning on May 2nd, that should all be in place. MR. UNDERWOOD-So could we approve it in lieu of the Planning Board following through on approving it? We would grant the relief necessary based upon the Planning Board's affirmation of the approvals for the project to proceed. MR. URRICO-Wouldn't they have to come back? I mean, if we granted them today and the situation changes, then they would have to come back to us anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-How can I grant something that is not a definite? MR. URRICO-But we don't know that. I mean, they're the current owner, right? So we can only go by what we have in front of us, which is relief for the frontage requirements. MR. JACKOSKI-In my opinion I'm being asked to relief on a right of way that is not guaranteed. Period. MR. MC CABE-Well, would you guys be willing to accept those three conditions? MR. HALL-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-What happens after the one year expiration of that temporary and they don't come to terms? Then we're right back in not having it in place. They're going to put a gate up and block them from using it and then all the traffic goes down West. MR. HALL-Well, that was my discussion with Larry today, and he's assured me that that won't wind up being the case. MR. JACKOSKI-How could Larry guarantee us that? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-Then bring me the paperwork, go out there right now and get it all taken care of and come back in a half an hour and we'll discuss the application then. You can't guarantee me. MRS. MOORE-Right. So the application before us, the understanding is that it's the relief for the road frontage but part of it is that the truck traffic is going off this easement and it's permanent, it's not temporary. The application before you is for a permanent easement. MR. JACKOSKI-There isn't one. MRS. MOORE-But that's part of the project. Part of the project is creating this permanent easement. MR. JACKOSKI-But you're asking, it's like you're saying I'm going to do a project but I don't have the rights to it. I don't have the rights to the land. MR. HENKEL-The project has changed. MRS. MOORE-No, the project is still. MR. JACKOSKI-The Board members can do what they wish, but to me I'm struggling with it. So is there any more Board member discussion before we? MR. MC CABE-Or the other thing. Would you guys consider coming back in a month? MR. HALL-It puts us behind the eight ball. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. MC CABE-1 see. MR. HALL-We've already strung this out. We had our initial meeting with the Planning Board, correct me if I'm wrong, January. MRS. MOORE-December or January. MR. HALL-December or January. MR. JACKOSKI-And why wasn't the property line adjustment thing in front of us? MR. HALL-It didn't come up to, the boundary line adjustment? MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. HALL-That I don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-It's not a simple lot line adjustment between residential properties. It's a commercial property light industrial. Why didn't that come in front of us? MRS. MOORE-It was a lot line adjustment. I don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-Commercial lot line adjustment? I understand Craig can approve lot line adjustments if there's no problems with the properties on residential, but I didn't understand they could do it commercially. MRS. MOORE-1 apologize. I don't know why that wouldn't have come before you. MR.JACKOSKI-Let me ask Board members for their, I'll poll the Board and see where we're going with it. MR. FREER-So you had a comment, sir? AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 forgot it. MR. HALL-But the reason that we're here now is because this didn't come up. We sat with the Planning Board and did it as an informational item, just discussion item with them, and then we put together the whole application during that process and came up with the frontage issue. That's why we weren't here initially. MR. JACKOSKI-I get we can put a contingency on this thing based on you working out a permanent easement. I get that. Okay. Poll the Board. MR. KUHL-Could I just ask one question to Dave? MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-Are those your trucks going in on that road now? MR. HOWARD-Yes, they're my dad's, sir. MR. KUHL-And that's the trucks that are going to be going in the back? MR. HOWARD-Yes. Just like we spoke earlier, West Road is just passing their vehicles, and then Luzerne Road. I've known Coby for years and we've had a great business relationship, and our easement is never going to be blocked on our part. I don't want to have heavy traffic on West Road. There's people that live there. They don't want that change either. People don't like change. So Luzerne Road's working really well for us. MR. URRICO-So, Ethan, if we approve this tonight, okay, what happens from here? Do you go ahead with the project or do you wait to find out the resolution of the easement situation? MR. HALL-Larry and Matt are working on that. I spoke with Matt at about four o'clock this afternoon and they're pulling that together now. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. URRICO-So can we make it contingent upon them, upon an agreement by them? And if they don't get that agreement then it has to come back to us? MR. JACKOSKI-We can make it contingent on and then before they even get a building permit that they can demonstrate that they've gotten a permanent easement over that property by the appropriate owner of the property. MR. HALL-Absolutely. We're fine with it. MR. HOWARD-We would just like to get going maybe clearing and stuff, but we'll get the easement, whatever contingency you say, but we just want to do something, you know, it's been a long winter. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'll go first and that would be my statement. MR. JACKOSKI-And the three contingencies that Mr. O'Connor and his? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm kind of reluctant to put a date on it, but I would want to at least state that if they don't come to an agreement by the end of May, or whatever they're planning on, that this has to revert back to the situation we're at today. Okay. I'll go along with those three contingencies, that they seem to be spelled out pretty clearly. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 would agree with the project with the three contingencies. I guess is the easement being non-exclusive the same as the easement being resolved or should that be an additional? MR. JACKOSKI-Non-exclusive implies to me that the property owner at the time of that parcel can also use that area. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So then we'll have four conditions. MRS. MOORE-1 apologize for interrupting you, but Staff wouldn't suggest these conditions that you're proposing. There's one condition I would suggest you do is that it's subject to a permanent easement. These other three I'm not, this is someone, on behalf of someone else, asking for those conditions. MR. HOWARD-I've got a question. I don't know if this makes any sense. It's someone speaking on behalf of a piece of property they don't own yet. We don't have any contract on that piece, if the attorney thought we did. We don't have anything. MR. JACKOSKI-No, but I believe what the attorney suggested was that his client has a contract that gives him right of first refusal. MR. HOWARD-That's true 100%. MR. JACKOSKI-Being a written document that does affect title on that parcel. To me that is relevant. MR. HOWARD-Yes, sir. That one easement, that one contingency sounds great. The other ones I'm just kind of confused, but that doesn't take much. MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question? The easement issue is on the 6.56 acres, or is it on the 3.95 acres? MR. HALL-3.9. MR. HENKEL-So Lot Two. MR. KUHL-So 6.5 is not an issue. It's the one off of Luzerne Road. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Because it doesn't stipulate where McDonald. MR. HENKEL-The other reason is true is Clute and Steve's property? MR. HALL-It comes up along the property line. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. HENKEL-They've already got permission for that? MR. HALL-Yes. They were there last night to get that cleared up. They were at the Planning Board last night getting that cleared up. MR. HENKEL-Okay. And that's a forever easement? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I've got Roy. I've got Mike. John, you're next. MR. HENKEL-I'd like to see it on hard copy, but I agree with Roy and Mike. I'd be all right with the way that is, the contingency. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I think we just need the one contingency that it is subject to a permanent easement. MR. JACKOSKI-Before a building permit is issued. MR. URRICO-Yes, I think that satisfies it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I refuse to sign my name on an ice cube. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm not in favor of this without, if in fact what Mr. O'Connor says, and we're all leaving Mr. O'Connor at his word that they have first right of refusal, we haven't seen that document. We don't know that, but, you know, Ethan's agreed and that what Mike is saying is really happening, but, like I said, I will not sign on an ice cube. The way you present it, I will not be in favor? MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm satisfied that the applicants are acting, you know, positively to resolve any differences that exist between the parties involved, and I think that at the same time the relief that they're asking for is something that we could grant at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-So my thought is I'm okay with it be subject to a permanent easement being worked out with the property owner, but I also think that it needs to suggest that that easement is non- exclusive so that we're not dealing with two curb cuts on the property in the future, if that's going to become an issue with developing that other parcel. As far as the third request by Mr. O'Connor and his client, I don't know that we can even get into that part of it, whether or not it affects the rights of first refusal. That really doesn't have anything to do with us, as far as 'm concerned. So I'm okay with the first two as we've discussed. I'd approve it with the first two, but not with the third one. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Can I make just a comment? Because I know this individual's concern about the number of curb cuts or driveways that are permitted. In reference to doing driveways or commercial curb cuts, there is the distance that's suggested, and that, if it doesn't meet say the 220 feet that actually goes before the Planning Board for discussion. It doesn't come back to the Zoning Board as a variance. It actually goes before the Planning Board. So the applicant, if they choose to have another curb cut, they would come to the Planning Board to ask for that. I'm just explaining because the applicant, or this individual's probably concerned about the number of curb cuts that could be allowed and it's not necessarily a variance issue. It comes back to the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, Mr. O'Connor, just real briefly, if you could speak loudly with the microphones. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I just want to submit the original right of first refusal which is a notarized document, and I'd like to get it back and then I'll send you a copy for it. Somebody asked why they haven't seen something in writing. We're not trying to stop this. We're just trying to make sure that both sides get what they want. MR. HOWARD-He'd always be able to use that right of way. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-That's not the issue. MR. HOWARD-I'm just telling you. MR. JACKOSKI-We haven't had time to look at this, but I'll give it to Roy, our Staff to get put in the record, I guess. It certainly looks reasonable and official, but. I think that,Staff, I think that regardless of whether that is true or not, we're all in agreement with how we're going to proceed on this matter. Correct? MR. MC CABE-Well, so, is there one condition that the easement be resolved by the time the building permit is issued? MR. URRICO-They have a permanent easement. I think that's the issue. There needs to be a permanent easement. So permanent has to be resolved tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think we've got to make sure that it says that the property owner themselves have a right to use that roadway, access way, whatever you want to call it, that owned that property, that it isn't an easement that is just solely, and exclusively used by this applicant. MRS. MOORE-The potential project's conditioned that there's a permanent easement and it's non- exclusive. MR. URRICO-Non-exclusive permanent easement. MR. JACKOSKI-Non-exclusive. Are we all right with that everyone? MR. MC CABE-A permanent easement, non-exclusive. MR. URRICO-A non-exclusive permanent easement. MR. MC CABE-1 think I can do it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll seek a motion for approval. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from DDDJ Enterprises. Applicant proposes construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for equipment and material storage for an already in use contractor's yard. Project includes additional site clearing for outside storage, a new access road from Luzerne Road through an easement with adjoining lots 308.12-1-7.2 and 308.12-1-7.12. Relief requested from road frontage requirements on West Drive. Planning Board: Site Plan review required for construction of a new building and development of a contractors yard. Site Plan Review modification of parcel 308.12-1-7.12 for easement access. The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the development of lot on West Drive. 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant proposes to use an existing 5.18 ac parcel with 71.55 ft. of road frontage where 100 ft. is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017; 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. We're simply re-allocating the land that is there. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed possible at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Thirty feet out of one hundred feet is well within criteria that we've approved in the past. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall 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 a non-exclusive, permanent easement be resolved by the affected parties before the building permit is issued. b) That the easement be from the Luzerne Road entrance to the applicant's property, as identified on the drawings in front of us. c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-25-2017, DDD) ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 19" day of April 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Is that all right, counsel? By the time it's issued, or before it's issued? MR. CROWE-Yes, I guess it wouldn't be issued without the permanent non-exclusive easement. Otherwise the variance wouldn't kick in. MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll modify that to say before the building permit is issued. MR. MC CABE-So by the time and before don't mean the same thing? Before the building permit is issued. MRS. MOORE-May I suggest one more? Is that it's from the Luzerne Road access to this applicant's property? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-And so I have a second condition, that the easement be from the Luzerne Road entrance to the applicant's property. MR. JACKOSKI-As identified on the drawings in front of us. MR. MC CABE-As identified on the drawings in front of us. MR. JACKOSKI-So Counsel can the applicant get the easement approved with the current landowner and not involve the contract vendee or right of first refusal? MR. CROWE-1 haven't reviewed any of the documents, the right of first refusal or the conveyances, but it sounds to me, based on what I have seen, that it's going to require all the parties working it out amongst themselves, especially to get it done in this timeframe, and so I think if that's what the goal is to keep everybody on the same page and to keep the project moving forward,then it's going to require all of the parties getting involved and working together to get it done, which is what it sounds like they are intending to do and maybe have already begun, but otherwise I don't see it happening in this timeframe. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. We have a motion. We have approval. There's no more discussion, call the vote. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. HALL-Thank you. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Seaton Property Holdings, Z-AV-28-2017 is the Area Variance number. It is a Type II SEAR. It is 308 and 310 Corinth Road. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-28-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A4 TREE WORKS) AGENT(SJ ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(SJ SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC ZONING CLI LOCATION 308 AND 310 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES OPERATION OF A WOOD PROCESSING FACILITY WITH A NEW 15,000 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED POLE BARN FOR WOOD PRODUCTS AND TO INSTALL TWO 1,200 SQ. FT. KILN UNITS ON THE SITE. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGER OF LOTS 308.164-551 - 56, -58 & 61. PROJECT INCLUDES CONTINUED AUTO FACILITY FOR C & J AUTOMOTIVE. PROJECT INCLUDES ALREADY IN USE NEW STORAGE AREA, MAINTAINING 4 EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE MERGED PROPERTIES, ADDITIONAL CLEARING, INSTALLATION OF A GRAVEL PARKING AREA AND MATERIAL STORAGE AREA (LOGS, WOODCHIPS ETC.). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FIREWOOD PROCESSING FACILITY IN THE CLI ZONING DISTRICT WHERE 100 AC IS REQUIRED. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LIGHT MANUFACTURING OF WOOD PRODUCTS FOR A LOGGING PROCESSING COMPANY. CROSS REF P-SP-27-2017; DISC 1-2017;SP 27-2016 SELF-STORAGE BLDGS;SP 65-2013 A4 TREE WORKS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 9.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.164-55; 58 AND 61 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MARTIN SEATON, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017, Seaton Property Holdings, LLC, Meeting Date: April 19, 2017 "Project Location: 308 and 310 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16- 1-55, -56, -58 &61. Project includes continued auto facility for C&J automotive. Project includes already in use new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district where 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size required for a sawmill, wood product operations, and firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district where 100 ac is required. 179-10-010 Special Use Permit Criteria for Commercial light industrial zone. The applicant proposes a wood product operations (Defined as SAWMILL, CHIPPING and PALLET MILL-Any building, site or place used for the cutting or milling of raw timber into dimensional lumber, pallets, chips or other wood products.) where 100 ac is required and the existing site is 9.4 ac. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 existing lot size. The applicant has also provided information on the wood processing machinery where the entire operation fits in a 15,000 sq. ft. structure. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 90.46 ac. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. The project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. The site also will still continue an existing auto facility for C&J automotive and current use of expanded material storage area. The project site also consists of maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties. The plans show the additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). The plans show the location of the building on the site and elevation information." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted April 18, 2017 by unanimous vote. Now I'm done. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. HALL-Good evening. Again, for the record, Ethan Hall principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Martin Seaton. He's the owner of A4 Tree Works, the owner of the properties at 308 and 310 Corinth Road. Martin currently operates A4 Tree Works out of 308 Corinth Road and has purchased the property at 310 where C&J Automotive is and is looking to combine the lots, merge the two properties together and expand his operation to include firewood processing and palletization. The building that we're looking at putting up is 15,000 square feet. It's all enclosed. That building will house all of the operations, all of the saw cutting and the palletization machine. There are two kilns that are used for drying the firewood and for killing the bacteria and the bugs and anything that might be in it. So all of that stuff takes place inside the building. The only openings on that building face Martin's existing property. So we're doing that to mitigate the sound from going out. Laura and I struggled a little bit trying to classify this operation and we wound up falling on sawmilling or a sawmill operation, which requires 100 acre minimum. Unfortunately in the CLI zone there are no 100 acre lots. So that's the need for our variance tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-How many years of operation with A4 down there right now? MR. SEATON-Four, five. Since I've owned it. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the issue emanates from the mill that was put up over at the Warren/Washington County line, and I think that was the one that made the shavings for pets. MR. HALL-Yes, for animal bedding. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think the issue came to the forefront, and the 100 acres came because of the noise generation as well as the fire hazard and stuff like that and the setbacks, housing and all that. So I think that would probably be the only thing we would be concerned with at this time because you're pretty close to Minnesota Ave and the States Aves over there. You do have a lot of housing units. I mean is it a fit at the present time? Has it been difficult or neighborly problems? There's no problems that I foresee, that I've heard of. MR. HALL-And really the way Martin's operation works is they're obviously out and about and gathering, you know, from their jobs that they've got, and this is bringing the material back to the site and being able to process them, and what the finding is, with this palletization machine. They have a lot of wood chips that go through the chipper on site, and what do you do with them? And it's everything, you know, the leaves and the needles and the whole nine yards all go into this truck. Then they come back to the site or they go to wherever they're dumped now and they just sit there. Well, this palletization unit inside the building then can take those chips, create them into wood pellets by compressing them and refining them. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. UNDERWOOD-So has the Planning Board dealt with the issues of noise generation, stuff like that? I mean, I imagine you've got grinders, stuff like that, and then you're palletizing them, pressing them, and grind them at that point. MR. HALL-Yes, and we've provided, when we met with them last night we talked about it, but we haven't provided them with video of both the firewood processing, which takes a 30 foot, it can take up to a 30 foot log and process it basically on, it chops a piece off and then a hydraulic ramp pushes it through a splitter and splits that log and then it cuts the next piece off and pushes it through and drops off into a conveyor that then drops it into like a pallet, and then the pallets get loaded into these kilns for a certain amount of time. One of the issues that was brought up at our meeting with the Planning Board was how are the kilns operated. Martin's found two kilns that are actually electric kilns. So the heat is generated by electricity and it's intent is to put solar panels on to generate. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they're not burning wood chips and generating. MR. HALL-We're not burning. That's what we had talked about initially was making them wood fired kilns, but then it's the constant smoke that comes out of burning the wood for it. So we've gone to an electric, an all-electric kiln. MR. FREER-And is one of these operating nearby or in Vermont or is this new technology? MR. SEATON-For the kilns? I've just been able to find them on line and the heaters and everything like that, and they're directed for heating firewood. There's nothing around here that I could find. Other people had me thinking about electricity because it's expensive. So with the panels we'll be able to bring that cost down. MR. HALL-Basically the kilns are. MR. FREER-Standard equipment for this operation. MR. HALL-Yes, but the kilns themselves, to give you a scope of how big they are, they're basically a shipping container. It's basically a tractor trailer container, you know, like a big shipping container, and it has an electric heater in one end of it that blows through the, it blows through, it has to heat it to 125 to 145 degrees. It just heats these pallets full of wood, firewood, up. Kills all the bugs and kills the bacteria in them so that they can then be transported. MR. HENKEL-They had the problem in Kingsbury there with the same thing. They came to the meeting, there wouldn't be any noise, there wouldn't be any problem, and that particular plant is pretty far from any homes. This is going to be. MR. HALL-With the exception of a couple, yes. MR. HENKEL-Yes, very few. I mean, you're talking about miles away. What's the closest home to that one in Kingsbury? MR. HALL-It's right across the street. MR. HENKEL-There's a few, right, but not many, but they said the same thing. There wouldn't be any noise. Now they've got a problem with noise, smell. There's been fires. MR. HALL-Yes, it's a little different operation what they're doing over there. They're physically taking logs and grinding them on site. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. HALL-This is, it's literally a chop saw. I wish you had the overhead here, because we have a video. That was one of the things that the Planning Board brought up was the noise. It's literally, it's a chop saw that's a big radial saw. So it's a quick, and then it pushes it through and splits it, and there's no noise to the splitter. MR. HENKEL-It zips quite a few times. It's not just one zip and it's over. MR. HALL-Yes, it is, but, again, this is inside a building now that's, you know, right now they run outside. So it's there now. I mean, you've got the piece of equipment there. I mean, this is taking place on this site now outside, and where it is right now is closer to the residential neighborhood than where it's going to be once we end up building this building and putting the thing inside the building. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) So we're actually moving it farther away from the residential units than it is now, and putting it inside a building that's enclosed. MR. JACKOSKI-So describe what part of the process will be outside. MR. HALL-Just the stockpiling of the logs and the stockpiling of the chips, and the movement of the, once it's palletized inside the building, moving it from the building into the kiln,and then once it comes out of the kiln, it's stockpiled and sold. MR. HENKEL-There again, there's no height requirement on those piles. I mean, there's people living in that neighborhood, you look at a pile of stacked wood. I mean, is that fair? In a residence? I mean, is there a certain rule? I mean, I don't see any where a stockpile, like I was asking about the topsoil. MRS. MOORE-I'm not aware of any. MR. HENKEL-There isn't any. Is that a condition we could put on that? I mean, because that's not fair to live and look at a pile that's 30 feet high of stacked wood. MR. HALL-Well, you can only reach, how high can you reach with your chipper? MR. HENKEL-It's pretty high now. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm pretty sure Finch Pruyn's log piles are pretty big right now. MR. HALL-Well, Pruyn's got a little bit bigger. MR. HENKEL-But down the road he might eventually get more equipment. If it's going well he's going to get more equipment to build it higher. MR. SEATON-If you keep it on site too long, then it starts deteriorating. So we'd actually have to start moving it quicker than stockpiling it, to have permission to do all this. So it should be, I'm going to be having actually people on site all the time being able to sort the yard out. I'm going to have to employ more people to actually carry on with everything which is done on site and making sure it's clean and tidy. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? I'm opening the public hearing. There is a public hearings scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? We have one person who'd like to address the Board. ARON MONROE MR. MONROE-Hello. My name's Aron Monroe and my property borders this project. First thing that is a concern to me is I don't know, they have a large amount of material stored on site as it is, and is there an actual law regulating how much material they can store on site right now safely? There's thousands of yards of wood chips stored on the site now, pushed into trees, which creates a fire hazard because as the wood decomposes it can create a hot spot and it can actually catch on fire itself. The other thing is the log pile he currently has there. Probably several hundred cords of round wood, and it is piled against the property line, very close to the property line. Close enough that if a wood did fall off it could go across the property line, and your question before, I believe the maximum height wood can be piled under New York State Forest Regulations, is 30 feet, I believe, but that's something to check into. Those are my initial concerns. So before, if these things, if they are not allowed to have these things on the property as it is the way the Code is, I don't see the project should not go any further than what it is now until things are brought into compliance with the existing Codes. That said, fire safety is the number one concern of this whole project. What is their fire plan right now with all the wood they have stored on site? I don't know one, and that is a very big concern with the possibility of fire from the chips, and up into the woods. I reviewed the plans on line that were submitted for their proposal. I did not see anything, any fire systems in their details for their drawings. Wood dust is the number one cause of fires in the mills. It happens all the time, as you 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) said. Over on the royal shavings mill, it's inevitable. It will happen. So I'd like to see a safety fire plan in place, you know, they're going to need hydrants on site, fire suppression systems inside the buildings. I haven't seen any of those plans. That's definitely a concern. Noise pollution. They state that's going to be inside. They're running a circle saw. It is very loud. I run one. I know how loud they are. It will be in the building, but the equipment that brings the logs into the building all have backup alarms. They are required by OSHA. So if they do not have them they're not compliant under Federal law. So they will all have backup alarms. Backup alarms are very loud and they're very annoying. So that I see and there'll be a lot of it because they're going to have forklifts and front end loaders bringing wood and pallets in and out of the plant. So that's going to be a noise concern for me. The site lighting plan. I do not see a site lighting plan in the details on line either, because it's going to be a good sized building. Presumably there'll be, in the winter months, it's going to be dark out, they're going to need lights. Where are the lights going to be shining? So without a site lighting plan there is no way to tell how light it going to be positioned towards the neighborhood and towards the residents. That is a problem for me. And the initial setback for the lot, for the clearing, it says 20 some feet, 30 feet is the standard. I don't think that's far enough being this close to houses for such a big project. I think it should be a minimum of a 50 foot setback using existing timber as a barrier from the noise and the light onto my property or anybody else's property. The next thing of my concern is the operation time. When will this plant be operational? When will the equipment be moving? My feeling is seven to seven Monday through Friday. It's more than enough, and eight to two on Saturday, with no operation on Sunday, and another concern is my property value. If this does turn into an operation like out in Kingsbury with royal shavings, and the heavy noise and truck traffic, what's it going to do to my property values? Those are my concerns, and thank you for hearing them. MR. FREER-Could I ask a question? MR. MONROE-Yes. MR. FREER-Where do you live, Aron? MR. MONROE-31 Minnesota. MR. FREER-So across Minnesota Avenue? MR. MONROE-1 live right, my property is directly against his property. MR. FREER-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-If we had our computer and our screen thing, we'd be able to see that on the screen. MR. MONROE-Does anybody else have any questions? Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone else like to address the Board? Seeing no one, you can re-join us. I mean, a lot of what was discussed in public comment is clearly stuff for the Planning Board. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know if you'd want to touch on any of it. MR. HALL-Yes. There is a site lighting plan that was on there. There are a string of pole lights that run up the middle of the lot, of the 310 lot. They're farther away from the property than it is now. Those are solar powered lights. They will be on a motion sensor so that they only come on when somebody goes under them to drop off, you know, the vehicle goes under them to trigger them. The building lights are wall-mounted lights. They were downcast fixtures so they don't broadcast out. They just go around the building. As far as the hours of operation goes, Martin would love it if he could get his guys to work seven to seven. MR. JACKOSKI-But what about the 50 foot, I mean, considering we're concentrating an awful lot of stuff onto this lot. MR. HALL-Yes, the required buffer is 30. MRS. MOORE-Between physical residential, from uses it's 50. MR. HALL-Okay. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MRS. MOORE-Again, that's a Planning Board item. MR. HALL-And that's, right, and that's the area, I believe we had indicated that we're leaving that 50 foot buffer between the Minnesota Avenue properties and where we're going and then it's 30 feet against the CLI. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-But what about the areas in which there's stockpiles right up to the property line? That's barely 50 feet. MR. HALL-Well, once we expand into this other lot, then that would expand away from that property closer to. MR. JACKOSKI-Will those areas get re-planted? MR. SEATON-Well, there's still that buffer. We'll still have that buffer. It's not right up against the line. MR. JACKOSKI-Because in public comment we heard it was right up to the line. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. HALL-There is some on the 308 lot now, closer towards Corinth Road. The back of that lot is still pretty much wide open. MR. SEATON-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members at this time? MR. HALL-As far as the fire sprinkler plan, the fire plan goes, we know that we do have to bring a, have hydrants on the site, and the entire building will be sprinklered. It will not be a heated building. So this is a dry system. Just so that we don't have to heat a massive structure that's going to be open in the wintertime. So it is a dry system. There is an office portion of the building that will be heated and all of our risers and the air system will be in that building. So there is, this building is fully sprinklered. It has to be just based on the size and the operation that it goes into. MR. JACKOSKI-The public hearing is still open. I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Yes, so this is a big variance, I understand, but I think you've presented a reasonable scenario, and mitigation of the much smaller footprint than you'd get from another operation. And so I would support this variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. We're dealing with one variance here and it's about, it' regarding the minimum lot size, and we're not really sure that the definition applies perfectly to begin with. So I don't know that 100 acres would be applicable for anything in the Town, any kind of manufacturing facility. I think this would be fine and I'm satisfied with the test results. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have mixed feelings about this because I think we're heading into uncharted waters here and I think that even though we have not heard much public commentary on this, I can see the fact that you've been there for five years only now you're proposing to go into a much larger facility, you tried to alleviate some of the problems that have been created on site makes sense, but at the same time I think we're sort of held by the Code. I think the Town has serious questions about wood processing operations, whether they're successful or not or whether they create unanticipated, you know, quandaries for the neighbors and things like that, but I think at this point I would rather see this go back to the Planning Board to have them dial it in. If the Planning Board okays this, I don't really have a problem with it at all, and I think it can be done logically but I think there's valid concerns about the backup beepers on the machines. I know in the Town of Moreau they have a transfer station down there in the south part of Town. They had to build huge earthen berms and plant all kinds of trees trying to alleviate the noise that was traveling, and in a rural area I think the sound travels even greater, you know, down here I think we tend to ignore the fact that the States Aves is tight. Everybody kind of accepts what everybody else is doing in the area, but at the same time I think 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) we should be cautious as to what we allow, how we allow it. So I'm not comfortable approving it at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think you're introducing, first of all, all the neighbor's comments, I can't believe if all those comments were put in front of the Planning Board how they found no issue with this. I understand you have a business going on. I understand you want to do something new and different, but in effect, I mean, what's the noise going to have on the neighborhood? I'm not comfortable with it and I would not be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-What we're being asked to okay here is 9.4 acres when 100 is required, and that's way too much for me. Now maybe the 100 acres is unreasonable, but maybe a better approach is to go to the Town Board, but to ask us to okay, you know, nine acres when it's supposed to be 100, 1 think is, you know, beyond our reasonable judgment. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I would say if this was 9.4 acres in an industrial park, it would not be a problem. I would go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-It's Light Industrial. MR. HENKEL-But it's not in an industrial park. It's a residential, and that's not good enough for me at 9.4 acres to support that. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have quite a few noes, Ethan, at this point. So you know the drill. MR. HALL-Yes, I'm not sur what our options are. We can table it. Otherwise it's a no. We've got to figure out a way to make that happen. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the applicant is going to be requesting a motion to table the matter until. MR. HALL-Until we can figure out a different option. MRS. MOORE-For July. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll put you on the July agenda with a June submission date. MR. HALL-We can shoot for that. MR. JACKOSKI-And then you can always request an extension. MR. HALL-Yes, and I mean it sounds like everybody is, I mean, it sounds like our biggest issue is the hang up of, you know, not being 100 acres. There are no 100 acre parcels here. MR. JACKOSKI-But I think the 100 acres, the intent is to establish a large buffer for sound, light pollution, traffic, activity, site, aesthetics. MR. HALL-Understood. MR. SEATON-If there were certain hours put down, would that be? MR. JACKOSKI-Not for me. I thought that the neighbor was quite generous, actually in seven to seven. I was thinking that was late, in the middle of winter when it's dark at 4:15. MR. URRICO-You might bring it to the Town Board and see if they would be willing to re-define or put an additional definition into the Code. MR. MC CABE-1 really think that would be a better approach. MR. URRICO-Because right now they're trying to, the Board is trying to squeeze you into a definition that may not apply to you. So there may be an additional definition they need to supply, but I would 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) start with them first, go before them and see if there could be a further definition, because this seems like a new type of technology and a new type of wood processing that maybe wasn't addressed before. MR. FREER-Yes, so I would think you would want to do some noise understanding, because, I mean, that's not our specific charter. Because it's so large a buffer you've got for noise. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have that buffer for a reason. MR. FREER-Right, and it sounds like some of the experience here is directly related to the noise, but does anybody else want to comment on it? MR. JACKOSKI-Well, look, like I said at this point we can't make the decision for you. We can't guide you on where to go. So you've asked for a tabling. We're going to do a submission date of June with hopefully a July agenda. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A4 Tree Works). Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive. Project includes already in use new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company. The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size required for a sawmill, wood product operations, and firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. 179-10-010 Special Use Permit Criteria for Commercial light industrial zone. The applicant proposes a wood product operations (Defined as SAWMILL, CHIPPING and PALLET MILL-Any building, site or place used for the cutting or milling of raw timber into dimensional lumber, pallets, chips or other wood products.) where 100 ac is required and the existing site is 9.4 ac. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 and Left Open; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV- 28-2017,SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A4 TREE WORKSI, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Until the first July meeting with pertinent information to be submitted by the middle of June. Duly adopted this 19' day of April 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next item on this evening's agenda is Chris Carte, Area Variance Z-AV-24-2017, a Type II SEAR, at 1067 State Route 9, between Agway and the Wood Carte. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-24-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 CHRIS CARTE OWNER(SJ CHRIS CARTE ZONING Cl LOCATION 1067 STATE ROUTE 9, BETWEEN AGWAY AND THE WOOD CARTE, ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FACADE ON AN EXISTING 6,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR A TOTAL ADDITION OF 125 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW BUILDING FACADE AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT. TAX MAP NO. 296.94-5 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS CARTE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-24-2017, Chris Carte, Meeting Date: April 19, 2017 "Project Location: 1067 State Route 9, between Agway and The Wood Carte, Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new facade on an existing 6,000 sq. ft. building for a total addition of 125 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum front setback requirements and permeability. Planning Board: Site Plan review for new building facade and parking arrangement. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay —Route 9 The applicant proposes a renovating the facade that extends the building front 25 inches. The new facade face will be 41.3 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. Permeability on the site is to be 18.3% and 30% is required —existing was 20.5% 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. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 33.7 ft. for the front setback/travel corridor overlay. Permeability relief is 11.7%. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a new facade on an existing 6,000 sq. ft. building for that is 125 sq. ft. at a width of 24 inches. The facade goes above a portion of the existing roofline so the mechanicals are screened. The project includes creating additional parking at the front of the building. The new parking area and sidewalk will allow customers to access both Wood Carte buildings." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. URRICO-Wait a minute. One more thing. The Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved unanimously on April 18', 2017. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Welcome, Chris. It's a pretty straightforward application. I assume you just want Board members to ask you questions? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. HENKEL-Is there any way you can squeeze a little bit more permeability anywhere or no? That's the only thing that holds me back. I think you definitely needed the new front and everything. This permeability kills me. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. CARTE-Not unless I was to take up some blacktop somewhere. We haven't really added to the blacktop. It's all existing. MR. HENKEL-You'd be adding to the blacktop in front, though, right? MR. CARTE-Right. MR. HENKEL-And the side. MR. CARTE-Up to this point we haven't, you know what I'm saying? MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. CARTE-And the side? No, the only. MR. HENKEL-There's going to be blacktop all on the side, too. Well, a little bit. MR. CARTE-The only thing would be that kind of curve shaped area where we would gain three parking spaces out in the front. MR. JACKOSKI-And they straddle the line, correct? MR. CARTE-They would, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience, as I open the public hearing, who would like to address the Board? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Yes, this seems to make sense overall to me and the permeability is one of those details we do watch but I think overall the balancing test, the benefit to the applicant is clearly more significant than the detriment to the neighborhood. So I would support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Considering this building has laid empty for how many years? MR. CARTE-Five years. MR. KUHL-I think it's a good improvement. I hope you have it rented out or are you going to use it yourself? MR. CARTE-We're going to use it ourselves. MR. KUHL-No, I'm in favor of it. I think it's a good project. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, they should be commended for taking this eyesore out of the public eye, you know. It's long overdue and extending 24 inches more into the Travel Corridor Overlay, to me, doesn't make any difference. No one's going to notice it. So I think it's an improvement to have that Adirondack style as we had hoped for on the whole Route 9 corridor. Thank you. MR. CARTE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, the benefit is definitely better than the relief that we're giving up there. So I'd go with the project. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem. The setback is, you know, there's other buildings that are closer, and probably was caused when they widened Route 9. Imagine the original setback was probably somewhere around the 75 feet, and the permeability, the little bit that this property does compared to the other properties around it is miniscule. So I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. The last time they came before us for renovation of the front, that really came out outstanding. So it'll be another welcome addition. MR. CARTE-And I remember at the time that, I don't remember who the Board member was, but somebody commented on asking us not to come back for anything else unless we had more property. So, here I am. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris Carte. Applicant proposes construction of a new facade on an existing 6,000 sq. ft. building for a total addition of 125 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum front setback requirements and permeability. Planning Board: Site Plan review for new building facade and parking arrangement. The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay —Route 9 The applicant proposes a renovating the facade that extends the building front 25 inches. The new facade face will be 41.3 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. Permeability on the site is to be 18.3% and 30% is required —existing was 20.5% SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017; 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 blends in with the neighboring property. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited due to the travel corridor. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it is just adding 24 inches on to the existing. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall 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 Z- AV-24-2017, CHRIS CARTE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19' day of April 2017 by the following vote: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. CARTE-1 had something that I wanted to ask, and I know there's another item on the agenda tonight. So I don't want to take up too much time, but I was just made aware of something this afternoon, and that is that we, Laura and I spoke and she made me aware of the fact that we are going to need, according to the Code, we're going to need a variance to put our name on the existing signs. In other words, to take down Merrick's name and to put The Wood Carte's name on the sign, that we're going to need a variance for that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. CARTE-Not because of the size of the sign or the shape of the sign but because of its nonconforming distance from the property line, and I found that to be pretty amazing that that was going to be necessary, just to put our name on an existing sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Chris, I'll stop you right now. I own the big eyesore down the road from you. I had to sit on that side of the table myself to get my sign approved for the Knights of Columbus that's been there since 1973. MR. URRICO-And we like Chris. MR. JACKOSKI-You like Chris. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's something the whole Town is requiring everyone to do. You're going to have to do it. Sorry. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can give you back your plans so you don't have to print out other ones. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next item on this evening's agenda is Dr. James R. Glendening of the Adirondack Animal Hospital. It is 462 Ridge Road, Area Variance Z-AV-27-2017, a Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-27-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 JAMES R. GLENDENING d/b/a ADIRONDACK ANIMAL HOSPITAL AGENT(SJ ANDREW PARSONS, JMZ ARCHITECTS OWNER(SJ GLENDENING REALTY, LLC ZONING MDR LOCATION 462 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 165 SQ. FT. NEW ENTRYWAY ADDITION AND A 465 SQ. FT. NEW COVERED WALKWAY FOR THE ENTRYWAY ACCESS. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING ARRANGEMENT, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER, CLEARING, AND OTHER SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS OF THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY AND THE MDR ZONE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW BUILDING FACADE, ENTRYWAY ADDITION AND SITE WORK. CROSS REF P-SP-29-2017; DISC 4-2017; SP 41-88 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 1.94 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.1844 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-030 JAMES GLENDENING, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-27-2017, James R. Glendening, Meeting Date: April 19, 2017 "Project Location: 462 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 165 sq. ft. new entryway addition and a 465 sq. ft. new covered walkway for the entryway access. Project includes new parking arrangement, landscaping, stormwater, clearing, and other site work. Relief requested for setbacks of the travel corridor overlay and the MDR zone. Planning Board: Site plan review for new building facade, entryway addition and site work. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks and travel corridor in the MDR zone Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay —Route 9 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) The applicant proposes renovating the building front, adding a covered walkway and entryway. The project would place the building at 63.9 ft. from the front property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing building on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 11.1 ft. for the front setback/travel corridor overlay. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to upgrade the Adirondack animal hospital that includes the construction of a 165 sq. ft. new entryway addition and a 465 sq. ft. new covered walkway for the entryway access. The project also includes major site improvements - new signage, parking arrangement, landscaping, stormwater, and clearing. The new client traffic will allow customers to park in a designated area and have access to a walkway to the office. The applicant has provided elevations showing the location of the improvements and color scheme." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. That motion was adopted unanimously on April 18', 2017. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. DR. GLENDENING-Dr. Glendening. We've been doing business there since 1973. The building has been unchanged. I think the building's been there since the 40's. That was the initial property. We've, I'm not sure exactly where you want me to go. We are after a vestibule that will allow people to kind of re-group before they come into the building, and a covered walkway which allows their convenience. It's moving our parking to the north, and we, if we're going to put the vestibule on the front. That parking's been kind of haphazard in front of the building and we're going to move that to the north. The architectural facade change is, I've asked to make it Adirondacky instead of business wise. I think that was achieved. It is a neighborhood, and I think the appearance that we're proposing is going to be a major improvement. Now the relief that I'm looking for is the street setback, and that doesn't extend beyond, when you look up and down the road, it doesn't extend beyond some of the houses there, closer to the travel corridor. The buffer, I don't know how far to go with this, but the buffer to the north. MR. JACKOSKI-I honestly don't think you have to. I honestly think the pictures speak a thousand words. We can see the pictures and we can see the site layout. So I think honestly just let the Board members ask you any questions. MR. HENKEL-You're only asking for 11 feet of relief. MR. JACKOSKI-You're not asking for a lot of relief. MR. HENKEL4LL MR. JACKOSKI-Are there Board members that have any questions after reviewing the file? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. KUHL-Did your customers request this? DR. GLENDENING-They probably appreciate being able to stay dry while they're coming in and being able to park without. MR. HENKEL-Yes, you don't know where to park when you go there. I go there. It's best not to even have it on the front. MR. KUHL-No, no, I think it's good. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member comments? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Seeing that only Mr. Munoff is sitting in the back, anyway. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, no other public comment. I'll poll the Board and I'll start with John this time. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think the positives outweigh the negatives, with the little bit of relief that he's asking for, the 11.1 feet setback, and the new parking area now is going to be definitely an upgrade to the neighborhood, so I would be on board with this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think he satisfies the requirements. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I have no problem with it. I think it's an improvement over what currently exists there and I think that it's in keeping with what we want. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it's an improvement and it blends in with what's there. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think it will enhance the neighborhood and I would approve of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I agree with all my colleagues. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James R. Glendening d/b/a Adirondack Animal Hospital. Applicant proposes construction of a 165 sq. ft. new entryway addition and a 465 sq. ft. new covered walkway for the entryway access. Project includes new parking arrangement, landscaping, stormwater, clearing, and other site work. Relief requested for setbacks of the travel corridor overlay and the MDR zone. Planning Board: Site plan review for new building facade, entryway addition and site work. The applicant requests relief from setbacks and travel corridor in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay —Route 9 The applicant proposes renovating the building front, adding a covered walkway and entryway. The project would place the building at 63.9 ft. from the front property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017; 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 we believe the applicant will make an improvement to the facade of the building which will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but not deemed practical. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Eleven feet out of seventy-five doesn't seem like a big request. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall 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 Z- AV-27-2017, JAMES R. GLENDENING D/B/A ADIRONDACK ANIMAL HOSPITAL, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19" day of April 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Any further business, Board members? MR. KUHL-No, I recommend we close the, we adjourn for the night. MR. HENKEL-I second it. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 only came here because I knew you were meeting tonight and I don't want to discuss. MR. JACKOSKI-You can ask away. What? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Under the Town Law 267-A, you got my letter, I'm sure, on the appeal. MR. JACKOSKI-For the appeal for next month. AUDIENCE MEMBER-1 have no idea. I appealed a decision from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. AUDIENCE MEMBER-And the only reason that I wanted to be here this evening is because the Lake George Park Commission has asked me, they have no contact from the Town of Queensbury and they're ready to (Problems with recording inaudible). MR.JACKOSKI-I'll follow up with Staff immediately to make sure what's going on,and whatever they're supposed to do, if they haven't done it, does get done. AUDIENCE MEMBER-There's supposed to be a stay, under Town law, when you make an appeal. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, provided there's standing, provided that it's done within the timeframe. Provided all those things. I'll follow up. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron has requested that we adjourn. Second? MR. MC CABE-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. Call the vote. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2017, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 1911 day of April, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 31