Loading...
09-27-2017 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-62-2017 Benjamin L. Aronson Trust by Michael Muller 1. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-76 Area Variance Z-AV-61-2017 Jennifer Handler 6. Tax Map No. 227.10-1-8 Area Variance Z-AV-60-2017 Sean and Jennifer Kennedy 10. Tax Map No. 290.-1-48 and 47 Area Variance Z-AV-56-2017 William and Frances Hannan 13. Tax Map No. 289.11-1-29 Area Variance Z-AV-63-2017 Elizabeth Collins 20. Tax Map No. 302.11-1-57 Area Variance Z-AV-55-2017 Michael and Karen LeBlanc 22. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-67 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER MEMBER ABSENT MICHAEL MC CABE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order our meeting for this evening at seven o'clock here in the Queensbury Activities Center at 742 Bay Road for the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Our agenda this evening is on the back table for those of you who may not already have a copy of it. I'll briefly explain our process. It's quite simple. We'll follow the agenda. We'll call each applicant up to the small table here while Roy reads the applications into the record. When there's a public hearing scheduled we will of course open the public hearing at some point during the review process of the application and generally Roy will read it into the record. We may ask the applicant some questions if it's not a relatively straightforward application. Board members will possibly give their opinions on where they think they are as far as approving or not of the application. I'll open up the public hearing. We'll take action accordingly and it's actually a quite straightforward process. So good news for everyone here this evening is we have no housekeeping to do and we have no Old Business to accomplish. So we're going to start right away with New Business. Benjamin L. Aronson Trust by Michael Muller, 1516 Ridge Road, Ward 1. Area Variance No. Z-AV-62-2017. It is a Type 11 SEAR. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-62-2017 SEQRA TYPE II BENJAMIN L. ARONSON TRUST BY MICHAEL MULLER OWNER(S) ARONSON TRUST ZONING MDR LOCATION 1516 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,150 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE ON A 10.29 ACRE PARCEL WHICH HAS AN EXISTING 3,330 SQ. FT. SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE ON A PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED AND FOR SIZE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 10.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-76 SECTION 179-5-020A MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening and I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-62-2017, Benjamin L. Aronson Trust by Michael Muller, Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 "Project Location: 1516 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,150 sq. ft. second garage on a 10.29 acre parcel which has an existing 3,330 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with attached garage. Relief requested for a second garage on a parcel where only one is allowed and for size. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one is allowed. In addition the garage exceeds the square footage allowed. The applicant proposes a 3,330 sq. ft. garage and 2,200 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 to be considered include an addition to the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is to allow two garages where only one is allowed. Relief is also requested for the size of the building 1,130 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 3,330 sq. ft. second garage for the storage of cars. There is an existing easement area to access the garage from an adjoining parcel. The applicant has indicated no driveway to be installed access will be from the existing lawn area. The applicant has indicated there will be electric service for the building. The applicant received a waiver for providing a survey showing the existing conditions where the home is shown on the tax map with the proposed new detached garage location. The plans show the type of garage that is intended to be constructed." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. MULLER-My name is Michael Muller. I'm the Trustee for the Aronson Trust that is the owner of this property. Mr. Aronson does reside at the property. What he'd like to do is build a large garage and your folder should have a photograph of a reasonable facsimile. Mr. Aronson tells me that's actually his desire to design it like that. Four doors across the front and probably the only deviation from that picture is the windows would not be the same. The windows would be high windows so that people can't look in. He has an excellent car collection. I'm not going to tell you what it is because I just wish I owned it. He needs this space to basically keep and protect his vehicles. He has them at other locations at the present time. The standards that you folks have, Zoning Board members are guided by and the test that Mr. Urrico had read and I had provided as part of the application an answer to those questions that I believe that this plan as presented does not demonstrate any undesirable change that will result in a negative change in the character of the neighborhood. If you're familiar with the neighborhood, where Mr. Aronson wishes to put this garage, it will be directly north, and if you will behind what is presently under construction right now, which I understand is sort of a Highway Commercial gasoline station, Dunkin Donuts, a variety of things that are Highway Commercial and in the nature of, and according to the current owner of the truck stop. So the character of the neighborhood is really not residential, and Mr. Aronson's occupancy is actually the first residential occupancy. By the way Mr. Aronson actually owns the one story house that's out in front of this property. So essentially this project would be sited in the woods. Actually when I filled out this application it was perfectly in the woods so you couldn't see it at all. Unfortunately the commercial enterprise has really kind of skipped it back pretty good and left just a few trees, but on the whole you will not be able to see this. This will not be prominent from a road frontage viewpoint. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method. This applicant has really designed the most feasible plan here in terms of creating a structure on this property that's well hidden. It certainly is a preferred alternative to outdoor storage of his vehicles, and I know that Staff has suggested that one feasible plan might be to just attach it to his house. It wouldn't be a good plan at all. I think that by attaching it to the house it's not the same architecture, and it would actually I believe make the house longer than the Zoning Board permits. There's a maximum length of a house in the ordinance, our ordinance, 125 feet. I'm not sure, but that's just not a feasible alternative. Whether this requested variance is substantial. As an applicant it's not substantial in that the property on which this project is to be proposed is 10 acres in size. I can appreciate Staff's math, but I can't appreciate the application of their math. They say that this will be twice the size of a garage that would be allowed, but that of course would pertain to a two acre parcel which is what the zoning district pertains to. This is a 10 acre parcel. So arguably it should be mathematically computed in that context. It's an extra-large piece of property so five times the size of what you need in the zone. Certainly this garage is in scale with that size property. Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on any conditions in the neighborhood as to size, location. I think that with the location, I guess I would mention that in the neighborhood, up and down Ridge Road, and I live there as well, another residence, I have a very large garage that I sought permission from this Board. You can't see it from the highway and my next door neighbor just recently got an approval as well. I'm not saying that you've got to approve this one because you've approved others. I'm pointing out that in terms of the effects and impacts on the neighborhood, if properly placed, if properly sized, if properly designed they fit. It's not adverse to the character of the neighborhood. Whether this alleged difficult was self-created. It's always an interesting philosophical exercise. My point would be that the alleged difficulty was created by the restriction that's specified in the Ordinance. It's not due to any actions or conduct on the part of the applicant. When he bought the property it was zoned, well he's acquired the property since 1960 so let's talk about none of the property was zoned at that time, but he did acquire portions of the property after the Zoning Ordinance was created. So you can see that it is a mixed fact, factual analysis as to whether or not he's created this problem all on his own, but perhaps more important to the point is the fact that even if it is a self-created alleged difficult, that in itself does not mean the motion should be denied. If you have any questions I'd be happy to try to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. At this time do Board members have any questions before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Is this going to be an asphalt driveway or is it going to be grass in front of the four doors? MR. MULLER-Right now that driveway exists. It's been there for probably 50 years. It's actually, it's not paved. It's some sort of an aggregate but the grass has grown over it. It will stay the same so you will not be able to actually notice that there's a driveway there. MR. KUHL-And there'll be electricity in there but no water? MR. MULLER-Right. MR. KUHL-The use is going to be for cars? MR. MULLER-Cars. Personally owned. Nobody else's. MR. HENKEL-Does Mr. Aronson already have a large garage with like a carport area next to the garage? MR. MULLER-He has a garage that's integrated into his house. On the side he has an area that's an extension. It's not a garage. It's not permitted a garage. MR. HENKEL-It's an awful big area. Isn't it? MR. MULLER-It is, yes. MR. HENKEL-And what's the approximate size of that? Do you know? MR. MULLER-1 don't. I've been in it many times. I would say it's probably. MR. HENKEL-It's bigger than his garage that exists there now. MR. MULLER-Bigger than a garage width. Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's a lot of space. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's see what the public has to say. So I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-So I have a couple of questions for Staff. I think the Town, because this property borders on that Neighborhood Commercial zone, I mean, this property does divide, is at the border with that Neighborhood Commercial zone, correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Isn't the Town exploring expanding that zone in that area, the Town Board? MRS. MOORE-1 have not heard that. Maybe they are. I have not heard that yet. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. This an accessory structure on a vacant lot, correct? MR. MULLER-No, there's a house on it. MRS. MOORE-There's a house on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that house going to, are all three of those parcels joined as one? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MULLER-No, the house is, you waived the actual survey requirement. The house is, it's an L Shaped lot. So the house that has frontage for the lot where this garage will be is next adjacent to the house that's shown on this map. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's not on the survey map. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-We know where it is. MR. MULLER-1 want to show you the spot where the garage is going to be. Right there. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. Would anyone like to opine on this matter before anyone else? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think, I know with the 10 acres and using it for what it's being used for, not a business, I think it's a good request and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would agree with Ron. I think that, you know, when you're five times over the average sized lot which is supposed to be two acres, at ten acres plus, it's going to have no impact whatsoever as far as the size of this building being oversized. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-With the garage space he's already got attached to his house and the carport area there, that's a lot, and I would not support this. I'd support it a little bit smaller, but not support it as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, so I'd certainly support a second garage on a 10 acre parcel. The only question is how big a garage you could really need and want I didn't hear any comments from any of the neighbors, but we worry about setting precedent here, and this is certainly a very large, comparatively large garage, but it's on 10 acres and so unless I hear otherwise I would support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? a MR. URRICO-Yes, I support the application. I think the size of the property mitigates any extra footage that is given to the garage. So I think we can be generous in offering a second garage to oversized properties, too. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-And you know where the Board's leading, but I'll just add that I truly believe that this is a unique situation and that because this property is surrounded by Neighborhood Commercial and an actual commercial retail just over the line, I don't see that it's a problem at all. It's a unique circumstance and I mean this is a property that helps buffer that commercial zone with the rest of the neighborhood. So I'd be in favor of this. I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Benjamin L. Aronson Trust by Michael Muller. Applicant proposes construction of a 3,150 sq. ft. second garage on a 10.29 acre parcel which has an existing 3,330 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with attached garage. Relief requested for a second garage on a parcel where only one is allowed and for size. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one is allowed. In addition the garage exceeds the square footage allowed. The applicant proposes a 3,330 sq. ft. garage and 2,200 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 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 of bordering on the commercial zone and they have 10 acres. There's plenty of land. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial based on the 10 acres. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Although you might say it is self-created because of the size of the building it's still small. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-62-2017 BENJAMIN L. ARONSON TRUST BY MICHAEL MULLER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2017 by the following vote: a;b AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Muller. MR. MULLER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda this evening is Jennifer Handler. Curt Dybas is the agent. 19 Trout Pavilion Road. Area Variance Z-AV-61-2017. A Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-61-2017 SEQRA TYPE II JENNIFER HANDLER AGENT(S) CURTIS D. DYBAS, RA OWNER(S) JENNIFER HANDLER ZONING WR LOCATION 19 TROUT PAVILION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING 9 FT. 6 IN. BY 7 FT. 6 IN. DOCK STORAGE SHED WITH PART OF AN EXISTING SUNDECK STRUCTURE UNDER STAIRS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BOTH 398-2017 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (SHED) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.40 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-28 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-61-2017, Jennifer Handler, Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 "Project Location: 19 Trout Pavilion Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a recently reconstructed 9 ft. 6 in. by 7 ft. 6 in. dock storage shed with part of an existing sundeck structure under stairs. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from shoreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 —establishment of districts The applicant requests to maintain an existing dock storage shed at the shoreline where it is 4 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 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. The applicant has indicated the shed existed beneath the stairs before it was resided/improved. 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 location of the shed beneath the deck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 46 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain a shed under the deck stairs. The applicant has explained the reconstruction of the dock facility and obtaining the permit from the Lake George Park Commission. The shed was also part of the reconstruction and the applicant applied for the local/Town permit after the fact then was notified the shed portion would require a variance. The plans show the location of the shed and the applicant has provided photos of the shed." MR. DYBAS-Good evening. For the record Curt Dybas representing Jennifer Handler. This project commenced about a year ago with Lake George Park Commission permits to reconstruct a deteriorated unsafe dock that was built in the 70's, and replace it in kind, and construction commenced and through the winter, and in June I was notified by Mr. Hatin that a building permit would be required for the portion of the reconstruction that is on land. I applied for that permit. Paid the fee, and approximately two weeks later I was notified by Craig Brown, back track. I assume responsibility for oversight on the permit, but about two weeks later Mr. Brown called me and said a variance would be required for the shed because we replaced the roof and the upper portion of the deteriorated walls. The existing shed is concrete slab, concrete blocks, up to about three and a half feet above the top of the slab and it had wood above it. With all the leaking and everything over the years, it's just completely shot. So I filed the paperwork for the variance and that's why I'm here this evening, but I say in kind because of the rules and regs of the Lake George Park Commission this dock, cribs had to be replaced in kind. The only exception would be the heights of the guardrails on the sundeck, which had to be Code compliant now three foot high. Construction was halted in early June, and it's all taped off, all the, should still be up there. So questions from the Board? MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I've got a few questions because I'm looking at a photograph of a tax assessor's website which I was a part of that process of photographing all the properties from the lake. This was the little stone structure that you're referring to. MR. DYBAS-Stone? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. DYBAS-Stone structure? MR. JACKOSKI-That is the house, right, 19 Trout Pavilion Road? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. What is 19 Trout Pavilion Road, then? MR. DYBAS-It's the white house. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. DYBAS-That white house. Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-That's the same photograph, Curt. That's the lakeside part. So did the dock move left or right, east or west, north or south? Was the original six foot tall storage stone structure as deep as it is now? MR. DYBAS-That's exactly the same photograph. In fact the height was reduced two inches. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll let other Board members ask questions. MR. DYBAS-In the packet there are before and after pictures of that shed. MR. KUHL-It's under the stairs. Is that what you're looking at? MR. JACKOSKI-No. That's, I believe the new. MR. KUHL-No, here's the old. Here's the new. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, but I want to tell you here's what was in the 2016 posted on the Tax Assessor's site. MR. KUHL-Okay. Gotcha. MR. JACKOSKI-Which was an effort that they went out and photographed all the lake properties in the summer. MR. FREER-But that's something back here, right, behind it? Or no? MR. JACKOSKI-Is there another structure? I don't see a structure there at all with that boathouse. MR. DYBAS-Where are the originals that are in your packet? Side by side. MR. JACKOSKI-We don't know when those were taken. I'm just looking at a photograph from 2015 or 16. MR. UNDERWOOD-They were taken before it was taken down. MR. JACKOSKI-But what I'm getting at, was the stone structure replaced with that other structure and then that structure was photographed and then this new one? MR. DYBAS-1 do believe you are looking at the stone structure next door. MR. URRICO-It says 2016, the date on it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, well, anyway, we'll open the public hearing if there are no questions from Board members. MR. KUHL-Curt, just one question. When you went to the Lake George Park Commission, these, this structure was what you presented? MR. DYBAS-No, nothing was there. MR. KUHL-Right, but I mean this was the build. The build was with the ramps, with the railings, with the unit underneath. MR. DYBAS-That is correct. The drawings that are in your packet are exactly what was presented to the Lake George Park Commission. MR. KUHL-And got approval. MR. DYBAS-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-How long have the Handlers owned the property. MR. DYBAS-2010. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment on this. MR. DYBAS-April 2, 2008. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. DYBAS-Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-I heard, 2008. Any other questions? So we don't have any other public or written comment? I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm a little mystified here because I think once again, you know, the Town is kind of overreaching and trying to find fault with people who are just following the proper recommendations of the Park Commission and if you look at the pictures I don't see that there's any difference in what's been reconstructed, although it's new construction. I'm baffled, you know, you're thinking you applied to do something. You had permission to do it. Someone after the fact comes in and tries to find fault with that? MR. FREER-Well, no, he had to get a permit, right? The Park Commission doesn't have authority in Queensbury. They have authority on the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know but it's a boathouse. The boathouse has been there previously. It's been there for years. MR. JACKOSKI-That's not a boathouse. That's a storage thing and it's on the shore. It's not on the dock. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody that has a boathouse not have a storage building? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't. You've got a massive boathouse. We can't count you. I don't. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would say the bulk of humanity up there on the lake has storage for their, whatever they use on the waterfront down there, and it doesn't make any sense, and I'm thinking a building that's like six feet by nine, everybody's entitled to a shed on their property. I really don't see what the big deal is with this. To me it's overreach, and I think we owe an apology to the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'd be in favor of this. To me it looks like a straight like for like, and if in fact when Curt applied for the building permit, after getting approval from Lake George, it's just a shame that this has come to this point, but I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support this application. It is a little bit domain sensitive in terms of jurisdiction, but overlapping jurisdiction on the lake seems to be all too common and everyone trying to do their job, sometimes you get into these unintentional consequences, and that's why we have a Zoning Board of Appeals. So I would support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'd be in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I would, too. It's not like you're going to try and make a living quarters out of it. It's only a shed. I'd be in favor of it as is. 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 Jennifer Handler. Applicant proposes to maintain a recently reconstructed 9 ft. 6 in. by 7 ft. 6 in. dock storage shed with part of an existing sundeck structure under stairs. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from shoreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 —establishment of districts The applicant requests to maintain an existing dock storage shed at the shoreline where it is 4 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 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 nay 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 as this shed blends in well with the dock. 2. Feasible alternatives would be limited. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. You might say it is a self-created hardship, but it is a good use of it. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-61-2017 JENNIFER HANDLER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-And Mr. Dybas I would strongly urge your client to check with the Assessor's Office to make sure they're not getting assessed for somebody else's property. MR. DYBAS-1 do believe that stone structure is 21 next door. MR. JACKOSKI-It certainly could be. So hopefully they'll fix that on the tax record, and take it off if it's on your client's record. MR. DYBAS-1 will suggest that. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Next item this evening is Sean and Jennifer Kennedy, Area Variance No. Z-AV- 60-2017, a Type 11 SEAR. A public hearing is scheduled for this evening. The location is 279 Chestnut Ridge Road. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-60-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 SEAN & JENNIFER KENNEDY AGENT(S) JOE FUERST — ALL POINTS LAND SURVEY, PLLC OWNER(S) SEAN AND JENNIFER HANDLER ZONING MDR LOCATION 279 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. LOT 2 WILL BE INCREASED FROM 4.1 ACRES TO 14.4 ACRES AND LOT 1 WILL BE REDUCED FROM 47.6 ACRES TO 34.2 ACRES. LOT 1 WILL HAVE AN EASEMENT ALLOWING LOT 2 ACCESS THROUGH AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD. LOT 1 WILL HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE (PHYSICAL ACCESS). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 44.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.1-48 AND 47 SECTION 179-4-050 NATHAN HALL & JOE FUERST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-60-2017, Sean & Jennifer Kennedy, Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 "Project Location: 279 Chestnut Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment which will result in a lot that does not meet the minimum road frontage requirements for the MDR zoning district. Lot 2 will be increased from 4.1 acres to 14.4 acres and Lot 1 will be reduced from 47.6 acres to 34.2 acres. Lot 1 will have an easement allowing Lot 2 access through an existing driveway to Chestnut Ridge Road. Lot 1 will have a shared driveway. Relief requested for road frontage (physical access). Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage (physical access). Section 179-4-050 —Frontage on public or private The boundary line adjustment places lot 1 of 34.2 ac to have shared access to Chestnut Ridge Road through lot 2 as lot 1 does not have physical road frontage. 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 impact on the neighboring properties as Lot 1 contains an existing home and currently access Chestnut Ridge Road through the existing driveway. 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 and location. The applicant proposes utilizing a share driveway that would limit the number of access onto the public road. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The project utilizes existing drive for shared access where relief is for not having direct access to the Town road. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of a 47.6 ac parcel and a 4.1 acre parcel. Where the existing 47.6 ac parcel currently contains the existing home and has the driveway—this parcel is reduced to 34.2 ac and will then have no road frontage. The adjoining lot of 4.1 ac will be increased to 14.4 ac and is currently vacant and will be improved with a single family home and associated site work. The lot will then have physical road frontage and will develop a driveway that will merge with the existing driveway." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. HALL-Good evening. Nathan Hall from Little, O'Connor and Borie. I'm here with Joe Fuerst from All Points Land Survey, along with Sean and Jennifer Kennedy. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's a very straightforward application, and just for the record I should disclose that some of the applicants' agents I've used in the past and use in the future. So I don't feel there's a conflict of interest, but we'll move forward with the application. I just want that to be out there for full disclosure. It's a very simple application. There's two lots. I'll poll the Board members and open the public hearing and see where we go from there. MR. HALL-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board members have questions on this application? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board regarding this application? 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 poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think that shared driveways are preferable, especially on Chestnut Ridge. Putting another curb cut in just to satisfy some esoteric rule doesn't make much sense. I'm all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Jim. I'm in favor of this application. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm also in favor of it as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-It's on the last application, come to mind on this one, but, yes, it makes sense and I have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I would go along with this application. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and I'll seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sean and Jennifer Kennedy. Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment which will result in a lot that does not meet the minimum road frontage requirements for the MDR zoning district. Lot 2 will be increased from 4.1 acres to 14.4 acres and Lot 1 will be reduced from 47.6 acres to 34.2 acres. Lot 1 will have an easement allowing Lot 2 access through an existing driveway to Chestnut Ridge Road. Lot 1 will have a shared driveway. Relief requested for road frontage (physical access). Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage (physical access). Section 179-4-050 —Frontage on public or private The boundary line adjustment places lot 1 of 34.2 ac to have shared access to Chestnut Ridge Road through lot 2 as lot 1 does not have physical road frontage. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 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 it's a very large lot and as my colleague said, it makes sense to share a driveway and limit cut outs on this road. 2. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited. There's a lot of land here and it makes sense to make this lot line adjustment in order to accommodate what the people want to do. 3. The requested variance is substantial in the context of the rules, but it is really not a big deal given the property as it sits. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is probably not self-created because the zoning laws came into effect after people had a chance to think about how they wanted to do that. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-60-2017 SEAN & JENNIFER KENNEDY, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck, and if Mr. O'Connor were here I'd say the same thing to him. Hopefully you guys negotiated with how many words they actually spoke this evening for your bill. You'll be all set. MR. HALL-One thing that I did want to clarify real quick is my understanding is that the Area Variance is now approved. The boundary line adjustment as far as the overlying, we should speak with the Town about that. That's not a Zoning Board matter. MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Next item on this evening's agenda is William & Frances Hannan. Jonathan Lapper as agent or his firm, 7 Glen Hall Drive, Glen Lake, Area Variance No. Z-AV- 56-2017, a Type II SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-56-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 WILLIAM AND FRANCES HANNAN AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) WILLIAM AND FRANCES HANNAN ZONING WR LOCATION 7 GLEN HALL DRIVE — GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 5 FT. 10 IN. BY 24 FT. DOCK THAT IS 7 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE 20 FT. IS REQUIRED. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 9 FT. BY 13 FT. 3 IN. DOCK EXTENSION A PART OF THE PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCK LOCATION. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-29 SECTION 179-5-060 JOHN WRIGHT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I will turn it over to Roy to be read into the record, but I want to address who's acting as agent for the applicant. MR. WRIGHT-Good evening, John Wright with Bartlett. Pontiff. Stewart. Rhodes in Glens Falls. I'm here with William and Frances Hannan. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. All right. Roy, read it into the record, please. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-56-2017, William and Frances Hannan, Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 "Project Location: 7 Glen Hall Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 5 ft. 10 in. by 24 ft. dock that is 7 ft. from the property line where 20 ft. is required. Applicant proposes to remove a 9 ft. by 13 ft. 3 in. dock extension as part of the project. Relief requested from minimum side setbacks requirements for the dock location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for a dock. Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone, WR The applicant proposes to maintain an existing dock at 7 ft. from the property line where a 20 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. The applicant is removing a portion of the dock117 +/- sq. ft. extension and leaving a 24 ft. by 5 ft. 10 in dock. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to relocate the dock in a compliant location. The applicant has indicated relocation would cause shoreline disturbance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 13 ft. to the north side of the property where the existing setback is to remain. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has indicated they understand the dock and extension is nonconforming and are requesting only the dock to remain in the existing configuration. The survey shows the location of the dock and extension. There are no other site changes." MR. JACKOSKI-We've already had introductions. So I suspect you'll just take questions from the Board members. MR. WRIGHT-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there questions from the Board members concerning this application? And of course it's a Glen Lake application. So we always look to Jim for guidance on these. All set? MR. KUHL-I just have one. I was just wondering how come you just, I mean, why don't you just move it to the middle of your property? You wouldn't need a variance. MR. WRIGHT-That's the one thing that got glossed over a little bit in the Staff Notes and perhaps our application as well. The dock is actually secured with steel beams that are set into the shoreline. We were out there at the site and dug down and found them today. MR. KUHL-I don't see them when I pass by. MR. WRIGHT-Yes, well you've got to get a little closer than that. And they're set in, the dock itself, the wood part of the dock, is actually set into the shoreline probably four or five feet, and there are steel beams underneath that that are also set in there. Which the dock workers indicated have been removed at this point because it would require jackhammering and excavating the shoreline. So that portion of the dock that we're asking to remain was there in 2004 when my clients purchased the property, goes back to at least 1990 as far as we can tell from the Town records. So the variance we seek is really just restoring the property to what it was in 2004 at the time that my clients bought it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I live on Glen Lake. I paddle by it 100 times every year, and it's been that way forever as far as I can remember. My dock at my house is asymmetrically placed at the edge of the property line next to my neighbor's dock which is also placed next to mine and a lot of times I think it makes more sense to have some variety built into it than cookie cuttering 20 feet between every dock on the lake so it looks like a manicured wharf or something. I don't really have a problem with the request. MR. HENKEL-That pump out system is there, right? MR. WRIGHT-No. MR. HENKEL-See that's gone. I couldn't find the pump outs. MR. JACKOSKI-There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who'd like to address this Board on that application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's a few letters. "We were first informed of the 9/27 public hearing for the subject application by the Town's notice letter on 9/18/17. We were totally unaware of this application prior to receiving this letter and there has been no discussion with the applicants' regarding their application for this variance. Unfortunately we will be out of the area from 9/25/17 until mid-October and cannot attend the public hearing. However we are providing the following written comments in opposition to the proposed variance for the record. As the owners of the property at 9 Glen Hall Drive, the applicants are our neighbors to the south and we share the common property line (into the lake) that the applicants' illegal L shaped dock encroaches beyond by several feet. We are directly affected by this proposed variance and believe our property value could be reduced for the reasons discussed below. It is also our understanding that the applicants are requesting relief to reduce the required 20 ft. setback for a straight dock (5'-10" x 24') to a setback of 7 ft. off our common property line. The applicants propose to remove only a portion of the illegal dock (9' x 13') that the applicants previously installed without a Building Permit. We oppose this variance for the following reasons: 1) Compliance can be easily achieved, without a variance, by relocating the 5-10' x 24' straight dock section to the middle of the applicant's waterfront (i.e., located 25 ft. from both the north and south property lines). This encroachment was self-created by the applicants constructing a non-conforming modification to their dock. The proposed variance is nothing more than an attempt by the applicants to minimize their costs to correct this self-created difficulty at our expense. The applicants are trying to sell this variance as a means to "relieve encroachment", but in effect the variance creates a new encroachment as described in comment#3 below. On Question 1 (page 4) the applicants indicate that "6' is sufficient for the neighbor's parcel". We disagree. We believe that the 20 ft. setback should be adhered to, as was the case when we put in a dock with a building permit in 2014. On Questions 2 & 6 (Page 4) the applicants base their response on a non-existent steel I-beam structure that would cause "significant shoreline disturbance". We disagree. There is no steel I-beam structure and we have photos taken this week to prove it. The existing illegal dock structure is built of pressure treated wood. On Question 3 (page 4) the applicants state that the area variance is not substantial "because the neighbor to the north does not have a dock in that area of its property". We disagree. In 2014 after obtaining the required building permit we installed a new stake dock on the south side of our property,just outside the required 20 ft. setback. 2) Granting this variance is detrimental to our property value (9 Glen Hall Drive) We find it disconcerting that the 20 ft. setback from the extension of our common property line into the lake could possibly be reduced by 65% (to 7 ft.) without our concurrence. To be dna perfectly clear we believe that a 65% reduction is undeniably substantial and a 7 ft. setback is clearly insufficient for the reasons stated in Comments 3 and 4 below. 3) This variance fails to "relieve encroachment", and in fact creates a new encroachment where boats would be docked over the property line. The proposed 7 ft. setback is insufficient to prevent this situation. Whenever a boat is tied to the north side of the proposed straight dock location, the boat will extend beyond the property line. The proposed 7 ft. setback virtually assures that an 8 ft. standard width boat/pontoon tied to the north side would be 1 ft. over the property line at northern end of the dock (15.5 ft. from the shore at the property line). Because of the angles involved if a 22 ft. long pontoon (24 ft. from the shore at the property line) was tied to the dock the encroachment grows to over 4 ft. at the stern of the boat. 4) We also believe that any conditions proposed by the applicants or Board to mitigate this new encroachment on the north side of the dock would be unenforceable. We live at this location year-round and would be constantly placed in the position to police/enforce any conditions placed by the Zoning Board whenever the applicants come north for the weekend or rent their property in the summer. If the property were ever sold we would have the same situation with new neighbors that may or may not be aware of the conditions at the time of sale. 5) For the above reasons we request the Zoning Board members to: 1) Deny the application for Area Variance Z-AV-56-2017 and ; 2) Direct the applicants to remove the entire illegal dock from within the required 20 ft. setback area as soon as possible. Respectfully, Ronald & Cynthia Mackowiak 9 Glen Hall Drive Queensbury, NY 12804" Another letter. "We are neighbors of France and William Hannan owners of 7 Glen Hall Dr., Queensbury, NY. We own the nearby property at 92 Hall Rd., Queensbury. As their neighbor, we would like to register our support of their application for an area variance for their original dock located 7' from the property line where 20' is required. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jerry Quintal Kathy Quintal" This is essentially the same letter and this is from Dick Burke and Lu Burke and "P.S. we have resided at 90 Hall Road for 25 years. The same dock has been in place for 3 property owners before Mr. and Mrs. Hannan." This is essentially the same letter as the previous one, and it's signed by Bernie Gansle and Candy Gansle. And that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So Board members have heard the public comment. I'm going to simply poll the Board at this time to see where they're leaning in this application. Would anybody like to volunteer to go first? MR. HENKEL-Is there really proof of it still being there? MR. WRIGHT-Yes. MR. HENKEL-According to your neighbors they said not, but I just went to where you locked the fence there and looked out. So I couldn't tell. WILLIAM HANNAN MR. HANNAN-I dug it up this afternoon, the hole's there. I left it open. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Would you be willing to a condition that you couldn't park a boat on that side, subsequent side? MR. HANNAN-On the north side. MR. KUHL-Can I just ask a question, Mr. Chairman? I realize I had my chance and didn't. Are you going to put a ladder into the water if you want to walk down? Are you going to be putting a ladder on this dock to get into the lake? FRANCE HANNAN MRS. HANNAN-A swim ladder, like a pool ladder. MR. KUHL-A ladder. MR. HENKEL-There's a ladder on that side now, isn't there? When I was looking down there's a ladder on the 7 ft. side. MR. KUHL-No, this is the new dock I'm talking about. I'm not talking about the existing. The ladder is going to be on the north side of the dock? MRS. HANNAN-Correct. MR. KUHL-Is that right? MRS. HANNAN-Right, and that would impede another boat. MR. KUHL-So that will basically force people to stay off that side. MRS. HANNAN-Plus it's at an angle. It's hard to dock that side. We always dock on the south side. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So John, are you in favor or opposed? MR. HENKEL-I'm in favor with that condition. Great. No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Have we established that this dock is not new? I mean, because one of the comments the neighbors made was this was a recent addition. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So you can see there they did what they did and then it all goes away, and they just want to keep the location of the original dock, but the whole dock is new. MR. URRICO-I just want to make sure for the record that's the case. MR. FREER-So they didn't get a permit when they re-did it? MRS. HANNAN-You mean for the extension? MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. HANNAN-Morgan did something to it in 2015 I guess. He squared it and stabilized it. MR. WRIGHT-But it wasn't re-built. MR. HANNAN-No. MR. WRIGHT-The only construction you did was the extension, the 9 by 13, the L Shape. MR. HANNAN-Right. Correct. MR. URRICO-Was a building permit required for that? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. URRICO-And it wasn't applied for and gotten? I'd be against the application. MR. WRIGHT-But it's been removed. That's part of the. MR. URRICO-I'm sorry. There's too many questions coming up here that I'm not sure about. MR. JACKOSKI-Let us go through and then we'll give you a chance to talk again based on what the Board members have said. So you know what to address and how to address it. MR. WRIGHT-1 understand. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Well, I usually listen to the neighbors, and in this case I certainly wouldn't approve it unless we made the constraint that parking there would be no boats on the north side, but I'm curious to hear what the rest of my colleagues say in that regard. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think with the removal of where it protrudes over the property line, I think that alleviates the problem and makes the situation better than was existing previously. I think as long as there's no boats parked on that north side I have no problem with the request. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I understand what the neighbors saying, but we all seem to have a habit of putting our boats on the same side every time, and I know that they park their boat on the south side. The neighbor has a valid concern, and even if you get company once and you've got two boats on the dock, it's not the end of the world. So I'll be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to ask counsel and Staff some questions if I could. Since the addition has been removed. MRS. HANNAN-To be removed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. With the addition no longer a factor and we have the original dock structure, correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Why are they here? MRS. MOORE-Because that original dock structure does not meet the setback. MR. JACKOSKI-But it's the original structure. Otherwise I could have everybody who's got a nonconforming improvement in front of me. MR. KUHL-Could I say this about that? The next applicant is replacing a six foot fence. MR. JACKOSKI-Replacing it. They didn't replace the whole original dock. MR. KUHL-They removed it. They went for a building permit to do it. MR. JACKOSKI-To do the addition, correct? And you want to replace the whole dock. MR. WRIGHT-Right now all that's happening is the removal of the 9 by 13 addition. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, the original dock stays the same. Why are they in front of me? MR. KUHL-If it was pre-existing nonconforming and they got approval to put it in when it was in. MR. JACKOSKI-You take off the addition it's still the original dock. Counsel? The problem is I've got a ruling by the Zoning Administrator that says they have to be here. So I'm here to listen to the appeal that that decision was basically wrong, so to speak. That's why we grant you a relief. So my thought is they're right back to where they started. If they wanted to replace the whole thing, then they've got to be here in front of us. I understand replacement. Okay. MR. URRICO-Now that I have a better understanding, I'd like to hear the attorney's view also. You said you had to clarify something. MR. CROWE-1 wanted to address whatever questions you had in your mind, Mr. Urrico. MR. URRICO-So what we've just said here is correct. MR. CROWE-Correct. MR. URRICO-Okay. In that case that answered the question that I had. MR. JACKOSKI-In that case 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 William and Frances Hannan. Applicant proposes to maintain a 5 ft. 10 in. by 24 ft. dock that is 7 ft. from the property line where 20 ft. is required. Applicant proposes to remove a 9 ft. by 13 ft. 3 in. dock extension as part of the project. Relief requested from minimum side setbacks requirements for the dock location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for a dock. Section 179-5-060 Docks, boathouses, moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone, WR The applicant proposes to maintain an existing dock at 7 ft. from the property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 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 part of the dock that now protrudes over the property line will be removed and the dock will remain where it's been for the previous three owners of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board. It could have been moved to the 20 foot setback in the center of the property but it's understood that this is an eye beam constructed heavily attached to the shoreline job and would create more of a disturbance by doing that. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because nothing will change. The dock will be in exactly the same position it's in. No reconstruction is occurring. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not feel by leaving the dock where it is it creates any adverse effects. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the difficulty is simply created by the fact that the dock's been there forever. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The applicant has agreed that there will be no parking of boats on the north side of the dock and that will alleviate the concerns of the neighbors about that side. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-56-2017 WILLIAM AND FRANCES HANNAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI- There was a suggestion about whether or not we had to have a condition on this, but the neighbors also addressed enforceability of that condition. Do we want to add that condition on? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 will just add the fact that the applicant has agreed that there will be no parking of boats on the north side of the dock and that will alleviate the concerns of the neighbors about that side. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-And unfortunately if you agreed to pay your attorney by the word, your bill is going to be bigger than the last one. At least you got your dock. MR. HANNAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is Elizabeth Collins, 19 Garrison Road. There's a public hearing scheduled for this evening. It is Area Variance Z-AV-63-2017, a Type 11 SEAR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-63-2017 SEQRA TYPE II ELIZABETH COLLINS OWNER(S) ELIZABETH COLLINS ZONING MDR LOCATION 19 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE DETERIORATING WOOD (59+/- LINEAR FT.) PRIVACY FENCE WITH ANOTHER 6 FT. HIGH FENCE IN KIND. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCE PLACEMENT IN A FRONT YARD (CORNER LOT WITH NORTH ROAD) AND TYPE OF FENCE (PRIVACY). WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-57 SECTION 179-5- 070 ELIZABETH COLLINS, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-63-2017, Elizabeth Collins, Meeting Date: September 27, 2017 "Project Location: 19 Garrison Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace deteriorating wood (59 +/- linear ft.) privacy fence with another 6 ft. high fence in kind. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard (corner lot with North Road) and type offence (privacy). SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard (corner lot with North Road) and type of fence (privacy). Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 6 ft. stockade and will be located on North Road, where the property is located at the corner of Garrison and North Road. 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 for a compliant fence height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2 ft. in excess of the allowed fence height and stockade. 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 I � considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete removal of the existing fence and to install a 6 ft. fence for 58 ft. +/- section that will be along North Road. The applicant has indicated the fence existing prior to their purchase of the property and is needed for privacy, and security." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Liz. Straightforward application. We'll ask you questions. I know the fence has been there a long time because I lived across the street. So any questions from Board members at this time about this application? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no written comment, I'll poll the Board quickly. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's replacing a pre-existing, nonconforming fence. I don't think there's been any objections within the past. I don't know why we would object to it now. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-It would be different if it was blocking somebody's view at the corner of the stop sign, but there's no such thing going on there. So definitely. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm ready to make a motion to approve. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-It's an improvement to the fence that's there. 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 Elizabeth Collins. Applicant proposes to replace deteriorating wood (59 +/- linear ft.) privacy fence with another 6 ft. high fence in kind. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard (corner lot with North Road) and type of fence (privacy). SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard (corner lot with North Road) and type of fence (privacy). Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 6 ft. stockade and will be located on North Road, where the property is located at the corner of Garrison and North Road. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 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. I live nearby and I see no issue with what they're trying to do. 2. Feasible alternatives don't make sense because a four foot fence on the side/back of the house doesn't provide the privacy and security that they're looking for. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's a small run of what is a corner lot so it's got to be considered a front lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. They're replacing a fence that was already up there. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-63-2017 ELIZABETH COLLINS, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck, Liz. MRS. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening is Michael & Karen LeBlanc, 34 Warren Lane, Area Variance Z-AV-55-2017, a Type II SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. There was one scheduled for last week as well but we've moved the meeting to this week. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC OWNER(S) MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC ZONING MDR WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY LOCATION 34 WARREN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 2.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2.57 ACRES AND 0.23 ACRES (100 FT. BY 100 FT.). MAIN LOT, 2.57 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN. NEW LOT, 0.23 ACRES, HAS AN EXISTING GARAGE THAT WIL BE REMOVED TO PLACE A DOUBLE- WIDE MOBILE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEWLY CREATED LOT IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT AND MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR THE CREATION OF THE ADDITIONAL LOT. CROSS REF P-SB-14-2017 PRELIM; P-SB 15- 2017 FINAL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-67 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-55-2017, Michael and Karen LeBlanc, Meeting Date: September 20, 2017 "Project Location: 34 Warren Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acres (100 ft. by 100 ft.). Main lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acres, has an existing garage that will be removed to place a double-wide mobile home. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Planning Board: Subdivision Application for the creation of the additional lot. Relief Required: 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to create a 0.23 acre lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. 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 existing parcel is an odd configuration at 2.8 ac. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 1.77 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 environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has shown a compliant septic system can be installed on the site along with the placement of a mobile home. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 2.8 ac parcel into two parcels. One lot is to be 2.57 ac and to maintain an existing home and a wooded/garden area. The second lot is to be .23 ac and a garage building is to be removed then a mobile home with a septic can be installed on the lot. The applicant has also indicated a replacement septic system can be installed on the 2.57 ac parcel through an easement. The applicant has indicated the new lot is for their daughter and the home and lot size is similar to some of the neighboring properties." MR. URRICO-Then the Planning Board, on September 26, 2017, passed a motion that they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal." And that was approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. It's a very straightforward application. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, in the interest of full disclosure, while looking at the property I had a discussion with the applicants, and I didn't divulge any secrets. MR. JACKOSKI-Good. They're going to be in for a real treat tonight aren't they? Okay. Welcome, if you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. LE BLANC-Mike and Karen LeBlanc. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. So it's a straightforward application. I suspect you just want Board members to ask questions. I mean one of the biggest questions will be why can't you give more land to the new lot? MRS. LE BLANC-It's hard enough giving it. MR. JACKOSKI-But it's your daughter. That is one of our most difficult parts is you've got the land to give more. So it could be more conforming. So we're going to need you to underscore that a little more. MRS. LE BLANC-It's wooded. It's got a lot of animals. It's nature. We don't want to build on it. We don't want to give it away. We want to keep it. They can have it when we're gone. MR. JACKOSKI-Other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-If there were sewer here they wouldn't be here. Correct? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know about 100 by 100. MR. FREER-It's one acre for sewer. MR. KUHL-How about that, Staff? MRS. MOORE-You'd need a larger lot size. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. KUHL-How large? Gotcha. Never mind. MR. JACKOSKI-It's one acre, right? This is only a quarter of an acre. MR. KUHL-Yes, but. MR. JACKOSKI-And I understand the neighborhood and I understand the manufactured home overlay district. I understand all that. MR. KUHL-Okay. I mean, there's room on the lot for the septic. They're getting Town water. They don't have to worry about hundreds of feet, but anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-So are there any other questions before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, I'll just run down the Board. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. So this doesn't, I mean, I kind of see what you're doing, but this isn't the minimum. We're supposed to give you the minimum relief necessary and you can come up with a better lot to be more compliant. So creating a .23 acre lot doesn't make sense when there's a half an acre left that you could be more compliant with what we're trying to do with the Code. So I right now don't support this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm going to be in favor of it. I understand the situation. I think it's admirable that they don't want to just slice so many trees out of the area just to make it conform. I think we're looking at just one lot, and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it blends in with the neighborhood and I hear the fact about a small 100 by 100. 1 came from Long Island where we had 40 by 100, but my thing is it blends in with the neighborhood. I think it's a good project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd like to see it be a little bit bigger lot, too, so there wouldn't be any problems with setbacks, but I can see it fits in pretty good there. So I'd go along with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the access up Warren Lane makes sense. If we look at the whole parcel there, my only suggestion would be to the Board that there be no further subdivision of the property. You've got two more acres, and I know you're not planning on that, but I think we could put that in as a stipulation and that would ensure that we maintain the acreage. MRS. LE BLANC-Just so that you understand, when we first moved there we owned two 25 by 100's. We bought the acreage behind us 20 years ago. It took us 20 years to save the money to buy it, just so that someone couldn't live back there, just so that you understand. MR. JACKOSKI-But that is a separate. MRS. LE BLANC-It's not that we don't want to give it to them. MR. JACKOSKI-But that is a separate deed. MRS. LE BLANC-No, we joined them. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, let me re-phrase that. They joined it on the tax maps. Did they join it literally on one big? MRS. LE BLANC-Literally. Just so that you understand. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean I agree with my fellow Board member Harrison that, you know, the minimum relief, and it is a balancing test, and there are ways for you to do a conservation easement over a larger parcel saying that there could be no cutting. There could be no building, all that other stuff, if we made the parcel bigger. That is an alternative, correct, counsel? MR. CROWE-A stipulation or a conservation easement? MR. JACKOSKI-What I'm saying is the 100 by 100 lot could actually be larger and if they wanted to protect that whole long strip, but what's left they could make it non-buildable, non- cuttable, non-clearable, all that other stuff, and still achieve their desired goal of keeping it forever wild, but allowing something to be developed and built on the 100 by 100. MR. CROWE-That's correct. I would say on the other comment a stipulation to prevent future subdivisions would be difficult. MR. JACKOSKI-So we have four votes for approval, which is a good thing for you folks. So I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to seek a motion for approval. MR. KUHL-I would like to make that motion. Am I to understand, before I start, that we're going to put a condition on this? We're not. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael and Karen LeBlanc. Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acres (100 ft. by 100 ft.). Main lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acres, has an existing garage that will be removed to place a double-wide mobile home. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Planning Board: Subdivision Application for the creation of the additional lot. Relief Required: 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to create a 0.23 acre lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 20, 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 it blends in with the overall layout of that neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are reasonable and minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. As I said earlier it blends in with the neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Although we could suggest that this is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. Z-AV-55-2017, MICHAEL & KAREN LEBLANC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Hurry up and get building and if she's living in the house get her out and get her into her own place. Good luck. MR. LE BLANC-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have one more matter in front of the Board this evening, and that is the matter of Wal-Mart as it relates to SEAR, as it relates to process, and I'll maybe let Staff or Counsel give us a little brief description of what they would suggest, and I believe that we are going to be making a motion, or I'll be making a motion this evening, to re-hear the Wal-Mart application as it relates to SEAR, and the timing of the vote on the actual variance request. So we'll open it up to Staff and Counsel. MR. CROWE-If you don't mind let me just expound on it a little bit. What we'd be suggesting tonight is a motion to re-hear, which doesn't mean that we're going to re-hear it tonight. It means that it would be re-heard at a future date, which would be the first meeting in October. The motion to re-hear has a bunch of different possibilities that I'll discuss next, but in order to sustain that motion, we need a unanimous vote. All that we'd be doing tonight, then, is putting it back on the agenda. Why we'd be putting it back on the agenda, at last week's meeting when this was discussed, there was a positive dec and a motion to deny the Sign Variance. Procedurally we should have stopped at Pos Dec. If there's a Pos Dec technically an EIS should have been filled out. That wasn't going to be done because the applicant knew which way the Board was going. So the applicant wasn't going to do an EIS, but we should have gotten on the record that the applicant wasn't going to do the EIS, at which point that ends the action. So the motion to deny the Sign Variance was superfluous, didn't need to happen, and we can clean up the record a number of different ways. The re-hearing is going to open everything up. So the SEQR motion is fully addressable. Potentially it could go to a Neg Dec or stay a Positive Dec potentially with some bolstering support, but more than anything we'd want to clean up, and if it stayed a Pos Dec to put the burden on the applicant to do an EIS. Assuming that they say no, they're not going to do one, then that terminates the action, no need to do the motion to deny the Sign Variance. So we will need like I said a unanimous vote in order to re-hear it. We'll also, when we re-hear it any change that would take place would also have to be by unanimous vote. So like I said, all we're doing this tonight is bringing this back into a discussion so at the very least we can clean up some procedural issues. MR. URRICO-Just for the sake of argument, if we don't unanimously agree to it, what happens? MR. CROWE-If you don't, well let's say you can't get the motion unanimously, it stays as is. If you pass the motion tonight and we re-hear it and there's no unanimous consent, it stays as is. What does that mean? Potentially there's a couple of avenues for a challenge. Whether that's really taken up I think is a slim scenario in that the applicant can see where the motion was going. So if this were to go in an Article 78 and we hear back that there should have been more support for the decision in SEAR, okay, we get more support, and if we come to the motion on the merits of the application, the applicant knew which way it was going. So I don't really think that they're going to pursue that, but that would be essentially what could happen if we don't clean it up a little bit. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does this open the barn door for them if we contradict ourselves on our decision? MR. CROWE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So what is the address of the property again, Staff? And what is the variance number? MS. HEMINGWAY-I think it's the 24 Quaker Ridge Boulevard. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'll make it as generic as I can with everyone knowing what the intent is. MRS. MOORE-I have 24 Quaker Ridge. MR. JACKOSKI-24, yes. Do we have the Sign Variance number? MRS. MOORE-Sign Variance 9-2017. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Walmart Real Estate Business Trust for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of an internally lit 66.76 sq. ft. wall sign for "Pick Up" and to include the Walmart Spark. Relief requested for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for signage in excess of the allowable limit for wall signs. Section 140 Signs –number of signs. The applicant proposes a sixth sign where only one wall sign is allowed. The original project for the Walmart store received a sign variance for the five signs existing. (SV 1-2009-3/18/2009) MOTION THAT THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RE-OPEN AND RE- HEAR AND RE-PUBLISH FOR A PUBLIC HEARING SIGN VARIANCE NO. Z-SV-9-2017 WALMART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST (24 QUAKER RIDGE BOULEVARD), Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: For the first meeting in October. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-I wasn't here for the last meeting. Am I still able to vote on that? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, because it's procedural. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-However, given that we do not have a unanimous decision, the matter remains as originally agreed to. The applicant will have the rights under the law as to however the applicant wants to handle the application. Can I have a motion to adjourn, please? MR. URRICO-So moved. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. KUHL-I second it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2017, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman