Loading...
12-20-2017 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC 1. FURTHER TABLING (A-1 Tree Works) Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR ZBA FOR 2018 2. Area Variance Z-AV-43-2017 Stephen H. and Deborah A. Richards 4. Tax Map No. 297.7-1-26 Area Variance Z-AV-69-2017 Marylou and Robert Dunton 7. Tax Map No. 239.16-1-25 Area Variance Z-AV-77-2017 Maureen Valenti 13. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-40 Area Variance Z-AV-79-2017 Kris Roglieri 19. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-37 Area Variance Z-AV-78-2017 Queensbury Square, LLC 25. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-38 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) DECEMBER 20, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are here at the Queensbury Activities Center, 742 Bay Road. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there is an agenda on the back table. There's some other literature as well, including Staff Notes. It's quite a simple process. We'll begin with some housekeeping matters. We'll do some Old Business, New Business and then any other business that needs to be brought to the attention of the Board. What we'll do is we'll read each application. We'll call the applicants and their representatives to the small table here. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll then ask the applicants to expand on that reading if necessary. Otherwise we'll simply ask some questions. When there's a public hearing scheduled, and there is a public hearing scheduled for every single item on this evening's agenda, Old Business and New, we will seek public comment. Please address your comments to the Board and we will take that into consideration and follow up with the applicants accordingly. We'll bring the applicants back to the table. We'll poll the Board and see where they're leaning and then take action accordingly. So we have a little bit of housekeeping to get done this evening. So if you could just bear with us for a little bit. We're going to look for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of November 15tH APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 15, 2017 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 15, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Next item is an Administrative Item, Area Variance No. 28-2017, Seaton Property Holdings, LLC also known as A-1 Tree Works. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-28-2017 SEQRA TYPE II SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS) AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) 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 308.16-1-55, -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 LIGHT MANUFACTURING OF WOOD PRODUCTS FOR A LOGGING PROCESSING COMPANY. CROSS REF P-SP-27- 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 2017; DISC 1-2017; SP 27-2016 SELF-STORAGE BLDGS; SP 65-2013 A-1 TREE WORKS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2017 LOT SIZE 9.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.16-1-55, -56, -58, & -61 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-They are to further table or deny without prejudice. Staff, could you fill us in a little bit? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So they're currently before the Town Board adding or changing a portion of the Code in reference to sawmill, and so they're looking to change that section of the Code in reference to the 10 acre requirement under the Special Use Permit, 100 acres. MR. HENKEL-100 acres, wasn't it? MRS. MOORE-At any rate, a change of acreage and they are still at the Town Board level making that change. If it goes through then they may not need to come back to the Zoning Board. In this case I would ask you to table it to the first meeting in February because they'll be on the second meeting of the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-So can I have a motion to table this matter, if we are going to table it, to the first meeting in February with a submission deadline in mid-January. MRS. MOORE-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A-1 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 to be Tabled until the first February, 2018 ZBA Meeting. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-28-2017, SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Tabled to the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in February 2018 with a submission deadline of January 16, 2018. Duly adopted this 20th day of December 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So, Staff, I do have the 2018 calendar in front of me. Do we need to make a motion to approve it all, or is it okay as is? MS. HEMINGWAY-I just gave it to you to look at. MR. JACKOSKI-All set with that. Next is recognition to Maria because Maria every year gives us lots of fudge and I think she actually stuck an extra piece in mind. So, Maria, thanks a lot for the fudge. Still under housekeeping, we need to set the officers for next year. So I will seek a motion for nominating Roy, if he would do so again, to be Secretary of the Zoning Board. Resolution For Election of Zoning Board of Appeals Officers for Year 2018 Officer Position: Secretary for Year 2018 Steve Jackoski nominates Roy Urrico for Secretary Officer Position Year 2018. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) BASED ON THE ABOVE, I MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OFFICER POSITION YEAR 2018, Introduced by Mike McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20th day of December 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Next item is a nomination for Vice Chair, and I'm hoping, Mike, you'll still stay on as Vice Chair. MR. MC CABE-1 would be honored. Officer Position: Vice Chairman for Year 2018 Steve Jackoski nominates Mike McCabe for Vice Chairman Officer Position Year 2018. BASED ON THE ABOVE, I MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE MIKE MCCABE FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICER POSITION YEAR 2018, Introduced by Steve Jackoski, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 20th day of December 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES:NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and as all of you know in the last five years I haven't really pushed us as a Board to make a recommendation to the Town as to who to appoint as Chairman, but given that we have three new Town Board members coming on on January 1St, I think it's imperative that we as a Board collectively suggest to them who we would like to see as Chairman of the Zoning Board going forward in 2018, and I'm going to recommend that we put forth Harrison Freer as the Chairman of next year for the Zoning Board. Is everyone okay with that? I see some nodding heads. So I'll make the motion. Resolution For Recommendation to the Queensbury Town Board Officer Position: Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for Year 2018 Steve Jackoski recommends to the Town Board to appoint Harrison Freer for Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Year 2018. BASED ON THE ABOVE, I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND HARRISON FREER FOR CHAIRMAN YEAR 2018, Introduced by Steve Jackoski, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jim Underwood: Duly adopted this 20th day of December 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And I will end my term here on the Zoning Board accordingly on December 31 st AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Henkel ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Again that is just a recommendation. We actually can't appoint the Chairman itself. Are we done with housekeeping, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you are. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, everyone, but that was seven minutes. Old Business, Stephen H. and Deborah A. Richards, 65 Hicks Road, Area Variance No. Z-AV-43-2017. A Type II SEAR. There have been public hearings on October 18th and December 20th. John is going to recuse himself from this. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-43-2017 SEQRA TYPE II STEPHEN H. AND DEBORAH A. RICHARDS OWNER(S) STEPHEN H. AND DEBORAH A RICHARDS ZONING MDR LOCATION 65 HICKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 361 SQ. FT. SHED NEXT TO AN EXISTING 361 SQ. FT. SHED FOR A TOTAL 772 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED. THE PARCEL ALSO HAS AN EXISTING 2,332 SQ. FT. HOME, 768 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND AN 80 SQ. FT. SHED WHERE THE SMALLER SHED IS TO BE REMOVED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE AND SETBACKS FOR SUCH STRUCTURE IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AST-247-2017 SHED; AV 14-2012 SECOND GARAGE; SUB 5-1994 ADMINISTRATIVE FOR MCGUIRE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2017 LOT SIZE 1.26 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.7-1-26 SECTION 179-5-020 STEPHEN & DEBBIE RICHARDS, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll have Roy read any new information into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-43-2017, Stephen H. and Deborah A. Richards, Meeting Date: December 20, 2017 "Project Location: 65 Hicks Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 361 sq. ft. addition to an existing 361 sq. ft. shed for a total 722 sq. ft. storage shed. The parcel also has an existing 2,332 sq. ft. home, 768 sq. ft. detached garage and an 80 sq. ft. shed where the smaller shed is to be removed. Relief requested from maximum allowable size, and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for enlargement of a 361 sq. ft. shed with an addition of 361 sq. ft. for a total 722 sq. ft. shed —for maximum allowable size and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—shed: The applicant proposes 722 sq. ft. accessory structure on a lot less than 3 ac and it is to be located 6 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. Relief is requested for the allowable size where 802 sq. ft. is existing including the shed addition to be maintained. (The garage is not included in the overall accessory structure size as garages have specific sizes allowed per code.) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to relocate the shed to a compliant location. The applicant has indicated the 80 sq. ft. shed is to be removed as part of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is setback relief of 19 ft. and for allowable maximum size exceeding 500 sq. ft. and request is for an excess of 302 sq. ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has revised the application in regards to the size of the sheds on the property. The applicant has added a 361 sq. ft. shed addition to an existing 361 sq. ft. shed for a total of 722 sq. ft. shed with two doors. The applicant has indicated that the 80 sq. ft. shed is to be removed. The photo shows the existing arrangement and the use of the building is for storage. A letter from the Water Department is also included informing the Board the applicant has not addressed the fence location with the Department associated with AV 67-2017 per the requirement of the Board." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome back. MR. RICHARDS-Hi. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll see what we can get done for you this evening. So would you like to add anything, give us an explanation as to where you stand with the project at this time? MR. RICHARDS-Mr. and Mrs. McGuire, the landowners all around us, they wrote us a letter. "I am writing this letter in regards to Debbie & Steve Richards' shed that is 10 ft. from the property line. I own the field behind their house and I'm in full support of leaving it where it is. Debbie & Steve Richards' property is beautifully landscaped, and the shed cannot be seen from the road and is not bothering anybody." Mr. and Mrs. McGuire. That's our immediate neighbors and I just thought I'd, in case. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you be able to provide my Secretary with that? MR. RICHARDS-Certainly. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything else you'd like to add before Board members ask you questions? MR. RICHARDS-I'd like to ask you a question. Is this common that another Department head, Christopher Harrington is trying to influence the Board on something that is really our business? MR. JACKOSKI-Well I believe Mr. Harrington's department has a vested interest in your property given the right of way that the Town of Queensbury has which he manages over your property, including the fire hydrant. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So, yes, actually it is. MRS. RICHARDS-Even on a variance for a shed? MR. JACKOSKI-Your property is under review because you have too many sheds, and all of these and your fence is within the right of way, so, yes, your whole parcel is under review. MR. RICHARDS-Well, what I'd like to do, I'd like to answer this letter for you, then. This has been addressed, and is on Mr. Strough's desk. It's been addressed two different times in writing with a proposal, and I don't know what's going on at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, what I understand from the language in your deed is you accepted upon receiving title to your property, is that anything to be built, any improvement to be built within the right of way must receive the approval of the Town of Queensbury including the Department head in charge of that part of the Town facility, which is Mr. Harrington, and you do not have approval. MR. RICHARDS-We do. MR. JACKOSKI-You have approval from Mr. Harrington? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. RICHARDS-If we really want to open up a big can of worms, we can really get into a lot of pages of this. We have had Mr. Brown, Craig Brown, we've had Mr. Strough and we've had Mr. Harrington and we've also had the maintenance supervisor for the Queensbury Water Department and proposals have been put in place and we have spent thousands of dollars putting in access gates and everyone has approved it from Craig Brown to Mr. Strough to the maintenance supervisor of the Water Department. It's all been approved, except Mr. Harrington is in non-approval and we are in the negotiation process, as we were the last time we had this meeting. I personally, I'm sorry that it has to be brought in front of the Appeals Board because it really doesn't have anything to do with it. That's exactly where we are. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So you haven't completed that process with those approvals, correct? MR. RICHARDS-We're in the process. MR. JACKOSKI-But you haven't gotten it done. MR. RICHARDS-We're waiting on Mr. Strough and Mr. Harrington. MR. JACKOSKI-Do Board members have any other questions of the applicants prior to re- opening the public hearing again? Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Other than the letter that was read into the record. So at this time I'll poll the Board and see where the Board is thinking they're going to go on the application as it is currently presented. Jim, do you want to start? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I think as described by the applicant you're using this mainly as hobby storage for your restoration of automobiles. MR. RICHARDS-We're not supposed to put automobiles in this shed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right, but you had parts stored. MR. RICHARDS-We had anything (lots of static, inaudible) Applicant proposes construction of a 361 sq. ft. addition to an existing 361 sq. ft. shed for a total 722 sq. ft. storage shed. The parcel also has an existing 2,332 sq. ft. home, 768 sq. ft. detached garage and an 80 sq. ft. shed where the smaller shed is to be removed. Relief requested from maximum allowable size, and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for enlargement of a 361 sq. ft. shed with an addition of 361 sq. ft. for a total 722 sq. ft. shed —for maximum allowable size and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—shed: The applicant proposes 722 sq. ft. accessory structure on a lot less than 3 ac and it is to be located 6 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. Relief is requested for the allowable size where 802 sq. ft. is existing including the shed addition to be maintained. (The garage is not included in the overall accessory structure size as garages have specific sizes allowed per code.) SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 18, 2017 and on December 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: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because Lost Language from Static on Tape Recorder 2. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request OR are not possible. Lost Language from Static on Tape Recorder 3. The requested variance is / is not substantial because Lost Language from Static on Tape Recorder 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That before the building permit is issued that the argument between the Water Department and the applicant be resolved. 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-43-2017 STEPHEN H. & DEBORAH A. RICHARDS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20th day of December 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And to clarify, the argument is the location of the fencing along the roadway, Hicks Road, and access to that right of way. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Jackoski RECUSED HIMSELF: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. You're all set. Have a good night and then follow up with the Planning Department and everything for your building permits. The next item on this evening's agenda is Mary Lou & Robert Dunton. We've seen this project before on October 18th Hopefully there was a public hearing scheduled for this evening, although the agenda does not state that it was. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-69-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MARYLOU AND ROBERT DUNTON AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) MARYLOU AND ROBERT DUNTON ZONING WR LOCATION 18 TALL TIMBERS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,860 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO EXISTING 3,213 SQ. FT. HOME AND PROPOSED IS 6,581 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 634 SQ. FT. GARAGE WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, SHORELINE SETBACKS, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA. CROSS REF P-SP-65-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2017 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.29 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-25 SECTION 179-4-010; 179-5-020 DENNIS MAC ELROY & DOUG MC CALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-69-2017, Marylou and Robert Dunton, Meeting Date: December 20, 2017 "Project Location: 18 Tall Timbers Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,860 sq. ft. (foot print) residential addition to existing total 3,213 sq. ft. home and proposed is total 6,581 sq. ft. Project includes removal of 634 sq. ft. garage when construction is completed. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements-WR zone The applicant proposes a 3,860 sq. ft. footprint residential addition with an attached garage. The addition is to be 46.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 54.2 ft. setback is required due to the setbacks of the two adjoining homes. Section 179-13-010 continuation Relief is requested for expansion of a non-conforming home. Section 147-11 stormwater device Relief requested for stormwater device less than 100 ft. from the shoreline 45 ft. is proposed. 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 two adjoining homes are setback further than the applicant's home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 7.7 ft. for shoreline setback and for stormwater device located less than 100 ft. from the shoreline 55 ft. relief requested. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project 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 revised the plans and proposes a 3,860 sq. ft. footprint residential addition with an attached garage. The new floor area to be added is 3,368 sq. ft. to an existing 3,213 sq. ft. for a total of 6,581 sq. ft. The applicant has explained the existing garage is to be used for housing and is to be removed when the addition is completed. The plans show the location of the addition and the interior floor plan for the home with the addition." (unable to transcribe two minutes or so. Inaudible) 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. MAC ELROY-That's how they're responding to what they heard from this Board. So the plans that were re-submitted show that removal of the structure and therefore, you know, we don't have that variance in front of you. That's a pretty significant revision that's been made and hopefully the others are, didn't seem to come up too much in discussions last time and hopefully we've made the revisions that's necessary for approval. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-What's the height going to be? MR. MAC ELROY-Twenty-eight feet. MR. HENKEL-I know last time you were saying it was going to be hard to maybe get that with the slope of the property. MR. MC CALL-The actual height is going to be less than 28 feet. It's going to be, the proposed addition will be 28 feet from existing grade which is back beyond the highest point. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? I do have someone. I suspected so. Welcome, Chris. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I apologize. I thought I'd sent our letter in, but I was informed by Sue I didn't. I apologize, but we recognize the applicant's elimination of the existing garage removing one of the requested variances as well as the water quality improvements associated with the upgrade of the wastewater or replacement of the wastewater treatment system and stormwater controls and we do support the applicant's desire to add to their structure. However, we still feel that the proposed project has extensive disturbance within the Critical Environmental Area along steep shorelines of Lake George, especially with the amount and depth of soil excavation and vegetation/tree removal. It's our opinion that the benefits are still outweighed by the impacts from the disturbance and alternative designs should further be considered. The benefit could be achieved through alternative designed by eliminating the shoreline setback and altering the garage design. They could obtain desired increase in the living area and the attached garage while eliminating the variance for shoreline setback. They've submitted documented pictures which we feel shows a cleared area, level cleared area where they could actually set that shoreline or set that addition to not impact the shoreline setback at all. Additionally the garage elevation could be raised possibly because that is lower than the first floor by my reading of the drawings, which would reduce the excavation necessary and this would eliminate the extent of disturbance and tree removal on the steep shoreline slopes. The variance could be considered excessive. The expansion of a pre-existing noncompliant structure is more than 100% of the total and more of a three-fold increase in the house footprint, and that could be considered excessive. Additionally the shoreline encroachment can be considered excessive from a disturbance perspective, but not perhaps from a numerical perspective, and the requested variances will result in adverse impacts to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As previously stated, there will be water quality improvements from the replacement of the septic system. However the disturbance associated with the construction will remove between 10 and 12 mature trees and perhaps a greater concern is the extent of excavation which could result in cuts up to 14 feet. It's our opinion it's vital to minimize the disturbance and removal of important natural landscape features within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. And we recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals request a further alternative design. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Chris. MR. NAVITSKY-1 will provide a copy for the record. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board on this application? Was there any other written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Having no other written comment, receiving the comment from the Water Keeper, Dennis, you can come back to the table. MR. URRICO-"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revisions being considered for Area Variance Number Z-AV-69-2017 submitted by Marylou and Robert Dunton, 18 Tall Timbers Road. We own the home at the end of Tall Timbers Road approximately 200 feet south of the Dunton property. As we indicated in October, the Dunton proposal is well presented and the proposed design and details retain and complement the existing house and, most importantly, the plan includes replacing an outdated septic system. However, the revised plans do not materially address the significant issues included in our October letter to the Board. The relief requested is still primarily the result of a self-created difficulty. The property and site are adequate for the Duntons to construct their addition with only one of the three variances requested (one variance would be required for any addition to their existing non-conforming structure). The Zone WR rules were established to protect our community and Lake George and we think it's reasonable to expect those rules be followed unless hardship dictates otherwise. Granting the revised variances will still introduce a significant change in the character of the neighborhood. The revised plan calls for a 42% increase in square footage (from 3,860 to 6,581) nearly triple the 2,300 square foot average of the 6 neighboring houses to the south and north, based upon the Warren County Real Property data. The variances requested will still have a significant adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood and lake. By building along the shore (rather than building back from the shoreline or behind the existing house) the plan still requires the removal of most of the natural vegetation including mature trees, to be replaced with impermeable surfaces (roofs, driveways, walkways, walls) necessitating a variance for an infiltration device setback of 45' vs. 100'. We recommend that the plans be further refined within existing Zone WR rules to forego unnecessary variances. Sincerely, Lenton and Barbara Simms" 8 Burnt Ridge Road Lake George. "I have reviewed the Dunton's revised variance application to see whether it would be necessary for me to present it to the ZBA. Based upon the minutes of the prior meeting, I expect that the removal of the existing garage structure will be sufficient to convince the Board that the relief requested is minimal. Although the proposed home is not small, it is well within the allowable floor area ratio and the porch expansion along the Lake-side is very minimal while it will be a major visual improvement. Jon Lapper, Esq. Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes" MR. JACKOSKI-But is Mr. Lapper representing someone there? Because otherwise he doesn't own property within the 500 feet. Correct? MR. URRICO-He's an agent for Dunton. The public comment says As Mr. Lapper is an agent for Mr. Dunton just add to the file please. Okay. "We are writing in support of the application for approval of house renovations for Robert and Marylou Dunton that will be coming in front of the Town Board next Wednesday, December 20. Although we have not seen the full details of the renovations, we have known the Dunton family for almost 20 years and they only have the best interest of the lake at heart. They have been coming to the lake since they were young and look forward to retiring in this house which needs renovating to make it more accessible and safe. Dennis MacElroy has designed their site plan that includes updating their septic and stormwater runoff. Dennis designed our plan a few years ago and we have great respect for his abilities and concern for the lake. Thank you for considering our letter of support for the Dunton's project. Robert & Trisha End 8 Waters Edge Drive, Cleverdale, NY 12820" "This letter is submitted on behalf of the Mastro family as owners of property to the south and immediately adjacent to the Dunton Project. My family has reviewed the revised site and architectural plans for the Dunton Project which we understand to be considered by the Planning Board on December 20, 2017. We have no objections to the revised site and architectural plans, dated November 8 & 15, 2017, and hereby express our whole-hearted support for the project and the overall site improvement. If you have any questions concerning the above, do not hesitate to contact me and I would be pleased to review it with you. Respectfully submitted, Arkley Mastro, Jr." And I think that is it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-There's one more thing. December 9th. "Dear Mr. Brown: We are writing you and the Zoning Board of Appeals to encourage passage of the Dunton Project on Tall Timbers Rd., Dunhams Bay, Queensbury, NY. We have known Marylou and Bob Dunton for decades. Their requests for rebuilding their lake home will be done with extreme care while maintaining concern for the lake. The finished project will enhance the neighborhood, and most importantly, protect the quality of Lake George. Mary Lou has lived on LG most of her life and is a fine steward in protecting the lake. Her husband, Bob, is the ideal example of a true professional, with integrity who has absolute respect for protecting the lake. They both know the heritage of beautiful Lake George and strive to maintain it! Their boat also is another 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) reflection of the Duntons. It is not a modern day fiberglass boat, but a beautifully restored family wooden boat. Their lives have revolved around the lake, raising 3 children to respect and enjoy the lake, now they are encouraging a new generation of grandchildren to do the same. Mary Lou and Bob's heart and soul are at Lake George and in Queensbury. The Duntons have spent years in planning for the rebuilding of their family home by bringing it up to today's zoning standards. They have focused on building with no negative impact on LG as they plan to bring safe standards, easier access and a new septic system to their home. We cannot stop process, but need to embrace this project. The Duntons have included considerations for protection of the lake while improving their neighborhood. They have worked through challenges in the design of this project, always yielding to the environment of the lake. As Zoning Board members you are working with an honorable family looking to preserve while modernizing their family home. We encourage all of you to support and embrace this project by voting approval for the Duntons. Sincerely, Fred and Linda McKinney 23 Mason Rd. Cleverdale, NY 12820" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, Dennis, do you have any comments as it relates to the Water Keeper's comments? And then we'll poll the Board. MR. MAC ELROY-The one that jumped out at me is just the reference to the photos. That's one of the reasons I put that photo of that area in there is that open area is primarily where the addition is going. It just made sense that it works with the existing house and so just to clarify Chris' comment or just so he understands. MR. HENKEL-There's really no trees you're taking down per se, is there? MR. MAC ELROY-There are some trees that would be removed. I'm not sure where 12 mature trees came from or how Chris would know that. MR. HENKEL-None of the trees in the front by the lakeside are coming down. MR. MAC ELROY-Those won't be. The regulated within the first 35 feet there's no removal. Upslope of that in the garage area there would be some removal of the trees, certainly not 12 mature trees. MR. MC CALL-The trees that are going to be removed would be removed anyway. Most of them are mature trees on the ledge, huge, leaning towards the house MR. HENKEL-Because when I walked that property, where you want to put that addition is definitely a good spot. You're not disturbing much there. You're not getting closer to the lake than the existing. MR. MAC ELROY-And just to clarify another thing. This is an addition to an existing house. It does increase the existing floor area. Even with that amount it's still approximately half of the allowable floor area ratio in perspective. MR. HENKEL-And you're tearing down the garage. MR. MAC ELROY-1250 feet of space. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Roy at that end. MR. URRICO-I think at this stage I think the applicant made some desirable changes to the application, but I still think there's room for improvement in terms of the variance that's requested. So I would not be in favor of it at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm more impressed with the applicants' neighbors that they've taken time to write the letters. I don't know if that was unsolicited or not, but they seem genuine. I'm impressed that the applicant did away with the existing garage. I think that was a big compromise. I think we gain quite a bit here with the improvements to the stormwater control and a new wastewater system, and so I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with Mike. It's definitely an improvement in terms of the last time you came to us and I like the placement of the stormwater management and the septic and you're 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) not touching the permeability by much. It's still at 82.9%. 1 think it's a great project. I'd be all for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 appreciate all the work the Duntons and you all have put into the plans, and so I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I'm in favor of the way it's presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we recognize the Water Keeper's comments, too. Any time we do reconstruction we disturb and we have an impact, but I think that the impacts that you'll have here because most of the area where you're proposing the construction is already cleared and more minimal than have been described by the Water Keeper. I think that at the same time we need to keep in mind the fact that expansions of properties that are pretty non- conforming properties on the lake are done thoughtfully and I think this project has been thoughtfully considered and also rendered appropriately for the site where it's proposed. So I would be in favor of it, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I'm in favor, and as you know, Dennis, I very rarely approve anything that's within that 50 foot lakeside, lakefront buffer area, but given it's existing, I'm in favor of the project as presented. So 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 Marylou and Robert Dunton. Applicant proposes construction of a 3,860 sq. ft. (foot print) residential addition to existing total 3,213 sq. ft. home and proposed is total 6,581 sq. ft. Project includes removal of 634 sq. ft. garage when construction is completed. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements-WR zone The applicant proposes a 3,860 sq. ft. footprint residential addition with an attached garage. The addition is to be 46.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 54.2 ft. setback is required due to the setbacks of the two adjoining homes. Section 179-13-010 continuation Relief is requested for expansion of a non-conforming home. Section 147-11 stormwater device Relief requested for stormwater device less than 100 ft. from the shoreline 45 ft. is proposed. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 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 believe that the new construction will improve the overall character of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but have not been deemed reasonable. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 3. The requested variance is not substantial given that the property has existed for quite a period of time and we're not changing the basic footprint of the property considerably. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we think there's going to be improvement to the physical and environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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-69-2017 MARYLOU AND ROBERT DUNTON, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 18th day of October 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Congratulations. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much, and on behalf of the Duntons they appreciate the review and your careful consideration. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item this evening is Maureen Valenti, Michael J. O'Connor, Esq. as agent, 113 Birdsall Road. It is a Type II SEAR. Area Variance 77-2017. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening, and given the project, I'm going to recuse myself and let Mike take over. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-77-2017 SEQRA TYPE II MAUREEN VALENTI AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) MAUREEN VALENTI ZONING WR LOCATION 113 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND COMPLETE A 570 SQ. FT. GROUND-LEVEL OPEN DECK THAT HAS BEEN PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED. THE OPEN DECK IS AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 4,235 SQ. FT. HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA AND FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE OF GLEN LAKE. CROSS REF P-SP-71-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-40 SECTION 179-13-010; 179-4-080 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-77-2017, Maureen Valenti, Meeting Date: December 20, 2017 "Project Location: 113 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain and complete a 570 sq. ft. ground-level open deck that has been partially constructed. The open deck is an addition to the existing 4,235 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA and for hard surfacing and filling within 50 ft. of the shoreline of Glen Lake. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements and permeability of the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The deck to be completed is to be located 26.9 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required then the west side yard is to be 13.5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability 68.3% is existing and 66.7% is proposed where 75% 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 home to the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 23.1 ft. to the shoreline and 6.5 ft. to the west property line. Relief for permeability is 8.3%. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete a 570 sq. ft. level open deck from the home facing the shore. The applicant has indicated the deck is to allow for a gathering area for the family. The plans show the deck location, floor plan and photos of the site." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on a limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was passed on December 19th unanimously. MR. MC CABE-Welcome. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. For the purpose of your record I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little, O'Connor & Borie, and with me at the table is Maureen Valenti who is the applicant. This is a Type 11 application for area variances. There are three variances that we're looking for, and hopefully after we're successful tonight we will go tomorrow night to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review because it's a nonconforming lot and nonconforming structure. The first variance that we're looking for is a setback variance on the west side of the property. The existing setback of the house is 11.2 feet. The deck is actually in a better location or is less nonconforming than the existing house. The deck will be 13.5 feet from that west side line. So we'll be looking for a variance there of 6.5 feet. We won't be enlarging the nonconforming aspect of that side. Actually the deck will be more conforming. The second variance we'd be looking for is a variance on the permeability. Right now the existing site has 68.3 permeability as opposed to the required 75%. It's now 6.7% out of compliance. What we're proposing is going to be 66.7%, and that's an additional 1.6% of noncompliance out of the 75%, but it's not going to be as substantial as the area variance. MR. HENKEL-You're looking for 68, 66.7 is existing. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Okay, and truthfully I argue a little bit with Staff as to whether or not we're asking for that much because the deck is a typical deck that is slotted where the rain won't stay on the deck if it's built successfully, which I think it has been built successfully. They actually put spacers between the decking boards so that the water that falls on the deck would 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) fall to the area underneath. I don't know, if you count that as being non-permeable or partially non-permeable. It's not a thing that's going to have a great impact on the site. The third area of the variance is the front setback, and we're proposing 23.1 feet. This is a deck that is for all intents and purposes ground level. It's not a second floor deck that's going to stick out from the lake. It's actually going to be pretty much hidden into the house as the background. It was a retaining wall, and basically if you've been out to look at it it's eight inches or ten inches above the retaining wall, the deck that's going to be visible from the lake. The house to the east of it, actually their deck is probably 15 feet from the lake. It's a pre-existing structure. So our deck is not going to be in conformance with the setback, but it's going to be more in conformance than our immediate neighbor. It will have very little impact on the neighborhood. The idea of the deck is most activities take place in front of a camp or a home on the lake and there really was very little area for people to sit and watch the people on the dock coming and going and what not in the water and everything else. This gave the owners a gathering place for the people near the lakefront where they get the most benefit. It's not something you would build in the backyard and have any functional use out of. We've had great support from the neighbors as to this application. We had a number at the Planning Board last night. I think you had probably seven families that have written letters in support of the application, most of the neighbors in the immediate area of the property and on the west side when we're talking about the side line setback, there is no structure there. That's a common lot that's shared by a number of owners for recreation purposes for the lake. It's not a private lot. The neighbors, I've got their letters. I presume you're going to read them. I'm not going to read them. Do you have any questions? MR. URRICO-Feel free to read them if you'd like. I'll read them into the record. MR. O'CONNOR-If you have questions I'll read them. If you don't, if you've got some problems with what's been presented let me know. MR. MC CABE-So, Board, do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-I think your argument about the decking and the water going through, in reality that happens but it takes away permeability when you do the deck, Mike. So I mean, I realize your argument and I agree because I have a raised deck and it does drip down, but for all intents and purposes once you put a covering. MR. O'CONNOR-I admit that that's what our rules and regulations say, but it's worth thinking about. MR. KUHL-Thank you for bringing that up, though. I appreciate that. MR. HENKEL-But you already have a first floor deck that's in front of the house there now. And you've got actually three stories. You've got the second story has a full deck and your third story has two balconies with decks. So to say that you don't really have any area to view the people on the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the area that you're talking about on the first floor is a narrow area. MR. HENKEL-What's the size of that? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe this is one inch equals twenty feet, and it's probably 10 feet. One inch equals twenty. So there's a portion of it across the center of it that's less than 10 feet and the two side pieces are probably close to 10 feet. The area in front of it is not level, and that was part of the reason for putting the deck there to make that an area where you can sit and have it available. There's no impact, really. MR. HENKEL-But the deck was built without prior approval, obviously. No permit. Right? MR. O'CONNOR-That's a very emotional type thing. Mr. Valenti was diagnosed with. MAUREEN VALENTI MRS. VALENTI-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Maureen Valenti and in May in 2017 my husband was diagnosed with Stage Four Esophageal cancer. We've been coming up to the lake for 34 years. We live in New Jersey and his dream was to retire up here. In May of 2017 he retired. We came up here and this is where he wanted to live the rest of his life. He was turning 63 in August of 2018 and we wanted to have a party. My husband was always a risk taker. He always lived life on the edge. He was a forerunner in his career and 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) he was respected by many people. I think he built this deck because he needed a project before he died. He died three weeks ago. He wanted to have his birthday party up here. At that point in his life he was on a scooter. He had neuropathies and he had a blood clot in his leg. He could not go down to the lake. So in all honesty I would speak for him. Yes, he did this without a permit, but he wanted to just enjoy the last days of his life on the lake. So I'm guilty of partaking with this and now I'm just here to see what I can do. I'm sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-1 would ask you to look at the application as though it hadn't been partially built, and I don't think there are any significant impacts to other owners on the lake. I do think the benefit to the owner outweighs what impact would be to others, and in fact in this particular case the benefit to others the last few months was significant, and I understand that that's not an issue before you, but that's where we're at. MR. MC CABE-Any questions? A public meeting has been scheduled for this evening, and right now I will open the public meeting. First, Roy, I'm going to request that you read in correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-"I've reviewed the submission and we are in favor of the proposed variances for setbacks. The at-grade, open deck has no visual impact when viewed from the lake and permeability is not adversely effected. While I cannot condone working in advance of obtaining proper permits, I am sympathetic to these necessary accessibility improvements that prompted the immediacy of the deck construction. Russ Pittenger & Lin Whittle 39 Birdsall Road" "We are writing to you in full support of the variance requested by Maureen Valenti located at 113 Birdsall Road, Queensbury, NY 12804 for the completion of a ground-level deck that has been partially completed. We are fully aware of the project. It is being done well, improves permeability compared to the prior hard surface, and we fully support it. We kindly encourage the Zoning Board to approve this variance. Sincerely, Pamela and John Cembrook 121 Birdsall Road, Queensbury, NY 12804" "We are writing to express our support for the modifications that Tom & Maureen Valenti are proposing to make to their property located at 113 Birdsall Road. We support their plan because upon completion, it will improve the existing situation in a number of ways including: 1) Mitigating storm water runoff— For decades we have observed an increasing amount of non-permeable surfaces on the property that is now owned by the Valenti family, as well as on the surrounding property. Paving by the town and neighbors, cutting of vegetation and the natural compacting of soil has created an ever increasing amount of impervious surface that has contributed to storm water runoff. The proposed project includes numerous components that help to mitigate the negative impact of these "non self-imposed" circumstances. Modifying the existing slope to re-direct run off away from the lake; removing and replacing highly compacted soil; re-installing pavers to allow onsite filtration; and planting native shrubs, perennials, and ground cover are all included in the project — some have already been accomplished. 2) Creating a safer more easily traversed right of way for "the Hirsch's their heirs and assigns", as called for in the property deed. 3) Creating unique water front that is handicap accessible and conducive for all family members. 4) The amount of impermeable surface on the property will be decreased. 5) It will increase the value of the property. For these reasons stated it is our recommendation that the various town boards approve the Valenti's proposal. Respectfully, William & Carol Merritt" "Dear Zoning Board Members, Having sat before you a few times myself, both with and without neighbor support, I am acutely aware of how much it means to have the community behind you. With that in mind, I am writing in support of the deck that the Valenti's have begun adding on the lake side of their property. This is an area of their yard that was used previously for family and friend gatherings, and adding the deck is simply a way to make this easier and more enjoyable. The deck is aesthetic and in congruence with the rest of their home. The lake is about living and sharing and enjoying, and I see no reason their addition should negatively impact anyone else in the community from doing the same also. Please feel free to contact me if needed. Sincerely, Sereena Coombes" 108 Birdsall Road. "Dear Mr. Jackoski and Board Members: Tom and Maureen Valenti have petitioned the Board for addition of a deck on their Birdsall Road home. This deck is a replacement for an uneven, slate patio which was unsafe for traversing and for their picnic table. The Valenti's have taken great pride in their property. It is always meticulously groomed and seasonally decorated. The deck project will enhance the front of their home while providing a safe place for the family to enjoy their time together. As we see no negative impact of this addition, please grant the variance needed for them to complete this deck. Thank you. Sincerely, Kate and Wally Hirsch" 145 Birdsall Road. "Dear Queensbury Zoning Board, It is our understanding that our neighbors; Maureen and Tom Valenti at 113 Birdsall Rd. have a deck project under review by the Board. We are writing in support of the deck and do not believe it will negatively impact the neighborhood, our property or the lake. Thank you. Robin and Ed Larkin 38 Marley Way Queensbury" "Queensbury 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) Zoning Board of Appeals, My husband John and I have known Tom and Maureen Valenti of 113 Birdsall Road, Queensbury for 28 years. They're a staple in the Glen Lake community. We fully support them building the deck as they are a family that has been and will be here for years to come. They believe in the community here and want to create a space for friends and neighbors to gather. This deck is a tool for them to do so. There are many families living in the surrounding area of their house that have also been here for many years that enjoy this space. Their deck is a product of years of hard work and we fully support it. Thank you. John and Susan Moosbrugger" I don't have the address for that. That's it. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak to the Board on this matter? So would you give up the table for just a minute? State your name for the record, please. ZACK MOOSBRUGGER MR. MOOSBRUGGER-Zack Brugger. I grew up at 130 Birdsall Road. A lot of people here in the room now live just around this map. This is what this letter showed, we're all in support of it. I can't speak to the scientific reasons why I don't think it's going to hurt the lake, but I can speak to why the community wants it. For years the Valenti's have hosted plenty of parties, lots of parties. So I know this deck is a space for them to do that going forward. It's a very integral part of our little community. It's very important to all of us. So I just hope you listen to whoever wants to speak after me or what those letters are saying, just listen to what we're saying and understand it's really important to all of us, not just their family. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. MOOSBRUGGER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? Seeing no one, I'll invite you back to the table. I'll close the public meeting and poll the Board for your benefit here. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Jim, what are your thoughts on the matter? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have mixed feelings about it. I can understand where everybody's coming from, but I think, you know, when this house was originally constructed I think that there was a big push to minimize the impact, even though it's a very large structure on a very small lot. That's in consideration of the fact that if we look at the side of the road, that just from Birdsall Road to the lake it's a pretty short distance. I think everybody agrees on that, and I think as far as the long term impacts of this property we've granted permission for people to build decks a lot closer to the lake than what's been proposed here, you know, even if you were just coming in and presenting this for the first time before the Board, and I think that, you know, when we look at the impacts of what we create on Waterfront Residential properties, I think it's important for us to consider the long term implications. I would be in favor of the project. I think it's a little bit after the fact, but I'm willing to forgive and forget on that. I don't think that's a big really forefront issue for us to bring out as a Board, but at the same time I think, you know, you could do some kind of a memorial garden, green scaping down in front of the deck there to minimize this impact and I think that would also improve the runoff situation on the foreshore of the lake there, too. So as long as you agree to do that, I would be more than happy to approve it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, you know, from the lake itself you hardly even recognize it and I agree with the applicant about wanting to spend more time on the grass and closer to the lake, and, yes, I don't think we're setting any precedent by approving this. There are people who have decks closer to the lake. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-With the stipulation that there be some greenery down in the front? MR. KUHL-A rain garden, you know, that's what you're really talking about. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that's what I'm talking about. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. KUHL-Yes, I mean, that's not a big deal. I would agree to the project as submitted, yes, to capture some of the runoff it would be beneficial, but I don't know. I'm not in that kind of world to know what to do. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. I have to admit, listening to the letters, especially knowing now that you replaced a slate patio with a more permeable deck and it's minimal view from the lake. So I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. With the support of the neighbors, it sounds like a good project. I'd like to see the permeability a little bit better, but it's a good project. I'd go for it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project without any conditions or any changes to what's been submitted. MRS. HAYWARD-1 don't care about any conditions. MR. HENKEL-The same here. MR. MC CABE-So given this information, I'll ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-I'll give you that motion, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Maureen Valenti. Applicant proposes to maintain and complete a 570 sq. ft. ground-level open deck that has been partially constructed. The open deck is an addition to the existing 4,235 sq. ft. home. Relief requested from minimum setback and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA and for hard surfacing and filling within 50 ft. of the shoreline of Glen Lake. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements and permeability of the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The deck to be completed is to be located 26.9 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required then the west side yard is to be 13.5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability 68.3 % is existing and 66.7 % is proposed where 75% is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 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 as this fits in with the existing makeup of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives, what he did there was replace an old slate thing with a wooden deck. 3. You might say that it's really not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 5. It is alleged that this is self-created, but it was done for other reasons, acceptable reasons. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-77-2017 MAUREEN VALENTI, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th day of December 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MRS. VALENTI-Thank you very much. MR. MC CAB E-Congratulations. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The next item on this evening's agenda is Area Variance Z-AV-79- 2017, Kris Roglieri, 40 North Road. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-79-2017 SEQRA TYPE II KRIS ROGLIERI AGENT(S) S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) KRIS ROGLIERI ZONING MDR LOCATION 40 NORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED 3,000 SQ. FT. GARAGE AS A FOURTH GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY. PROJECT SITE CONTAINS AN EXISTING 10,307 SQ. FT. HOME, 550 +/- SQ. FT. GARAGE, 375 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 585 SQ. FT. WOOD SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE GARAGES FOR THE PARCEL AND FOR A GARAGE MORE THAN 2,200 SQ. FT. CROSS REF BLDG. PERMIT 2000-833 SUNROOM WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 14.11 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-37 SECTION 179-5-020 STEFANIE BITTER, 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-79-2017, Kris Roglieri, Meeting Date: December 20, 2017 "Project Location: 40 North Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 3,000 sq. ft. garage as a fourth garage on the property. Project site contains an existing 10,307 sq. ft. home, 550 +/- sq. ft. garage, 375 sq. ft. garage and 585 sq. ft. wood shed. Relief requested for maximum number of allowable garages for the parcel and for a garage more than 2,200 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for fourth garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed fourth garage that is detached where only one is allowed. The garage also exceeds 2,200 sq. ft. maximum allowed. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 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. 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 buildings have already been constructed and only noted during an inspection request for a pool. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is to allow four garages where only one is allowed. Relief is also requested for the size of the building 800 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. The applicant has explained there is an existing attached three stall garage, a one stall garage used for lawn equipment, a wood shed and a storage building all constructed in the 60's. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant request to maintain an already constructed 3,000 sq. ft. garage and keeping three other garages including the attached garage to the home on a 14 ac parcel. The applicant has indicated the garage is used for storage of a car collection. The building has water, electricity and a bathroom. The applicant has indicated no car repairs occur in the building. The plans show the garage location and photos were provided." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, Stefanie. It's a straightforward application. I assume you just want Board members to ask you questions. MS. BITTER-1 can give you a little bit of a presentation. I realize this is an after the fact variance, but as the survey indicates, we're not talking about a small parcel in the City of Glens Falls. This parcel is 14 acres in size. The applicant was not aware that building permits were not obtained for this structure until the next contractor had asked the Town to visit the site to confirm that the boundary fence that actually goes along the 14 acres was sufficient enough for the pool that was being constructed, and at that time it was discovered no enforcement has been commenced because the applicant immediately started to proceed with the Area Variance application. Again, the parcel is 14 acres in size. It's secluded in nature. I don't know if any of you had a chance to visit the site. It's a long private driveway off of Garrison, but if you look at what the adjacent lands are, it's got the bike path on one side, C.R. Bard, Hannaford, Key Bank and then a forever wild parcel. So it's not as if this new structure has any impact to any of those adjacent lands, depreciating them or causing them any adverse or negative conditions. As was mentioned by Roy when he just reviewed the application, although this parcel has structures on it, all of the structures are older in nature. The house was constructed in the 1960's. It does have an attached garage, but they maintain their cars there, their family toys as all of us know what's in our attached garage. There is a detached garage but that's for the lawn equipment to maintain the large parcel. There is a woodshed but there's numerous fireplaces in the house so the woodshed is being used, and there is another second shed which maintains a decorative, that's also something that's on the property and stored there. Although there are a number of accessory structures we're asking for one more. None of those would help them serve the purpose that this accessory structure does, and as you saw from the pictures which I think Mr. Henkel is looking at, it's to store his automobile collection. It's not for automobile repairs. Those automobiles were being stored off site at another time. Now they're under his care, under his supervision. It's not a dirty garage. It's very clean. It's got electricity. It's got a bathroom. It's really just a showroom for lack of a better word. So it's very attractive in nature, again, not that it's visible from any of the adjacent lands. So we are seeking two variances, one for more than three accessory structures on the lot and the other because the structure itself is larger than 2200 square feet in size. I understand that your responsibility is to look at each application on a case by case basis, and I truly believe that the 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) facts here are unique in nature, and although this is a big request, because this is a big piece of property, I think that you can look at this balancing test to show that the benefits to the applicant in granting this variance outweigh any detriment that can be deemed to exist in weighing these options. One the benefit is obviously that the structure is existing. So to remove the structure would be a financial hardship for the applicant to undertake. Two the property is in a densely populated area, although it's secluded in nature. It's 14 acres. It's protected. It's not as if the structure is visible from any of the adjacent lands or causing a negative impact from that visibility. There's mature trees on the land and although the size may be deemed substantial when considering the size of the parcel as well as the size of the house it shouldn't be visible. Those are my arguments. MR. HENKEL-Is that the attack dog that attacked me when I climbed the fence? MS. BITTER-There's a picture of a dog in there? MR. HENKEL-Yes, a little. MS. BITTER-1 was very safe. I was very safe. MR. KUHL-When was this building built? MS. BITTER-1 think it was over the summer, most recent. I don't have the date. MR. HENKEL-Would they be willing to throw something in for this, like do away with one of the garages there? Move that one garage up. You've got that one woodshed area that's right on the property line for one thing. Would you be willing to give that up and like maybe take the sides off this other garage and make that a wood area? To make that like a carport type to put the wood in and then do away with one of the buildings? Something of that sort? MS. BITTER-That's definitely something I can bring back to him. The woodshed that you're speaking of abuts against the adjacent land. MR. HENKEL-That's next to the Westfall, Dave Westfall. It's right on the property line. I mean that's still considered an accessory because of the size of it, isn't it? MS. BITTER-Yes, it is. You're correct. MR. HENKEL-And so now really you've got five buildings per se. Right? MRS. MOORE-No. The garage is not. MR. HENKEL-The garage that's connected to the house isn't. Right, but then you've got the three, four with that. MRS. MOORE-Right. The garage loses itself because it has a specific size associated with it. Where it's not, once it, I don't know how to explain this easily, but once it's considered a garage like it's not accessory structure in size nature because it has a specific size associated with it directed in the Code. MR. HENKEL-But you're allowed one second garage of 2200 square feet. Right? One extra garage. MRS. MOORE-Not one extra. One garage. MR. HENKEL-One garage. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-And we've got 1500 square feet with the other buildings without the 3,000. So we've got 4500 roughly square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Who was the contractor? MS. BITTER-1 do not know the name. MR. HENKEL-It's a beautiful building. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MS. BITTER-It is. It's gorgeous. MRS. HAYWARD-1 had a couple of questions. Any plans to sell cars from that? MS. BITTER-No. MRS. HAYWARD-Not show them to anybody? MS. BITTER-No sales. No commercial entity at all with that structure. Just for personal use. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay, and any plans to expand? I know collectors sometimes can have more and more. Is it full now? MS. BITTER-1 don't, I had a picture of the interior. KRIS ROGLIERI MR. ROGLIERI-No. It's already got two Ferrari's and two Mercedes' in it. MS. BITTER-And one of them wasn't brand new. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay, and that'll do it. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-I do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I'll poll the Board. Does anyone want to volunteer to go first? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 find it curious, you know, here we are for the second time this year with somebody with a car collection, you know, who has a structure. This one was not pre-existing, nonconforming like the previous one that we have discussed as a Board, but I think it points us in a direction that the Town needs to carefully consider going forward possibly issuing Special Use Permits for this function, you know, and you've got Cavallino Rampante, that's the symbol of the jumping stallion that Ferrari has on the wall inside the building there, and if you decided you wanted to have a horse farm in Town anywhere else here, too, and you built a large structure oversized you would have to go before the Board because it would be oversized, you know. I think there's legitimate uses that the Board does not consider at this time that we should consider because, you know, people do have objects that they collect. Previously this Board has issued extra outbuildings for motorcycle collections, and I think we have people that have excessive car collections. The other one that we have pending out there now has over 40 vehicles. So I mean it's much more substantial, but I think in this instance here on a 14 acre parcel I'm less concerned with it. I think if we took a strict reading of what the rules and regulations are on normal sized lots in Town I don't think we would want to see this stuff created, but on a 14 acre parcel that's as cut off from the public as this one is, this is really at the end of the road. There's nothing that's ever going to impact it. It's not going to impact anything itself either. It's an excessive request after the fact, but at the same time I don't see that our granting this variance would create any difficulties for anybody and it would relieve the applicants. I would vote yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else like to go next? MRS. HAYWARD-I'll go. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project as well. I think the size of the property certainly can accommodate this size building. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree the property is big, and if they had come in before the fact and asked for forgiveness I think we probably would have given it to him, but we can't allow people to just keep on building stuff without permits and there's no payoff for it. I think they should be made to do something like, like I said, remove the woodshed next to the property line. So I would not be on board with it as it is without them giving me something, one of those cars or that wood area. MR. JACKOSKI-There's an Article 78 waiting to happen. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. Normally I'd be upset over this, but given the nature of the property, both in size and remoteness, I guess I'd be forgiving in this situation and I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, the size of the property kind of allows something like this. What irks me is good money was paid to build this. I hope the right kind of builder. I would love to see the name of that builder because what builder puts up a structure like this without a permit? Any reputable builder should not be building anything without a permit. I mean, you know, people build sheds in their backyards or they build, you know, cupboards for wood, but I mean this is a substantial structure and I mean I'm not out to take anybody's license away, but this should not be allowed. For the people that paid good money, fine, and they're going to get away with it this time, or the builder's going to get away with it, but what happens when this guy comes down the road the next time and does it on a smaller lot for some young people that believe that and he'll give them a picture, look it I built this. I mean, how many times is this builder going to do it? You're going to get the variance. I will agree with this, but I just want to go on record that builders like this should not be able to come. I mean, we have enough trouble in our community without having this. So maybe you could pass on a little note, because no doubt he's got a little tag in a corner of this garage being proud of what he built, but he shouldn't be building without permits. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm kind of in agreement with John and Ron and I think, you know, yes, it's a large piece of property and it can absorb this kind of structure, but at the same time if they had come to us without any building being built yet and requested this, I don't think we would have allowed it without some give back, something coming off the table, and this is not only bigger than what's allowed, but this is a fourth structure. I realize that three of the structures were built probably in the 60's when there were no rules, but there are rules now and somebody ignored them. A property owner has the responsibility to know what's needed, too. So I want to see some kind of a give back because I think that would be the fair thing to do in this case. MR. HENKEL-You want the red one or the black one? MR. URRICO-I'm not asking for any cars. I just want to go on record as saying that. If you want to go on record as saying that you can. MR. KUHL-Well, that's probably how this garage got built, with just dollars and cents without a permit. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, Staff, could we make this contingent that the owner of the property identifies to Dave Hatin or whoever his group is the original contractor of the property? MRS. MOORE-1 think he has to because he has to file a building permit. The building permit is either on hold or will need to be filed anyway. MS. BITTER-1 didn't file the building permit, but I would think that the building permit demonstrates that information. MR. JACKOSKI-Who built it? MS. BITTER-Isn't that one of the questions on the building permit? MRS. MOORE-Yes. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Who built it? So couldn't he just say I'm in charge? I'm going to self-contract it and whoever he hires he hires? MRS. MOORE-1 don't know. I don't fill out building permits. MR. JACKOSKI-I think it would behoove us all to find out who constructed, who the contractors, whether they were subcontractors or not, were, that erected that building. MRS. MOORE-1 mean, you can request it to be placed in the file. I think that would be sufficient. If that's of interest. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well we have enough. We'll see where the motion comes out. 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 Kris Roglieri. Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 3,000 sq. ft. garage as a fourth garage on the property. Project site contains an existing 10,307 sq. ft. home, 550 +/- sq. ft. garage, 375 sq. ft. garage and 585 sq. ft. wood shed. Relief requested for maximum number of allowable garages for the parcel and for a garage more than 2,200 sq. ft. The Board recognizes that the other garages that are identified on the property, two of them date back to the 1960's, as well as one that's attached to the house. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for fourth garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed fourth garage that is detached where only one is allowed. The garage also exceeds 2,200 sq. ft. maximum allowed. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 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. This new building as constructed we deem will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because it's a 14 acre parcel very secluded and it will not been seen or have any effect on the neighbors. 2. Feasible alternatives would be to have the building removed because it's an excessive structure but the Board does not think that would be reasonable, and that included the fact that the building as constructed doesn't look bad. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it is a fourth building but it's deemed unsubstantial by the Board at this point because of the large size of the parcel and the fact that it's very secluded. 4. As far as adverse impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, we do not note any at this time. 5. The alleged difficulty is fully self-created because it's constructed without a building permit, without any permission from the community. 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 deemed excessive and not the minimum necessary; but it will accommodate more vehicles that the applicant currently collects. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That the identity of the contractor and/or subcontractor on site be forthcoming on the building permit at some point in time and placed in the Area Variance file. 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-79-2017 KRIS ROGLIERI, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20th day of December 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-You're all set. MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on this evening's agenda is our last item on this evening's agenda. Queensbury Square, LLC. Hutchins Engineering, 909 State Route 9, Queensbury, NY. Z-AV-78-2017. A public hearing is scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-78-2017 SEQRA TYPE II QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 909 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW 5,460 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH POTENTIAL FOR SIX UNIT RETAIL AREAS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT SITE CURRENTLY CONTAINS 7,000 SQ. FT. LIQUOR STORE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE (CI) ZONE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR NEW BUSINESS USE IN THE Cl ZONE. CROSS REF P-SP-76-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 1.42 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-38 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE & TIM SHULER, 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-78-2017, Queensbury Square, LLC, Meeting Date: December 20, 2017 "Project Location: 909 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a new 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas and associated site work. Project site currently contains 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for Commercial Intensive (CI) zone. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for new business use in the Cl zone. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone The applicant proposes a new 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building where the building is proposed to be 32 ft. from the property line on Weeks Rd 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 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The plans show delivery vehicle traffic entering on Weeks Rd and exiting to Walmart Route 9 light. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the size of the parcel and the existing building on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 44 ft. for the front setback on Weeks Rd. 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 proposes the new building to be facing the Walmart Parking area with all customer traffic to be directed through the existing Liquor store curb cut and the Walmart parking area curb cut. The applicant also proposes to increase the green area on the Liquor Store area and plantings for the new building. Also the project includes associated lighting, landscaping and stormwater management. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: The applicant proposes 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas. The relief is requested for the back of the building facing Weeks Rd. The applicant has indicated this is the area that will be used for deliveries to the tenant spaces and is a one-way access. Project work includes associated site work for the new building and for the existing 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. The information submitted shows the location of the new building and all of the site work to be completed." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was passed on December 19, 2017 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Hello. Welcome. It's pretty straightforward. Would you like to add anything or would you just like us to ask questions? MR. SHULER-Just for the record, my name's Tim Shuler from McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum. Monty Liu is the principal and applicant, and Lucas Dobie of Hutchins Engineering. So any questions? MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-There was an indication on one of the write ups, not on here, that one of the spaces could be bank space. MR. SHULER-Correct. MR. URRICO-So would there be a drive thru. LIU-No, there's just going to be traditional, conventional retail banking. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. KUHL-Are you going to do any fascia work to your existing building to match these? MR. LIU-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. The other thing I looked at, you have a nice picture. Are you going to be putting any signs on these stores? MR. LIU-Yes. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. KUHL-So you're not asking for that because you're going to have to come back for that signage, or are you going to re-use your existing sign up on Route 9 now to add on, to add customers? I got the structure. I understand what you're presenting, okay, and it's a good project. It's a good thing to do there, but without, I mean you're going to come back for another Sign Variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Not if they meet the sign size requirements. MR. KUHL-Well this building is presented as not showing any signs. Right? MR. HENKEL-They'd have to come back anyway because this is an Area Variance and they'd have to come back for the Sign Variance no matter what. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think it's the same situation like you have with Mount Royal Plaza. We dealt with it there. We dealt it at Price Chopper when we put individual signs for different businesses. They're all allowed under a certain size. MR. JACKOSKI-Each business is allowed a wall sign? MRS. MOORE-Correct, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And/or a sign that does not extend beyond the roof peak wall sign? MRS. MOORE-Correct. We did talk about the freestanding sign and at this time they're not changing that. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So there would be no freestanding sign at this time. The only thing that really bothers me is that the back of the buildings on each one. It looks ugly. Where's the dumpster? It's not exciting, and I don't know why we choose to, all the people, whether they're apartments or single family residences, why all those people have to look at the back of that building. Because even Wal-Mart's side entrance over there is pretty well landscaped and hidden. MR. KUHL-Well that poses a question. Would you put a fence up? MR. JACKOSKI-Which would then require a variance because it's too close. MR. KUHL-I mean the back of the store has to face somewhere, and what he's proposing here, you know, looking south, that's where all the traffic is. The back street is the back street to Wal-Mart. MR. UNDERWOOD-It makes more sense to have it facing the direction they propose because it's in the sun, you know, I mean why would you want to have it on the north side? It doesn't make sense. The only thing I could make a suggestion is that you paint landscaping on the back like Noble Hardware, or do something creative. You could plant some trees along that whole boulevard. You kind of have the power line right of way there as it exists now, too. So there's a pretty big setback from Weeks Road. It's not like it's right on the road. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So, I mean, the Planning Board's going to go through all of that with the site itself. What we're tasked with is the setback. So are there any more questions before I open the public hearing? MR. URRICO-Just one. The current parking lot will accommodate everything? MR. HENKEL-Twenty-seven places. If you've got six buildings, six retail areas, which if say you have two employees at each place, that's twelve. So you're only going to have 15 spots left for 6 units. That's not a lot of parking. MR. KUHL-It meets the Code. MR. HENKEL-The other concern is that you've got that Weeks Road. You're going to have the one way behind it. I mean, that's increasing more traffic, of course. Traffic is a problem there. MR. JACKOSKI-The Planning Board is going to look at that. MR. HENKEL-Yes, that's theirs. I understand that. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think when they came in the last time, when they changed over from Flower Drum Song and made it into the liquor store, this was all discussed about what was going to happen in the back. It was discussed when Wal-Mart, we did the whole plaza and put up their store, this was eventually going to happen. This is almost exactly what we perceived it was going to be a long time ago. MR. JACKOSKI-Let us not forget at one time the Diner was out front. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-there was an awful lot of traffic in and out of that Diner. I mean I know things have changed here in Queensbury since then, but there was another commercial enterprise out front before. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address the Board? I do see someone, so if you guys could give up the table, and then while they're coming to the table. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, but I think he's coming, they're coming to the table. MR. JACKOSKI-So if you're joining us at the table there's no reason to read your letter into the record. Is that okay? MICHAEL VALENTI MR. VALENTI-Are you going to read it? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. We just have a time limit so are you going to add more other than the letter? MR. VALENTI-Everything I want to say basically is in that letter that was written by one of my brothers, the managing partners of Whispering Pines Apartments Townhouses. My name's Michael Valenti. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Roy, do you want to read it in? MR. URRICO-Sure, I'll read it in. "Pursuant to the above referenced Planning and Zoning Meeting, my name is Jim Valenti, I am a Managing Member representing Whispering Pines Associates, LLC, Owner of Whispering Pines Apartments & Townhouses, located in the Town of Queensbury, 105 Weeks Road. I would like this statement to be read by both the Planning Board and Zoning Board. I would like to include this letter and have it made part of the record for these meetings. I am bringing to your attention our opposition to the variance request submitted by Queensbury Square, LLC and I would like this application to be denied for the following reasons; The existing building, which is approximately 7,000 square feet, that is owned by the applicant located on the same parcel considered for this improvement, that being a non-conforming building situated on 1.42 acres with an existing setback in the front along Route 9 travel corridor being 27.62 feet, at which time the requirement is 75 feet setback for the Route 9 travel corridor. Also, the existing building is non-conforming along the front yard Weeks Road setback, consisting of a setback being 1.97 feet, the requirement is a 50 feet setback for Weeks Road. The applicant is proposing to build a retail plaza being a 5,460 square foot building and is requesting relief from the Weeks Road front yard setback. Their setback is 32 feet, requesting 18 feet variance off Weeks Road, when it's required to be 50 feet. This reflects a 36% relief in their variance request. The Town should deny this variance request due to the fact that the existing building is non-conforming as well as the proposed new building being non-conforming on 1.42 acre parcel located in the Highway Commercial District. I have reviewed the application and I have determined that this proposed building will have a negative impact to Weeks Road including the neighborhoods on Weeks Road, which has a direct impact on the safety of approximately 750 people living in this area. Further, there are school children walking every day along Weeks Road to get on and off the school bus at the Weeks Road, Route 9 intersection. Additional negative impact factors for this proposed site plan is as follows: The proposed building can be accessed off Weeks Road. Allowing for an interconnect with Weeks Road and the proposed roadway along Weeks Road will create issues with truck traffic and car traffic that is already congested in this area. Along the west side of the building they have a large proposed interconnect to the Walmart parking lot. We are concerned about the traffic pattern. I feel as though the easiest way for the trucks to exit the site would be going along Weeks Road and entering on the Walmart property through the 70 foot Walmart curb cut along Weeks Road. They will then enter the proposed site through the large proposed 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) interconnect on the West side of the property. This will create an easier exit from the proposed site on to Route 9. Any other way creates a difficult exit for trucks from the proposed site. Whispering Pines has filed many complaints in the past with the Town of Queensbury Code Enforcement with photos identifying tractor trailers from Walmart utilizing Weeks Road to exit onto Route 9. Walmart has continued to be in violation of their site plan approval for their expanded Walmart allowing their tractor trailers to access Weeks Road. This road cannot accommodate tractor trailer usage and I believe the traffic flow servicing this site will end up on Weeks Road just like what is occurring with Walmart. There will be so many service trucks coming and going along Weeks Road that it will be difficult going further to determine if it is a Walmart concern or the new proposed retail plaza concern. I feel that this project should be denied and a full blown traffic study be considered at Weeks Road and Route 9. 1 hope that the Planning Board and the Zoning Board Members show compassion for the residents residing along Weeks Road. Respectfully, Jim Valenti Managing Member of Whispering Pines, LLC" And then, pursuant to my brother Jimmy's request, I am forwarding an attachment to your attention and copying Laura Moore, a letter expressing Whispering Pines Associates, LLC, owner of Whispering Pines Apartments & Townhouses concerns over the variance request submitted by Queensbury Square, LLC. Please reply to all acknowledging you and Laura's receipt of this letter subjecting the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. David J. Valenti CPM" Liverpool New York. I don't see the attachment. MRS. MOORE-That was the first letter. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything you'd like to add? MR. VALENTI-In a nutshell Weeks Road is a very narrow road. It's getting busier every year and there's a lot of trucks on the road that shouldn't be on the road. There's a lot of kids on that road. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Shuler, if you could come back. Was there any other Board member comments at this time before the applicant addresses public comment? MR. HENKEL-Was there any consideration of connecting the two buildings or is that not, to get more room, have more space around it? MR. SHULER-We looked at that option a little Mr. Henkel of keeping it approximately 30 feet further east. The thought being that chews up a lot of the green space between the buildings. Eventually we might have an outdoor sitting area or something depending on the business. So we thought we'd keep it as further west as we could, and to allow decent egress. Then it keeps the parking nicely in line with the liquor store parking. I would just like to add for the Weeks Road consideration, we looked at this several ways, and we do appreciate your comments tremendously, and our thought with this whole access road is to take the spur off where the deliveries for the liquor store now occur and just wrap that as a one way road around our building to the west and then back south with signage clearly directing truck traffic not to go further west onto Walmart and to continue south back around the new building and out to the light at Route 9 which is utilized south of the liquor store so that's clearly cognizant of the neighborhood down there because we wanted to keep everything centralized towards Walmart and not put a public curb cut onto Weeks Road. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm struggling a little bit with whether or not you're really going to have that much additional truck traffic. First off you don't have any loading docks. Secondly each of the six units is under 1,000 square feet each, 900 square feet. I mean, what could you possibly be receiving truckloads and truckloads and truckloads for a 900 foot retail space or office space? MR. KUHL-Yes, but you can't say that, Steve. Dunkin Donuts gets tractor trailers. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a lot bigger than 900 square feet. It's not a food establishment. MR. KUHL-No, but I'm saying there are so many chain stores today that don't do little truck delivery. MR. JACKOSKI-I get it, and if this becomes one store instead of six, then that makes sense to me, you've got truck traffic. I understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's niche retail. I agree with you, Steve. MR. HENKEL-A lot of UPS type stuff. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-I had a 4,000 square foot building but I really never had any tractor trailer trucks come in. I did have FedEx, you know, with their little guys, but it's not like I'm Walmart. MR. UNDERWOOD-A lot of those businesses it's more likely to be a UPS truck or something that's smaller. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. That's my thought, but it's the Planning Board's decision. I think the only thing I would say on this whole thing is that if we grant the variance for setback that it doesn't go with the land if this particular project doesn't get final approval from the Planning Board. MR. HENKEL-Just this project. MR. JACKOSKI-I think it should just be this project. If it ends up changing significantly, then they should come back for this. MR. HENKEL-Now what about the concerns that Mr. Underwood was saying about the back of the building facing the Weeks? Is that going to look like crap? MR. JACKOSKI-I think we're going to have to let the Planning Board do that because as soon as we start doing that then that effects, because they have control over color schemes and all that other stuff. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So the Planning Board's got to deal with color scheme and everything else. MR. HENKEL-So let's make a recommendation that they consider that whole thing. MR. UNDERWOOD-They can require that the dumpsters be covered. MR. HENKEL-You've got those people that live in those apartments back there. They shouldn't drive through. MR. DOBIE-And that is part of this application to the Planning Board, Mr. Henkel, to re-work the dumpsters into the property enclosure adjacent to the liquor store and the Morton building will have the same siding on the rear with one utility or man door for each business. So it will have the same siding all the way around the building. MR. JACKOSKI-The Weeks Road side doesn't look great as it is, you know. It's so close. It would be nice if it got spruced up, and I suspect with the additional income coming in it'll get spruced up. I hope it does. MRS. HAYWARD-And I noticed there was a variance granted in the past for a food truck. So is that null and void at this point? MR. LIU-Null and void. MR. JACKOSKI-So we should make that part of the. MRS. MOORE-It expired. MR. JACKOSKI-It expired? MRS. MOORE-It is expired. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we don't have to address it. MRS. MOORE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Anything else from anybody? I'm going to poll the Board real quick and see where we go. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't really have a problem with it. I think it's logically placed. I think you also have to take into consideration the right of way on Weeks Road, you know, adds on space in the back there, too. So it's not like it's right out against the road. So I don't think that's an issue. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I understand the concerns, but I think it's further back than the current liquor store now. I think it's going to be an improvement from what is there, and so I don't see this as being a big deal. At most they'll get deliveries of maybe the armored cars with the cash from the bank. MR. JACKOSKI-Or for Monty. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think Mr. Valenti's concerns are valid but they're really based on a Walmart need. I think with the size of these stores, although I did say to you, and I do believe Dunkin Donuts does send big trucks not the little trucks, but I hear the public talking about trailer trucks but I think that's a product of a big box stores and I don't believe we're making big box stores here. So I'd be in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I mean we're being asked to make judgment on setback, and you don't have to go very far to find some buildings that are pretty close to Route 9 or other roads like Sweet Road there. So I guess I'd be hard-pressed not to okay this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. My concern is the setback but I don't think it's too substantial, I can support it, and my concerns about traffic and landscaping will be addressed by the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Finally John. MR. HENKEL-I've stated my concerns. I have no problem with it. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing and I'll see a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Queensbury Square, LLC. Applicant proposes a new 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building with potential for six unit retail areas and associated site work. Project site currently contains 7,000 sq. ft. liquor store. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for Commercial Intensive (CI) zone. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for new business use in the Cl zone. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks the Cl zone (Commercial Intensive). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Cl zone The applicant proposes a new 5,460 sq. ft. commercial building where the building is proposed to be 32 ft. from the property line on Weeks Rd where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 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. In fact we think that the new building will enhance the overall look of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) 3. The requested variance is not substantial because setbacks of this magnitude or less exist up and down the road from the property. 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 but not a big deal. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-78-2017 QUEENSBURY SQUARE, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 20th day of December 20, 2017 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Do we want to add that we want to make sure that the two buildings are complimentary to each other, color scheme and all that other stuff? No? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think they'll dial it in. MR. JACKOSKI-Let the Planning Board handle it? Okay. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Any other business to come before the Board? MR. LIU-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, all members received information about the January 31St training. If you wish to attend can you please put your name at the top of it and turn it back in to me and I will get you registered. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you, everyone. It's been a great five years as your Chairman, and I'll seek a motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Have a good night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 33 ( ]UeeOSbUryZBA Meeting 12/20/2017) Steven Jaokoski. Chairman 34