Loading...
03-21-2018 03/21/20,18) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 21, 2018 INDEX Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2018 Tabassum Sheikh/ASAD Petroleum 1. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-78 Area Variance Z-AV-22-2018 Michael and Karen LeBlanc 6. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-67 Area Variance Z-AV-15-2018 Michael J. Badera 9. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-20 Use Variance Z-UV-1-2018 William Miner 13. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-24 Area Variance Z-AV-11-2018 Michael Serini 24. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-18 Area Variance Z-AV-21-2018 Richard & Sharon Bapp 28. Tax Map No. 308.19-1-29.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 03/21/2018) MARCH 21, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT HARRISON FREER LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury ZBA or Zoning Board of Appeals, Wednesday, March 21, 2018. For those of you who haven't been here before, the procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up before us. The case will be read into the record. The applicant will be able to present his case. The Board will ask questions. If a public hearing has been advertised then a public hearing will be opened and we'll ask for comment from the public. Administrative Items, and so first I'll make a motion that we accept the meeting minutes of February 21, 2018. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 21, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 21 st day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-Okay. I'd like to stipulate, before we accept the minutes of February 28th, that they are a summary and not the full text of the meeting. So with that understanding, I make a motion that we accept the meeting minutes of February 28, 2018. MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 21 st day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-Okay. The first case is SV-2-2018, which is ASAD Petroleum Inc. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TABASSUM SHEIKH/ASAD PETROLEUM OWNER(S) ASAD PETROLEUM, INC. ZONING NC LOCATION 985 03/21/2018) STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ADD ONE TENANT PANEL OF 7.25 SQ. FT. TO THE PERMITTED 56.34 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FOR A TOTAL OF 63.59 SQ. FT. ALSO APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FOR ALREADY CONSTRUCTED CANOPY SIGNAGE; 2 PANELS AT 34.2 SQ. FT. WITH SUNOCO LOGO COLOR SCHEME AND FOR MORE THAN ALLOWED SIGNS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM FREESTANDING SIGN SIZE ALLOWABLE AT A 25 FT. SETBACK FROM THE ROAD. CROSS REF SIGN 742-2017 FREESTANDING SIGN; [SP-PZ 157-2016 (AKA SP 36-2015)]; AV 29-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.63 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-78 SECTION CHAPTER 140 TOBY SHEIKH, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-And, Roy, if you'd read the application into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2018, Tabassum Sheikh/ASAD Petroleum, Meeting Date: March 21, 2018 "Project Location: 985 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to add one tenant panel of 7.25 sq. ft. to the permitted 56.34 sq. ft. freestanding sign for a total of 63.59 sq. ft. Also, applicant requests relief for already constructed canopy signage; 2 panels at 342 sq. ft. with Sunoco logo color scheme and for more than allowed signs. Relief requested from maximum freestanding sign size allowable at a 25 ft. setback from the road and number of wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size for a freestanding sign and number of walls signs. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant has installed a 56.34 sq. ft. sign and proposes a new 7.25 sq. ft. panel for a proposed tenant the total square footage at 63.59 sq. ft. exceeds the allowable 60 sq. ft. is the maximum freestanding sign at a 25 ft. setback. Relief is also requested to allow two canopy signs at 342 sq. ft. to remain with the Sunoco logo color scheme. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the sign to a compliant size. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 3.59 sq. ft. in excess. Relief is also requested for two additional walls signs for an existing tenant. The site is allowed a wall sign for each tenant—currently four tenants (three tenants and proposing a fourth tenant (new panel) The canopy panels would be the Queensbury Truck Stop 2nd and 3 d wall sign. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has a permit for the 56.34 sq. ft. sign and proposes a 7.25 sq. ft. additional panel for another tenant. The plans show the location and design of the sign —the applicant has explained the price sign has been moved down to allow employees to change the prices. The calculation includes the Sunoco logo where the space between the bottom of the logo to the sign is counted as part of the sign square footage." 31 03/21/2018) MR. MC CABE-So if you'd identify yourself for the record. MR. SHEIKH-Sure. My name is Tabassum Sheikh, Toby, and I am the owner of the Queensbury Truck Stop, and I'm here to present my case. It's not a lot but I have to go through this process so I'm here. MR. MC CABE-Does the Board have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-Did Sunoco come to you after you had made plans and said that you needed to add the logo onto the pumps or the canopy onto the pumps? MR. SHEIKH-The canopy part of it is, it's the color, and then I wasn't aware of it because I didn't put any SUNOCO wording or anything on it. It comes with the canopy, the colors since I signed with SUNOCO so they asked me if I can put SUNOCO on it. I said no. It's considered a sign, but I wasn't aware of it. The color itself represents, SUNOCO considered that a sign. So it's just the colors which is making it as a sign. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. SHEIKH-That's the one on that, and the other one is a freestanding sign. I'm allowed 60 square feet if it is 25 feet away from the property line, but actually there is a little bit, the calculation, the way it's calculated is between the price sign and the SUNOCO yellow sign there's empty space. That's considered as a sign. So that threw off another four feet. So I'm adding another tenant. The sign is not very big. It's only 1.5 feet high, and so it goes only three square feet off. MR. URRICO-So, Laura, the color is considered the sign on the canopy? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. URRICO-If it was a different color it wouldn't matter. MRS. MOORE-If it was a solid color, correct, but it's a color scheme that is associated with their logo. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-We've done this three times before with other SUNOCO stations in Town and we've always come across the same situation and it's just strictly because the colors are considered SUNOCO colors. That was the only reason. We kind of ran into it with the Mobil stations did the same thing because of their blue and red. So I mean I don't think it's anything that we haven't overcome previously because we just sort of decided they are what they are. MR. MC CABE-Are there other questions? I should have stated this before. We're down a man tonight. MR. URRICO-Or woman. MR. MC CABE-Or woman, excuse me. So if you feel that the extra person would be an advantage to you, you can defer your case until later. Of course you'll get an opportunity. You'll need four yes votes for your project to go. You'll get an opportunity to hear that first, but I just want to point out to the other applicants that we are on the short side tonight and so you can defer. MR. SHEIKH-No, I'm okay right now. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So with no other questions, there is a public meeting scheduled for this evening, and so I'll open the public meeting and ask if anybody in the audience has any comments on this project? Seeing no one, I'll ask if there are any letters or correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is not. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public meeting and I'm going to poll the Board about their feelings on the project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 4 03/21/2018) MR. MC CABE-And I'll start with you, Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, as I mentioned before, you know, we've dealt with this previously with other SUNOCO stations in Town and I think everybody's aware of the color being the SUNOCO colors of the rainbow being what they are. So I think as far as the canopies go, I mean we could subdue it and say you can only have one color on the canopies, but at this point in time I don't think it's offensive. I don't think it's way over the top or anything. So as far as the canopy ones, I don't have a problem with that. The one on the sign here, I think we could have dialed it in a little bit better and I think the general trend is we go to monument signs in front of all the gas stations. I asked all of you that looked at those last week, and I think if we had been a little more savvy we could have decided that that was a better choice than the up in the air signs like this one here is, but again, too, you're asking for 3.59 feet of relief and it's because of the surrounding, the SUNOCO sign. I guess we could ask you to change it to a plain SUNOCO one like we have on some of the other stations that don't have the arrow, but the sign is up and when you're approaching it coming up Ridge, or whichever direction you're coming from, it doesn't really seem like it's way over built or way oversized. So I would say it's reasonable to keep it as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy, what are your feelings? MR. URRICO-I'm a yes on the project. I know it seems a little over the top here, but when you break it down it really isn't that far over the top. It's mostly due to the coloration rather than the sign itself. So I would be okay with it. MR. MC CABE-Brent, what are your thoughts? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. I have no problem with it. I think it's fine. I was actually in your enterprise last weekend, and I think you did a nice job there. Congratulations, I wish you all the best, but I have no problems with it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle, what are your feelings? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I would vote yes. MR. MC CABE-And I also will vote yes. I was impressed that you kind of shrunk the SUNOCO from the normal size of SUNOCO sign and I think you made all the efforts to reduce the impact of the sign, and so I support this project. So at this particular time I'm going to ask for a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-We've got to do SEAR. MR. MC CABE-We've got to do SEAR. So I'll ask for a motion for SEQR first. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2018 TABASSUM SHEIKH / ASAD PETROLEUM BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21St day of March 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-And now I need a motion to accept the Sign Variance. Michelle, can you make a motion? MRS. HAYWARD-Not right now if you don't mind. MR. MC CABE-All right. Catherine, would you do it? I:~ 03/21/2018) MRS. HAMLIN-The special way it's all written up for us? Or is that just move to approve? MR. MC CABE-No, you have to include the highlighted. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. It starts where? MR. MC CABE-I'll do the motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tabassum Sheikh / ASAD Petroleum for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to add one tenant panel of 7.25 sq. ft. to the permitted 56.34 sq. ft. freestanding sign for a total of 63.59 sq. ft. Also, applicant requests relief for already constructed canopy signage; 2 panels at 342 sq. ft. with Sunoco logo color scheme and for more than allowed signs. Relief requested from maximum freestanding sign size allowable at a 25 ft. setback from the road and number of wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size for a freestanding sign and number of walls signs. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant has installed a 56.34 sq. ft. sign and proposes a new 7.25 sq. ft. panel for a proposed tenant the total square footage at 63.59 sq. ft. exceeds the allowable 60 sq. ft. is the maximum free standing sign at a 25 ft. setback. Relief is also requested to allow two canopy signs at 342 sq. ft. to remain with the Sunoco logo color scheme. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2018 Tabassum Sheikh / ASAD Petroleum based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21St day of March 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer A public hearing was advertised and held on January 24, 2018 and March 21, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We find that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot reasonably be achieved by some other method. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We find that the requested variance is not substantial. In fact it's minimal. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed Sign Variance will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6 03/21/2018) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE Z- SV-2-2018 TABASSUM SHEIKH / ASAD PETROLEUM, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 21St day of March 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CAB E-Congratulations. MR. SHEIKH-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is Z-AV-22-2018, Michael & Karen LeBlanc. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-22-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 MICHAEL AND KAREN LE BLANC OWNER(S) MICHAEL AND KAREN LE BLANC ZONING MDR WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY LOCATION 34 WARREN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 27 FT. BY 60 FT. DOUBLE-WIDE MOBILE HOME ON LOT 2 OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT AND MOBILE HOME OVERLAY DISTRICT. CROSS REF RC 82-2018, AV 55-2017 PRELIM.; P-SB-15-2017 FINAL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-67 SECTION 179-3-040 MICHAEL & KAREN LE BLANC, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Roy, could you read the application? STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-22-2018, Michael & Karen LeBlanc, Meeting Date: March 21, 2018 "Project Location: 34 Warren Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place a 27 ft. by 60 ft. double-wide mobile home on Lot 2 of an approved 7 03/21/2018) subdivision. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the MDR zone. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant proposes to place a 27ft x 60 ft. home on a parcel where the side setback 20 ft. and 25 ft. is required for both sides. 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 configuration of the mobile home. The applicant's approved subdivision plat had shown the mobile home location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has shown the location of the home and wastewater system on the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a 1,620 sq. ft. mobile home on a 0.23 ac parcel that had been previously approved lot size AV 55-2017. The plans show the location of the home and wastewater system." MR. MC CABE-State your name, please, for the record. MR. LE BLANC-Michael and Karen LeBlanc. MR. MC CABE-And do you have anything else to add or would you just like to have us ask questions? MR. LE BLANC-You can go ahead and ask questions I guess. MR. MC CABE-Does the Board have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAYWARD-1 do. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MRS. HAYWARD-Have you considered any alternatives for the placement of the residence? MR. LE BLANC-Not really because the back is all wooded. There's wildlife out there. Just really don't want to disturb any other things. Pretty much had it all surveyed off and all ready to go in this one spot. So that's kind of where we'd like to keep it. MRS. LE BLANC-We didn't know we didn't have a lot size, for the setbacks. We thought when we came in for the variance for the lot size we were going to get the setback one at the same time. We didn't know that we didn't until we went to get our permit and they said, no, you missed a step. So we didn't know we'd missed a step. Here we are again. 8 03/21/2018) MRS. HAYWARD-Have you considered maybe changing the position of the home on the property to minimize? MR. LE BLANC-It's not going to change. It's a 100 by 100 lot. MRS. HAYWARD-So if you just turned it 90 degrees. MRS. LE BLANC-It's already ordered. MR. LE BLANC-1 really can't because then I'm not sure if my septic and stuff would, and it kind of looks pretty weird sitting on an angle instead of everybody, you know, parallel with the road. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, there's a public meeting advertised this evening. So I'll open the public meeting and ask if anybody in the audience has questions about this project? Seeing nobody I'll ask Roy if there's any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. MC CABE-At this particular time I'll close the public meeting and I'll poll the Board to see what we feel on the issue. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Roy, what are your thoughts? MR. URRICO-Yes, if you look at the test the only part that even squiggles a little bit is the five feet of relief, and that's fairly minimal. So I would say yes to everything. MR. MC CABE-Brent, what are your feelings? MR. MC DEVITT-I believe the request is minimal based upon the five feet as Roy said. I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Catherine, what are your thoughts? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I have no problem. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm satisfies it tries to fit where it is. Otherwise if it were a subdivision we could have made it bigger, five feet more and made it compliant, but it was just overlooked at the time. MR. MC CABE-Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. We talked about alternatives. There really aren't any and you've already purchased the building, and it is a minimal request. So I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'll ask for a motion. MRS. HAYWARD-I'll make that motion. I'll dive in. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Michael & Karen LeBlanc. Applicant proposes to place a 27 ft. by 60 ft. double-wide mobile home on lot 2 of an approved subdivision. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the MDR zone. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant proposes to place a 27ft x 60 ft. home on a parcel where the side setback 20 ft. and 25 ft. is required for both sides. 9 03/21/2018) SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this fits in with the architectural style of the rest of the neighborhood and also the density of the other residences in the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed and there seem to be none and again it is a minimal request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is technically self-created but it doesn't have bearing on our decision this evening. 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-22-2018 MICHAEL AND KAREN LEBLANC, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 21St day of March 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CAB E-Congratulations. MR. LE BLANC-Hopefully I don't have to come back again. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is Z-AV-15-2018, Michael Badera, 55 Mason Road. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV- 15-2018 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL J. BADERA OWNER(S) M DREAM LLC MICHAEL BADERA ZONING WR LOCATION 55 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 198 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED SUNROOM. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF RC 11-2018; P-SP-21-2018; P-SP-66-2017; P-SP-50-2017; Z-AV-74-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.45 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 226.16-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 MICHAEL BADERA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT '10 03/21/2018) Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-15-2018, Michael J. Badera, Meeting Date: March 21, 2018 "Project Location: 55 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 175 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom. The existing home floor area is 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase to 6,786 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and floor area ratio requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback and floor area ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements/ 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks. The applicant proposes a 175 sq. ft. sunroom addition on the existing deck to be 44 ft. 11.5 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area of the existing home is 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase to. 6,786 sq. ft. (The applicant revised the size of the sunroom at the planning board recommendation meeting 3/13/18) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing deck in relation to the beach area on the property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5 ft. 6 in. to the shoreline setback and floor area of 2,474 sq. ft. (34% existing and 35% proposed) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project 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 proposes to construct 175 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom addition on the south side of the deck and home. The plans show the location of the sunroom and the supports needed for the addition." MR. URRICO-Then the Queensbury Planning Board, they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed on March 13, 2018 by a unanimous vote. MR. MC CABE-If you'd identify yourself for the record, please. MR. BADERA-Mike Badera. I'm here again. What started out as a repair project a year ago has grown a little bit. Back in the Fall I was here asking for an extension of the existing deck, and I got the approval to add a little extension on one part of the deck off our kitchen area, which would allow us enough space to put a table out there for dining and entertaining. The old deck was only five feet four inches wide and it was nice walk around the house deck but it wasn't very useful. In the process of applying for that extension and getting it approved, thank you very much, talking with neighbors and friends, the suggestion came up that I should consider putting a roof on that and screening it in and then getting more use out of it, and of course that grew into, well if you're going to have screens you should probably have windows in case it's rainy, and then that grew into well let's make it a three season room and really get a lot of good use out of it since we live on the lake and it'll let us get out there earlier in the spring 03/21/2018) and later in the Fall and be out during bug season so to speak. It's not the only one in that area. There's three similar three season rooms constructed by the same company down in Takundewide about three quarters of a mile from me. We're not getting any closer to the little jut in on the beach. It's being built on the extension that was approved last fall. Looking at it from the lake, you won't really, there's no real impact because what you see now when you look in through the trees is sliding glass doors and a roof line that isn't changing. The three season room is going to have similar glass doors and white framing and the roof line's going to be at the same height as the roof line that's there now. So from the lake there's no real change. Minimum amount of construction. We have to put in a couple of more piers, and my neighbors don't have a problem with it. I guess that's it. MR. MC CABE-Did you document that? Are there letters or anything like that? MR. BADERA-No, I don't have any letters. It's just casual conversations. MR. MC CABE-1 guess I've got a question. Now with the glass you'll have kind of a defined runoff spot. Are you going to do anything to contain that runoff, a rain garden of any sort? MR. BADERA-The ground underneath the deck extension is all gravel. It's a level spot with a double terraced landscape in front of the house, and at the edge of the extension there's gravel and then it turns into a flat flower bed basically. So we figured there was enough absorption there. There's no grade for it to go running off. MR. MC CABE-No path to. MR. BADERA-No path to go anywhere else. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Does the Board have other questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Just to clarify. So the roof is already existing? You're not putting one on. MR. BADERA-No, there's an existing roof line there on the house. MRS. HAMLIN-The roof on the sun porch. MR. BADERA-No, that's not there now. MRS. HAMLIN-So you are adding a roof. MR. BADERA-1 am adding a section of roof, but it's at the same height as the roof that's on the house now, in that same area. MRS. HAMLIN-Going back to his concerns about runoff. MR. MC DEVITT-The reference you make to the three other properties at Takundewide, help me with that in relation to where you are and what you're referencing. I know the area pretty well. I'm just trying to understand it. MR. BADERA-1 didn't go down and look exactly. Unfortunately the salesman gave me the spiel. He said that we put three of these into Takundewide, which is on the same side of Cleverdale down about three quarters of a mile. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MR. BADERA-Going by on a boat in the summer I've seen things that look like it but I couldn't say specifically that's theirs and that's somebody else. MR. MC DEVITT-That's all I have. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? A public meeting has been advertised. So at this time I'll open the public meeting and ask the audience if there's anybody here to speak on this matter? Seeing nobody, do we have any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no correspondence. 03/21/2018) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'll close the public meeting and I'll poll the Board to how we feel on the matter. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And, Jim, I'll start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we should be somewhat concerned here because of that Floor Area Ratio. We're up at 34, we're going to go to 35%. 1 think everybody's entitled to enjoy their property for what it's worth, but I think the Board has been kind of understanding through the years. Otherwise you wouldn't have this overbuilt structure here on less than half an acre sized lot here. As far as triggering any major environmental disasters, this is a pretty small request here, but at the same time, every time we add a little bit more, a little bit more, you know, we keep pushing the envelope up higher and higher, and I think here what I would be more acceptable of would be, I don't have a problem with you covering over part of your deck with a roof area, but actually closing it in so it becomes living space to me seems like we're still moving in the wrong direction. So I think the request is a little more than I would accept, unless you remove the windows and don't close it in. MR. MC CABE-Roy, what are your feelings on the matter? MR. URRICO-Yes I feel just the opposite. I feel this is a reasonable request and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-It is a very large property. It's a lovely home, but to glass it in, you know, that's creating more square footage for your home really. You have over 6,000 square feet, but it is a minimal request and so I would have to say I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I respect what my peers have both said, and I understand it. I will come down on the side of this at the end of the day being minimal enough to where I am acceptable of this moving forward. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, on a personal note, I do tend to baulk at overbuilding on lots, but the request is for setback and I'm just responding to what was asked of us, just the setback, and that's a minimal amount. It's 10%. I would vote yes. MR. MC CABE-And I feel that the request is reasonable. There's really not too much that you can do about the floor to area ratio because it is a small lot and I actually think that by adding the glass that you can provide a more confined runoff situation and so therefore I would support the project. So at this particular time I'll call for a motion. MRS. HAMLIN-I'll take a stab at it. MR. MC CABE-Sure. You're going to have to do it some time. MRS. HAMLIN-At some time I need to jump in and get my feet wet. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael J. Badera. Applicant proposes construction of a 198 175 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom. The existing home floor area is 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase to 6,809 sq. ft. 6,786 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and floor area ratio requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback and floor area ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements/ 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks. The applicant proposes a 198 175 sq. ft. sunroom addition on the existing deck to be 44 ft. 11.5 in from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area of the existing home is '13, 03/21/2018) 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase to 6,809 sq. ft. 6,786 sq. ft. (The applicant revised the size of the sunroom at the planning board recommendation meeting 3/13/18) SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., March 21, 2018; 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. 2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed. This is considered to be a minimal request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not a substantial adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (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-15-2018, MICHAEL J. BADERA, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 21St day of March 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you take the vote, just to clarify. The information about the Floor Area was in there simply to show what was existing and proposed. The required Floor Area is 22%. So that is a 13% relief. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So just so it's clarified for the Board. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CAB E-Congratulations. Again. MR. BADERA-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-The next application is a Use Variance, Z-UV-1-2018, William Miner. USE VARIANCE Z-UV-1-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM MINER AGENT(S) WILLIAM MINER OWNER(S) CKT ENTERPRISES, LLC (STARR MOWERY) ZONING CI LOCATION 2 GLENDALE DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN TWO EXISTING APARTMENTS AND CONVERT A PORTION OF THE 4,398 SQ. FT. BUILDING INTO FOUR ADDITIONAL APARTMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMITTED USES IN THEE CI ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW 03/21/2018) REQUIRED. CROSS REF P-SP-20-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2018 LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-24 SECTION 179-3-040 WILLIAM MINER, PRESENT; STARR BAKER MOWERY, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Could you read the application into the record, Roy? STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance Z-UV-1-2018, William Miner, Meeting Date: March 21, 2018 "Project Location: 2 Glendale Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and convert a portion of the 4,398 sq. ft. building into four additional apartments. Relief requested from permitted uses in the Cl zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the Commercial Intensive (CI) allowable uses 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—Cl zone The applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and to renovate the remaining building to include 4 additional apartments for a total of 6 units. The site use of residential is not a listed use in the Cl zone. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has indicated the current rental income is $1,900 per month for the two rental apartments and the applicant pays fees for the current mortgage of$2,975 per month, insurance per year of $2,100, gas and electric of $400 per month, water and sewer per quarter at $550, and $4,000 school and land tax per year — estimated at $4,000 per month.. The applicant has detailed some of the uses that are allowed in the zone such as an automotive service center noting road frontage, signage and cost of building upgrade for lifts would exceed $100,000; amusement center noting equipment and renovations to exceed $100,000 (The applicant has not explained the reasonable financial return for allowed uses in the zone i.e. if the existing building was removed and a new building with an allowed commercial use. The parcel information on the property indicates there is a 5 year mortgage for $160,000+/- that includes two properties where the rental information detailed is only for the 2 apartments and does not include the rental cost for the adjoining property. The board may consider requesting additional information on the financial return on commercial uses allowed in the zone, refinancing and to include the rental amount for totals based on the entire mortgage. ) 2. Whether the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The applicant has explained the current building location is on a dead end street that includes three other residential use -3 single family homes. The applicant has indicated the site with no road frontage and no signage on Route 9 does not support commercial use. The applicant has included a letter from Real Estate Broker indicating the building as is would not generate interest as commercial use because it does not have frontage on Route 9. (The applicant has not included the marketing of the property for commercial use. The board may request additional documentation on the marketing of the property—listings.) 3. Whether the proposed variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the area contains three other residential use — all single family dwellings. The applicant has indicated three of the four residential use properties are owned by the applicant (The applicant does not detail the project area uses where the area does contain existing commercial uses including a funeral home, bank, financial office, a proposed new auto store, grocery, vehicle rental, Queensbury Central Fire Co, other personal service and eating establishments. The board should consider review of the Commercial Intensive zoning purpose '115 03/21/2018) -- Commercial Intensive (CI). The Cl Districts comprise that area of Queensbury that already has intense commercial development. The purpose of this district is to provide for continuing infill development of this type, while encouraging the overall improvement and appearance of these areas.) 4. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The applicant has indicated the zoning has created the hardship. (The difficulty may be considered self-created as the applicant purchased the property in the Commercial Intensive Zone and would have been provided with information explaining any addition residential use would require a use variance.) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain 2 existing apartments and add 4 more apartments. The plans show the building arrangement on the lot and proposed parking. The site currently has a 4,398 sq. ft. building that contains 2 apartments. The floor area of the building is 8,796 sq. ft. The zoning is Commercial Intensive where 30% of the site or a maximum building allowed on the site would be 4,312 sq. ft. floor area. The plot plan dimensions for the site and building are estimates by the applicant as a survey of the site was not part of the application." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board noted that based on its limited review did identify the following areas of concern: One, addition details including the scale of drawing to support the parking and, Two, a detailed Site Plan to be completed, and that was adopted on March 13th by a unanimous vote. I also want to mention that a Use Variance requires us to consider all of the criteria. It has to pass all the criteria, not just a preponderance of the evidence like we do for an Area Variances. Area Variances don't have to have every criteria satisfied. This one does, and if approved we are supposed to grant the minimum variance necessary and may impose reasonable conditions. MR. MC CABE-How are you doing? MR. MINER-Good. Good evening. I'm William Miner. I'm the applicant and agent. This is Starr Mowery, owner of the properties. I guess we're here tonight to request a Use Variance. We were in front of the Planning Board on the 13th and they did, they recommended to come to here. Any questions you might have about the project? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I guess how long has this applicant owned the property? MRS. MOWERY-I own the Baker Funeral Home on Lafayette Street. This is in the backyard of the Funeral Home, and basically I just wanted to clean up the backyard. MR. MINER-So since April of 2017. MRS. MOWERY-Yes, I just bought it last year. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOWERY-Basically to clean it up, get rid of the rodents and remove the debris and everything else. So, yes, I just got it last year, not knowing what to do with it, other than it's already got residential in it. I bought the other homes on that street and the best I know is apartments because that's what's already in there, and Meta, the previous owner for 40, 50 years, has not been able to get anybody in there because it's on a back street. If you remember George's Flowerland, she's the widow of George's Flowerland, and there was the glass shop in there, and it was literally run down, rodents and just a mess. So I've already done a lot of cleanup, re-did one of the 1400 square foot apartments, looking to do the other one, and hopefully use the existing building for more apartments. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Does the Board have other questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I think one of the questions I would have would be your parking because right now you're showing it on Glendale Drive, and I know with the new auto parts store coming in next door, the trucks were going to access from that side and that would be incompatible with that use. MR. MINER-Well on the parking, that was basically visitor parking for there. The actual tenant parking would be through the gravel driveway and in through the rear of it as shown on P313 with the 12 parking spaces allowed 2 for 10. Why a commercial use to us isn't beneficial is it's a dead end street for one and there's no road signage on any of the main entities. Steve Borgos, '16 03/21/2018) a commercial realtor for Howard Hanna, he stated in here that, I don't know if you want me to read it through to you or if you have a copy of it in front of you. It's under S-1 Page Four I believe. He was stating that the property itself, back in the day, it was beneficial by word of mouth. Now with the business booming in Queensbury like it is Glendale Avenue itself has become, you pass it and you don't even know it's there. We have no road signage in there. Like I said, we have tried different commercial, we've thought about a couple of commercial uses, amusement centers, a bowling alley, but still again with no commercial road signage in the front, they're just going to go right back past it. I've talked to tax prep people. They've said they'd have no use to even get an office in there because you don't have the accessibility from Route 9, and where they said in here, they were referring to what was on Lafayette Street, Queensbury Firehouse, the Funeral Home. The carpet store, that's a busy thoroughfare between Route 9 and Quaker Road. So that's a well-traveled road where any business could succeed there. We're still off the beaten path on Glendale Drive. The rest of the surrounding area there is residential, but the thing is it's a residential in a Commercial Intensive zone. So we're right in like the center of the bull's eye but yet we're off the beaten path where no one knows we're there. So the only the use to us would be an apartment complex. Already the two existing apartments that were there when Mrs. Mowery bought it were both renovated. Thousands of dollars were put into them. Asbestos abatements were done on the building. There were thousands of dollars in cleanup with the condition of the building where it was abandoned in probably the late 80's. Like I said I just belief the only use would be the apartments to fit in with the landscape of the rest of it and it would be an improvement to the community rather than the eyesore that it is right now. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-If you were to attempt to list this property and sell it tomorrow. MRS. MOWERY-Meta tried, the previous owner. MR. MC DEVITT-1 got that. So I guess what I'm getting at, my question would be, have you specifically attempted to do that via a listing, for example through Mr. Borgos who you're referencing here you tried to do that. MR. MINER-1 talked to Mr. Borgos. I've talked to Robert Gover of Caldwell Banker. There's no interest in that property as it is now. If you look at it, there's a, between the upstairs in the back and the downstairs now you're talking over 6,000 and something square feet of just storage space, boarded up windows. There's no flooring tile, minimal lighting. Like I said, since she's done the renovations on the two apartments, we've incorporated a new furnace downstairs. So that way the upstairs apartment, it's a conventional heated area for the floor space for the two apartments over there, but like I said there is no commercial interest in it. I mean it would have been nice if O'Reilly's was buying that and said we need, you know, a back parking lot, you know, then that would have been nice. Right now they say it's assessed at, I believe, $181,600. That's the tax assessment through the Town. That's definitely not what the building's worth in the condition it's in, and you know how Queensbury and any of the other municipalities are anyway. You're appraised for a little higher because that's how your tax base goes. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay, and I follow that and I would agree with many of the things you're saying. I would also ask when you purchased the property, what was your understanding of zoning and what you would be purchasing there, what you, you purchase things in this world. I've purchased real estate. I look at how things are zoned. I look at how things are going to probably work for me long term or not work for me for that matter. MR. MINER-If I could answer that. I know because I've dealt with Mrs. Mowery for years, and like I said any of her properties, I do the maintenance. Anything that needs to get done, upgraded, the tenants deal with me because she's at the Funeral Home 90% of her time. MR. MC DEVITT-Sorry to interrupt. You didn't purchase the property, did you? MR. MINER-No. MR. MC DEVITT-You did, right? MRS. MOWERY-Right. MR. MC DEVITT-My question's actually directed to you. ,1.7 03/21/2018) MRS. MOWERY-So blindly, because I own the Funeral Home, the old Woodbury fencing slowly is coming down, but I couldn't take the one down in the back because of all the brush would come over onto my. So I approached Meta and I said can I buy the property behind you, meaning the cape and the ranch. She thought about it and she said well you've got to take the bad with the good. If you want the good you've got to take the bad, and I was like what am I supposed to do with the big ugly red and white building. Right? So blindly we worked out a good deal. She was ready to get out, and I bought it. MR. MC DEVITT-She holds the note on it. Is that correct? MRS. MOWERY-She does. That was her choice because of the capital gains she didn't want up front. So she did the five year terms, which, by the way, is more than $160. It's $210 1 think, but the backed up the interest because it was her choice. So it's basically a $210 note I believe. So I didn't put any thought into the building, and I just couldn't wait to take that fence down, and if you look, people are thrilled, already $10,000 just in cleaning up tons of debris, getting the rodents out of there, squirrels and all kinds of stuff living in that building. The one apartment, there's two existing apartments. The one apartment he had boards on the ceiling because the rodents were coming through. . It was that bad. It was not even considered habitable, but he was living there. MR. MC DEVITT-The problem that I face, and I think the Board may face, I don't want to speak for anybody but myself here, but we have to be able to substantiate all of these criteria in this. I've got to put a check mark next to this. I'm hearing what you're saying and I'm getting it. You've cleaned a lot of stuff up. You've put money into it. You're trying to do the right thing. You're running a business. You've got rodents running around and you're moving quick and you're trying to make a buck out there, and that's a good thing. We need that in this community. Where I have an issue and where I'm going to have a struggle is two areas that I'm looking at here is whether this difficulty was self-created and I think I would view this as self- created in that you purchased it, albeit I hear what you're saying. You're moving quick and you went ahead and got the good with the bad. Okay. That is the issue that I think I'm going to have here is many of these criteria I think are going to be somewhat difficult to pass. I just want you to know that. MRS. MOWERY-So what do you expect me to do with the building? Just keep it vacant? MR. MC DEVITT-1 guess what I would feel better with is if you left here this evening and you tabled this matter and you went to Mr. Gover or you wet to Mr. Borgos and you listed this property for sale and you came back to us in 90 days or in six months and you said I have not had one offer on this piece of property. I have tried. I've tried. I might be able to get my arms around that issue in terms of the financial hardship because you can present to us definitively, via a listed piece of property, that you have not been able to get any results. MRS. MOWERY-Okay, but why would I want to sell it when the purpose I bought it was to clean it up and to have that cushion of the property for expansion of the Funeral Home possibly some day? The pole barn, if you know the Funeral Home property, there's that ugly still Woodbury's pole barn that we need to do something with. Slowly but surely I'd like to try to turn that around. Utilize that for space. I really don't want to sell it. I could jump through the hoops to make it look like I want to sell it. I can list it for up here, get no interest in it, or be thankful I can clean it up, use it for what it is. I have no other purpose for that property but to keep it with the other property that I bought, the cape and the ranch. MR. MC DEVITT-1 was down there today and I know the outlay and I know the other properties. I follow what you're getting at. MRS. MOWERY-So my goal is, and then the other thing is mentioned about tearing it down. Well that's $100,000 to tear it down and dismantle it, after I just put a whole lot of money, close to $100,000 in it, with gutting it out, cleaning it up, new furnaces, re-doing the 1400 square foot apartment. I feel that would be way backwards. To tear it down. Now I have nothing there, go and finance a million dollar new building. I don't want to be in debt at almost 60 years old. So I'm just working with what I have, and I thought being grandfathered in, two existing apartments, you know, the ceilings are very low downstairs. Commercial use, it's not practical, and if you look at main street, meaning Glen Street right now, look at all the vacant lots that are available space for rent and people aren't even renting those. So what's going to make you think that they're going to rent my place on a dead end back street? And because it's already residential there, I thought it would be a no-brainer to just continue with the apartments, and a side note, the reason for three single bedroom apartments, A. safety of kids up and down stairs, B, I wanted it for residents for the Funeral Home. It's ideal for me to put resident funeral '18 03/21/2018) directors in there. So it kind of goes with my Funeral Home. I don't really want to sell if. If you're looking for an honest answer. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MR. MINER-I'd just like to say when she did buy it originally she already knew about the Planning Board and Use Variance application. So if you do buy a property, maybe in the condition it's in, yes, it may be more deteriorated. You're not paying $500,000 for it or 1.2 million like O'Reilly's did on their building. You always have the, you have the avenue to apply for the Use Variance and hope that you can improve the property and the surrounding areas around that. I mean, the building dated back in the 50's it was building, and the two existing apartments. So obviously it has some apartment use, but the owner of that property at the time, George's Flower shop, it was convenient for him because that's what it was. MR. MC DEVITT-Understood. That's all I have. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. URRICO-I have a question for Staff. Staff, the Main Street corridor, is that considered Commercial Intensive? MRS. MOORE-Meaning on Main Street down at Exit 18? MR. URRICO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-That's specific for Main Street. It's called Main Street. MR. URRICO-It has its own zoning that includes commercial and residential. MR. MC CABE-Commercial on the first floor. Residential on the second floor. MRS. MOORE-That's correct. Through specific requirements. MR. URRICO-So the Town isn't consistent necessarily with commercial and residential throughout the Town? There's some exceptions. MRS. MOORE-There's some exceptions. So Main Street is a design corridor going into Glens Falls. Whereas this is a Commercial Intensive district. It's different. MRS. MOWERY-And I do realize I need to spend money, get engineered specific plans, but why do I want to spend $50,000 for engineered stamped plans if I can't put apartments in there? So I know that's a plan in the future, but when I'm done with this building, the concrete that's all, it's an L-shaped building. The concrete that's already there from the greenhouse, that is going to be the beautiful courtyard, balconies facing that, nice privacy fencing, landscaping, lighting, it's going to be beautiful when I'm done if I can do what I want to do by putting the six apartments in there. It would be very nice. It's going to be a huge improvement versus what was there. A side note, I even went to Carl Cedrone to say, Carl, you're almost my age. What are we going to do with this property? You're only worth like $175, Glen Street property, but you've got a postage stamp. I've got the property but you've got the road frontage. Right? Do the same thing that O'Reilly's did. They bought Friendly's property. Sell .75 acres. He's not ready now. I'm not ready now because, like I said, that was my turning point. Before I put any money into the building, I went to Carl and he said maybe 10 years down the road we can consider that, but we can't speculate the future. My goal is, right now, let's clean it up, use it for what we can use it for, and then maybe down the road Carl and I go into cahoots together and sell it and get back to the zoning of the red zone or whatever for commercial use, but he's not ready. He wants to keep his property. So I even tried that I guess is what I'm saying. I even approached Carl. MR. MC DEVITT-Your properties are contiguous to one another? MRS. MOWERY-He's the little white house, Edward Jones, in front of me. So I even tried that. I said before I put any money, but I'm $100,000 into it already. I'm kind of beyond that. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-I'm not that familiar with the history of the property. So the building you want to put the apartments into now had previously had apartments in it. '19 03/21/2018) MRS. MOWERY-There's two existing apartments. MR. MINER-Yes, they were the upstairs apartments. The downstairs was like a storage space, a flower shop in there. They had a glass shop years ago. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. There were apartments above. MR. MINER-Yes. MRS. MOWERY-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-So you're just trying to convert what is normally considered to be the commercial space downstairs. MR. MINER-Yes, downstairs and then a storage space in the back. It would be like two in resident efficiency apartments seeing that show owns the Funeral Home. She has a few of her funeral residents living like Moreau and places like that. So, I mean, it would be beneficial to have the efficiency apartments in the upstairs in the back and like she said the downstairs to have the two bedroom. MRS. HAMLIN-I was just trying to figure out what's existing on there and what has been discontinued. I mean this is, at this point, a pre-existing nonconforming use. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-The ones that are there. So we're talking about more or less the expansion of a pre0-existing, nonconforming use. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MINER-Yes, using the same footprint in the building. I believe in the building description it shows a picture of it. It shows the boarded up windows and then two apartments up on top. MRS. HAMLIN-I'm just a little confused. I'm almost hoping that you'll table it as well because, does this Board ever ask for help from its attorney? Because I'm a little confused between. MR. MC CABE-First of all, this is a Use Variance. Here's the deal. A Use Variance is designed to be very difficult to achieve. MRS. HAMLIN-I know that. MR. MC CABE-Because we're going directly against the Town zoning. MRS. HAMLIN-Right. MR. MC CABE-There are other ways to do that. Basically approach the Town and ask for a special Use Variance. The problem that we have in granting the Use Variance is that we are going directly against the Town. They've declared this to be commercial. Now you want us to declare it to be residential and then maybe in a little while, because, you know, it is an island, then we'd have to declare another Use Variance to put it back to commercial. MRS. HAMLIN-Well that's not where I was really confused. MR. MC CABE-Well that's what you have to be concerned with is that we don't want to yo-yo here because a Use Variance is a serious thing. MRS. HAMLIN-I know. Because I'm wondering if a Use Variance is really, if we have a pre- existing nonconforming use. MRS. MOORE-It's considered a Use Variance by the Zoning Administrator/ MRS. HAMLIN-By the Zoning Administrator. Okay. Because you try to discourage extension or expansion of nonconforming uses when they exist, and this one possibly could be considered, if you weren't even thinking about Use Variances, like an expansion, which you want to discourage, but as a Use Variance, it's a self-created hardship here and I totally agree with your assessment that the competent financial evidence needs to be something much more concrete than just various real estate people's opinion. You have to really show that there has been a genuine attempt to utilize this for what it's zoned for which is commercial. As he says to 03/21/2018) actually list it and to have shown it to really potential people who will make you a full market value offer. That's the rule of thumb that we as a Zoning Board have to comply with in order to fit these criteria that each one must do that. It's unlike the Area Variances we've just discussed before. We need to consider them, but each one. That's a balancing act. This is each and every one unfortunately. MRS. MOWERY-So my question is, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Because this Glen Street had houses, living quarters back in the 60's, if not before that, like the old Turner house behind the Funeral Home. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, once you change zoning, and according to our zoning if a use is discontinued for 18 months that's it. Now all the uses on the land must comply with existing zoning, and the existing zoning is commercial. Right, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAM LIN-Strictly. No room for residential. MR. MINER-Well then our defense to that, the surrounding properties on Glendale, the only properties on Glendale are residential. So residential would be in with the surrounding community. MRS. MOWERY-And what I'm confused is, when we bought the Funeral Home property, that was Woodbury's. Right? The Turner house behind we did own. We ended up selling. That was used commercially for Woodbury's and then when my brother wanted to live in it and changed it back to a house he had permission to change it back and to live in it, and that was only in like 2002. So yes maybe you zoned it back in the 80's for whatever it was, for red zoned use. You'd like to see commercial, but it's never been commercial. It's always been residential. People have always lived there. MR. MINER-All of Glendale is only residential. MR. MC CABE-Actually the property that's going to be the auto parts is, their address is Glendale. MRS. MOWERY-Right. MR. MINER-But they have Glen Street access. I believe that corner building is Glen Street. Glendale was their parking lot. MR. MC CABE-When they came before us, they were listed on Glendale. MRS. MOWERY-And I'm confused with that because I was actually here for that meeting and they want to utilize Glendale to go into their back parking for deliveries, promised us no big tractor trailers. Remember they said only box trucks? But the main entrance is going in for customers right in off of Glen Street and back out onto Glen Street. No use of that, because of, they had to do special signs, children at play, all that. I think you were the Board that helped to approve them for those things. So that's why we also have the same concern. We have children playing. We have bus, school bus comes down that street to pick up the kids at one of my tenant's grandchildren. MR. MC CABE-All right. We've got to move on here. We've been charged with granting or not granting a Use Variance and that's all there is too it. Does anybody else have questions? Okay. At this particular time a public hearing has been advertised. So I'm going to open the public hearing and ask anybody in the audience if they have comments on this, and I see somebody does. So if you could give up the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK SCHNEIDER MR. SCHNEIDER-We're Starr's neighbors. MR. MC CABE-If you could state your name for the record, please. MR. SCHNEIDER-It's Mark Schneider. EVELYN SHEERER 03/21/2018) MS. SHEERER-And Evelyn Sheerer. MR. SCHNEIDER-We own what used to be the Turner House. We bought it from Starr's brother and have been there since, what, '82. MS. SHEEER-2002 I believe we bought the house from your brother. MR. SCHNEIDER-And we just basically, we totally support the idea of her doing residential there. In our opinion that would keep in tune with what we're doing and we were given a letter to come tonight for that. We just kind of wanted to see what was going on with it and go from there. MS. SHEERER-And my only concern is, you know, we don't mind it being the apartments because she is cleaning it up. It is looking better. We're residential. We have that last big house on the end of the road. We're the lucky ones. We got the last big house. Our property is joined to Hovey's Pond, that forever wild is our backyard and our side yard and then our other side is the Funeral Home and the house is in front of us. My only concern is I know she wants to put a road so that the apartments can have the parking out back come down and come up by my house, all right, and so that'll bring me a lot of traffic that's never been there before. All right. I'm not worried about even so much of that. I just want my privacy to remain so if she could put up a privacy fence, we are content with everything right there. We'd just like, you know, because we are being surrounded now by, you know, she did buy the property. She has the building that she's asking special permission to put the apartments in and she owns the two homes that she rents out and the Funeral Home. So we just want to keep our little piece of privacy. We bought that because it was back there. It was private. It was beautiful. We are even fixing up the house. I think she can say we put a new roof on our house. We've done the second floor outside, not inside. It's not livable upstairs right now to finish, but we're content living there, and my only thing is can I have a privacy fence so that I don't have to see that traffic like right at the end of my property, because I don't know exactly where you're putting the road but she said it was going to be right next to the property line, and I just want to keep that little bit of privacy. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Anything else? MS. SHEERER-No. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. SCHNEIDER-They've done a nice job so far. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter? Is there any correspondence on this matter, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, there's no correspondence. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything else to add? MRS. MOWERY-No. MR. MC CABE-Okay at this particular time I'm going to close the public meeting and I'm going to poll the Board and, Roy, I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. URRICO-Well, yes, I'm looking at the criteria and there's some things that I think weigh in favor of the applicant and some that don't, or at least we don't have enough information. I think as far as the financial evidence we're going to need something more. More substantial. Either go to a realtor, go to somebody that understands the neighborhood there. Understands the return value, and give us some hard, concrete numbers as to whether the mentioned other possibilities cannot give you anything back in return. And so that's one thing. So I think we need some more in terms of the financial. I do think the second use criteria is alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. I think that's true in this case. I don't think it's something that applies to every property, especially within that area. It's certainly unique and, you know, that should be considered in the possibility here, even purchasing the property, you probably didn't know that you were going to come up against something like this. The Use Variance is very difficult to get, even if you knew the use had to be changed. I don't know how many people know that it's a tough nut to crack in terms 03/21/2018) of getting approval, and then whether the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. I don't think it will because it's already like that. How's it going to change something that exists already? Maybe there'll be two new apartments, but I never knew there were apartments back there to begin with. I knew there was a building back there. I've used it many times, flowers and glass sand whatever else was being sold out of that building, and I never knew that, and I didn't know when the auto parts came in. So I don't know how generally known that is. So how can you change something that people did not know about? So you have two avenues. You can have it tabled, come back with that information and give us a better shot at it or approach the Town Board and ask them for a special use permit. MRS. MOWERY-Who's the Town Board? MR. URRICO-John Strough and the representatives there that represent the Town. MRS. MOWERY-The regular Town Board. MRS. MOORE-Yes. You're asking for a Zoning Code language change, not necessarily a special, that's a, that terminology, just be careful of the terminology. MR. URRICO-I'm just going by what you said. MR. MC CABE-To summarize, actually that was me. To summarize, you're not in favor of it at this particular time. MR. URRICO-I'm not in favor of it at this particular time, but I'm not giving you a total no either. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOWERY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think what we're dealing with here is an anachronism. I think that if we look at the past history of what's happened here, you know, you're re-doing creating the funeral parlor home, the removal of Woodbury's and its infrastructure which was pretty substantial and a huge investment at the time it was created. Points us in the direction that, you know, the future is going to be different for this parcel, too, and I think that regardless of how well intentioned you are, you're trying to re-use it for what it is by adding more apartments, it's not the direction that we should be proceeding, and I think that you're mentioning the fact that you could incorporate the land with the lot in the front, you know, and that may happen down the road. That's a big question mark at this point in time, too, but I think for us to create more nonconformity by changing the use of the area, you know, with the Use Variance and creating more apartments there is not going to push the direction that the Town is trying to achieve along the whole corridor there. So at this point in time, regardless of what you present, I don't think I would in favor of apartments there for any reason. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Use Variances are very hard to get, and I've listened to everything you've said and I've worked through this and I've thought and I've tried to get my arms around this. I appreciate what you have done with the area. I appreciate the cleanup. I appreciate being a business owner. I get it, okay, I do. The Board takes an oath, and the oath is to follow these very specific criteria, and as I indicated, Use Variances, and as the rest of the Board has indicated, Use Variances are just hard to get, and they're hard to get for a reason. The idea of going for a Zoning Code, you know, variance change with the Town Board may be an avenue, but I would stress that I believe that will be a very, very difficult avenue. If I were a gambling man, I would guess that that probably would not occur, but it is a right that you have. Additionally, as Roy indicated, 1, too, while I would not be committing to this one way or the other, my eyes would be more open and my ears would be more open if you could present relatively hard case financial evidence relative to an inability, for example, to sell this, market this, or otherwise. So the issue, as I see it, is, and you're the decider of this, is to table this in an effort to potentially produce that type of information to us, or to have this vote occur. If this vote occurs now without you doing what I'm suggesting, I can tell you as we sit here in this moment I have to be against this because I do not have the ability to get past some of these variables on a Use Variance. No matter what I try to do to myself mentally here I can't do it. So that's my position. MRS. MOWERY-Thank you. 03/21/2018) MR. MC CABE-Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Well, based upon the evidence I've heard, actually all my questions were satisfied by my fellow Board members. Based on the evidence this evening, and the balance test that's required, the evidence isn't here today. So I would say no at this time. MRS. MOWERY-Thank you. MRS. HAYWARD-1 do appreciate what you've done so far. It's obvious you've done a lot of work there. MRS. MOWERY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree with everything so far. The hardship test, even with better financial proof of your inability to make a finance return, I would probably still be hung up on self-created question no matter what, but I'm only one of an entire Board here. So I'm hung up on the reasonable financial evidence as well as the self-created hardship. MRS. MOWERY-Thank you. MRS. HAMLIN-And I think, just a personal note, it looks like there's a lot of other things that maybe haven't been explored. Hopefully you'll explore some more options. MRS. MOWERY-Such as, do you have a suggestion? MRS. HAMLIN-Not in this context. MRS. MOWERY-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Okay, and I think you have a noble project here and I think it will improve the neighborhood, but you simply haven't met the qualifications to get a Use Variance. So at this particular time you're not going to pass. So you have a couple of choices. You can withdraw. You can table to a later date. I can't tell you what to do. That decision is up to you. All I can tell you is that you're not going to pass here tonight. MR. MINER-We should table it and finish our homework. We put a lot of work into it. We've still got a lot of work to go. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. MINER-It's definitely going to be an improvement to the neighborhood. So I'd say let's just table it for now. MR. MC CABE-How long do you want to table it for? MRS. MOWERY-To answer that question, can we do both at the same time? Can we approach the regular Board, the Queensbury Town Board? MR. MC CABE-Well first of all you have to take a stance with this, but I would table it for three months anyway. MRS. MOWERY-Perfect. MR. MC CABE-And see what you can do. MR. MINER-Is three months going to be an adequate listing time? MR. MC CABE-If you don't have enough information then you can continue to table it to a later date. MRS. MOWERY-Get an extension. Okay. MR. MC CABE-So table it until June with information to be submitted by the middle of May. MRS. MOORE-Yes. 1:,4 03/21/2018) MR. MC CABE-Would that be okay? MRS. MOORE-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Miner for Starr Mowery for a variance of Section(s) 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and convert a portion of the 4,398 sq. ft. building into four additional apartments. Relief requested from permitted uses in the Cl zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the Commercial Intensive (CI) allowable uses MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE Z-UV-1-2018 WILLIAM MINER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Tabled until the first June meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with information to be submitted by the middle of May. Duly adopted this 21 st day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-So, sorry about that. MR. MINER-That's fine. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The next case is Area Variance Z-AV-11-2018. Michael Serini. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-11-2018 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL SERINI AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) MICHAEL SERINI ZONING WR LOCATION 2934 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,008 SQ. FT. HOME T 2,284 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. CROSS REF P-SP-11-2018; RC 717- 2017; SEP 567-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.32 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-18 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-060 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-11-2018, Michael Serini, Meeting Date: March 21, 2018, "Project Location: 2934 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing camp and construction of a 1,008 sq. ft. home at 2,284 sq. ft. floor area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements, permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential The applicant proposes a new home that is to be located 17.7 ft. from the North property line and 17 ft. from the South property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability where 75% is required and 72.2% is proposed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 03/21/2018) 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 character 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 house width is proposed to be 27 ft. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setbacks of 2.3 ft. on the north side and 3 ft. on the south side, and permeability of 2.8%. 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 project includes stormwater management for the site and a new waste water system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home and associated site work. The applicant had submitted information on the conditions of the existing home that is to be removed indicating it would be difficult to repair. The plans show the grading, stormwater management and a new septic system." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was adopted on March 13, 2018 by a unanimous vote. MR. MC CABE-So welcome. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Good evening I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, here with Michael Serini, owner of the property at 2934 Route 9L which is on the east shore of Dunham's Bay. Mike and Sharon, his wife, purchased the property this past summer in July and being new owners their first task was to upgrade the wastewater system. We did a system approval or variance required for that through the Board of Health. So that was all secured and actually Mike has built a portion of that system already. So if you've been to the site you may have seen some activity related to that. After being in the house for a while I think they realized that it wasn't going to be a long term situation. It's an old camp. It's got some questionable structural conditions, some faulty fireplace conditions and what not. So the decision was made that they wanted to do a tear down and re-build. The existing structure is a lawful nonconforming structure in side yard setback. It's five feet from the southern boundary. The positioning of the new house will put it more in the center or actually in the center of the property, but that will require still a side yard setback on both sides being 17 feet and 17.7 feet from the south and north property lines. In addition, the permeability which currently is just under the 75% standard, would be decreased slightly. There's a little bit more impervious area related to the project. So that that increases by two percent. So we're at 72.2% 1 think where 75% is the standard, but when this project, or when this house was built first of all there was no permeability standards, but most recently it was 65%. So it was compliant until the permeability went up most recently and then this will decrease that permeability slightly through this project. So those are the two variances that we'd be looking for. MR. MC CABE-Just a question. We had the house next door come before us maybe a year and a half, two years ago, and it seems like there were a lot more trees back then than there are now. What happened to all the trees? MR. MAC ELROY-The trees in the parking lot area where the wastewater system is. MR. MC CABE-Did they come down because of the wastewater system? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MC CABE-So they were recommended? 1:'6 03/21/2018) MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. Right, wrong or otherwise, the regulations don't address vegetation beyond the 35 feet of the shoreline. MR. MC CABE-Well, I mean really permeability there doesn't mean anything because it's all rock. So what you do is basically minor compared to the stone and other thing there. That's the only question I had. Does the Board have other questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, is this going to be year round use or seasonal, summertime only? Because, you know, my question would be, are you going to come back and say you need a garage at some point, double down on that? MICHAEL SERINI MR. SERINI-No. It's seasonal. No garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think part of what we're dealing with on that side of Dunham's Bay is the steep coming down, but you're setback further than the camp, the Calogero's next door there. So I think your impact as far as the shore, but I wouldn't want to see you clear cut the whole front yard down to the waterfront or anything crazy like that. MR. SERINI-No. MR. MAC ELROY-No there's no plans and stated as such there's no disturbance in that slope area and the house remains. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know I asked Staff I think that we should at some point address buildability versus steep slopes, you know, and I know if we were doing a subdivision you'd have to subtract that out of your quotient. So it still makes your house reasonable for what the size of the lot is. I think everybody's trying to keep it within the realm of reality. MR. MAC ELROY-1 think that, I've looked at this calculation again. The Serini's might be a little different than others that have come here before. They certainly didn't max out. The Floor Area Ratio is somewhere in the 16% range. MR. SERINI-If you make it too comfortable then everybody wants to come up. We just want a couple of bedrooms. We have four kids. I'm the smallest of them all. MR. MC CABE-Are there other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-I have no questions. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing's been advertised. So at this time I'm going to open the public hearing's been advertised. So at this time I'm going to open the public hearing and ask if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address the Board on this matter. Seeing nobody I'll ask Roy, do we have any correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "I am writing concerning the application of Michael & Sharon Serini for certain variances. My husband and I own the property adjacent to the southern property line of the property in question. Please note that we are in support of the application being made by Mr. & Mrs. Serini. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly, Patricia L. Calogero" And I'm looking for an address. I don't see the address here. MRS. HAMLIN-I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Was that they are in support or they aren't? MR. MC CABE-They are. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. URRICO-You have to pay attention. MR. MC CABE-That's all? MR. MAC ELROY-There should be one other. 03/21/2018) MR. URRICO-You're right. Sorry. "We live two properties to the South of Mr. and Mrs. Serini. We met our new neighbors last summer and believe they will do the right thing in anything they undertake. The proposed project appears to improve the site and be beneficial to the Lake with the new septic system. Based on the information we have seen, we support the proposed project. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us. Thank you, Henry and Carol Butkiewicz 2938 State Route 9L Queensbury, NY" MR. MC CABE-Are you sure there's no more? MR. URRICO-There's no more now. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public meeting and I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to ask Michelle what her thoughts are on this project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. HAYWARD-I went and looked at the property. You've got quite a project on your hands I see. I'm in favor. I think it's an improvement to the environment and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. I think it's a modest request for a modest project. MR. MC CABE-Catherine, what are your thoughts? MRS. HAMLIN-I am in favor also. MR. SERINI-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. I think if the neighbors had voiced any concerns I would have maybe objected, but it's a minimal request and everybody seems to be in support of it. MR. SERI NI-Thank you. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor. Neighbors no opposition. In some cases like this we need good folks like the Serini's that come in and do the right thing and put some money into their property. So I'm in favor of this. MR. SERINI-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have no problem with it. I think the relief on both sides is very minimal compared to the amount of relief on the narrow lots that we associate with the lake up here, and I think the permeability is close enough to me. I think your setback from the water, the fact that you're building fits on the size of the lot that's there. MR. MC CABE-And from my standpoint I believe that the new construction will enhance the look of the neighborhood and I believe that the new wastewater treatment system will upgrade the ability to handle waste and so I am also in favor of the project. So at this particular time I'll ask for a motion. Jim, would you do a motion for us? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I assume that you're going to use water from the lake for drinking water purposes? MR. SERINI-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you're not going to have a drilled well. So that's not going to create any issues with the septic. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Michael Serini. Applicant proposes demolition of existing camp and construction of a 1,008 sq. ft. home at 2,284 sq. ft. floor area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief Required: �:"gig 03/21/2018) The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements, permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential The applicant proposes a new home that is to be located 17.7 ft. from the North property line and 17 ft. from the South property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability where 75% is required and 72.2% is proposed. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we feel the size of the home proposed is reasonable. The setbacks are very minimal at 2.3 feet on one side and 3 feet on the other side. The permeability will be slightly increased from what's acceptable at 72.2% as opposed to the 75%, and we do not feel that that triggers anything else. We also recognize the fact that it will have an up to date septic system that's located substantially back from the surface waters of the lake. 2. As far as feasible alternatives, I guess we could ask it to be a little bit smaller but it's minimalistic. The width of the house I think is 27 feet. So it's not that great. 3. As far as whether the variance is substantial, I do not deem it to be substantial. It's within the realm of what we're trying to achieve up on the lake. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. Even though it is self-created it's just creating a new home that's going to be an improvement over what currently exists on site. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) / would be outweighed by (denial) 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-11-2018 MICHAEL SERINI, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 21St day of March 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CAB E-Congratulations. MR. SERINI-We do have a rain garden. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-And our last application tonight is Z-AV-21-2018, Richard & Sharon Bapp. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-21-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 RICHARD & SHARON BAPP AGENT(S) STEPHEN L. PERKINS, MCPHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM, LLP 03/21/2018) OWNER(S) RICHARD & SHARON BAPP ZONING MDR LOCATION 45 OGDEN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.37 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.92 ACRES AND 046 ACRES. THE EXISTING HOME IS TO REMAIN ON THE LARGER PARCEL AND THE SMALLER PARCEL IS TO BE SOLD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM DENSITY, CREATING TWO PARCELS LESS THAN 2 ACRES AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING HOME ON THE LARGER PARCEL (LOT 1). CROSS REF P-SB-3-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-29.1 SECTION 179-3-040 STEPHEN PERKINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Would you read the application into the record, Roy. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-21-2018, Richard & Sharon Bapp, Meeting Date: March 21, 2018 "Project Location: 45 Ogden Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots of 0.92 acres and 0.46 acres. The existing home is to remain on the larger parcel and the smaller parcel is to be sold. Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to create two lots of 0.92 ac (existing house to remain) and 0.46 ac (lot to be sold) in the MDR zoning district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. Relief is also requested for side setbacks for the existing home that is 18.5 ft. setback on the south property line and a 25 ft. setback is required from the front setback where the home is 29 ft. setback and 30 ft. 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 location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 1.08 ac for Lot 1 0.92 ac and is 1.54 ac for Lot 2 0.46 ac. Relief is also requested for the south side of the home of 6.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has shown a compliant septic system can be installed on the site along with the placement of the home. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 ac parcel into two parcels. One lot is to be 0.92 ac and to maintain an existing home. The second lot is to be 0.46 ac and is to be marketed for sale for a single family home." 1 Y 0 03/21/2018) MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted March 13, 2018 unanimously. MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. PERKINS-Good evening. My name's Steve Perkins. There's really not much to add to that. I think the overall neighborhood, all the lots are substandard in size. I've prepared an exhibit here that the minimum requirement is two acres. There's not a single parcel on the road that's two acres. The Bapps have the largest parcel on the road at 1.37 acres and they're looking to subdivide it into .92 and .46. .46 seems to be very common to the size of the lots on that road. You have six other lots at .46 acres, and as far as everything else goes, I guess mathematically some of the variances could be considered substantial, but I think in light of all of the other circumstances in terms of the substandard character of the neighborhood, I think allowing the variances will permit development consistent with that substandard character. MR. UNDERWOOD-Did they have a buyer already? MR. PERKINS-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's not going to be a family subdivision or a family member? MR. PERKINS-Not that I know of. They mentioned they were just looking to have it subdivided and then they were going to list it for sale. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 notice like when you go down Division or Ogden, you know, I mean you've got that potpourri of some people have three of the original lots together. Like Pliney Tucker's old house is being re-developed at this point. So I mean there's two rooms of thought. You can go to bigger lots with multiple size or you can go smaller as you're proposing in this instance. So six of one half dozen of another. MR. PERKINS-Yes, I mean it looks like the entire, I mean there's another parcel at .92. So that would, so they're going to create, their home lot would be .92 now and then the other lot would be .46. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-I have no questions. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing is advertised. So I'll open the public hearing and ask the audience for input. It doesn't look like that's going to happen, so I'll ask Roy if there's any correspondence on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing and poll the Board, and I'm going to ask Jim for his thoughts. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think as I mentioned before, there's two ways to think of it here. I mean you could build bigger homes, and I think we have examples on the surrounding neighborhood streets, Division and Ogden both, you know, that incorporated those larger lots or accumulated smaller lots together. They've lumped, one, two or three of them together in some instances, but there are still plenty of examples that you mentioned in the neighborhood of lots of this size proposed or smaller even, you know. So I think that it's a matter of choice here. There doesn't seem to be any opposition from the immediate neighbors who'll be affected, and that's the owners of the one house and the owners to the south of them there, too. So I guess I would be in favor of the approval. MR. MC CABE-Roy, what are your thoughts? MR. URRICO-Yes I'm against the application. I don't believe we should be creating substandard lots out of substandard lots that are substandard to begin with. So I would be against the project. 3°� 03/21/2018) MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to weigh inhere. I feel the same way as Roy. Although you point out there are a number of smaller lots here, this was zoned medium density for a reason, to try to reduce the density, and by allowing this subdivision we're kind of going the wrong way, and so I cannot support this project. Michelle, what are your thoughts? MRS. HAYWARD-I noticed, looking at the property and the surrounding neighborhood as well, it's a real mix of properties like Mr. Underwood said, and I am, too, against carving up these lots and creating more density. So I'd have to say no at this time. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Looking at Division and Ogden they're smaller lots. There seems to be no neighbors that have weighed in or seem to be affected. While I appreciate a mix of properties, I actually would be in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I would not be. I agree completely with what you said about not creating more substandard lots out of what is again already a substandard lot. MR. PERKINS-1 understand that. My question would be how did these, all of these substandard lots come to exist in a zone that is zoned for two acre lots. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I've got to re-open the public meeting. So I will re- open the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MC CABE-And say I have no idea whether they existed before the zoning change or after the zoning change. All I know is that at this particular time we have to deal with the way it's zoned. MR. UNDERWOOD-My understanding is that when they originally did the subdivisions down here they were all these smaller lots and people would buy up two or three of them at a time because I think the price was right and they could preserve and put in larger homes than they wanted to on these. So it's been superseded by the two acre zoning which exists all through the Town and I think, especially on the south end of Town, you know, we deal all the time with substandard sized lots because we've created that in the Code, and it's just a matter of the realities of the present compared to the past. MR. MC CABE-So here's your situation. We are short people. So if we were at full strength you'd have one additional person, plus we have two alternates here tonight. If you were to wait for a later date you'd have a different composition here. So you could table this matter. You could withdraw the matter. I can't tell you what to do, but those are your choices, or you could call for a vote, but, you know, as you've heard that's probably not going to work. MR. PERKINS-Why don't we table it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. For, let's see. Next week we still won't have all of our normal people. We won't have all of our normal people I believe until the second meeting in April. I think that's when Ron's coming back. MRS. MOORE-All right. So right now we have one meeting scheduled in April. We don't have a second meeting scheduled in April at this time. MR. MC CABE-When is the one meeting scheduled for? MRS. MOORE-It's the early one. MR. MC CABE-Yes. I talked to Ron. When is that conference? Okay. Ron said that he'll be back for that. I would say table it then until May, then you'll have a regular Board. MR. PERKINS-It sounds like the four of you are absolute no's. . So I'd really like to have some different. MR. MC CABE-Sure. 03/21/2018) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard & Sharon Bapp. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots of 0.92 acres and 0.46 acres. The existing home is to remain on the larger parcel and the smaller parcel is to be sold. Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot 1). MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-21-2018 RICHARD & SHARON BAPP, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: Tabled to the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in May with the appropriate data, if there are any changes, to be submitted to the Town, by the middle of April. Duly adopted this 21 st day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. MC CABE-Sorry about that. MRS. MOORE-Before this meeting is closed, in reference to the application under Miner, you can re-open that public hearing. MR. MC CABE-Yes, and then I'll close this public hearing and re-open it at the appropriate time. MRS. MOORE-No, you left it open. That's sufficient. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-But you do need to note that you're either, and it's up to the Board. You can either choice to re-open the public hearing for Miner or keep it closed. We would be forced to re-advertise that information, and it does not matter. MR. MC CABE-So just leave it the way it is. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Is there any other business that we should consider this evening? MRS. HAYWARD-I make a motion to adjourn. MR. MC CABE-So Michelle made a motion to adjourn. I second it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 21, 2018, Introduced by Michelle Hayward who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21t day of March, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 33 03/21/2018) Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman