Loading...
06-27-2018 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-19-2018 Diana & Matthew Suders 1. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-9 Area Variance Z-AV-35-2018 Faden Enterprises 6. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-47 Area Variance Z-AV-36-2018 Adam & Sara Pearsall 14. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-44.2 Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2018 David Nuzzi Associates, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-1 Area Variance Z-AV-38-2018 James & Donna Barber 22. Tax Map No. 308.10-2-4 [Barber] Area Variance Z-AV-40-2018 Russell Hilliard 25. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-3 Area Variance Z-AV-42-2018 Christopher Dwyer 34. Tax Map No. 288.4-65 Area Variance Z-AV-44-2018 Britt Lynn Patch 42. Tax Map No. 302.54-75 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES [IF ANY] WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 27, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. MC CABE-Welcome to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. What we'll do is we'll call each applicant up to the front here. Their application will be read into the record. We'll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we'll open the public hearing and allow the public to speak and also read in any written information that we have. At that point we'll close the public hearing. We'll poll the Board to see how they stand on the application and then we'll take a vote if necessary. So our first applicant tonight is Diana & Matthew Suders and it's application Z-AV-19-2018. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV49-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 DIANA & MATTHEW SLIDERS AGENT(SJ BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, P.C. OWNER(SJ DIANA & MATTHEW SLIDERS ZONING MDR LOCATION 42 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES (REVISED) CONSTRUCTION OF A 792 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE THE GARAGE AND 352 SQ. FT.THIRD BAY ON THE EXISTING GARAGE. THE ADDITION IS TO HAVE A KITCHEN. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,000 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A DUPLEX STRUCTURE ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 309.174-9 SECTION 179-3-040 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DIANA SLIDERS, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Roy, would you read the application into the minutes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-19-2018, Diana & Matthew Suders, Meeting Date: June 27, 2018 "Project Location: 42 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes (revised) construction of a 792 sq. ft. second story addition above the garage and 352 sq. ft. third bay on the existing garage. The addition is to have a kitchen. The existing home is 2,000 sq. ft. with an attached garage. Relief requested for a duplex structure on a lot that does not meet the lot size requirements in the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from a density requirement for a duplex in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density residential zone The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home converting the home to a two family where 4 ac is required per dwelling and existing is 0.77 ac. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 2 (QUeensbUry ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 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 impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated from a single family dwelling neighborhood by adding a two family unit. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to remove the second kitchen and separate access from the porch area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 3.23 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has revised the plans with a second story addition and an additional garage bay. The applicant has indicated there is to be access from the addition to the inside of the home. The applicant proposes to have a second kitchen as shown on the plan. The applicant has provided a letter indicating neighbors accept the revised plans. The plans show the revised addition location and new garage bay." MR. MC CABE-Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please? MS. BITTER-Absolutely. I'm Stefanie Bitter here together with Diana Suders and her mother is in the audience. We were last before you folks in March and at that time we were seeking more of an in- law apartment that was to be constructed behind the garage. It had independent access from the exterior. As you may recall, those of you who were present, that in-law apartment was specifically for Mrs. Reyes so that she could continue residing with the Suders family. At that time there was some opposition from the neighbors and there were some concerns raised by the Board so we tabled it, went back to the drawing board and now are before you with this addition. This is an addition which will be right above the garage and have direct connectivity to the home. There will be an open door. It will not be independently accessed from the exterior so that they will be considered completely separate. With Mrs. Reyes ability there will be a lift incorporated so that she won't have any issues navigating the home, but in our eyes this is a compromise to address the concerns that were raised by this Board as well as the neighbors. As you mentioned there is a petition that's been signed by the neighbors demonstrating that they have viewed this plan and they do support what's being requested. We also submitted this evening a letter from the neighbor who spoke at the March meeting in opposition. He's not here this evening and he also has reviewed these plans and does support what's being requested this evening. That being said, we believe that this is a great compromise, although the Zoning Administrator still considers this to be considered a duplex, we believe it should be considered more connected with the existing unit or an addition. It's the kitchen that really seems to be what's hanging things up, but that being said, duplexes are allowed in the MDR zone. This is the MDR zone. What we're really seeking is relief from the lot size. This is .77 acres, but if this was an addition we wouldn't even be having this conversation. So obviously this is not too large for this lot. This will fit just perfectly with what's being requested and allow this family to continue to reside together. I understand that this is your responsibility to review the five criteria and we do believe that in reviewing the balancing test it does weigh in favor of the applicant versus any detriment to the community. First no undesirable change. The addition now will be visible but will work with the design of the home. It will provide an attractive exterior feature, and like I mentioned neighbors do support it and it will meet all setbacks and other criteria of the Ordinance. Although there could be considered an alternative to this, I believe this is a great compromise and there's direct connectivity. This family will be able to continue to reside together. So it should be considered just as an additional and not considered substantial. Last but not least no adverse impacts, no environmental impacts, no impacts to the community or the neighborhood and although this could be considered self-created it should not be considered a detriment to the application they've requested. Variances, as you know, are looked at on a case by case basis and when you look at this one and the way in which this is now designed, it really is just that, an addition so this family can stay together. So we hope that you consider this as our new request and look favorably on our request for relief. MR. MC CABE-Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? 3 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Just as a point of information there was a recent article in the AARP newspaper that had some good information related to this. You would have to go back to the 1950's when multi-generational family situations were the norm, and if you're of Italian heritage or Chinese or East Indian in this day and age that's the way people exist with their families in an extended form. Al lot of people have their kids living at home for extended periods of time after they've decided not to leave the nest as we're well aware of on our part, too, but currently the statistics point us in the direction that we're heading back to that same number of the 1950's. So I think we should be astute enough and forward looking enough that we start to think about how we're going to do this. Because not everybody with the demise of the middle class is going to have the ability to put their whole family members in the retirement home and pay all that money out. You're going to have to come up with creative ideas of accommodating them on your own at home. So I'm just making that suggestion. MR. MC CABE-Does anybody else have questions? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have a question. There'll be no outside access? MS. BITTER-There will be a patio. MR. KUHL-There'll be a patio. Where's the patio going to be? MS. BITTER-In the back. It's going to be a deck. MR. KUHL-A deck. So there'll be a deck. MS. BITTER-A sliding glass door. MR. KUHL-Will there be stairs down from the deck? MRS. SLIDERS-Yes, but she probably won't egress from that area. MR. KUHL-Okay, but there will be outside access. MRS. SLIDERS-Yes, just a means for her dog to go outside in the back. MR. HENKEL-Kind of for emergency, too. MR. KUHL-How about, this house is on septic, right? MRS. SLIDERS-Yes. MR. KUHL-How do we know that the septic is going to handle the other bedroom? MRS. SLIDERS-Well there's only one bedroom there. MS. BITTER-And we'll work with the Building Department. We've already had conversations with them. MR. KUHL-I'm sorry? MS. BITTER-We're going to work with the Building Department. We already asked them that question. MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. Doesn't that have to be certified that it's got the capacity for the additional bedroom? MRS. MOORE-The septic system? MR. KUHL-The septic, yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes, that'll go through Building and Codes. MR. KUHL-Yes, but aren't we putting the cart before the horse? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. KUHL-I mean you're asking us to approve something that may not pass the balancing test. Right? The septic may not be able to handle it. Then what? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MRS. MOORE-They'd have to update their septic system. MR. KUHL-Okay. So you enter this knowing this. MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Are there other questions? MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a question. It's really more for Staff. I brought my notes with me from our last conversation and we really had a good discussion about the need for this, like Jim mentioned, this type of housing arrangement in our community. Has the Town Board looked at this issue like we talked about? MRS. MOORE-1 haven't heard them, I haven't heard any discussion come back to me specifically. They may have had that discussion during the Comprehensive Plan when it was adopted a while ago, but I have not heard anything lately. MRS. HAYWARD-I'm just concerned about kind of the spot zoning that we're getting ourselves into. These applications keep coming before us. MR. MC CABE-Well, all we're doing is saying that you can have this on a less than four acre lot. It meets the zoning. A duplex is allowed in this zoning. MRS. HAYWARD-Right. I understand. MR. HENKEL-We're just giving them a variance to bypass that. MRS. HAYWARD-I'm just, the bigger issue is the generational housing and these issues coming up. So that's what was the nature of my question. So, thank you. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? We do have a public hearing advertised this evening. So at this time I will open the public hearing and ask if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application. Seeing nobody, I'll ask Roy, do you have the documentation that was mentioned in the presentation? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-1 have a letter, Stefanie, I didn't see a. MRS. MOORE-It's in the application itself. MS. BITTER-This one. MR. URRICO-It is? Okay. This is, "As you may recall my wife Catherine and I own property on 58 Eagan Road and we were present at the March 28, 2018 hearing for the above mentioned variance being requested by the Suders. Please be advised that we have reviewed their revised plans which now places the addition over the garage, has direct access to the existing house, still maintains a kitchen, and adds a bay to the garage. With these revisions, we have no objection to the variance being requested. Richard McLenithan" And I guess I will assume there is a petition in here. MRS. MOORE-So it's directly after the letter that was submitted last. MR. URRICO-The petition says"Matthew&Diana Suders of 52 Eagan Road, Queensbury are proposing an addition consisting of adding a single car garage attached to the left side of their existing garage and additional living space above the garage area, which would all be connected to the existing house with connectivity only from within (no separate exterior entrance or exit door)." And four neighbors signed this petition. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Is there other public comment? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board to see how we stand, and, Roy, I'm going to ask for your opinion first. MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. I believe this is a solid application now and I think it satisfies the test. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I was not in support of the application the first time because it definitely looked like a duplex but this new project definitely looks like a house addition and I think it's, like Jim said, it's something we've got to start considering about family living together, taking in family. So I'd be in support of it as is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project as well for the same reason. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think they, I mean although the lot is only .77 it's a big enough lot to afford this and back in the stone ages when I was a kid we'd call this a mother daughter. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we should encourage this application. I think that like, you know, for the Town Board my suggestion would be that we look at a category called extended family housing or something in that line of viewpoint. It makes sense for us to anticipate that we're going to see more of these. This is an individual request. It's not a bulk request for the whole community. We look at these all individually to see what the impacts are and there's no real impact. No one's going to be negatively affected in that neighborhood. So I would approve it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I would agree with that. I think that I'm in favor of this application. However, I do believe that as indicated from my fellow Board members there is an issue that will occur over the next 10, 20, 30 years across the country, not just in Queensbury, aging parents. I'm hoping that when I do turn old and gray my son will let me move in. In my case I'm not sure, but anyway, I do believe that this is a good project an\s you've redesigned it. I'm glad that Mrs. Reyes will have the opportunity to be at home. I see no opposition from the neighbors. In fact the opposition that was previous has been noted that they've changed their sentiments, their feelings. Neighbor support is always something that I look closely at, or opposition. So with that said I'm in favor of this application. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am impressed with the changes that the applicant has made per our suggestions and the fact that the applicant has gotten together with the neighbors and has a design that is favorable with them, and so I support this also. So at this particular time I'm going to ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diana 8T Matthew Suders. Applicant proposes (revised) construction of a 792 sq. ft. second story addition above the garage and 352 sq. ft. third bay on the existing garage. The addition is to have a kitchen. The existing home is 2,000 sq. ft. with an attached garage. Relief requested for a duplex structure on a lot that does not meet the lot size requirements in the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from a density requirement for a duplex in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density residential zone 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] The applicant proposes to construct an addition to an existing home converting the home to a two family where 4 ac is required per dwelling and existing is 0.77 ac. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 28, 2018; and Wednesday, June 27, 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 as this is a small addition that really blends in with the community. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited due to the lot size and have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance we might say is a bit substantial but only because of the lot size where our standard requires four acres and this is a .77 lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could say the difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 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- AV49-2018, DIANA&MATTHEW SLIDERS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 27" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mrs. Hayward,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MRS. SLIDERS-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The next application is Faden Enterprises. The variance is Z-AV-35-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-35-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(SJ LANSING ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(SJ EVEREST ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 900 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES NEW PARKING IMPROVEMENTS AND AN INTERCONNECT WITHIN A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. ADDITIONAL HARD SURFACING EXCEEDS SITE PERMEABILITY. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR PERMEABILITY LESS THAN 30 PERCENT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW SITE DEVELOPMENT. CROSS REF P-SP-37-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 ZONING CM LOT SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.174-47 SECTION 179-3-040 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT 7 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. MC CABE-I've got to recuse myself from this application since my wife has an interest in this, and so, Ron, I'm going to ask you to take over the Chairmanship, and, Catherine, I'm going to ask you to fill in for me. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mike. Roy, do you want to read it into the record? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'll just read the highlights. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-35-2018, Faden Enterprises, Meeting Date: June 27, 2018 "Project Location: 900 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes new parking improvements and an interconnect within a neighboring property to the south. Additional hard surfacing exceeds site permeability. Relief sought for permeability less than 30 percent. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for new site development. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Commercial Moderate zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to increase additional parking and an interconnect to the southern property where an increase in hard-surfacing reduces the permeability on site to 17.3% and 30% 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the amount of pavement on site or permeable surface. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is for 13%. The applicant has noted the existing site is at 26.2 %. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes alter the parking arrangement on an existing site to include 15 new parking spaces, an interconnect to property to the south property line and to align the south parking area drive aisle with the traffic light. The plans show the alteration to the site parking area." MR. KUHL-Good evening. Could you introduce yourselves, please? MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. With me is Russ Faden. He's the applicant for the project. MR. KUHL-Would you care to explain? MR. LANSING-Yes, absolutely. Good evening. I know the Board is familiar with this project. The application was before this Board at the last meeting. We got the sense from the Board they were uncomfortable granting the variance for the reduction in green space on the lot at 900 Route 9. So we went away and came up with some options that we wanted to discuss with the Board this evening and outline our request which we're maintaining the request for the original variance that we did provide to the Board. We'll go through the options and if there's something that the Board's more comfortable with we'd be more than happy to entertain that. There was the background on the 8 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] project in that the project is located at 900 Route 9. There was an existing site, 1.69 acres. It is a Pizzeria Uno restaurant approximately 8100 square feet in size. There are currently 108 parking spots on that facility. The applicant is developing a project to the south of the parcel and in doing so in accordance with the Master Plan we're looking to provide an interconnection from the two properties. Also within that interconnection is the addition of 15 parking spaces for that property to the south. So with the addition of the shared access and the additional parking spaces we've added some impervious area to the property at 900 Route 9. That impervious area is going from 26% which the property is already slightly substandard from the 30%. So we're approximately four percent below that right now. Going from 26% down to 17.3%. So that is approximately an 8.9% decrease from what it is currently existing or 12.7% from the 30% requirement. So in the original plan there are a couple of things I would like to note in that. First off as far as the access, I guess that isn't according to the Master Plan, but one of the things I think is important to note is relative to the stormwater on the site. We are adding impervious area to 900 Route 9, but with that impervious area we're collecting all the stormwater from that area and sending that to an underground infiltration basin. So all of the stormwater, all of the rainfall from that impervious area would be directed and infiltrated into the ground. So as far as the detriment of adding impervious area to the site, we feel we've mitigated that by collecting that stormwater and infiltrating it into the ground. So that's the original application. That's the plan that we have left that is proposed. We did come up with a couple of options that is the option in the center and the option all the way to the right. The option in the center is basically taking that additional impervious area which we have shown in the red area on that particular plan and that's what makes up that additional impervious area that we're asking for the variance on. Our suggestion is to make that as a porous asphalt, something that would allow the stormwater to infiltrate through that and it was already stated if that was something that was provided that the Board may possibly consider a 50% credit for that. So we'd only be asking for half of the variance that we had asked for before. So instead of the 8.9% existing it would be half of that which is 4.45% increase in impervious that's on the site. A couple of thoughts on that I'd like to share with the Board. First off, as far as impervious asphalt, impervious asphalt is a great tool. It's a great stormwater practice, but there are some challenges, some maintenance responsibility associated with that that porous asphalt is not something that you should sand, that type of pavement. You can provide salt on that type of pavement. The sand actually plugs the pores on the porous asphalt and does not allow water to infiltrate in. Also with porous asphalt there needs to be a periodic vacuuming of that surface. So that's something that we'd have to go through and periodically vacuum the sediment or debris that would fall on that particular asphalt, and last but not least porous asphalt is expensive, more expensive than conventional pavement which does provide a burden to the applicant, although that's not as significant as the first few items. Having a small strip of porous asphalt in between regular asphalt on each side can be problematic in that usually when you have a site with porous asphalt something that there were signs put up, maintenance contractors are notified as porous asphalt and to not provide sanding of that particular pavement. Having a small strip between the different strips of regular asphalt we think might be something that could be overlooked by a contractor rather easily. There could be some sand put on that could clog the pores and render that asphalt not as efficient as it would be otherwise. With that being said, I think the application of porous asphalt, particularly in these cases, is redundant also. It's something that we still have the infiltration practice that we have underneath the pavement as a pre-treatment mechanism. So things such as sand or debris or leaves or even coffee cups are caught in that pre-treatment device whereas on the porous asphalt again the sand or that debris could get into the pores on that asphalt and clog those pores and coffee cups or whatever could more or less would go on the side of the litter and debris that would have to be picked up. So the application of porous asphalt, if this Board does consider the reduction in the impervious area as something that we can apply, but we don't think that's necessarily the best option because again we already have the infiltration practices on the site. So that's that option. The last open, the one on the right, is an option that we came up with. We are deficient on the green space on the parcel on 900 Route 9. We can remedy that by providing a lot line adjustment. The parcel to the south at 894 Route 9 we have an excess of green space on. We actually have 53% green space on the parcel to the south. If you look at both parcels together we have about 33% open space. So if you look at the parcels together we're over. So we thought our suggestion all the way to the right is a potential possible lot line adjustment that the back portion of 894 could be added on to the lot 900 to the north, and that's depicted by that yellow line. By doing that, that would provide, maintain the green space on 900 Route 9 and we would still meet all the other requirements for 894 Route 9 to the south. So that is an option that we could investigate. We are working with Mrs. Moore and Mr. Brown as far as that particular idea and whether that is something that was brought up last time that might be viewed as a flag lot. The definition of a flag lot is a lot not meeting minimum frontage requirements and where access to a public road is by a private driveway and a narrow strip of land. We're in the process of working that out with the Planning Department, but it's our contention that it's not a flag lot, that we still have our full frontage on Route 9. We do not need that narrow strip for a private driveway and access to our parcels. So we do not feel it is a flag lot and it's something that is a viable option for us. That adjustment of the property is nothing more than just adding green space area to the parcel and meeting the green space requirement for the parcel. So in summary we have three 9 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] different options. The consistent thing between all the options is that all have the additional impervious area. They all have the access. There are varying degrees of variances that are needed. The one all the way to the left obviously needs the most amount of relief that we're asking for from this Board. The one in the middle has half of that, and the one on the right has no relief requested from this Board, and what we're also requesting is the one all the way on the left which has the most amount of relief. The reason being is when you look at all three of these plans, all three of these plans all have the exact same look and feel from the roadway and they all have the same exact green space and pervious area overall when you look at both of the lots. They all have the exact same amount of infiltration in that all the impervious areas from the parcels to the south and the additional impervious areas to the north are collected and infiltrated into the ground. In our opinion the one all the way to the left is the most efficient way to do this. It provides a neat, clean division of the properties. It does not have that small strip of impervious, I'm sorry, porous asphalt in the middle and it has lot configurations that are consistent and typical to what's out there now and it's typical for lot configurations. So with that being said we are here this evening obviously to answer any questions you might have, but we would like to request the Board's re-consideration of the variance request that we presented to the Board last meeting. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-So is Option One, the one that you presented to us previously, that's just conventional drywells in the ground? MR. LANSING-Yes, they don't really add drywells. What it is is they're chambers. They're long, linear chambers. MR. UNDERWOOD-That slowly perc in? MR. LANSING-Correct, and with that there is a pre-treatment device. So any stormwater before they enter those chambers, it is filtering sediment and debris is removed. So any water that goes into the infiltration water is clean water more or less. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, on the Uno property now you have some kind of infiltrators in there built into that parking lot. There are no infiltrators built into that? MR. LANSING-1 don't know exactly what the stormwater system is for this Uno parcel. The additional impervious area that we are proposing, we are proposing to go through this infiltration. MR. UNDERWOOD-So this would be an improvement over having nothing, then, if that's the case. MR. LANSING-In my opinion, yes. MR. MC DEVITT-Scott, can you just kind of explain to me the pre-treatment process again? MR. LANSING-Sure. MR. MC DEVITT-I'm just trying to really understand that, and the subset to that question would be, long term, reliability of system that we get five or ten years down the road, is there maintenance? Is there breakdown of systems? What are we looking at long term in that process? MR. LANSING-Sure. As far as the collection and pre-treatment and infiltration of the system, basically you have the water that would fall on impervious areas and for 894 and 900 it would not only be the roof runoff but it would also be the sidewalks. It would be impervious areas for the driveway and the park stalls. Everything would be collected to catch basins. In those catch basins there would be pipes that would convey to pre-treatment areas. So there would be the chambers, the rows. One of those rows is what's called an isolator row. That particular isolator row is more or less sealed up. So water can infiltrate through the bottom of that but it has a layer of filter fabric on the bottom of that infiltrator, I'm sorry that isolator row. Sediment, debris collects on top of that fabric and then when it settles there the balance of the water goes off the sides. It goes through the bottom and infiltrates in the other chambers and the stone as well. Eventually debris does accumulate in those isolator rows, whether it's the salt, the sand, debris, coffee cups, leaves, whatever, there is access, there are access ports to that isolator row and that's periodically vacuumed out. So there's a vac truck, similar to the ones that suck out the bottom of catch basins, that's jetted and flushed out and it's periodically cleaned. So as far as long term maintenance or liability, I would say once every five years it the rows would be checked and vacuumed out. As far as the system itself, how long that would last, it depends on the maintenance. As long as it's provided every five years it's 30, 40 years plus, provided maintenance takes place. MR. HENKEL-Can I ask Staff a question? How often do they check that? 10 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MRS. MOORE-So as part of this project, it's part of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. So they're required to come up with a stormwater maintenance agreement and that will be filed with the application and filed with the County. MR. HENKEL-The County checks it, not the? MRS. MOORE-No, not the County, but it's filed. It's a filed document. MR. HENKEL-It is actually checked by Code Enforcement? MRS. MOORE-It's checked by Code and they're required to maintain it according to what they say their stormwater maintenance plan is. So it's a requirement of theirs that they maintain it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does the Town do any kind of a check on that ever, on the ones that we've put in previously? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the Home Depot project. So Bruce periodically gets a report back about the Vortex unit. So in this case we may look at this system and say we may need a report every ten years or something like that, some requirement may be in addition to this one. It may not be, but I know with the Home Depot project we did ask for periodic reports on that. So Code Compliance Officer of the Town. MR. KUHL-It also begs the question if they use pervious asphalt. We don't have any rules and regs for vacuuming that, do we? MRS. MOORE-Yes, we do. So again it's the stormwater maintenance agreement. MR. KUHL-There are? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. I figured with Beach Road and Lake George there probably would be somewhere. Or would they have to live up to the same thing if they go with pervious asphalt? MRS. MOORE-Right. So in their maintenance agreement they would outline the maintenance operation of the pervious pavement. MR. KUHL-So they would have guidance as to what's being done? So it's not something new to you because there are standards on how to take care of it. Didn't we have a discussion last time about you were going to use Uno for egress? MR. LANSING-There will actually be a cross lot access in between the two lots. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. LANSING-So, yes, each parcel could use the other parcel for access. MR. KUHL-Has that agreement been done? Is it, what do you want to say, is it signed, sealed and delivered for lack of a better term? MR. FADEN-Not yet. We've talked extensively about it but nothing's been signed yet. MR. KUHL-See, I mean you're asking us to approve something or give you a variance on something you don't have an agreement on yet. MR. LANSING-It's something that's in the works, and obviously we do need to go in front of the Planning Board for Site Plan Review and approval and certainly the Town Attorney will require an agreement to be in place prior to approval. So we're asking for approval of this variance conditioned on that agreement being in place. It's something we're full well aware that we need to have that in place and both parties at this time are fully in agreement with that. It's something that we're working on. MR. KUHL-Okay. I've got to go back to you. I mean, you know. 11 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MRS. MOORE-That's fine. So the Zoning Board in the past has made that a condition of their variance to require that an agreement be in place. I know at the Planning Board level as well as the Staff level it would be an agreement in place, the notes on the plan and a filed document. MR. KUHL-What do we call that agreement? I mean, you know, with McDonald's it was something different. There was owning a piece of property versus leasing a 20 year lease. We don't know what their, you know, reaching agreement on. On the other project that was brought before us we knew what it was. MRS. MOORE-I'm not quite sure. MR. LANSING-1 would called it a shared parking and access easement agreement. MR. MC DEVITT-Is it a perpetual agreement? Is that what you said? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that's what you have on the other side of the road with Monty Liu's and Wal-Mart, you know, because you have the cross connection and you've got the stop light then you have the right turn only coming out of Wal-Mart on that lower part. MR. KUHL-If you say it can be done I'll be quiet. MRS. HAMLIN-I just have one question, and I can't see it very well from here, and I did check my mail today, maybe more plans came, but is there any way, you're talking about the impermeable, is there any way they can be positioned where it might only be used at Christmas? I'm just throwing it out as a possibility. (Due to background noise some of Cathy's comments were lost) MR. LANSING-That is a good idea. Around the Uno site, though unfortunately those spaces are already paved. They're already done. The spaces that we're proposing around the new facility to the south, those will be the primary spaces. As will the spaces that are shown there in the red between the two sites. So that's another reason why we'd like to have regular asphalt on the site rather than this. MRS. HAMLIN-Could there be landscaping or something that would set it apart? MR. LANSING-It does physically look different. There's a different type of asphalt. As far as marking differently, that's a little tough given the layout configuration of our site and where the spaces are, where the new pavement is. The new pavement is pretty much right around the new facility to the south, including the area that would potentially be porous asphalt. So again that's the reason why we feel it's best to use regular asphalt, and just a couple of more quick notes on the infiltration system. Everything would be designed and constructed in accordance with DEC standards as far as what we have right now, but as far as runoff from the site,we're basically collecting all the storm events. There's a trickle of water coming out during the 50 and 100 year storm events. So five, ten and twenty-five year storm events, which are the majority of the storm events would all be completely infiltrated. So no runoff from the site. MRS. HAYWARD-1 have a question. Last week we had discussion about the New York State Department of Transportation, and they had not, at that time, come up with a determination for I believe it was left hand turns in and out of the property. MR. LANSING-We're continuing to work with DOT on that and I understand your concern on that, but I do think that's something that can be hashed out and is required to be hashed out prior to Site Plan approval for the project before the Planning Board. So far they have been favorable on our application, the cross access. They always like to see cross access. It removes trips from the corridor. So by providing that cross access between the properties, Pizzeria Uno and other tenant to the south, that's something they look favorably on. So we have positive feedback on that and in general on the curb cuts. The worst comment we could see from them is perhaps they would make our access, the right in, right out instead of full in right out, and that's the worst case scenario for the project, but we will be granted a curb cut. MRS. HAYWARD-So if by chance New York State does not determine in your favor, would there be a change in this plan? MR. LANSING-The only thing that would change is our access would go from full in and right out, to right in and right out. So it would look exactly the same, the layout and configuration would be exactly the same. The little Iamb chop in the middle there would just be expanded a little bit. 12 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MRS. HAYWARD-It's a very busy corridor. So, you know, safety is a major concern. MR. LANSING-Definitely. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Before I open up the public hearing, you're showing three different options here, you're showing three different options here. This is not Option A, B, and C Land. This is what you're presenting to this Board, and you're presenting the one on the left, the same one you came back, that you had before. MR. LANSING-Correct. Yes we are. We did go away. We did do some additional investigation on some options and in looking at the options it's our opinion that the look, feel, layout, configuration, impervious area for each one of the options is essentially the same. So with that being said, we think that the neatest, the cleanest way to handle what we're looking to do is to ask for the variance that we asked for last time. So we're asking for the Board's consideration of that. MR. URRICO-So we're still considering 17.3%? MR. LANSING-Correct. Yes. MR. URRICO-So there's basically no change from the application you came with. MR. LANSING-The application we have outlines the 17.3%, with a requested variance of 12.7% of the required 30% and just to keep it in perspective it is 8.9% from the existing, what's out there now because it is already substandard out there right now. It's more substandard. MR. URRICO-So you're making a bad situation worse. MR. LANSING-Yes, I guess but we feel we're mitigating it with the infiltration, this pervious asphalt, this regular asphalt, but we're infiltrating it, as far as the function of it, the way it performs environmentally, all that water that hits that impervious surface and the entire site to the south is being infiltrated to the point where there's no runoff on the site all the way up. MR. KUHL-Okay. Any other questions from Board members? If not I'll open up the public hearing. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to be heard? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. KUHL-Seeing none I will poll the Board. How about it, Roy? MR. URRICO-Well I think when we passed on this last week I was hoping for a little better solution in terms of permeability, and being that we didn't really get that I'm going to be still against the project. MR. KUHL-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Also, yes. They're still asking for almost half the permeability there. They're not showing us anything different. So I can't be in support of this as is. MR. KUHL-Okay, Michelle, you're turn. MRS. HAYWARD-I'm still not in favor of this project. MR. KUHL-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I think we have to look at it in a practical sense and I think the applicant has provided us with three alternatives here. Alternative Two, if I were to count on that one, I would say doesn't really make sense because you have all that regular pavement surrounding a small section of permeable pavement and I think the issue is always the wintertime,you know, salt and sand accumulation filling up the interstitial space and making it ineffective in what you're trying to achieve. The third plan doesn't really seem realistic either because it's more of a feel good plan, you know, with a flag lot being created, and even though you're increasing the size of the Uno lot to make the permeability more conclusive and realistic, it's still not good. The only plan that really makes sense is the one that they proposed last week to us, and I think that, you know, we just have to, in some instances, you know, we have to look at these things through the microscope and I think that in this one here if you're going to put a filtered type of infiltration in here that's about all you can do, realistically, and 1 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] think that, you know, you have to have cross connection with the left hand turn lane coming out of the stoplight up across from Wal-Mart's exit over on the other side there, too. I think that has to be there to make the project work. So I think that, you know, we need to think, as a Board, as to what's the only thing you can do. I mean if you want to put any kind of a mall in there, they're only at 50% on the lot that we approved last week which is above the 30%. The Uno lot is sort of a, it's a self- created situation here, but the Town requires interconnection between adjacent lots if possible, and it's not that much different than what you have on the other side of the road with Monty's Liu's place and Wal-Mart's parking lot and the interconnect over to the shop to the south there that's now going to be terminated, I think at this point, because there's a new construction going on on that one. I think I could approve this, even though there's no change from last week. Further looking at it I think it's the only way to do it, and I think, you know, we have to decide do we want a project here at all? You guys already greenlighted that last week and I think those of us that were against it that's why I wanted to look at this issue first of all. I don't know if there's anything practicable you could do here, but as long as there's an indication that there's no going to be any excessive runoff going off site here, you know, and further off the property that's being created on the south side of the Uno property I think we can live with it. MR. KUHL-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-This lot has been this way for a very long time. I mean it's just set there. My biggest issue with approving this is the stormwater runoff, and I believe, as described, that you have thought that out and as a result, I am in favor of moving forward with this. I just want to ensure the fact that, as Ron brought up, and I know that it will be hammered out, that some of the agreements relative to Uno and that written document come to fruition. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. KUHL-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I guess I would vote to approve, conditioned upon the fact that a shared access, shared parking agreement be worked out. I guess I have to trust the process and DEC and your calculations. Stormwater's a really big issue. We just had like two 1,000 year floods in Maryland, so it's a big deal. MR. KUHL-Okay. Well, I'm going to vote in favor of it based on that agreement that has to be done with Uno, only because I think it's a good use of that property. With that said, I'm going to close the public hearing and look for a recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes new parking improvements and an interconnect within a neighboring property to the south. Additional hard surfacing exceeds site permeability. Relief sought for permeability less than 30 percent. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for new site development. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Commercial Moderate zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to increase additional parking and an interconnect to the southern property where an increase in hardsurfacing reduces the permeability on site to 17.3% and 30% is required. That's a 12.7% variance, and I think that that's about 8.9% worse than what's currently existing on the lot. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 16, 2018; Wednesday, June 20, 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. I think the Board recognizes the negativity of the runoff, but because the runoff will be dealt with with infiltration there will be no net runoff going off site except for onto the south lot where it will be dealt with and infiltrated and not turning into surface runoff that we're opposed to. 14 [Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 2. Feasible alternatives would be to not have the interconnect and not have the parking and exit line out through the stop light, but that has to be a requirement. Otherwise you would not be able to make a left hand turn to go south onto Route 9. And my recommendation also is to have right in, right out only on there because of the two entrance ways to Wal-Mart being there and because cars are always coming north up towards Wal-Mart there. 3. The requested variance is substantial, but it seemed to be the only practical way to deal with this. We looked at feasible alternatives with the permeable pavers being put in in between the two lots and that doesn't seem to be practical because of the use of sand and salt in the wintertime plugging it up. It's not going to really function as intended. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The rationale that we have for that being permitted is such that they will be mitigating this runoff that's being created by doing a sort of unconventional infiltration that includes filtering the water and making sure that there's an agreement in place with the Town, a maintenance agreement to ensure that that works properly at all times. 5. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall / would be outweighed by fdeniallthe resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 7. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) In addition they will be required to have a requirement with the interconnect with Uno in writing, and I think that's going to be a requirement for any passage for a building permit by the Town Hall. bJ 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-35-2018 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 27" day of June, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel MR. LANSING-Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. MR. KUHL-Can we have the next applicant up? NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-36-2018 SEQRA TYPE II ADAM & SARA PEARSALL OWNER[S]: ADAM & SARA PEARSALL ZONING: WR LOCATION 9 RIVERSIDE DRIVE (SUBDIVISION GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 312 SQ. FT. SHED AND TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 160 SQ. FT.SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-44.2 SECTION 179- 5-020 ADAM & SARA PEARSALL, PRESENT MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict on this application. The applicants are clients of mine and I'm a client of his and I'm going to step out of the room on this. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Catherine, you'll fill in. STAFF INPUT 15 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-36-2018, Adam & Sara Pearsall, Meeting Date: June 27, 2018 "Project Location: 9 Riverside Drive (Subdivision Glens Falls National Bank) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 312 sq. ft. shed and to remove an existing 160 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The applicant proposes the shed to be placed 20 ft. to the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered but would require additional vegetation removal. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 10 ft. to the front property line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant to remove an existing shed and to place a 312 sq. ft. shed on the property in the front yard. The applicant has indicated the shed is in a similar location and will allow for additional solar units on the building. The applicant has indicated some vegetation removal will occur. The plans show the location of the shed and type of building to be constructed." MR. MC CABE-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. PEARSALL-Certainly. Adam Pearsall and Sara Pearsall. MR. MC CABE-Is there anything you'd like to add? It's pretty straightforward. MR. PEARSALL-Basically the reason why, we've enjoyed having solar power and National Grid bills of $17.35 for a couple of years, but as our energy usage has increased a little bit, we wanted to add more solar panels, and we hoped to just extend what we currently had, but bringing a well-known local solar company in who did the original install to engineer it they said actually we couldn't do that and we needed to take a ground mount, and we walked around the property and said is there some place else we can put it, knowing we can put it right on the lot line to begin with, and for better or for worse that's the best location and if we extend it it's easier if it goes towards the roadside, otherwise there's some significant trees blocking it in the other direction. I realize that some of the photos I submitted are of questionable quality. I worked on my printer printing those copies for you folks, but I did print out some additional copies, showing the current shed. The current shed, the yellow line that you see is a tape measure that notes the current setback line, and the orange line is the approximate location of the new shed. MRS. PEARSALL-And in terms of vegetation removal, if we are able, with a variance, to put the shed where we would like to, with the setback being 20 feet rather than 30, my favorite white pine tree stays very nicely which blocks quite a bit of neighbor's views,doesn't change the aspect of our property, and the vegetation removal is sumac and bittersweet, which I am absolutely okay with, and it doesn't really change the view from the road itself, because the road itself, between our home, the shed 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] currently on the road is about what my father would simply call a shnarf. It's absolute bushes, trees, and you would not be able to see any change from the property from the road as is. MR. PEARSALL-I also have pictures from the road currently. We call it the green wall and we like it that way for privacy purposes. The only thing I did note in the application, we had looked into maybe putting cedars or something up there that would be more year round, and the gardening folks we talked to said that would probably be a nice salad bar for the deer and didn't recommend that. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of this applicant? Hearing no questions, a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I'll open the public hearing and ask if there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing no one, I'll ask Roy, do you have anything? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no public comment. No letters. MR. MC CABE-So with that, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll poll the Board here, and I'll start with Jim. What are your feelings on this? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes it's not on an arterial road where you would view this from the road. I think the pictures aptly prove that, and I think the small addition to what you already have there, making a larger shed, it's a little unorthodox but it's not anything that's going to be detrimental to the community or your viewpoint from your home either. So I would be all for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes you're not even going to see it from the road. I think it's a good project. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, they indicated that that's the best location. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. I do appreciate everything you've considered in the placement of this and saving the vegetation that you could and removing the unwanted stuff and I think it's going to be an improvement to your property so I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes I think the solar panels on top of the shed compared to on metal supports would definitely look better and what you're asking for is really minimal. So I'd be in support of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project as well. MR. MC CABE-And I support the project as well, and so at this particular time I'm going to ask for a resolution. MR. KUHL-Can I make that resolution, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application for Adam 8T Sara Pearsall. Applicant proposes construction of a 312 sq. ft. shed and to remove an existing 160 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. 17 [Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone The applicant proposes the shed to be placed 20 ft. to the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 27, 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 as their green line is hiding everything they're doing behind it but because of the solar panel use we think it's a good project. 2. Feasible alternatives really have been considered and aren't reasonable. This is a minimum 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. We could suggest that it is self-created but it's a good project with the solar panels. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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-36-2018 ADAM & SARA PEARSALL, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 27" day of June 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MRS. PEARSALL-Thank you very much. MR. PEARSALL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-The next application is David Nuzzi Associates, and it's Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2018. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-6-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED DAVID NUZZI ASSOCIATES, LLC AGENT(SJ JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, PC OWNER(SJ LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 1424 STATE ROUTE 9,SPACE 13 THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE EAST THE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A SECOND WALL SIGN FOR A TENANT (MICHAEL KORSJ WHO WILL BE LEASING A STORE (SPACE 13) ON THE CORNER OF THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE EAST. THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED A SIGN PERMIT FOR A 43.33 SQ. FT WALL SIGN LOCAT4ED ON THE SOUTH SIDE ELEVATION. THE SECOND WALL SIGN (22 SQ. FT.] IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS FOR A TENANT IN A BUSINESS PLAZA. CROSS REF 18 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] SIGN 215-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 LOT SIZE 5.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.1644 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2018, David Nuzzi Associates, LLC, Meeting Date: June 27, 2018 "Project Location: 1424 State Route 9, Space 13 The Outlets at Lake George East Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes placement of a second wall sign for a tenant (Michael Kors) who will be leasing a store [Space 13] on the corner of the Outlets at Lake George East. The applicant has received a Sign Permit for a 43.33 sq. ft. wall sign located on the south elevation. The second wall sign [22 sq. ft.] is proposed to be located on the west elevation of the building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a Business Plaza. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a Business Plaza. Section 140 Sign — number of wall signs in a business complex per tenant The applicant proposes two walls signs for Michael Kors where one sign is permitted on the south elevation a second sign on the west elevation is proposed. 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. 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the lease building unit is a corner unit in the plaza. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is a second 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 proposed project may have minimal impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a second wall sign on the west corner lease unit at 22 sq. ft. for Michael Kors store. The plans show the location of the permitted sign and the proposed sign. In addition, the plans show the existing lighting to remain. The signs are to be consistent with the signing in the plaza for other tenants." MR. MC CABE-Good evening. Would you like to identify yourself for the record, please? MR. LAPPER-Of course. Jon Lapper and Corey Shanus, the principal, the owner of the Plaza. I'd like to start out by just giving a little bit of the history of the Plaza for the newer members of the Board. Corey and his sister bought this Outlet first in 2015 and then ultimately bought the Plaza, the land across the street which we all know as Montcalm, to re-develop that into an Outlet Center. He did a lot of research and hired and architectural design firm from out of the area that specializes in outlet centers. They came up here, looked around and chose an architectural theme that was really based in part on The Sagamore in terms of the color and style so it would be something special regionally and I think it came out better than some of the other centers, just because they did the research and hired the right professionals. Corey's been careful that the other center across the street still has some vacancies, and of course brick and mortar retail is different in this environment than it was, but he's been very careful to wait for the right tenants and negotiate with the right tenants and Michael Kors is an important tenant, one of the prime tenants that you want in an outdoor center, but across the street there's still a number of vacancies and he's working on that, but he's proud of what's happened. 19 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] The quality of his tenants has come up and certainly the visual quality of the Plaza. That said, he's limited the size of the signs compared to what you could have in the Code. Everything could be 100 square feet, and none of the signs in the Plaza are 100 square feet, but this is a corner unit. The Board has previously recognized with Polo Ralph Lauren that the corner need to have the two signs for the cars coming in in either direction. The sign that's there now you can see cars getting off the Northway coming north, but if you're coming south from Lake George Village you wouldn't see that. It also kind of looks like a smile with a missing tooth because it doesn't have a sign in front over the store, but the real issue is just safety, visibility, making sure people can, for Michael Kors, coming from the north they can see it. With all that said, these two together are 43 square feet plus 22 square feet. So you could have one much larger 100 square foot sign that would have much more of an impact and visual intrusion than the two smaller tasteful signs, and I think you'll agree that the whole Plaza was tastefully done. We have a tenant that it's really important to have a sign facing the west so that cars from the north can see it, but it's certainly not a situation where he's trying to jam in more than he should because they're smaller than what's allowed. Corey's here to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions from the Board? MRS. HAYWARD-1 have one quick question. Is there a pier sign out, there is a pier sign out in front that displays all the different stores. MR. LAPPER-There is, but those are limited under the Town Codes. MRS. HAYWARD-Right. MR. LAPPER-You'd have to be right on top of it to see it. MRS. HAYWARD-Right. So I wasn't sure was there a plan to put a Michael Kors sign in there? COREY SHAMUS MR. SHAMUS-Are you talking about the pylon sign? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. MR. SHAMUS-Yes, we have it. The tenants expect it. MRS. HAYWARD-1 drove by it and I don't remember. So that's why. MR. SHAMUS-Kors is actually there. It's on the bottom. Yes, there's a small sign. MR. LAPPER-That's the problem. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. URRICO-What was in that space prior to Michael Kors? MR. SHAMUS-It was Lane Bryant. We re-located them. Jones was next to Coach in the corner. We re-located Lane Bryant there, and we also, if you remember, we put those planters in the corners there which did work. We're actually putting outdoor seating there to make it more shopper friendly. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised this evening, and so at this time I'll open the public hearing and ask if anybody in the audience would like to speak on this matter. Seeing no one, I'll ask Roy, do we have any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no correspondence. No letters. MR. MC CABE-So that being the case, I think I'll close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll start with John. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. HENKEL-I think the Nuzzi family has done a very nice job with both the old Montcalm South and this project here and I think what he's asking is very little and I'd be in support of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor, which surprises me because usually I'm not in favor of more signs, but I do appreciate what Mr. Lapper brought up with all the other signs are smaller than the allowable sign. So I think in total that makes me in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of it. I think it's consistent with what we've allowed in other plazas in the same area, and I think it satisfies the test. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of the project. Whenever possible doing the responsible thing, but the responsible thing happens to mean landlords getting tenants and the economic churning, the economy churning in this area is very important to myself. So I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it blends in with what the rest of the buildings and the architecture. I think he's doing a good job. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we allowed this to happen on some of the other buildings up on the miracle mile there, too. Brooks Brothers I think was one of the ones that we doubled down on, too, and I think we recognize on the corner one whoever's on the front of the building there gets an extra bonus sign and this sign is going to be half the sign that's permitted. So I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I think the applicant has done an excellent job and so I support the project also. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-&2018 DAVID NUZZI ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR MICHAEL KORS BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted 27" day of June 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood,Mrs. Hayward,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Now I'm going to ask for a motion on the variance itself. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Nuzzi Associates, LLC for Michael Kors for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. The applicant proposes placement of a second wall sign for a tenant (Michael Kors) who will be leasing a store [Space 13] on the corner of the Outlets at Lake George East. The applicant has received a Sign Permit for a 43.33 sq. ft. wall sign located on the south elevation. The second wall sign [22 sq. ft.] is proposed to be located on the west elevation of the building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a Business Plaza. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a Business Plaza. Section 140 Sign — number of wall signs in a business complex per tenant The applicant proposes two walls signs for Michael Kors where one sign is permitted on the south elevation a second sign on the west elevation is proposed. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution / Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2018 David Nuzzi Associates, LLC for Michael Kors based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted 27' day of June 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood,Mrs. Hayward,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 27, 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? No. As supported in the evidence the attorney has explained that all the other signs on the property are less than the allowable size. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another method. They've already considered alternatives. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It is not a substantial request as evidenced in the discussion prior. 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 impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is a self-created difficulty but that doesn't have bearing on this case. 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- 6-2018, DAVID NUZZI ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR MICHAEL KORS, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 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 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 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 27`h day of June 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is James & Donna Barber, and it's Area Variance Z-AV-38-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-38-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 JAMES & DONNA BARBER AGENT(SJ ELIZABETH LITTLE, ATTORNEY OWNER(SJ JAMES & DONNA BARBER ZONING MDR LOCATION 486 AND 480 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH THE EASTERN NEIGHBORING PARCEL (MURRAY'S PARCEL). BOTH PARCELS ARE 0.88 ACRES, THE MURRAY'S PARCEL: 308.10-2-3 WOULD BE INCREASED TO 0.93 ACRES AND THE BARBERS PARCEL 308.10-2-4 WOULD BE DECREASED TO 0.83 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT FOR LOT 4 (BARBER'S PARCEL). CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.10-2-4 (BARBER) SECTION 179-3-040 ELIZABETH LITTLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-38-2018, James & Donna Barber, Meeting Date: June 27, 2018 "Project Location: 486 and 480 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment with the eastern neighboring parcel [Murray's parcel]. Both parcels are 0.88 acres. The Murray's parcel: 308.10-2-3 would be increased to 0.93 acres and the Barbers parcel 308.10-2-4 would be decreased to 0.83 acres. Relief requested from the dimensional requirements for the MDR zoning district for lot 4 (Barber's parcel). Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the dimensional requirements for the MDR zoning district for lot 4 (Barber's parcel). Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project involves a boundary line adjustment where parcel 308.10-2-4 is reduced from 0.88 ac to 0.83 ac where 2 acres 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 parcels being less than 2 acres required in the MDR zoning district. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 1.17 ac. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant and neighbor are working together to minimize the impact of existing trees on the site. 23 (QUeensbUry ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for an area of .05 ac as the adjoining neighbor proposes to maintain the property removing the dead trees from the site. The survey shows the property line adjustment area along with the photos showing the tree area to be managed." MR. MC CABE-Good evening. If you would identify yourself for the record. MS. LITTLE-I'm Elizabeth Little, an attorney with Little, O'Connor & Borie and I represent Adam and Tina Murray. This is Adam Murray. JAMES BARBER MR. BARBER-James Barber. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add? This is pretty straightforward. MS. LITTLE-1 think it's pretty straightforward. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Why are you doing it? MS. LITTLE-The reason it started is trees fell down between the property lines. Adam was going to take care of the trees because they were planted by his wife Tina's family who had owned the property since the 70's. They always thought that land was their land, but before he started cutting down trees they got a survey and that's when they found out it was actually the Barbers. So that's why we're here. MR. KUHL-Gotcha. Okay. MR. BARBER-And we got lucky on that one tree that you can see the top of it there. The Murrays were on vacation at the time that happened, which was like the evening of May 5t", or April 5" or early April 6t". Luckily the tree came in this way instead of taking out the corner of my house or the corner of my house. It came this way, and just missed the pump for the pool by feet. And there's about 13 maybe 18 trees there and Mr. Murray's going to take them. ADAM MURRAY MR. MURRAY-Pretty much every tree on that line leans towards me. We're just trying to get them out of the curve. MR. HENKEL-Plus you've got that pool back there. All that debris goes into the pool. MR. BARBER-Everything grows towards the sun. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions? Seeing no questions, a public hearing has been advertised for this evening so at this particular time I'll open the public hearing and ask if there's anybody in the audience who'd like to speak on his matter? Seeing nobody, I'll ask if there's any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written correspondence. MR. MC CABE-So it appears that there's no public comment, so at this particular time I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll do a poll of the Board. And I'll start with Michelle. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of your application. I just want to say I appreciate the fact that the neighbors are working together to solve a mutual problem and improve the neighborhood. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of this application. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a minor lot line change so I don't have a problem with it. I think due to the small size of it, too, I think that in some respect the Town could dial these in so that they didn't have to have this representation and pay all this money out just to do a minor thing that could be done administratively. MR. MC CABE-John, how do you feel? MR. HENKEL-Yes, with this lot line adjustment it doesn't create any problems with setbacks for the buildings that exist. So I'd be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Roy, how do you feel? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. This is much smaller than it appears. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-As Jim said on these I don't even really know why they have to come in front of us, but anyway it's the process. MR. MC CABE-And I also support the project. So at this particular time I'm going to ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James and Donna Barber. Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment with the eastern neighboring parcel [Murray's parcel]. Both parcels are 0.88 acres. The Murray's parcel: 308.10-2-3 would be increased to 0.93 acres and the Barbers parcel 308.10-2-4 would be decreased to 0.83 acres. Relief requested from the dimensional requirements for the MDR zoning district for lot 4 (Barber's parcel). Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the dimensional requirements for the MDR zoning district for lot 4 (Barber's parcel). Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project involves a boundary line adjustment where parcel 308.10-2-4 is reduced from 0.88 ac to 0.83 ac where 2 acres is required. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 27, 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 as this is a minor adjustment. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. They've been considered and are reasonable. We consider this to be a minimum request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as this is to satisfy the needs of both property owners. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is really not self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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-38-2018, JAMES & DONNA BARBER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 27" day of June 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mrs. Hayward,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. MURRAY-Thank you all very much. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is from Russell Hilliard, and it's Z-AV-40-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-40-2018 SEQRA TYPE II RUSSELL HILLIARD OWNER(SJ RUSSELL HILLIARD ZONING WR LOCATION 79 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WITH STORAGE AREA ABOVE (240 SQ. FT.]; PROPOSED HEIGHT TO BE 18 FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWABLE IN THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 289.174-3 SECTION 179-5-020 RUSSELL & MARY HILLIARD, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Would you read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance Z-AV-40-2018, Russell Hilliard,Meeting Date: June 27,2018 "Project Location: 79 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. detached garage with storage area above [240 sq. ft.]; proposed height to be 18 ft. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions and for a second garage where only one is allowable in the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed and height relief in the WR zoning. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one is allowed. In addition, the garage is to be 18 ft. in height where a 16 ft. height is the maximum allowed for detached structures in the WR zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 26 (QUeensbUry ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 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 be considered to include an addition to the existing garage on the home. Although this would require additional site disturbance due to the location of the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is to allow two garages where only one is allowed. Relief is also requested for the height of the building 2 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct 576 sq. ft. second garage for storage of items to maintain property and outdoor items. The site has an existing storage shed at 93 sq. ft. and a 600 sq. ft. greenhouse on the property. The plans show the location of the new garage on the site and the applicant included a typical outside view of the garage to be constructed." MR. MC CABE-It's two lineal feet, not two square feet for the request. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So good evening. Welcome to our meeting tonight and do you have anything to add to the request here or do you have anything you'd like to say about this? MRS. HILLIARD-Well I'd like to introduce myself. I'm Mary Hilliard. MR. MC CABE-That's right. I should have asked you to identify yourself for the record. MRS. HILLIARD-And I think the notes explained it pretty well. I think the only thing we'd like to add is that the project for the two car garage is a result of having a current one car small garage that is really part of the house. The door isn't even visible from the road. It's just not adequate for the lawn equipment. Our goal is to clean up and, you know, organize our property, improve our property, and we feel that's what's currently there is just not adequate and also not attractive. So that's what basically we're here for. I don't know if you have questions. MR. HILLIARD-I could speak to the height as far as there would be 18 feet in the front but it would be built into the bank and would be probably below 16 feet on the other three sides, and being tall, with the storage up above, I was hoping for a seven foot ceiling so I could stand up. MRS. HILLIARD-Russell was a boat builder in his prime and we have some canoes and things that need storage and that's what would be upstairs, you know, the second story, or not second story, but the height is to store that. MR. MC CABE-So the problem that we have here is that your lot size is not big enough to support a second, normally to support a second garage. So the best thing to do would be to incorporate, build out from the existing garage, or somehow do away with the existing garage so that your new structure is the only garage. So I'll just make that comment and I'll ask if there are questions from the Board. MR. HENKEL-So how many other accessory buildings do you have there? It looks like you've got quite a few different buildings there. MR. HILLIARD-Well I've got the shed and there's an overhang attached to the shed which I would take off and remove, and then there's. 27 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. HENKEL-A fairly large building off to the back there in the corner. MR. HILLIARD-Well it's a wooden frame with poly over it. MR. HENKEL-It's still considered an accessory building, though, right? MR. HILLIARD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-It's the greenhouse. MR. HENKEL-So you're going to get rid of all those buildings? MRS. HILLIARD-The shed too? MR. HILLIARD-The shed I'd like to keep. MR. MC DEVITT-The rest of the buildings, though? MR. HILLIARD-Yes. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. So you'd like to keep the shed and get rid of the rest of the buildings? MR. HILLIARD-Yes. Not the high tunnel. I'm a gardener. I grow vegetables. So it's a high tunnel that's movable. It's not permanent. I move it every year. I'd like to keep it. MR. KUHL-Are you going to have water and electric in this garage? MR. HILLIARD-No water. MR. KUHL-Just electric. MR. MC DEVITT-What is the makeup of the roof? Is it metal? A metal roof? MR. HILLIARD-It would be metal to match the house. MR. MC D EVITT-Corru gated metal roof? MR. HILLIARD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. So at this particular time I'd like to open the public hearing and ask if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak. So I do have one. So could you give up the table for a minute? Come on up. Just, if you would, identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED WILLIAM D. CLARK MR. CLARK-My name is William D. Clark. I'm speaking for my mom who lives at 10 Ben Most Bur Lane. I'm speaking on behalf of her. She's 86 years old, Anne Clark. I'm her son. She has a driveway right-a-way over Mrs. Hilliard's property, the property that is Number Two. It has come to attention that a large structure, barn, garage, etc. is being proposed. We have some serious concerns about the proposed property structure and they are as follows. The first one is multiple existing structures. I don't know if they've been approved, but he has many out buildings around his house. Can the structure that he's proposing be sold off separately from the house? What is the primary use, is it residential, commercial? Can farm animals be raised on the property? Chickens are now. As chickens have been for years. Will more farm animals be allowed? Can equipment from the structure be scattered on the property? And the reason I say that is because there's some other things that are scattered around the property, and I'll talk about that in just a minute. The last 30 years, or since my mom and I can remember, Mr. and Mrs. Hilliard have been allowing leaves, piles of leaves, grass clippings, vegetation debris, wood chips, existing piles, fresh piles, probably within the last year, and etc. to be dumped on their property. So they can make soil for all their vegetables, which I don't have an issue with the vegetables. This is nice for the environment, but not for the residents living nearby. He moves his chickens around on the property, fences them in. The property has a long stretch along Ash Drive where all the residents along Glen Lake pull out of their driveway and get to see piles of debris dumped and then worked into the soil which again it's nice if it were a farm 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] or a place that was out in a more secluded environment, but it's right along the road where we all can see it. The proposed building sits, let me see, the proposed building, please keep all proposed building, please don't modify them in the sense of building codes. We're not in favor of that. When it comes to setback requirements, please, we're not in favor of any modifications, height. I think it's going to 18 feet will be definitely above his home. So it's going to change the environment in the area. We were concerned about property values, if they haven't already been effected and that's all I have for now. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter? Please identify yourself for the record. MARK PRENDEVILLE MR. PRENDEVILLE-My name is Mark Prendeville, Ash Drive, Glen Lake, Lake George. I'd like to go back a few years to this property when the Casino went out of business, it was a sand parking lot. This Hilliards have taken this property and improved it immeasurably. Yes, he made mulch. He made a lawn. He made gardens, and it's very nice now compared to what I used to drive by every day when it was just a sand parking lot with rocks, bottles and cans in it. He does have two lots there. So some of the stuff that is on one lot may be part of what the last person was talking about. I'm in favor of it. I think it would be a good addition to the area, and thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else? Identify yourself, please, for the record. LISA DOSTER MRS. DOSTER-My name is Lisa Doster at 94 Ash Drive. It's great to see that the Hilliards will be improving their property. I just, I'm concerned what will happen with the existing garage. That really hasn't been stated what they're going to do with that space. Also what will happen with the other buildings that they have on this parcel. Will they be moved to the other parcel or will they combine their parcels so that they meet the FAR for permeability? Are they going to be demolished or taken down? That really hasn't been stated. Will the new building have a bathroom or any living space? Is this variance going to require the septic to be validated? The septic was, I believe, put in in 1989 and we don't really know the full location of it. And then I have a copy, there's some rights of way that burdens their property that I don't believe all of them are on the survey map that they utilized to bring forth this proposed project. Here is a map from the Queensbury tax department depicting the access points across the road and the title reflective date May 17, 1990 that shows the rights of way that burden the property back to 1901 and other various information. Further on the deed or the survey map they also have, it shows that the road is fully owned and part of that subdivision that was done in 1990, but as per all the deeds for the lakefront properties, it actually depicts that they have ownership to the center line there of the road. That's all that I have. MR. MC CABE-Was there anybody else? PAUL DERBY MR. DERBY-Good evening. My name is Paul Derby. I live at 86 Ash Drive that's directly across the road from the Hilliards. I'm here tonight because we have neighborhood issues and we haven't been communicating well so I just want to get some things on the record so we know what this structure is or isn't. I'm not opposed to the structure if some conditions are met, but I worry that some things might, some uses of the structure might happen. So I just want to try to get it on the record and see if we can condition that or have the applicants say yes or no to these. So the first is that there's no living space. I know they said there's not going to be any water. I improved my garage three years ago. This Board stipulated that it can't have any living space or water. So I hope you do the same for this. The second condition would be that no business is run from that structure or on the property. This is a Waterfront Residential property. No business is to be run there. And the third one is to reiterate what has been said, and that is that there are no animals allowed or stored or housed in this structure. We're all aware that the Hilliards have had chickens. I think they have about 10 chickens. The neighborhood tolerates them, but I don't want to see a farm there. It's a residential neighborhood. I live across from it and I don't want to see any increase in animals or different farm animals on there. So if you could make those stipulations I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. LINDA CLARK 29 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MS. CLARK-Hello. My name is Linda Clark. I live at 3 Ben Most Bur Lane. I also am on the trust of my mother's home which is 10 Ben Most Bur Lane, and if you'll just give me a moment I want to show you something on the map so that you'll understand what I'm talking about. So the right of way that we've been referencing comes up along here and then down along my property into my mother's property. Okay. So this is me. This is my mother, and right here is the right of way. Okay. So that you kind of have a visual of what 'I'm referring to. As has already been mentioned, the Hilliards own two properties, Lot One and Lot Two. The second lot is vacant and has no structures on it, unless structures have been moved as temporary. My right of way is a driveway. It is a driveway for my mother as well. So we have to drive over Lot Number Two in order to get to our homes. We rely on the Hilliards to maintain the visual aesthetics of their property in order for us to have roadside appeal, especially me, okay. To maintain the aesthetics of my home. I rely on them for a peaceful, stress free life, and I rely on them to allow me to have the right to live in a Waterfront Residential neighborhood. Okay. My concern with the structure that's being put in is primary the usage of it. I don't understand why there's no rationale provided for the height of the structure. I know Russ is tall and so maybe that's a good rationale. I thought the structure itself in the pictures was attractive, and I understand it is behind their home. So it's not a bad looking structure. I don't oppose the structure. I am concerned about the extra buildings that are on Lot Number One because buildings and structures get moved to Lot Number Two at various times. I am very, very concerned that these outbuildings might end up being moved to Lot Number Two. Okay. Again, this is a Waterfront Residential neighborhood. I would like to see, or I would like to request that the Board stipulate what the usage is of the structure if they're going to approve it. No extra living space. No commercial usage. It is to be used as a garage to store cars and household items. I also request that the buildings be eliminated completely, not just moved to Lot Number Two, and just as a side note Mary did mention just moments ago about how attractive these structures are and so it would be great if we could maintain an aesthetically nice second lot with the building of this nice garage that they're going to put in, and I'd also like the Board to stipulate how the structure can be used. Thank you for your consideration. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else left out there? I think we've gone through everybody. So the Hilliards, maybe you could come back to the table and answer some of these questions that have been raised by the audience. MRS. HILLIARD-Well I made a few notes here. So I'll go through them. MR. HILLIARD-We did make a list of those who do approve in the neighborhood. I don't know if you got the list. MR. URRICO-We have it. MRS. HILLIARD-First of all it's a little disappointing to hear, you know, some of the comments that were made today. I just want to be very clear, because I think there was some misrepresentation. We haven't had leaves dumped there in, I don't know, 10 years, a long time, and I think somebody mentioned that they objected and we just stopped it. The goal was to take leaves and turn it into soil because it was one sandy lot. I have a picture on my camera of what it looks like, and you know our property. I don't think it looks bad. I think it's been well maintained and improved. So it's this point in some of the comments today. The whole idea of this is to clean the property up. The structures are very temporary to hold like a lawn tractor. So we don't have the place to put it. Big equipment that we, I don't know if you want to list some of the other stuff that we have. It's solely for storage and a car, if we have room for a car. Any structures other than the greenhouse we already have said we would take down. Nobody's going to live there. There's no business that will take place for that structure. There will be no animals. We have a couple of chickens that we've had. We've been pretty respectful. These chickens don't even cross the road. They're trained that way. So it's a health thing that we've been trying here. We've been doing it. Russell's been doing it, working on this property 28 years, since 1990. 1 can't stress enough that the whole idea of this is to clean up some of the things that are on the property. I mean that's what a garage is for, and a one car garage just doesn't do it, especially when you put a car in that garage. No animals would be housed there. The visual aesthetics of the property will actually improve. I don't know how else to explain the primary usage of it. The rationale already was. MR. MC CABE-1 think we could summarize it. So it's going to be a garage. If there's animals in there, it might be a dog or a cat. Right? MRS. HILLIARD-Not even that. MR. MC CABE-But it wouldn't be a farm animal. Right? 30 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MRS. HILLIARD-Right. MR. MC CABE-And you've agreed to take down other auxiliary structures on the property except for your greenhouse which you don't consider a permanent structure. MR. HILLIARD-Craig Brown explained that I couldn't put anything on the other property because I didn't have a primary so you can't have a secondary structure. MR. MC CABE-Right. You can't have a garage on a property with no house. MRS. HILLIARD-And there's never ever been a structure moved onto that part of the property, never. In all the time we've owned it. MR. KUHL-But when we drive down Ash Drive, that's your property? Everybody, William Clark said that he has a right of way. That's actually Ash Drive property, that's on your property? MRS. HILLIARD-I'm not sure I understand your question. MR. KUHL-Well, when I drive in and I go past your house on the left and Paul's on the right, that road I'm on, is that a Town road or is that on your property? MRS. HILLIARD-It's a privately owned road and it's not a Town road and it's not our road. MR. KUHL-Okay. So it's a privately owned road and you own it? MRS. HILLIARD-We don't own the road. MR. HILLIARD-It's on the map. It's there who owns it. MR. KUHL-Okay. All those bodies? Gotcha. MRS. HILLIARD-But the segment that Linda Clark uses is right on top. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Hold on, just a minute. I neglected to read in any public comment. Do we have public comment, or written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Let me do that. MR. KUHL-I can do that. I can wait. MR. URRICO-There's a petition here. It says"The below listed support the variance needed for Russell and Mary Hilliard, 79 Ash Drive, to build a two car garage. The building will improve the look of their property and therefore the overall neighborhood on Ash Drive." And it's signed by 11, I'm assuming they're neighbors, 10 of which live on Ash Drive. MR. MC CABE-Anything else written? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So continue. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If this approval were based on 16 foot in height instead of 18, would you lower it? MR. HILLIARD-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Have you looked at the idea of having it connected to the house and then you wouldn't have to? MR. HILLIARD-I've thought about it. I don't see an easy way to do it and restrict how you get back into the garden. 31 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. HENKEL-Of course it wouldn't give you that storage really, per se, either, depending on how you did it. MRS. HILLIARD-It's also there's a stone wall that is up that we'd have to take down which we spent a lot of time putting up, a lot of expense. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board. MR. URRICO-1 just want to ask a question. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. URRICO-You've agreed that there will be no plumbing in that unit. MR. HILLIARD-Yes. No plumbing, no business, no farm animals. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-1 think as long as we're in agreement that we're going to lower this second garage to 16 feet and there will be no plumbing, no business, no use other than what a typical garage would be used for then I would be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes you can't please all the people all the time in all respects, but I think that the Hilliards have proven since they've lived there since the 1990's that they've done a lot of improvements to make the property more livable and if a little organic farming takes place on the property I don't think that's outside the realm of reality of what we expect people to do on their property on a one acre lot. I think a few chickens aren't going to harm anything either because you're located well away from the lake and I don't think there'd be any issue with pollution or anything like that. I think that the agreement should be binding that this be a garage and it's for storage and that's what a garage is noted for and no it's not going to have living space created overhead and I think with the absence of water on site it's not going to create that issue. I think it's also mitigated as requested here tonight by the fact that, you know, you're going to be taking down some of the old, decrepit structures on site. I don't have a problem with the greenhouse being movable, the over swing with that is not going to be an issue and I don't have any issues with the lot next door because as you reiterated in the record Craig Brown told you you don't have a principal structure on the lot so you really can't put up secondary structures on that lot without having to go before the Board to make that happen. So I'd be all in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-You'd be in favor of it with some conditions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you are going to keep the shed behind you? MR. HILLIARD-Yes, we'd like to. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The greenhouse building you're keeping also. MR. HILLIARD-Yes. MR. HENKEL-So this is going to be a third structure on the property, accessory building. MRS. MOORE-It's labeled as a garage. MR. HENKEL-So it would be two accessory structures. MRS. MOORE-Two accessory structures. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. HENKEL-I guess I could support the project if all those conditions are met, that Jim was talking about, and Roy, and I would also like to see it drop down to 16 feet from the 18 feet. So I would support it if it was dropped down to 16 feet. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I will be in support of the project. I've listened to the neighbors. I've heard what you said. No water, no animals, no living space, no commercial usage. We keep the shed. We keep the greenhouse. I can only support it if it's 16 feet. I don't like 18 feet. I think it's too high. I understand you're tall. I'm tall. I get it, but I will support a condition on 16 feet and meeting the elements as discussed with my fellow Board members as well as the neighbors in the area. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes I think what, you know, all the comments from other people, I think you've answered them all and it's straightforward. A side note here. I have a nephew's son on Long Island that has a 60 by 100 foot lot and they have chickens on Long Island. There are no regs against chickens, and here we are with the lots we have up here, okay, but anyway, just a side note. Thank you very much. I understand what you're using it for. It's a good use and I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm also in agreement with all my fellow Board members. A lot that size you need to be able to store equipment to maintain that lot. Plus I didn't realize you own the lot next door, which you also maintain. So for that reason I'm in favor with the conditions. MR. MC CABE-And I can't support this because I can't come to grips with a second garage on a one acre lot. So I have a problem unless something is done to get rid of the first garage, but it doesn't make any difference because you have enough votes to pass right now. So at this particular time I'm going to ask for a motion, and, Jim, I'd like you to make the motion and make sure we have all the appropriate conditions. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Hilliard. Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. detached garage with storage area above [240 sq. ft.]; proposed height to be 18 ft. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions and for a second garage where only one is allowable in the WR zoning district. The Board recognizes that this two car garage that will be created will be in addition to the one car garage that's currently attached to the principal dwelling on the site. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed and height relief in the WR zoning. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures —garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one is allowed. In addition, the garage is to be 18 ft. in height where a 16 ft. height the maximum allowed for detached structures in the WR zone. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 27, 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. While it's a second garage on a one acre lot it does not seem to be extraordinarily sticking out like a sore thumb. 2. Feasible alternatives would have been for the Board to not allow this garage but this seems to be a practical use because it will allow them to house all their equipment on site inside the structure. 33 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 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. It would be an improvement because the yard will be much better kept up with the removal of old decrepit structures and the creation of a new garage to house all their equipment. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The applicant has agreed that the height of this new two car garage will be only 16 feet tall. bJ The relief is strictly for the second garage and the applicant has agreed that the garage will only be used for storage space and it will not be used for commercial purposes or for living space. cJ There will be no water added to the garage. It will just be electricity. That's contiguous with the application. dJ The applicant has agreed to remove some of the old decrepit structures on site and not place them on the lot adjacent that does currently not have any structures on it at all. eJ 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-40-2018 RUSSELL HILLIARD, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 27" day of June 2018 by the following vote: MR. UNDERWOOD-The applicant has agreed that they will, you're still going to keep your chickens? MR. HILLIARD-We hope so. MR. UNDERWOOD-We've agreed that the chickens will be allowed, but we do not wish to see any other farm animals on site and that the chickens be kept and well trained to avoid conflicts with the neighbors. MRS. MOORE-1 have some comments and just clarifications. I wasn't sure if I understood the requested variance. I did not hear anything about its substantiality. So is the Board considering it not substantial? MR. MC CABE-He said that it was not substantial. That was his last statement. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and then the other one of the criteria is that was the alleged difficulty self- created. I didn't hear a comment on that one. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would say the difficulty is self-created. MRS. MOORE-Okay, and then in reference to you have some information in your resolution about chickens. Chickens are not allowed in a WR zone. It's a violation. So I would suggest that you remove that language and we will notify our Code Compliance Officer that there are chickens. MR. UNDERWOOD-We will overlook the fact that there are chickens located in the Waterfront Residential zone on Glen Lake, period, and if any are present on the site, they can remain as long as they're happily living there in harmony with their neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-Strike the language. MRS. HAYWARD-Could we remove the chicken language. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that the Board is in consensus that you're striking language in the resolution about chickens. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So we have our motion straight. Could I get a second? MR. MC DEVITT-I can second it. I thought Michelle had. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel NOES: Mr. McCabe MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. HILLIARD-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Our next applicant is Christopher Dwyer, and it's Area Variance Z-AV-42-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 CHRISTOPHER DWYER AGENT(SJ STEFANIE DILALLO BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(SJ CHRISTOPHER DWYER ZONING MDR LOCATION 1232 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON A 1.37 ACRE PARCEL; 1,632 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND 1,140 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT LOCATED IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT;MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 2-ACRES PER DWELLING UNIT. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION THAT ALLOWS ONLY ONE DWELLING UNIT PER LOT IN THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.1-65 SECTION 179-3-040 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-42-2018, Christopher Dwyer, Meeting Date: June 27, 2018 "Project Location: 1232 West Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain two single-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre parcel; 1,632 sq. ft. (footprint) and 1,140 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions for each dwelling unit located in the MDR zoning district; minimum requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one dwelling unit per lot in the MDR zone. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of dwelling unit located on one parcel in the MDR zoning district and the lot size requirement for 2 dwelling units. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —moderate density residential zone The applicant proposes to maintain two existing dwelling units where the requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one dwelling unit per lot in the MDR zone. 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 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 to convert the detached building back to a garage as was previously permitted. 35 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 2.63 acres and for a lot to have two dwellings 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain two pre-existing single family homes on the same parcel. The applicant had purchased the property not aware the two homes were not previously approved. The plans show the location of the two homes on the parcel. The applicant had provided photos of the main home indicating it was a single family home and to be maintained as a single family home. The separate building was previously approved as a garage had been converted without appropriate approvals to another dwelling unit by the previous owner. The current owner is requesting approval." MR. MC CABE-Good evening. If you'd identify yourself for the record, please. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter, here tonight with Chris Dwyer who's the current owner of the property. Mr. Dwyer is under contract to sell this property. The new owners are actually living there now, and it wasn't until they were doing their appraisal that it was brought to his attention. This building didn't have the proper approval in order to exist as a separate dwelling. So here we sit. On 1232 West Mountain Road there's two tax map parcels that are involved and under Mr. Dwyer's ownership. The one that's shaded, that Laura has up on the overhead, and then the immediately adjacent back property. The reason I bring that to your attention is that the shaded property is 1.39 acres in size. That's actually where both of the structures are located. The one behind it is 1.9 acres. So it does bring it up to 3.3 acres collectively and it's the applicant's intent to merge those two properties, inching us a little bit closer to the size requirement of having two dwellings located on that parcel. As was mentioned, when the predecessor built this structure it was actually classified as a boat storage facility. It's a very nice boat storage facility. When the Dwyer's purchased it, it had been converted and has been used as a dwelling since their ownership, either by someone living there, it was her father. Then it was something that he did rent and it has always been that way. Both the housing units have public water. Both have private septics, and I know that this Town is extremely sensitive to after the fact variances and I appreciate that, but as can be depicted there, the structure is existing. There will be a physical change. I do appreciate that there is a neighbor in the audience that is going to identify the impacts it is to her property, and I do understand that, but as you can see, the close proximity, the owner of the single family dwelling is in the closest proximity and the property is obviously owner occupied. So that additional dwelling unit will be overseen by the owner. They will be identify if there are any issues or controls. It won't be abandoned or in the distance, so that that property is not impacted by the owner. So there'll be some oversight. Understanding that Mr. Dwyer's here asking for forgiveness to a certain extent, and we always question how this happens because a contractor we trust and we don't know why they don't go through the proper channels. The house, because I wanted to make sure I understood it. The house is being assessed as a single family dwelling and a garage with a live-in apartment. So it wasn't as if it was completely flying under the radar, and it wasn't as if, you know, an assessment is enough to say, well, that should be enough that the Town knows, but the Town had some understanding that it was being assessed that way. We do have to review these on a case by case criteria. Undesirable change is hard to assess because it's an existing structure. So what's going to have to be done with it is obviously in your hands. It either can remain as it exists, or there has to be some restrictions with the Building Department as to how it can be modified so the property is deemed compliant so that the sale can be completed and Mr. Dwyer can receive his return. The water's connected. The properties share the same address, again, so he wasn't flying under the radar, you know, there were kids going to the school. So it wasn't as if there wasn't anybody aware that this property was being used as an apartment. They were being open and obvious. Some other alternatives, we've obviously explored those because that's why we're talking about merging the two parcels, the additional land that he has. I sat with Laura Moore and explored if we could try and do a boundary line adjustment so each of the dwellings would have its own independent parcel. That would actually create more variances than what we're requesting today because of the frontage issues and the way in which the properties line up. So this was the request that we were presented with and what we're trying to do is to maintain what's already there. MR. MC CABE-So this is kind of a difficult one. I guess first of all I'll ask if people have questions of the applicant here. MR. KUHL-Yes. I have a question. It's being presented as a 1.37 and you said you're merging them? 36 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MS. BITTER-See that yellow parcel? MR. KUHL-No, I understand that. Was the house sold as a 1.37 acre or was it sold as a 3. MS. BITTER-It's going to be sold as both. They're in the house. The final closing hasn't happened yet. MR. KUHL-Okay. When Mr. Dwyer gets his dollars and cents, there'll be one lot or there'll be two? MS. BITTER-We're going to merge them if that's the direction of this Board. MR. KUHL-Well, I guess I've got to ask you how you sold it, you know, did you sell it as two lots? MS. BITTER-Both, yes. I didn't understand your question. Yes, both properties are in the contract. MR. KUHL-I mean the house, the sign says sold. That person bought Lot One and Lot Two? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-The parcel's landlocked. MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-You had no choice. MR. MC DEVITT-Just so I'm understanding, it's not sold? MS. BITTER-It's under contract. MR. MC DEVITT-It's not sold. MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. MC DEVITT-We have a closing that is, they're in the house. MS. BITTER-They're in the house. MR. MC DEVITT-They're aware of this? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. And talk to me about, you mentioned one thing about at one time this being a boat storage facility? MS. BITTER-So the actual CO of this building says boat storage facility. I'm not sure exactly what that was supposed to mean, but that was. MR. MC DEVITT-What does that go back to? MS. BITTER-1999. MR. MC DEVITT4999. Well prepared. Okay, and then what happened? MS. BITTER-And then it was converted into a dwelling. MR. MC DEVITT-Who converted it? MS. BITTER-It started with the first owner and it completed once he purchased it. MR. MC DEVITT-And were those conversions as we described them documented? MR. HENKEL-And not permitted. They weren't permitted. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MS. BITTER-No. I don't think there's anything other than a boat storage facility that's on file. MR. KUHL-Well didn't you say it was a garage with an apartment over it? MS. BITTER-That's what, if you look it up on the Assessor's, that's how the Assessor has it. That's where I got that from. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MRS. HAYWARD-I've got a couple. First of all is the sales contingent upon a positive resolution of this issue by the Zoning Board tonight? MS. BITTER-It's conditioned on Zoning Compliance. There's a number of ways that that could occur, but unfortunately this is the best way. MRS. HAYWARD-Of course, and so there are current tenants there now. Those are the people who are under contract, and they're in the main house? MS. BITTER-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-Who's living in the garage apartment? MS. BITTER-No one, as far as he knows. His tenants vacated when he did. MRS. HAYWARD-1 see. Okay. So that answers my next question, and the current tenants aren't here to ask questions. MS. BITTER-Right. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. All right. That answers my questions. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-So the last, when they did the re-assessment the last time, what was this classified as? MS. BITTER-When I looked it up on the Town of Queensbury Assessor's report it refers to it as a garage with an apartment, apt. MR. HENKEL-So apparently the Assessment didn't do a very good job of checking it out. MRS. MOORE-So we would have, in some cases, and we're finding them now, is that when the Assessor does do that inspection, or, you know, site visit and they learn that there's an apartment or something that's not permitted,they come back to our office, Building and Codes, and we go through this process of working with that person and saying here are your options. Most options are coming back before this Board. MR. HENKEL-You'd think that would have been brought up as a red flag that it was a boat storage at one time and now. MRS. MOORE-1 don't know. MR. HENKEL-I know. I'm just saying that's kind of weird, that it would all of sudden go back. MR. MC CABE-Currently, with this current re-assessment and all of the furor, I'm sure unless they questioned their assessment that nobody went to look at it because there were so many people that were questioning their assessment. MR. HENKEL-Did they have to have a Special Use Permit when it was a boat storage? MRS. MOORE-1 don't know. There was no information other than what's there now. MR. HENKEL-I drove back there. It definitely looks like a second house. MRS. HAYWARD-1 couldn't get back there. It was blocked off. Someone put up some pieces of sheet rock across the driveway. I couldn't get in, nor was I going to ask. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the intention is to merge the two lots with the sale? 38 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that's going to put you at how many acres then, five acres? MR. HENKEL-No, 3.27. MR. KUHL-3.29. MR. UNDERWOOD-So in effect if you did that and we called this a detached duplex, you know, we create an oddball sub-category of duplex. Duplex is an allowed use in the mixed residential zone. MRS. MOORE-It's not a duplex. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's not a duplex. It's a detached duplex. MRS. MOORE-Two single family homes. MR. MC CABE-More questions? MR. MC DEVITT-Going way back we mentioned there was an inspection done at one time. Is that what we said? MRS. MOORE-No, I'm saying when the assessment occurred. MR. MC DEVITT-When the assessment occurred. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. All right. MR. HENKEL-So it's been acceptable kind of almost by the. MR. MC CABE-More questions? So a public hearing has been advertised for this evening and so at this particular time I'll open the public hearing and I guess we do have somebody who wants to talk. So if you would give up the table. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LENORE GUAY MS. GUAY-My name is Lenore Guay and I live in the property right next door. I did do a letter but I was kind of nervous, didn't think I'd be able to get through it, but I will read it. The previous owners of this parcel, Dennis and Kathy Franklin, built their primary home and a detached workshop/garage. They had a little boat that they put a little towing over on. When the property was sold to the applicant they converted the lower level of the Primary home and the detached Workshop into additional separate living quarters and utilized both of them as a rental property on and off for several years. This has been a blatant violation to both the Building and Zoning Codes. To allow this variance to be approved would be setting a horrible precedence and would be rewarding all code violations they knowingly violated. I live on the property right next to this parcel and have dealt with constant additional traffic, Noise, Dogs barking, running loose on my property and causing issues with my pets. Cigarette butts and miscellaneous garbage that would be thrown over the privacy fence into my yard. Previous renters that have lived on the parcel illegally have not had enough parking space for all vehicles and they were causing them to park their Truck and utility trailer about 50 feet up and across the road. The additional residences on the property also generate more traffic by additional separate visitors visit because as the single family you're only going to have your normal visitors. Now you have two families having visitors come in. We had a person in the middle of the night mistake our property for the applicant's parcel. They tried to break into our home by cutting out one of the screens in our kitchen, thankfully the window was locked. Since they could not get into our home they proceeded to climb on to the roof of one of our vehicles in the driveway and dent the hood and cave in the cab's roof. Thousands in damages. It has been a nightmare for us living next to this parcel of property with such activity occurring due to the additional individual dwellings. I respectfully request that this application and any future applications of a similar nature on this parcel be denied. I chose to build my home here 22 years ago specifically because these were single family residential properties. The property was currently sold, or at least I thought it was sold, by the applicant, because there's a sold sign out front, which I would think would Void this variance, but clearly he still has ownership. I don't know if the new owners purchased the property under misrepresentation and if 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] there are any legal recourse, but again I didn't know this isn't a final sale. I respectfully request that the Building and Zoning codes be enforced to restore the Primary home and the detached workshop back to a Single-Family residence restoring all back to its original state when Building and Zone approved the blue prints of the buildings on the parcel. Due to the placement of the primary home and the workshop, on the parcel our quality of life in my own home as been and will continue to be directly negatively impacted if a 2" home on this parcel were approved. Again, to allow this variance to be approved would be setting a horrible precedence. As a parent we don't reward our children's bad behaviors. We know that only generates more bad behavior. The parcel that he's talking about behind that property, that's kind of really close to the Rush Pond Trail system and my understanding was that needed to be forever wild. So I'm not sure, you know, what adding that to the property is going to do, but they really can't necessarily utilize it because of the Trail system, but again, our properties are so close. Literally when I work in my flowerbed you know I've got a dog on the other side of the fence barking in my face. It is very difficult. The new owners since, or the new people living there since they've been there we've had three separate dogs running around loose on the property. They ran up the road and damaged neighbors' property by chewing things up. So for us to allow additional folks back there and living in an already tight area, I just can't agree with that, and again, to set this type of precedence for something that they've done would be very disappointing. Thank you for your time and consideration. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to address the Board on this matter? Seeing nobody, I'll ask is there written communication? MR. URRICO-She just read that in. MR. MC CABE-She saved you. MR. URRICO-Yes. She did a great job. MR. MC CABE-Roy, thank you. So would you like to come back and address the issues? MS. BITTER-1 did have put pictures of the single family home as well as this structure in your packet so you'll understand the activities that are occurring. The single family home is exactly that. It is proposed just as a single family home. There will not be additional living quarters. Just the single family home. Because she did mention that earlier if it would still be a single family home. I couldn't restrict the dog activity of a person, even if there is just a single family home there. I don't think Queensbury has no dogs. An individual can have pets as long as they control their dogs on their own property, and I think that, although I appreciate your concerns, it sounds to me she's just is learning that this is a non-permitted use as well as Mr. Dwyer, that she's lived there for some time. It wasn't as if. I remain with my statement that Mr. Dwyer was not aware that what he was doing was not permitted until he received the Zoning Compliance from the appraiser of the proposed purchaser. So it wasn't as if he was flying under the radar and obviously she's right, the houses are in close proximity. That's where they are. The already existing boat storage facility that was converted was placed there because it does meet the setbacks, and that was the location which was permitted. So we would like to try to work with her the best way we can, but we can't control what the people who visit individuals do either. I mean that's an unfortunate circumstance. It must have been terrifying, but it wasn't something that he asked his guests or tenants to do. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to come back and offer a retort? So would you give up the table for just a second? MS. BITTER-Yes, that's fine. MR. MC CABE-Just re-state your name, please. MS. GUAY-Sure. I'm Lenore Guay. I did know the property was being utilized illegally. Chris and I had had a conversation where he said he was going to be selling the property, and I was getting to my limit. I had called Dave Hatin and kind of told him my concerns. He said, you know, I explained they plan on selling the property. When the new owners purchase, I want a fresh start, you know, let's kind of get it back to what it should be and he had said, you know, when you're ready and a sale occurs come see me and we'll pursue it. When I saw the sold sign I called him and he said they had already contacted him and knew that there was an issue that they were concerned about and they were trying to address. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. So if you'd come back. Anything to add? MS. BITTER-No. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time. MR. URRICO-1 have a question. When did you purchase the property? MS. BITTER-2012. MR. URRICO-And at that time there were no red flags brought up? I mean your buyer obviously detected something. Why didn't you detect it at that time when you were purchasing the property? JAMES DWYER MR. DWYER-It was me and my father. My father was the one that primarily dealt with everything. I was just a joint tenant. MR. URRICO-There were no red flags raised at that time that there was a non-permitted use there? MR. DWYER-Well they started doing it, too, they started increasing the size of the place, changing it over with the old owner. MR. URRICO-So are you answering for him? I just want to hear an answer. MS. BITTER-Right. The old owner. MR. URRICO-It's kind of blurry as to what exactly happened. It seemed like there was, somebody must have known there was an issue there and still added on to it. Is that what happened? MS. BITTER-No, we didn't know there was an issue. MR. DWYER-1 had no clue as to that, until we sold the house. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I think we need to be careful on this one here. People can always say that they look the other way, I didn't know, but the fact of the matter is this is a single family residential neighborhood, excuse me, a mixed residential neighborhood. This was never permitted as a secondary structure for living space. It seems to me that it's been expanded over the years numerous times. It wasn't just done at a single time but you improved it once you purchased the property, too, you know, and that should have been done with a building permit. That was never granted by the Town of Queensbury. At the same time I think at this point in time, you know, you have a pending sale, and I think that that pending sale should be held up and notice should be sent by the Town of Queensbury that this building should be returned to its original structure, shape, as a storage building only. I don't know how many days it takes for that to occur, whether you grant them a 90 day reprieve to accomplish that task or to go to court over it if you want to argue it in a court situation, but I think that, you know, clearly your neighbor to the south has been affected dramatically over the years and has put up with a lot of grief over the years as a result of the excessive use of this property. It's not the intent of the Town of Queensbury to permit excessive use. In a mixed residential neighborhood you would expect neighbors to act neighborly and act accordingly, you know, when things aren't done to achieve neighborhood solemnity in the past or in the future. So I would not be willing to approve this and I would like to see the building restored to its original use. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, merging the two properties is one thing. I hear what Jim says and I agree with what he's saying. I don't know whether or not this sale was based on the fact that there'd be a rental income or not, but it wasn't a legal structure to start out with. It shouldn't have been there. So I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm not in favor of the project. I can well appreciate the situation that you're in. I mean that sincerely. You've got a purchase contract. You've got somebody already in the property. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] It seems to me like the can's been kicked down the road on this for just a series of different things. I'm confused as to how an appraisal is catching this at this point and how perhaps a previous appraisal would not have caught it. Did you borrow money when you bought this? MR. DWYER-My father was going to handle this. I'm the joint survivor. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. So perhaps that's the reason, okay. I just can't be in favor of it. I appreciate the magnitude of the situation, but I'm not in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor of the project. Particularly continuing the non-permitted use of the property. It is a Moderate Density Residential zone. It should remain as such, with single family homes. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes I'm in agreement with everybody else, but I want to look at the criteria since that's what we're tasked with. In most cases we're anticipating what might happen. In this case we can actually see what took place. So we know that major impacts have been made on character, have occurred, and we know there are feasible alternatives. They may not be something the owner wants to do, but the fact of the matter is the only way to rectify this is to convert it to a detached building, back to where it was a garage as was previously permitted, and basically come back with clean hands. That's the way it should have been presented and it's not being presented that way, and it's a substantial relief relative to the Code. We haven't even gotten into the septic system and whether it can handle the additional. MS. BITTER-It has its own. MR. URRICO-Okay. Well that may be the only saving grace you have, and the difficulty was definitely self-created. So I would definitely be against this, going forward and under the sane conditions. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes I do feel sorry for Mr. Dwyer kind of being left with this mess. It's not totally his fault, but unfortunately it's something that shouldn't be let go and shouldn't be allowed. Unfortunately it's so close to the neighbor. If it wasn't so close to the neighbor maybe it would be something to be resolved there with the extra property to be added in there to make it close to four acres and put them on their own separate properties, but it can't be done and that can't stay as is. So I'm not in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-I'll just agree with everybody else. I think that we would be not doing a good job if we allowed two single family dwellings on a single lot. That would put previous Boards in big trouble one day. So I think that, you know, somehow you've got to make that go away. So you've heard that you're not going to do very well tonight. So you have a couple of choices. MS. BITTER-Can I request to table it for the purpose that obviously we have a sale pending and also we have to understand what exactly conversion would entail and what might be necessary, and if I need relief I would have to incorporate that. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think we can make a recommendation to have removal of all living structures in that secondary structure, and that includes all the plumbing, all the electrical fixtures. It will be only used as a storage building only in the future. MR. MC CABE-So if we table it when would you be prepared to re-submit? MS. BITTER-We'd like to keep it as soon as possible and obviously keep the Board aware. MRS. MOORE-So our July meetings are already full so August is the next scheduled meeting. MR. MC CABE-So could I get a motion to table until August? MRS. MOORE-And it will be the first meeting in August. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher Dwyer. Applicant proposes to maintain two single-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre parcel; 1,632 sq. ft. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] (footprint) and 1,140 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions for each dwelling unit located in the MDR zoning district; minimum requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one dwelling unit per lot in the MDR zone. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 CHRISTOPHER DWYER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled until the first meeting in August with a submittal date of July 16tn Duly adopted this 2711 day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Okay? MS. BITTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Okay. Our last one is Britt Lynn Patch, and it's Area Variance Z-AV-44-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-44-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 BRITT LYNN PATCH OWNER(SJ BRITT LYNN PATCH ZONING MDR LOCATION 8 GREENWAY NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A 246 FT. +/- PRIVACY FENCE 6 FT. IN HEIGHT AROUND PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SWIMMING POOLS AND RELIEF REQUESTED FOR TYPE AND HEIGHT OF FENCE. CROSS REF POOL — 304-2018; PZ 30- 2015/AV 52-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.54-75 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-5-070 BRITT PATCH, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Roy, would you read it into the record? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-44-2018, Britt Lynn Patch, Meeting Date: June 27, 2018 "Project Location: 8 Greenway North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 420 sq. ft. swimming pool in the rear yard. Project includes installation of a privacy fence that is to be 6 ft. in height and stockade. Relief requested from setback requirements for the rear yard and installation of privacy fence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from requirements for setback of a pool in the rear yard. 179-5-020 Pool requirements The applicant proposes to place a pool 13 ft. from the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-070- Fence The applicant proposes a six foot stockade fence around the yard where the lot is a corner lot and stockade fences are permitted on the side and rear of the property. The six foot fence area would be on the Greenway Circle side of the property. 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 available for the fence height to be reduced and type on the Greenway Circle portion of the property. 43 (Quccnsbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for rear yard setback 7 ft. Relief is also requested for type of fence and height of fence -proposed is six foot in height and stockade fencing. 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 to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a 420 sq. ft. pool in the rear yard of an existing lot with a single family home. The information submitted shows the lot configuration with the proposed pool and fencing. The applicant included a photo showing the type of fence and pool to be installed." MR. MC CABE-So if you could identify yourself. MS. PATCH-My name's Britt Patch. I live at 8 Greenway North in Queensbury, NY. MR. MC CABE-Any comments? MS. PATCH-No, just trying to get my fence and my pool. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions for Britt? MR. HENKEL-I have a Staff question. Why is this called a front yard? MRS. MOORE-It has two fronts. MR. HENKEL-Right, that's what I'm saying, but they're calling it a rear. MRS. MOORE-But that's a rear yard. It's not an issue in the front. Because of its location and the house location it is considered a rear yard. Where the pool is sitting in that. MR. HENKEL-Part of the rear and part of the front. MRS. MOORE-Is part of the rear based on its location. MR. HENKEL-Yes, okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. HENKEL-Now the way it's sloped, how are you going to create that? Are you going to build it up or are you going to take it down? MS. PATCH-You mean the way the backyard is sloped down? MR. HENKEL-It's definitely sloped. MS. PATCH-They're intent, we're working with, I have an engineer that kind of engineered where exactly the pool needs to sit within the lot. So what they plan on doing is digging down to kind of level the yard where the yard kind of slopes and drops off. They're going to try to drop it to create kind of like a flat backyard so there would be a minimal. It maybe not even necessary. They won't know until they figure out like how far down that they can actually go to level everything, that it may need a small retaining wall along that back outside edge, instead of having a steep drop off, but their original plan and intent is to bring the yard down so we're not sitting up, so it's more level with what's in the back part of the neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-And you have no problems, you talked to your neighbor about it? 44 (QUeensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] MS. PATCH-The neighbors are all happy, happy go lucky because they like what I've done so far with the house. So compared to what's there now, which is kind of a sandy backyard and it hasn't been maintained for years. They're happy that someone is trying to give it some aesthetic appeal to the whole neighborhood and everything. They even took down a massive pine tree to create room for the fence to come in that was on both of our property. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So we have a public hearing advertised this evening. So I'm going to open the public hearing and I'm going to ask the audience would they like to speak on this matter? Seeing nobody, I'll ask is there any written communication? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is one letter. She objects to the pool being installed in the backyard because the backyard is too small for a pool. And that is Shirley Freeman who lives at 4 Greenway Circle. MRS. MOORE-And I'll add I had a phone conversation with a neighbor, and the neighbor's concern is when the pool is drained that the water potentially could end up in their front yard. Based on the topography I think that's what happens now with stormwater in general, that some of the pools end up in her front yard. Just so you're aware that she was more concerned when the pool was drained, not that the pool was there, but when it's drained she was concerned about the runoff. MS. PATCH-It's a fiberglass pool and it will have like a spring-loaded cover over the winter. So you don't need to drain and, so the whole reason I went with a fiberglass is so that there's never a liner that ever needs to be changed and there's going to be a saltwater system installed in the pool so that the water maintained at a certain, the chemical balance should never be off kilter so you never should have to technically drain the pool ever. I mean I don't know the reasons why you would ever drain a pool, other than to change a liner, but there is no liner to a fiberglass pool, which is part of the reason why I chose a fiberglass pool. They're a more high-end pool to go in. MR. KUHL-But also when it rains you're going to have to drain it off if you've got a cover in the wintertime. That's probably what your neighbor's concerned about. They use the term draining the pool, but they're probably concerned with when you have rain, right, you have a cover on it in the wintertime, you know, the fall and the spring you're going to get rid of that water. You're going to have a submergible pump you're going to put there and that's probably what she's worried about. I don't know whether your pool manufacturer is going to offer you a drywell or some repository for that, or you're just going to take the hose and put it out into the street. I don't know. MS. PATCH-I'm not exactly sure. I know it's a spring-loaded cover so I know it's like a mesh kind of cover so the water won't pool in it. MR. KUHL-But you're not going to allow it to go up over the coping because that's bad. So you're going to have to drain it down when it rains. MS. PATCH-Okay. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-So just an aside. My mother had an incident with her next door neighbor's pool where it, something happened like Mr. Kuhl explained and it all ran into my mom's backyard. The mitigation was a drywell. So you may want to consider that when you speak to your engineer again. MS. PATCH-Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-Because also you're going to be changing the backyard dimension by possibly putting in a retaining wall, possibly putting out some property. So that's a concern, where's the water going to go. Will the Planning Board have any input on this? MRS. MOORE-No. Is the terminology consider? MR. HENKEL-Or can we say we recommend, but that's engineering. The pool designer needs to. Be aware that that's a concern. MRS. HAYWARD-Something to keep in mind. MR. MC CABE-Any other comments? So at this particular time I think I'll close the public hearing. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll poll the Board. And I'll start with Brent. Or I could start with Jim. MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, if you would. I've just got to think this through here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it's a minimalist request pool and I think a lot of people have asked for pools in small yards before. You're not going to please everybody, but at the same time I don't see it's going to be a detriment to the neighborhood, and my recommendation would be that we allow the taller fence due to the fact that you have close proximity to the street and I think it'll give you more privacy for the pool, too, which is always appreciated by the owners. If you're going to set it down in the yard it's going to lessen the height of the fence because it's not going to be at the natural grade. It's going to be a little bit below natural grade. So that's going to be mitigating the six foot height of that fence. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, this is a tough lot. She's done a nice job with the property compared to what was there before. I guess I'd have to agree with Jim. It's kind of minimal relief that we're giving her, and I'd be in favor of it with the higher fence and that would definitely give you the privacy and give the neighbors a little bit of privacy. So I agree with the higher fence and the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes it passes the criteria test for me. I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Just consider the neighbors fear of the water and try to figure that one out with your builder. You probably can put a drywell in and tell that neighbor we considered it. I could get crazy with the height of the fence but I think it fits. So I'd be in favor of the way it's presented. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of the project. I agree with my fellow Board members. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. I am in favor of the project. I had to kind of think through the fence. That was where I was kind of hung up, and I was originally, I think you were kind of having difficulty with that, but you know the more I look at it, you've done a nice job with the property. I was out there earlier. I think it's a minimalist request. The area is sandy. It's going to perc there if there is some water runoff from the fiberglass pool. So the higher fence, actually the more I think about it is a good thing, not a bad thing. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am in favor of the project. I think you've done a nice job with that property. I think the higher fence is typical for situations where everything is kind of exposed and I understand that you want some privacy there. So I will support the project also. So I'll ask for a motion here. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Britt Lynn Patch. Applicant proposes construction of a 420 sq. ft. swimming pool in the rear yard. Project includes installation of a privacy fence that is to be 6 ft. in height and stockade. Relief requested from setback requirements for the rear yard and installation of privacy fence. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from requirements for setback of a pool in the rear yard. 179-5-020 Pool requirements The applicant proposes to place a pool 13 ft. from the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Section 179-5-070- Fence 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] The applicant proposes a six foot stockade fence around the yard where the lot is a corner lot and stockade fences are permitted on the side and rear of the property. The six foot fence area would be on the Greenway Circle side of the property. SEAR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 27, 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 the pool is located in the backyard and the fence is going to give privacy and everybody should be happy. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. What we have considered is reasonable and it really is the minimum 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. You could say that the difficulty is self-created only because of the size of the lot. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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-44-2018, BRITT LYNN PATCH, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 27" day of June 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So have fun with your pool. MS. PATCH-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So this ran a little bit longer than we normally do tonight. So I'll make a motion to close tonight's meeting. MR. KUHL-I'll second that motion. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 27, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 27" day of June, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mrs. Hayward,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-We're adjourned. 47 (QUeensbUry ZBA Meeting 06/27/2018] RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman 48