Loading...
08-22-2018 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-28-2017 Seaton Property Holdings, LLC 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.16-1-55, 58 and 61 Area Variance Z-AV-42-2018 Christopher Dwyer 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 288.-1-65 Area Variance Z-AV-52-2018 Ronald Morehouse 3. Tax Map No. 309.9-1-83 Area Variance Z-AV-53-2018 French Mountain Inn (Aftab Bhatti) 6. Tax Map No. 288.-1-56 Area Variance Z-AV-55-2018 Tra Tom Development 11. Tax Map No. 308.7-1-48 Area Variance Z-AV-54-2018 Clear Brook, LLC 17. Tax Map No. 316.14-1-6 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) AUGUST 22, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-Okay. I'd like to open tonight's Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those who aren't familiar with the process, it's quite simple. In the back there's information about each of the applications and some information about the process. We'll call each applicant to the small table here to discuss the presentation. We'll read the application into the record, ask questions, open a public hearing if one is advertised, poll our Board, make motions as applicable and then we'll go on to the next application. So we have a couple of minutes that we need to approve. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 18th, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 18 , 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE July 25th, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 25 TH, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FURTHER TABLING: Z-AV-28-2017 SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS) — TO FURTHER TABLE AS NO NEW INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED AS REQUESTED BY THE ZBA ON MAY 16, 2018. TABLE BY ZBA ON MAY 16, 2018 TO THE FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST (AUGUST 22, 2018). PENDING TOWN BOARD REVIEW DECISION ON ZONING CODE LANGUAGE PROPOSAL. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seaton Property Holdings, LLC (A-1 Tree Works). Applicant proposes operation of a wood processing facility with a new 15,000 sq. ft. enclosed pole barn for wood products and to install two 1,200 sq. ft. kiln units on the site. Project includes merger of lots 308.16-1-55, -56, -58 & 61. Project includes continued auto facility for C& J automotive. Project includes already in use new storage area, maintaining 4 existing buildings on the merged properties, additional clearing, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) installation of a gravel parking area and material storage area (logs, woodchips etc.). Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. Planning Board: Site plan and Special use permit for lighting manufacturing of wood products for a logging processing company. The applicant requests relief from minimum lot size required for a sawmill, wood product operations, and firewood processing facility in the CLI zoning district were 100 ac is required. 179-10-010 Special Use Permit Criteria for Commercial light industrial zone. The applicant proposes a wood product operations (Defined as SAWMILL, CHIPPING and PALLET MILL-Any building, site or place used for the cutting or milling of raw timber into dimensional lumber, pallets, chips or other wood products.) where 100 ac is required and the existing site is 9.4 ac. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017 and Left Open; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-28-2017, SEATON PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC (A-1 TREE WORKS), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Until the first meeting in September with pertinent information to be submitted by the end of August. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2018 by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-I've got a question, though. Is this eventually going to come to an end? We've been tabling this so many times. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So right now it is coming back to the Planning Board. The Town Board did make a referral at their last meeting to come to the Planning Board. My guess would be that it will be withdrawn or denied without prejudice at the Zoning Board. You probably will not see it again. MR. HENKEL-At the Planning Board level? MRS. MOORE-No, at the Zoning Board level. MR. HENKEL-At the Zoning Board level. MRS. MOORE-Yes, because it may not need the variances that it originally needed. MR. FREER-Right because it was originally 100 acres or something. MR. HENKEL-So we're not going to get an input on it it sounds like. MR. MC CABE-Well, we still have to table it. MR. HENKEL-Right. MRS. MOORE-You currently have to table it. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. FREER-What's your issue, John? MR. HENKEL-Nothing's come in front of us with more information, I mean other than what she had just said. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. FURTHER TABLING: REQUEST TO TABLE APPLICATION TO SEPTEMBER 2018 ZBA AGENDA: Z-AV-42-2018 CHRISTOPHER DWYER: 1232 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) 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. (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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Tabled until the September 2018 meeting. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. So we're on to Area Variance 52-2018, Ronald Morehouse. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-52-2018 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD MOREHOUSE OWNER(S) RONALD MOREHOUSE ZONING NR LOCATION 64 OHIO AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 1,064 SQ. FT. MOBILE HOME ON A 0.17 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, DRIVEWAY, AND PORCHES ON THE MOBILE HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NR ZONE. CROSS REF RC 289-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.17 TAX MAP NO. 309.9-1-83 SECTION 179-3-040 DONALD PIDGEON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-52-2018, Ronald Morehouse, Meeting Date: August 22, 2018 "Project Location: 64 Ohio Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 1,064 sq. ft. mobile home on a 0.17 acre parcel. Project includes installation of a new septic system, driveway, and porches on the mobile home. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes a mobile home to be located on the parcel with a rear setback of 11 ft. where a 15 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the depth of the parcel and the mobile home is a 14 ft. by 68.5 ft. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested for 4 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact. 4 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a 14 ft. by 68.5 ft. mobile home on a 7,500 sq. ft. parcel. The plans show the location of the mobile home with an entry deck and a porch addition. Also shown is the driveway and septic location." MR. PIDGEON-I'm Donald Pidgeon. I'm Ronald's surveyor. I'm here to represent him. He's here. We all know the neighborhood here and everything fits nicely on the lot as far as this mobile home, his addition, the septic system. Obviously there's Town water. There's a nice driveway with a turnaround. The only thing that we're asking for here, everything else meets the Code, is to have four foot relief in the rear line of the property so that we can place the mobile home that's already there on the lot, on this piece of property. Now I want to go further to say that behind us, it doesn't show on the map, but this is all just gravel parking driveway and no structures. This guy with the garage uses this for parking junk cars and everything else. As a matter of fact we had one on us that we had to move back over, and if you look at the character of the neighborhood, this shed is basically on the line. This one is very close, three and a half feet. This garage is very fairly recent and probably before zoning, and that's only 4.8 off, and it's a fairly substantial garage. It's a garage, a fairly substantial garage. So when we look at the character of the neighborhood, it's my opinion, and I'm not going to speak for all you guys, but that we're not upsetting the apple cart kind of thing here to ask for a small, I mean we're not asking for a lot off of the 15, 4 feet to place our mobile home on this property, and as you all well know, if you go on down the road, this neighborhood is built right to the property lines, and almost everywhere you go down there. I've done a tremendous amount of surveys there, and that's what I find on every one. Everybody's right to the property line, especially with their accessory structures and everything else. Even some of the homes. A lot of the homes even are closer than the 15 feet now, existing. So I'm just thinking that we're not going to disrupt the neighborhood with the four foot. MR. FREER-Okay. So are there any questions from the Board for the applicant? Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. Have a seat. I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a problem with the application. It seems that the proposed mobile home is consistent generally with the neighborhood surroundings. It seems like there's similar homes located near property lines. This gentleman discussed the garage in question as well as a shed, and so for those reasons I do not have a problem with this application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, Brent. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The upgrade of the property with the new septic system. They're on Town water. I don't think there's any issue here. It justifies the relief and it's no more than we've granted to a lot of other properties in the vicinity. MR. PIDGEON-Thank you. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement. I think it's a minimal request. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood and you've already considered alternatives. So this is the least amount of variance that you could need for your project. So I'm in agreement. MR. FREER-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, the relief in the back is better than the relief in the front. I'd rather see it not that close to the road. So at least you're keeping within the setback in the front. I mean 1 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) guess you could turn the mobile home sideways or at an angle and you could eliminate a request for a variance, but it fits into the neighborhood like everyone else says. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 don't have a problem with it. I think that basically the request is minimal and so I'll support the variance. MR. FREER-And Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of it there. MR. FREER-Okay. 1, too, can live with this request and so I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald Morehouse. Applicant proposes placement of a 1,064 sq. ft. mobile home on a 0.17acre parcel. Project includes installation of anew septic system, driveway, and porches on the mobile home. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes a mobile home to be located on the parcel with a rear setback of 11 ft. where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 22, 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 many of the properties in this area are very close to the property line. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable at this particular time, partly because of the small size of the lot. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's actually kind of minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Upgrading of the septic system will actually improve the environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty of course is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 6 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-52-2018 RONALD MOREHOUSE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Good luck. MR. PIDGEON-Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. MR. FREER-Okay. The next application is Area Variance 53-2018. French Mountain Inn (Aftab Bhatti). AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-53-2018 SEQRA TYPE II FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN (AFTAB BHATTI) AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) AFTAB BHATTI ZONING Cl LOCATION 1449 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 1,110 SQ. FT. AREA AS BLACKTOP WHERE A PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR THIS AREA TO REMAIN AS LAWN. PROPERTY USE IS AN EXISTING LODGING FACILITY. APPLICANT REQUESTED APPROVALS IN YEAR 2012 FOR ADDITION TO LOBBY, STORAGE OVER LOBBY, SIGN TOWERS, HANDICAP RAMP LOCATION AND A CANOPY AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF AV 48-2012; SP 54-2012; AV 24-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2018 LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.1-56 SECTION 179-3-040 GARY HUGHES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; AFTAB BHATTI, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-53-2018, French Mountain Inn (Aftab Bhatti), Meeting Date: August 22, 2018 "Project Location: 1449 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability requirements of the Commercial Intensive zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to maintain a 1,110 sq. ft. hard surfaced area that was to remain lawn or 22.6% where 30% permeable is required. The approved plans of 2012 indicate the proposed permeability was to be 25%. 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 would include converting the hard surfaced area to lawn as previous approvals required. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests may be considered moderate relative to the code. Relief is 7.4% 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 property is existing 7 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) non-compliant in regards to permeability and maintaining the hard surfacing may have an adverse effect concerning stormwater. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain an area between two of the lodging buildings for French Mtn. Inn as a hard surfaced area where it we to be lawn per approvals from the Zoning Board in 2012. The Code Compliance Officer notified the applicant in 2017 the site was not developed as per approved plans." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a motion, based on its limited review, has identified the following areas of concern. The Planning Board feels that the applicant's request for the pavement should be denied and instead the applicant should be encouraged to pursue an application that reflects the installation of a permeable paver solution. And this was adopted August 21, 2018 by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Hi. Welcome. Can you identify yourself for the record? MR. HUGHES-Yes, for the record, sir, my name is Gary Hughes, representing Sam Bhatti, the owner of the property. I'm here to try to answer any questions you might have. MR. FREER-So would you like to add anything to what was just read into the record? MR. HUGHES-Yes, I would. I've given it some thought and I totally agree with the Planning Board last night. So what we're going to pursue is permeable pavers for that area, removing blacktop, and try to move a percentage closer to that 30% where it was when it was previously approved for this. MR. HENKEL-Would that bring it back to the 25%? Weren't they requiring 25%? MRS. MOORE-I don't know if it'll come to 25%. That's something that has to be calculated out. MR. HUGHES-I'll have to calculate that, yes, but we're moving in a more positive direction. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was it originally tried to keep it as grass there and it just didn't work out? MR. HUGHES-Yes. What happened, Building Two on the map, basically nothing was done, the scope of the work that was on the office and motel building, the building behind it, Building Four, that's where the scope of the work was. Nothing was done with Building Two again and there was a situation, looking at the pictures, the two doors going into Building Two, that was actually, there was nothing in front of the doors. MR. UNDERWOOD-So what do you do with snow in the wintertime? That would be my question? It would be hard to keep it free of anything if it was grass. MR. HUGHES-It was done that way for years, but with trying to move towards a solution using the permeable pavers, that's basically the hard surface where the water, we've got to be able to have some sub soils in order to be able to handle that water, as opposed to just going over the topsoil and grassy. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? Is it was first lawn, right? So you blacktopped over the lawn. MR. HUGHES-I would assume that it looks like here that he took the lawn out. MR. URRICO-So it was lawn. When you came before the Zoning Board back in 2012 it was lawn then. MR. BHATTI-If you look at the picture right there, on the right side is two doors, the steps go down. There's another three steps that go down to the lobby. There was a walkway to come 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) out and then the walkway was going to the right side, and also the walkway was going on the left side, from both entrances, and some part was grass. This right here is the steps that go down. Three steps go down to the lobby. They check in, they come out here, and then this was a walkway right here, and then between the walkway was going to this door to this door and then the walkway was going, the steps there and here. There was a walkway, and the middle part here was a grass area. This part was grass and this part was grass and this part was grass. So three sections were grass. There was grass there, not a lot of grass. Very hard to clean and maintain in the winter. MR. FREER-What about all this here? MR. BHATTI-This was before the parking. From here to there. That's the area, right here to there. This was grass, this was grass, a little bit here, and then this was grass. MR. HUGHES-If you look at my map also where the area in question, I've got a note here that says remove concrete. So probably what I did is I took that out to get the new concrete down from the back. In other words, I took some out and basically moved, if you look at my map, and I think I've got it highlighted. There's a turn there that says remove concrete walk. That's what was supposed to be. MR. BHATTI-And also one other thing, this one the ramp with the parking spaces, this is, removable in the winter, it's easy to remove this and push the snow backwards. This building is 14 units here. This building I have two units and the other side. So they're like almost 18 units, and all the people are coming from there. They're parking there. So it's very hard to clean it. So that's the reason I paved that one. It's convenient to move the snow and put the salt there with the truck, and grass was very hard to do it. MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? MR MC DEVITT-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just have a question. With the permeable pavers that we're referencing, are we getting to 25% or we don't know what that ratio is? MR. HUGHES-1 haven't calculated that yet. MR. MC DEVITT-I'd be interested in what that is. It's a step in the right direction, there's no doubt. I'm just curious what that would be. MR. URRICO-See my feeling is that, I was here in 2012 when you had a number of variances you were asking for, and it was a problem with the permeability which is why we asked the grass to remain. So you were given the variances you requested with the understanding that that would stay at 25%, and so what we're hearing now is that you went ahead and did the other improvements and then decided to pave over these, even though that's one of the reasons you got the variances for everything else. So as far as I'm concerned, if you don't move it back to 25%, then I would never be in favor of that. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board before I open the public hearing? MRS. HAYWARD-Quick question. When did you do this paving? MR. BHATTI-I think it was last September. MRS. HAYWARD-So about a year ago. MR. BHATTI-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board, and, Jim, you're up. 9 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think there's two ways to look at this. I agree with Roy, you know, when we gave the initial relief for this project to ensue here, we expected there to be 25% permeability minimally on the property, but at the same time I understand where the applicant's coming from with the practicality of keeping this area. If we still had grass there I would think it would be a real pain in the wintertime to deal with it, to clean up snow and the grass turns into a mud pit probably with the amount of traffic that's generated with 18 units on both sides combined between the two, but at the same time I think the Planning Board is pushing them in the direction of the permeable pavers and I think that we would have to be happy with the permeable pavers. That's as good as it's going to get. Whether we reach 25%, 1 don't know if that's going to happen, but I think that it's going to achieve what we're hoping for and that's some permeability versus no permeability as currently exists. So I'd be in favor of the relief. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm not in favor of the application. I agree with Roy. I mean I know you limped along for five years and paved it over a year ago, but I'd be in favor of turning it back to the way it was when it was approved in 2012. That was a well thought out plan I'm sure at the time. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, Michelle. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree it needs to be back to 2012 with the 25% approval. I think there's some place else. I've driven around the property. There's a lot of pavement there. There's some place that you could probably do away, and increase that permeability. So I would not approve the application as is. MR. FREER-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-It seems to me that the permeable pavers are a practical solution and so with the condition that the permeable pavers be installed, it seems like they would be much easier to maintain than the grass which already has proven to be a real problem. So with the condition that the permeable pavers be installed I would approve the request. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy, anything else to add? MR. URRICO-No. Just that I'm fine with the permeable pavers as long as it reaches 25%. MR. FREER-Okay. Got it. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-That's my, as Roy just indicated, that's my concern, Mr. Chairman, is it seems as if we're voting on something here and we don't know what our percentage is. So are we, can we do that? Aren't we kind of tinkering into a territory of the unknown? I know we can say it's got to be permeable pavers, but we don't know what our percentage is and traditionally our benchmark is 25%. MR. FREER-So my understanding is that the application in front of us is for a full waiver, and we can grant less relief than that, which would be permeable pavers, and what I'm hearing from most of my colleagues is that there's no stomach, including my own, for allowing just permeable pavers on this part that was, if it doesn't get us to the 25% that was granted in the past. So my input is that you have to find wherever you want to get the 25% or I don't support, I don't support just replacing this with permeable pavers, unless it gets to 25%, and if it doesn't get to 25%, then I suggest you find some other places that you can put permeable pavers to achieve that 25% and then I would be open to approving the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does Staff have any indication from the Planning Board last night as to how much they expected it was going to change it? MRS. MOORE-No. If you do a quick calculation, and this is quick, when someone prescribes a permeable surface. MR. FREER-They get half credit, right? MRS. MOORE-They get half credit. So if you take the surface that he's proposing and you divide that by half, you have 550 square feet, I just did the quick calc, and it doesn't improve it. It improves it by a tenth. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's minimal. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) MR. HENKEL-But there is, like I said, I've driven around that whole property. There are some other places that could be probably some stormwater, I mean some drywells or something there. That back corner there towards the Northway. MR. MC DEVITT-I'll be much more comfortable in voting on this when we know we are at 25%, and my suggestion to the applicant would be that consideration be given to tabling this, in furtherance. MR. FREER-Yes, I understand. So the applicant in front of us, I didn't hear anybody interested in approving it as published, but they can present a variance request that is less than what is presented in the reports, which is what they're doing. They're saying, okay, our request is to keep it. Now our request is less than that, which means they'll replace it with the permeable pavers. We still can vote, if we don't feel like we're comfortable with that as an application, or as I think you just heard, you don't have enough votes to just get it passed as you suggested, then they will have to table and come back with some other alternatives. I mean they can have us vote and we'll vote it down, or they can withdraw it and find 25% and I don't know if we'll have to approve that or not. Probably, Laura. Because it's changed from what was approved originally. Any other discussion from the Board? So have you, you have a question or have you figured out what? MR. HUGHES-No, at this point, again, I just, we were at the meeting last night and I had other commitments today, so I haven't had the time today to sit down and even give you a briefing or a brief like Laura did, and I think at this time I'll request to be tabled so I can get that information. MR. FREER-Okay. Well will somebody make a motion to table? MR. MC CABE-We've got to find out when he wants to table it to. MRS. MOORE-At this point it would be October. MR. FREER-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from French Mountain Inn. Applicant proposes to maintain a 1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability requirements of the Commercial Intensive zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to maintain a 1,110 sq. ft. hard surfaced area that was to remain lawn or 22.6% where 30% permeable is required. The approved plans of 2012 indicate the proposed permeability was to be 25%. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-53-2018 FRENCH MOUNTAIN INN (AFTAB BHATTI), Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Tabled until the first meeting in October with the pertinent information to be submitted to the Town by the middle of September. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2018, by the following vote: MR. FREER-So just to be clear, you got a feel for the Board's views that it better be, in my mind, pretty darn close to back the way it was, if not better, because you're already on a variance, right, from the 30% that you're supposed to adhere to. Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Will the Planning Board hear this before we do again? MRS. MOORE-No. You're first. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any way we can compel them to come up with the 25%? 11 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) MRS. MOORE-The applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Can it be referred back to the Planning Board for further review or are they finished? MRS. MOORE-It's the Zoning Board's decision to encourage the applicant to come to 25% because you're granting relief. It's not the Planning Board who has. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm just thinking because you're in that same corridor there if you came back further into the parking area and made that permeable pavers continuous all the way through, is that going to change your? MR. HUGHES-I've got some ideas on this property, but I haven't given it much thought since I had to get involved in it, and I had a feeling that this was what was going to happen. I heard that the Boards were getting very upset with people who come back in a similar situation. With the Planning Board last night they asked how we felt about tearing up the lawn, and I knew that's what would happen, and I can't disagree with the Board. I can't disagree with you guys. MR. FREER-Okay. Well, we'll see you in October. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. See you guys. MR. HUGHES-Thank you ladies, and gentlemen. MR. FREER-Thank you. Okay. Next is Area Variance 55-2018 Tra Tom Development. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2018 SEQRA TYPE II TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) TOM CENTER — HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT ZONING MDR LOCATION RICHMOND HILL DRIVE — BARRINGER HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (NORTHERN PORTION) APPLICANT PROPOSES A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 IN BARRINGER HEIGHTS. FOUR LOTS TO BE RESIDENTIAL; REMAINDER OF LOT; 25.78 ACRES NOT TO BE DEVELOPED PER PREVIOUS SUBDIVISION. LOT 1A TO BE 1.2 ACRES; LOT 1B TO BE 0.70 ACRES; LOT 1C TO BE 0.70 ACRES AND LOT 1D TO BE 0.70 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF 2-ACRES FOR NEWLY CREATED LOTS WITHIN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT AND FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REQUIRES REVIEW. CROSS REF SUB 4-2003 MOD. (OCTOBER 2009 — LOTS 3 THRU 10; LOTS 18 & 19). SUB 4-2003 (33 LOTS); FWW 6-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 29.06 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-55-2018, Tra Tom Development, Meeting Date: August 22, 2018 "Project Location: Richmond Hill Drive — Barringer Heights Subdivision (northern portion) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Four lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. Lot 1A to be 1.2 acres; Lot 1 B to be 0.70 acres; Lot 1 C to be 0.70 acres and Lot 1 D to be 0.70 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes 5 residential lots and lots are to be less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zoning district. 12 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The proposed project may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties. 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 number of parcels to meet the 2 acre requirement of the MDR zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for lot 1A is 0.80 acres, and the lots 1 B-1 D is 1.3 acres. Additional relief from the MDR setbacks may be required in the future for the proposed undersized lots. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal to no environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. The proposed lots are to have septic systems, connect to Town water, a no cut buffer along the power line. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created as the previous subdivision Barringer Heights in 2003 was a conservation subdivision and the proposed area to be subdivided was not done at the time the 2003 subdivision occurred. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Four lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. The plans show the Barringer Height subdivision and the subdivision of the four residential lots with access to Richmond Drive. Note the Zoning Administrator denial letter explains subdivision will have to apply the MDR setbacks —30 ft. front, 25 ft. side, 30 ft. rear. The plan will need to be updated showing the MDR setbacks." MR. URRICO-Also, the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted August 21 st, 2018, by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Hello. MR. CENTER-Good evening. I'm Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering representing Tra Tom Development. Just to start off, I know there's a letter from Mr. Brown regarding the request for the relief for the setbacks. We're going to rescind the request for the sideline and the rear setbacks. We'll maintain the MDR setbacks. So as far as those two variances, we're going to rescind that. We're only asking for relief for the two acre minimum lot size. We were trying to maintain the same character as the conservation subdivision was when it was originally approved, but after talking with Craig and the process to go about that, we looked at the lots and did not seek relief. So we rescinded that. Plus we have the no cut buffer on the back side which is 25 feet, 30 foot setback is really only to the 5 feet on the rears and the lots are large enough that we can fit the houses with the MDR setbacks as they are currently. So we'll first off rescind those two requests for the setback variances. As Roy stated, Lot One was discussed during the original conservation subdivision. There was no further subdivision west of the subdivision road, but in the future we may come back for additional subdivision to the east. We've kept the lot sizes similar to the approved subdivision. Twenty-six of the thirty-two lots are less than .7 acres in that subdivision and five are at .7 to .9 acres. So we've kept it to the larger size of the existing subdivision lot, if not larger with the 1.2 acre lot. We've kept the no cut buffer. We went back in and did soil testing for each individual lot, some perc testing. The road itself sits higher than these lots. So we obviously have to bring in material to grade the lots so that we are at the right elevation. We've provided a grading plan for that. This is currently under contract with another individual to construct on the four lots. So Mr. Farone is looking to get approval of these lots to finish out the Lot One construction. It's pretty 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) straightforward. It's in character with the neighborhood. We've, all the septic systems and the installations for the rest of the subdivision. We've seen that he initial, I think part of this was the French drain was put in that goes behind Michaels Drive out to Luzerne Road through Charlton Drive, that area. We've seen a lot of changes for the positive in that area. So at the time they didn't do soils investigations for these individual lots, but we went out and did those individual. It's pretty straightforward. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have a question for Staff. I don't recall us having to go back and give variances on the lots that were previously built on in Barringer Heights. I don't remember any in the past. MRS. MOORE-No because that was a conservation subdivision that was approved. So the Zoning Board would not have seen that unless there was, probably the structure that was constructed that was closest to the wetland, if it was closer than 75 feet, you may have seen that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. CENTER-We did originally, when we sat down with Staff and created that, came in under the assumption that this would be a modification. Since further subdivision was discussed during the Planning Board in subdivision previously we thought going through the modification process being that we had the conservation area that wasn't, that conservation area wasn't being diminished, that the minutes were pretty clear that they left the option open to come back to develop the area to the east of Lot One. So there was a lengthy discussion about that. There wasn't really an objection. They knew the size. The size hasn't changed. It was the same area. MR. FREER-Any other questions? And the public hearing is scheduled. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this application? Okay. There is someone here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SCHROEDER MR. SCHROEDER-I'm John Schroeder. We live at 688 Upper Sherman Avenue and my wife and 1. TAMARA SCHROEDER MRS. SCHROEDER-1 just want to point out where we are. This is our property. MR. SCHROEDER-We live right here, right on the corner of Barringer Heights. We've lived there for 11 years. Our property as you can see borders the corner of Barringer Heights' wetlands. We've always had a dry basement until recently. Between them clearing the lot next to us to build and the creation of all new subdivisions and clearing of land and all the trees in my area, where do these contractors think the water is going to go? This area has already been designated as wetlands in an already water saturated area yet they continue to clear and build and then want more. Tra Tom Development has only created 15 or 32 lots already approved in this subdivision and their review states, when asked where will the stormwater runoff be directed, i.e. on-site stormwater management facilities/structures, adjacent properties, groundwater on-site surface water or off-site waters. Their answer well drained lawn areas. Another question on their review, will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties. Their answer is no. Another question is would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of, increase or decrease in the size of or encroachment into an existing wetland, water body, shoreline, beach or adjacent area and their answer is also no. It's most certainly effects the adjacent properties. It already is. How many subdivisions are being built in my area right now? Tra Tom Development, 32 plus lots on Richmond Hill Drive. Dave Howard has lots on Sherman Avenue. Matt Ball on Michaels Drive and Ball Boulevard, which is right here, which caused neighboring homes to flood a few years ago and the Queensbury Water Department had to get involved and create a new drainage system around these homes because of the high water table in our area. The Michaels Group on Burnt Hills, which is not too far away, right behind us, and Wooden Lane, although they're taking care of, raising the homes up on huge hills, , so you drive through a little canyon which makes their homes high and dry. Ken Collette on Upper Sherman Avenue and Caitlin Drive, 16 lot subdivision, and they're clearing for commercial right on Luzerne Road. What about the homes that have always been there? We 14 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2015) cannot raise up our homes because the water table is rising and they don't have the proper stormwater management system and they don't seem to care. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to make comment on this application? Okay. Thank you. Okay. Can we switch chairs and let us see if he wants to make any comments about your comments. MR. SCHROEDER-What now? MR. FREER-You're done. Okay. Thank you. We've got your input. You can go have a seat and let the applicant come back up. MR. SCHROEDER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FREER-Thank you. Do you want to make some comments on what we just heard? MR. CENTER-With regards to the groundwater issue, I can speak to what I know of in that area, French drain that we've installed behind Michaels Drive. The flow from that area comes down through here and, I'm sorry, the back side of Michaels Drive, comes down through here, and then comes through another subdivision that we did for Mr. Hayes on Charlton Court, open French drain that discharges into a collection storm sewer on Luzerne Road. We've done a lot of soil testing for the houses that are back there, did the test pits. We had a mottling elevation that showed at one point groundwater was high, but we did not see evidence of groundwater, only at 90 inches in one of the test pits and the others had no groundwater in them. We believe that the infiltration system that we put in has done some good. I believe that people, the folks on Michaels Drive it has helped to solve their issues, and to my knowledge we have not had any information come back from to us from the folks that live in Barringer Heights that they've had any issues in their subdivision. So to our knowledge, and we've had some information come back that some people feel that that wetland area is lower than it was originally prior to the French drain being installed. Everything does flow to the south, away from Mr. Schroeder's property. So it comes down in this area. Our parcel is over here. The backside, like I said, the back side of the lots flow in the direction of the power lines. The soils are well drained sands. Our impervious surface that we'd be adding if we did the four lots would be approximately .25 acres. So it's minimal in that aspect, and the rest of it would be lawn areas which would be the well-drained sands that we would be using to create the lots. MR. FREER-Okay. Did he hear that? AUDIENCE MEMBER-He can't here. MR. FREER-But you did? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-It sounds like Mr. Ball's additions probably had more effect on his property than Barringer Heights would be, because you said about 11 years you've been having problems with water, how long? MRS. SCHROEDER-No, we've lived there for 11 years. MR. HENKEL-Right. MRS. SCHROEDER-Just this year my basement has been wet, the last couple of months. It's started to come in and every day I go down there and it is going a little more. The 11 years I've lived there we've had a dry basement. We no longer have a dry basement. It's coming up, and now my cement is just all crumbling. MR. HENKEL-But like Mr. Center just was explaining about the water flow and that, it would probably be more effective coming from Ball's construction. MR. CENTER-It could be a localized. I mean we've had a lot of, just in the last month we've had a lot of heavy downpours. It can be local, too. Something settles in an area, an issue with a downspout that's close to the outside walls. You could have a local issue there, too, but I can only speak to the groundwater and the issues that we've seen, you know, when we've done the soil testing and we're in there doing soil testing and test pits and just a general consensus of, 15 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2013) and knowing that when you were doing the Charlton, right after it was installed, doing some of the stuff on Charlton Drive and seeing the flow, it was working, and the folks on Michaels Drive, I believe that a lot of them have not had issues. They haven't come back to say it wasn't working along those lines. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do we have any letters? MR. FREER-I'm sorry. MR. URRICO-There are no letters. MR. FREER-Thank you, Jim, and I'm going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. So I went, and I looked at the property. I've studied up and I've listed to everybody, and I have a couple of concerns. In traveling through the neighborhood, I noticed, just like Mr. Schroeder said, there are several of those vacant lots, and I just wasn't sure about the need for more lots. That isn't part of our balancing test, but I thought it was a logical question, and there are also several houses for sale in the neighborhood, but I am concerned about the Town Code and the substantial variance you're requesting. So right now I'd have to say I'm not in favor of your application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Michelle. John? MR. HENKEL-Even though they're asking for quite a relief there in size of the lots, but most of the lots in that development now are smaller than the acre. As long as they're not touching the west side I would have to be in favor of what they're requesting. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think the whole purpose of the Moderate Density zoning was to kind of spread things out a little bit, and you could always make the argument that well these other lots are only .7 so we shouldn't have to meet the two acre requirement, but if you use that argument all the time then you'd never get to the two acre requirement. So the fact that none of these requested lots are even up to an acre and a half troubles me. I'd like to see an effort to get to the two acre lot minimum. So I'd have to say that I'm not in favor of this project. MR. FREER-Thanks. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with Michelle and Mike and plus I want to add that given there's a history of water problems in this area, that adding to that density instead of minimizing density bothers me. So I'm not really sure what the effect of packing in some more houses into this area will have, and unless we have more information on what's happening with the water table in that area, to help convince me otherwise, I'm going to be against this application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Like my peers, Mike, Michelle, Roy, I'm concerned about water and I'd like to understand the issue better, as it relates to moderate density. I can personally make the argument that two acres is, man those are pretty big lots, but nevertheless that is the zoning. So as proposed I'm not in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think one thing we have to think about is in the past when we had subdivisions that were granted we required sometimes Phase One, Phase Two, Phase Three of subdivisions, and I think what we're doing here is we're sort of hopscotching around when we haven't even finished Phase One of this subdivision which dates back to 2003 and we're asking them to, they're asking us for relief to continue on with a second part of a subdivision, a further subdivision of the property, which I think would be improper at this time. I think that given the area and all the comments that have been made about runoff and things like that. How many more outstanding lots do you have to fill in? MR. CENTER-1 believe most of them are, the ones that are under construction have been purchased by MSCL and Mr. Howard had purchased any remaining lots that were owned by Mr. Farone. There's a couple that are under construction now, and I couldn't give you an exact 16 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2013) answer. I believe the other ones, Podnorski, I believe it's Mission Builders, has already built on several of those lots toward the corner of Richmond Hill cross street, in that area. I don't know if they're under contract or not. I'd have to get more information to be able to answer that question. MR. UNDERWOOD-At this point in time I think that the request for the number of lots that you propose is excessive and I think that I would grant maybe three lots in a further subdivision of the property, but I think we're so pre-mature here until we're built out, but that needs to be identified by the Planning Board. That's part of their purview is to ensure subdivisions come to fruition, that they don't just sit there and wait until kingdom come to get finished. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. 1, too, think that this too big of a variance request, and I don't support it and I don't know what a three lot subdivision would look like but it would look better than. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're going to be up around one acre on each one of them which is fine as far as I'm concerned. MR. URRICO-1 would not be fine with one acre. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-Just for the record. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. So you've heard the sentiment of the Board. Would you like us to? MR. CENTER-I'd just like to add one thing. Understanding the positions in regard to the Code and the two acre minimum, this subdivision is a little different because originally it was in as a conservation subdivision. So there's a large tract of land that is being conserved, and the thought was, at the Planning Board level, was they knew that 3.2 acres may be coming to them for further subdivision, and our thought was we didn't need a variance from the two acre minimum because of the conservation subdivision and we thought we were just modifying that subdivision as you would at the Planning Board with any other subdivision if you came back to do a modification of that. So since the change to the two acre minimum that kind of changed things and not having the benefit, this still has the benefit of a large tract of land that was conserved. So I can understand the concerns with the MDR and the locating of lots closer together is part of the conservation. This is still a conservation subdivision. We're not getting into any of the conserved portion that the Planning Board said no further development. That is still there. That is still being conserved. There's still a portion of this that's still conservation subdivision. It's the change in Code and the change in time that has gone by and the change in Code that brought us before you for this variance. So in a way it's partially self-crated but it's partially not being able to acknowledge, it's almost as if we're not acknowledging that there was any conservation of land that was done. So with a conservation subdivision you're allowed smaller lots when you're conserving land, similar to what was done on Leuci, John Clendon, in that subdivision where you conserve a bunch of land, it's still 25 acres. MR. HENKEL-Yes. That's not the way it's proposed to us right here. MR. CENTER-1 understand. It's part of the project, though. It can't be ignored. I'm just trying to bring up the fact, it's a development. It's still being, it's new development, but there's still a conservation portion of this that's being kept in mind that we're not asking to further subdivide that portion. We're acknowledging that that's still restricted. I will request that we table this and I'll take it back to the client and discuss working on it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we ask for some direction from the Planning Board as to what their thoughts are? MRS. MOORE-So you got your recommendation from the Board. That's what you received. MR. FREER-Right. They said no significant issues. Right? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. CENTER-Which we've been involved with that in regards to that under drain system with regards to the other subdivisions. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) MR. FREER-Yes. I guess my comment to your comment would be that is useful, valuable information for us to consider, but my sense is that the water issue doesn't get addressed in that consideration and I think at least some of us feel like that's an important component. MR. CENTER-You mean for additional information on the groundwater. MR. FREER-That would be very useful. MR. CENTER-1 know during the initial, the original subdivision that Mr. Nace was involved in, I can bring back some of that information that was involved because I know they spoke at length regarding drainage and the groundwater issues when they did the original conservation subdivision. I can't speak to the one folks' problem, but I know. MR. FREER-Is that part of anyone else's consternation? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a request to table. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tra Tom Development. Applicant proposes a five lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Four lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. Lot 1A to be 1.2 acres; Lot 1 B to be 0.70 acres; Lot 1 C to be 0.70 acres and Lot 1 D to be 0.70 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes 5 residential lots and lots are to be less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zoning district. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-55-2018 TRA TOM DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled until the first meeting in October with information to be submitted to the Town by the middle of September. Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2018, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Tabled until October? MR. CENTER-What would be the September? Is there any? MRS. MOORE-It would be October. MR. MC CABE-Until the first meeting in October. AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. We're on to Clear Brook, LLC, Area Variance 54-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-54-2018 SEQRA TYPE II CLEAR BROOK LLC AGENT(S) TOM HUTCHINS — HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) EXCESS LAND LLC ZONING WR AND HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATION BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 15-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 145.30 ACRES (132.9 ACRES — LAND AREA). RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PROJECT IS WITHIN 500 FT. OF INTERSTATE-87 (1-87 NORTHWAY) AND APPROXIMATELY 50 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY REST-AREA OF 1-87. LOTS 2, 3, AND 4 PROPOSE TO SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY. LOTS 8, 9 AND 10 PROPOSE TO SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY. LOTS 14 & 15 PROPOSE TO SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY. A TOTAL OF 10 DRIVEWAYS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE 15-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE 1-87 INTERSTATE 18 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT AND LOTS NOTED FOR SHARED DRIVEWAYS WITHOUT SPECIFIC LOT HAVING PHYSICAL ACCESS AND/OR ROAD FRONTAGE. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS REVIEW REQUIRED. CROSS REF SUB 13-2018 PRELIMINARY STAGE; FWW 6-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2018 LOT SIZE 148.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-6 SECTION 179-4-035; 1-87 OVERLAY; 179-4-050 FRONTAGE TOM HUTCHINS & DENNIS PHILLIPS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-54-2018, Clear Brook LLC, Meeting Date: August 22, 2018 "Project Location: Big Boom Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 15-lot subdivision of a 145.30 acres (132.9 acres — land area). Residential subdivision project is within 500 ft. of Interstate-87 (1-87 Northway) and approximately 50 ft. from the property Rest-Area of 1-87. Lots 2, 3, and 4 propose to share one driveway. Lots 8, 9, and 10 propose to share one driveway. Lots 14 & 15 propose to share one driveway. A total of 10 driveways are proposed for the 15-lot subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for residential development within the 1-87 Interstate Highway Overlay District and lots noted for shared driveways without specific lot having physical access and/or road frontage. 179-4-035 Interstate Highway Overlay District. The applicant proposes a new residential subdivision of land within 500 ft. of the Northway. The 500 ft. setback falls within the middle of the subdivision due to the bordering Northway Rest Area is the 1-87 property. 179-4-050 Frontage The applicant proposes lots 2 and 4 to share a driveway with lot 3 and lots 8 and 9 are proposed to share a driveway with lot 9 and 10. They have road frontage but not physical access to Big Boom Rd. Also lots 14 and 15 to have a shared driveway roadway (Waterline Easement road). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the 500 ft. Northway Boundary setback is within the property proposed to be developed. The applicant proposes shared driveways to access the existing Big Boom Road —with less curb cuts would be considered beneficial to the area versus providing a driveway for each proposed parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is to allow a residential subdivision within less than 500 ft. of the Northway property and to allow eight parcels to have three shared drives. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) The applicant proposes a fifteen lot residential subdivision to be located on Big Boom Road. The parcel is 145.30 acres including easement and water; the land area is 132.9 acres. The applicant proposes to also connect to the water line —the applicant is working with the Water Department for lots 14 and 15 as the Dept. is concerned with the development on those lots. The applicant has shown the proposed housing arrangement, driveway area for each parcel and septic areas. The plans show the Northway area setback and the parcels impacted by the setback —where two of the homes are within the 500 ft. setback and the remainder are outside. In addition, the applicant has shown specific lots to have shared driveways and not physical road frontage." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted August 21, 2018 by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Thank you, Roy. Could you guys introduce yourselves and make any further comments you'd like to what was just read in. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. Good evening. My name is Dennis Phillips. I'm a lawyer with McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum in Glens Falls. On my left is Dave Lipinski who is one of the principals of the applicant and probably everybody knows Tom Hutchins on my right, and Tom is going to basically go through his short presentation of what the project is like from the engineering point of view. Tom? MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. Good evening, Board. Just briefly, our parcel is 145 acres in the WR zone, which in itself is very unique. I imagine it's the largest privately held parcel in the WR in Queensbury. I'm not sure of that but it's a very unique parcel in that respect. So its principal and only use is residential. We've shown a layout of 15 residential lots. Thirteen of them are basically adjacent to each other in the northern most portion of the parcel which is relatively flat and it's up on a little higher ground. There's two lots, two large lots which are shown on the lower portion of the parcel which are accessed, that's the one that's accessed via the same drive that contains the Town of Queensbury's water line that runs right across here over to the river and then under the river to sell water to the Town of Moreau. The ownership of the parcel granted a non-exclusive easement to the Town to enable them to construct and install that waterline back in the 1980's I believe. I'm sorry, 2001. What we're here requesting is this is the Northway Travel lane. This is the rest area that's currently under re-construction. As you're aware Section 179-4-35 established the Northway Overlay District which prohibited residential subdivision within 500 feet of the right of way property line for the Northway. Now because this rest area extends out from the actual Northway, the 500 foot offset from that right of way comes into our property. It's that blue line I've colored there, and that's what we're requesting relief from because essentially that item stipulates no subdivision at all within that 500 foot district. We feel we're a little bit at a disadvantage because this being the original right of way for the Northway prior to the rest area, the 500 foot would be right about at Big Boom Road. It wouldn't impact us at all. So the fact that the rest area is there creates our issue that we're here before you. Our layout includes only two of the fifteen foot residences within that 500 foot offset from I'll call it the right of way from the rest area. All of them are more than 500 feet from the travel lanes and the right of way adjacent to the travel lane. So we feel our design is not materially impacted by proximity to the Northway in the means that, or in the manner that that section was developed to. So we're requesting relief from this Board for that item. We're also requesting relief from the Board to allow us to utilize some shared driveways. There's a group of three lots here that will utilize a shared drive. There's a group of three over here that will utilize a shared drive, and of course there's two down here that will utilize a shared drive. All would have minimum road frontage. However, the primary access to some of them would not be from the minimum road frontage, and with that I think I'd turn it over to, if you guys want to add anything or turn it over to the Board for questions. MR. PHILLIPS-I think Tom has spoken well, and I have nothing to add. MR. URRICO-I have a question. Did the Overlay boundary where it is now exist prior to the new rest stop being put in there? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. That right of way hasn't changed. MR. URRICO-So that line hasn't changed. MR. HUTCHINS-That's correct. This line has not changed. That was there. 20 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) MR. URRICO-So the blue line there has not changed, or green, whatever that is. MR. HUTCHINS-The blue line is the 500 foot offset. No that has not changed. MR. URRICO-And that has not changed with the new? MR. HUTCHINS-That's correct. MR. URRICO-So who has jurisdiction over that 500 feet? I mean, is this a Town Code? MRS. MOORE-It's a Town Code item. Yes. MR. URRICO-Based on what's required from the Interstate? MRS. MOORE-No, no. MR. URRICO-Is this something that you put in? MRS. MOORE-We put in place because my guess was at the time that it became effective there may have been concern about having residential development next to an Interstate, noise, pollution, that sort of influx. MR. FREER-Yes, the people over, just north of Exit 19, some of those are really close. They were built before the Northway Interstate, but I think the intent was to. MR. URRICO-Well at that time they moved the houses that were on the Interstate and they placed them someplace else. So, okay, so this is all Town? MRS. MOORE-All Town. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, I just have a question or two. I understand 179-4-035 relative to Interstate Highway Overlay District. It's interesting to me, actually, but I understand it. The question I have, relative to shared driveways, I just want to understand that a little better. If you could, Mr. Hutchins, just kind of walk me through how that all is coming together if it does come together. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure, and are you talking about the logic behind us using shared driveways or the reason for it really? MR. MC DEVITT-1 think the logic and reason if you will, yes. MR. HUTCHINS-The logic behind it is these are 1500 feet from the main road in round numbers, and it seemed like it would be more effective to have one 1200 foot drive going back there than three, and frankly it was a suggestion that came to us from the Planning Board when we were there with the Sketch Plan, and we've discussed that a lot. We've talked about doing completely separate driveways. It's more construction. It's more disturbance. MR. MC DEVITT-Probably more cost, too. MR. HUTCHINS-And probably more costs. There are those that find an advantage to it because some feel that shared driveways are a disadvantage in terms of marketability of the properties, but that's the logic behind it, and of course these down here, this driveway we'll call it, that has been there for years. We have a map in our office that we were looking at today from 1858, 1850 that showed that road going out across that. The canal was on it and there were a couple of buildings out there. So it's been there a long, long time for one purpose or another. MR. FREER-So the smallest lot of this. DAVE LIPINSKI MR. LIPINSKI-Is Lot Number One on the far left. It's two and a half acres. 21 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. So there's no relief for size. MR. HUTCHINS-No relief for size. No relief for setbacks. MR. LIPINSKI-Most of the lots are on five acres. MR. FREER-We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here who wants to make a comment about this application? Okay. I'd have you let the public come to the table. Sir? Ma'am? Whoever's going to speak first. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LORRIE MATUSZAK MRS. MATUSZAK-Hi. Lorrie Matuszak, 420 Big Boom Road. I'm asking the Zoning Board to hold up the Town Code. I spoke to the two gentlemen that want to do the development and at first I was excited about it. They told me they were going to do 15 five acre lots all riverfront. Now they're not riverfront. They lied to me for telling us what they were doing, and I figure if they lied to me from the beginning, it's not going to be right all along. I think we should stand by the Code, if you guys are going to approve it, I don't think they should be allowed to come in within the 500. They should have to go behind the blue line. They told us they were going to be all along the river, we weren't going to see them, and I have a lot of concerns about it. If they don't tell it right from the beginning, we've got an issue in my eyes. So if they were going to put them all along the river, that's different, but now they're moving them all around. They were going to be five acres. Now they've got acres that are 2.87, 2.89, 4.8, and they said they were going to be five, five and a half acres. I spoke with the gentleman in the plaid shirt and this gentleman here, just so you know, the owners, the developers. So I'm asking you to follow the Town Code, if you're even thinking of granting this. I don't think it's fair to the people on the road for it to be changed. All of our neighbors, I mean most of the neighbors I've talked to believed they were 15 lots along the river bank, not scattered like this map shows. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Sir, you also want to make a statement? KEVIN MATUSZAK MR MATUSZAK-My name's Kevin Matuszak. I live at 420 Big Boom Road. I have some concerns over the property on the lower half. From the hill where it goes down to the lower sections I believe they call it 14 and 15, that whole area has been flooded. When we had the hurricane, all that water from across the road, and I have lived there for 21 years. So I don't see how they can develop the property. I mean, I know Joe DeSantis, talked to him. I know he's got wetlands down there that he can't develop it. That's why it's ballpark now. The Town park and everything, that water actually came out to the baseball field when we had the hurricane. So I know when we had that flood, all that water because of the canal there came across the road over onto my side of the property, just at the foot of my hill. So I don't know how they can develop, and the properties on the Jarvis' side, I know they have culverts that are going through there for the water runoff. It'll actually go onto their property if they start developing it. I don't know if they did any water districts or checked with DEC. Because when I had to do my drainage through my driveway I had to get a hold of DEC for a wetlands permit. I had to check with them, and I was cleared, but it was so close to me that I had to check with them. MRS. MATUSZAK-That was just the stormwater. MR. MATUSZAK-There was the stormwater drainage that went through ours. I don't know if they've done any of this for anything, and then the shared driveway part, it's so far back, if they do a shared driveway, three houses, how do you know if somebody's coming in or going out? Do you know what I mean? If somebody's coming in, what are you going to do, pull off to the side? How wide's the driveway going to be? If I was a landowner buying property there, and I was headed out the driveway, I'm going to run right into somebody, especially in the wintertime plowing, you know, I'm just bringing these up to you. MR. FREER-Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. MR. MATUSZAK-Thank you. MR. FREER-Is there anybody else who wants to make a comment on this application? CINDY LUSSIER 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) MRS. LUSSIER-Hi, I'm Cindy Lussier. I'm at 352 Big Boom Road. I live right up the road from, I am directly across from where they want to put the driveways in, and we've been here for 20 years, live in the woods and we're not looking forward to it at all. We're not really exactly sure, I mean, right now the way it looks on the map, it looks like I'm going to be looking directly at at least two driveways, shared or not. So if they come not shared, I'm going to be looking at several driveways. I'm on three acres, right in the middle, and when we bought the property it was understood, at the time, I mean it's kind of word of mouth but they were going to keep it as logging property. So we were happy with that. So we're not so happy about it being developed right now. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to make a comment on this application? Okay. Do we have any written comments? And you guys can step back up. MR. URRICO-Yes, I do. "I am writing this letter in reference to the proposed subdivision of parcel 316.14-1-6 currently owned by Excess Land LLC and applicant being Clear Brook LLC located on the east side of Big Boom. I own the 3 parcels immediately adjacent to this parcel on the north side. I have several grave concerns regarding the development as planned and hope that before any variances or approvals are given to the subdivision that these concerns would be addressed. First and foremost this parcel currently discharges ground/storm water into my property via a culvert, several manmade trenches and sloping terrain. This creates flooding on my property in various areas. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing a clearing, grading, erosion and storm water plan which would be detrimental to me and my property. Another issue is a deeded right of way that is not being recognized on the mapping it is labeled as a stone gravel path but it is actually a logging road. This right of way is directly adjacent to my property and has been used to access several lots on the river adjacent to mine as well as by myself as assigned by the current owner of these lots. This right of way was deeded in 1920 by Finch Pruyn and International Paper who co-owned this parcel at the time. I also question what the current guidelines are regarding developing an island and rights to the bridge currently owned by the Town of Queensbury. Lots 14 and 15 encompass this island. The fact that multiple entities are and will be involved with this plan since the current owner is not the developer and the applicant will not be the developer seems to lead to a clouded line of responsibility. I hope that these facts will cause the Boards to take a close look at everything before making a ruling to ensure it will be in the best interest of all parties. I realize this is a unique and large parcel being on the Hudson River, located on a dead-end road and close proximity to the 1-87 Northway and many questions will arise due to this however I hope that both the Zoning and Planning Boards use cautious consideration before issuing a variance or approving any waivers. Thank you for your consideration, Sandra Jarvis" And 343 Big Boom Road. MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Could you guys comment on any of the comments that you just heard? MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. Going back, I believe, initially we had plans of, with regard to the comment about river front versus non (riverfront), we originally had visions of more of these being located down in here. However we've done an extensive review of the parcel with a wetland biologist and we've got an area here that's probably not appropriate for, at least in a wholly compliant manner, probably not appropriate for development. So we've moved some of these around and scattered them. There's still 500 feet from the road. So it's hardly a roadside issue. There was a discussion with shared driveways. We utilized shared driveways because there's less impact. It's a lower impact approach to do so and. MR LIPINSKI-And you also have to have the pullouts. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, with the shared drives, there'll be turnouts constructed every 500 feet. That's a fire code. Any driveway longer than 500 feet you have to have means for vehicles to pass. As far as, we're in discussions with the Water Department and also with the current owners with regard to details of the right of way and there was reference to ownership of the bridge. All the ownership is under the current ownership, the Town doesn't actually own any of it. The Town has been granted a right of way to run water line through there, and we're in discussions with the Town's Water Department on these items. At this point I think we're trying to focus on this item, this Northway Overlay District, because if you read the language of 179-4- 35, and I have a copy of it here if anybody's interested, it's very direct and it's very specific, there shall be no residential subdivision within that 500 feet. So without that this is essentially one parcel. Without relief from that section, and that's what we're trying to focus on. We understand there are a number of details that need to get worked out primarily on the Planning Board level, but without these two items, we don't have a project. 23 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 0 /22/201 ) MR. FREER-Can you talk about stormwater at all? I know that that's really kind of not what you're asking us for but it came up in comment. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. We will be doing a complete SWPPP, stormwater plan that will be per DEC standards. We did request a waiver at the early stage and frankly we requested that waiver so we could get to this table before this Board and see if we could get relief from this relatively simple item that without it we don't have a project, but, yes, we will be doing a complete SWPPP. MR. HENKEL-It says on the survey you've got a stream going right through almost some of these foundations. It's labeled right on the survey. MR. HUTCHINS-Right here there's a channel, a natural channel that's been there years, and, yes, we're going to have to work around that. MR. HENKEL-And there's a culvert pipe there down that road. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay, but I just wanted to make clear that. MR. HUTCHINS-We don't intend to complete this with waivers for stormwater and grading and landscaping. We intend to address all those items. MR. FREER-Right. Okay. I just wanted to have you guys respond to the public comment. Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-Well one of the concerns I still have is who owns that bridge? I mean isn't that a concern about, how can you develop those, how can we develop those two other lots if we don't know who owns that bridge? MR. LIPINSKI-I'd like to have Alex speak to that. He's the owner of the bridge. It's actually a causeway, and he's the owner of the property, Alex from Finch Pryun. MR. URRICO-All right so we are going to allow public comment now or are we not? Because you just said no. MR. FREER-Yes, we'll keep the public hearing open. I just want the Board to sort of give me your view. MR. URRICO-You had one member wanting to come up here and you said no, and now we're saying yes to, to be fair about it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask the Chairman a question? Because there's so many questions in the mind of Board members, I think it's pre-mature to poll the Board. I think we should have a question and answer period from the Board first to clarify. MR. FREER-Is everyone okay with that? MR. HENKEL-Sure. MR. FREER-Okay. So let's start back with John, and if you want to come up, sir, and make a comment, and please direct it directly to the causeway question. MR. MATUSZAK-Kevin Matuszak. I live at 420 Big Boom Road. Now the bridge was built by the Town. When the waterway was put in the Town built that bridge, and there were strict guidelines on building that bridge. When the contractor put it in they had to have tunnels underneath that bridge for the turtles to go through, and you can go back to when they designed the waterway because that's when the bridge was made. It wasn't made by Finch Pryun. It was made by the Town. They had a strict line that they had to do in order to make that passible for that waterline to go through over in Moreau. So I know when that was built. MR. HENKEL-Does the Town still own it, or who have they given rights to? MR. MATUSZAK-No, it's actually, there's culverts underneath. 24 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2015) MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. MATUSZAK-And it's covered with stone and the water pipe goes underneath it. MR. HENKEL-Goes underneath it. So it's still considered a bridge somewhat. MR. MATUSZAK-Sort of, yes. I guess that's still used. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. The owner question still on the table? You want to make a comment? ALEX ROTOLO MR. ROTOLO-Sure. Just to address the ownership of the bridge if you don't mind. Alex Rotolo. I'm the CFO at Finch Paper and also represent Excess Lands, the entity that owns this property. The causeway that's in question, although was not built by Finch Pryun, it is owned by Finch Pryun. We provided a non-exclusive easement to allow for that to be built and a water pipe to go through, but we are the owner of that piece of land, if you will, that goes across. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. So, Jim, did you have some more questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think one thing we need to be sure of here is this. This whole meeting, the information that's being asked for from us tonight, is a fishing trip. In other words, the applicants who are before us tonight asking for this relief, okay, do not own the property at this point in time. The property is still owned by Finch Pryun. That's my understanding of it. So I think that you're sort of putting the cart before the horse. This is to figure out whether or not it's feasible to do this going forward. MR. FREER-Okay. So can somebody address that? MR. LIPINSKI-Yes, certainly. I'm the owner of Clear Brook and I have a contract to purchase the property from Finch Pryun and he's the CFO of Finch Pryun. We have an agreement and I'm going through the subdivision approval process as part of the agreement that we have together. MR. ROTOLO-Yes. We have a definitive agreement to develop this property. It's definitive at this point and signed, and so we're committed to partnering with them. We ultimately will transfer the property upon that time to Clear Brook. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, guys. Any other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-Is there a purchase contract in place currently? MR. ROTOLO-Yes. MR. LIPINSKI-Yes, absolutely. MR. FREER-Okay. We get lots of these questions. MR. ROTOLO-A binding contract that we can execute upon approval. Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other Board questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Staff. Because we're crossing a 100 year flood plain here to access 14 and 15 lots, is that a problem because we haven't come up against that with Boards before? It's a previously existing crossing. That's what I'm asking, but due to the fact that it may flood out, is that a concern? MRS. MOORE-That will be addressed at the Planning Board level. MR. UNDERWOOD-That'll be a Planning Board issue. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay, and so now I'm going to try to re-poll the Board and we'll just let the Board tell each other what we think. So, Board, you had your chance to ask your questions. Now you have to tell us what you think. And, John, I'll start with you. 25 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 05/22/2015) MR. HENKEL-Yes. I still think these two houses, these two lots that they'll be building on that's inside the Interstate overlay there, I would not accept the project as is with those two houses being in the 500 foot overlay, even though it's not that close to the Northway but it's still considered because of the rest area. So I would not be in favor with those two houses. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think the 500 foot is kind of artificial. It was designed to be 500 feet from the Northway. The rest area provides kind of a complication. So we're being asked to approve two things, the Overlay District, you know, the 500 feet, and the shared driveways. I don't have a problem with the 500 feet. I think it's artificial. The shared driveways I believe is a very practical approach. It's kind of a serene area and the more penetrations that you have the less serene it is, and so I think that's a good approach and I would be in favor of approving that for that part of the variance. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to be in total disagreement with Michael on it being artificial. When you look at our Code, right in the Code it says the purpose is that such development may be considered to be unsafe and unhealthy especially for children and may expose those living there to noise, hydrocarbon pollutants, dust and other particulates. So just because it's a rest area doesn't mean there isn't going to be traffic going in and out of there, especially truck traffic, and I'm not sure of the contour of the layout there but trucks go in and out of there, usually on the back side, and they're coming around the back side. So there's plenty of pollutants being spewed out there and that's the reason that we have that 500 foot Overlay District to prevent that. So I'd be against it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I want to maybe back my way into this. What's requested this evening is very, very specific in nature. I don't have a problem with the 500 feet. The word artificial, whether I agree with that word or not, I see the intent of why that was said, and I follow that. I actually believe that shared driveways have less impact, okay, and so I don't have a problem with that either. I want to be very clear though to the Matuszaks and Mrs. Lussier that while I don't have a specific issue with these two reliefs that are being requested, I may very well, or others may have issue with issues that are going to be coming down the road. This project is somewhat premature in the context of we're looking at preliminary subdivision application, waivers from landscaping, clearing, grading, erosion, all of those issues, and all of those issues this developer is going to have to work through. It could be a great project, but those issues to me are actually the bigger issues. They're the more important issues that eventually will be heard. So for tonight's purposes, as it relates to the specific reliefs that are requested, I don't have a problem with it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would have to agree with Brent. I think that the 500 foot setback is well meaning but I think the fact that it's a rest area and it's even set back from Big Boom Road significantly, with woods between it and this development that's going to occur is a non-issue in my book. I don't think we've enforced the 500 foot setback anywhere else in Town, and I think it's relatively new on the books compared to all the subdivisions that previously have been allowed along the Northway on both sides of it. As far as the shared driveways, I think we've always encouraged shared driveway use. 1, too, have concerns, though, with the scope of this project, given the fact that you have such significant wetlands present on site. You have old river channels that are probably subject to flooding on a 50 year or 100 year basis, as what happened during Hurricane Irene. I've paddled the river. I've been through the canal before, and it will flood every spring, and I think there's even significant pooling when Boralex is pooling water at the dam for the Feeder Dam and if Sherman Island Dam is dumping water sometimes you have issues with that. So I don't know what the issues would be on some of the specific lots like 14 and 15. Some of the houses, even though it appears that they're setback from the wetlands, you know wetlands come and go at different times of the year. If you're out there in the summertime delineating wetlands, you know, it's one thing. If you're there in the springtime and the water's at maximum height on the Hudson I think there's more issues to deal with there and I think that even though you've proposed the houses on dry ground, a lot of them seem awfully close to that 100 foot flood line and as we know climate change is something that we should be concerned with. So I don't think we should create a situation, but right now I would be amenable to what's being asked for here this evening. I think they'll have to come back 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) before us. The Planning Board's going to have to do their homework on this one to make sure that it works as intended. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 have to agree with pretty much everybody. I'm really on the fence about this one. I agree with Brent especially. Looking at the charge we have as the Zoning Board and looking at the balancing test, it is small to moderate what you're asking for. My biggest concern as a lifelong resident of this area, I'm concerned about the wetlands and looking at how close these planned homes are to the wetlands is my biggest concern, but on the Zoning Board it's not my concern. It has to go to the Planning Board and we need to trust our Planning Board. So I would be reluctantly, very reluctantly, in favor of the project. MR. FREER-So 1, too, look at the two specific things that you guys are requesting for us as a gate to go forward and I can support both of those. I also want to make clear that this is not the last step in the process, and I hope and trust that the Planning Board and the permit issuers and DEC will make sure that this is a responsible project I'm confident that that will occur and that if there are any issues they'll have to come back for remediation or consideration or mitigation to the appropriate authorities, whether that's DEC, us the Planning Board or the health board in that case with septics and setbacks and we see a lot of that wetland setback requests and so I think this Board will look at any further waivers with a stringent eye on our piece of the responsibilities but there are other organizations that have deep responsibilities in this regard and they're going to have to do their jobs. In that case I will support this. So I'm ready to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-Are you good with that, boss? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-And call for a vote. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Clear Brook, LLC. Applicant proposes a 15-lot subdivision of a 145.30 acres (132.9 acres — land area). Residential subdivision project is within 500 ft. of Interstate-87 (1-87 Northway) and approximately 50 ft. from the property Rest-Area of 1-87. Lots 2, 3, and 4 propose to share one driveway. Lots 8, 9, and 10 propose to share one driveway. Lots 14 & 15 propose to share one driveway. A total of 10 driveways are proposed for the 15-lot subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for residential development within the 1-87 Interstate Highway Overlay District and lots noted for shared driveways without specific lot having physical access and/or road frontage. 179-4-035 Interstate Highway Overlay District. The applicant proposes a new residential subdivision of land within 500 ft. of the Northway. The 500 ft. setback falls within the middle of the subdivision due to the bordering Northway Rest Area is the 1-87 property. 179-4-050 Frontage The applicant proposes lots 2 and 4 to share a driveway with lot 3 and lots 8 and 9 are proposed to share a driveway with lot 9 and 10. They have road frontage but not physical access to Big Boom Rd. Also lots 14 and 15 to have a shared driveway roadway (Waterline Easement road). SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 22, 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: 27 (Oueensbury ZBA Meeting 08/22/2018) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. I say that in that I'm sure the residents feel that there's a change, but these are buildable lots, an so there's going to be building going on one way or another, so we don't think it's an undesirable change. In fact we think that the applicant has made some nice choices here with the shared driveways. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are deemed not reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance may seem substantial but actually if you tear it apart it's not asking for a huge amount. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district if this project is designed appropriately. 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. Z-AV-54-2018 CLEAR BROOK, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico MR. FREER-Good luck and don't come back for any more asks from this group. MR. LIPINSKI-Thank you very much for your consideration. MR. FREER-Okay. Can I get a motion to adjourn? MR. MC CABE-I make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. MR. MC DEVITT-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 22, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 22nd day of August, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 28