Loading...
01-16-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2019 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-1-2019 Lance Hillman 1. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-54 Area Variance Z-AV-2-2019 Stewart’s Shops Corp./Chris Potter 6. Tax Map No. 309.13-2-25 Area Variance Z-AV-3-2019 Tracy Taylor 12. Tax Map No. 289.10-1-13 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. MC CABE-Welcome to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. I’d like to officially open the meeting tonight. If you haven’t been here before our procedure is kind of simple. There should be a schedule on the back table. We’ll call each applicant up to the table. We’ll read the application into the minutes. We’ll allow the applicant to present further information. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open the public hearing and take input from the public. After that’s done we’ll poll the Board and see what the feeling is and then we’ll proceed as necessary. Before we get started, though, we have an administrative item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 19, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 19, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our first application is Area Variance Z-AV-1-2019, Lance Hillman. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-1-2019 SEQRA TYPE II LANCE HILLMAN AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ZONING WR LOCATION 48 HILLMAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BAY WINDOW FEATURE FACING THE SHORELINE, FIRST FLOOR ADDITION OF 623 SQ. FT. FRONT ENTRYWAY ADDITION (COVERED PORCH), AND SUNROOM WITH PATIO TO THE EXISTING A-FRAME HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 1-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13- 010 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Would you read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-1-2019, Lance Hillman, Meeting Date: January 16, 2019 “Project Location: 48 Hillman Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new bay window feature facing the shoreline, first floor addition of 623 sq. ft., front entryway addition (covered porch), and sunroom with patio to the existing A-frame home. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a new 56 sq. ft. bay window addition proposed to be located 47 ft. from the shoreline and a 50 ft. setback is required. In addition, relief is requested for the Floor area where proposed is 6716 sq. ft. and 6,458 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed for the parcel. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited as the existing home does not meet the required shoreline setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setback of 3 ft. and Floor area relief of 88% (22.88%) in excess of 22%. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) The applicant proposes single story additions to each side of the home, additional alterations in the home for more living space, and a new bay window facing the lake. The plans show the elevation of the additions and the floor plan arrangement.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion, based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current th project proposal, and that was passed unanimously on January 15, 2019. MR. MC CABE-Welcome. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. I’m here with Lance Hillman, the owner with Judy Hillman at 48 Hillman Road and this is on the west facing shore of Cleverdale. Lance and Judy have this house that was built in the early 60’s and they’re proposing to do some renovations and addition to that. You can see in the architectural drawings, and if you’ve seen the property it’s an A-Frame design and the architectural design is intended to modernize the look of the house and make it a little more comfortable for them. The existing conditions, it’s a pre-existing, lawful nonconforming structure, and that’s based on shoreline setback. In the packet there’s a photo from a side view which you can make out the different components of the house that kind of explains the story. There’s an existing deck, wooden deck off the front which brings that setback to about 40 feet. That deck is going to be removed, but the existing, I’ll call it the bow of the roof, extends out, and that really then becomes the dictating point of setback, and that’s at 44 feet, 44.3 feet I believe. What the expansion and renovations involve is the creation of a bay window on the shoreline side of the house. Now that setback will be at 47 feet. So it’s still not as far into the setback as the existing roof. That existing roof will remain the same, but it is less than 50. So it still triggers the request for variance. So that’s one of the variance items. The other is floor area ratio, and as indicated the floor area ratio works out to be 22.88%. So it’s less than one percent over. That also then obviously triggers the need for a variance. Another photo I have, and I just want to point this out because I think hopefully you all understand the components that have to be included within the calculations for floor area ratio. Anything that’s covered on the property, and this does have two accessory buildings on it, but there’s also what’s labeled on the plan as a wood shed, and that’s a photo of it if you can make that out, but it’s a three- sided structure with a tarp across the front and it serves as some storage for wood and lawn mower and that type of thing, but that gets included within that, and that’s basically the overage of what we are for floor area ratio. So with that understanding I think it makes a minor overage even less significant I think. This isn’t anything that’s going to be turned into real living space. So just for clarification. We have, in terms of site issues, Lance had a new wastewater system designed and constructed this year in preparation for these improvements. So that’s all in place. Two years ago he had a shoreline buffer installed. So there’s quite a significant buffer along the shoreline that was done just based on the desire to do so and it’s also compliant with any requirements that there would be for a shoreline buffer. So that’s all in place as well. So he’s methodically kind of planned this out and done the improvements to date that sets up the ability to move forward with the house renovation. So with that we’d be glad to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-I just wondered, was that an early Lindal home, one of those cedar ones? LANCE HILLMAN MR. HILLMAN-No, it was not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it looked similar. MR. HILLMAN-My mother designed it and Alger Mason built it. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) MR. HENKEL-I thought Takundewide, didn’t they put a septic system in to start taking, I know that’s not part of this. MRS. MOORE-That’s not part of this. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I thought they were trying to attract. MRS. MOORE-Other users. MR. HENKEL-Yes, the users. MR. MAC ELROY-There is a community system there, but it’s just for Takundewide. MR. HENKEL-You’re right there on that border. I just thought there would be no need for that septic system, but okay. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So we have a public hearing advertised, and so at this particular time I’d like to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application. Seeing no one, I’ll ask Roy, is there any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board here. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’ll start with John. What do you think? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think that a lot of thought has gone into this project. It’s a large grassy area. They are taking the deck off the front which is a good thing, and they’re building all the additions to the sides. I would like to see the floor area variance be eliminated, but I can understand what you’re saying with that wood shed, that’s what’s causing it. So basically they’re really only asking for one variance per se because the shoreline setback’s not changing any. It’s not getting worse. So I’d definitely be on board with approving it as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’d be in favor of it also. I think considering where it was and what it’s going to be, I think this is a big improvement. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we have to recognize the limiting factors of an A-Frame home. There’s only a few things you can do and it’s not in a sense of a conventional home where you can go straight up with your walls. You sort of have to think about what you want. It’s been well thought out the re-design and updated the home, keeping it rather than doing a complete teardown. I think that the setbacks from the water are sort of inconsequential. You’re only three feet and that’s not anything that’s going to trip anything and as you said it’s effecting the front of the house and the additions on the side I think even though it’s slightly over with the floor area ratio, it complements the home and I don’t think there’s any detriment to the environment. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor. I think it fits the character of the neighborhood. It’s certainly going to look very nice there and it really, to me, is a very minimal request. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, aesthetically it’s a vast improvement. It is a little more floor area but I think considering the aesthetics I’d be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion from Jim. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lance Hillman. Applicant proposes construction of a new bay window feature facing the shoreline, first floor addition of 623 sq. ft., front entryway addition (covered porch), and sunroom with patio to the existing A-frame home. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant request relief from minimum setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a new 56 sq. ft. bay window addition proposed to be located 47 ft. from the shoreline and a 50 ft. setback is required. In addition, relief is requested for the Floor Area where proposed is 6716 sq. ft. and 6,458 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed for the parcel. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 16, 2019; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We feel that the thoughtful design of the home will update it and make things more modernized. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited in what you can do with an A-Frame home, and this seems to be the best way to do it. Pretty much building out the sides of it, not encroaching more on the waterfront. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Even though Staff identifies the deficiencies with the setbacks from the waterfront, it’s actually not going to be any closer to the water than already exists. At 47 feet that’s more than the 41 feet at the front of the home. As far as the Floor Area Ratio, it is quite a large place, but because of the nature of the construction of the home, the less than one percent of 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) relief, the .88 percent of relief necessary to increase it is not going to trip anything in my mind as far as the negative impact. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created more or less just because of where the building was originally constructed. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-1-2019, LANCE HILLMAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 16 day January 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is Area Variance Z-AV-2-2019, Stewart’s Shops on 221 Corinth Road. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-2-2019 SEQRA TYPE II STEWART’S SHOPS CORP./CHRIS POTTER AGENT(S) STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S) STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. ZONING CI/CLI LOCATION 221 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF 4,711 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,139 SQ. FT. NEW CONVENIENCE STORE (STEWART’S SHOP) WITH GAS ISLAND CANOPY AND BANK DRIVE-THRU CANOPY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CI AND CLI ZONING DISTRICTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE NEW BUILDING AND FOR THE ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CROSS REF SP 2-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2019 LOT SIZE 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-25 SECTION 179- 3-040 CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-2-2019, Stewart’s Shops Corp./Chris Potter, Meeting Date: January 16, 2019 “Project Location: 221 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of 4,711 sq. ft. existing building and construction of a 5,139 sq. ft. new convenience store (Stewart’s Shop) with gas island canopy and bank drive-thru canopy. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the CI and CLI zoning districts. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the new building and for the associated site improvements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the CI zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes construction of a 5,139 sq. ft. building that is to be located 26 ft. from the front property line on Big Bay Rd where a 75 ft. setback is required. The 4,656 fuel canopy is to be located 62 ft. from the front property line on Big Bay Rd where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the building and fuel canopy to address the setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for the building is 49 ft. setback and for the fuel canopy is a 13 ft. setback. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a demo of the 4,711 sq. ft. building and fuel canopy to construct a new 5,139 sq. ft. building for Stewart’s Shop with a new fuel canopy and Glens Falls National bank. The plans show the location of the new building to be oriented towards Corinth Road. The information includes elevations of the building and location of the drive-thru for the bank.” MR. URRICO-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 th that motion was adopted unanimously on January 15, 2019. MR. MC CABE-How are you doing? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) MR. POTTER-Good evening. Chris Potter from Stewart’s. As he stated, we’re looking to re-build in our current location. In doing so we would keep the store open during construction. That’s why it’s laid out the way it is on the site. With the new store we’d be increasing slightly. Our square footage would increase slightly by approximately 500 square feet and the Bank will primarily remain the same at 1300. So we’ve looked at doing other alternatives with doing additions on there. We’ve already taken part of the rental a few years ago from the Bank. So we’ve already expanded there. We can’t expand towards the rear because that would affect the drive thru, and as far as the gas canopy we’d like to expand that to help with the congestion that’s there. At peak times long lines form while people wait for the gas and just help with the circulation around the lot. Back when we built this store originally in 2001 it was never designed to have the Bank on it. It was a liquor store at first, and then when we lost that tenant we picked up the Bank and they had the drive thru on there and the Bank is kind of hidden the way they are. So by turning it, their drive thru and their building would be more prominent from the main road for them. So it would be a nice thing for them to have the new building. We’ll pick up about 10 extra parking spaces which is something that’s needed at that location. The gas canopy does increase. We doubled it. So there’s quite an increase there which should help out with the congestion. With the additional square footage inside our store we would expand seating as well as additional food products. The Food To Go line is expanding and the space and shape of the store that we have currently limits us on the products that we can offer. So that’s why we’re looking to do the project. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I do. I know this has nothing to do with the project we’re working with, but was traffic ever addressed with it? I mean I live not too far from there. It seems to be quite a problem. Why didn’t they address the problem with the entrance on Corinth Road? Why didn’t they take a direct right instead of going across or taking a left hand turn? Being so close to the light you’d think they’d make them enter on Big Bay Road and to go to the light to make a left hand turn. Because I know other projects we’ve addressed that where they’ve had to go like with the hotel by Ambrosia. They made them go to a light to take a left hand turn. MR. POTTER-You’re saying for somebody that would be entering our site? MR. HENKEL-No, if you were exiting because that’s quite a concern. There’s been quite a few accidents there too where people are trying to take a left hand turn. You’ve got people that are trying to cross that road there directly across from it. So you’ve got a lot going on there. So you would think that they would want to force the people to the light on Big Bay Road. MRS. MOORE-It’s a suggestion you can pass along to the Planning Board or a concern that you. MR. HENKEL-I just didn’t know if they addressed that at Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-The Board could address that at Site Plan Review application. Right now it hasn’t been to Site Plan. It’s only been there for referral, not for Site Plan. MR. HENKEL-That’s the only concern I have. Stewart’s always does a very nice job with their projects and it’s a good project. I have no problem with it, but that would be the concern I’d have is the traffic could be a problem there. MRS. HAMLIN-Is that something that can be included in the motion? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) MRS. MOORE-Potentially. MR. MC CABE-That’s not our purview. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. That’s my concern. MRS. HAMLIN-I did have a question, and, yes, I suppose that this will be picked up in Site Plan Review as well. That stockade fence in the back, that’s yours. Correct? MR. POTTER-Yes, well, I’m not sure on that, but we are proposing to replace it. MRS. HAMLIN-I saw that. I saw the bad side was kind of facing your property so I assumed it was yours. You’re replacing it with vinyl and new vegetative buffering there. MR. POTTER-We would keep what’s there and we would add some additional. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Do you know much about the noise generated from all the condensers in the back? I notice there’s a couple of them, the freezer and the condenser. You know what I’m saying, they’re outside of the building near the residential property. Is there any kind of attenuation being proposed? MR. POTTER-No, actually they are relatively quiet. MRS. HAMLIN-Are they? Okay. MR. POTTER-Yes. What we’ve found in other places actually the ambient road noise is actually louder than the units themselves. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. I have anecdotal discussions about that at other sites if it’s really close to residences, does it generate a problem. Well hopefully you’ll discuss that in Site Plan Review. MR. URRICO-Do we know what the current relief is from the original proposal, 2001? MR. POTTER-What’s there currently? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. POTTER-I believe we met all the setbacks. MR. HENKEL-The canopies are all far enough? MR. POTTER-Right. I think we’re at the 75 foot. MR. HENKEL-The only variance you got was for the sign. MRS. MOORE-A Sign Variance. This is the orientation. You can see it in your packet that first page is the first orientation that looks like that canopy is about 75 feet back. MR. HENKEL-It’s kind of a shame though, it’s only 18, 19 years old to come down. MR. MC CABE-Those guys think that’s a long time. Other questions? So we do have a public hearing advertised tonight. So I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) anybody in the audience that would like to make comment on this project. Seeing nobody, I’m going to ask Roy. Do we have any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board, see what we’re thinking, and, Jim, we’ll start with you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the re-design is a good idea. I know any time I’ve ever stopped there for gas, you know, the attitude of the pumps now is not conducive for good traffic flow, plus people are backing up from the store and, you know, it’s kind of chaos. This makes a lot more sense to me. Even though the canopy’s going to be a little bit closer to the road, I think we have to recognize that the lot is sort of limited by its size. It’s not a huge lot but it’s adequate for what’s being proposed. In general I think that overall it passes muster and we can approve it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I know it doesn’t seem that long ago, but that area has changed quite a bit. The competition is greater so the re-design is probably warranted from a competitive standpoint. I think this design is very conducive to the area and what we’re seeing other similar convenience stores doing especially in that area. So I think the proposal is good. Yes, it could be a smaller building but I don’t think that would fly in that area right now. So I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor of the project. I think it certainly fits with the character of the neighborhood with all the changes that have already been mentioned. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, two variances are asked for. The one for the canopy of 13 feet is not that great. The building they’re asking for 49 feet. It’s not too bad either. So I would definitely be on Board as is. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would agree. I assume Site Plan will catch the concern that I had. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, agree with the project. So I’m going to ask for a motion from Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stewart’s Shops Corporation / Chris Potter. Applicant proposes demolition of 4,711 sq. ft. existing building and construction of a 5,139 sq. ft. new convenience store (Stewart’s Shop) with gas island canopy and bank drive-thru canopy. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the CI and CLI zoning districts. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the new building and for the associated site improvements. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the CI zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes construction of a 5,139 sq. ft. building that is to be located 26 ft. from the front property line on Big Bay Rd where a 75 ft. setback is required. The 4,656 fuel canopy is to be located 62 ft. from the front property line on Big Bay Rd where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 16, 2019; 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. They have considered alternatives and because of the traffic flow within the site itself this is considered to be an improvement and will improve safety in the area, and it was also brought up during the public hearing that there were concerns about making left hand turns onto Corinth Road that can be addressed at the Planning Board level. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered already as reflected in the discussion tonight, and are reasonable, and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because even though it seems substantial by number it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Those have been mitigated with the stormwater management plan, the water’s going to be directed to the rear of the building. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-2-2019, STEWART’S SHOPS CORPORATION / CHRIS POTTER, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: th Duly adopted this 16 day of January 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. POTTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is Area Variance Z-AV-3-2019, Tracy Taylor, 21 Jay Road. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-3-2019 SEQRA TYPE II TRACY TAYLOR OWNER(S) WILLIAM ROURKE, SR. ZONING WR LOCATION 21 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 161.60 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED PORCH AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 161.60 SQ. FT. PORCH WITH COVERED 64 SQ. FT. BALCONY (UPPER STORY DECK). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA. CROSS REF SP 4-2019; AV 28-2017; SP 40- 2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-040 TRACY TAYLOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-3-2019, Tracy Taylor, Meeting Date: January 16, 2019 “Project Location: 21 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 161.60 sq. ft. enclosed porch and construct a new 161.60 sq. ft. porch with covered 64 sq. ft. balcony (upper story deck). Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a Critical Environmental Area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- WR zone The proposed addition is to be located 31.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing enclosed porch to the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 18.4 ft. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an enclosed porch area to construct the same size new enclosed porch with a covered balcony above. The plans show the existing porch and the elevations of the new porch with the balcony. The existing porch is 161.60 sq. ft. and the new porch is to be 161.60 sq. ft. with a 64 sq. ft. covered balcony.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and th that was passed unanimously on January 15, 2019. MR. MC CABE-How are you doing? MR. TAYLOR-Good evening. My name’s Tracy Taylor, and I’m the applicant. I’m in the process of purchasing a property from Bill Rourke on 21 Jay Road. It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming small front porch. That’s the picture of it right there. It’s in pretty much disrepair. It’s a seasonal porch. I’m proposing to essentially knock the porch down and demolish it, use the exact same footprint, put footings in and build a four season porch. It currently is around 31.8 feet on the right side as you’re looking at the picture from the lake and 38 feet on the left side as you’re looking at the picture. So it’s obviously not within the 50 foot setback. Further, you know I’ve had the building inspection. If you go to the next picture I think, you can’t see this, I’m sorry. I actually did this for the neighbors, to kind of let the neighbors know what I was doing, but I had a building inspection done on the property and it was recommended to either remove it or significant repairs on the seasonal porch. So I’m electing to remove it and do a proper porch. I’m also proposing to, above it, do a very small eight by eight deck, covered the deck. You can see here the master bedroom is right behind that. So I thought it would be nice and would be fitting with the nicer homes in that quadrant to be able to open that up a little bit off the master suite on the second floor. I think that it’s certainly going to enhance the neighborhood. That is probably the worst property in that area. It’s had a recent addition to it, and that front section is the old section, the old camp which has not been really tied to the new section, and I think this will tie the whole project together in my estimation. So that’s what I’m requesting a zoning variance for. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Why didn’t you go larger than eight by eight on that top deck there? MR. TAYLOR-It’s just my wife and I. MR. HENKEL-The other question is why did you not maybe put the steps on the side to give you more wall space on that, instead of putting a door in the middle? You’d think you’d be better off off to the side of that porch. MR. TAYLOR-This was basically the recommendation of the architect. MR. HENKEL-Because that would actually bring it a little bit, well actually that doesn’t have anything really to do with the setback. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) MR. TAYLOR-I mean actually your point is well taken. I’ve had discussions about not even putting, there’s on the left side of the building there’s other doors and my wife literally said why are you putting that there, you don’t need it, there’s another door over there. So it’s a good point. That’s why it’s there. MRS. HAMLIN-I was curious about that you. You’ve got an exit over here, but I know it has nothing to do with this, but you’re also proposing an additional garage added to the back, or not at this time? MR. TAYLOR-No. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. I saw it on the drawing. MR. TAYLOR-There was, in the variance that was provided to the seller, he has approval for an attached garage. MR. HENKEL-We worked on this a while ago. MR. TAYLOR-The attached garage was never constructed because after the fact he found out that the power lines were right over where he was going to construct the garage and he’s not able to construct it there. So there may be a point where I may come back to try to do a garage at some point, but that’s not part of my request. MRS. HAMLIN-I was just wondering where that stood. That’s all. Thanks. It’s attractive. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised for this project and so I’ll see, is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter? Seeing nobody, I’ll check with Roy and see if there’s any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. TAYLOR-Can I ask one question, to the point of this door in the middle of the porch. If I decide not to put that in, does that matter? MRS. MOORE-It’s reviewed by our Zoning Administrator and our Code Compliance Officer. If it’s considered significant, than it may come back before the Board. I’m not sure that removing a door would be considered significant. MR. HENKEL-I’d make that porch upstairs bigger, though. An eight by eight you’re not going to like. MR. TAYLOR-Thank you for the input. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I think I’ll poll the Board, and, Catherine, I think I’ll start with you. MRS. HAMLIN-If I could ask one more question, the 18.4, is my math wrong, is it not 19.4? MR. HENKEL-Well there’s two places, it’s 19.4 and then it’s 15.9, actually, there’s two corners. MRS. MOORE-It’s the worse corner. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. I’m good then. I think it’s not very much to ask for. Actually it’s hardly anything to ask for. MR. HENKEL-I’d ask for more. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, John, you can pass judgment on this. You’ve obviously got some opinions here. MR. HENKEL-No, I’m all for it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor. I appreciate that you’re using the existing footprint and it’s going to really be a nice addition to the neighborhood. MR. TAYLOR-I hope so. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I live down the lake from you and it’s always a pleasure to see somebody come in with a reasonable design and changes that are going to upgrade the older camps and not turn them into something that doesn’t fit on the lot. I think the minimum amount of relief from the shoreline is inconsequential. I would agree with the comments. I would have made the porch bigger all the way across the whole top. MR. TAYLOR-I was trying to be conservative. MR. MC CABE-See you’re paying for that. MR. HAMLIN-Can I say I like it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Roy, can we have your opinion? MR. URRICO-Well considering that we’re charged with providing the minimum relief, I’m in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-And I am, too. So at this particular point I’m going to ask Catherine to make a motion here. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tracy Taylor. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 161.60 sq. ft. enclosed porch and construct a new 161.60 sq. ft. porch with covered 64 sq. ft. balcony (upper story deck). Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a Critical Environmental Area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- WR zone The proposed addition is to be located 31.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 16, 2019; 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 minor to no impacts to the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties to be anticipated from this structure. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the location of the existing enclosed porch to the shoreline. 3. The requested variance would be considered minimal relative to the Code. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV 3-2019, TRACY TAYLOR, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this Wednesday, January 16, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. TAYLOR-Thank you, Board, I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-So is there any other items that anybody would like to talk about? So, Catherine, you realize that we’re not going to have Ron until probably after April. So you’re going to be in action, in case anybody else is missing, this is going to be a time when we could use you. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/16/2019) MRS. MOORE-So that information does show up on your e-mail if you’re checking your e- mails that indicates that we’re in need of members or things like that. So please remember to check your e-mails. MR. MC CABE-So with that I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MR. URRICO-I’ll second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 16, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman 18