Loading...
03-20-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2019 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 1-2018 Charles C. Freihofer, III 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1 & 27.2 Area Variance Z-AV-7-2019 Lynda A. Scurlock 2. Tax Map No. 308.12-2-35 Area Variance Z-AV-8-2019 Ronald Egnaczyk 7. Tax Map No. 279.17-2-14 Sign Variance SV-2-2019 Northway Outlets, LLC 11. Tax Map No. 288.-1-53 Area Variance Z-AV-10-2019 Fred Smith 18. Tax Map No. 308.11-1-41 & 42 Area Variance Z-AV-11-2019 Jeremy Entwistle & Cassie Leonard 23. Tax Map No. 265.-1-73.1 Area Variance Z-AV-12-2019 Christian & Eustacia Sander 28. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-19 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 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 HARRISON FREER RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. If you haven’t been here before, the procedure is simple. We have an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each case up. We’ll read it into the record. The applicant will be able to further explain their case. We’ll ask questions. If a public meeting has been advertised then we’ll open the public hearing, hear evidence from outside, and then we’ll do a polling of the Board to see how the applicant stands and then if applicable we’ll hold a vote. I’d like to point out to the applicants that tonight we are down a member. So we’re a little short, and so you can apply for a tabling, but you will get an idea of where you stand before we take a vote. So there’s not a lot of advantage to doing that. First we have to do a little bit of administrative work here. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 20, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: FURTHER TABLING – NOTICE OF APPEAL NOA 1-2018 CHARLES C. FREIHOFER, III (AGENT: JOHN W. CAFFRY) FOR PROPERTY AT 3300 STATE ROUTE 9L. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) RESOLUTION TO: Table Appeal No. 1-2018 , Charles C. Freihofer, III, Agent: John W. Caffry, Esq., regarding property owned by Dark Bay Properties, LLC & Lawrence A. Davis at 3300 State Route 9L, Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1 & 27.2; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an Appeal application from Charles C. Freihofer, III; Agent: John W. Caffry, Esq. The Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a June 26, 2018 form letter from the Zoning Administrator relative to the issuance of Site Plan Review approval 67-2017; Gregory Teresi. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2018 CHARLES C. FREIHOFER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Until the April 17, 2019 meeting. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our first applicant is Linda Scurlock. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-7-2019 SEQRA TYPE II LYNDA A. SCURLOCK OWNER(S) LYNDA A. SCURLOCK ZONING NR LOCATION 68 WISCONSIN AVENUE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN 344 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND A 100 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO HOME IN ITS CURRENT NONCOMPLIANT LOCATION. CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER PERMITS FROM THE TOWN. THE RECENT SALE/PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TRIGGERED THE REVIEW. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2004- 155 MOBILE HOME WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-35 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040 LINDA SCURLOCK, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-And, Roy, would you read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-7-2019, Lynda A. Scurlock, Meeting Date: March 20, 2019 “Project Location: 68 Wisconsin Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain 344 sq. ft. detached garage and a 100 sq. ft. residential addition to home in its current noncompliant location. Construction was completed by the previous owner without obtaining proper permits from the Town. The recent sale/purchase of the property has triggered the review. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts –dimensional requirement NR zone The applicant requests for the existing garage to remain 1.1 ft. from the south side yard and 0.2 ft. to the rear yard. The required side yard setback is 10 ft. and the rear yard is 15 ft. Relief is also requested for the 100 sq. ft. front addition to the home where the existing front setback is 19.4 ft. and required is 20 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the lot size, configuration of buildings on the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 8.9 ft. from the side yard setback and 14.8 ft. for the rear setback. The front setback relief is 0.6 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes no changes to the existing conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain the existing residential addition and the garage in the backyard that was constructed prior to the purchase. The applicant indicated that during the purchase of the home the garage did not receive the appropriate approvals for construction. Also, the addition to the front of the home was found to be non-compliant when the survey was completed; the addition was constructed without approvals. The applicant proposes no changes to the site and notes the garage is used primarily for storage as a car could not be stored due to the location on the property.” MR. MC CABE-Linda, how are you? MS. SCURLOCK-I’m good. How are you? MR. MC CABE-Good. Would you like to provide any further information? MS. SCURLOCK-Just, I found it very annoying, maybe, to have a knock on the door that all this stuff happened, and I thought it would have been covered by my realtor, their real estate agent before the sale. Just my comment. MR. MC CABE-Yes, sure. I imagine it would be kind of disturbing. So I guess do we have any questions of the applicant? Hearing no questions, I guess how long ago was the sale? th MS. SCURLOCK-The actual closing was on November 19 of 2018. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. MC CABE-Okay, and then when did they tell you? MS. SCURLOCK-A week or two later they came knocking on my door. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So a public hearing has been advertised. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular application? Seeing nobody, I’ll ask is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’ll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, I find it kind of annoying myself that she would be held responsible for something that was built before she owned the home, and even the question about being self-created. When she purchased the home she didn’t create the problem. So I would be in favor of the application. I’m not going to hold her liable for it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’m just going to ask a stupid question to Staff here. If she gets, of course if we approve this she’s going to have to get a building permit, right? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know that. That’s a Building and Codes issue. It most likely will be evaluated by Building and Codes. I don’t know if it requires a building permit. That’s not something that I evaluated at this time. MR. HENKEL-I was just wondering if she would have any legal grounds that she would be able to recoup her costs from the other people that owned it. Because that’s not fair if it wasn’t disclosed. You didn’t know it until, right? MS. SCURLOCK-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Yes, I have no problem with this. It isn’t here fault. If they came to us and asked for forgiveness for the project, the other people, I would probably tell them that I would not forgive them, but in this case I would say it’s acceptable. MR. MC CABE-Michelle, what are your thoughts? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I find your comment that this was annoying to be an understatement. MS. SCURLOCK-I was trying to be polite. MRS. HAYWARD-I guess my big question, and it really isn’t for you. It’s more of a rhetorical question, but what is the previous owner’s responsibility in all this? MS. SCURLOCK-He said then, I confronted him, I said do you have a survey and he said no, not a current survey. So I had to get the survey. Then I had to work with Staff and get all the paperwork done. I think the main thing was the survey because that’s so expensive and I don’t know I’m not a real estate attorney or a real estate agent, but I would think that 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) that would be part of their duties before they put a house on the market for sale, just my opinion. MRS. HAYWARD-I do agree with John. If this came before us, my opinion would be no, I wouldn’t approve such a substantial request, but under the circumstances, you did not create this, but my concern is for the lot next door. It seems to be vacant. Is that true? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. MRS. HAYWARD-To the south I think it is. MS. SCURLOCK-To the south there’s a man and his wife that live there. MRS. HAYWARD-And they own that other parcel? MS. SCURLOCK-They walk through it. I’ve seen them walk through it. MRS. HAYWARD-But if someone were to buy that property, that would create a real problem. So that’s my other concern that I have. MS. SCURLOCK-I understand. MRS. HAYWARD-So as it stands, the way it appears right now, and as it sits on the property within the neighborhood, I’m in favor of the project. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. The one setback is for .6 feet which I think is inconsequential. It’s close enough to the 20 foot setback. I think that when you look at the road, when you’re out on the road and you look at the setbacks with the right of way, it’s not into the right of way or anything like that. So I don’t know if there’s any issue with the Town road. And for us to come down on a new purchaser of a property because of something somebody has previously done, that’s not our purview. That’s not our point to do that. So I’d be willing to look the other way on this one. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. It’s a difficult one. I find the front setback extremely substantial, almost the entire amount, but I guess I would be concerned to make sure that, I don’t even know how it can be done after the fact, to make sure that you are in compliance with Building Code, with New York State Building Code, because it’s for your own protection. I think you should look into it with Staff to make sure that all inspections are done. It’s truly an unfortunate situation. So I guess I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I feel that you shouldn’t be held responsible for this, and so I would okay the application. So it sounds like you’re in pretty good shape here. So, Michelle, I’m going to ask for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lynda A. Scurlock. Applicant requests to maintain 344 sq. ft. detached garage and a 100 sq. ft. residential addition to home in its current noncompliant location. Construction was completed by the previous owner without obtaining proper permits from the Town. The recent sale/purchase of the property has triggered the review. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts –dimensional requirement NR zone 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) The applicant requests for the existing garage to remain 1.1 ft. from the south side yard and 0.2 ft. to the rear yard. The required side yard setback is 10 ft. and the rear yard is 15 ft. Relief is also requested for the 100 sq. ft. front addition to the home where the existing front setback is 19.4 ft. and required is 20 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 20, 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 because as it sits in its current state it fits with the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but there are no reasonable alternatives. As it stands the house and the garage has already been amended. 3. The requested variance is substantial but under the circumstances discussed tonight in the meeting and will be reflected in the minutes we are willing to look the other way under the circumstances. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not 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-7-2019, LYNDA A. SCURLOCK, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MS. SCURLOCK-Thank you. Thank you for your time and all your hard work, Laura. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next applicant is Ronald Egnaczyk. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-8-2019 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD EGNACZYK AGENT(S) DAVID HUTCHINSON OWNER(S) RONALD EGNACZYK ZONING WR LOCATION 114 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 124 SQ. FT. ONE-STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION WITH CRAWL SPACE TO AN EXISTING 738 SQ. FT. HOME. THE HOME HAS A FLOOR AREA OF 1,321 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSES 1,445 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SEP 780-2018 (SEPTIC PERMIT); BOH 36, 2018 (SEPTIC VARIANCE APPROVAL BY TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-2-14 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVE HUTCHINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUTCHINSON-I’m Dave Hutchinson. The owner is here as well if you have any questions for him. MR. MC CABE-Roy, would you read the application into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-8-2019, Ronald Egnaczyk, Meeting Date: March 20, 2019 “Project Location: 114 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 124 sq. ft. one-story residential addition to an existing 738 sq. ft. home. The home has a floor area of 1,321 sq. ft. and proposes 1,445 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts The new construction of 124 sq. ft. addition is to be located 10 ft. 2.5 in from the side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. The project also proposes a floor area of 27.9% where 22% is the maximum allowed, existing is 25.5%. 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 project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home, lot size and location of the septic. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 1.79 ft. and the floor area is 5.9% in excess of the maximum allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add 124 sq. ft. of living space to the first floor 738 sq. ft. home for additional living space. The plans show the location of the addition on the east side of the home. There are no changes to the site.” MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add? MR. HUTCHINSON-In the packet that you were all given, and thank you very much for your time this evening, we included that when the owner first had the idea to create this addition for just some more living space on their home with grandchildren and family and what not, that we discovered the sewer didn’t meet today’s requirements and they made the very good decision to upgrade their sewer. As a part of it we’ve included in the packet that they’ve been approved for that and have a permit to do so, and they’ll be doing that sort of first. The hope is to build, re-do the sewer and build the addition, you know, spring into summer and have it ready by the end of the season. So I wanted to point that out. Essentially we’re going just a little bit over the setback. Included in the packet as well, they have spoken to the neighbor that borders in particular, and they didn’t have any issue with that. They state they don’t have any issue with that. The property, if we could look at it like on Google Earth or whatever, it lends itself well for this addition to be there. With stone walls and the separation of the homes on this particular side, it works out well to be there. The reason we’re going over the setback is just to give the room that we’re creating enough space to be sort of worthwhile. If we make it shortened up and longer it has less use for furniture, etc. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? MR. HUTCHINSON-I think that’s about it. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a quick question. Isn’t that property across the street also yours, theirs? MR. HUTCHINSON-Yes, it is. MR. HENKEL-Why isn’t that included in the 10,000? MRS. MOORE-It’s a separate lot. MR. HENKEL-It is? It’s a deeded separate? MR. HUTCHINSON-Correct. MRS. MOORE-Yes. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. HENKEL-So that wasn’t thought of to bring the septic to the other side of the road? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have anything to do with the septic. MR. HENKEL-That was passed by the Board of Health, but I just thought that would be the ideal thing, to bring the septic to the other property. MR. HUTCHINSON-I think the issue there, in this particular property, you have the road and then it steps down to the, let’s say the front yard and then the home and then to the road and then the other property is even more uphill. MR. HENKEL-Yes, it is, but it would be farther away from the lake. I’m just thinking about the quality of the lake. MR. HUTCHINSON-Sure. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-I was wondering, this isn’t for the applicant necessarily, but what was the required permeability for this district? MRS. MOORE-It’s 75% MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Do we have any idea where these guys are at? MR. HENKEL-We really didn’t have anything about permeability in our packets. MRS. HAMLIN-No. MR. HENKEL-At least I didn’t see any. Craig didn’t put it as a concern, but we don’t know it. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Do you know it? MR. HUTCHINSON-On the plan, on our plan S-1, the permeable area is 78.6%. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So it’s over the 75 by three percent. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? A public hearing is advertised so I’ll open the public hearing at this particular time and ask if there’s anybody in the audience who has questions of the applicant? Seeing nobody, I’ll ask if we have any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comments. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll close the public hearing at this particular time and I’ll poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’ll ask Catherine what her thoughts are. MRS. HAMLIN-I would say I’m in favor of it. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it’s important for us to recognize like on Lake Sunnyside almost all these lots are tiny. This is a .12 acre lot, but I think that we’re increasing the FAR by 2.4%, but at the same time we are getting a brand new state of the art septic system being put in, which is going to be an improvement over what currently exists on the site. I think that when you look at the modest size of the homes, a little over 700 square feet, it’s a very small place. It’s not a huge increase. It is an increase. I think we should be concerned with that, but at the same time I think the benefit to the applicant and the benefit to the lake with the new septic system outweighs our concerns that we have. I would grant the relief necessary. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement as well. I support the project. I think it’s a minimal request. Personally I think it’s going to improve the character of the neighborhood as well. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, generally I’m not in favor of projects like this as far as being on a lake like that. When you start to mess with the FAR variance, 306 feet over the FAR variance, but the character of the neighborhood, it does fit. So I would be on board with the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-On balance, I’m not thrilled about the Floor Area variance, but on balance I think I’d come down on the plus side of the project. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And so from my point of view the real thing that we’re being asked to do was to approve the Floor Area Ratio and in return we’re getting a new septic system which will be registered. So I think that’s a fair trade. So I’d be in favor of the project. So I’m going to ask for a motion from Catherine here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald Egnaczyk. Applicant proposes construction of a 124 sq. ft. one-story residential addition to an existing 738 sq. ft. home. The home has a floor area of 1,321 sq. ft. and proposes 1,445 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and Floor Area Ratio requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts The new construction of 124 sq. ft. addition is to be located 10 ft. 2.5 in from the side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. The project also proposes a floor area of 27.9% where 22% is the maximum allowed, existing is 25.5%. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 20, 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: 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives, given the size of the lots in that area, there are no reasonable feasible alternatives. 3. The requested variance is somewhat substantial but based upon the other criteria, measured against that, that’s taken into account. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact perhaps the upgrade of the addition to the existing will be an improvement to the environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created obviously. 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-8-2019 RONALD EGNACZYK, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. HUTCHINSON-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Northway Outlets, LLC, Z-SV-2-2019. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2019 NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ., BPSR OWNER(S) NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF TWO WALL SIGNS, EACH 61.1 SQ. FT. FOR A TENANT (OLD NAVY EXPRESS) WHO WILL BE LEASING A STORE (SPACE 100) ON THE CORNER OF THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS FOR A TENANT IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF SV 56-2014; SV 32-2014 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2019 LOT SIZE 6.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-53 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER & COREY SHANUS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. MC CABE-Roy, would you read that into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2019, Northway Outlets, LLC, Meeting Date: March 20, 2019 “Project Location: 1415 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of two wall signs, each 61.1 sq. ft. for a tenant (Old Navy Express) who will be leasing a store (Space 100) on the corner of the Outlets at Lake George West. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a business complex. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a business complex. Section 140 –Signs The applicant proposes two wall signs for a tenant space that faces Route 9 and the interior of the shopping center. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for an additional wall sign where only one wall sign per tenant in a business complex is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes two wall signs at 61.1 sq. ft. to be located on each side of a tenant space at the Lake George Outlets West. The plans provided show the requested sign for relief at the interior of the Plaza.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Corey Shanus, one of the principals of the owner. Just to start off with a little bit of historical perspective, and I know that most of you are aware of this because we’ve been before you on this project for about six years. Corey purchased the Montcalm property, former Montcalm and also 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) the Outlet across the street and hired an architectural firm from Baltimore that is renown in the outlet business, and they came up here, looked around, looked at The Sagamore and said that would be the theme for both this center and the one across the street that we all think of as the Polo center, one of the prominent tenants. So that got re-done in the same style as this. His business philosophy all along has been to wait for important quality tenants rather than to just lease it up with smaller local tenants because when you get somebody good they can often be there for 10 or 20 years. So it’s been a number of years. This space that we’re talking about for Old Navy has been vacant the whole time. I think he had a Halloween store there for a few years, seasonally for a few weeks, but he was waiting for the right tenant and Old Navy is the right tenant. Because this space is corner space the front door faces north, faces the parking lot. We’re here asking for the second variance on the east side which faces Route 9. If you get off the Northway and you’re heading north you wouldn’t see the front door sign because it faces north. So it’s important certainly in that corridor with all the traffic to get people that are looking for Old Navy to understand where they’re going, but the best arguments in favor of granting this variance are that this store at over 12,200 square feet encompasses three storefronts. So easily this could have been three stores, three smaller stores, a few thousand square feet, like most of the stores in all the outlets and there would have been three signs, but the two signs that we’re asking for, because the Queensbury Sign Code allows you to, the size of the sign increases by the distance to the road, there could have been one sign on the front that would have exceeded the square footage of both of these two. So they could, without a variance, have one larger sign, but it obviously wouldn’t be in keeping with the architecture of the plaza. This matches the size and the shape of most of the other signs, but we think appropriate because of the size, because of the distance to the road, and really it just doesn’t look good to have a whole façade that doesn’t have a sign on it. That certainly on the 12,000 square foot leased property to have that, the front without a sign, would look a little unbalanced. So Corey came up here from Westchester because it’s important that we get this for the tenant to answer any questions, but I hope you’ll see that under these circumstances, although you’re always careful about Sign Variances, that he’s not asking for too much for a store of this size. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes. Would you consider the sign facing the north to be a little bit smaller? I mean once you’re in the parking lot, I understand the one on the main road facing 9, I kind of understand the size of that, but I don’t really understand the size of the one facing the north that’s facing the parking lot, sign type two. MR. LAPPER-Yes. So the two signs together are really in keeping with the size of the other sign areas in the plaza. So it just kind of looks more balanced. This is the one that you’re talking about, John, and look on the size of the façade, it’s really not anything that anybody would consider out of character. It just matches the other signs. MR. SHANUS-I’ll also add that this is a very big store, and just having that one sign the size that we’re requesting is still going to look very small. When we put Michael Kors across the street, it’s a similar configuration, and we get a lot of comments from people saying you have that sign there facing the parking lot, and it’s a long way to Vera Bradley and isn’t there somewhere in between, and we say no that’s our sign there. We have the other one. That’s just the way the center was built, and it’s a fair question, but respectfully I’m saying that it was, even at the size it’s at it’s going to look small. MR. LAPPER-This is that façade. MR. HENKEL-I think across the street we actually downsized. Didn’t you come to us for a sign there? That side sign we got smaller. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. MC CABE-I can’t see the size they are now. So I’d vote for them to be bigger. Don’t ask me. MR. HENKEL-I’ll admit the one on Route 9, when you go by those strip signs with all the different stores there, they’re kind of hard to read. That’s small. MR. SHANUS-We’re trying to find the nice aesthetic balance, and I don’t recall what happened with that Kors sign. You can check obviously but I’m just saying the feedback we’re gotten since it’s been up is that if people had a choice, it just looks small. So we think that given this is a very, very large store and there’s going to be nothing there until we get something in the vacant store right now, it’s going to look, we think, very appropriate. MR. URRICO-Do you find through your research that people are using the signs to locate the stores or are they already knowledgeable about where they’re heading using Google maps or something? MR. SHANUS-We find in fact, this is not funny, but Adidas doesn’t have a second sign up and we had an incident where somebody was looking for it and ran into a pole. I mean you can’t make this stuff up that the way the center is for the end cap stores that when you’re heading north to south, like for Adidas it’s on the other side. So when you’re heading south you have a sign band there with nothing on it and you can’t see it and we actually had an incident where somebody had an accident trying to find it. So the answer is yes, it really does make a difference. This one with Old Navy, part of our push to get this, and we did wait a long time to trying to bring the right brands in here, we’re saying you come right in off the Northway, you’re at Old Navy, they’re going to say you don’t have a sign. How is anyone going to know where Old Navy is? It’s a hard sell for us with a tenant. MR. URRICO-And the other question I have is you said this occupies three storefronts. All right, Old Navy decides to move after a few years, what happens with those storefronts? They all require a sign. MR. LAPPER-So that’s a good question, because under the Code they would be separate tenants so they would be able to have three signs, but if Old Navy took less space we could just get a sign permit for another sign right on that façade because it would be a different store. There really could be three. MR. HENKEL-The other thing is why did they have to have the outlet? Wasn’t there always an Old Navy, when it was in the Mall? MR. LAPPER-Not to distinguish, but you’re not competing with your Mall stores. This is an Old Navy outlet store. MR. HENKEL-It adds quite a bit to the sign. MR. LAPPER-It does, but it’s a different brand, if you will because they have the Old Navy store, still, in Wilton Mall. MR. SHANUS-It’s also a different market or a different customer base. It’s mixed in. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing no other questions, there is a public hearing advertised tonight, and so I’ll open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience who has any input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, I’ll see if we have any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’ll close the public hearing and I’ll seek opinions from the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. I’m in favor, which surprises me because usually I’m not in favor of Sign Variances. I think the request you’re making has been really thought out and also the size in keeping with the size of the building façade, but my question, I have to ask like Roy, because I’m just concerned, in the future, with the variance running with the property, would it be possible if we were to make the proposal here, could we condition the variance to revert back to Code if Old Navy were to vacate the three storefronts? MR. HENKEL-They’d have to come anyway, right, new place? MRS. MOORE-No, not necessarily, but you’re saying maybe potentially a new tenant having access to the signs. You can. MR. URRICO-I think the only question would be if the corner store would possibly have signs on both sides. MRS. MOORE-And so does that come back to this Board. Yes, you could make that a condition that if a new tenant were to request the same that that new tenant would have to come back to this Board. You can make that a condition. I mean, otherwise what the applicant is saying, if there were three storefronts there’s three tenants, so they could all still have three signs. So I’m not certain it achieves what you’re looking for. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So you’re in favor? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I am. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I think as Mr. Lapper explained having three storefronts there, I agree with needing the sign, especially since the signs on Route 9 are really small. You got to be up to them to see who’s in there. So I agree with the application. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m pretty tough on signs usually, but in this case it makes too much sense not to give it a variance. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think given the square footage of the operation, it’s going to be sort of an anchor store in the plaza there. Essentially you have two frontages, the interior one and the one facing Route 9. I think your argument makes perfect sense that you have the two signs. I don’t think the signs are oversized. I think they’re reasonable for what it is, and I’m not really concerned about the future because it’s hopeful that a tenant like this will be a long term tenant, not somebody that’s just going to come and go. Given the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) state of retail now, everybody has their fingers crossed on that one. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Kind of just getting back to Michelle’s point. So anytime a new store comes in their old signs are required to be removed anyway and new signs for the new businesses are requested. MRS. MOORE-They won’t necessarily come back to this Board for review. They’re all permitted. MRS. HAMLIN-Unless they ask for a variance of some sort. Right. MRS. MOORE-Right. MRS. HAMLIN-But generally speaking old signs are subject to removal if businesses vacate? MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. I’ve seen plenty of signs stick around. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, as you say the aggregate is less than what you could have had with the maximum sign. I’m not necessarily in favor of this Board worrying about the future, though, particularly tying it to a particular tenant. I don’t think that’s advisable since the variance is actually granted to the property and not to the occupant. So it would be hard to tie that to them, but I’d be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Jim to make a motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MRS. MOORE-You need to complete SEQR. MR. MC CABE-I do. I was in err here, so hold on just a second. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2019 NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC (OLD NAVY EXPRESS) BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So now, Jim, I’ll ask you to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Northway Outlets, LLC (Old Navy Express) for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to: Applicant proposes placement of two wall signs, each 61.1 sq. ft. for a tenant (Old Navy Express) who will be leasing a store (Space 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 100) on the corner of the Outlets at Lake George West. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a tenant in a business complex. Section 140 –Signs –Commercial Intensive Zone The applicant proposes two wall signs for a tenant space that faces Route 9 and the interior of the shopping center. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-2-2019 Northway Outlets, LLC (Old Navy Express) based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 20, 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? We do not find that there will be any undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of this sign variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The Board recognizes that there are essentially two storefronts here, one facing Route 9 and one facing the interior plaza, and we’re comfortable with both of the additional signage to identify where the store is, especially for traffic traveling north on Route 9. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I would say yes it is because it’s an extra sign, but it’s not out of the ordinary as far as what we have already granted relief for on this corridor. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We do not think so. The sign is in keeping with the size limits as proposed. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is self-created, but it’s also created by the setbacks from Route 9 and it makes sense to identify where stores are so people don’t have to look over their shoulders to see where it is, especially traveling north. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; As far as traffic flow goes it makes more sense for people to understand where things are, not see them retrospectively and slam on their brakes or do a U Turn. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-2-2019 NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC (OLD NAVY EXPRESS), Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. MR. SHANUS-Thanks very much. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is Fred Smith. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-10-2019 SEQRA TYPE II FRED SMITH AGENT(S) VANDUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) FRED SMITH ZONING MDR LOCATION 354 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,536 SQ. FT. SINGLE- FAMILY HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,200 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE. PARCELS ARE TO BE MERGED AS PART OF PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE NUMBER OF GARAGES. CROSS REF NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1 ACRE; 4.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-41 & 42 SECTION 179-5-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-10-2019, Fred Smith, Meeting Date: March 20, 2019 “Project Location: 354 Luzerne Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,536 sq. ft. single-family home with an attached garage and construction of a 1,200 sq. ft. second garage. Parcels are to be merged as part of project. Relief requested for the number of garages. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the number of garages in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures -garages The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with an attached garage and a second detached garage where only one garage is allowed. 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 project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring 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. The feasible alternatives may be considered to build a larger attached garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second detached garage and to construct a single family home with an attached garage. The applicant has indicated there are two existing parcels that are to be combined for a total lot size of 5.51 ac.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little, O’Connor & Borie. I represent the applicant, Fred Smith. He is here at the table with me. Basically this is an Area Variance for a second garage. The property is unique in the sense that it’s going to be a single family home for Mr. Smith and his family and it’s 4.51 acres. The two parcels that we’re talking about combining is the driveway parcel if you will, which is approximately an acre, and the back parcel which gives us a total of 4.51 acres for the site. This garage is going to be for storage of his toys or his yard equipment. It’s not going to be used for commercial purposes. We know that. He is actually an excavator and he rents 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) space over on the other side of the Northway for his trucks and his equipment over there. He has a convertible, two convertibles that he doesn’t drive in the wintertime. He wants them basically under storage. He has snowmobiles and he has other items of that nature and he needs an area for storage. The garage as we’ve shown it here is 100 foot setback from any property line. So it’s not going to have any impact on any neighbors, and just the size of the lot allows us to make sure that that’s not going to happen. I mean he may shift it a little bit but I can tell you that it won’t be any closer to any boundary than 100 feet, and the reason I say that is the surveyor actually put it there without any real consultation as to exactly where it is or not. He may want it closer to his house because it’s used in connection with the single family home. The garage is not going to have power. It’s not going to have water. It’s not going to have septic. It’s going to be simply for storage of his personal property. I don’t know why you don’t have power. I would want it to have some lights out there. I mean it’s a long way to run underground power. FRED SMITH MR. SMITH-The power line’s already $10,000 from the road to the house. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. He may have candles. We agree with the Staff comments. We don’t think it has any significant impact on the neighborhood, the environment. We think that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the potential for any impact to the community or the neighborhood. If you have any question Mr. Smith is prepared to answer them, or I can answer them. MR. MC CABE-I just have a quick question for Staff. What’s the maximum size of a garage in Queensbury? MRS. MOORE-I think it’s 1200 but it depends on its lot size. Hold on. MR. HENKEL-I thought you could have a 2400, wasn’t it? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look it up. MR. HENKEL-Because he’s got five acres. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it’s a larger size based on the. MR. HENKEL-Is that all Mr. Loveland’s property, or just the front property, that one acre? Okay. MR. SMITH-That was Mr. Loveland’s property. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you owned the property behind it at one time? MR. SMITH-No, I bought them altogether. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Was it landlocked, then? MR. SMITH-Yes, it was. MR. HENKEL-Okay, because I know that was Mr. Loveland’s property. MRS. MOORE-2,200. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So that was my question. Do we have questions of the applicant? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. URRICO-I have a question for Mr. O’Connor. If he wanted, if he didn’t combine the two properties, he could put a garage on each property, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Then you’d have to drive through the garage to get to the back property. MR. URRICO-But technically speaking he could. MRS. MOORE-You’d need a variance. It’s considered accessory without a principal. MR. URRICO-What I’m saying is that by combining the two lots, that makes it one building lot and that requires one garage, but if there were two separate lots, technically there could be two garages, one on each property. MR. O'CONNOR-We could do a boundary line adjustment between the two tax maps and have them be separate parcels. You probably then would have a question of having road frontage, which would be another reason for a variance. So I think it’s better off if we do it this way and just come in and say we would like to have two garages on this large parcel. MR. HENKEL-You did a nice job with that road and everything. You put that through there with the light and everything. It looks good. Better than what was there. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-I don’t mean to be obsessed about permeability, but are these numbers correct? Because that’s a huge lot and yet from this worksheet that was submitted it says the required is 50 and existing is 82.7. MRS. MOORE-For MDR, yes. MRS. HAMLIN-And the proposed is 99.5 MRS. MOORE-I agree, they don’t sound right. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. HENKEL-There’s really good drainage. That’s all pure sand up there, too. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, on this huge lot. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So we do have a public hearing scheduled tonight. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience who wants to comment on this particular project. Seeing nobody I’m going to ask, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Jim. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think, you know, when you look at such a classic flag lot here, you know, with the access being so long and so far off the road to where the house is proposed, I don’t think anybody is every going to even see what’s back there or what the purpose of it all is. It’s very private. It’s much larger than any other large, even some of the larger lots we’ve approved similar requests for in Town. It’s understandable why he wants a second large garage and I don’t think it’s going to be any kind of detriment to the community or anybody else. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would be in favor as well. I mean people are building houses with three car garages now. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I think he needs a bigger garage. It’s not going to be big enough. So I’ll go for it. I’ll approve it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as well. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am in favor of the project. So, Jim, I’m going to ask for a motion. MR. O'CONNOR-Do we also understand that we may re-locate that garage within the site, and we will have a minimum setback from any sideline of 100 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would imagine no matter where you place the garage on that site that it would create no problems as long as you’re outside the setbacks as necessary. We would recognize that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Fred Smith. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,536 sq. ft. single-family home with an attached garage and construction of a 1,200 sq. ft. second garage. Parcels are to be merged as part of project. Relief requested for the number of garages. Section 179-5-020 –Accessory structures –garages MDR zone The applicant proposes to construct a single family home with an attached garage and a second detached garage where only one garage is allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 20, 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: 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this parcel is very large compared to everything else in the neighborhood. There was no concern voiced by any nearby neighbors who are on the property lines of this property. The Board recognizes that we’ve had similar requests for second garages and on large parcels we usually grant the same request. 2. As far as feasible alternatives, the Board considered the fact of maybe not having a second garage, but on such a large parcel no one would really notice it’s there and there seems to be a defined need for the garage for equipment and other hobbies. 3. The requested variance is considered to be substantial because it is a second garage and it’s quite a large garage, but it’s not an out of the ordinary request for a second large garage on such a large piece of property. 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 because they want a second garage. 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-10-2019 FRED SMITH, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-I want to thank the applicant for marking the lot. A lot of times on those new ones you can’t really tell where it’s at but you did a nice job. MR. SMITH-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next applicant is Jeremy Entwistle & Cassie Leonard. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-11-2019 SEQRA TYPE II JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD AGENT(S) LUCAS DOBIE, PE – HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1434 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 54.8 ACRE PARCEL. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) LOT 1 TO BE 51.8 ACRES AND TO CONTAIN THE EXISTING HOME, POLE BARN, AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. LOT 2 PROPOSED TO BE VACANT AND SALEABLE FOR A FUTURE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH ACCESS TO BAY ROAD VIA PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. LOT 2 PROPOSED PROPOSES A LOT WIDTH/ROAD FRONTAGE OF 400 FT. ON BAY ROAD (REGIONAL ARTERIAL ROAD (BAY ROAD). PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW REQUIRED FOR AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR LAND DISTURBANCES GREATER THAN 15,000 SQ. FT. AND WITHIN 50 FT. OF A 15 PERCENT SLOPE; MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT CROSS REF SB 1- 2019; SP 67-2013; AV 62-2013; SB 14-2006 O’REILLY; WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY MARCH 2019 LOT SIZE 54.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73.1 SECTION 179-19-020 B LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-11-2019, Jeremy Entwistle & Cassie Leonard, Meeting Date: March 20, 2019 “Project Location: 1434 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 54.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 51.8 acres and to contain the existing home, pole barn, and private driveway. Lot 2 proposed to be 3.0 ac vacant and saleable for a future single-family home with access to Bay Road via private driveway. Lot 2 proposes a lot width / road frontage of 400 ft. on Bay Road (Regional Arterial Road) where 800 ft. is required. Relief requested from double-the-lot frontage or shared driveway requirement for lots created on a Regional Arterial Road (Bay Road). Planning Board: Subdivision review required for an approved subdivision and Major Stormwater Project Relief Required: The applicant requests from double-the-lot width or shared driveway requirement for lots created on a Regional Arterial Road (Bay Road). Section 179-19-020B Residential Lots on a collector or arterial road in the RR3ac zone The applicant proposes 400 ft. road frontage for lot 2 where an 800 ft. road frontage is required for Bay 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring 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. The feasible alternatives may be considered to have a shared driveway although it may create additional land disturbance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is 400 ft. In addition, the project as proposed meets all other dimensional requirements. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where Lot 2 is to be 3.0 Ac with a proposed new home. The project is located on Bay Road that requires shared driveways or double the road frontage (required is 400 ft.). The applicant proposes 400 ft. of road frontage with construction of a single family home that meets the dimensional requirements of the Rural Residential 3 ac zone. The plans show the location of the proposed home and the existing home.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review adopted a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current th project proposal, and that was passed on March 19, 2019 by a unanimous vote. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board, and thank you for that, Mr. Urrico, reading that in. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. With me one of the applicants, Jeremy Entwistle, and they purchased the property last summer, moved up from West Virginia with their family, and pretty simple project for what we’re used to. We’re looking to, we’re in a three acre zone looking to create a new, saleable three acre building lot. We’re able to meet all of our setbacks, our density. It’s a beautiful piece of land of 55 acres, and the three acre lot has relatively moderate slopes and good soils and we’re here to ask for relief from that double the lot width requirement which would force us to have 800 feet of width which would essentially create a rotated flag lot if you will where you’d have a significant tail for the proposed new lot along Bay Road and really cannibalize their house lot. So we’re here to ask for the relief to hold to just over 400 feet of road frontage where if we weren’t on Bay Road we’d be a totally compliant lot, and we looked at several alternatives and really the only feasible, or it’s not even all that feasible, but the only way to avoid our variance would be to share a driveway somewhere centered between the two parcels, but to do that we’d have to create a whole new leg for the driveway to their own house which would add about 300 more feet of new driveway through the woods. So it would be significantly more land disturbance. We propose the new lot to have its own simple road cut and there’s I believe double the lot width, the theory behind it is to avoid a lot of driveways stacked up on each other. Totally understandable. With how we propose it we’d have 600 feet plus between the applicant’s driveway and the new lot’s driveway and then approximately 425 feet to the next driveway farther north. So we’re comfortable that we’re not overloading Bay Road with road cuts here and it’s pretty straightforward I believe and we’re here to ask for your approval for the variance and if we’re successful we’re going to proceed with a full stormwater plan to the Major criteria and work it through the Planning Board so we can have a saleable lot. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there any anticipation of doing anything else with the back 40 that’s not developed or is that, because you’ve got the wetland and it kind of drops down in the back there, topographically. JEREMY ENTWISTLE MR. ENTWISTLE-This is pretty much, we believe, we don’t really have a whole lot of interest in selling any more land off. We’re hoping to have some family come live close to us and 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) have our kids grow up together. It’s basically due to, in speaking with Lucas, this is going to kind of shut off the rest of the property to any additional activity. On the other side of our driveway it kind of drops down towards a ravine. There’s nothing really buildable on that side. It’s kind of steep and marshy. This was really our only opportunity for that, and I believe that will pretty much close it off because our driveway where it is, there’s really no other way back there in terms of the driveway. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing is advertised for this evening, and so at this particular time I’ll open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak with regards to this project. Seeing no one, I’ll ask is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-At this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And, Roy, I’m going to ask for your opinion on this project. MR. URRICO-Yes. I see this as a good project. I think 400 feet’s plenty for that location anyway. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I think what Roy said is right. That amount of road frontage, and I think it’s better than shared driveways, better neighbors that way. So I’d be on board with it as is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I agree with my Board members and I appreciate your creating a three acre compliant lot. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I’m basically in favor of this, too. I think given the fact that you’re going to have such a long drive it’s going to be kind of a pain because you’re going to have to plow it in the wintertime to get in there but you’re trying to achieve what the distances are between driveways and your close enough. MR. MC CABE-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. MR. MC CABE-And I too support the project. I think it’s well thought out. I think the applicant has done a good job. So with that I’m going to ask Michelle for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeremy Entwistle & Cassie Leonard. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 54.8 acre parcel. Lot 1 to be 51.8 acres and to contain the existing home, pole barn, and private driveway. Lot 2 proposed to be 3.0 ac vacant and saleable for a future single-family home with access to Bay Road via private driveway. Lot 2 proposes a lot width / road frontage of 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 400 ft. on Bay Road (Regional Arterial Road) where 800 ft. is required. Relief requested from double-the-lot frontage or shared driveway requirement for lots created on a Regional Arterial Road (Bay Road). Planning Board: Subdivision review required for an approved subdivision and Major Stormwater Project. Section 179-19-020B Residential Lots on a collector or arterial road in the RR3ac zone The applicant proposes 400 ft. road frontage for lot 2 where an 800 ft. road frontage is required for Bay Road SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 20, 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. As reflected in the discussion this evening they’re creating a compliant lot and also the 400 feet of relief, although it appears substantial, really is not. It does fit in with the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and thoughtfully so, and they were not considered feasible because of the potential disturbance in the surrounding land. 3. The requested variance is not considered substantial and that’s reflected in the minutes as well. 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-11-2019 JEREMY ENTWISTLE & CASSIE LEONARD, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. DOBIE-Thank you guys. MR. ENTWISTLE-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Christian and Eustacia Sander. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-12-2019 SEQRA TYPE II CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER AGENT(S) TOM HUTCHINS – HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER ZONING WR LOCATION 98 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 682 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION/GARAGE. THE EXISTING 254 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE WILL BE REMOVED ALONG WITH A 63 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 13-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY MARCH 2019 LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-12-2019, Christian & Eustacia Sander, Meeting Date: March 20, 2019 “Project Location: 98 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 682 sq. ft. residential addition / garage. The existing 254 sq. ft. detached garage will be removed along with a 63 sq. ft. accessory structure. Relief requested from minimum setbacks, permeability, and Floor Area Ratio requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setbacks, permeability, and Floor Area Ratio requirements in the Waterfront Residential Zone. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes a 682 sq. ft. garage addition that is to be located 22.3 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required and 2.0 to the east side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project also requires permeability relief where 70.39% is proposed and 75% is required. The Floor area ratio relief requested is for 43% where 22% is the maximum allowed, existing 39.2% 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 to be limited as the existing home does not meet the required setback. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The permeability relief is 4.61 % less than required. Relief requested for front setback at 7.7 ft. and side setback of 18 ft. Floor area relief of 21% in excess. Note the Floor area and Building area definition in 1998 were slightly different than the current definitions and calculation. The prior-owners were granted a Floor area relief for the proposed 2,670 sq. ft. home that exceeded the Floor area ratio of 22% based on a lot size of 10,200 sq. ft. –per minutes of 2/18/98. 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: The applicant proposes to construct a 682 sq. ft. garage addition to their existing home. The project includes the removal of the existing detached garage and a shed. The applicant intends to install permeable pavers and plantings along the shoreline and north property line. The addition will allow the garage to be attached to the main home with access to the basement from the interior of the garage – currently the access to the basement is exterior. The new garage is to have a storage in a section of the rafters less than 5 ft.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and th that motion was adopted on March 19, 2019 by a unanimous vote. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name’s Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury. I’m here with applicants Chris and Stacia Sander. As described in the application, the Sanders propose to remove an existing one car garage and the exterior tool shed and replace it with a two car garage that would be attached to the residence. In doing so they would take what is presently an eight foot front setback to an existing garage and move that back to nearly 20 feet so actually we’re increasing the distance of the structure from the road substantially and I hope you had a chance to look at it because the garage is very close to the road. There’s not room to even put a car in front of the garage, between the garage and the road, and this will improve on that condition substantially and we’re asking for relief from that front setback still because we’re not quite able to maintain the 30 feet, but again we’ve improved it substantially. We’re also asking for side setback relief. The current tool shed is a foot and a half from the southerly property line. With this proposal we’re able to increase that, although modestly, to a two foot setback on that south side line and that’s simply because of constraints of the lot and there is a septic system which was designed, installed, permitted in 2010 which is a fully compliant system. However that limits us from moving the garage any further to the north along the parcel. Permeability, we’re presently slightly over 75% permeability and we would be increasing that modestly by three and a half percent. The other relief we’re asking for has to do with Floor Area Ratio, and as Laura mentioned this Floor Area Ratio, it sounds like a substantial request. However we ask you to keep in mind that within that Floor Area Ratio is a full basement under this building that is truly an old time basement. It’s high enough to be considered floor area. However within the basement there is a furnace. There is a fuel oil tank and there is a water pump and it has moisture issues. It is not living space by any means. It won’t be. The only access to this basement is through a bilco door from outside the house. There’s no interior stairway. They don’t propose any interior stairway, although the way we’ve laid out the attached garage it would encompass that bilco door. So you would actually enter the basement from within the garage with the revised proposal. We’ve incorporated permeable hard surfacing wherever possible, both in the driveway and replace some 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) walkways in order to minimize our hard surfacing as much as we can. We’ve shown planting areas. Stacia’s a gardener and she has buffer plantings along the shoreline now. I tried to get you guys a picture of that but it was just snow. So we have shown plantings along the shoreline which are there and we’ve shown extending the plantings along the north parcel line, and anything you folks want to add? CHRISTIAN SANDER MR. SANDER-The plantings we’re going to beef up with mulch, fresh mulch and everything, down along the lakeshore, entire lakeshore. STACIA SANDER MRS. SANDER-And incorporate as many native plants that are good for erosion control as we can. I do work with a women who owns Jessecology and she’s a native landscaper and so I will get most of my plants through her. MR. SANDER-And in the basement there’s no plumbing, no sink, nothing at all. It’s just cement floors with some insulation up higher and just nothing but storage. It does get wet during those timeframe that we have heavy rain. It’s not wet all the time but it does get wet seeping through the walls. MR. UNDERWOOD-Currently year round use? MR. SANDER-Yes. This is our full time home. It’s planned to be our retirement home basically long term. MRS. SANDER-We decided on the attached garage after I broke my foot last year and realized that walking in a cast in the snow from the car to the house was a little challenging and I started thinking about my age. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions of the applicants? MRS. HAMLIN-I thought I saw in here that those were going to be removed, the revised plans? MR. HUTCHINS-No. I don’t believe, if we showed the bilco doors were being removed, no. In the table, if you look at the numbers in the table it looks like they’re being removed because they will be under cover of the new building. So that bilco number came out of the site development data. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. HENKEL-So you’re going to still keep the bilco doors on the side? MR. SANDER-Not the metal doors. MR. HENKEL-The staircase going down. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’ll open the public hearing. I don’t see too many public out there. So I’ll ask is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. URRICO-There is written comment. This seems kind of personal, some of this, but I’m going to read it in anyway because it’s part of the record here, but “Christian and Eustacia – Received the notices from the Queensbury Zoning and Planning regarding garage replacement, Bob and I have no problems with the proposed work and wish you the best of luck with the approval process. If you run into any glitches, let us know. With the warming temps, have you started to tap the sugar maples? Though I still want the white stuff under my feet for skiing, I am looking forward to getting back to the Lake. No more renting hopefully means we will be up more frequently. With that said, spring calendar is already filling up not giving us much time to be at the lake – headed to India for our nephew’s wedding in early May! Then it is onto our first grandchild, due in mid-Aug. Ross, our oldest son was at our house yesterday – sounds like the ice is breaking up. Let’s hope it goes out without incident this year. Best – Pam Pamela Lester Golde” MRS. SANDER-She is the secretary of the Odio club association. MR. URRICO-I don’t see an address here. MRS. SANDER-She’s in Connecticut, but she owns three doors down, four doors down. th MR. URRICO-Okay, and then this is “Dear Chris I reviewed your plans on March 13, 2019 and have no issues with your construction. I wish you the best. Phil Morse, 90 Bay Parkway” MR. URRICO-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to ask Catherine for her opinion. MRS. HAMLIN-I think in some cases it’s significant but it’s necessary. They’re at least doing some improvement. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I still have concerns here. I think when we look at the Floor Area Ratio at 43% you’re going to be increasing that. I think you have feasible alternatives that could be considered like a single garage versus a double garage as proposed. So I’m not in favor of it as proposed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. We’ve dealt with some of these lake properties before and we’ve never given that much over the floor area and that wouldn’t be fair with some of the other ones that came to us, not as bad as that. I do have a little problem with that. We’re over like 2,000 feet, 2200 feet, that’s a lot. So that does concern me. So at this time I would not be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m going to say I’m reluctantly in favor. I appreciate the improvement in moving the garage back. I think that’ll improve the neighborhood and the snow build up and everything, and I think they need a two car garage. That is a full time residence, but my concerns are the permeability right next to the lake and the Floor Area Ratio. So I’ll say a reluctant yes. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m having problems with the Floor Area Ratio and the permeability as well, and I cannot be in favor of it because of that. MR. MC CABE-And I guess the way I see it is that there’s not really a great change with what’s there. We’re actually going to improve things by moving the garage further from the street and if you look at your neighbor, certainly he has more than enough area to compensate for what you’re doing. So I would support the project. Unfortunately we’re split, and so you’ve got a couple of different. MRS. MOORE-Can I just add, just to clarify some information about the Floor Area. So they were approved for that current house size that’s there. So I understand that the numerical value, 43%, appears as a substantial number, but you have to remember that the house was already previously approved as is with that floor area, and it would have been considered greater than it was in 1998. So the garage is similar, if you tally up the garage as existing and the shed it’s a little bit larger, the new garage is a little bit larger than those two units. So I guess I just want to make sure the Board understands that the existing house was approved as is with that floor area. MR. HENKEL-But now they’re going 500 feet more, roughly 500 feet more. Definitely the permeability, if you can get better on that. MR. HUTCHINS-Well we’re removing 430 square feet and we’re adding 680. MRS. MOORE-So 200 more feet. MR. HUTCHINS-And plus we’re pulling out gravel and slate concrete walkways and replacing with permeable surface, which although it’s permeable surface we can’t count it in these numbers as 100% permeable. We can get 50% credit for it. MR. URRICO-Is that accounted for? MR. HUTCHINS-The 50% credit is accounted for in our site development data. So we’re showing a net increase in impervious of three percent which results in a net decrease in permeability of three percent. MR. URRICO-So we’re looking at 200 feet of what would be allowed normally. MR. HENKEL-What was allowed originally. MRS. MOORE-In reference to floor area? MR. URRICO-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HUTCHINS-Floor area is 200 feet. MRS. MOORE-Is 200 additional. MR. URRICO-And permeability? MRS. MOORE-Is 3.6%. The permeability is changing but it takes into account the permeable pavers. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) MR. URRICO-All right. I’m convinced. I’ll change my opinion. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So with that I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christian & Eustacia Sander. Applicant proposes construction of a 682 sq. ft. residential addition / garage. The existing 254 sq. ft. detached garage will be removed along with a 63 sq. ft. accessory structure. Relief requested from minimum setbacks, permeability, and Floor Area Ratio requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for the expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements –Waterfront Residential Zone The applicant proposes a 682 sq. ft. garage addition that is to be located 22.3 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required and 2.0 to the east side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project also requires permeability relief where 70.39% is proposed and 75% is required. The Floor area ratio relief requested is for 43% where 22% is the maximum allowed, existing 39.2% SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 20, 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 because the addition of the new garage and removal of the old garage will provide more area close to the road. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance while it does appear on paper to be substantial it’s not really that substantial when you consider that the house was already approved on this particular lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and we think that with the plantings actually they’ll be an improvement to the environmental condition. 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. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-12-2019 CHRISTIAN & EUSTACIA SANDER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-You’re all set. MR. SANDER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So before we close our meeting tonight, I have two announcements. First of th all the Zoning Board will meet with the Town Attorney 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on April 17. So prior to our next meeting we’ll have a one hour meeting with the Town Attorney. Basically what he’s going to be doing is explaining the situation with our Notice of Appeal. That’s the Freihofer, the Caffry the property at 3300 State Route 9L, and also the Zoning Board th members are invited to a training session the Planning Board is hosting on April 16 from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on low impact development and it’s being presented by Chris Navitsky and some helpers. MR. HENKEL-And that’s going to be where? MRS. MOORE--Here. MR. HENKEL-And the other one’s in the conference room next door? MRS. MOORE-Correct, and they’re two different dates. MR. HENKEL-Right. thth MR. MC CABE-So, yes, the 16 is the training, the 17 is our meeting with the Attorney. MRS. MOORE-Yes, thank you. MR. MC CABE-So with that, I make a motion that we close the meeting for this evening. MR. URRICO-I second it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2019) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman 36