Loading...
11-20-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2019 INDEX Sign Variance No. 10-2019 McDonald’s Corporation 2. Tax Map No. 309.13-1-74 Area Variance No. 49-2019 David Chainyk 8. Tax Map No. 279.17-2-16 Area Variance No. 50-2019 Mark Brilling 12. Tax Map No. 288.-1-76 Area Variance No. 51-2019 Tim & Kathy Bechard 17. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-53 Area Variance No. 52-2019 Fred Troelstra 23. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-23 Area Variance No. 53-2019 Landcrafter, LLC 28. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-58.1 Area Variance No. 54-2019 Landcrafter, LLC 35. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-57 Area Variance No. 39-2019 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC 43. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-4; 252.-1-67 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 11/20/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL ALSO PRESENT CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE – FILLED IN FOR JOHN HENKEL ON ONE APPLICATION LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE th MR. FREER-Welcome, everyone. I’d like to open tonight’s November 20 meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those who aren’t familiar with the process, haven’t been here in the past, it’s actually quite simple. We’ll call each applicant to the table. We’ll read in the application. We’ll ask questions of the applicant. We’ll open a public hearing and taken any input from the public. I’ll poll the Board to see where they’re at and then we’ll go forward with a recommendation of some sort. So we have a full Board tonight and we should start with a couple of the administrative actions. The first is th approval of the minutes for October 16. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th October 16, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 16th, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE rd October 23, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23rd, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES FOR THE YEAR 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) NOES: NONE MR. FREER-And I think we’re ready for the first application, McDonald’s Corporation, Sign Variance 10- 2019. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 10-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED MC DONALD’S CORPORATION AGENT(S) TRACEY DIEHL OWNER(S) MC DONALD’S CORPORATION ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 192 CORINTH RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE 3 MENU BOARD SIGNS AT THE DRIVE THRU AREA TO INSTALL 2 DOUBLE PANEL AND 2 SINGLE PANEL DIGITAL SIGNS AT THE DRIVE THRU AREA. THE DOUBLE PANEL IS TO BE 17.6 SQ. FT. AND THE SINGLE PANEL IS TO BE 8.8 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 64-2012; SV 41-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 3.15 AC. TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-74 SECTION 140-6 B.3(c) TARA PUNTASECCA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 10-2019, McDonald’s Corporation, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location: 192 Corinth Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove 3 menu board signs at the drive thru area to install 2 double panel and 2 single panel digital signs at the drive thru area. The double panel is to be 17.6 sq. ft. and the single panel is to be 8.8 sq. ft. Relief is requested for number of freestanding signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of freestanding signs. Section 140 –signs The applicant proposes four additional free standing signage at the drive-thru areas of the McDonald’s site. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 are 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 possible to reduce the number of signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the number of signs is four additional signs that are to be digital. 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 physical or 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 to update the drive- thru signage on the site for McDonalds. The plans show the existing signage at the drive-thru, noting there is no change to the road side free standing sign. The submission shows the new digital sign panels for pre-menu and menu boards. The applicant has indicated only McDonalds items are posted on the digital boards.” MR. FREER-Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MS. PUNTASECCA-Absolutely. Hi. My name is Tara Puntasecca of Expedite the Diehl, 27 Valview Place, Hackensack, New Jersey, and as he read I’m here today to propose new menu board systems for this McDonald’s. I want to talk a little bit about the boards and then I would also like to touch on the criteria, if that’s okay with the Board. This new menu board system, it’s a national corporate mandate. So this is something that McDonald’s Corporate is having every McDonald’s location across the country change because the current menu boards are essentially becoming obsolete. So like I said they’re all moving to this model. The proposed menu board replacement square footage is an overall reduction from what‘s currently in place. There’s currently three menu boards in place. So essentially we would hope that those could be removed and that we would replace them with four menu boards, and the new menu board that is the fourth is actually a pre-browse board. So we’d like the Board to understand that even though we’re putting in four menu boards, they’re sets of two and they work together. Currently what’s in place is a main menu board that’ll have four panels on it, but the prototype for these new signs, each new menu board only has two panels and then you would also get your pre-browse single panel board, and I could pass this around if anyone would like a visual of the prototype itself, and what’s going on is this pre-browse board that would be installed in front of the main menu board, that works in conjunction with that main menu board to help circulate the traffic through the site to stop idling. It allows for the second person in line at each drive thru to start thinking about their order. It also reduces paper waste since these are actually digital menu boards. So we’re working with that. Many people have compared the brightness of these signs to that of a Kindle. We’re essentially blessed with technology that has advanced in such a way that we can replace paper with something that’s digital and looks like paper. So these aren’t going to be bright distracting signs. They’re very readable, very easy on the eye. They don’t cast glare on adjacent properties. So that’s something I really wanted to bring home to the Board is that these signs are not going to be distracting motorists, and again these signs are corporate mandated. So what’s currently in place is about 100 square foot worth of sign area when you combine everything and what we’re proposing would only be 52.6 square feet. So the signs are much smarter. The square footage is used well and typically the pre-browse boards are going to display new items or items that are fast to create. So I’d like to touch on the criteria. Am I able to? MR. FREER-You can. MR. MC CABE-You can, but we’ve already seen this up at Exit 19. So this isn’t anything new. MS. PUNTASECCA-Okay. Fair enough, then. RENEE REARDON MS. REARDON-Hi, I’m Renee Reardon. I think some of you know me. I own the restaurant at Exit 18. Basically what we’re proposing is taking out the boards that are there, bright that you can see from the highway. They’re white. They’re kind of an eyesore and putting in the new digital boards like you have at Route 9. The difference between these boards and Route 9 is it’s new technology so they’re a lot smaller footprint than what’s at Route 9, and the cool thing is they go to sleep when the restaurant’s closed. So you don’t see anything at all, but from an eye perspective and what you see they’re much nicer than what we have. Route 9 doesn’t have a preview board. I did get a variance for it but she doesn’t work for the corporation so I can say this, they dropped the ball. They never got the permits and they never put it in. So it’s not there and it’s never going to be there, a preview board in the other location on 819 Route 9 and we’re not going to ask for that, but in 18 I would like to put the preview boards in. They’re kind of cool and they kind of direct traffic and get people through there quicker. So really we’re taking two very large boards out and putting smaller boards in. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-Yes. Because this is a corporate initiative, if we deny this, does Renee have to close her restaurant? MS. PUNTASECCA-No, she does not. MR. KUHL-Okay. Well, thank you. You don’t have to throw that weight around, but thank you very much. That’s just my little bit of humor. MS. PUNTASECCA-Okay. I’ll take it. MS. REARDON-No, but I would like to retire. Can you work on that? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Any other questions from the Board? Okay. Do we do the public hearing or do we do the environmental first? MRS. MOORE-You’re going to do the public hearing first. MR. FREER-Okay. So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I’d like to poll the Board or do we do the environmental? MRS. MOORE-I would poll the Board first. MR. FREER-Okay. So I’m going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. Renee, thanks for that description about the boards going to sleep. I think it’s a good thing. I would be in favor of it. I really would. If it’s going to help you in your business, it’s a good thing. It really is. MS. REARDON-The big change is the old boards had plastic in there, which is not great for the environment. So you’re constantly changing out pictures. So as it goes through the system, the 14,000- ish stores in the US will no longer have all those things produced constantly. So from an environmental perspective you’re not throwing out a lot of stuff anymore. MR. KUHL-I’ve been in your restaurants, actually it was in Canada to where we went, when we went inside, and I picked out my product and just went over to pay for it. I mean I was thinking that that’s what this was, but it’s really not. It’s just a view board where the customer’s going to go up. Okay. So, yes, Mr. Chairman, I’d be in favor. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I, too, am in favor of it. I think it’s going to be an improvement, especially with the decrease in the square footage. It’s going to fit in with the character of the neighborhood. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it only makes sense, especially if it’s going to go to sleep at night and not use any power at night. So you’d be saving there and good on the environment. Good everywhere and less square footage. I’m definitely for it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I’ll support the project. It just makes a lot of sense. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of it. I think it’s really an internal sign, sort of like a directional sign for McDonald’s. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s an internal upgrade. I don’t think it has any effect on the community. So I think it’s in our interest to approve it. MR. FREER-Okay, and I’d like to congratulate McDonald’s Route 9 for your award as a beautification that was announced Monday night at the Town Board meeting. MS. REARDON-Thank you. I didn’t know. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-So congratulations. I think Mr. Strough or somebody will present it shortly, but you were one of the three commercial beautification award winners for the Town. So thank you for all the work you do to keep our Town looking good. MS. REARDON-Thanks. MR. FREER-And I, too, support this application for additional sign numbers. So with that, I’ll close the public hearing and do the environmental. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 10-2019 APPLICANT NAME: MCDONALD’S CORPORATION 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 Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th day of November 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Now I’ll entertain a motion for the approval of Sign Variance 10-2019. MR. KUHL-Can I make that, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Sure. Thank you. Go for it. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from McDonald’s Corporation for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to remove 3 menu board signs at the drive thru area to install 2 double panel and 2 single panel digital signs at the drive thru area. The double panel is to be 17.6 sq. ft. and the single panel is to be 8.8 sq. ft. Relief is requested for number of freestanding signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of freestanding signs. Section 140 –signs The applicant proposes four additional free standing signage at the drive-thru areas of the McDonald’s site. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 10-2019 Applicant Name: McDonald’s Corporation 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 Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 20th day of November 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday November 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: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 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? What we’re saying is that the sign goes to sleep at night and we think it will be an improvement. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We don’t really think so because it is an improvement to what they have. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I would say no, it’s not. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, it will not as it is replacing existing signs and it’s a little smaller. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We could say it is, but it is what it is. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 10-2019 MCDONALD’S CORPORATION, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 20th day of November 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MS. PUNATSECCA-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Next up is Area Variance 49-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID CHAINYK AGENT(S) DAVID CHAINYK DA CHAINYK CONSTRUCTION OWNER(S) MAUREEN SMITH ZONING WR LOCATION 110 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A CONVERTED PORCH OF 176 SQ. FT. THAT IS USED FOR KITCHEN, BATH AND ENTRY. THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 176 SQ. FT. AREA FOR THE KITCHEN, BATH AND ENTRY IN THE AREA THAT IS TO BE REMOVED. THE EXISTING HOME IS 836 SQ. FT. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) FLOOR AREA AND THE SITE HAS A 441 SQ. FT. GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ADJUSTING THE ROOFLINE TO ASSIST WITH STORMWATER AND VENTILATION. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 577-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.09 AC. TAX MAP NO. 279.17- 2-16 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVID CHAINYK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2019, David Chainyk, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location: 110 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a converted porch of 176 sq. ft. that is used for kitchen, bath, and entry. The project is to construct a new 176 sq. ft. area for the kitchen, bath, and entry in the area that is to be removed. The existing home is 836 sq. ft. floor area and the site has a 441 sq. ft. garage. The project includes adjusting the roofline to assist with stormwater and ventilation. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the waterfront residential zone (WR). Section 179-3-040 dimensional relief The applicant proposes to remove an existing converted porch area to replace with same size addition. The new construction is to be 6 ft. where a 12 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. 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 work proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 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. 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 to be self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 176 sq. ft. converted porch and adjust the roof line for better ventilation. The applicant has indicate the existing 176 sq. ft. is deteriorating and the rebuild will better built for the existing home. The plan show the proposed reconstruction of the 176 sq. ft. area and a photo of the existing condition.” MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Could you please identify yourself and add anything you’d like for the Board to be aware of. MR. CHAINYK-Yes. My name’s Dave Chainyk, owner of DA Chainyk Construction Services. I’m the contractor for Miss Maureen Smith. Thank you very much for considering our variance application. I think that that’s a very good summary of what we’ve got going. The only comment I have to add to that is like McDonald’s signs, Miss Smith goes to bed at night, too. She goes to sleep. So other than that, that about sums it up. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Everyone’s trying to make it on to the Tonight Show. Okay. Any questions from the Board on this application? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. HENKEL-Yes. I’ve got a question. Why are you doing this project if you’ve got 135 feet? You could have expanded up to that 135 feet. Why wouldn’t you want to make that a little bigger? MR. CHAINYK-Money constraints a little bit and this is the footprint. There’s also you see the elevations don’t really allow. We put the sewage ejection pump in and I built a retaining wall. So there’s a kitchen and a bathroom in there currently and a footprint that worked for her. So we’re going to work within that footprint that she currently has. MR. HENKEL-Any other questions? MR. HENKEL-Nice job on this packet, too. MR. CHAINYK-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Very nice. MR. KUHL-I have a question. On this addition you’re doing on the front, the roofline’s going to match up with the existing one? MR. CHAINYK-Instead of putting a flatter hip, we’re going to go with a gable so that I can increase the insulation to meet Code and also give us some better ventilation. So there’ll just be a shorter gable. It’ll be a gable, small gable instead of the hip. MR. KUHL-Have you gone through the Board of Health yet with the septic system or not? MR. CHAINYK-The septic system is already in and approved. It’s what’s kind of precipitated the whole project. MR. KUHL-Yes. How far is that septic system from the neighbor’s well? MR. CHAINYK-There’s a septic design plan in here if you have the packet, and B-1 would be the septic plan. If you pull that out. MR. HENKEL-It’s quite a septic system, too. MAUREEN SMITH MS. SMITH-It was just put in. Like July. MR. HENKEL-IBS put it in, right? MS. SMITH-Stone. MR. HENKEL-Stone? Okay. MR. FREER-Did you get your question answered? MR. KUHL-I just asked how far it was from the neighbor’s well. I can see that on the prints. It says approximate location of neighbor’s well, and it says 100 foot to a line, but it doesn’t say to the septic. That’s all I was looking for. I mean I’m looking at it here, location of your neighbor’s well, and it’s to the left of the garage as I look at the print, to the west of the garage. I was just wondering how far that is from the septic, but you don’t know. MR. CHAINYK-I’m not sure. MR. KUHL-And you went through the Board of Health for approval. MR. CHAINYK-For the septic system. Yes, she did. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I will poll the Board and start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor of the project. I really don’t have any other comments. It’s a great package and it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. It’s going to be a significant improvement. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Michelle. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes it looks like there’s some improvements for stormwater management and definitely the septic system is a good plus and she’s not increasing the footprint by any, just making the use of the home a little better and definitely a good project for the area. So I’d be all in favor of it. MR. FREER-Good. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I believe it’ll be an improvement to the property thus an improvement to the neighborhood. So I will support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as well. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’re not increasing or decreasing any of the setbacks. Everything’s just basically staying the same. It’s going to allow you to upgrade and probably not set your smoke alarms off every time you burn toast. So that’s a good thing. MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Yes, I, too, support the project. It makes a lot of sense and it balances up against everything we’re trying to do in terms of not having rigid zoning rules that don’t allow people to do what makes sense. So I’m glad we have a couple of these projects so that our civics students in the back can see government at work without any animosity. So with that I will close the public hearing and request a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Chainyk. Applicant proposes to remove a converted porch of 176 sq. ft. that is used for kitchen, bath, and entry. The project is to construct a new 176 sq. ft. area for the kitchen, bath, and entry in the area that is to be removed. The existing home is 836 sq. ft. floor area and the site has a 441 sq. ft. garage. The project includes adjusting the roofline to assist with stormwater and ventilation. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the waterfront residential zone (wr). Section 179-3-040 dimensional relief The applicant proposes to remove an existing converted porch area to replace with same size addition. The new construction is to be 6 ft. where a 12 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 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: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we believe that the applicant is going to improve the property with this project and stay within the current bounds. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered, but are not reasonable at this particular time because they don’t fit the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is certainly not substantial at all. It stays within the bounds of the current property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact, we feel this is going to improve the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2019 DAVID CHAINYK, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Thanks. MR. CHAINYK-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Onto Area Variance 50-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MARK BRILLING OWNER(S) MARK BRILLING ZONING MDR LOCATION 56 OLD WEST MOUNTAIN RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,280 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE AND ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AREA. PROJECT SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOME 1,937 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 94728-1467; BP 91634-2340 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 10 AC. TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-76 SECTION 179-5-020 MARK BRILLING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2019, Mark Brilling, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location: 56 Old West Mountain Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 1,280 sq. ft. second garage and additional driveway area. Project site has an existing home 1,937 sq. ft. footprint with an attached garage. Relief is requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 -garage The applicant proposes a second garage where only one is allowed. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 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 orientation of the existing home and the proposed location of the new garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is for a second garage. 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 to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered to be self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a second garage to assist with maintenance of the existing property of 10 acres. The applicant has indicated lawn equipment and other storage is necessary to be kept inside. The plans show the location of the garage.” MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. BRILLING-My name is Mark Brilling. I think it’s pretty straightforward. I’ve got three vehicles outside. I’ve already scraped more ice and snow than I want to this year. MR. FREER-Okay. Are there any questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have a question. Are you just going to be using this for vehicles? MR. BRILLING-Yes. MR. KUHL-Not a business? MR. BRILLING-No. I own Queensbury Tile down on Bay Street. I have a whole warehouse down there for all my things. MR. KUHL-Water and electric in there or just electric? MR. BRILLING-Just electric. MR. KUHL-Are you going to do hard surfacing to it or is it going to be on the grass? Your print doesn’t show a driveway or anything. Are you going to do any hard surfacing? MR. BRILLING-There will be a driveway to it. That was in there somewhere. MR. HENKEL-Yes, it’s there. MR. KUHL-Is it going to be facing the house or the street, towards West Mountain? MR. BRILLING-West Mountain. MR. KUHL-I mean what I have doesn’t have hard surfacing. MR. BRILLING-It should be somewhere. She asked me when we went through the pre-application meeting. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I’d like to poll the Board, and I’ll start with John. MR. HENKEL-Ten acres of property takes a lot of maintenance and it definitely takes a lot of equipment. So it definitely makes sense. It’s not a detriment to the neighborhood or the environment. So I would be for the project as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-The property is out of the way and certainly there’s enough acreage here to warrant a second garage and so I would support the project. MR. FREER-Thanks, Mike. Roy? MR. URRICO-The Code doesn’t make a distinction between the size of the property and the number of garages. It probably should. We’ve generally been more lenient with the size of the property. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. FREER-But you mentioned we should maybe make a recommendation. MR. URRICO-I would suggest that the Code really account for different size properties, the difference between one acre, seeking two garages and a 10 acre seeking two garages. MR. FREER-Okay, and Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a rural 10 acre lot. A second garage is going to be a minimal presence on that property and I think the Code is reflective of the fact that most of the lots are much smaller, plus it’s on West Mountain Road. It’s not like there’ s a ton of traffic. MR. BRILLING-More than you think. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with all the Board members. It’s a good project. MR. FREER-Okay. I, too, support this. MRS. HAYWARD-So do I. MR. FREER-I’m sorry. But I’d like to just take this opportunity to get some feedback from the Board. Roy mentioned, you know, my sort of informal criteria is five acres. Is that, any feedback from the Board on maybe recommending that if it’s five acres we don’t have to make these people go through all that process? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement. MR. HENKEL-I agree with that. MR. MC CABE-I thought it was five acres? MRS. MOORE-But this is a second garage. So all second garages require a variance because you’re only permitted one garage in any zone. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think they still have to review it each time because it’s a unique circumstance each time. You don’t know what the neighbors are going to say. You don’t know what the proximity to other buildings. So it makes sense to review it. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Any other feedback from the Board? MRS. HAMLIN-I have a question, though. Is that second garage regardless of however many days the original garage? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-So I could have a three bay garage, one and still, in other words. MR. FREER-There’s a square footage. MRS. MOORE-There’s a square footage limit. So acreage, I don’t know off the top of my head. MR. FREER-Yes, square footage is related to acreage. So if you have a bigger lot you can have more square footage. Setbacks still apply. MR. HENKEL-Does that change because of the APA, too, or no? That’s only the height. MRS. MOORE-That’s the height issue. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. So with that we’ll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark Brilling. Applicant proposes to construct a 1,280 sq. ft. second garage and additional driveway area. Project site has an existing home 1,937 sq. ft. footprint with an attached garage. Relief is requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 -garage The applicant proposes a second garage where only one is allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 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. There’s more than enough area to accommodate a second garage on this property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. We considered this request to be reasonable. Even though the request is for a second garage, it’s not unreasonable on a large lot in a rural area in the Town. 3. The requested variance is deemed substantial because it’s a second garage, but we don’t think it is as a Board because of the size of the lot. 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 created essentially by the Code requirements for second garages to be reviewed by the Board. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2019 MARK BRILLING, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-This is probably a good time, Mark, to reiterate that there’s more to this process. That’s why we’re offering to hand back the sheets because there’s more to it than just being approved. So please make sure that you follow the whole process through. Good luck. MR. BRILLING-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Onto Area Variance 52-2019, Tim & Kathy Bechard. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TIM & KATHY BECHARD AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) TIM & KATHY BECHARD ZONING WR LOCATION 3 NORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,359 SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,731 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT IS ON A CORNER LOT AND SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 73-2019; SEP 689-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.22 AC. TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-53 SECTION 179-3-040 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2019, Tim & Kathy Bechard, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location: 3 North Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home with a floor area of 1,359 sq. ft. to construct a new home with a floor area of 2,731 sq. ft. with an attached garage. The project site is on a corner lot and site work includes a new septic system, permeable driveway, and stormwater management. Relief requested from setbacks and floor area. Planning Board: Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks and floor area. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home is located on a corner lot where the front setbacks are 20 ft. to North Lane and Honeysuckle Lane where a 30 ft. setback is required. The rear setbacks are 21 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for the floor area ratio where 28% is proposed and 22% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 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 configuration of the parcel being a corner lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 10 ft. from each front property line and 9 ft. on each rear property line. Also the relief requested for Floor area is 6% in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project 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 has indicated the new home would allow for an updated home with a garage. The home is in a similar location as the previous home. The plans show the location of the home on the parcel and the elevations.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a motion recommendation on behalf of Area Variance No. 51-2019. 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 that motion was adopted on th November 19, 2019 by a four to three vote. MR. FREER-Okay. So that’s the only copy that you guys made of that letter? Don’t you usually make copies for everybody of the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-The motion itself? MR. FREER-The Planning Board recommendation. MRS. MOORE-I don’t think we typically do. MR. HENKEL-We’ve always gotten one. MR. FREER-We’ve always gotten a copy. MR. MC CABE-We blame that on Karen. MRS. DWYRE-I’ll take responsibility. MR. FREER-So a four to three vote. MRS. MOORE-But you would have only received it today. MR. FREER-Right. MR. MC CABE-Usually it’s just sitting on our table. MRS. MOORE-It is? Okay. MRS. DWYRE-Okay. There’s a couple of them that will be like that tonight. MR. FREER-Well, does it say who voted yes and no? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. FREER-Can you read that? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. URRICO-The Ayes were Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Shafer, and Mr. Traver. The Noes were Ms. White, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Magowan, and absent were Mr. Hunsinger and Mr. Valentine. MR. FREER-Okay. Could you guys please identify yourselves and add anything you’d like to the application that was read in? MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design. I’m representing Kathy & Tim Bechard on this application for an Area Variance. Tim and Kathy are here with me at the table. If there are questions I can’t answer, they’d be happy to chime in. As explained, this is a pre-existing, lawful, nonconforming lot in the Shore Colony area. You’ve seen these before. So it’s a smaller lot. It’s about 9600 square feet, and with it being a corner lot goes two front setbacks and two rear setbacks. So there’s no side setbacks, and in this zone those setbacks are 30 feet. So our existing structure didn’t meet those and the proposed replacement structure which is basically on the same footprint area would expand a little bit also does not meet those setback standards. So that’s four of the variances that are requested. The other is Floor Area Ratio. So because we’ve got a small lot that 22%, the basic math of it, allows for 2163 square feet. The proposal has 27, it’s 568 square feet above the allowable which is basically the area of the proposed garage. So this house will be intended to be year round use. If you saw the house, while it’s quaint and charming for the 1960’s, it’s not so feasible an effective as a year round occupation now. That’s driven the Bechards to prepare a new design for that, keeping in mind the future use of having year round occupation and it would be nice to have a garage, and then having all the other floor area issues, kitchens, bedrooms, living rooms what not, that adds up and it puts us over, again, that basic 22% that applies to all lots. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Dennis. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-Obviously this is on a slab. MR. MAC ELROY-The new house will be a crawl space. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I was going to say, it’s kind of a low lot, a lot of water. If you go by there in the springtime you’ll see a lot of laying water there. MR. FREER-So a question for somebody maybe. You mentioned side setbacks. Does somebody know off the top of their head what the side setback in this area would be if there was? MRS. MOORE-It depends on the lot width. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. It would be 20. Queensbury has a graduated side setback requirement. MR. HENKEL-So they’d be safe in that if that were the case, because they’re at 20. MR. MAC ELROY-Right, and that was the basis of our placement of the structure. We weren’t going to hit 30 but we at least wanted to hit 20. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Mr. MacElroy, has this been through the Board of Health? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it has. MR. KUHL-Any requirement to put some kind of retaining wall on Honeysuckle so that the road runoff wouldn’t leach into the septic system? MR. MAC ELROY-Well we talked about the grading of that, not necessarily a retaining wall but a swale, prior to that, which would sweep it around a fence. MR. HENKEL-You have a swale in the back of the building. MR. MAC ELROY-Stormwater. MR. HENKEL-Stormwater. Yes. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. This lot currently doesn’t have any stormwater management and it’s got an antiquated wastewater system. So with the new structure, a better wastewater system and some stormwater management, which also drove us to the permeable paver driveway, too. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there are two. “Dear Mr. Brown: I am neighbor to Tim Bechards’ A-Frame house and my wife and I have no objection to the variances requested to construct a new home. Thank you, Jeff Lejuez 6 Cherry Tree Lane” And then “As a neighbor of Bechard’s on Assembly Point, I am writing in support of their proposed building project at 3 North Lane. All of the required variances seem reasonable to me. Regards, John E. Kelly III” And I do not see an address attached to this. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. MAC ELROY-He’s on Assembly Point directly opposite across Honeysuckle. MR. FREER-Okay. So I’m going to poll the Board and start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-So, yes, I support this project. I figured that the difference in the Floor Area Ratio was the garage and certainly I would not force somebody not to have a garage for the sake of the floor area ratio. So I think the new house will be more attractive, although I do like the old A-Frame. Maybe you can move it to a ski area. So I will support the project. MR. FREER-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. I agree with Mike. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if we strictly look at this from the objective of the Waterfront Residential of why we have the 22% Floor Area Ratio, I don’t think that the regulation takes into account the older subdivisions like Shore Colony, you know, with the very small lots, and we’ve done plenty of other upgrades up in that area. I think you guys are entitled to an upgrade, too, and I don’t think what you’re proposing is way over the top like supersized for the lot. It’s a minor, you know, adjustment, but I think we can approve it as adjusted. MR. FREER-Thanks, Jim. Ron? MR. KUHL-The one thing on this in your documents, Mr. MacElroy, was a maintenance program on the pavers. They’re porous pavers. They’ve got to be kept healthy. MR. MAC ELROY-That may be in our site plan package which you wouldn’t have necessarily received for the variance request. MR. KUHL-And in that it states what? MR. MAC ELROY-Maintenance of permeable block pavers is standard protocol. Blowing them out, you know, you could use a leaf blower type thing to keep it swept, keep those joints of the permeable block free and clear to enable. MR. KUHL-And did you give them my phone number because I have vacuum cleaner? I know I added some humor there, but, you know, even with beach road I mean there’s a real maintenance schedule on how to take care of that pervious asphalt, and as we keep approving and saying okay it’s pervious pavement and it’s going to leach in, but it gets to be the responsibility of the owners to make sure that this product maintains its design, what it’s made for, and the only way you’re going to do that is keep it clean. How do you keep it clean? Do you suck it up? Do you push it down? But I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. We’ve got to get serious on this. We really do. These pavers are coming up on most all the projects around the lakes, but I have a vacuum at home. MR. FREER-I think Dennis’ point is that that’s a Planning Board responsibility. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. KUHL-Yes, but I mean are they up on that? I mean why isn’t there something in this document that says that there’s a maintenance program for them? MRS. MOORE-It’s something that the applicant can present to the Planning Board . MR. MAC ELROY-It’s in the application for the Planning Board. It’s a different plan sheet or different plan set. MR. KUHL-I thought we got all, when you had to get 15 copies I thought we got them all the same. MR. MAC ELROY-This is from the Site Plan application and there’s a schedule that we typically put on our detail sheet. MR. KUHL-Okay, and kind of like the calendar month that they’re going to do the maintenance they’re also going to have a barbecue and they’ll invite me to come an inspect it. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor. MR. HENKEL-I’m also in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Full disclosure, Mr. Bechard called me and asked me if I had any recommendations about this this morning and I suggested that he and Kathy join Dennis at the table and that was the only recommendation, and so with that I also support this variance, and, Mike, the steps inside the A-Frame are really pretty challenging. MR. MC CABE-They’re supposed to be like that, the Susse Chalet. MR. FREER-With that I’d like to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tim & Kathy Bechard. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home with a floor area of 1,359 sq. ft. to construct a new home with a floor area of 2,731 sq. ft. with an attached garage. The project site is on a corner lot and site work includes a new septic system, permeable driveway, and stormwater management. Relief requested from setbacks and floor area. Planning Board: Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks and floor area. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home is located on a corner lot where the front setbacks are 20 ft. to North Lane and Honeysuckle Lane where a 30 ft. setback is required. The rear setbacks are 21 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for the floor area ratio where 28% is proposed and 22% is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 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 new structure will ostensibly be more attractive than the old Susse Chalet. It will be more attractive and therefore it will enhance the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but are not deemed not reasonable because of the size of the lot. This is a pretty small lot and so therefore there’s not a lot of alternatives. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 3. The requested variance is not substantial. At worst it could be considered moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact, the fact that we’re getting a new septic system, that we’re having some definitely improved stormwater management, we feel that this will be an improvement to the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty, although it seems self-created, may not be so. It was created long ago when these small lots were deemed as building lots. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2019 TIM & KATHY BECHARD, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck, and you know what I just said applies, that there’s more process. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Next up is Area Variance 52-2019, Fred Troelstra. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRED TROELSTRA OWNER(S) FRED TROELSTRA ZONING MDR LOCATION 11 HONEY HOLLOW RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 624 SQ. FT. NEW GARAGE TO BE A SECOND GARAGE ON PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,077 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 1.69 AC. TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-23 SECTION 179-5-020 FRED TROELSTRA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2019, Fred Troelstra, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location: 11 Honey Hollow Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. new garage to be a second garage on property. The existing home is 2,077 sq. ft. (footprint) with an attached garage. Relief requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant proposes to construct a second 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: 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 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 orientation of the existing house and the proposed location of the second garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for a second garage where only one 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 may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The existing home has an attached garage. The applicant has indicated the second garage is for storage of vehicles. The applicant has indicated the existing shed is to be removed to place the new garage. The plans show the location of the garage and elevations.” MR. FREER-Okay. Hello. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. TROELSTRA-My name is Fred Troelstra and thank you for your consideration for my project. Just a couple of things. It is an additional freestanding garage. It will have electric, no water. The driveway will be extended, my existing driveway will be extended another 30 feet to line up with this garage. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? And, Cathy, you’re sitting because John has recused himself. So any questions? MRS. HAMLIN-I do have a question. I probably read it in the packet, remind me. Was the shed going to be removed? MR. TROELSTRA-That’s correct. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Are these everyday use cars you’re putting in there or is this your Jaguar? MR. TROELSTRA-I wish. It’s close. What’s precipitating this, I have a new teenage driver, and then there’ll be another one following that. Currently the existing garage which is attached is heavily used for storage. It’s not an overly big house, just under 2100 square. So it houses the extra fridge, the snow blower, the skis, etc., etc., and, yes, there is a hobby car that’s in the shed. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Can I ask you a question? Your existing garage is 624, too? What’s the size of the existing garage? MR. TROELSTRA-That would be approximately about 620, yes, 24 foot by 30, 720. MR. URRICO-Have you considered expanding that garage rather than putting in a second? MR. TROELSTRA-It wouldn’t work., It’s a hip style roof on that garage, on the existing garage. So architecturally, and that’s trussed and I couldn’t add on to it without it looking really awkward. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. FREER-Any other questions? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience? Okay. Come on up and identify yourself. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEPHEN GUZIK MR. GUZIK-My name is Steve Guzik. I reside at 5 Honey Hollow Road. I’ve been a resident there for 34 years. The first person to build on that street, and I have known Fred for probably 20 or 25 years. He has a beautiful parcel of land, plenty of property there I think to put such a garage. MR. FREER-Okay. So you support the application. MR. GUZIK-Most definitely. I don’t know how many of you people have been up through our development. We do have a very nice development, especially the section we’re in, very large lots on it, and for Fred to add a garage for additional storage I think will be no problem at all. As a matter of fact in that section there are at least two more houses with separate garages. So Fred will not be out of the ordinary and necessarily will not be any detriment in any way to the neighborhood itself. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. GUZIK-Any other questions? MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. URRICO-I have two letters to read in. MR. FREER-I’m sorry. “It is my understanding that the Troelstra’s are seeking a variance for the construction of a new 24x26 detached garage. We are their neighbors directly bordering them on their right. Fred Troelstra has discussed this project with me and I am agreeing to the proposed garage. Josh Antiles 9 Honey Hollow Rd.” “I am writing to inform the members of the Board that the variance that the Troelstra’s are seeking for the construction of a new 24x26 detached garage will be no impact on us. I am agreeing to the proposed garage. Sincerely, Mark Petrie 13 Honey Hollow Rd.” “I live at 148 West Mountain Road in Queensbury. 11 Honey Hollow Road adjoins my property along my rear property line. I have no objection to Mr. Troelstra building a second garage. I ask that the Zoning Board grant any variances needed to allow Mr. Troelstra to build a second garage on his property. Michael R. Swan 148 West Mountain Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” MR. FREER-Okay. And, Roy, you’re up with your opinion on this one. MR. URRICO-As they alluded to earlier, the Town doesn’t make a distinction between the size of a property and the number of garages. It’s one garage per lot, regardless of the size and this one is not really, it’s a bigger lot than maybe some that we’ve heard from, but to me I think this is a substantial variance and I would be against it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-On a 1.96 acre lot I think this garage is going to be located well over 200 feet back from the road. No one’s even going to see it. It’s going to be out of sight, out of mind. There’s a legitimate need for it as expressed by the applicant so I’m all in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Jim. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I do tend to agree maybe there’s some work that needs to be done on the Code in regards to the size of lots, but I’m sympathetic to teenagers and extra cars, so, with the removal of the shed, I would vote in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think the lot supports it, and even driving by you’re not even going to see the garage in the back. It’s a good project. It’s well suited and as was previously said by Steve the neighbor, there are also other neighbors I noticed that have second garages. So I’d be in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood and you are removing the other shed. So for me it’s a yes. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I’ve got a problem with this. Although there is a house down the road that h has a second garage, that was before my time on the Board. I know that in the area we’ve denied at least two other applicants a second garage. To me, 1.96 acres doesn’t warrant a second garage. So I cannot support this project. MR. FREER-Okay. Yes, this gets back to, I guess, what we were discussing earlier with the lot size and so forth, and this is on the low end of my comfort level as well. As I mentioned five acres seems to be sort of the actual kind of criteria where we say that it’s sort of easy to make that decision. However the extenuating circumstances of the location and the request that it will be off of the main drag and not a hindrance to the neighborhood, I will go in favor of supporting this second garage. So with that I’d like to close the public hearing and seek a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Fred Troelstra. Applicant proposes a 624 sq. ft. new garage to be a second garage on property. The existing home is 2,077 sq. ft. (footprint) with an attached garage. Relief requested for a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant proposes to construct a second garage where only one garage is allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 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 several other properties have a second garage. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited as the applicant said to add on to the existing garage that roofs don’t match up and it would not be a good architectural addition. The feasible alternatives have been considered and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it just fits in with the lot size. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created as the applicant is asking for 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. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2019 FRED TROELSTRA, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico MR. FREER-Okay. The same applies. More to follow as you get your building permit. You might as well take these, and good luck. MR. TROELSTRA-Thank you, Board. Thank you, Laura. MR. FREER-Okay. Next up is Area Variance 53-2019, Landcrafter, LLC. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LANDCRAFTER, LLC AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP OWNER(S) LANDCRAFTER, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 704 GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES A SITE MODIFICATION TO ADD 1,523 SQ. FT. OF NEW HARD-SURFACING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO CREATE A TRAFFIC INTERCONNECT WITH 708 GLEN ST. FOR BUY LOW CARPET AND OTHER COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 11,975 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE OR BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 75- 2019; AV 54-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 1.07 AC TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-58.1 SECTION 179-3-040 BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2019, Landcrafter, LLC, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location 704 Glen St. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a site modification to add 1,523 sq. ft. of new hard-surfacing and stormwater management to create a traffic interconnect with 708 Glen St. for BuyLow carpet and other commercial businesses. The existing building is 11,975 sq. ft. There are no changes to the site or building. Relief requested for permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Commercial intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 –dimensional The applicant proposes a 25.2% where 30% is the required for permeability. The existing site has 28.4% permeability. 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 existing conditions of the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 4.8% less than the required 30%. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a paved interconnect from 708 Glen Street to the 704 Glen Street property. The purpose is to allow for traffic entering 708 Glen Street access to Lafayette Street with a light. The plans show the location of the interconnect, signage and stormwater controls. In addition, the applicant has shown parking for the EV vehicles.” MR. FREER-Thank you. Would you please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, my name’s Brandon Ferguson with Environmental Design Partnership. I’m here tonight representing John Carr of Landcrafter, LLC. Unfortunately he had a scheduling conflict and was unable to attend tonight. He owns 704 Glen Street and he recently purchased 708 which is just to the west of 704, and his intent is to fix up 708 in a similar way that he did the BuyLow building at 704, and as part of that he’s looking to do an interconnect to improve the traffic flow through 708. This would allow people who are coming on to 708 to exit onto Lafayette which has a traffic light on Glen. Right now it would be difficult to take a left out of there, just due to the location of the traffic light adjacent to the entry to the parcel as well as just the high traffic on that street. So again it’s safer for exit out of the site and also it helps improve the parking on 708 as well. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-You said you can only come in through that entrance, right? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So traffic through that 708 would be one way. MR. HENKEL-Okay. It shows an arrow both ways. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, I think it shows, this right here, these are just one way through here. MR. HENKEL-On the front there it shows two arrows. MRS. MOORE-There’s two arrows. MR. HENKEL-So is it going to be two way or no? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, this would allow people to still exit out onto the right. MR. HENKEL-Through site plan obviously they said that’s okay. MRS. MOORE-It’s not through site plan yet. So it’s still up for discussion, but I don’t see what the difference is with two way. The idea is to create this interconnect allowing traffic to exit onto Lafayette. So it’s a decision of the person with the vehicle. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. KUHL-Yes, I’ve got a question. Now the reason for doing this is to improve the worth of the new building, not the old one? The 708? MR. FERGUSON-He’s rehabbing the existing building that’s there. MR. KUHL-Right, and you’re not going to sacrifice any parking. You have all the same parking. MR. FERGUSON-Actually the parking right now on the site, on 708, is not very efficient. So we’re actually making it more efficient and adding parking spaces there. MR. KUHL-What’s being taken down on 704? There’s fencing back there, right? MR. FERGUSON-There’s just some fencing back there, yes, and the EV parking spaces we’re proposing right here, they exist right here now, and that’s why, right in here, that’s why we’re just moving them, so he doesn’t lose any parking spaces. MR. KUHL-Okay. But the strategy here is to improve 708? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I mean our Code has a requirement in the Site Plan that encourages, our Code has a section that encourage interconnect. MR. KUHL-Well we have a lot of sections in our Codes. MR. HENKEL-It definitely makes sense to go on Lafayette. MR. KUHL-But I mean 708 existed so long without it. I just wanted to understand your strategy. That’s all. Because I didn’t see it. When I read this over I said, okay, what’s this for, and I thought it was for 704. MR. HENKEL-I mean does that guarantee that’s going to be a drive thru, is that what they’re looking at? MR. FERGUSON-It’s not guaranteed. MR. HENKEL-Because that’s getting to be a problem. You’ve got Dunkin Donuts on Corinth Road. Those drive thrus are almost too close to the main roads and it causes, I don’t know if anybody goes by that Dunkin Donuts on Main Street, but at times they’re backed out onto the road, and this is going to be another case where if that drive thru is only three or four cars from Glen Street we’re going to have a lot of problems with these drive thrus. They’re getting to be quite a problem with being so, you know, it’s different when they go around the building like you’ve got Wendy’s where it goes around, but when you’ve got a drive thru there, that’s going to be way too close. MRS. MOORE-So this application that you have in front of you, and it’s up to the Board and the applicant, but right now you’re focusing on 704, but if you want to listen to 708 also. You have a separate decision on 708. So you might want to hear additional information about how 708 is to operate in the future. MR. HENKEL-Right. MRS. MOORE-It’s up to the Board. MR. HENKEL-No, you’re right. MR. KUHL-Is there a tenant for 708 yet? MR. FERGUSON-No there’s not. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-The other problem is there’s 40 spaces, a lack of parking. When you add the two together you’re going to have 40 parking spaces less than is required, and you’ve got, what, there’s five things in that building. You’ve got nails. You’ve got a lawyer. You’ve got a body building place. You’ve got BuyLow. You’ve got a pizza place. That’s a lot. MRS. MOORE-So that facility already has a variance to it that’s existing. MR. HENKEL-Right. I understand. MR. FREER-Okay. So do we want to hear the second variance combined? MR. UNDERWOOD-Do them separate. MR. FREER-Okay. Is everybody okay with doing them separate? MR. HENKEL-That’s fine with me. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a public hearing scheduled for this. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to make a comment about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) STARR BAKER MS. BAKER-I would if I could. MR. FREER-Please step up to the table and identify yourself. MS. BAKER-Hi. I’m Starr Baker, Baker Funeral Home right across the street. So I just want to kind of make things clear that I love people to do what they can with their property, buy it and out of all the properties that I own which is 30 plus, this is the first time I’ve ever come to a meeting when I got the thing. Usually I just throw them in the garbage. So this one I really did have a little bit of a concern because of course we have a lot of cars already coming out of our parking lot. I love what John did with the one log building. He’s done wonderful with it. My big concern is, like you used as the example Wendy’s. I’ll come out and literally the traffic is backed up on Glen Street trying to do their drive thru which goes all the way around their whole building, and this is one way going in. So if it really is a good business, they’re going to have a long drive thru line and I just think the distance is pretty short even if you go to the end of the building, because Wendy’s is not only at the end of the building but around the corner on the middle of the other side. So my big concern is the cut through. Another example I thought of is Rite Aid. Rite Aid has that cut through as well and people were just wanting to just bypass the light. They were cutting through there to keep going, make a right on Glen Street. So then they were forced to put the speed bumps in there. I just personally feel, again I love what John’s doing here. I love the concept, but I just feel it’s very narrow, and he’s got the whole green grass in the back. Just do some additional parking, maybe cut the building in half and have entrance for the front and parking in the back half of there and kind of re-design the plan. I’m just concerned about as much parking and the one way drive thru and what’s going to stop people from just wanting to cut through there anyway, even if they’re not going to their drive thru. Again I wish them the best, but I was a little concerned about. Okay. Thank you. MR. FREER-Thank you very much. Anybody else that would like to make a comment about this application? Roy, do we have any written comments? MR. URRICO-I neglected to read in the Planning Board’s recommendation. I’ll do that now. The Planning Board based on a limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated th with the current project proposal, and that was adopted unanimously on November 19, 2019. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any other written comments? MR. URRICO-No, that’s it. MR. FREER-Okay. So with that I’d like to poll the Board, and start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think I can support this applicant and the application. It makes perfect sense to me. I think that the Town has always encouraged interconnects between adjacent properties. I think the traffic flow pattern as described, going in and coming back out onto Lafayette makes perfect sense if you want to go south on Route 9. As it now stands you can’t really do that logically because you have two stoplights out there that are kind of in-sync with each other. It’s not going to be possible. I think the concerns of the neighbor across the way with the funeral business over there are sort of unfounded. We don’t know what the future holds. What businesses are going to go in there, whether it’s a fast food place or whether it’s just a regular retail applications that are going to come before the Planning Board but that’ll be vetted by the Planning Board and the Planning Board I think will dial that in if there’s a problem with stacking of cars out onto Route 9 and problems caused by that. So I don’t have a problem with it. MR. FREER-So if I may, just to clarify what you were saying, the Zoning Board is not dealing with, if they need. MS. BAKER-That’s next week you’re saying? MR. FREER-That’s their responsibility. We’re just dealing with the permeability issue. Okay. That’s our lane, and so it sounds like that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the permeability issue I think is currently pre-existing and I think that when we get into the second one we’ll elaborate a little bit more as to problems that might ensue and things like 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) that. You have a pre-existing building there on a very narrow lot. This is going to improve the situation in my book. MR. FREER-Okay. I just, you used the word unfounded. I think what you meant is that it was to be dealt with elsewhere. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, by the document that was provided to me to give my approval or disapproval on this, it looks like it’s going to be one way. Having been guilty of what Starr talked about cutting through Rite Aid, guilty, looking at this property I don’t think you’re going to see that going past 704. I mean it’s kind of like hidden. I think that the only use of that pass through I think it’s going to be more for whoever rents that 708. So given what’s presented to me it looks like it’s going to be a one way and connectivity is something we encourage. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with Mr. Kuhl and Mr. Underwood. So I’m in favor of it as well. MR. FREER-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’m in favor of it here just like my Board members as well Basically, like you were saying, all we’re talking about is the permeability on this variance and they’re only talking about 4.8% difference in permeability, and it definitely makes sense to have the traffic going on Lafayette instead of Glen Street. So that does make sense. So I’m definitely for the project as is. MR. FREER-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-The project makes sense to me. So I’ll support approving the problem with the permeability. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project, but I will add a caveat that that intersection is kind of a crooked “T” intersection. It’s not a straight on intersection. So that’s an additional problem that has to be looked at either by us or the Planning Board. I’d be in favor of this variance. MR. FREER-Okay. I, too, can support this variance, and I do appreciate folks bringing to our attention all the different caveats that might have to be dealt with. So with that I’d like to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Landcrafter, LLC. Applicant proposes a site modification to add 1,523 sq. ft. of new hard-surfacing and stormwater management to create a traffic interconnect with 708 Glen St. for BuyLow carpet and other commercial businesses. The existing building is 11,975 sq. ft. There are no changes to the site or building. Relief requested for permeability Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Commercial intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 –dimensional The applicant proposes a 25.2% where 30% is the required for permeability. The existing site has 28.4% permeability. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 20, 2019; 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 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 interconnect will improve the traffic flow in the future. 2. Feasible alternatives of no interconnect were considered by the Board but with the two traffic lights out on Route 9 in front it’s almost impossible to turn south on Route 9 under present conditions. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The requested variance is for permeability and there would be a slight improvement in permeability. It’s not deemed that they can improve it by much more, and the interconnect, even though it will be lowering the permeability by three percent, that three percent is deemed positive because of the traffic flow. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We feel it will be an improvement to the neighborhood with traffic flow improved and also creating a safer neighborhood. 5. As far as the alleged difficulty being self-created, the interconnect proposed is a requirement by the Town for adjacent properties and we feel that it will be a benefit. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. _53-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019 by the following vote: MR. FREER-But, Jim, they’re not improving the current. It’s going from 28 to 25. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re lowering it from 28 to 25. MRS. MOORE-It’s making it worse. MR. FREER-That’s worse. MRS. MOORE-It’s supposed to be 30%. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s supposed to be 30. Then I’ll go back and correct it. I’m sorry. MR. FREER-Okay. Yes, so just delete the fact that it’s improving. The road thing is still good. MR. UNDERWOOD-Even though it’s going to be increasing it by, lowering it by 3%, that 3% is deemed positive because of the traffic flow improvement. MR. FREER-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Before we go on to the next application, if any of you high school guys have got homework to do, we’re kind of running a little long. We’ve gone through several. I’m guessing that you got the gist of it and you’re welcome to part quietly as we go on to the next variance. Okay. So now we’re onto Area Variance 54-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LANDCRAFTER, LLC AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP OWNER(S) LANDCRAFTER, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 708 GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE AN EXISTING 7,145 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR COMMERCIAL USE (RETAIL, BANK, FAST FOOD, FOOD SERVICE, OFFICE, ETC.) THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW ENTRYWAY AREA, A DRIVE THRU, AND AN INTERCONNECTION WITH 704 GLEN STREET. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 75-2019; AV 53-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2019 LOT SIZE 0.50 AC TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-57 SECTION 179-3-040B(3)(B)\[2\] BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 54-2019, Landcrafter, LLC, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location: 708 Glen St. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 7,145 sq. ft. building for commercial use (retail, bank, fast food, food service, office, etc.). The project includes a new entryway area, a drive thru, and an interconnect with 704 Glen Street. Relief is requested for setbacks and parking requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief setbacks and parking requirements in the commercial intensive zone (CI). Section 179-3-040 The new roof element to the front property line is to be 34 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required and 3 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Section 179-4-090-Parking The relief requested for food service is for 55 spaces, convenient store is 47 spaces, Bank is 35 spaces, Personal services is 24 spaces, automobile service 26 spaces, office is 24 spaces and grocery is 35 spaces. The plans show 20 spaces are provided on the site. 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 for façade upgrade with no feature extensions however the building is preexisting non-conforming. The site parking area is also preexisting non-conforming where the previous arrangement had 15 spaces and the applicant site improvements increase parking to 20 spaces. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback is 41 ft. and the side is 17 ft. The parking is as noted in parking for the uses tentatively proposed. The applicant intends to market the building for the proposed uses as identified –if variance is granted then no additional review unless for a different use not listed. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) The applicant proposes to reuse the existing 7,145 sq. ft. building and market the building for different uses as noted in the parking relief. The plans show the rendition of the exterior of the building with an arbor feature at the front and entryway area then a drive-thru feature on the south side of the building. The plans show the additional improvements including a new curb cut that reduces the existing open curb cut as well as the interconnect to the 704 Glen Street property –noting interconnect properties is encouraged.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted th unanimously on November 19, 2019. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Please identify yourself again and add any additional information you’d like. MR. FERGUSON-My name’s Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. I’m here representing John Carr of Landcrafter, LLC. So when John purchased this property the intent is to renovate it similar how he did to BuyLow next door. There’s some existing conditions on the site. The building is relatively large, 1,000 square feet and the site is kind of small. It’s less than half an acre. This kind of results in the building area being large enough that the parking that exists on the site, the area that they have for parking doesn’t really allow for enough parking spaces for that size building. We’re also looking at improving the building aesthetics. Right now it’s kind of a brick façade with a large blue sign up top and so John wants to kind of do something similar to how he did next door and he’s going to have a little awning in the front and clean up the entry as well as well as changing the colors on the building in order to bring it more into character with that neighboring structure. The awning on the front is what’s giving him the setback. Right now the building’s at 38 feet and it’s required 75. We’re requesting that it gets reduced to 34 in order to allow for that awning. The parking on the site, we looked at what was there existing. It’s kind of scattered throughout the site. There wasn’t really any rhyme or reason to the parking that was there. So we looked at two things. One was maximizing the efficiency of the site, maximizing parking on the site as well as trying to gain any green space that we could. So by making it one way through the site, doing the interconnect in the back we were able to get more parking along the property line than what was there before and we were able to keep a few parking spaces up front. We were able to also kind of add some green space in the front and some landscaping to kind of clean up a little bit of the building. For a lot of the uses that are allowed in this zone, the current site cannot support those, that number of parking spaces required for this building. He does not have a tenant yet at this time. So depending on what kind of tenant he gets, or if he gets multiple tenants for the building, the required parking spaces may vary. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-So in the future it’s going to require probably more parking, especially if like he said. MR. FREER-If we approve this variance then there’s no other review of parking. MRS. MOORE-So he’s, similar to what he did with BuyLow, that there’s multi tenants in there, so there was a review process that we outlined uses and the highest intensity use. So this is where that comes in and why I identified some of the uses. The applicant, as a part of the site plan, those uses listed in the parking table. So the idea is they’re asking for sort of like a generic approval based on this information. If you feel something’s too intense, the restaurant, but, you know, some restaurants, my understanding is the intent is not to market it as something like a TGI Friday’s. To market it to a tenant that would be suitable to fit in that space. MR. HENKEL-But that would be Planning Board when it comes down to that to make that fit, too, though. Right? MRS. MOORE-So again the idea is that the applicant comes before the Planning Board with the same idea. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to make a comment about this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STARR BAKER 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MS. BAKER-I just have one other question. As I’m looking at it, and I do love the look of the building. Anything’s going to improve that area from what it was years ago where the old Woodbury’s lumber yard and the old tin buildings right on the street. So a lot of improvements all together and it’s awesome. My big concern now as I’m looking at it, okay, so I get it. If you do the two way coming out and trying to make a left to go south on Glen Street, the light is already a huge hazard as you had mentioned because it’s not a true “X”. It’s a weird intersection. So I do like the fact of it going in one way and then coming out Lafayette is no problem. Although I know trying to come out of Lafayette and for me to make a left hand turn, the traffic is backed up halfway on that street. So that’s going to stop people from trying to come out of that parking lot and like bottleneck trying to come into the drive thru and trying to get out. So then I’m also seeing they’re coming through the one way and if you are into the one on the corner, I don’t remember if it’s 708 or 704, but the existing BuyLow building, but the parking is angled this way so that’s telling me that it’s a one way going this way going this way for both the parking? Because you can’t come in and it’s on an angle. So does that mean the outlet to BuyLow is always going to be near the intersection? Do you see what I’m saying? MR. KUHL-Existing today, the cut is, what, about 20 feet off the corner. That’s where it is today. MS. BAKER-Okay. MR. KUHL-But this cut through, if you look at 708, is going directly to Lafayette. I don’t think you’re going to see it going through the parking for 704. Right? MS. BAKER-I lost you. MR. KUHL-Coming off of 708, the new building that we’re talking about now, that’s going to come down and head south and exit out on Lafayette. I don’t think you’re going to see them heading west through the 704 parking area. MS. BAKER-Okay. So I guess what I’m saying is the BuyLow building which is 704, should they be angled this way so that you actually go from Glen Street, however, onto Lafayette, go into their parking this way so you can join and meet where they’re all coming out at the same area onto Lafayette. Because the ones that, you’ve got the traffic sitting there trying to get out when the light hasn’t changed yet, and so they’re backed up. Finally they do get to move. What happens with all the people at BuyLow? Should they be directed to flow into a one way to go into that gray area which is the one way area as suggested? MR. HENKEL-You’re making sense. I know what you’re saying. MS. BAKER-Okay. Because what I’m seeing now, I’m seeing all the people at BuyLow are parked this way, which means you’re going to back out and are forced to go towards Glen Street, if I’m correct, and then they’re going to be sitting there. Now you’ve got everything bottlenecked, people trying to get through a drive thru, trying to get back out onto Lafayette, because it’s one way, and you’ve got those people sitting at 704 near the intersection also trying to get out onto Lafayette and very hard, especially if you’re trying to get in that, people don’t let you in line because they’re trying to get out at that light, and then you’ve got some people who are also trying to make towards Quaker Road. I don’t know. It is a concern of mine. Thank you. MR. FREER-Thank you. Brandon, do you want to address any of those comments please. MR. FERGUSON-Sure. MR. FREER-I’m sorry. Do we have any written comments? MR. URRICO-There are no written comments. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. FERGUSON-So the traffic, this is an existing condition here on 704. It’s been working like that for a while. I haven’t had John tell me of any issues with it with people. They can come in this way and they go down one way, can park and they pull out this way. This right here is wide enough to allow for two- way traffic. So these people park in here or these people coming out from 708, you can get out onto Lafayette this way and come on down. So if there’s a bottleneck here getting out they can also exit this way as well. MR. FREER-Okay. So I guess we’ll poll the Board and start with Ron. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. KUHL-The comments about directional flow of parking, we had that when we did we did Stewart’s and I was in favor of one way in, one way out, and that was something that was explained it’s better if you have both ways in and out, and I’m not going to talk about 704. I’m here to talk about 708. I don’t feel comfortable with giving approval for 20 parking spaces where some store might need 55, another store might need 47. I think the applicant should get a tenant in there identified and come back. So I would not be in favor of this. MR. FREER-Okay. How about setbacks? MR. KUHL-I’m fine with the setbacks. I’m fine with everything, but to me the parking, if we approve this for 20 parking spaces, it’s giving them a blank check to put anything and everything in there. I mean if you think about Recovery Grill had to come for a parking variance when they have an open field of parking. So I would not be in favor of this without identifying who’s going to rent it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I appreciate the improvements. I’m very familiar with both parking lots so I really appreciate the improvement, but I don’t think it’s adequate for, like Mr. Kuhl said, for a lot of the potential tenants in there. So for that reason I’m not in favor. I’m fine with the setbacks. It’s just the number of parking spaces. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. I do agree with the road coming through there to ease the traffic onto Glen Street from the other building there, but I would not approve just an open, however many parking spaces they want. So until we know what that’s going to be, I would not be on board with this application as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I’m fine with the setbacks, but that’s a crazy, it would be crazy to say, okay, you just do whatever you want with the parking, which is essentially what’s being asked here. So I cannot approve the parking portion of this. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement. I think the setbacks are fine, but we’re looking at a potential, it could be multiple tenants in this same location. So now you’re talking about possibly 90 spaces that they would need according to the Code. Right? If you had a food service place kind of convenience store, let’s say, that’s, so I mean there’s too much potential for misuse here. So I would recommend they come back when they have an idea who their tenants are. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we’re all being a little over reactive here because I think the bottom line of the situation is that the most parking places you could ever have on site is 20 as proposed here. You could have less than 20, but 20 is the most you would ever have. So for us to hypothetically presume that there’s going to be a fast food restaurant that requires X number of parking spots. MR. URRICO-How can we not presume? Because it’s potentially there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I know what you’re saying, but I’m just saying when you have an empty business place in Town and you’re trying to improve the situation to get any kind of business in there at all in retail, and it’s very difficult in these times, I think that, you know, we’re being prohibitive by saying you can’t do this, this, this and this because it’s going to require too much parking. I mean, I think businesses can’t pick and choose. They don’t have people knocking their door down saying, you know, it’s all hypothetical at this point. We don’t know what the applicant’s going to be. I understand where the Board’s coming from by being cautious, but at the same time you’ve got to give them some direction to say, look you can have up to 20 parking spaces is all that they could ever fit on site anyway. You couldn’t invent 30 more parking spaces out of thin air. I think that we’re set with a parameter of they’re requesting 20 parking spaces. That’s the maximum that they could ever create on site. So I think that we’re holding them up if we don’t approve this. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-So you are in favor of this? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in favor of the whole aspect. MR. FREER-Okay. So my view is that, in the majority, that there’s too much relief requested and we need more information and it’s going to have to be, you know, a little bit more perspective in terms of what could and would go in there and approving a low number of parking spaces without any insight is not something that I support. I understand, Jim, your point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we ask the applicant to verify, you know, how many parking spots could be created on site? MR. FREER-Well I think the best thing to do is to encourage, not encourage, but to table this. MR. FERGUSON-Can I make another suggestion? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-Could we amend the application to allow for some of these uses at this time and maybe not some of the more intensive ones, but to provide relief for some of the uses that are closer to the proposed 20? MR. FREER-So do you have authority to do that? MR. FERGUSON-I mean the idea would be if he ended up coming back with another one, he’d have to come back for a different variance, and there’s some uses on there that are, like a bank. MR. FREER-I don’t really want to engineer this tonight because there are other people waiting to be heard, but I’m going to quickly poll the negatives and if there are some high parking requirements that if we constrained to a shorter list. I mean one of them is 24 and there’s 20. Is that something that would sway anybody who’s right now opposed to the application? MR. URRICO-How many of those businesses? If there’s multiple businesses you’re talking about a requirement of a certain number for each business. MR. HENKEL-I understand what Jim’s saying. He’s making a good point, but I still, until I know what it’s going to be, I would not be happy with granting. MR. FREER-Okay. I’m not prepared to engineer this list because it’s too extensive. So I think the result is you’re going to have to take this back and look at limiting the proposed parking. MR. MC CABE-Well he doesn’t have to, but that’s one of his options. MR. FREER-Right. MR. MC CABE-Or just table it, sit down and figure it out. You know what our objectives are. MR. FERGUSON-So, I mean, could we do, there are some uses that don’t require 20 or require less than 20. So those would be allowable uses. MR. FREER-I didn’t see any. MR. FERGUSON-Like a health, daycare’s 12. There’s a couple of uses on there, then we could possibly move forward with that and the setback. MRS. MOORE-So the uses that do not require the parking variance are the health service which is the gym and a daycare center which is the gym. So you’re basically eliminating the parking, you’re removing the parking request, parking variance request. MR. FREER-The question is will we give him a waiver for 24 which is personal services. MRS. MOORE-Personal service is different than the health service. MR. FREER-I know. I think what’s scaring me is 55, 47. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. MC CABE-Well, it’s what we have in front of us here, the choices. So what you’re saying is that he could remove the request for the parking variances and put in businesses that require 20 or less. MR. HENKEL-Or have to come back to us again. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAYWARD-And that would be for each individual use. What if there were two uses. MRS. MOORE-And if they require more parking spaces than 20 then he’s back to the Zoning Board for review. MR. FREER-So you’re pulling the parking variance and we can vote on the setback which would let you move forward to find people. Does that make sense? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. FERGUSON-Let us move forward with the Site Plan approval, go to Site Plan. MRS. MOORE-And you’d say I’m removing the parking variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-And Site Plan Review’s going to dial it in anyway. MR. FERGUSON-Fair enough. MR. FREER-Okay. So, with that, can we get a motion to approve the setback and remove the parking. MR. MC CABE-Jim made the proposal. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Landcrafter, LLC. Applicant proposes to reuse an existing 7,145 sq. ft. building for commercial use (retail, bank, fast food, food service, office, etc.). The project includes a new entryway area, a drive thru, and an interconnect with 704 Glen Street. Relief is requested for setbacks and parking requirements. At this time they’re withdrawing the request for a parking variance. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief setbacks and parking requirements in the commercial intensive zone (CI). Section 179-3-040 The new roof element to the front property line is to be 34 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required and 3 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Section 179-4-090-Parking The relief requested for food service is for 55 spaces, convenient store is 47 spaces, Bank is 35 spaces, personal services is 24 spaces, automobile service 26 spaces, office is 24 spaces and grocery is 35 spaces. The plans show 20 spaces are provided on the site. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 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. This new façade on the front of the building will enhance the building’s appearance from Glen Street. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered to make it smaller or not do it, but the Board feels that the new façade will match the other building next door and have the same physical resemblance. 3. The requested variance is not deemed to be substantial because it’s a pre-existing building located closer to the road than a brand new building would be at this point. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposal will be an enhancement and we do not note any detriment. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the building currently exists where it is but it just doesn’t meet the setbacks from Glen Street or the building next door to the south which is owned by the same entity. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. _54-2019 LANDCRAFTER, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Onto Area Variance 39-2019. AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW F. FULLER OWNER(S) 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 10 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UPDATE AN EXISTING MARINA. WORK IS PROPOSED TO THE MAIN BUILDING TO INCLUDE WORK ON FIRST FLOOR WITH RECONFIGURATION OF ENTRY AN D SOME INTERIOR CHANGES. SECOND FLOOR INCLUDES RAISING THE ROOF AREA TO CREATE A LOUNGE AREA AND IMPROVEMENT TO SHOWROOM. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITHIN A CEA. PROJECT SUBJECT TO VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA, SETBACKS, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 63-2019; SUP 3-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.61 AC.; 13.59 AC. TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-4; 252.-1-67 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2019, 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC, Meeting Date: November 20, 2019 “Project Location: 10 Dunham’s Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to update an existing marina. Work is proposed to the main building to include work on first floor with reconfiguration of entry and some interior changes. Second floor includes converting a portion of the building to an open deck lounge area, updating office area and improvements to the showroom. Project includes site work for parking, pedestrian access and stormwater. The existing buildings on the site include the boat storage building at 6,913 sq. ft. and the marina building at 2,747 sq. ft. footprint. The existing floor area is 14,631 sq. ft. and proposed is 12,858 sq. ft. Relief Required: 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) The applicant requests relief for floor area, setbacks, height, parking and permeability. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes exterior façade and building changes. Relief is requested from the front setback to be 3.6 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required and 2.6 ft. is existing. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of 0 ft. where a 50 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for height for the new roofline 37 ft. 2 in where 28 ft. height is the maximum. Section 179-4-090-Parking The existing parking on site is 19 spaces and includes parking inside the butler building where 46 spaces required. Project note: The floor area is .72 and being reduced to .71 and 22% is the maximum allowed. The permeability is increased from 23.7% to 23.9% where 75% is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the lot configuration and the existing building location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback is 26.4 ft., shoreline relief is 50 ft. and height relief is 9 ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions. The applicant proposes some additional greenspace and a dry well for stormwater management for the roof drainage. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes façade and exterior changes to the existing main marina/showroom building. The exterior changes include a new entry area and creation of an open deck area on the second floor. The building will also have new exterior stairs for access to the outside deck area. There is to be a new upper roof feature that is to be no higher than the existing roofline, there is a second roof feature that is to have a retractable canopy over the seating area on the new open deck. The second floor exterior is improved with new windows. The interior on the second floor is improved with new office areas, showroom area, prep and bar area. Site work includes new retaining wall with a decorative fence, an upgraded access ramp and stair area to the docks. The façade changes include paint colors, siding, and lighting.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted unanimously th on November 19, 2019. MR. FREER-So I think, can I just read what is written here? There is to be a new upper roof feature that will be no higher than the existing roof line. MR. FULLER-That’s right. We’re not going up. MR. FREER-That was going to be my first question. Okay. Go ahead. MR. FULLER-For the record Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell at the table here with Mike Phinney from Phinney Design; Matt O’Hare, one of the owners of the Freedom Boat Club, and you all see the notes. The property is here and EDP, Environmental Design Partnership, has done the engineering work, too. So we’ve got the whole team here if you’ve got questions. We did have a pretty good 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) presentation with the Planning Board last night, too, to kind of kick this off. You guys are probably all very well familiar with the property. It’s on the bend there in Dunham’s Bay, the old Dunham’s Bay Sea Ray. Matt and his wife purchased the property last year and actually about a year and a month ago, and we’ve been in progress here ever since working through this design. Just to kind of take a step back and tell you what we’ve done already is we have done a couple of things already. One was when we went through our due diligence and did our investigations on the property the septic system was found. So that has already been upgraded. If you’ve been out there towards the upper end, where old 9L was, the Old Dunham’s Bay Road, there is a 6,000 gallon holding tank that was built in place right there for the onsite sewer that had Board of Health variance from the Town Board. So we did that earlier this year and also the fuel tank system was found. It wasn’t failing but it needed to be replaced. So we worked through with the Town and DEC to get that replaced as well. MR. FREER-Was the fuel gas? MR. FULLER-Yes, for the docks, gasoline for the docks. We didn’t have a significant spill issue. We had some residual that we had to clean up, but at any rate there’s improvements to the property to get it running, and Matt did move over the Freedom Boat Club, which he can answer questions about how the model works, the business model, from the west side of the lake to the facility here if you would with the Park Commission. That gets us to where we are now. We’ve got some slides. Hopefully you guys have the plans. I’ll walk through them. You’ve got the variances so I won’t really hit them, go through that list again. The first slide we have, S-100, is just the survey with the buildings and things in. So the first variance I’ll hit on if you want is the entrance, which is a setback, and 30 feet is required, and this would be where the current entrance is to the building, and I’ll point to it, down in this area right here. So if you’ve driven in there, or driven by, you have the current entrance. What the proposal is, is to make it, first of all, ADA compliant. That’s obviously kind of the Number One goal, but also architecturally much more pleasing, the building, and as we kind of flip through the interior shots, they’re not variance related, but we’re also installing an elevator. That’s not in the exterior portion here. It doesn’t really have an impact on the setbacks, but that allows us to do some things which is we’re going from 2.9 feet to 3.6 feet. I know it’s not massive but it is an improvement, and again, that’s right in this area here on the map. The Floor Area Ratio is another one. We’ve gained some massive numbers here. 22% is required. We’re at 72. We’re going 71, just on the math, and that’s really the reduction in the entrance area. Permeability, again, we did pick up a little bit. It’s 23.7 right now. We’re going to 23.9, 75%’s required. We’re getting there. As you know the site is tight. So what I asked last night at the Planning Board if the original plans had gotten to you all, the original, if you go to take a look at them, we had a pretty, what I thought was a very well designed plan for a rain garden on top of the roof. That would be on the part of the roof that extended on over the lake. It would have been flat, but in a meeting with the Park Commission that lasted about five minutes that was a great big no. So we came back, as we will, and re- designed, resulting in what you’ve got here today. Parking we can walk through. Obviously the parking’s tight as well. Just given what the site is. We do, we didn’t have the map up here, but across the street back there is a 10 acre lot where the boat storage building is up the hill to a right of way. We do have parking out there, too. It is not patron parking. Staff/owners can park there. Staff, but with the Park Commission permit that we’ve got, we don’t have the, it’s on a right of way. So it looked like way back, 90’s or whenever, a deal was struck that parking would not be put up there. So what we’ve done is the butler building, that is the larger building there, part of the building, is actually cross utilized. It’s used for boat storage and service, but also you could fit 15 cars in there and it’s kind of a valet type system. If you’ve been by the driveway that ducks down into the property, there’s a garage door right there. It opens and your car will be parked. So they haven’t had to do that yet, but that is a valet. So again just kind of utilizing the space that they’ve got on site, and somebody asked last night about Codes, We’re compliant. There’s no issues or anything like that. If you can imagine if you can get a boat in there you can have a car in there. So we’ll flip through. Okay. So getting into just the internal workings here, the elevator, so you walk in the front entrance, again, this, you can really see the setback. Right now it’s right there and that’s where we’re gaining the foot. Elevator’s inside. Right now the first floor will largely stay the same, reconfiguration a little bit. There’s two bathrooms, mechanical rooms, office, kind of a greeting area entrance. The second floor right now is largely showroom. So if you drive up to the property and see the big garage door that’s on the upper part, that can forklift boats and things in and out of there. So this is where the bigger changes to the property are. This is going to be the Club model. So this is a bar/lounge area, a foot prep area, offices, bathrooms and also continuing the showroom, the garage door remains, elevator in that area, walk up stairs. A question came up yesterday about can the public just show up here, hop in and have a drink, something to eat. The answer is no. Number One, if we get parking, I don’t think, that’s not going to be desired to have that on that side of the lake, but both dock parking and parking on site really wouldn’t support it, based on the configurations that we’ve got now. So it would be limited to the people that rent at the dock and the Freedom Boat Club members would be really the limited guests. The exterior area right now, I call it the exterior, but this dotted line right here is the property line. It’s a bulkhead. So the mean high water, mean low water are all right in this area, 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) right on the bulkhead. So from a property line standpoint, we’re at zero setbacks from the lake. The building, the deck and things like that run right up to the property line and then over because the deck is cantilevered over the lake. Right now it’s enclosed, and we’ll get to the pictures, but the roof slopes down towards the lake. The proposal is to cut that. So we’re essentially cutting the section of roof out. You’ll see the improvements that are replacing that, and the railing is located on a spot within the deck area we’ll call it that doesn’t increase the height. Right now with the Park Commission we’re over the 16 feet at the Park Commission, 17 and change, and we’ll get to that drawing in a minute. So we obviously can’t go over that. We can’t increase nonconformity over the lake, but there’s no, you know, there’ll be tables and chairs, just for patrons. There’s no outward bar improvements or things like that out over the deck. The early vision did have that, but we went back and re-designed that. That’s just another shot of the roof plan. Okay. So somebody asked in the variance discussion about the height. Again, the red dotted line is the property line, right at the lake, projected up through the lake. So you can see the current roofline angles down out over the lake. This roofline shares that. We’re cutting it out.. So again this railing right here will be this same height right here. Because again you can’t increase nonconformity. The height of, it’s 37 feet two inches is going to stay the same. The improvements that you’ll see are right in here. So obviously the improvements that we’re proposing to make are still over the 28 feet, but the overall roofline of the building does not change, and these improvements obviously here would extend into that setback there. There’s a small roofline that comes out. So anything within here obviously from the lake, the 50 foot setback on the existing building is zero now. So we wouldn’t be able to meet the 50 feet there. Again, a shot of just the materials, look from the lakeside of that, just gives you a good look at the variance I think. This is a view slide from the lake, looking at what’s there now, again, that roof line of the glass slopes down. The idea is to replace it with a railing and just open seats. So here’s some photo impressions of what it will look like. Again, existing to the left, proposed to the right. I think the wood, Adirondack materials for that area. Part of the big discussion last night was just a vast improvement over what’s there now, a lot of maintenance within the building, things that haven’t been done for years. It’s pretty substantial change and investment from that standpoint. This is, again, looking out towards Dunham’s Bay you’ll see the view entrance at the ground level. Really see the difference in the decking versus the office space, what’s there now, that projects out over the lake. The views from Dunham’s Bay Road and 9L. Again, façade improvements, things like that. There’s a computer rendering from more towards the beach area. Another side shot. Again, so setback here is what we’re dealing with, because we pulled the entrance back, setback from the lake. That height, as I said, stays the same. These improvements here would be within the 50 feet. They’d be over the 28 foot height limit. If you have questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-From a business standpoint, what kind of numbers have you got to generate to make it work? Like how many people a day would be renting on average? I mean what’s the basis going to be. MR. FULLER-Matt can get into the model a little bit if you want. Somebody likened it yesterday to a timeshare. You don’t actually rent. You buy in, you buy a membership and that allows you the use of the full fleet of boats. So if one day you want a pontoon, next day you want a Cutty , you can make those reservations in advance. Obviously you can’t just show up and take a boat out. You’ve got to reserve them because there are memberships. Boats may be out. MR. HENKEL-How many boats in the fleet? MR. FULLER-Right now there’s 12 and we are on actually with application to the Park Commission. Originally we had applied for 22. MATT O’HARE MR. O’HARE-Matt O’Hare, owner of the Freedom Boat Club. We had 12 boats in the fleet this year. We’ve applied for 20. We applied for 20 last year and only got 12, being new to the Bay which was the compromise. So we’re pushing forward to get up to the 20 boats in the fleet. As Matt mentioned, it’s a membership fee. So our members pay monthly dues. There’s no per day rate or anything like that. So there’s no daily rentals. So our goal is to keep adding to our fleet, and we sell a certain number of memberships per boat in the fleet. They pay an entry fee and then they pay ongoing monthly dues. So it’s year round recurring revenue people are paying monthly. So it’s predictable and easy as opposed to the daily rental where if it’s a rainy day, no one takes out boats, you don’t make any money. We have a very predictable recurrent revenue stream with the membership model. MR. HENKEL-What about the rentals of slips. How many slips are you going to rent out? MR. O’HARE-So that goes with, as we add boats to our fleet we remove seasonal rentals. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. HENKEL-So how many seasonal rentals are you going to have? How many did you have? MR. O’HARE-We had 19 this year. So we had 12 boats in our fleet, 19 seasonal rentals and our goal, again, is to increase the Boat Club boats and decrease the seasonal rentals. MR. HENKEL-Because you want to keep those parking spaces. MR. FREER-So that, I guess you’re not adding, I’m concerned with parking, as you heard the Board just a minute ago, and so I’m wondering if you eliminate eight seasonal rentals and get eight additional boats, or the 12 boats you have now, are there more people parking there because maybe three different cars are going to use the same boat in the course of six hours. Right? MR. O’HARE-Yes, so each boat has two rental slots a day, a 9 to 1:30 and a 2:30 to 7, and then people can reserve a full day. We looked at the data this year and each boat is out an average of .6 times a day. So every other day. So we don’t have four different cars coming in and using it two hours and three hours and two hours. MR. HENKEL-But you’re adding a lounge for them to hang out, then those people are going to utilize that space, you know, now you’ll have two cars parked there instead of one that’s using the boat, because now he’s hanging out at the bar or restaurant. MR. O’HARE-Our thought on the lounge is that the same people that are using the boat are going to use the lounge. Again, you know, if the boat is out every other day we don’t anticipate that people are going to be coming there without a boat necessarily. I don’t know if that makes sense. MR. HENKEL-I’ve been a boater, I hang out at the lake, and so I know. MR. FREER-Is your issue parking, John? I mean for this. MR. HENKEL-Well, like I said, you’re going to create a problem where people could be hanging out there that have rented the boat earlier in the day and stay and then the other person comes. MR. FREER-But your concern is more of cars parked? That was more of where I was at. MR. HENKEL-There’s no way of getting parking up there? There’s no way of making a deal with those people to park up there on that, whatever acreage you have up there? MR. FULLER-The other thing to keep in mind, too, the one thing we did is the, just because we really can’t, we don’t take credit for on-street parking. There is on-street parking out along the road. MR. HENKEL-I can see that creating a problem, too, if you have parking, because that’s a bad curve. MR. FULLER-I’m not talking on 9. I’m talking on Old Dunham’s Bay Road. MR. HENKEL-Eventually you might. MR. FULLER-There’s no parking anywhere along there on 9. There’s no parking signs, but it’s Old Dunham’s Bay. MR. FREER-The only guys that park there are the ice fisherman at this time of year. MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. FREER-But in summer there’s nobody parking. MR. FULLER-But ultimately if it’s a thing that we could explore with the Park Commission, what we’re not there to do is upset the neighbors. So that was some deal that was struck many moons ago that we didn’t want to, but it is staff. MR. HENKEL-But it is two pieces of property there to get up to your 13 acres? 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FULLER-Yes, it’s a small corner of one and then by the, splits the camps, the two camps that are right there, but to answer the parking question, staff and owners park up the hill, if they have to. They haven’t had to yet. MR. UNDERWOOD-They can park on the 10 acre parcel. MR. FULLER-Yes, and if you’ve ridden by them, there’s quite a bit of parking actually on Old Dunham’s Bay Road that, again, hasn’t really had to be used fully to capacity. MR. O’HARE-And just anecdotally from this summer adding 12 boats and having that butler building as a parking resource, I think over the course of the year we parked two cars in there total. So the road is very sufficient for parking. MRS. HAYWARD-So I’ve got one or two questions. Have you considered limiting the number of vehicles per boat rental? MR. O’HARE-We currently encourage carpooling. We haven’t set firm limits because we haven’t needed to, but it’s something we can consider, but it hasn’t been initiated yet. So we haven’t set a limit, but everyone’s aware of it and we do encourage carpooling but have not set a permanent limit. MR. FREER-And how big are, what’s the max size of a boat? MR. O’HARE-Twenty-one to twenty-three feet. MR. FREER-Number of people. MR. O’HARE-Between nine and twelve people. MR. HENKEL-That’s more than one car. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you generating business on your own or is it coming from across the way over in Dunham’s Bay Lodge or anything like that or I don’t know how it operates, the membership. MR. O’HARE-We have members that will stay at the Lodge. We have a pretty good working relationship with them and they get a member’s discount. So, yes, we do have members that stay there and come use our boats and will just walk over from there, but if you were a vacationer staying there, you wouldn’t realize this because you wouldn’t be a member and we don’t daily rentals. MR. UNDERWOOD-I just wondered if they came from other places,, like you used to be on the other side of the lake, right? MR. O’HARE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Over on the north shore. MR. FREER-Is this a franchise? Is it a franchise? Like I have a friend in Maryland who’s got a boat ownership in a similar thing. Is it a franchise? MR. O’HARE-It is, yes. MR. FREER-Okay. So people do come here that have ownership in another location. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I just wondered if there could be some kind of a shuttle set up, in other words if people were staying at certain places and you were members, you know, with set lodging and things like that they could be picked up and brought over. That would eliminate some of the parking needs, too. MR. FULLER-Yes, I think if we ever got there that could be something that we could look at. As for, like the regionality of that, I mean you’ve got members from The Top of the World. We’ve got other condo developments that have approached to kind of work hand in hand with this. If you own a place up here, instead of owning a boat that you don’t use, you have a membership that you can. MR. FREER-And I understand that you have training required to rent these boats? 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. O’HARE-We do. Freedom Boat Club Training Program was one of the first nationally recognized training programs by NASLA. So it’s third party nationally recognized. It’s a really extensive program. So all of our boats, before they take a boat out, whether they, you know are new to boating or spent 20 years in the Navy have to go through our training before they use our boats. There’s a class room portion and then an on water portion, and the on water portion is really valuable. Some people take the State boater class and do the homework and take the written test, but being on the water with a captain you’re really practicing what you’ve learned on paper. It’s really valuable. MR. FREER-Make sure that they don’t try to get under that bridge at The Sagamore. MR. O’HARE-Well the Dunham’s Bay Bridge, during the first storm this spring, we had a few people pull up to our dock that had gone camping before the rain and they could get out, and then it rained and they couldn’t get back in. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-I have one question. As you sell more seasonal memberships and you eliminate, I mean as you sell more memberships and eliminate the seasonal, then you have more control over the parking at that point or will that improve your parking situation? In other words, do you get more parking from the seasonals or from the memberships? MR. O’HARE-I think it’s kind of a wash, you know, we’ve got 32 foot Sea Rays and 29 foot boats with seasonal members so there’s groups, and a lot of our seasonal dock renters are weekends, come Friday afternoon and stay until Sunday evening. So those are cars that are just there all weekend versus our cars that come and go. So I think there’s tradeoffs between seasonal and our members. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-Could I clarify? You’ve got a total number of 65 spaces between the butler building and the parking lot, 19 plus 45 at this point? How many parking spaces do you have? MR. FULLER-19 and 11. Again, if max parking ever happened, that is max patron. We’d have 30 spaces for pickups. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. I’m glad I asked. MR. KUHL-Are you doing any work to that butler building? Do you have to do anything to fit the cars in there or is it on a dirt floor? MR. O’HARE-No, it’s cement. MR. FULLER-It’s already there, yes, because right now it’s servicing boats so boats can be serviced in there. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Mr. Chairman, I know I’m not a voting member right now, but I was wondering if they could kind of, I’m confused, clarify the back end of the building. I noticed there’s a slight discrepancy. Maybe I’m just not seeing it. MR. FULLER-Where is that? MRS. HAMLIN-Between the actual sort of graphic drawing of the number of windows. It looks like you’re still showing a lot of windows than the computer generated graphic. There. Those windows. MR. O’HARE-Yes, the rendering was done before we finalized . MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So you are going to have those extra windows. MR. O’HARE-We’ll have these windows in here. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. O’HARE-And then these windows will stay, but then this is the existing windows for the old showroom. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. O’HARE-So we did the renderings before we had the interior finalized. MRS. HAMLIN-Because the computer generated one shows more windows. MR. O’HARE-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. O’HARE-So there’ll be a little less windows. So we’ve eliminated these two and then put some higher, a little bit higher windows there for the bathroom. MR. FREER-Okay. With that we have a public hearing scheduled for this applicant. Looking out there, is there anyone who wants to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-“My name is Joe Didio. I reside year-round at 2966 State Route 9L, Lake George in Dunham’s Bay. I am writing in regards to the request for Area Variance – AV 39-2019 – application by Matt Fuller and 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC. I am 2 homes north of the Freedom RV location operated by Mr. Fuller and the 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC. I have found the owners, operators, employees and members to be wonderful citizens of Dunham’s Bay and Lake George. I can sit on my dock and hear the instructions to members by their well-trained employees. Instructions on how to operate the various crafts, rules of the bay and the lake in general. Emphasizing the 5 miles per hour law within the bay. I have also been a customer and have found the employees to be knowledgeable and very helpful and courteous. I heartily endorse any project to improve the appearance of their current facility. I would love to see an upper open deck lounge area with the hope it is open to the general public. It would be great to have a place to have lunch or dinner and enjoy the sun on the east side of the lake. Respectfully, Joseph J. Didio, 2966 State Route 9L Lake George, N.Y. 12845” And that’s it. MR. FREER-Okay. So I’m going to poll the Board and start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-I love what you’re doing for the building with attention to detail and preserving the environment as much as you can based on the existing footprint. I congratulate you on your success, but I’m a little concerned as you grow. It’s only been one year at your new location, correct, and I know you want to have 20 boats renting out potentially twice a day. It’s potentially at least 40 cars plus lounge. I am concerned about the volume of parking . So for right now I’m going to say a no for now. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Michelle. There’s no doubt this building has been in disrepair for quite a few years. It’s going to definitely be a plus to the lake. I do have concerns about the parking. I know there’s really not much you can do about that. So it’s a tough one. So I’m kind of flip-flopping until I hear the rest of my Board members, but I’m kind of flip-flopping on that. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-The way I take a look at this is I say what would happen if we didn’t approve this versus what happens if we do approve it and that building is definitely in need of repair and I believe that this area could benefit from a new business. I think, you know, although the parking is kind of a nebulous thing, I really think it’ll kind of take care of itself. I have faith in the applicant that they will do what is necessary, and so I would approve the project, including the parking. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with Mike. I think we have an idea of what’s existing now and in terms of parking I don’t see it changing a whole lot from where it is now. There is one neighbor that responded to the request and they were glowing about it. I think if there was a parking problem they would have acknowledged that. I don’t see that being acknowledged by anybody that’s in the area or that’s driven by. So and the dimensional requirements is definitely an improvement to what’s existing there now. So I would be in favor of it. 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the dimensional requirements I think are a non-issue. I mean we know what exists. We know what the proposal is. The proposal is a definite improvement over the current conditions that exist on site. I think as far as the parking goes, the parking isn’t absolute. It’s always been a problem. It’s not going to go away. You’re going to have to work around the problems with being a successful business. You guys are going out on a limb to do this. I think it’s a benefit for us to support your forward looking on this business and it’s going to be a changing flux situation up there on the lake. With a rental business, the success of it really comes down on your shoulders to make it work properly, to get along with the neighborhood because you’re in a Waterfront Residential neighborhood, and I don’t think that created an issue this summer. So as it expands I think you just have to keep a handle on it and rein in the idiocy that will occur because, you know, it’s not a foolproof situation, but I can support what you’re trying to do. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Matt, did I understand you earlier saying the APA wouldn’t let you use that 10 acres? MR. FULLER-It was the Park Commission actually, the Lake George Park Commission. MR. KUHL-And there’s no way you can get them to approve it? I mean, my thought is like when you go to the Boardwalk Restaurant there’s a gippy there that runs you up and down. MR. FULLER-It was a trade. MR. KUHL-But to stop this congestion here, you know, running a shuttle across the road and up the hill. MR. FULLER-Well I think part of it, too was the 9L and having people crossing 9L, trying to keep that to a minimum, too. I think, again, we didn’t site it so we can’t really get credit for it, but there’s at least 15, I’m probably being conservative, spaces out on the road that everybody uses that are just right there on Old Dunham’s Bay Road that you can park. There’s no time limit that we can use that are frankly being used now. People will use those before they’ll pull cars into the butler building. MR. O’HARE-There will typically be about 20 cars on that road. MR. FULLER-Yes, so those spaces, the public spaces are actually getting used. So I can understand it. It’s the numbers on the site that you’re focused on, as you should be. We can’t take credit for off-site, but I think the reality is versus putting more asphalt or more parking area near the lake or in the WR-1. I’d rather see us maximize what’s there now, and to your point if it becomes an issue, they’ve got to do something. MR. KUHL-No, I’m not recommending more asphalt, but having had experience on the other side of the lake with, which I worked for a whole bunch of years, and we had a marina that had limited parking but we also had the ship store, and for long term parking we’d park them behind the store which was three miles away so we shuttled them back. I mean if you have real estate across the road, to me, I mean I’m not against this. I think it’s a unique application, a unique building, and I think it’s good for the area, but to alleviate, because if you start parking out on 9L. MR. FULLER-I’m not talking 9L at all. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. FULLER-You can’t park there. I’m just talking Old Dunham’s Bay Road, where it drops down. MR. KUHL-I mean the people are going to go across the Lodge, too. I mean if you start backing up and you get the 22 boats and you’ve got 44 cars coming because you’ve got to look at 22, 9, you know, there could be that many cars there. Having been through that experience with long term rentals, you want to hide the long term rentals. MR. FREER-They don’t have any long term rentals, right? MR. KUHL-Well you never can tell. It depends on the people, how they join their club, how they set up. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. So you could get it for three days and go out to the island and camp? MR. O’HARE-The Club membership is just daily. So they’d be back at the end of the day, but the seasonal renters typically would be there for a couple of days. MR. KUHL-Okay, but I would pursue that. MR. FULLER-It’s not lack of desire or lack of effort. MR. KUHL-I’m in favor of it as presented. MR. FREER-So that’s already four. So I think that obviously, you know, we’ve heard parking. I think that it’s a good discussion. You obviously get the gist that that’s an issue that is of concern to this Board, but I, too, think it will be an improvement in terms of this property was neglected for many years and I love what you’re trying to do and wish you the best. You will get some push back on overdevelopment from people and that’s going to be a balance that you’ll have to address as with DEC and commercial, whatever, industrial requirements that are heading your way as well as. MR. FULLER-You’re talking about the regs that are coming? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. FULLER-So we actually meet them right now. We are under no exposure. MR. FREER-Okay. Good. MR. FULLER-I wrote a lengthy letter to DEC on Monday on that, but, yes, he’s talking about the general stormwater regs that DEC got sued, lost, they re-evaluated the Lake George basin, all of which I think we all completely support and don’t have an issue with it. They were already under the no exposure as it is. MR. FREER-Okay, but the other part of that is your eight boat increase request is getting some push back. MR. FULLER-Yes, it’s a flip. MR. FREER-So I support that. You guys can vote however you want. I don’t think we need to delay that anymore. So I’d like to, do we need to do an environmental? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. FREER-So I’m going to close the public hearing and request a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 10 Dunham’s Bay Road, LLC. Applicant proposes to update an existing marina. Work is proposed to the main building to include work on first floor with reconfiguration of entry and some interior changes. Second floor includes converting a portion of the building to an open deck lounge area, updating office area and improvements to the showroom. Project includes site work for parking, pedestrian access and stormwater. The existing buildings on the site include the boat storage building at 6,913 sq. ft. and the marina building at 2,747 sq. ft. footprint. The existing floor area is 14,631 sq. ft. and proposed is 12,858 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area, setbacks, height, parking and permeability. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes exterior façade and building changes. Relief is requested from the front setback to be 3.6 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required and 2.6 ft. is existing. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of 0 ft. where a 50 ft. is required. Relief is also requested for height for the new roofline 37 ft. 2 in. where 28 ft. height is the maximum. Section 179-4-090-Parking 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) The existing parking on site is 19 spaces and includes parking inside the butler building where 46 spaces required. Project note: The floor area is .72 and being reduced to .71 and 22% is the maximum allowed. The permeability is increased from 23.7% to 23.9% where 75% is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 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 existing property is going to be substantially improved which will, in our opinion, improve the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but are not deemed reasonable to meet the requirements of the applicant. 3. The requested variance, although it appears substantial is really not. It’s just improving the building that has already existed. The footprint isn’t changing significantly. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district and in fact this project will, we feel, improve the physical and environmental conditions because of some of the stormwater measures taken. 5. The alleged difficulty, although it seems self-created, isn’t really self-created. It was created years ago when this property was built. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO_39-2019 DUNHAM’S BAY ROAD, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. MR. O’HARE-Thanks, everybody. st MR. FREER-So as most of you know, starting January 1 I’m getting kicked off this Board. So the Town Supervisor has sought input on the new Chair, and I can solicit either the question now or input on recommendations on the next Chair and also both alternates signed up exactly the same time, so I’m proposing a coin flip to see who becomes the regular member, but if somebody else has another idea. MR. KUHL-Yes, how about absenteeism versus who’s been here more. MR. MC CABE-Right. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MRS. HAMLIN-That would be me. MR. KUHL-You’re not supposed to say that. MR. FREER-Okay. So you think the criteria should be. MR. KUHL-I would say the attendance. MRS. HAYWARD-I agree. MR. FREER-Okay. Good. MRS. HAMLIN-I have one question, though. It’s not the Town Board that makes that decision? I mean the Town Board interviewed us to be members. MR. FREER-Yes, the Town Board will make that decision. MRS. HAMLIN-So you just make the recommendation. MR. FREER-The Town Board typically flags up the applicant and typically, other than me when I was an alternate, gets flagged up by seniority. So that’s why, because you both got appointed at the same time, I didn’t have a better solution, but I’m happy with that. So any other feedback on recommendations for who should be the Chair? We can talk about it or? MRS. MOORE-Also note that you’re going to do your recommendations for your secretary and your Vice Chair typically at the December meeting. MR. FREER-Well, no, so the Board, this Board, excuse me, this Board will vote on who they want to be the Vice Chair and the secretary. The Town Board will appoint the C hair. So in the past this Board did not make a recommendation on who should be the Chair. They left it to the Town Board. MR. KUHL-Well, we had no choice. The Town Board superseded us. They appointed you and they appointed the previous one. We had no say in any of those. MR. FREER-Well, no, but we made, as I recall, Steve made a conscious decision not to make a recommendation. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. URRICO-Do you want some historical context? MR. FREER-Sure. MR. URRICO-At one time it was recommended by us and then approved by the Town Board.. MR. FREER-Right. MR. URRICO-That changed more recently. MR. KUHL-Prior to Steve that’s the way it used to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-We always used to choose in the old days. MR. FREER-And so John has asked me what I think about it and so I’m asking you all whether you want to make a recommendation or to not make a recommendation which is what we did last time and I’m looking for feedback. MR. KUHL-Who wants to be Chairman? MR. HENKEL-Mike McCabe has been here the most. MR. MC CABE-I’d be honored to represent you guys. 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/20/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Anybody else interested in being Chairman? MR. URRICO-I’m interested in continuing as secretary. That’s all. MR. FREER-Well that’s a separate voting item. MR. KUHL-I’m not here enough to be Chairman, although I’m well suited. I would support Mike. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well last time I was Chairman it was because nobody wanted to be Chairman. They went down the list and Dan Stec asked me to be Chairman and I said yes, but I have no interest. I’ve already been Chairman before. So let somebody else be Chairman. MR. HENKEL-Well you’d obviously make a nice choice for Vice. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else can do it. I think everybody’s capable. MR. HENKEL-I think you guys are here the most and I think you guys are definitely worthy. MR. FREER-Okay. I’ve got that input. If there’s additional input that you’re uncomfortable sharing publicly, please let me know and I will pass that along. MR. FREER-Okay. I think I’m done. I guess one more thing. This was a decision to have one long meeting in November, but now are people are taking our second November meeting which would be December th 4 and adding things to it. So it’s kind of a Catch-22. th MRS. MOORE-That way you’ll have potentially four items on December 4 and then four items on, maybe th five items on December 19. thth MR. URRICO-The 4 and the 19. th MRS. DWYRE-I think it’s the 18. thth MRS. MOORE-The 18 is what it is. So the next Zoning Board meeting will be December 4 and December th 18. You still need to adjourn. MR. MC CABE-I make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. TH MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 20 day of November, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-We’re adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 48