The URL can be used to link to this page

2011.10.19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 45-2010 Inwald Enterprises/Robin Inwald 1. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-16 Area Variance No. 45-2011 David & Evelyn Dufresne 2. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-13 Area Variance No. 62-2011 Scott Spellburg & Lisa Pushor 10. Tax Map No. 265.00-1-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 Area Variance No. 63-2011 Andrew West 20. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-8 and 9 Area Variance No. 64-2011 Anthony Mangino 26. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-31 Sign Variance No. 65-2011 Sunny Crest Properties, LLC 30. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-31.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL BRIAN CLEMENTS RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. I’d like to call to order this evening’s Town of Queensbury th Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for Wednesday, October 19 at 7 o’clock here in the Activity Center on Bay Road. For those of you who haven’t been at one of these meetings in the past, there is a basic process sheet on the back table for you to reference. It’ll basically describe the process here of calling each applicant forward, giving time for public comment when it has been advertised for public hearing, having the Board have discussion and questions and then resolutions. So, some housekeeping matters first. We have the approval of the meeting th minutes for August 17. I believe everybody’s had an opportunity to look at those. I do note th that, Rick, you were absent on the 17. Would anyone like to put forth a motion to approve the th meeting minutes of August 17? APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 17, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2011, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE th MR. JACKOSKI-We’ll also approve the meeting minutes for August 24. Would anyone like to put forth a resolution? I do note that, Ron, you were absent, I believe. August 24, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2011, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We do have one additional Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010, INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD 38 GUNN LANE – TABLING REQUEST TO NOVEMBER. MR. JACKOSKI-There was a tabling request to November, however it is my understanding that a Code compliant plan has been put forth. I do not believe anyone from the Inwald project is in the audience this evening. Seeing no one and knowing that there is a Code compliant plan in place, it is my opinion that we should offer a motion to deny the application without prejudice. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. OBORNE-Just a quick background on it, if that’s okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly. MR. OBORNE-What happened is the applicant submitted a Code compliant plan for access to the deck, which had been previously approved by this Board. It is slated for Planning Board site plan review this coming Tuesday. What they have done, they’ve put the letter in asking for an indefinite continuation of the handicap access ramp for Robin Inwald. It’s Staff’s position that this should be denied without prejudice, and if they so choose in the future to bring another variance back to you, they’ll do so at a point in time that appears more logical. MR. JACKOSKI-And it is my understanding also that with this letter, Staff will send out the appropriate letter, correct? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. GARRAND-And there’ll be a complete new re-submission? MR. OBORNE-There would have to be, if you deny this one. Yes. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2010 INWALD ENTERPRISES/ROBIN INWALD, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ; S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE ZONING WR LOCATION 24 BRAYTON ROAD APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A 665 SQ. FT. DECK AND PARTIALLY BUILT A NEW 647 SQ. FT. DECK IN ITS PLACE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXISTING DECK. IN ADDITION, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE AS A RESULT OF THE PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED UNAPPROVED 329 SQ. FT. PATIO. CROSS REF AV 45-2011; AV 46-2011; BP 2011-141 DECK; BP 2011-142 BOATHOUSE WITH SUNDECK; SP 47-2011; BP 99-469; AV 81-1998 AV 81-1999; BOARD OF HEALTH RESOLUTION NO. 60,98 APPROVING SANITARY SEWAGE VARIANCE; BP 98-785 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 13, 2011; SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-We are all very familiar with this Area Variance application. It has been in front of this Board several times with different counsel, and as all of you may recall, our last motions included, from what I understand, that the application was going to, it was tabled, but that they were looking to remove the patio, remove the bump out and remove two sheds. So, having briefly discussed all that, and again we are familiar with the project, if you could identify yourselves for the record, and if you have any questions. MRS. DUFRESNE-I’m Evelyn Dufresne. MR. DUFRESNE-I’m David Dufresne. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, it’s nice to see you. MRS. DUFRESNE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess maybe we should ask, it’s my understanding that the attorney or counsel that represented you last may have misstated your intentions regarding moving the patio. MRS. DUFRESNE-That’s correct. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-So maybe you could refresh us on what the plan is that you’d like to put forth. MR. DUFRESNE-Our plans were, we’d remove the two sheds that you wanted removed, and I’ve taken pictures of that, pictures here are with the sheds, and there’s pictures without the shed. MR. JACKOSKI-And also, you do want to keep the patio. MR. DUFRESNE-I would like to keep the patio. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think there was also some discussion about shoreline buffering or shoreline plantings. MR. DUFRESNE-Buffering, we plan on putting the buffer in, even if we have to go closer to, if we can make more of a buffer for the water. Is that water man here? MR. JACKOSKI-The Water Keeper is here in the audience, and he may wish to comment, he may not wish. I’m not sure. MR. DUFRESNE-We would include the buffer all the way to the concrete patio. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know when the patio was actually put in? MRS. DUFRESNE-Yes, in 2004. MR. JACKOSKI-It was? And do you know who put it in? MR. DUFRESNE-Mr. Hoffman. MR. JACKOSKI-Hoffman. MR. DUFRESNE-We were informed when we put that in that it was landscape, not building, that we did not need a permit. MR. JACKOSKI-And this is the Hoffman folks out of Lake Luzerne, is that who they are? MR. DUFRESNE-Out of. MR. JACKOSKI-Tony Hoffman? MRS. DUFRESNE-Yes, that’s his name. MR. DUFRESNE-Stamped concrete. So that’s when we put the concrete pad in. Because our neighbors, they all gather at our place on weekends, and it’s a nice gathering place to be. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, refresh our memory. The general procedure, when you want to do that is you’ve still got to come in because you’re in the zone, because you’re in the Waterfront Residential CEA. You’ve still got to come in for hard surfacing review of that patio? MR. OBORNE-Yes. They’d be many triggers to this that would come before you, permeability would be one right off the bat, and if it’s greater than 120 square feet, then certainly it would be considered, you know, hard surfacing, obviously. It’s definitely not considered a landscape. You were misinformed on that, and that’s not uncommon. MRS. DUFRESNE-That’s what we were told, sir. That’s what we were told at that time. MR. OBORNE-So there’d be many triggers. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, at least it’s refreshing that you’ve acknowledge that, you know, it was done, because we kept asking but it doesn’t show up on the aerials and so we appreciate that you’ve at least acknowledge it to us. Thank you. Would anyone here on the Board like to ask any questions before we re-open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-Yes. It was communicated to your attorney that, you know, the Board would be in favor of this application for the deck if the patio was removed. Did your attorney communicate that to you? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. DUFRESNE-I talked to the attorney on that, and he, first of all, when I hired the attorney, he asked me, they would take care of everything, that I did not have to appear. I said, well, if that’s the way it’s got to be. We’ve been going through this since February. I believe that’s when the shutdown was, in February. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s been a long time, we know. MR. DUFRESNE-We were shut down. We stopped immediately. We called him because I didn’t know what else to do. So, the first thing to do is to try to get counsel. I got counsel. He said, I’ll take care of everything. Well, we’ve been going since February with this. As you can see where it ended right there, and that’s where it stopped. We had a summer that we couldn’t do a thing. I’ve got grandchildren. I’ve got family that, you know, I had a son that was injured in an accident, in a wheelchair, couldn’t go out, you know, afraid of going off that deck onto the concrete. So, but we stayed off and they said, well, board the doors or block the doors so nobody can go out there. Well, that’s fine to do something like this, but if there was a fire, what do we do then, blocking those three doors, those three doors coming out onto that deck. So, I just sat there. We used the patio, the concrete slab more than we did. We didn’t sit upstairs. We removed the two sheds that were in their way and I believe the attorney said and asked if we could put a set of stairs at the end where we would put this one. MRS. DUFRESNE-At the end where the shed is. MR. DUFRESNE-Where the shed was, asked if we could put a set of stairs there to go up. I have not been in contact with the attorney. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately, I don’t believe, and I’ll certainly scan as much as I can of the paperwork here, I don’t believe we’d know anything about adding an additional set of stairs where that shed is. MRS. DUFRESNE-Okay. We meant adding an additional, just, this is one set of stairs. MR. JACKOSKI-In replacement to where the shed was. MRS. DUFRESNE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re on the plot. It says proposed steps, but I don’t think that was ever part of the review process for the variances that have been asked for. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think just to try to summarize a little bit about what the Board was feeling, if, even in 2004, you had come to this Board, or the Board at the time, we’re not sure that patio would have been allowed. We can’t say, in hindsight, whether it would have been or wouldn’t have been, but even now if you came in front of us and asked for it, because it is hard surfacing at the shoreline, we probably would have had a very difficult time granting a variance for it. That’s kind of where this Board is struggling at this point. I don’t think anybody wants you to have an unsafe deck, as you’ve suggested, and we are trying to move this along, but every time we got to a point, you know, your attorneys had recommended a tabling motion, and so we’ve tabled it on your behalf, and so we’d like to resolve this, believe us, we all want to put this to bed, but our last discussions with the attorneys, the feedback was, after polling this Board, was that we really have no problem with what was recommended on the deck, but that we wanted to remove the patio. So I think at this time, if you don’t mind, I’m going to just go back down the line of the Board members so you can hear directly from them, since this is your first time in front of the Board, a re-polling, so to speak, of their position. Then I’d like to open up the public hearing again, just to hear any public comment, and then have you come back to the table so we can discuss the project a little further, and I know it’s stressful. Just relax. Don’t worry. We’ll get through whatever we can get through. So, Roy, would you like to start? MR. URRICO-I think I’m interested in resolving this. I know we’ve set forth a request, but I think we’ve reached a point where we need to do some compromising. I’m not sure what the compromise is, but I think we should try to resolve this tonight. MRS. DUFRESNE-Thank you, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. My idea of a compromise would be, keep the patio, but put in extra plantings to sort of mitigate what’s happened. MRS. DUFRESNE-Thank you. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. DUFRESNE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still of a mind that when we do things we should do them properly and what’s happened in the past, what happens in the future, is predicated on what the Codebook says, and if you look at this lot, it’s a .27 acre lot, which includes all that land way back up behind the house. This house is located very close on the foreshore of the lake, and the patio, the first time I looked at it, I said, how did that patio get there? Because I don’t understand how these things happen, but they’ve explained why the patio is there. They were told it was a permitted project, but nothing gets done in this Town without a building permit. That’s the way it works, because then the Town reviews it and puts their stamp of approval or disapproval on it, or you have to come in and ask for a variance, and in this instance here, you know, you’ve got an overhead sundeck down on your dock that’s 26 feet away from the deck, and in between there you’ve got a patio. So to me it seems redundant. If we’re really trying to dial in the permeability on the lot and make things work for the betterment of the lake that everybody enjoys up there, and I think that we should not allow the patio to remain. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mr. Underwood. Fifty percent permeability when seventy-five is required is a little bit excessive, especially in that part of the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with what was just said, and, you know, the permeability is a big factor, and the care and stewardship of the lake has got to be looked at. An alternative to what you have there could be pavers, right? Pavers have permeability. MR. OBORNE-It would still be considered hard surfacing. MR. KUHL-It would still be considered hard surfacing. Okay. So, I mean, I was against it then, I still am. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I’m a little bummed out on this. I was against it to begin with and thought the patio ought to be removed, and when we got this letter from the attorneys, I thought that that was going to be the case. I think I’m going to have to agree with the other Board members. I’d like to have it removed. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. You haven’t heard from me yet, either, but unfortunately I know it’s difficult, but I think this Board, and probably even the Planning Board, when you would go in front of that Planning Board to talk about Site Plan Review, would have a hard time with all of this impervious surface. So, especially as Mr. Underwood suggested, there are so many decks so close to the home and the dock, I, too, would have been an (lost word) that we can get through this this evening, we can allow the deck required variances, the removal of the sheds, and if the patio can be removed. I think we can move forward with the application, but I, too, there’s five and two to have the patio removed. MR. DUFRESNE-Can we move forward with the deck itself, to get the railings around the, because right now that’s a hazard to anyone. MR. JACKOSKI-But we’re granting the variances regarding the deck, as an offset, you know, we’re trying to do a balancing test here. We’re trying to understand the whole site and looking at the whole site and granting some variances without having to grant others. If we grant, segment this to just being the deck, and not address the permeability issue, I don’t think anybody on this Board is going to be in favor of that. We really need to wrap this up to be what we’ve got in front of us right now, which is the deck, the bump out, the sheds and the patio, and this Board is saying that they want the patio gone also. Now you can certainly table it. MRS. DUFRESNE-How are we supposed to do that, take the concrete out of there? How do we do it without getting into the air and into the lake? Then we’re in trouble again. MR. JACKOSKI-But you’re not, because seawalls are built all the time against the lake, and that is stone and concrete as well. So you’re at least up on shore. I mean, it’s certainly going to be a task because of the constraints of the site, but it really shouldn’t be there because of the permeability. Of course you can table it again, but you’re going to be in this position where you’ve got a Stop Work Order. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MRS. DUFRESNE-(lost word) every single time, but then why did that contractor say that it was okay, it was landscaping? Why did he do that to us? MR. JACKOSKI-I wish I could tell you. I don’t know, but, you know, if he had told you that back then, that it wasn’t landscaping, you wouldn’t have the patio anyway. You wouldn’t have had it. I mean, if he came to you and said to you, but you can’t do this here because it’s not landscaping, you wouldn’t have put it in. MRS. DUFRESNE-That’s correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MRS. DUFRESNE-And he said that it was landscaping, it wasn’t attached to the camp. MR. JACKOSKI-I wish we knew. It is, you know, hard surfacing within the shoreline is always a concern. MRS. DUFRESNE-So we’re being penalized for someone up here that told us, and we took it in good faith and whatever, that it was okay to put it. MR. JACKOSKI-I wish I could, I don’t know what your conversations were. It certainly has been very consistent that this Board has concerns with hard surfacing at the shoreline. MR. DUFRESNE-If we took all and made it all buffer, from the concrete all the way to the lake, like this Mr. Miller designed a buffer. MRS. DUFRESNE-Do you have a copy of the landscaping plan? MR. DUFRESNE-Do you have a copy of the landscaping plan? MR. JACKOSKI-Let me just ask Staff for a moment. Keith, if we went back with an approval that allowed that patio to stay on condition that the Planning Board could find a means to offset that hard surfacing there with excessively, you know, invigorated landscaping, is that something we could bind the Planning Board to do? MR. OBORNE-I think they’re going to do that regardless, to be honest with you. (lost word) the patio or not. MR. JACKOSKI-And this application is going back to the Planning Board even if the patio is gone, correct? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MRS. DUFRESNE-I’m sorry, I don’t understand. If we take the patio out, we still have to do the planning, is that what you said? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you still have to go to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review, for the deck portion of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-The deck is going to require shoreline buffering requirements also. MR. DUFRESNE-That was fix and repair when we started that, and we ran into the problems of rotted wood just like we did with the boat, with the dock on the thing, but it wasn’t something that we wanted to take the whole thing down. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. We understand that you tried to replace in like kind, but it is a full replacement, and we understand why you have said you have had to do it. It’s a very difficult position for this Board. We don’t want you to feel penalized, yet we’re trying to stay consistent with many other applications that we’ve reviewed over the years. MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if, when we open the public hearing, we listen to the Water Keeper and see what they might have to say. I think that might be helpful to all of us. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-That’s fine. I’ll be happy to do that. If you wouldn’t mind, if Mr. Water Keeper would like to discuss this project. You don’t have to, Chris. I mean, if you’ve spoken enough and you don’t want to. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Well, we weren’t prepared. We’ve read the (lost word). We were of the same mindset, I think, as the Board. Our comments are on record. I could just reiterate those. MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t think it’s necessary to reiterate, and that was Mr. Navitsky suggesting that he could reiterate, but as far as he was concerned, he had read the comments and he was of like mind with the Board. How would, and again, the public hearing is still open. So let us open up the public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Board at this time, would you like to come forward to the table? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience who would like to address the Board, are there any additional written comments received, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s truly up to you. You can request a tabling motion, but you have to understand that five members on this Board have said they want the patio removed, and that, you know, we can certainly vote on this, but you could get denied. MR. DUFRESNE-Can any part of the patio be saved? MR. JACKOSKI-How many square feet is the patio? MR. OBORNE-Three hundred and change. MR. JACKOSKI-Three hundred and twenty-nine. MR. OBORNE-Just for the Board’s edification, if you were, for some reason, to approve a portion of this patio, you’d still have to table, because that application. MR. JACKOSKI-Because we don’t have that variance. Right. MR. OBORNE-What’s before you is strictly the deck. That’s it. MR. JACKOSKI-Personally, I am not in favor of any hard surface patio. Are there any other Board members who are in favor of some smaller sized portion hard surface? MRS. HUNT-Actually, that wasn’t in the. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not. What we’re saying is they could go back, table, and re-apply. MRS. HUNT-It says here that they had agreed to take it out. So that wasn’t in the public notice either. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MRS. DUFRESNE-I don’t know what we have to do now. MR. DUFRESNE-All I know is I paid a little over $14,000 to an attorney that said he would take care of it and I didn’t have to be here. I could have probably answered a lot of the questions the night that the concrete came up. I think we could have tabled the concrete at that point, and went on with the deck. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, we wouldn’t have. We wouldn’t have. We would have dealt with it all then. We thought the attorney had rectified this last time around with. MR. DUFRESNE-The attorney that came last time had no idea what went on at any of the meetings. MR. JACKOSKI-And we understand and fortunately we tabled it. So that was a good thing for you, but we’re kind of still in the same position. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MRS. DUFRESNE-But the only thing is, we don’t know what the Water Keeper, whatever his title is, what he said. MR. DUFRESNE-No offense against the Water Keeper, but we were there at the Irene storm, and no water went over the seawall. No water ever has gone over the wall. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not so much about the water coming, it’s about the water going off your site and into the lake. MR. DUFRESNE-It doesn’t go off, it goes into the soil, and the other thing is, if everybody had to have buffers, it would be great. MRS. DUFRESNE-Excuse me, but we have bushes in front of that patio. MR. JACKOSKI-We know. MR. DUFRESNE-But if they would be willing to, I’d move the buffer right up to that concrete wall with that concrete, and do that all buffer, if the Water Keeper would even consider that. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s not so much, sir, it is not the Water Keeper. Please understand, it is this Board. The Water Keeper provides us with his opinion, but it is his opinion only. It is not anything this Board has to act upon. MRS. DUFRESNE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think at this point we can give them an option of either tabling this and. MR. JACKOSKI-Or taking a vote. MR. UNDERWOOD-Going in and talking to Keith about what your options are. MR. OBORNE-You can talk to me now about that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think outstanding we also have the issue of the proposed steps which were not part of what was asked for in the original variances. So we’re going to have to deal with that. If you do want to put those steps on this, where the shed was, then that’s going to have to be asked for formally. You just can’t simply say can you wave the magic wand. MR. OBORNE-And I’m assuming that the steps are within the side setback. MRS. DUFRESNE-I thought that they put this in. The lawyers were supposed to put the set of, the plans for the set of steps on that side. No? You just don’t have it? MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re on the plot, but they weren’t asked for, as far as a setback variance from the side setback. MR. DUFRESNE-But why did you have me take down the shed? I understand there were two sheds on the property, but this was a 10 by 10 shed that fit right in that corner, and the neighbor on that side sent you a letter on that stating there’s no objection. The neighbors on my other side said there’s no objection to what I have done, and then all of a sudden the shed had to be removed. MR. GARRAND-At the last meeting your attorney was talking about keeping the sheds and removing the patio. That was the last this Board heard. MR. DUFRESNE-We’ll have to table it. MR. CLEMENTS-Is that shed there now? MRS. DUFRESNE-No, sir. MR. DUFRESNE-No. I moved it. MR. CLEMENTS-It’s been removed? MR. DUFRESNE-I took the whole thing out, and that, the soil underneath that is like dust, and I don’t know, after we take the concrete out, what we’re going to do at that point. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. URRICO-The steps were part of the original submittal, the original site plan, the original submittal. MR. OBORNE-The steps that were offered were on the side setback, in lieu of the bump out, and they initially wanted to (lost word) the shed there, and that was also asked, relief was asked for that. MR. URRICO-The same steps. MR. OBORNE-Different steps. MR. URRICO-I remember steps. MR. JACKOSKI-And right now we don’t know how far off the side line the steps actually are. MR. OBORNE-Well, they need to be located. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Underwood has a recommendation for you, so why don’t we try to suggest, to try to move this along, I’d like to try to figure out a solution for you. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would summarize, in general the feelings of the Board is that we would like to see the patio removed. It appears that you have removed the shed at this time. You propose steps that will come down where that shed was. So it’ll need to be determined whether that meet the 12 foot setback from the side line. If it is outside of the 12 foot setback, then it will be allowed, but if it’s not, you’re going to have to apply for a variance for that setback for those steps. I don’t know if you can scale it out, off of there, just guessing. MR. OBORNE-Yes. It wouldn’t be accurate. MR. UNDERWOOD-It looks to me like it was 8.7 feet to the edge of that thing. So I’m going to guess four feet, it’s going to be okay. MR. JACKOSKI-It looks to me like it’ll make it also. So it looks to me like the steps, but again, we need your engineer to confirm that the steps are within the, outside the 12 foot setback. MR. UNDERWOOD-If at that point you would be amenable to removing the patio, then I don’t think the Board would have any problem in granting you the variance for the deck so you could finish off your deck. We could do that this evening, if you agree to remove the patio, but I don’t think you’re going to get the Board members to change their mind from the mindset of the Board being that that hard surfacing was done. MR. DUFRESNE-That hard surface, I just don’t know how I’m going to get it out of there. I’ve got a very short narrow path. I didn’t know how the lines were until I had a survey, when I had to survey, somebody’s got the survey. MR. JACKOSKI-We have it. MR. DUFRESNE-You’ll see I’ve only got about six feet to bring. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackhammer it and wheelbarrow it out of there. So that’s about the only way to do it. MR. DUFRESNE-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, you have to understand, we’re trying to follow the Code that is set for us. I know it’s frustrating, but we, you know, we’re in the situation of this is coming to us after the fact. If it had been in front of us ahead of time, you wouldn’t be going through this. So, I mean, that’s where the Board is at a the moment, and we can move forward and actually get you to move your deck forward, but if you insist on having the patio, I would suggest that you want us to table this. I don’t know how far we’re going to get, I don’t know what you’re going to get out of tabling it because it looks to me like this Board is pretty solidified in removing that hard surface, but at least you can move forward with your deck. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can, can we grant the deck finishing with the caveat that the patio must be removed, we can condition it on that? MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. UNDERWOOD-And whether they agree or disagree, that’s your problem, but as soon as you take that patio out of there, you can have at the deck and get it done. MR. JACKOSKI-We still have a public hearing open. We’re trying to get a guidance from you as to how you’d like it to go, because it depends on if you want us to table it whether we close the public hearing or not. MRS. DUFRESNE-Okay. Then we’ll table it. MR. DUFRESNE-Table it. MR. JACKOSKI-You’re requesting that we table. So we’re going to leave the public hearing open at this time. Please, you know, work with Staff. I’m not sure how you’re going to get over this hard surfacing thing, but we’ll certainly be amenable to listening to your next idea, if there is one. Do I have a motion to table this Area Variance No. 45-2011? MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2011 DAVID & EVELYN DUFRESNE, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Okay. Again, thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2011 SEQRA TYPE II SCOTT SPELLBURG & LISA PUSHOR AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SCOTT SPELLBURG ZONING RR- 3A/LC-10A LOCATION 45 ELLSWORTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF (3) PARCELS TOTALING 92.12 +/- ACRES INTO NINE (9) RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.2 ACRES TO 44 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE, DENSITY, LOT WIDTH, LOT SIZE, SETBACK, AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 38.52, 1.36, 52.24, ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-2.1, 2.2, 2.3 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-4-050 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2011, Scott Spelling & Lisa Pushor, Meeting Date: October 19, 2011 “Project Location: 45 Ellsworth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of three (3) parcels totaling 92.12 +/- acres into nine (9) residential lots ranging in size from 3.0 acres to 44.12 +/- acres. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Variances Lots Affected Density 2 lots in the LC-10 zone Lot size 2, 3, 4 Lot Width 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 Road Frontage All 9 lots Side Setback 2, 3, 4 Permeability 2, 3, 4 Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) 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. With the exception of the road frontage variances sought, a subdivision layout that is code compliant is feasible and could be pursued. Note: Applicant proposes a private road thus necessitating road frontage relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Please see attached breakout of variances. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Moderate impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated due to construction on slopes, however, properly designed and implemented erosion and sediment controls as well as stormwater practices would mitigate these concerns. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): A.V. 81-99: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Approved 7/21/99 A.V. 81-98: setback/FAR relief for 276 sq. ft. porch Denied 11/18/98 Staff comments: Attached is a break out of all the relief requested for this proposal. It should be noted that the applicant proposes a private road and as such all lots will require road frontage relief as proposed. Planning Board recommendation provided. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board made a recommendation that according to their resolution, based on its limited review, they have not identified any significant adverse impacts that could th not be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on October 18 unanimously by the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board, my name is Tom Hutchins. I do business as Hutchins Engineering in Queensbury. With me is owner/applicant Scott Spellburg, and we are here to request relief outlined in our application, in pursuit of a subdivision plan that Mr. Spellburg has been planning for a number of years. He has owned the property, or been in the ownership for 16 years. That was his house that was up there that he’s lived in for 16 years. Part of the reason why we’re here, and all of the variances that were read with regard to density, has to do with an issue in the zoning that we feel presents somewhat of a hardship. This is, I hope you can see this. This is the current zoning map. Green is LC-10. Yellow is RR-3. This peninsula of LC-10 that comes out into all the neighboring RR-3 is Mr. Spellburg’s parcel and when the area was re-zoned in 2009, this is the old zoning map which it was all RR-3, and the new zoning map, for some reason, his parcel was re-zoned to LC-10, which presents a significant hardship for this subdivision. When we get into LC-10, we get into 10 acre lot sizes, 100 foot side setbacks, 400 foot lot widths. It makes it difficult for this project he’s been planning. So the majority of the relief that we’re asking for is in the area of the LC-10 zone, which is the parcel owned by Mr. Spellburg. We’re proposing four lots, four residential lots within that 54 acre piece that Scott owns. We’re also proposing five lots within a 38 acre piece that used to be part of this entire holding that is now owned by Ms. Pushor. So we’re proposing nine lots on over 90 acres, and the bulk of the reason for the variances is the LC-10 area. We are proposing private road, which means we’re seeking relief from the road frontage requirement for all the lots, and there are a couple of lots we’re asking for permeability relief, and they’re both in the LC-10 zone, and that’s a 95% permeability and we’ve got some nominally, three, four and five acre lots in that area. It’s very tough to do at 95% permeability. As far as the design of the subdivision, we’ve kept, we’ve maintained access over an existing roadway. It is a, it has been maintained and it’s a very good roadway. You could drive your car up it. The maximum slope of the road is four and a half percent, and we’re going to follow that roadway in its entirety. What we’re proposing 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) for shared drive will be entirely on the existing approved road. I don’t know, Scott, anything you want to add? SCOTT SPELLBURG MR. SPELLBURG-No, you really covered it. Like he said, the only big deal was the LC-10, I say big, out of that list a lot of them are in the LC-10, and it was to my knowledge that it wasn’t changed. I walked in with the paper saying, all right, this is the plan, this is what I’d like to do, and I assumed I was still in RR-3, and it changed without my knowledge. So, yes, a lot of the problems are now coming from the LC-10. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there any explanation given by the Town as to why? MR. SPELLBURG-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, to me it looks like somebody just slipped the pen or something. MR. SPELLBURG-Somebody circled my property, and you should have seen me when I first saw it, because I walked in there saying I only want four houses on 53 acres, and 52 acres and he said, no, you’re in the LC-10. I said, I own property the property at 14 and I’m not in the LC- 10. I know above the higher elevations was LC-10, but not where I plan to build. He said no, we switched that last May, and this was like four months prior. So I asked for a reason and they didn’t really have one why mine was being (lost word) out because all the lots next to mine are all brother and sister lots. They were all cut at the same time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I remember when we did Ellsworths before, when we split that one up, that was probably four years ago or five years back. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, and he would have still been in the RR-3, except for above the line where the youngest Ellsworth is up on top of the hill. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, do these, because these are two separate landowners and two separate lots, are these two separate subdivisions? Are you under contract to buy the Pushor property? MR. SPELLBURG-No, no, we just, we were here. They’re my neighbors. I was doing this. She said well, we would like to do it at the same time. I said, well, let’s kill two birds with one stone. I don’t want to come here and, you know, not be able to answer questions, what’s going to happen down the road, because I’m the first lot. So if I say, private drive, then you’re going to say, well what’s going to happen to the people down the road? So they’re killing two birds with one stone. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s a combined application and they’re co-applicants. MR. UNDERWOOD-And what’s Staff’s response to the change? Is there any response you guys can make? It is what it is. MR. OBORNE-From the RR-3A to the LC-10? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. OBORNE-Well, it is what it is, but as far as a Staff response, I wasn’t privy to the decision making, you know, points at the time. I have no clue, but I can corroborate that that was at one point an RR-3A lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve got the old maps. It’s pretty easy to figure out. MR. HUTCHINS-To me it kind of appears that they just wanted the line to follow parcel lines because previously the zone line bisected this parcel. MR. CLEMENTS-Which is that large one right there. MR. HUTCHINS-Which is the large one, and then upon re-zoning it appears they took the zone line down around that parcel to follow the property line instead of. MR. SPELLBURG-Also on the other hand the neighbor’s lots are cut in half, which was the original, they stayed the same. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, at any rate, are there anymore questions from the Board members before I open up the public hearing? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. CLEMENTS-I have one. To the southeast of this, as you go along Bay Road, as you’re going south on Bay Road, there’s a huge gully there that goes down and underneath, almost underneath Bay Road there and down the hill further. Can you tell me about where that is or what effect that has on these pieces of property right here? I’ve got the same map right here but. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I believe that gully initiates in this area, and this portion would drain down that way toward that watershed that goes underneath Bay Road. This portion of it would drain this way. So we’ve really got kind of a (lost word). MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. MR. SPELLBURG-Below my lot is another house. A whole other lot. It comes up to a ledge and forces everything out to the other side. . MR. UNDERWOOD-So if you guys were still three acre zoning, you wouldn’t even be here for those as you are proposing. MR. SPELLBURG-Correct. Right. Well, we’d be here for some of the expanded road frontage. MR. HUTCHINS-We’d be asking for road frontage, and we’d be asking for lot width on one of the. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. OBORNE-But to remind the Board, the zoning is LC-10. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time I’d like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address the Board on this particular application? We do have the Lake George Water Keeper who’s willing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-While Mr. Navitsky is coming to the table, other than any letters from the Water Keeper, Roy, are there any other written comments? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-There are no other written comments, just so the audience knows that. If you could identify yourself for the record. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We produced comments. We felt that there was drainage that will go into the Lake George watershed. Mr. Hutchins just informed me that it didn’t, but our comments, we support the concept of cluster development to limit the amount of impervious road surfaces, which would result in a reduction in the dimensional requirement of road frontage, as is proposed. However the Water Keeper does not support the increase in density by applying unusable acreage of steep slopes in density calculations and failure to comply with permeable requirements. We feel that both these can have negative impacts to water quality and natural resources of the Town, and granting relief to the density and permeable requirements will change the character of the neighborhood. The Town of Queensbury’s Code states the reason for the LC zoning district is land has serious physical limitations to development or unique characteristics that warrant restricting development to a low density, and the first goal listed in the Comprehensive Plan is to protect important natural areas and view sheds in the Town, especially unique landforms, ledges and slopes, to promote the protection of natural resources such as water, air and critical environmental areas. Steep slopes are meant to be protected by the Town, which is one reason that area slopes greater than 20% are subtracted from the total acreage density. In addition, one of the best means to protect water quality is to limit the amount of impervious cover and retain natural soils and vegetation, which is the reason for high permeable requirements in rural districts. There are alternatives to the development of lots that do not require area variances for density and permeability. Lots Two, Three, and Four have longer driveways which significantly increase the amount of cover and disturbance. The lengths of the driveways could be reduced which would increase the site permeability. Also the acreages could be increased, which could increase the site permeability numbers. In granting relief for density, impermeable requirements will have an impact on the physical and environmental conditions. Longer driveways that are 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) proposed perpendicular to contours are environmentally unfriendly and will be more visible. Disturbance associated with the increase in impervious cover removes trees and other vegetation as well as disturbs natural soils which are important for stabilizing the slopes and reducing stormwater runoff. The Comprehensive Plan states the goal of multi unit residential development in the rural districts is to minimize the impacts of forest removal, protect the views of the public and maintain the rural character. Increasing density by allowing unusable land in the density calculations and failing to comply with permeability requirements will impact the environment and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In conclusion, we support the reduction of the required road frontage to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces on the project. Also, there’s no problem with the private road concept. Relief from the road frontage requirement should not be used to justify the variances for density and permeability requirements. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. I see Mr. Stranahan, so I suspect, Mr. Stranahan, you’d like to also address the Board. SKIP STRANAHAN MR. STRANAHAN-Yes, sir. Mr. Stranahan, 1343 Bay Road. I was here last night. My concerns are not Mr. Spellburg’s piece. They’ve been awesome neighbors. My concerns are Lot Number Five and Six of the 30 acre parcel that was referred to in my day as the William Harris farm. The water absolutely does run down those gullies that you referenced. It absolutely runs down in the ground. It comes out in the ledges behind my house where my well is, and I’m really concerned that these two lots are being located in a wetlands which may not be described on the map as an ECON wetlands but it definitely something that my skidder would sink in two, three months out of the year. So I think that the two lots in particular, Five and Six, are, I’d be vehemently against them. I think that there is drainage down these two ravines. I’ve been here now for I think I’m going on 67 years. As it goes by, I get a little slower at counting them, but I’ve spent my entire life on this mountain, and it’s a little piece of heaven. It’s a little closer to heaven than most people can get, and it needs to be protected. We don’t need to have random housing all over the place. We need to have some open space and some trees that take the carbon out of the air and produce your oxygen for you, and do a little more than just project plan a house. So this is crucial to me, not what Mr. Spellburg’s doing on his property, but what’s happening on the 30 acres, Lots Number Six and Seven, are extremely wet most of the year. I’d say probably out of the year, you could get stuck in some of them three months out of the year, with a log skidder. So they do have a lot of water on them. It is a wetlands. If you want to put some of them up on the board like you did the other night there, you want to zoom in onto this area here, you can see the contour lines in this map right here, okay. These are ravines in here that flow directly onto my property, and the upper ravine, up by Bob Muller, does flow into Lake George. There’s a division in the middle between the two ravines. There’s actually two ravines coming out of there. So we do have a water quality problem here, and I do believe that these will drain directly onto our property, and the other thing that I really want the people to be aware of, and I spoke on it last night, I can’t stress enough that these people are going to have a noise problem with our mill as soon as they locate their house up there. Because we’ve been there for, I think 1974 now we’ve had ENCON permits to grind wood and this property, and it does produce some noise. Scott testified to it here last night, and I think that they might find this objectionable when they clear, unless we’re going to have a Sunday afternoon open house and the mill is closed or something, but I’m very concerned that we shouldn’t allow Number Five and Number Six, and I like the idea of what Scott’s trying to do, the cluster zoning. I’m all for that. I want to keep the people, the houses off the wood lots and off the farms if we can as much as possible. So cluster zoning I think is a great thing, but to locate lots in wetlands to make the cluster zoning is not a good idea, regardless of whether they’re classified or not classified. This is a drainage field that you can see obviously, looking at this map, anybody can see it right here. It drains directly onto us and directly down over the area where we pump the water for about eight families. So, I don’t like the idea of Five and Six. I’m not against what Scott’s trying to do at his house up there. I think that’s far enough away from both of the aquifers that it’s not going to drain into them, but Five and Six are definitely going to drain into both those ravines that you’re talking about. There’s no doubt in my mind. I’ve been on the property for 40 years. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could, sir, with the microphone, Keith, you had shown, where you zoomed out, and you were able to catch the, I never know if it’s an inlet or an outlet, of Dunham’s Bay. Keep going, a couple of more. That’s pretty good. Mr. Stranahan, can you, on there, can you kind of help us. I mean, I think we can see what you’re suggesting as it drains down towards Bay and goes to the north, you can kind of see how it would end up, in the top right corner. MR. STRANAHAN-If you can zoom it up close enough, you’ll see that there’s two ravines, not one ravine. There’s a ravine that comes out at our pond, okay, that drains into Dream Lake. If 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) you go to the next, other side of Jeckel’s house, there’s a ravine that drains into what we used to call the grainy pastures and fields up in there, and it goes, that moisture or water from the grainy area goes to Lake George. I’ve logged that for the last 40 years, and I can tell you that most of that water on the grainy property goes to Lake George. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. STRANAHAN-So we have some problems here with water quality, and urban sprawl and we need to address them, and I also had some people tell me tonight, from right on Jenkins Road, that they didn’t get notice to the meeting. So, I’m concerned about that. MR. JACKOSKI-Which road? MR. STRANAHAN-Well, I called it Jenkins, excuse me. I called it Jenkins Road because it was Jenkins Road until they re-named it Ellsworth Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Ellsworth Road, okay, fine. MR. STRANAHAN-So it actually was the Jenkins farm up there at one time, and they changed the name, but that’s why I referred to it as that because it shows my age I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. STRANAHAN-But I am really concerned about where the water is going to go off that property, and what’s going to happen, and I don’t believe that this, you know, I see some of the tests today when I was in here earlier. Two foot in the ground. I mean, they found water, and I think you’d find water on top of the ground in March up there. I’ve walked in there and hunted in there and had to have boots on. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. STRANAHAN-So this is where we’re talking about putting a couple of these houses. I do not think it’s a good idea. I’m for the cluster zoning. I’m for keeping the houses, sometimes you guys are against the people on the slopes, but I’m more for keeping them out of the wetlands, keeping them out of the properties that we need. Actually our water goes down through those areas. Chris could explain it more than I can, but it goes down through those areas of wetlands and purifies it, probably better than some of the purification plants do. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. STRANAHAN-So that’s what my thoughts are on it. I don’t think we should approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. CLEMENTS-May I ask a question? And this is, I have no idea what the rest of the Board thinks about this. So this is just a question that might help the applicant here. You said that you’re against Lots Five and Six. What do you think about Seven, Eight, and Nine? MR. STRANAHAN-Seven, Eight and Nine don’t bother me. Mostly Five and Six. I think that Scott’s got some things he needs to address up there. He’s got a brother that needs a home. I’m not against that. I love those people to death. His kids come down and ride four wheelers on me and they’re like my own kids to me. I mean, I’d like to see them move forward with what they need to move forward with. I just don’t like to see this become a commercial project that doesn’t benefit the Town of Queensbury, and I’m really concerned about this Five and Six. MR. JACKOSKI-And can you tell me, sir, if Five and Six were combined, would that make it better? MR. STRANAHAN-Not if you’re going to build on them. I think you shouldn’t build on them. Maybe you ought to move one up here, up on, there’s a nice road out through there, up on the one spot right there, but I’m also against changing the density from the 10 acres to 5 or 6 acres on the 30 acre parcel. I think it’s a good thing to change to the cluster zoning on Scott’s parcel. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. STRANAHAN-Thank you. Thank you for your time. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-And is there anyone else in the audience this evening who’d like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one else, I’m going to leave the public hearing open, and, Mr. Hutchins, maybe you have some comments concerning the public comment. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure, I’ll take a shot at it. Mr. Navitsky indicated he supports the clustering concept, which is what we are trying to do here. We do have, we realize that portions of this property are on steeper slopes. They’re not usable. I think the density calc that we presented reflects that, and the steep slopes have been removed from the density calculation presented within the application. So we have done that. We still are okay on density on the 38 acre parcel, which is the Pushor parcel. That is in a three acre zone. That’s RR-3. It’s Mr. Spellburg’s parcel that is in the LC-10. So really the density issues that we’re requesting have to do with the LC-10 zone, and, I mean, we had some indicating that we like the support of the cluster concept. That’s what we’re trying to do. However, we cannot, with the LC-10 parcel, without some form of relief from that zone, we can do very little with that parcel. Chris mentioned the driveways on Lots Two, Three and Four. Driveways on Lots Two, Three, and Four, Lots Two and Three are going to share a driveway and part of that driveway is existing. It’s the driveway to Scott’s house, and Lot Four is sharing the initial driveway cut with Lot One. We sited the house locations in what we felt were reasonable locations for a house. Are we trying to site them in the best reasonable location for someone standing there and looking where they would want to site a residence? Yes, we are. We didn’t put them right next to the shared driveway. We moved them away a little bit. We moved them up the slope a little bit and we put them where the best building locations were. We put them where Scott’s been thinking about it for years, about where he wanted to locate the residence. As far as the Pushor parcel, Lots Five and Six, we do have a letter from the Adirondack Park Agency’s wetland biologist that looked at this lot and indicated in writing that there’s no jurisdictional wetlands on the lot. To Mr. Stranahan’s comment, those areas were the wettest areas we found on this parcel. Generally the soils are granular and everything was dry. That was the only place we had any indication of seasonal high water. Everything was dry when we dug the pits, and it certainly wasn’t a wetland. Water table was over two feet in depth, and the shallowest one we had was 30 inches. Yes, it is the wettest area of the site. It’s not a wetland, and we believe it to be reasonably buildable sites. So, I’ll turn it back over to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. SPELLBURG-Can I add just one thing? As far as they were discussing, the Water Keeper, yes, we could get more permeability by me giving more land up in the LC-10, trying to go back to the RR-3, but that was the whole object of my game plan was never to give up my land. I’m not changing the number of houses. I’m not adding more houses to my land. I just want to give away less land than 10 acres per lot. So the whole object for me was to not give away 10 acres per house. I’m not changing the permeability of mine. So I’m still going to have 44, 46, 47 acres that only one house is going on. MR. JACKOSKI-And there’s no likelihood that that? MR. SPELLBURG-There will be no more houses. There will be no houses after that anyway because of the slope and elevation you’ll never, you’ll be down the road, you know, just like anything else, you’d be here saying, okay, how could I do this again, and you wouldn’t be able to do it, and I would agree to that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this point I think I’d like to poll the Board, and we do have the public hearing still open. If you don’t mind I’d like to just poll the Board, and we’ll start down with Brian, on what your thoughts are about the proposal. MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. I think it’s unfortunate that this got re-zoned the way that it did, and I think that probably this could be re-configured, not necessarily the Spellburg lots, but the Pushor lots. So I think I would be in favor of this if the lots to the south were re-configured. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with some of what Mr. Stranahan said here. The test pit data, to back some of that up, we don’t want to make any environmental problems out of this. Given the grades of these properties, the potential is here to do a lot of damage. Also the stormwater protection plan is one of the best I’ve seen. I think Mr. Clements is right. There should be some re-configuration here. MR. CLEMENTS-Could I also add one other thing? The Warren County Planning Board, and I didn’t know if you were going to mention this or not, had suggested that there was No County Impact but with the stipulation, and the Warren County Planning Board recommended that with 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) the stipulation that Lot Number One be limited to one house and cannot be further subdivided at any time, which is that large. MR. SPELLBURG-What I just referred to. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, that large area. So I just wanted to add that to my comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, you know, the Pushor side is in RR-3, and he’s divided it into a lot larger than three, and, you know, Mr. Stranahan’s concern is something that’s a valid concern, but, you know, I don’t see him, he’s presenting him with five lots and it’s all on more than three acres. So I have no problem with that. The other side is Spellburg, you know, if you’re going to stipulate to Lot One is not going to be re-built, that’s fine. I’ve got no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I guess basically I’m in agreement with the other Board members. I have some concerns about Lots Five and Six, but they really are, it’s not something we have to concern ourselves with. It’s not part of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I sat down when I went through this and I went through each one of the lots, and as far as the road frontage requirement, I think everybody recognizes the fact that that’s when people are dealing with single lots that everybody is supposed to have a significant amount of road frontage because of the effect on traffic and the ingress and egress back and forth to their lots, but in this instance here, it’s up on Ellsworth Road. There’s really not that much traffic that’s going to be generated by more housing up on there, because this would be the build out for it. I would somewhat be in agreement with the Water Keeper’s commentary about the access to the property, and the road with the four percent grade to me isn’t that big of a deal, but when you go up to Lot Number One, you’re going almost straight up the contour lines, right up the fall line, and I think that’s, you know, as you proposed your stormwater, you’re going to have to keep a handle on that, and, you know, a year like this kind of accentuates why it’s important for us to make sure we do things and engineer things properly because we don’t want to deal with water problems and washouts on a storm by storm basis, but this year I think especially, if you work out in the woods, you recognize how wet it can get in this area here, because right now it’s as soggy out there as it ever could be, and I don’t think it would hurt for you to go up and take a second look at Lot Five and Six and maybe when you go through the Planning Board process, get the Planning Board up there and just be sensible about what you’re proposing. Because it’s a dumb idea to put housing, even if you’re going to bring in and pour a pad and bring a bunch of fill in and do it that way. That still doesn’t solve the problem. Up in Keene Valley they did that, and they got into a problem up there where the whole thing slid out, you know, and they didn’t bring in dirt, but that was dirt that was there, but when you start adding septic to the ground and the effect of that, you know, in a year like this, if anything can go wrong it will. I think that, you know, your driveways over on the Spellburg lots, to me, are, you know, they’re somewhat shared, but at the same time you are going further up the hill, so, I mean, that’s your choice, you want to do that. Initially, when I went through here, I was not for Lots Two, Three, and Four as you had proposed them, with the 10 acre zoning, but now that I understand what they did to you with the 10 acre zoning, I don’t know for what reason that occurred. Nonetheless it’s 10 acre zoning, so we’re going to have to grant relief for that, but based upon the fact that it used to be three acre zoning, even though it’s now changed to ten acre zoning, I think your impact, you’re trying to keep the impact low down on the slopes. You’re not going way up on the mountain and building houses all the way up to the pond up on top of the hill there, which you could do, you know, if you wanted to, but it doesn’t make any sense to worry about those lots over there, and I think your stormwater management plan’s going to effectively deal with the runoff there, but on the Pushor lot, I think that you should go back and take a second look at those Lots Five and Six up there. So I’m going to hold off on giving you approvals for Lots Five and Six until the Planning Board actually goes up there, and I think this is a perfect opportunity, with it being as wet as it is, and you might have to come back. Can we do partial approval of this, or we’ve got to do all or none. Okay. Let me just finish up. As far as the other lots, I think because of the, most of the houses up on the Pushor lot are going to be built relatively close to the access road. You’re not going that much further up the hill from the access road. So I wouldn’t have a problem with those, but I think that, you know, it has been pointed out that you have water running off into two different drainages. You’ve got the Dream Lake and into Glen Lake and into Halfway Brook, and then you’ve also got the impact on Lake George somewhat, maybe not as critically, but, nonetheless, we don’t want to exacerbate erosion problems. So I think that I’m not ready to do anything with Lots Five and Six until somebody really looks at them. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want to respond, Mr. Hutchins, or do you want to let Roy give his comments? Roy? MR. URRICO-I didn’t think I was going to have a chance. Well, we’re about two years removed from the zoning change. We’re less than five years removed from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and now we’re starting to see some of the results, and I’m really concerned, when we get applications that seek to lessen the zoning, and we see an LC-10 zone may or may not have been done correctly, but it has to be rectified, and it has to be rectified through the Town Board. Right now we have an LC-10 zone for that, and I get concerned when we look to shrink the size of the zone, and by that I mean asking for relief that would basically change the zoning for that area. We’re not talking about one lot. We’re talking about several lots, and when we start doing that, when we’re asking for a lot of relief on six lots. We’re asking for density on two lots, and density is a concern as well. So I think I have a problem with so much relief in one application because it could become a defacto new standard for the area. We won’t have an LC-10 in that area then, because now we have a number of lots that are not. So, as a whole, I’m against the application. I think we need to do some work on this. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I’d like to see some more information regarding Five and Six. I think the Pushor lot can be re-configured. Maybe it should only be four lots instead of six, yes, five. I think it’s important for us to pay attention to that flow of water, that ponding of water or the standing water. As far as the Spellburg lot, I’m not excited about the long driveway of Number One, but I certainly am appreciative of the fact that, you know, you’ve kept a 44 acre parcel there. So, I mean, that’s kind of where I’m standing. I think I’m okay with the rest of it. I certainly think there are concerns with those Pushor Five and Six lots. MR. HUTCHINS-And I don’t think we have a problem with agreeing to re-look at Five and Six. Frankly we’re going to have to when we get to the Planning Board anyway. We aren’t at the Planning Board yet to review the subdivision. Without relief from this Board, I mean, this, as it shows it doesn’t exist, there’s one item, it’s lot width on Lot Six, otherwise Lots Five and Six we’re not here requesting anything on Lots Five and Six. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but the whole, you know, as part of the whole subdivision, you know, balancing the fact that, you know, some of the other lots do require variances. I think as I look at the whole project as a whole I think, I don’t want you thinking well we’ll just fix Five and Six and everything else goes. I think the whole thing needs a look, maybe it’s only a seven or eight lot subdivision instead. I mean, we’ve got a lot of driveway surface. We have slope issues, we have density issues, as a whole. I think, you know, probably if you had come in here with just Lot One, I think I would have been for it all, but adding the Pushor lot, I’ve got some concerns about that water. I mean, I know there’s steep slopes there, and I know there are ravines there. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would add, too, the other alternative would be to go to the Town Board and request them to review the process of why that got changed to 10 acre, LC-10. I don’t think that would hurt because maybe for them it was somebody’s stroke of the pen. Somebody made the decision. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. MR. UNDERWOOD-And perhaps they could reconsider that or they could draw the line up behind your house on Lot Number One there, so most of it stayed LC-10 and we could consider the forefront to still be like your neighbor’s in the three acre zoning. MR. OBORNE-Am I correct in hearing that, the LC-10 or Scott’s lot is really not the main issue, it’s the Pushor lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. OBORNE-So I don’t understand what exercise. MR. UNDERWOOD-But Roy’s concerns are valid, you know, it’s 10 acre zoning, and, you know, we’re being asked to look the other way and pretend it’s three acre zoning, which we seem amenable to, but I don’t understand the mindset of the Board, having dealt with Ellsworth’s property just to the side there, when that was three acre, why this is any different. It’s right next door. MR. SPELLBURG-It technically isn’t, all the way down that road. It’s no different, as a matter of fact, mine is the least steep of all the lots down the road. I understand it, yes, it’s an unfortunate incident and I’m not wrapped into the time consuming process that’s already a year and a half, 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) two years just to get here and say yes or no, not to mention the amount of money you spend just to say yes or no, and, like I say, I’m not trying to change the density, the permeability of the lot. I’m only putting four houses there. Where if it was RR-3, I could probably get away with more, and the roadways, my driveway that you see, and I’m sharing two driveways, the driveway that I’m going up in Lot Number One is already there. These are logging roads that have been there forever, and, yes, your photos don’t won’t show it, but there’s logging roads all the way across there. They’ve been there since the beginning of time. I drive on them. I hike on them, I jog on them, and my driveway is in existence, you know, I’m not trying to make something new. Actually I would love to be down a little lower, but, you know, we’re going for the side setbacks and everything else. We’re trying to stay away from the lines. In one case, I’m staying away from lines, and then I’m actually getting closer to lines because it would be better for everybody. So it’s a Catch-22. MR. JACKOSKI-It’s a balancing act. We know. MR. UNDERWOOD-So do you want to table this, then? MR. SPELLBURG-And in spite of what you’ve said, proposed dividing this process up, now, the Pushors are friends of mine, they’re my neighbors. We did it as a joint effort so it would maybe relieve some of the questions all in one time because I didn’t want you to ask what’s going to take place down the road. We know what’s taking place down the road. I also don’t want to get tied up in their chase for what they want to do. Now if they say, okay, Mr. Spellburg, you know something, we don’t want to do it this year, okay, I’m then stuck because I’m trying to get my four lots. They can take all the time in the world. I’m trying to get it in a hurry. I’m doing this under a hardship condition for a family member, and, you know, time is of the essence, which doesn’t go by very quickly here. So I would also offer the idea that I could divide this back into the two people. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it’s nice that it didn’t get segmented initially, but as you say, they are two separate property owners, that’s your option to do that. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, well, I’m just trying to get a little feedback from you guys. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, certainly if you came in with a new application for just your lot, even though we’ve already seen it, we understand that. MR. SPELLBURG-Right. Exactly. MR. HUTCHINS-But we’re still going to struggle with the density. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, but at the same time, maybe I could, there’s no understanding, because I asked the Planning Board, I asked them why, and nobody would give me an answer. I asked them if they were in favor of changing it back, no, but I was just asking them why, I just realized now my next step is to get relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, part of the lot’s RR-3A and part of it’s not. MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. Well, even still, they left off my little corner because I own another lot on the other side of the driveway. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So are you requesting a tabling motion? MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The public hearing is still open, just for the record. So the applicant has requested a tabling motion. I’ll go ahead and make that motion that we table this application to th a submission deadline of November 15 for the December meeting. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it depends on what we’re going to do. If we submit, yes, that’s fine. MR. JACKOSKI-We can do an open-ended tabling if you wish. MR. HUTCHINS-No, that’s fine. MR. JACKOSKI-And which meeting would you like to table this to? I don’t know the dates of the December meetings. The first meeting in December. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) th MR. HUTCHINS-We can re-submit by November 15 anyway. Generally we can get before this Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Given the holidays and everything else, I think it would be better to give you a date. stth MR. OBORNE-21 or 28. stst MR. JACKOSKI-The 21. So we’ll table it to the 21 with a re-submission application of thth November 15 or new application submission by November 15. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2011 SCOTT SPELLBURG & LISA PUSHOR, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: stth Tabled to the December 21 with a re-submission deadline of November 15 or new application th submission by November 15. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. SPELLBURG-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2011 SEQRA TYPE II ANDREW WEST AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) SHARON DAVIES AND OTHERS ZONING WR LOCATION 12 JOSHUA’S ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AND EXPAND EXISTING 553 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 425 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE RESULTING IN A 575 SQ. FT. DOCK WITH 589 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF SP 66-2011; AV 23-2011; SP 32-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2011 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.85 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-8 AND 9 SECTION 179-5-060 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-Sure, Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Today, at approximately 3:20 p.m., I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Community Development Department, pursuant to Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-16- 090, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the recently proposed modifications in the form of Area Variance No. 63-2011, which is before the Board this evening, to this Board June 2011 Area Variance 23-2011 approval required a new site plan and variance approvals. Town Law Article 16, Section 267-A(6) Titled Stay of an Appeal. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such ordinance or local law from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board of Appeals after the notice of appeal shall have been filed with the administrative official that by reason of fact stated in the certificate, a stay would, in his or her opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case the proceedings shall not be stayed. I am not aware that the Zoning Administrator has certified to this Board that this proceeding should not be stayed for cause of imminent peril to life or property. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Clarification. The Zoning Administrator has not seen the Notice of Appeal at this point. It came in at 3:30 this afternoon. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Given the point of order raised by Mr. Salvador, I’d like to have a discussion with the Board members on how we should proceed. Any recommendations? MR. UNDERWOOD-We scheduled a hearing on this this evening, and the applicants are here. So I think that at the least we can, I have some questions in my mind because I was unsure as 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) to why we were hearing this again, other than for some slight changes from the original plan that we approved here, but I don’t know how everybody else feels. MR. JACKOSKI-We also haven’t noticed that there was an appeal. Mr. Salvador, could I have a read back, please, of the language that you quoted regarding whether the stay was applicable or not. MR. OBORNE-You’re assuming that it’s accurate, though. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. I just would like to hear it back. MR. SALVADOR-Are you requesting that I read back the section of Town law that I read? MR. JACKOSKI-If you wouldn’t mind, sir. MR. SALVADOR-Town Law Article 16, Section 267-A(6) titled Stay on Appeal. An appeal shall stay all proceedings, shall stay all proceedings, in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the administrative official charged with the enforcement of such ordinance or local law from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the Board of Appeals after notice of appeal shall have been filed with the administrative official that by reason of fact stated in the certificate, a stay would, in his or her opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property, in which case the proceedings shall not be stayed. I am not aware that the Zoning Administrator has certified to this Board that this proceeding should not be stayed for cause of imminent peril to life or property. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador, what is the basis for the appeal that you’re suggesting should have a stay associated with it? MR. SALVADOR-Let me read that paragraph again. Today, at approximately 3:20 p.m., I filed a Notice of Appeal with the Community Development Department, pursuant to Town Code Chapter 179, Section 179-16-090, appealing the Zoning Administrator’s determination that the recently proposed modifications in the form of Area Variance 63-2011 to this Board’s June 2011 Area Variance 23-2011 approval required new site plan and variance approvals. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the date of the Zoning Administrator’s decision that was used for that basis? MR. SALVADOR-I have it here. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, are you aware of the date of the notice that Mr. Brown used? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, I have it here. MR. OBORNE-I’m sure he has it. It has to be within 60 days. MR. SALVADOR-September 9, 2011. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and assuming that date is the date, what is your standing in this matter? MR. SALVADOR-I am an interested party. I’m a neighboring property owner. I live in the vicinity. I am an aggrieved party. MR. JACKOSKI-And in this matter, did you receive a notice as a property owner within 500 feet of the property? MR. SALVADOR-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you believe you should have? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Without the advice of legal counsel here, at this point, it’s my recommendation as Chairman that we, until we have further notice, open the public hearing, allow the public to speak because it was an advertised event. I would like to get a very brief description of the project from the applicant. It is my opinion that this Board should not take action on this matter, that we will be tabling it, and I’d like to address that with the public at this time, that we would be tabling this application until we can get a clarification from legal and the Zoning Administrator. Would that satisfy you, Mr. Salvador? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. SALVADOR-The public hearing will be held? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, sir. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mr. MacElroy, if you could, and again, we’re very familiar with the project. It has been in front of this Board many times. It has received other appeals by Mr. Salvador. I’m not sure if you want to clarify why you’re back in front of us, and then we would like to open the public hearing and as I’ve mentioned, we are going to be tabling this matter. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Dennis MacElroy for applicant Andrew West. The difference between this application and what was approved in the June meetings is that the dock configuration, the pier configuration has changed slightly. Basically the dock as you look at it from the shore has two piers that go outwards. The southerly pier will stay exactly as originally approved. The northerly pier will be shifted two feet, two and a half feet, two feet to the north. It was determined through review by contractors that Andrew had, at the dock site, that the southerly pier was in good enough shape. There had been work done on it, I guess somewhat within 15 years or so, so that it was in a stable enough condition that that could remain as it was to achieve the separation of the width of the, the berth of the, for the boat slip. It requires widening that, shifting the northerly pier, and therefore it’s a slight change. It, in fact, does not change any of the dimensional restrictions or requirements that was the basis of the variance. MR. UNDERWOOD-So would that not move it further away from the relief requested? MR. MAC ELROY-No, the relief was based on the southerly pier location, which remains the same as what was approved. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the north really has nothing to do with it. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Could I clarify? Didn’t the north pier, though, project into the line if it were run out, actually that pier also required relief? MR. OBORNE-No, it was the southerly. MR. MAC ELROY-Not from the northerly boundary line. MR. JACKOSKI-Not from the northerly boundary line. Both piers had an effect on the southern boundary line, correct. MR. MAC ELROY-This is quite an unusual situation that was in existence prior to any of the regulations that were created. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from the Board before I open the public hearing? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, my only one was this. You did your fact sheet here, and you’re supposed to have a stamped survey, and you still don’t have it checked off on there, and it doesn’t look like your survey is stamped. So I’m wondering why that is. MR. OBORNE-He provided a stamped survey, if you look at the master file. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it should be in the master? MR. OBORNE-It should be. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience this evening that. Go ahead, Rick. MR. GARRAND-If this survey is reasonably accurate, you’re asking us to grant a variance for a dock, the majority of which is in another lot on a different parcel? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. The property in that area, the dock is associated with tax parcel number nine. Tax parcel number eight is part of the Joshua’s Rock Corporation, of which the owners of Lot Nine are part of. It’s a family compound. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. GARRAND-I’m aware of that. It’s just kind of unusual to see the majority of a dock in another property. MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. The application is authorized by both owners, the owners of both lots. Andrew is the applicant. He’s under contract for parcel nine. That dock is associated, by agreement, with parcel nine. It just exists in a physical condition that straddles the projection of the property line, that common boundary. It’s certainly unusual, but the simple explanation that perhaps a dock existed before the lot line was created, the lot line created back in the early 1900’s, 1903 I believe. So the location of the dock has some history that perhaps pre-dates that. So there wasn’t a concern, I guess, about where that lot line was, or the lot line was dictated by other issues. ANDREW WEST MR. WEST-Yes, and I’d like to add, Andrew West. I think we’re also here because after reviewing this with dock builders and being prepared to submit applications for permits to move forward and working with dock builders, we recognized that the architect, in fact, had constructed plans, and due to oversight, when we worked with the Park Commission, we recognized that by shrinking the piers in fact wasn’t in the best interest of either the dock building process to meet current standards, wasn’t in the best interest of maintaining and preserving the existing pier on the southerly boundary, and it would require a much more costly process to renovate. So the existing approved variance, and the existing application that has been approved, that we could proceed forward with, you know, it has issues given that it’s prohibitively expensive to move forward with, and there was just an oversight due to an error. I argue that there is imminent peril here to the property. Mr. Salvador’s objections, which are unnecessary at best. The whole property, this whole project stands to not move forward, in which case one of the most historic properties, in fact, one of a couple of properties that is on the history registry, you know, stands to fall apart and if you look at the property, which I’m sure most of you have, it is falling apart day by day, and I think it’s unfortunate that, without merit, there are objections here to small things like this, and unnecessarily wasting our time while we’re looking to seek minor relief here to an existing approved variance, and to Dennis’ point, I think the variance that is being considered here, which Craig recommended we bring forth in front of this Board again because there was some modification to the plan, is not being changed. The initial variance or the southern boundary, we’re not changing that. We’re not moving anything. It’s the northern boundary. It’s very nonconforming to your point property and there’s no interest by the existing property owners, by the Joshua’s Rock Corporation, to move property lines. That’s, you know, they’ve done a tremendous job of preserving that lake frontage, preserving all the land that’s part of the fish rack, that’s associated with the properties of JRC, and I, you know, hope that we can move forward with this. MR. JACKOSKI-May I ask, you had mentioned that the property is on the National Historic Registry? MR. WEST-It is on the National Historic Registry. It’s, I’m not sure the technical coding for it, but it’s a non-funded, but we’ve received letters of support from the National Historic Registry. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Keep in mind that this, you’re here for the dock and boathouse. MR. WEST-Correct. MR. OBORNE-Mellowstone was approved previously. MR. WEST-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-And OPRHP and the feds signed off on that, right, so that was of no concern to them? MR. WEST-Correct. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. MR. WEST-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to address the Board at this time concerning this matter? Mr. Salvador? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Hunt and gentlemen of the Board. My name, for your record, is John Salvador. Since early 1973, my wife and I have maintained the ownership of real property zoned residential, which has been in both commercial and residential use, all in the vicinity of this boathouse modification project on Dunham Bay. Over the years, we have become very conversant in the meaning of nonconforming uses and substandard or nonconforming lots. As I understand this application for a boathouse reconstruction, the applicant has requested a revision to a previous variance AV 23-2011, which was approved by this Board, as recently as June 22, 2011. However, the application before you bears little reference to that Area Variance, AV 23-2011, already approved four months ago. Rather than treat the application as a revision, as requested by the applicant, to the previous approvals, the Zoning Administrator has determined, as of September 9, 2011, that the revisions being proposed are significant enough to warrant the Planning Board’s review of a new site plan application and consequently your Area Variance review. The only revision being proposed is one of overall dock area, from the previously approved 533 square foot to the now envisioned 575 square feet, a mere eight percent increase in a parameter which does not even require a variance from the allowable dock area which is 700 square feet. The setback relief being requested remains unchanged, that is 20 feet or 100%. If this Area Variance AV 63-2011 were to be approved as a new application rather than say revision one to AV 23-2011, what is to become of your previous approvals and the applicant’s submissions supporting that approval? You will recall that the uncertified map of a survey supposedly authored by Coulter and McCormack in 2003, the pro offered map fails to meet all measures of the work of a New York State licensed land surveyor. The question is, does it still form a basis for a claim of ownership in the name of Sharon Davies, et. al. or is it in the name of Edwin E. Seeley, as Coulter & McCormack called it in 1982 on the unfiled map? Or even as the Warren County deed records show it to be in the name of the Joshua’s Rock Corporation. The applicant has offered a deed showing ownership of tax parcel nine to be in Edwin E. Seeley as of 1924. The question is, who owns the property today? Edwin E. Seeley died in 1959. Remember the Coulter & McCormack licensed land surveyor in the State of New York made a call that the estate of Edwin E. Seeley was the record holder of title as of March 1982, because as Ms. Davies pointed out in her letter th of May 17, 2011 to this Board, that upon Edwin E. Seeley’s death in 1959, only a life estate was passed on to his wife, Eleanor J. Seeley. As of 1982, Coulter & McCormack was saying that ownership of Mellowstone, that is tax parcel nine, never vested in Eleanor J. Seeley. This boathouse straddles the line with more than half of it on lot to the south. The boathouse is, in fact, a pre-existing, nonconforming structure, some of which is on a nonconforming lot, some of it on a conforming lot. Any variances should not increase the degree of nonconformity. It is not enough that the Joshua’s Rock Corporation gives permission for boathouse pier modifications on Lot Number Eight, for reasons that Ms. Davies requires a variance for a side yard setback of zero feet, zero, zero inches, so, too, does the Joshua’s Rock Corporation require an area variance attached to its lot to the south, Number Eight. The Corporation cannot give permission to another to undertake something which the corporation itself is prohibited from undertaking without a variance. This pre-existing boathouse was registered with the DEC in 1981 by Eleanor J. Seeley and received Registration Number 1292. According to Ms. Davies, her grandmother was not the owner of TP23919-1-9, as she had only a conditional life estate. The registration, therefore, has no validity in the law. I’d like to mention just a couple of other things that have evaded review. One of the first three milfoil infestations brought to light in the middle 1980’s on Lake George was located right in front of this property. It’s been covered with a benthic mat, which hasn’t. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. This is pertinent to this application. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m failing to understand how it is pertinent to address whether or not this, sir. MR. SALVADOR-Because the boat traffic in and out of these docks that have been built along these docks that have been built along there. MR. JACKOSKI-Wait, just a moment, the boat traffic out of the marina docks along Route 9L? MR. SALVADOR-No, the docks bordering these properties, the Joshua’s Rock Corporation. MR. JACKOSKI-The four docks. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, they have to. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Not the docks at the marina down at the end of the bay? MR. SALVADOR-No, our boats. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, I don’t understand. MR. SALVADOR-If you’ll let me, I’ll explain. MR. JACKOSKI-One more minute, please. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. The boats that leave our marina do not, it’s not necessary for them to go to the west side of the bay. It’s not necessary. They go toward the center of the bay and onto the lake, but these, the boats that come out of the area along the west shore must traverse this milfoil infestation. It has not been quarantined. I’d like to mention that the filing in the National Register of Historic sites includes the site, not just the building. It is the whole site that has been put in the Register, and when it was put in the Register, it was stated that it was owned by the Joshua’s Rock Corporation. The gentleman who filed the application professed to be the president of the Corporation and that the Corporation held title to the land. There is no excuse for a property that has been listed in the National Register of Historic Sites to be falling apart. Someone has responsibility for this. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who’d like to address the Board? Seeing no one else from the public, I will leave the public hearing open. Mr. Salvador, before I forget, you did mention ownership. You seemed to have a concern with ownership and you did mention earlier that you were an adjoining property owner. You’re not suggesting that you have ownership in any of this property? MR. SALVADOR-This property? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-No. Not at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, sir. Obviously, Dennis, we’re going to table this. Do you want to continue the discussion or would you like the motion? MR. MAC ELROY-What would be the projection of returning here? th MR. JACKOSKI-Is it possible to get them on to the November 30 meeting? MR. OBORNE-No, it’s not, and Craig will have to chime in on this obviously, as the Zoning Administrator. This Notice of Appeal was dropped off, again, today at 3:30. It had missed the deadline for the November Zoning Board meetings, which means it kicks it out to December at this point. He can make a determination to put it on November, but this isn’t moving forward until that issue has been cleared up or resolved. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, this issue can move forward if legal counsel suggests to us that the stay is not applicable. MR. OBORNE-That’s fine. If you put that in your resolution, that you want legal counsel to look at that particular issue, I would highly recommend that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, and the lack of a stamped survey. So we can straighten that out. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I’m reasonably certain there is a stamped survey somewhere. I’m reasonably certain, especially since the last project went before you guys also. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So in the motion we want to note that we’re going to table it to the next available meeting, that we do need a stamped survey. MR. WEST-Could I ask for a conditional approval, based upon review from your counsel? MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately I don’t think t hat’s appropriate because I did notice everyone that we would not take action other than to table. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I would like to ask legal counsel, too, why, if they’re going to need less relief than what we already granted, they have to come back. I still don’t understand why we’re here a second time through. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. OBORNE-It’s because the Zoning Administrator made a determination that this needs to go before you again because the amount of relief, and the amount of change to what was previously approved warrants that in his opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-You move something two feet over. MR. OBORNE-It’s not just that. The project has gotten larger, also. MR. JACKOSKI-And I think, I would assume that, I’m glad that it’s in front of us again simply because when we granted the original relief it was because the original cribs were one of the reasons that they were keeping them there, and so we allowed them to stay there, but now that some of it’s being moved, you know. MR. MAC ELROY-They were both going to be modified. MR. JACKOSKI-Modified, I understand, but now. MR. WEST-And now I’m suggesting that only one gets modified, one remains intact in its entirety. MR. JACKOSKI-With no changes whatsoever. MR. WEST-Correct. Seven feet, keeping it its existing, existing crib structure because that was actually repaired, I’m not sure of an exact date, but within the last 15 years, and it remains in good shape. MR. JACKOSKI-I think we can’t do a conditional. I apologize. I think we really have to, because of the paperwork that Mr. Salvador has filed, and I apologize. I’m not familiar with the extent of what he has suggested, but I think we need to err on the side of caution in this application. MR. GARRAND-Yes, we’ve never done conditional approvals. It’s either approve, deny or table. MR. UNDERWOOD-Table. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, we have to table. I’m sorry. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2011 ANDREW WEST, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Until the next available date on the calendar, also pending counsel regarding the stay submitted by Mr. Salvador, and we’d also like information from the Zoning Administrator whether a new survey should be required on this that is stamped. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Do we want to set a date, or do we need to leave it open in order to allow the Zoning Administrator and the attorneys to make clarification? MR. OBORNE-I would say pending clarification. MR. JACKOSKI-All right, so pending clarification. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. WEST-Thanks very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2011 SEQRA TYPE II ANTHONY AND JUDY MANGINO OWNER(S) ANTHONY AND JUDY MANGINO ZONING WR LOCATION 67 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 72 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY PORCH/DECK TO THE EXISTING SEASONAL RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FRONT, SIDE, SHORELINE SETBACKS AS WELL AS FOR PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RECOMMENDATION CROSS REF SP 65-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2011 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.07 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-31 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 ANTHONY MANGINO, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 64-2011, Anthony and Judy Mangino, Meeting Date: October 19, 2011 “Project Location: 67 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 72 sq. ft. covered entry porch/deck to existing seasonal residence. Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Front setback – Request for 3.6 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement Shoreline setback – Request for 4.2 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement Side setback – Request for 5.2 feet of relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement Permeability – Request for an additional 41.3 square feet or 51.1% impermeable surfacing from the 25% impermeable surfacing requirement. FAR – Request for an additional 101.6 square feet or a floor area ratio of 25.4% from the 22% requirement. Expansion of a nonconforming structure – This action must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts may be anticipated concerning the character of the neighborhood by the granting of this area variance. 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. Lot limitations and existing conditions appear to preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 3.6 feet or 12% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement and 4.2 feet or 8.4% relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 5.2 feet or 43% relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for an additional 41.3 square feet or 1.5% increase of impermeable surfacing resulting in site impermeability of 51.1% may be considered moderate as the parcel has existing permeability issues. Moreover, the request for an additional 101.6 square feet or 3.4% increase in FAR resulting in a site FAR of 25.4% may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for the expansion of a nonconforming structure requires the approval of this board. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as the size of the proposal is minor in nature. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 65-2011 Hard surfacing and Exp. of N/C in CEA Pending Staff comments: As lot size is 0.07 acres or 2,920 square feet, any proposed expansion of the camp will in all likelihood require an area variance of some sort. Although on the surface the preponderance of variances requested may be great in an empirical sense, this should be weighed against the size of the project. The purpose for this expansion, according to the applicant is for ease of 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) access and shelter from the elements; access deck not to be enclosed. The applicant has no intention of retrofitting this seasonal camp to year round use at this present time. Planning Board recommendation provided. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required” MR. URRICO-There’s a Planning Board recommendation. The Planning Board, regarding this Area Variance, has said that the resolution based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they adopted this October 18, 2011, and it was approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. I don’t know that you could add too much more to all of that, but if you can, feel free. MR. MANGINO-Just go ahead and vote. My name’s Anthony Mangino. My wife and I own a seasonal residence, 67 Rockhurst Road, Town of Queensbury, waterfront Lake George, and we’re simply proposing an approximately 72 square foot entry porch in front of the one and only entranceway into the cottage. The cottage is basically the original footprint as it was in 1957 when constructed. There’s no bump outs or storage units or anything like that. This will, you know, not only enhance it aesthetically, but it’ll provide shelter entering and exiting the cottage when it’s raining, and a small area, but large enough for maybe a couple of chairs in the hot sun, things like that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. MANGINO-Our proposal is to cover it but have it open on the sides, and, you know, not enclose it whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions at this time on this application from any of the Board members? Seeing none, we do have a public hearing to open this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to address this Board regarding this application? Mr. Navitsky. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-While Mr. Navitsky’s taking the table, Roy, are there any written comments? MR. URRICO-There’s one public comment. It’s from Margaret Bunke. “I am the owner of the property at 65 Rockhurst Road, and I will not be in attendance at tonight’s meeting. I want to convey my support for the Mangino’s proposal without reservation.” MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mr. Navitsky. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper understands the site constraints of the minimal acreage on the lot, which is undersized as per the current zoning requirements. It is our opinion that a balance must be met on non-compliant lots, which include benefits for water quality protection. We request that the ZBA apply the Town’s regulations and in particular compliance with imposition of reasonable conditions incidental to the use. The requested reduction in permeability for the property may have environmental impacts. The Town of Queensbury Code establishes permeability requirements for the protection of water quality and the environment through maintaining vegetative cover that incorporates shoreline buffering and maintaining natural soils which can infiltrate and reduce stormwater runoff. The property does have existing patios between the dwelling and the lake. The further expansion of the dwelling, although providing a convenience for the owners, will further reduce permeable surface on the property. We recommend the consideration of a removal of one of the existing patios to balance the potential impacts which would actually increase the permeability on the property, and a shoreline buffer should be required for the property. The property does not have an existing shoreline buffer which is prevalent along the entire Rockhurst peninsula. Again, this incorporation of a buffer would improve infiltration and reduce stormwater runoff and improve treatment to the lake. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who’d like to address the Board on this application? Please. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) CAROLYN CURREN MRS. CURREN-Carolyn Curren, 69 Rockhurst Road. I’m the neighbor to the north. I’m the neighbor that would be most affected by this, and I don’t have a problem with it. I think it’ll be fine. It’s just a deck with a roof over it to shelter people from the rain. So, if anybody’s view would get blocked, it would be mine, and I’m assuming from the way the roof is going to be built, that it shouldn’t block my view. So I don’t have a problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate that. Is there anyone else? Yes, please. JANET REYNOLDS MRS. REYNOLDS-I’m Janet Reynolds, and I live at 71 Rockhurst Road, and I have no problem with that. The only problem I have is with what’s there right now. Their stairs into their house is at an angle like this, and it’s very difficult for somebody that has problems walking. I have a hard time going up their steps as it is now. With what they’re proposing, it’s going to be a lot easier to access their house. Those steps will not be so steep, Number One. Number Two, I believe it is going to be a wooden deck. It’s not going to be something that’s going to hold water. They have a lot of shrubbery to absorb whatever might run off from that deck or that roof over to Carolyn’s house, Carolyn Curren, and I’m in favor of it, only because I do frequent the house quite a bit, and have a tough time going up inside their home. So I just wanted to make that clear. That it would be a benefit to their property. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who’d like to address the Board? Seeing no one else, I’ll leave the public hearing and poll the Board real quickly. If we could start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Sure. Thank you. I don’t see any problem with this project. I think that you should probably look at what runoff you might have and maybe do some plantings around it, but other than that, I’d be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-And just for clarification, Keith, this is going back to site plan with the Planning Board, correct? MR. OBORNE-Yes, next week. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Just one question for Anthony. Any gutters on it or no? MR. MANGINO-There’s an existing gutter on the house, on the lake side. MR. KUHL-On the addition, are you putting gutters on it or no? MR. MANGINO-Most likely we will, yes. MR. KUHL-Is that because I asked? Because I just wanted to know. I mean, is that what you had planned? MR. MANGINO-Yes, because the entrance is going to be from this side that you’re looking at on the driveway, and then the other stairs are going to go towards the lake, so, and both sides of the peaked roof that’ll be runoff. MR. KUHL-Okay, no, I have no problem with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well, I think the effects of this deck should be mitigated in some form or another, A, by plantings or, B, removal of the patio. MR. JACKOSKI-Which patio? MR. GARRAND-The one closest to the lake, it’s very close in size. MR. JACKOSKI-The stone patio? MR. GARRAND-Yes. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would question the judgment of, you know, it’s over the FAR. Everybody recognizes the small nature of the lots and the crowded nature of Rockhurst. I think it’s imperative that the Planning Board consider that removal of the stone patio down by the water to increase the permeability and I’d like to see more plantings and a couple of trees at least, you know, you drive along Rockhurst and it’s very sparse in vegetation, and I think that does have a detrimental effect on the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I think it’s a very modest proposal. Seventy-two square feet is a very small porch, and I can understand wanting to have a covered place to enter the house, and I don’t think that the increase in the 3.4% is out of line, and you do have a very small piece of property, but I would like to see more plantings to make sure that any water runoff is taken care of. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m okay with the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I, too, am okay with the project, and I think the Planning Board will do a good job of deciding what the shoreline buffering requirements will be and whether or not they feel that the patio needs to be removed when they do their site plan review. The applicant has suggested that they will not enclose and make a three season porch out of the proposed covered deck, and I do agree that, with the topography and the stairs and everything, that it’ll make the house a lot more accessible. So I’m in favor of the application as well. At this time, would anyone like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 64-2011 ANTHONY AND JUDY MANGINO, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 67 Rockhurst Road. The applicant proposes a 72 square foot covered entry porch/deck to the existing seasonal residence. Relief required: front setback request for 3.6 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement; shoreline setback request for 4.2 feet of relief from the 50 foot shoreline setback requirement; side setback request for 5.2 feet of relief from the 12 foot side setback requirement; permeability request for an additional 41.3 square feet or 51.1% impermeable surfacing from the 25% impermeable surfacing requirement; FAR request for an additional 101.6 square feet or a Floor Area Ratio of 25.4% from the 22% requirement and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Minor impacts may be anticipated concerning the character of the neighborhood by granting of this Area Variance. The neighbors to either side have not voiced any objections. The lot limitations and the existing conditions preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than the variance. Requests range from minor to moderate and they’re requesting an expansion of the nonconforming structure because of the small lot. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated because this proposal is minor. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move we approve Area Variance No. 64-2011. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and just for clarification, if you had had a boathouse with a deck on it, I would have also asked you to remove that patio closest to the lake. MR. MANGINO-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 65-2011 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SUNNY CREST PROPERTIES, LLC AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SUNNY CREST PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING NC LOCATION 333 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 43 SQUARE FOOT, 8 FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN OF WHICH A 24 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF THE SIGN ADVERTIZES A BUSINESS NOT LOCATED ON SAID 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) PROPERTY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PLACEMENT OF A FREESTANDING SIGN ON A PROPERTY OTHER THAN WHERE THE GOODS OR SERVICES ARE OFFERED. CROSS REF SP 77-2010; SP 78-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 12, 2011 LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-31.1 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 65-2011, Sunny Crest Properties, LLC, Meeting Date: October 12, 2011 “Project Location: 333 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has placed a 43 square foot, 8 foot tall freestanding sign of which a 24 square foot portion of the sign advertizes a business not located on said property. Relief Required: Relief requested for placement of a freestanding sign on a property other than were services are offered. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the character of 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. Lot configuration, existing conditions, and the desire to have advertized fronting Aviation Road appear to preclude any feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than a sign variance as described. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request to place a sign on property where the goods or serviced mentioned on the sign are not available are not permitted as per §140-5A. This request must be approved by this board. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 77-2010 Parking reconfiguration Approved 12/16/10 SP 78-2010 Lot line adjustment/parking easements Approved 12/16/10 Staff comments: The existing sign is compliant in regards to setbacks and size. No current sign permit on file. SEQR Status: Unlisted – Short form attached.” MR. JACKOSKI-If you’d like to add to that application, certainly feel free to. If you could identify yourselves for the record. MR. O'CONNOR-Ladies and gentlemen, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I’m representing the applicant. With me is Tim Smith, who is a principle in the firm of Whittemore, Dowen & Ricciardelli, who is the non-owner part of this application. I don’t know if you need to go, or how deep you need to go, but basically these two buildings, the front building that is now being occupied by Dr. Bartlett and the back building that is being occupied by the accounting firm, were built as one project in 2005. At that time, the site plan required that the traffic be one way traffic, if you will, from Aviation Road to the back road, and the signage on the interior of the property when you drove in and turned around and looked at what you were doing, 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) you saw that you were directed to come from Aviation Road to either building, that’s a shared parking lot, and then go out onto the back road. Some time after, in the last year I guess it was, the owners of the two buildings decided to sell the front building, and the sold the front building with the entire width of the lot to Dr. Bartlett. They maintained the commonality of the parking lot to serve both buildings, and both times it went through the Planning Board nobody really said anything at all about signage. I know, I went back and looked at the 2005 site plan. There was a sign shown and the sign was erected. The Town can’t find whether or not there was ever a permit for that sign, a $25 permit, but the sign’s been there since 2005, and basically now what they would like to do is maintain the same traffic flow, and change the signs. If you will, basically the old sign had six messages on it. At the time that this picture was taken, two of the tenants, there were four tenants in the four building, had left. So they took down their placards, and a sign a little bit smaller, but now with two messages on it, because both buildings are going to be owned and occupied by, they’re owned and occupied by just one entity, and that’s really what they’re talking about. If you have questions, we’d be glad to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. URRICO-(lost word) doing away with the Executive Park West functionality but the flow of traffic’s going to be the same? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. The Park idea was when I think everything was owned by one entity. Now it’s owned by two separate entities so it’s not necessarily a commonality of ownership. MR. UNDERWOOD-A commonality of access. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Go from Aviation Road back to, I kept saying back road, Manor Drive. MR. UNDERWOOD-Manor, and if you had your sign on Manor it probably wouldn’t bring you much business, because most people don’t even know where Manor is. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s a nice message out there to remind people that the businesses are there. I don’t know how much either of these businesses are impulse type operations. I don’t think they are. MR. GARRAND-Bartlett does a good business. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and as I’ve told people that have been into the suite, he did a great job renovating the whole building, and, you know, the site, if you look at the site, the site’s been very professionally maintained landscaped, kept up. It was a nice addition to the neighborhood, a nice addition to Queensbury. MR. KUHL-What’s the square footage of the new sign, Mike? Is it less than what’s there? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it’s just a little bit less. I put it in the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it’s under 45. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We squared it off. It was 96 inches by 53 inches or 53, 63 inches. MR. KUHL-And what you’re stating here is it’s not going to grow, that’s the way it is now. It’s going to be like that? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And after the issue was raised, just so your records show that they put up a temporary sign. What they did is they left up the old sign and left the accounting firm on top, and put a temporary placard in there for Dr. Bartlett. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it’s right there. MR. O'CONNOR-But that sign will come down. The other sign will go back in its same place. The lighting that’s there will remain the same. MR. KUHL-And Keith, this whole issue is because nobody could find a building permit for that? MR. UNDERWOOD-No, they sold the building in the back. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) MR. OBORNE-The issue is that they subdivided the parcel. Actually it wasn’t a subdivision it was a lot line adjustment. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. OBORNE-And now you have one of the tenants in the rear is on this sign, and that’s not allowed by Code. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Things change. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So would anyone like to make a motion? Sorry, we do have a public hearing this evening scheduled, and do we have to do SEQRA? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’ll do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Please raise your hand. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to do SEQRA first. HAVING REVIEWED THE SHORT FORM SEQRA FORM, WE DETERMINE THAT WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THERE WILL BE ANY EFFECTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE CHANGE WITH THIS SIGN. IN ESSENCE IT’S GOING TO REMAIN A SIGN ADVERTISING TWO BUSINESSES, AND THAT’S WHAT’S OUT THERE NOW, IN ITS NEW FASHION FROM WHAT IT ORIGINALLY WAS INTENDED TO BE, SO I WOULD GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-I do want to, for the record, make sure that we’ve closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 65-2011 SUNNY CREST PROPERTIES, LLC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 333 Aviation Road. The applicant has placed a 43 square foot eight foot tall freestanding sign of which a 24 square foot portion of the sign advertises a business not located on the said property. Relief is requested for the placement of a freestanding sign on the property other than where services are offered. In regards to this application, no undesirable change will be noted in the neighborhood, nor could the benefit be sought by the applicant, other than putting it on a back road, street where he would not have any appearance for people trying to locate the business. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. Both businesses were once part of the single parcel. The front parcel has been sold, so the rear parcel now is considered to be a separate parcel, and so it needs maximum relief because it’s not attached to Aviation Road where the sign exists. We do not note that there will be any adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Even though the alleged difficulty is created by the fact of the selling of this property, it makes perfect sense because obviously people need to locate the business and it’ll be identified in a normal manner. th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. O’CONNOR-Thank you. Can I make a suggestion to you, too, on whatever that Joshua’s Rock thing is. When you schedule, the appeal thing is an old trick, and I think your counsel is going to tell you that you are stayed with the appeal. Schedule the appeal and the re-opening 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2011) of that hearing the same night. So you can do them both the same night. Don’t do the appeal one night, which you have to do, and then do application the next month. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we off now? MS. HEMINGWAY-No, it’s still on. Are you changing the meeting dates for November? MOTION THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPROVE THAT WE MOVE THE rd NOVEMBER 23 ZONING BOARD MEETING TO A RE-SCHEDULED DATE OF NOVEMBER th 30, GIVEN THE THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY, Introduced by Steven Jackoski who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 19th day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other business that any Board members would like to bring forward? Having none, can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2011, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 19 day of October, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. 9:21. Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 34