Loading...
2011.11.16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 56-2011 Dean & Pamela Romer 1. Tax Map No. 297.10-1-49 Area Variance No. 68-2011 Lafontaine's Ice Cream & Grill, LLC 12. Tax Map No. 295.12-1-3 Area Variance No. 69-2011 George Mayorquin 14. Tax Map No. 278.00-1-2 Area Variance No. 70-2011 Dennis & Nancy Defayette 18. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-40 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 11/16/2011) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2011 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND JOYCE HUNT BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this evening, Wednesday, November 16th here in the Town of Queensbury building. For those of you who have not been here in the past, on the back table is a little sheet that will help explain the process that we go through here. We will call each application forward, and if the applicants could use the small table with the microphone, we do record these meetings for transcription purposes, and we have a bit of housekeeping to do at this moment. So we have the August 31St minutes. Would anyone like to put forth a resolution to approve those minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 31, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 31, 2011, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-The next item of business is approving the minutes of September 21, 2011. Do I have a motion? September 21, 2011 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21, 2011, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-So now we'll go on to Old Business. The first real item on the agenda this evening. It is Dean and Pamela Romer. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DEAN & PAMELA ROMER AGENT(S) S. BITTER, ESQ./J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DEAN & PAMELA ROMER ZONING MDR LOCATION 641 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,800 SQ. FT. ACCESSORY BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF 1,100 SQ. FT. FOR A GARAGE ON A PARCEL LESS THAN 5 ACRES. FURTHER, PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES A SECOND GARAGE ON A PARCEL WHERE ONLY ONE IS PERMISSIBLE. CROSS REF BP 2002428 SFD; AV 61-2010 WARREN COUNTY 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) PLANNING SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 LOT SIZE 3.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-49 SECTION 179-5-020 D JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2011, Dean & Pamela Romer, Meeting Date: November 16, 2011 "Project Location: 641 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,800 sq. ft. accessory building. Further, proposal constitutes a second garage on parcel where only one is permissible. Relief Required: Relief requested from maximum allowable size of 1,100 sq. ft. for a garage on a parcel less than 5 acres. Further, proposal constitutes a second garage on parcel where only one is permissible. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to potentially moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as there was public comment in November of 2010 on the issue of a 2400 square foot garage concerning property values and aesthetics. As these issues are anecdotal and subjective in nature, the Zoning Board may wish to weigh these arguments when reviewing this part of the balancing test. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to expand the existing garage to the maximum allowable and erect compliant accessory structures to house equipment not requiring a garage door. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 700 square feet or 39% relief from the maximum allowable size for a garage of 1,100 square feet on parcels less than 5 acres as per §179-5-020D may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for an additional garage or 100% relief from the requirement of only one garage permitted per dwelling as per §179-5-020D may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 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, BP 2002-428 SFD Approved 2002 AV 61-2010 2,400 sq. ft. second garage Withdrawn by applicant Staff comments: The applicant has stated in the narrative that the proposal is for personal belongings and that the allowed 750 square feet for accessory structures would be inadequate, necessitating the need for this variance. SEAR Status: Type II-no further action required" MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. If you could state your name for the record. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dean and Pam Romer, the applicants and property owners. Very briefly, they were here, as the Staff Notes indicated, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) last November with a larger proposal for the same idea to build a barn for storage of their personal items, which are basically a couple of classic vehicles and motorcycles and a big lawn tractor. They had proposed it at 2400 square feet. It was suggested in the minutes, by some of the Board members, that they should consider making it smaller, and they withdrew at that point, went home and thought about it, and now are back with a proposal for 1800 square feet which is 25% less than what they had proposed last time. Keith, could you put this one up? The first photo that we have is an aerial within the last two years of the neighborhood, and the purpose of this is to show the buffer along the west side of their property and along the north side in the rear. This is a three and a half acre parcel, and my point here, well, there's a letter from the neighbors where they're alleging that they're going to open a business here, and of course they're not, and that would be not legal and that's never their plan, but in terms of a storage building, if you compare what they've proposed and I know you have seen the map. It's 105 feet from the side property line, 114 feet from the rear property line, and the 170 from the east property line. It would be imperceptible from any other direction, from anyone looking through the trees any time of year, if this were a smaller building than what's proposed because of the vast difference, the vast distance, excuse me, and I know that all of you are familiar with driving by the site on Ridge Road. It's just such a neat, clean lot that they keep there, that they have since they built it. It's really a very simple proposal. There are alternatives that don't make any sense to them to do a big expansion. I mean, this is like a seven percent impermeable on their lot after this is built. It's just, it's such a small, all of their structures are so small compared to the size of the lot. There's so much more that you could build on this lot that they're not proposing. It's just very simply what it is. There's no secret agenda to move a business here. It's just that they want to move their possessions in, and to have to do a big expansion of their house, which would be much more expensive than just a simple barn structure, to accomplish the same thing, would just be burdensome on them, but we're certainly here to listen to the neighbors and their concerns, but I think that the neighbors have nothing to worry about, because they won't see it. They won't hear it, and the Romers are here to answer any questions. So, at this point, if the Board has any questions, we're here. Otherwise we'd listen to the public and come back and talk about it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, and just for the record, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening for this, of this application. At this time, are there any questions by Board members? MR. KUHL-Will you be putting any stone in front of it, or is it all going to be lawn to the building? DEAN ROMER MR. ROMER-It'll all be lawn. MR. KUHL-It'll be lawn. MR. ROMER-No driveway. MR. KUHL-So it'll be more for a seasonal use or not a daily use? MR. ROMER-Correct, strictly cold storage. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Will there be water access to the building? MR. ROMER-No. No utilities to the building whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-No electric? MR. ROMER-No electric. MR. JACKOSKI-Generators? MR. ROMER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions at this time before we open the public hearing? Okay. Seeing none, if you wouldn't mind giving up the table. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address this Board, and if you would wait to have me call you, and I'll start with this gentleman here that raised his hand first, and just to remind you, we do have somewhat of a time limit. If you could keep your comments brief, but thank you, and if you could identify yourself for the record. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DICK GRAY MR. GRAY-Hi. My name is Dick Gray, and I live at 42 Wincoma Lane. My property directly views this structure, and I'm opposed to it because of the change in the characteristics of the neighborhood. The so called buffer, I've taken a photo here about one o'clock this afternoon on a cloudy day, and I'd like to, with the Board's permission, submit it to you, just for viewing. This is a view from my porch, my rear porch, which is my kitchen, living room and dining room, and it clearly shows the proposed area of the structure, and the fact that over six months out of the year, this structure is going to be visible to the residents of Wincoma Lane. So do I have the permission of the Board to submit this? MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. We wouldn't mind. MR. GRAY-This is a single photo, but I have two. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. I'll pass them each way. Thank you. MR. GRAY-1 took that from an I-Phone camera. So you'll have to excuse me. It was one o'clock this afternoon that I took that. It's a cloudy day, and it was just beginning to rain. So you can imagine what the view would be from my home on a sunny day from November through May. Clearly there is very little buffer. The applicant really has clear cut most of his land to begin with, and what's left is minimal. So, again, it's going to change the characteristics of the neighborhood. It's going to decrease the property values, and it certainly will impact each of the residents on Wincoma Lane. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. MR. GRAY-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address our Board? If you wouldn't mind, sir. DAVE COLLINS MR. COLLINS-My name is Dave Collins. I live at 50 Wincoma Lane. I'm a neighbor of Dick Gray, and I'm nestled between Dick Gray and Dr. Tom Hughes next door. I'm really opposed to this, by the way, my yard, I've got the same, or will have the same, I guess, ugly view the same amount of the year that he does, because we're 100 feet apart. I can't understand why we'd be subjected to this. It's an insult, and I just have a real problem understanding the justification or why something like this would be seriously considered. It just violates what we live in Rolling Ridge for, okay. We like the serenity. We like the view. We like what's going on in there, okay, and having to look at this huge building just really bothers me. Speaking about huge, I'd just like to put the size of this building in perspective. Since 1996, in the Town of Queensbury, there were 4,337 single family homes sold. Of those 4,337, 2513 were under 18 feet, 1800 square feet. The others were over. So we're looking at building a garage that's larger in square footage than close to 60% of the single family homes in Queensbury. To me that's absurd. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Sir, this evening, is there anyone else in the audience who, now it's your turn. Come on up. JOAN REID MS. REID- My name is Joan Reid and I live on 627 Ridge Road, just southwest of the Romers and down the hill, and I usually like to get along with neighbors and not interfere with what they're doing with their own land, and at first when they had the first proposal, I think I signed it, but I was not thinking, because since I've had a chance to think, I definitely do not want this structure put up. I have some major concerns about the proposed variance. My home is on the edge of the field, which is designated wetland area. I have lived on this field for 53 years. Since the Romers have built their house, the land has changed and the runoff has changed, and I'll show you on the aerial map. Not that one, I think not everything's showing on that one, and on that map, it doesn't show how they've cleared even more trees. Okay. The runoff has changed so much, since so much fill has been brought in. The land used to gradually slope down toward the wetlands at the corner of Rolling Ridge and Ridge Road, and I had the same aerial map and I made copies for some of you if you want to see it more closely, but the Romers brought in truckload after truckload of dirt over a period of a couple of years to build up their land, and they built up higher than my home, and higher than the historic stone wall, which is between our houses. During the rainstorms, the unseeded dirt would run down the hill into my drain pipes at 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) the entrance of my driveway, clogging it and bringing water into my lawn and my garage. Even when we cleared the clogged drain pipe, the runoff kept coming into our lawn. So we have water, now, all through our yard through the spring and part of the summer that comes around because they built up, and there's sort of an edge that was not there before. The back of this lot has been cleared and the Romers built up and leveled off the hill. How will this new proposed building be situated? Will it be built into the existing elevation or will it be elevated even more? Now I want to show you something about the way the hill went after I'm done talking. If they build it up, it'll re-direct the runoff I'm sure, okay. Will the road they have to bring in the vehicles, and I know I just heard Dean say he wasn't going to build a road, but how do you get the vehicles in the building? I mean, something's going to be there. He's got to bring it through his lawn or something, through the stone wall. I'm not sure how he's getting the equipment there, and how will it not affect the stone wall and the wetlands? How can we be sure that the oil and the fuel and whatever from all these machines that he's storing be kept away from our water supply? Our well is between the two houses. My well used to be top quality. Since the building up the hill from my home, I've had to put filters on my water pipes because the water has become cloudy, and I know I didn't tell my neighbor this, but I just am concerned now that if more building is up there, more vehicles coming by, that it's going to be affecting my water supply even more, and my water supply and then the wetlands down the hill. Has an environmental impact study been done? Anybody? No? MR. OBORNE-No. That doesn't meet the level of an EIS, ma'am. MS. REID-Part of this whole area is a designated wetland for Queensbury. We need a certain percentage of wetland area in this Town. MR. OBORNE-The answer to your question is no, to be honest with you. MS. REID-No. Okay, well, I would like to ask the Board to do that, and have it done by an engineering firm, engineers, or somebody who knows how this will affect the wetland area. After a building like this is built, there's no guarantee that a future user, if the Romers decided to sell, that they wouldn't use it for something else. How do we know that a huge structure like that somebody might not buy, you know, they'll buy it and then say, oh, this could be used for something that doesn't go with our neighborhood. The size of the garage, 1800 square feet, should be in an area zoned for industrial use. This building will definitely change the character of the neighborhood. If the Romers get this variance, will they try to then get a variance later to put in electricity or water? And I know Dean said they weren't going to do that, but, you know, variances change things. So I just want to say I'm against the proposed variance. I would like to just show you something. This is my home. Down the hill from the Romers, and I do have to say they have a beautiful home. Dean is out there all the time fixing his lawn. It's gorgeous. I wish my lawn looked that good. However, I am downhill. Before his house was there, this was a gradual slope down into this wetland area which goes through the field here and is a very important part of our eco system in Queensbury. Since he's brought in, and this shows some of it. This is a lot of dirt and fill. He's built up this area so that it's higher than this stone wall where it used to be a gradual change, and instead of the runoff from, coming down the hill, trickling through our field gradually, it now comes around because he's swelled it, is that the name of what you do, whatever, brought it down. It comes down here and into our lawn and into our garage and then comes down through our gardens and it has definitely affected my home. I worry about another structure here, which this whole area has been clear cut, so, you know, up to the back of their property. So where they want to build the land, or the house, that'll affect some more of this wetland area, and this is where the neighbors live. They have a beautiful view now. Okay. That's it. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board? Sir, if you wouldn't mind. TOM HUGHES DR. HUGHES-Hi. Tom and May Hughes. We live at 56 Wincoma Lane in Queensbury, the upper portion of the open wetland area and open field. I also am wondering why we're even here, because no one that's spoken so far feels that any of the criteria for this variance have been met. I'd like to go through them. Again, Whether an undesirable change to the surrounding neighborhood. Of course. Everybody up here is saying that it certainly will change this, and it's not just aesthetics. We're also very concerned about the potential for commercialization of this property. Build a structure now, what's going to happen? Who's going to police this? Who's going to come by and say that something else isn't going on in there, they haven't run a wire there to get electricity there or whatever, but also, should this property be sold, the new owners can now do whatever they want with it, and I think that's a very real concern and it certainly will change the character of this neighborhood forever. Whether the benefit can be achieved by some other method. This is a tremendous amount of space for 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) personal belongings, and if you have that much personal belongings, don't you, wouldn't you consider another storage facility? And certainly those are other options that haven't even been considered here, but that should not also be the responsibility of the neighbors to bear that burden. Whether the request Area Variance is substantial. In the read in here somebody said something about a 39% change. We're actually asking for a 64% variance here, because 700 feet above the 1100 square foot variance comes to 64% by my math. I don't know where you got your 30 whatever percent, kind of deceptive numbers. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Absolutely. I think Joan's concerns are very telling, but I've also experienced some changes in my field. I live where the runoff from the wetland goes to the top of the picture there, and I've noticed some changes. Who knows if it's environment. I'm not saying it's all from that, but I've seen the change in the character of my back field over the years, but certainly the concerns about the environmental impact here. There's going to be storage of motor vehicles there and Mr. Romer I understand is a small engine repair person. He's had a lot of his employment over the years in repairing motor vehicles and engines of sorts, and who knows what's going to go on there, you know, why would you put a structure this big, and if you're doing those type of things, certainly the potential to use that for some commercial type ventures is certainly there, and once again, who's going to police this action, you know, I don't know, and lastly, whether this was self- created, of course it was. I mean, this gentleman bought this piece of property knowing what the rules and regulations were, and I feel to grant this variance would be an insult to all of us, not just to those of us who live in Rolling Ridge and who have a direct view of this, but also to all homeowners in Queensbury that we can just buy our way into variances and change properties and neighborhoods just because that's what they wanted. You'd have to look at the rules and regulations where you're moving and play by the rules. I don't think we need to change the rules, just because somebody wants to. There are a couple of things here that I would like to point out. First of all, in some of the maps and such that were shown previous to this, the Town of Queensbury actually owns the adjoining property. I'm not sure how that impacts your decision, but that's a forever wild designation and that is a wetland, and we all have significant concerns about the welfare of that and over the above stated drainage issues and also a potential for runoff of oils and gasoline and other type of things from an area that's going to be used for motor vehicle storage. That's certainly a concern to us who live in the immediate area. I also noticed with interest that the aerial photo that was presented by the Romers conveniently went back two years before they clear cut the entire property. So to say that it's not going to have a visual effect is extremely deceiving and I consider it an insult to you folks standing up here, and I wanted to point that out. MAY HUGHES MRS. HUGHES-1 just want to say on that, too, like Mr. Gray, my other neighbor, since we were here a year ago, I went out almost monthly in my backyard to look, and you can see his home almost daily, even throughout the summer, you can now see parts of his home. So to say that we won't see it is not true. I've also taken pictures, but when I saw Mr. Gray's, just today, on a cloudy, rainy day, it spoke for itself. We will be able to see it daily. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate it. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address this Board? Please, sir. CHRISTOPHER LYNCH MR. LYNCH-My name is Christopher Lynch. I'm speaking on behalf of myself, my wife Maureen Lynch, my son John and my daughter Dorothy. We live on this parcel, have for 16 years, directly, pretty much to the north of the Romer parcel, and before that for about 10 years on a parcel contiguous with this one. I've owned this land since, my family's had it since the 60's. As other people have said, I'll try very hard. I've edited my stuff to half of what I wanted to say, and I'll try to be pretty straightforward. I'm insulted by that. If you look, my wife just handed out three photographs. Now you'll notice Number Six, I got that one from Wincoma Lane. Not only can you see where the new building is going to be, not only can you see the Romer house, you can actually see the Schultz house on Ridge Road. MR. JACKOSKI-I think we're okay. I mean, I can already tell what you're showing here. MR. LYNCH-You can see from the property map where we are. Now, if you look at Photograph Number Two and Number Four, like I say, I've edited a lot of stuff out. I defy anybody to look me in the eye, this Number Two is a photograph from my living room window which would be duplicated from my dining room which would be duplicated from my bedroom. Now, call me crazy, I don't want to wake up every morning and look at an 1800 foot industrial building, but I defy anybody to say this is a minor building, you know, or that it's barely visible. That's disingenuous as are those photographs. Okay. Last year, I have a sense of deja vu sitting here, there are a number of things and you've heard. We also, over the 16 years that we've 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) been on this piece of land, have noticed a degradation, and, well, we have eight acres now and have a lot of wildlife, used to have more. We've noticed that go down. We've noticed butterflies go down. We've noticed lightening bugs go down. I don't know what sort of chemicals you put on a lawn to make it that beautiful and green, and it is beautiful and green and it's beautifully maintained, but the last defoliants I've seen were in Vietnam. So, I just don't think, I have a different reading on the law, and (lost word) contiguous to a wetland, as I see in DEC, New York State laws, absolutely requires an environmental impact statement. It should. Wetlands are wetlands. The idea, you know, again, there's been a lot of, basically the land is denuded. If you look at my Number Two and my Number Three, he's going to be building 1800 feet right in between his house, and yes you can see his house, and my land. This is an abomination. One of the reasons we're living where we are right now is we are protected by the zoning laws, and the zoning laws are pretty clear, one garage, 1100 square feet. Now, I sort of enjoy mathematics. The zoning discussion, ZBA zoning discussion last year has something about 39% variation from the maximum allowed. Currently the best we can see is there are 864 square feet of garage right now. MAUREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-Attached to the house. MR. LYNCH-Attached to the house. Now you're looking to add 1800 on that for a total of almost 2664 square feet, with a maximum of 1100 a lot. You're talking, depending on how you want to put your math, either 242% of allowable or 142% relief over and above what's allowed. Now if that's not severe, I don't know what is. According to your reading of the law, there are five things we want to look at. Will an undesirable change be made to the surrounding neighborhood? This is historic hamlet area. Eighteen hundred square feet, for small engines and things like that. I divided it out. That's about 400 plus lawnmowers. Four hundred. You just don't see the size, and I think I'm too conservative on what I'm drawing here. Of course it will change the neighborhood, A to Z, top to bottom. I don't know what noises are going to come out of here. I don't know what sort of other things will be stored in there. I guarantee you it's more than one or two cars, and a tractor. He's got a nice tractor. Can relief be found by other means? If you people come up with one, good idea, add on some more, you know, a garage up to 1100, you know, you're not allowed to build a second garage. Sorry, period, black and white. We came up with a couple of other ideas. Just reduce the quantity of machines. How many square feet of machines do you need? Twenty-six hundred square feet of machinery? That's a car dealership. Good God. Just get rid of some of the stuff. If it's really retirement, retire, you know. A lot of people, you know, you look around the place, over on Meadowbrook or over in the industrial park there are these wonderful little rental places, you know, and everybody else in the area, you know, you can put stuff in there maybe seasonally, snow mobiles and things go in for one season or motorcycles go in for the other season or snow blowers or lawnmowers or whatever the heck you have to, but there's plenty of storage where you don't have to decimate a community. He currently own lands where this stuff is stored. Leave it there, or build a house, you know, where the stuff is right now, leave it there as is, or, somewhere between Queensbury and Kingsbury there's lots of areas here that would allow 1800 feet or 26,700 square feet of storage for motor vehicles or rocket ships or whatever you want to, you know, there are plenty of other places to do it. Not next to a wetland. Not in my backyard. Not in a historic area in Queensbury. Is the variance sought substantial? The square footage I think is severe by any stretch of the imagination. In your notes also, you know, the second garage, you know, on an area zoned for one, that's severe also. I believe, if my math is correct, the amount of square footage for the garage is actually larger than the house. That's not legal. Another severe. So is it substantial? Yes. Severe? Yes. Waking up every day to an industrial size whatever the heck it is, real severe. Extremely severe and real substantial. Sorry. Is there an adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the area? Of course it is. We're subject to half the runoff that Joan Reid was talking about, and we don't have a wetland or anything like that. MRS. LYNCH-Our well is on that side of the property. The well is between us and the Romer house. MR. LYNCH-We watch the same loads of stuff come in, and it goes up five, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty feet, whatever. So everything runs off onto our land. Didn't say a word. You try to be good neighbors, but you know when you're putting 1800 extra square feet of petroleum engineer, you know, petroleum pieces, whatever, that's preposterous. That's an insult. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So, I mean, I think we understand. Is there anything else that you'd like to add that hasn't been addressed in the record? MRS. LYNCH-If we could stress one thing. Something that all the neighbors agree upon is the rural nature of the area, and it's the Town's designation that it's a historic hamlet. This would be severely at odds with any type of architecture in the area, for any building that can be put up 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) within the proposed budget which is $20,000. One of our other concerns is we chose to leave our land as it is. It's almost completely wooded and we have kept it that way for a reason. It is a very strong, very vibrant eco system on the property. We make up one third of that wooded parcel that you look at on the map, and we've lost a lot of buffer when the back of the Romer lot was clear cut. We have seen a noticeable reduction in some of the wildlife activity just on our land. Several species have disappeared. Others have been drastically reduced. Our concern is if this building goes up, no matter what the usage, there is going to be noise, even if you don't have engines being worked on, or engines running that are inside a building which is probably going to be some type of steel or corrugated metal building. You're going to have the noise from any activity there. Every time it rains or hails, you're going to hear a lot of noise as well. Plus, what may not impact neighbors but would impact the eco system is the smells that come from different types of fuels, from oils, from solvents, from chemicals that go to working on equipment like that. That will further drive away what we have gone to great personal expense to preserve, and it is very close to our side of the land, not to mention the issue of our well. Plus, what doesn't go on to our property is going to go on to Joan's property or it's going to go on to the Town property. It's not going to flow up hill, and that is going to have nothing except a negative impact on the area. It is not necessary. There are many alternatives available, and once it goes up, we have no recourse to get rid of it before the damage has been done. It's a one way street, and no matter what is sworn or agreed to or deeded onto the property, all bets are off the first time that property changes hands, and it will eventually. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. LYNCH-Okay. Finally, as we were here last year doing exactly the same thing. We'd like to make clear, you know, we would, as a courtesy, like to have this thing voted up or voted down with prejudice. The laws are really simple on this whole thing, and it should be a very easy vote. So we don't have to show up next year and the year after and the year and the year after. Very clearly we're against any disturbance of the zoning in this area. It's there for a reason. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. LYNCH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening? Yes, please. Generally we do have about a 20 minute limit, but if you wouldn't mind. Great. We certainly want to give you an opportunity. GIOVANNA GARNER MRS. GARNER-Hi. I've never done this before. So I'm sorry. I'm Giovanna Garner. I live at 697 Ridge Road, and to be with my friends and neighbors in opposing the building of this very large building by the Romers, and, yes, studies have been done concerning the soil and groundwater pollution and their effects on humans, and I just want to briefly mention some of those. These organic compounds can be a major pollution and groundwater as well as in the air that we breath, and their presence in water can create a hazard to public health and to our environment, the environment in which we and our families live in, and one of the most common sources of this contamination of soil and groundwater are spills involving the release of petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel fuel and lubricating and heating oil from leaking oil tanks, and a group of these contaminants consist of benzene, toluene and isomers of zylene and entering out soil and groundwater, these are considered very serious problems because they can cause acute and long-term problems, and these types of chemicals are known as carcinogens, which can cause cancer in humans, and all of us are at risk, all humans are at risk, adults, children and developing fetuses. That's all I wanted to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I appreciate it. This evening, is there anyone else who would like to address this Board? Seeing no one else, I'll call the applicant back to the table to address some of these concerns by the neighbors, and to also note that I'm going to keep the public hearing open at this time. I'm sorry, Jonathan, we do have a written comment to read into the record. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-This is addressed to Craig Brown. It says, "Dear Mr. Brown, We are writing to you today, in advance of tonight's Zoning Board Meeting to express our concern as a neighbor to the zoning variance application for the property at 641 Ridge Road. We would attend tonight's meeting, but a family emergency prevents us from doing so. We moved our property in June of this year from the city of Glens Falls. What attracted us to the property was the quiet, residential, even rural setting of the property. It is our understanding that the Romer's are in need of storage for their small engine repair business, and are requesting a variance from the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) Town Building Code to construct an 1,800 SF building, which would stand 30 feet tall. Our concerns are as follows: 1. An undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood will occur as this building will be visible to neighboring properties and Ridge Road. It would not be in keeping with the residential appearance of the neighborhood. We are concerned that a building of this size would affect drainage of the property, especially with its proximity to nearby wetlands and other structures. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by storing their belongings at a more appropriate setting, such as a warehouse located elsewhere, where a variance would not be required. We are interested to know exactly what the Romer's are needing to store. If, indeed it is small engines and the like, we are concerned about the environmental impact, which would require some sort of SEAR action by the board. 3. It is a substantial variance as the request for 1,800 SF is 61% greater than the allowed square footage. It is also substantial in its impact on the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood. 4. The 1,800 square feet requested will most certainly impact the permeability of the property. What abatement measures have been considered for the run-off? We would also be concerned about this with the allowed square footage of 1,100 SF. 5. Although self created difficulty is not required to be considered in this area variance request, we believe it has a bearing on this case. This property already has substantial garage space. The request for a very large storage space is capricious. In summary, our greatest concern is if this variance is granted that the property may be used as a business, thereby circumventing the use variance application process. We hope this is not the case. Thank you for your consideration of our opinions in this matter. Respectfully, James and Mary Michelle Hayward" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I'd like to respond and then the Romers as well. The comments were simply out of proportion to what's going on here, and I think that there's some confusion and fear among the neighbors. Certainly as I mentioned when we opened, that there's not small engine repair. This isn't any kind of a business. So the idea that it goes from that to then there's going to be petroleum products that's going to leach out and hurt the neighborhood, this is the same as anyone else having cars in their garage on a concrete floor. The idea that there would be an environmental impact is just wrong for cold storage. The design of the building is the exact same siding of their house. It's not going to look like an industrial building. It's going to look just like their house. It could be attached to their house and we wouldn't need a variance, but it doesn't make sense because it'll affect their windows, if they put it in the center of their lot in the back. In the summer, nobody's going to see it. In the winter, yes, you're going to look through the trees and see a structure that'll look like their house in terms of siding. There's nothing going on here. There's nothing planned, other than what they've said. The fact that some things that were mentioned that they had to bring fill in to grade the lot, they didn't have to grade the whole lot. The north and east side didn't have to be graded, but they needed to make the driveway a suitable grade and to situate the house where it is. I think they did a very lovely, simple job with their property. There's certainly no impact. You can all look at the map, in terms of where the wetland is. Water flows downhill, but what we're talking about here is going from roughly six percent impermeability to seven percent impermeability. So there's not going to be any stormwater issue with one percent. You could build a much, much larger house on the three and a half acre lot. I'm sorry, and the Romers are sorry that the neighbors have so much fear about this, but all we're talking about is that they can put a 750 square foot structure right now, that would look the same, with the same siding, without a variance, and they're proposing, because they have a lot of stuff that they want to store indoor rather than outdoor, to go to 1800 square feet, and my point is still that from the distance of the neighbors, it's going to be imperceptible whether it's 750 or 1800 square feet because it's such a distance to the property line and then through the trees and then across the wetland. So we view this as not a big deal, and we're sorry that the neighbors are so worked up about it. Would you like to comment? MR. JACKOSKI-At this time, I'd like to just poll the Board and listen to their comments, unless Mr. Romer wants to speak. MR. ROMER-I have no intention on any business being here. This is strictly for vehicles that I have collected over the past 42 years, and it'll free up space on my business for more repairs at my business. I do not do any repairs at home. I always take my equipment to my shop to work on them. I have no intentions whatsoever. The plans are strictly for cold storage. So I can free up other space that I am using on my other property. It's terrible to have the collector part of me to want things. Everybody does. Some people collect coins and stuff. I collect vehicles. I have hundreds of motorcycles. A lot of them are pristine, never been used, never run. They're collectibles, and this is what I want. I plan on retiring down the road. It could be five years from now, ten years from now, but I want everything at my retirement home, and that's why we built where we did, and what we built was for retirement. We don't heat with oil. We heat with natural gas. The lay of the land has a natural curve downhill. It did when we bought it. We built up the front yard. We built up the driveway. The house was built, on the east end was at ground level originally. Never touched anything on the east end of the house. We've made nice, sloped 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) area, built it so the driveway was nice. There's not going to be any pavement, gravel or anything going to this building in the backyard. You drive over the grass, like anybody does if they need to get some place with a vehicle. I just, you know, water runs downhill. It doesn't go up, and the slope is a 20 foot slope from one corner of my property to the other, and it just runs down, and everybody's been there to look at the property, and they can see the work I've done in the ditch. I keep it cleaned out. I weed it, I rake out the leaves. So water runs. The State ditches it occasionally. With Joan, her ditch needs to be ditched, it needs to be cleaned. She needs to contact the State to have it cleaned out so the water will run better there. There's not going to be any increase in height of the building that I want to put up in the backyard. It'll be built at ground level on the east side of the building, and with a full four foot frost wall built in. We've lowered the height of this building by eight feet from what we proposed last year and dropped the size of the building 25%. In lieu of having vehicles sitting outside and leaching onto the grass and running into the groundwater, if they did leak, this is by far a better scenario than being on ground rusting away and whatever. Now as far as wildlife that I heard from some of my neighbors, we have deer in our yard all the time. I have hundreds and hundreds of pictures of deer. We have Fisher cats running through the yard occasionally that we've seen. We have fox. We have pictures of fox in the backyard. Rabbits, all kinds of skunks. Everything has gone through there. As far as an issue with any wildlife, I haven't seen a reduction myself. You're going to be working during the day. In the wintertime it's dark, four, four thirty at night. Leaves fall out of the trees every year and they grow back in the spring. The position that we decided to put the building in is actually the least conspicuous of any place in the yard for any of the neighbors or from the main road, which is Route 9L. We have over 100 feet of overgrowth and trees on the back side and on the side towards Rolling Ridge, and it will be done to look nice, just like the rest of the property is, and just like my neighbors say, I'm out there all the time doing work in the yard, cleaning it. I have never put any chemicals on my yard. The grass that's there is when it was seeded and it had starter fertilizer, the original time. Never has there been any chemicals added. Never will there be. I don't know what other points to go across, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, maybe we'll have some more comments when the Board members at this time. MR. ROMER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-And does anyone want to volunteer to speak first? Roy, you're first. MR. URRICO-Well, for me, there's one simple requirement that we're dealing with and one simple aspect to this is that only one garage is allowed on this size property, and they're asking for a second one, and to me that's a no, no for me. So I would be against it for that reason. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. In fact, I wrote that down, that a second garage is, even the Staff said, is severe relative to the Ordinance, and I do think that, because of the neighbor's concerns, that that has to be taken into consideration, and there are feasible alternatives, and I do think there'd be more than minor impacts of physical and environmental conditions, and it's certainly self-created. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think if we look at the big picture here, it is a rural area. It's a three and a half acre lot. It doesn't meet the quotient for the five acre zoning as it's been changed to I believe probably in the last short length of time here. I think as we in fill the country areas and they become a little more suburbanized, and in this case here I think with the clearing in the back of the lot there that certainly has suburbanized this lot extensively from what it probably was initially. I think we have made accommodation for people to have extra garages, and I think that as an issue, when someone comes in and asks for that, we all recognize the fact that extra garages are something that the Town does not like to see on smaller lots in Town, and things like that. This lot is three and a half acres. I think there probably would be room on this lot for an extra storage building of some sort. At this time, though, I don't believe that an 1800 square foot accessory building would be appropriate for this neighborhood, as the relationship in the neighborhood shows. You've got the large barns. If you go down to dead man's curve and around the bend there, you've got another second barn down there that's huge, but that had an initial stock purpose when it was farm land back in the old days, and those buildings can be used for storage. It's not our duty to allow for storage of multiple items on a property, because in a Rural Residential area, I think it's important for us to recognize that everybody has things they collect, and I recognize your hobby is such that you collect larger things than most people do, but I think for us to accommodate many, many vehicles, in excess of what would be considered normal, would be a little obtuse on our part, and I think that we could, at the same time, I could live with something smaller, something more in the range, you know, the 1100 square foot, 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) maybe I'd give them 20% more than that or something, that might be reasonable, but 1800 square feet in a building that large and tall seems quite unnecessary to me. So at this point I couldn't agree to grant the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Jim. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Looking at Number Two on the balancing test, undesirable change to nearby properties, with zoning, a lot of municipalities enact zoning so that one neighbor doesn't do something that adversely affects other neighbors in the area. Part of our Code allows for that. When using the balancing test, you know, I go right through these, can benefits be achieved by other means feasible. An expansion on to the existing garage I think would be a more feasible alternative than this, but as far as this goes, an out building in the backyard, it will produce an undesirable change to the nearby properties. It will obstruct their views. I mean, it just, it's not in character with the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-I have as many toys as you do, and would love to have a structure like that on my property, but it's zoned, and I can't, and that's what we're faced with here. The zoning just doesn't allow for it. I empathize with you, and, yes, I could fill up a 30 by 80 with all my toys, and I'm just a regular person, but it just doesn't fit into the neighborhood. I'm sorry. So I'd say I'd be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-This is kind of a difficult one for me. You have three acres here. As Jim said down the road you have a lot of houses with barns and things like that for storage. I think that, you know, you've done some things to make it smaller. I understand that you have some larger cars and things like that you'd like to store there. I don't know. I think that probably right now I wouldn't be in favor of it. I might be in favor of a smaller one, but I also would like to say that maybe you'd like to talk to the neighbors and, as a drove up in there and saw the size of the lawn and things, maybe you would want to put some plantings around there and things like that, but I think that I'd have to go along with the rest of the Board right now and say that I would not be in favor of it unless it was smaller. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Would you like to add anything at this time? MR. LAPPER-1 guess at this point, hearing what the Board's saying, maybe the answer is to attach it to the house and maybe the answer is to make it smaller, but I guess we'd like to table it and consider. I mean, they need some relief, and we'd like to come up with something that's palatable for the Board. So we'd ask to table it tonight and re-consider it and come back with a modified proposal. MR. LAPPER-1 would think the impact would be greatly lessened if you did attach it to the house, and that the neighbors could probably live with that. MR. LAPPER-We'll consider that and we'll be back soon. MR. JACKOSKI-And if you could maybe address the runoff and the wetlands, how far the property is from the wetlands and stuff like that, the boundary at least. Okay. Thank you. At this time, can I have a motion to table, and when would you like us to table to? MR. LAPPER-1 would say two months. MR. JACKOSKI-So that would be a January submission with a February meeting date? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do we have the February meeting calendar set? We'll just say the first meeting in February, Jonathan. Is that reasonable? MR. OBORNE-That's fine. MR. LAPPER-When's the holiday in February? The 20tH MR. OBORNE-The 15th and the 22nd MR. LAPPER-1 think school break is the 20th, that week. So let's take the first one, if that's okay. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-The first one. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion ? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick, go ahead. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2011 DEAN & PAMELA ROMER, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled until the February 15, 2012 meeting. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2011 SEQRA TYPE II LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM & GRILL, LLC AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ./S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, L.P. ZONING CI LOCATION 1133 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 440 SQ. FT. EXPANSION OF EXISTING STRUCTURE FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICE WINDOW AND PREP AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EXPANSION OF A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, FRONT SETBACK RELIEF, AND RELIEF FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REF SP 71-2011; SP 62-07; SP 23-07; SP 21-96; SP 74-89; AV 122-1989 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.12-1-3 SECTION 179-13-010 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2011, Lafontaine's Ice Cream & Grill, LLC, Meeting Date: November 16, 2011 "Project Location: 1133 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 440 sq. ft. expansion of existing structure for additional service window and prep area. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Front setback relief - Request for 21 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement for the new service window portion of the project. 2. Travel Corridor relief- Request for 21 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement for the new service window portion of the project. 3. Front Setback relief - Request for 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement for the new prep area portion of the project. 4. Travel Corridor relief - Request for 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement for the new prep area portion of the project. 5. Expansion of a non-conforming 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 to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) 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. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the nature of the project and existing conditions. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 21 feet or 28% relief from both the front setback and travel corridor requirements for the new service window may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 19 feet or 25% relief from both the front setback and travel corridor requirements for the new prep area may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the expansion of a non- conforming structure 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 to the physical or environmental conditions to 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, SP 71-11 Pending SP 62-07 Fencing modification Approved 1/22/08 SP 23-07 Commercial fencing Approved 5/15/07 SP 21-96 Trailer Approved 5/30/96 SP 74-89 15 Unit 2 story motel Approved 11/28/89 AV 122-89 Setback relief Approved 10/26/89 Staff comments: The proposal totals 448 square feet and consists of two separate expansions. The first is a 200 square foot expansion to accommodate an additional service window to the north. The second is a 248 square foot expansion to the prep area to the south. Access to an existing walk in cooler from the prep area is envisioned. Both expansions are not accessible to the public as the operation is for walk up service only. Site Parking is based on seating and employees and not floor area. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Well, that was quite a lengthy description for just a little project. If you'd like to identify yourselves. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Dennis Lafontaine and Tom Nace. I think we can be very brief on this. As we mentioned in the cover letter, although it's seemingly small in terms of square footage, it's very significant to the business. The reason we need the variance is because of the Travel Corridor on the front setback and it's a pre-existing building. So it's really not self-imposed so much as the zoning's changed since the building was built, and in fact the road was already recently expanded to the three lanes with the turning lane. So it's unlikely that this would become a four or five lane road, and even if he did, I mean, he would lose parking. It wouldn't affect the building itself. So we're here to answer any questions, and Tom did the engineering. We didn't have any stormwater impact because it was all impervious to begin with, with pavement. Pretty simple project, but important for Dennis, and he's here to answer any questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this time, does any Board member have a question for Dennis or Mr. Lapper or Tom? Seeing no questions, we do have a public hearing open this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, do we have any written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment, but I forgot to add that the Planning Board met on this and identified no adverse impacts that couldn't be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Having no written comment and seeing no one in the audience, at this time, I'm going to close the public hearing. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further discussion needed by the Board, or can I have a motion? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2011 LAFONTAINE'S ICE CREAM & GRILL, LLC, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 1133 State Route 9. The applicant proposes a 440 square foot expansion of existing structure for additional service window prep area. The parcel will require Area Variances as follows: front side setback relief, request for 21 feet relief from the 75 foot requirement for the service window portion of the project. Two, Travel Corridor relief, request for 21 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement for the new service window portion of the project. Three, front setback relief, request for 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement for the new prep area portion of the project. Four, Travel Corridor relief, request for 19 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement for the new prep area portion of the project. Five, expansion of a nonconforming structure. This action must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I do not think there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties. Actually it will hardly be visible from the street. There's two small additions. The feasible alternatives seem to be limited because of the project and the existing conditions, and while the relief might be moderate, it's really because of the existing conditions of the building, and there'd be minor impacts to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the difficulty may be considered self-created only in that the owners wish to improve the facility. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 68-2011. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-This is going to the Planning Board after us, correct? MR. OBORNE-That is correct. MR. JACKOSKI-For Site Plan. So we're not going to worry about plantings and things. Okay. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2011 SEQRA TYPE II GEORGE MAYORQUIN OWNER(S) GEORGE MAYORQUIN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 195 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT SEEKS PROPERTY LINE SETBACK RELIEF FOR AFTER-THE-FACT CONSTRUCTION OF A 234 SQ. FT. DECK. CROSS REF BP 2011-462; 2006-171 SFD; BP 2006-236 DEMO SFD; AV 64-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.00-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 GEORGE MAYORQUIN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2011, George Mayorquin, Meeting Date: November 16, 2011 "Project Location: 195 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant seeks property line setback relief for after-the-fact construction of a 234 sq. ft. deck. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Front setback- Request for 18 feet of front setback relief from the 100 foot requirement 2. Side setback - Request for 49 feet of east side setback relief from the 75 foot requirement 3. Side setback- Request for 13 feet of west side setback relief for the 75 foot requirement 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) 4. Rear setback- Request for 84 feet of rear setback relief from the 100 foot requirement 5. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the ZBA. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternative appear limited due to site constraints. Any expansion on this parcel will require relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 18 feet or 18% relief from the 100 foot front setback requirement may be considered minor to moderate relative to the code. The request for 49 feet or 65% relief from the 75 foot side setback requirement to the east may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 13 feet or 17% relief from the 75 foot side setback requirement to the west may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. Additionally, the request for 84 feet or 84% relief from the 100 foot rear setback requirement may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, relief must be granted by the ZBA for the expansion of a non-conforming structure. 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 may be expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP 2011-462 Needs Area Variance for"after-the-fact" construction 234 sq ft deck BP 2006-171 1857 sq. ft. single family dwelling 1/8/07 BP 2006-236 Demolition of single family dwelling 8/18/11 AV 64-2009 Front, side and rear yard setback for porches Approved 11/25/09 Staff comments: The survey has erroneous setback information stated under the Zoning Information heading. Front, side and rear setbacks for the RR-3A Zone are 100 feet, 75 feet, and 100 feet respectively as a result of the 2009 zoning change. As a condition of approval, the ZBA may wish to direct the applicant to submit updated zoning information for final submittal. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required" MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board also met and they found no significant issues. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and if you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. MAYORQUIN-Yes. My name is George Mayorquin, and I live at 195 Route 149. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Everything Roy read into the record. Do you have anything else you'd like to add at this time? MR. MAYORQUIN-Well, I mean, I've invested a lot of money in the neighborhood. I mean, this is in the backyard. I know I shouldn't probably have done. I had some extra wood laying around, but I've got a guy, lives two doors down, that's got a big, giant fiasco going on in the yard, and no one's, you know, in my opinion, that actually looks bad in the neighborhood. I mean, I'm a fan of Jennifer Lopez, but I'm not going to construct a Jennifer Lopez statute out in front of my yard, but the deck is in the back. My wife, she complains about rocks and bugs and everything else. So we had some extra wood, so I put the deck on. I mean, there's not really much more I can say about that. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time, are there any Board members who'd like to ask questions of the applicant? MR. GARRAND-Sure. On the sheet you submitted to the Town, you deemed this as you feel that this request is substantial? MR. MAYORQUIN-No. I don't think it's substantial. I mean, my wife wrote some of this stuff up. I mean, you know, she's the one that does the fancy writing. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because in your submittal it says you think it's a substantial request. MR. MAYORQUIN-Well, it's a deck. I mean, I didn't think it was really a big deal, to be honest with you. MR. JACKOSKI-I think Mr. Garrand was just trying to clarify that it probably wasn't substantial. MR. MAYORQUIN-I'm sorry. No, it's not substantial. No, I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-Unless you know more about what's going on than we do. MR. GARRAND-Is this going to have a roof over it? MR. MAYORQUIN-No, no roof at all. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. MAYORQUIN-It's all open. I don't know if Mr. Oborne can show another view from another, from the other side, but see the roof is actually just on the porch, which I was approved for, and then I just put this deck. Those four posts that you see there, it's because there's going to be a privacy wall for my barbecue because they stole my barbecue. So it's going to be like a little small privacy wall. We'll try to conceal it, but anybody can really maybe tell that that's what it is, but they stole my barbecue. I'm going to bolt it down with that deck. MR. KUHL-So, George, what you're stating here is when you came to us last year looking to build out the front patio and the back patio deck, you didn't have this in mind to do? MR. MAYORQUIN-No, and then what happened was. Sorry. MR. KUHL-And at that time you're saying you didn't have this in mind, and all of a sudden you had this brain thing? MR. MAYORQUIN-Well, I'm married to a woman that's. MR. KUHL-I have one of the same ones. MR. MAYO RQU I N-Anyway, she said, well, you know, it's a nice porch and stuff, but we've got to get our feet dirty or her mother's a pain in the butt, too, so between the both of them, no, I'm serious, between both of them, they said, you know, there's some extra wood there. Have Jerry build a small deck. MR. KUHL-Now this is a weekend, seasonal house for you? You live in Jersey, don't you? MR. MAYORQUIN-1 live in New Jersey, and I try, I'm making a transition, but unfortunately, it hasn't come as soon as I would have wanted it to. I own two businesses down there, and things are going very well now. So I just can't get up and leave, but, you know, I love the neighborhood. I mean, obviously I've spent a lot of money. I mean, I think that house looks very nice, and I just finished the grading. Next spring I'm going to be doing the lawn. So, I mean, you know, so people when they see the house, you know, they say, wow, this is a nice Town, except for that guy next to me with the Giants thing, you know, but I'm just hoping that I'm allowed to keep it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions from Board members? Yes, Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I just, have you talked to the owner of the land behind you to see if you could buy anymore property behind you? MR. MAYORQUIN-1 did. I actually did. I confronted him, I want to say maybe two or three years ago, and I asked him if he would sell, and he was somewhat reluctant or he told me something 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) about, that he was, the going rate at that time. Our property values have come down, and, I mean, I don't wish anybody any bad, but I see that he's got that little small place next to me for rent. So if he goes into any financial problems, I'll actually buy the whole thing. I mean, I've actually offered that. I mean, I should have bought it when it was offered to me. It was offered to me first, and I turned it down, and I regret it now, to be honest with you. If I could have incorporated it all, I actually would have built the house further in. To me it's not really, people say, well, it's on 149, but see where I come from, that's a nice quiet road. I mean, I sit in traffic, I go into New York City almost every day. So I'm stuck in, sometimes it takes me six hours to get home, and if there's snow, forget about it. So that's basically it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anyone else? We do have a public hearing open this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to, sorry, we have a public hearing advertised. Is there anyone here who'd like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, do we have any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So, seeing no one in the audience, and having no written public comment, I'm going to close the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any additional comment by the Board, or would we like to have a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would just say, you know, we have to remember that this is a very shallow lot here, built right on 149, and I think if anybody were living here, they would want to have something off the back side to get a little peace and quiet on the days that it is backed up traffic out front, when you don't want to be on public view for hours and hours. So, you know, this is an instance where somebody's built something without approval, but I think if you'd come in and asked, I think that we probably would have accommodated you anyway. So I don't have a problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So would anyone like to make a motion? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. Go ahead. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2011 GEORGE MAYORQUIN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 195 State Route 149. They require relief as follows: front setback relief for 18 feet for the 100 foot requirement; side setback request for 49 feet of east side setback relief from the 75 foot requirement; side setback, request for 13 feet of west side setback relief from the 75 foot requirement, and on the rear setback request for 84 feet of rear setback relief from the 100 foot requirement. Also we have the expansion of a nonconforming structure. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, given the constraints of this lot, and the required distance from Route 149, anything he builds on this lot is basically going to require a variance. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to the character of nearby properties? None whatsoever . Is this request substantial? Rear setback may be deemed substantial. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? None whatsoever. This may be deemed as self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 69-2011. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And I would like to note that this is going back in front of the Planning Board, correct? MR. OBORNE-It is. MR. JACKOSKI-So that they will address any concerns with plantings and screenings and stuff. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-There you go, Mr. Mayorquin. MR. OBORNE-Mr. Chairman, I misspoke. This is not going to the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-It's not going to the Planning Board. AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2011 SEQRA TYPE II DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE ZONING WR LOCATION 29 REARDON ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 140 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 72-2011; BP 2011-375 SEPTIC ALT; BP 2003-553 PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 9, 2011 LOT SIZE 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-140 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-2011, Dennis & Nancy Defayette, Meeting Date: November 16, 2011 "Project Location: 29 Reardon Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 140 sq. ft. addition to existing single-family residence. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Side Setback relief - Request for 7.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirement for the WR Zone. 2. Expansion of a non-conforming structure 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 to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited as the expansion is for a laundry room and the infrastructure is located in the general area of expansion. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7.7 feet or 39% relief from the 20 foot side setback as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance 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 and/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, AV 70-2011 Pending BP 11-375 Septic alteration Approved 7/28/11 BOH 22-2011 Septic setback relief Approved 7/25/11 BP 03-553 306 sq. ft. porch Approved 10/15/03 Staff comments: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) Due to the presence of the deck within the side property line, the dwelling is considered a non- conforming structure. The applicant has installed a compliant wastewater system that required approval from the local board of health; see application for further information. The addition is to expand the laundry area of the dwelling. SEQR Status: Type II-no further action required" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board did meet on this and did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So a lot of discussion read into the record. Is there anything else you'd like to add at this time? MR. HUTCHINS-No. Just so it's clear, we did just install the septic system this summer, with this in mind. MR. GARRAND-Did you have to re-locate any of the utilities for putting on this addition? MR. HUTCHINS-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions by the Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-No, it seems straightforward. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Seeing that it seems straightforward, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience willing to address the Board at this time, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, and no one in the audience, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional comments or questions from the Board members? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make a motion. TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2011 DENNIS & NANCY DEFAYETTE, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 29 Reardon Road Extension. The applicant's proposing construction of a 140 square foot addition to an existing single family residence. Under the relief required they need 7.7 feet of relief from the 20 foot setback requirements for the Waterfront Residential zone as well as expansion of a nonconforming structure, which needs to be approved by our Board. The Board has considered the request and does not feel that there will be any change in the character of the neighborhood. It should be noted that the applicant has recently put in a new septic system through the Board of Health in the Town of Queensbury. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the structure is only for a laundry room and the infrastructure is located in the general area of the expansion. The request is 39% relief from the 20 foot setback side requirement but is not considered to be of great consequence. As far as the variance having an adverse effect on the neighborhood, only minor impacts will be felt from this. No one has made public comment for or against the project, and the difficulty can be considered to be self-created. Due to the presence of the deck with the side property line, the dwelling is considered a nonconforming structure, and that's the only reason. The applicant has since installed a compliant wastewater system and I guess I'll move for its approval. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. DENNIS DEFAYETTE MR. DEFAYETTE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-So apologies to Staff in the last application. We didn't actually request that they modify the survey to show the proper setback language. MR. OBORNE-I'll take care of it. MR. JACKOSKI-You'll take care of it. Okay. We apologize. That's all the business we have in front of us. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. MR. SALVADOR-Tonight I'd like to call your attention to what I believe is a shortcoming of the Zoning Ordinance, and this deals with the subject we talked about at the last meeting where I filed that Notice of Appeal, and requested that a stay be put on that project, in accordance with Town Law. Now that paragraph that I read to you and read twice from Town Law is not included in our Zoning Ordinance, and that's why there's so much confusion. That paragraph clearly defines how the Appeal is to be handled, and in Town Law it speaks to the stay on the proceedings. Proceedings is everything. You have moved ahead with a public hearing, rescheduling, allowing them to put in a new map. All these things, those are part of the proceedings that should be stayed, pending the Appeal. The real problem is it's not included in the Zoning Ordinance, for all to see, and that people understand their rights, and that's the thing I'd like to call to your attention, and I think you should petition the Town Board to change the Zoning Ordinance, amend it, to include that paragraph. It's required by Town Law. MR. JACKOSKI-Did you send that to the Town Board? MR. SALVADOR-Could I send it to the Town Board? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. SALVADOR-1 am allowed four minutes twice a month before the Town Board. I think this is your job. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador, I will personally follow up with the Town legal counsel on this. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-And oops on the tabling and rescheduling. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We didn't take stay literally enough. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. MR. SALVADOR-1 have handouts for you tonight. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other business to be brought in front of the Board this evening? MR. OBORNE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, Staff. MR. OBORNE-For those who do not have their required four hour training, I will reiterate the same thing I said to the Planning Board last night, and that is Soil and Water is conducting erosion and sediment control training in December. I'll be sending out an e-mail with an 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2011) attachment on it. It's a good course. They do a good job up there, and it would satisfy your four hour requirements. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to let people know if they need to get their hours? Or do you just rely upon us to maintain? MR. OBORNE-Everybody, except, I believe, I'd have to send it out, but I know that the person sitting to your left requires four hours of training. MR. JACKOSKI-No names, please. MR. OBORNE-No names, exactly, and, Brian, I think you do, too. I'm not sure. MR. CLEMENTS-No names. MR. JACKOSKI-The person to the far left. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. KUHL-And what are you recommending? What kind of course is this? MR. OBORNE-It's called erosion and sediment control training. MR. JACKOSKI-And it's all day? MR. OBORNE-I'll get that out to you tomorrow in an e-mail. MR. OBORNE-1 think everybody's in good shape except the one person I named and the one person to the left of Jim. MR. JACKOSKI-And anyone else have anything else to bring up, in a positive light? MR. SALVADOR-I think a better term would be education rather than training. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. Do I have a second? MR. CLEMENTS-I'll second it. MR. JACKOSKI-All those in favor? ALL SAID YES MR. JACKOSKI-We are adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 21