Loading...
04-18-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2012 INDEX Sign Variance No. 8-2012 AJK Properties, LLC/Countryside Veterinary Clinic 1. Tax Map No. 303.8-1-6 Area Variance No. 20-2012 Nigro Companies 6. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-22, 23, 24, 25, 26 Area Variance No. 19-2012 Joyce Shovah 12. Tax Map No. 295.14-2-36 Area Variance No. 14-2012 Stephen H. Richards 27. Tax Map No. 297.7-1-26 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 04/18/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 18, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT JAMES UNDERWOOD RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome. It is seven o'clock. Today is April 18, 2012. We are here at the Queensbury Activities Center for the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there's a sheet on the back table that kind of explains our process. We will go through some housekeeping matters first, followed by Old Business, followed by New Business. We will call each application to the table. The applicant is invited to sit at the table. We will read the application into the record and then we will speak with the applicant, open up the public comment where it's been notified and go from there. So, having said all of that, the first item on our agenda this evening is the approval of the meeting minutes for January 18th. Do I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 18, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 18, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes for the meeting held on February 29, 2012. I will note that Mr. Kuhl was absent. Do I have a motion? February 29, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 29, 2012, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2012 AJK PROPERTIES, LLC/COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES, PC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NR-NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 270 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT SEEKS SETBACK RELIEF FOR AN EXISTING +/- 25 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FRONTING ON QUEENSBURY AVENUE. CROSS REF SP 79-2011; NOA 3-2009 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 10.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.8-1-6 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JAMES KELLER, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening that is a continuance of the prior meeting, and I'll turn it over to Roy. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 8-2012, AJK Properties, LLC/Countryside Veterinary Clinic, Meeting Date: April 18, 2012 "Project Location: 270 Queensbury Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant seeks setback relief for an existing +/-25 sq. ft. freestanding sign fronting on Queensbury Avenue. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variances as follows: 1. Property line setback - Request for 13.6 feet of setback relief from the 15 foot minimum requirement as per§140-613(1). Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this 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 would be to place the sign in a compliant location, 13.6 feet east of the current location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 13.6 feet or 91% relief from the 15 foot setback requirement per §140-6 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 of 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, NOA 2-09: Determination of the Zoning Administrator regarding the operation of a kennel on the property. Appellant upheld 5/20/09 S.P. 79-2011 Kennel expansion Approved 1/17/12 Staff Comments: To date the applicant has not submitted any new material or revisions to the sign variance. It could be assumed that the applicant proposes to present the same plan before a full board; previous board had 5 sitting on March 21, 2012. Meeting minutes from March 21 previously forward electronically for review. Note: Site Plan 79-2011 states that the existing sign will be placed in a compliant location. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome back. DR. KELLER-Good evening. How are you? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-I know most of us were here last time, but there are more members here. Maybe if you'd like to add anything to what Roy has already read into the record? DR. KELLER-I know last time when we talked about the sign one thing that you had mentioned personally was actually going out there to actually look at the sign itself and literally after the meeting, last time I was here, I drove back right to the practice, just to see, really, you know, what's truly the setback where we talked about that five feet, and I know we also talked about the two to three feet that you had mentioned as well last time, and, you know, you said well if it's a two to three foot mark that, you know, we go to setback and that's right within the line of tree, you know, then that's something that potentially you guys would consider approving, the leaving of the sign, and I drove back that night to look at, you know, if I moved it two to three feet or if I moved it five feet, would that change anything as far as not having to cut down some of that tree hedgerow that, like I said, I've spent a lot of time clearing and improving on the property, and even two to three feet, I think you'd probably agree with me, having gone out there yourself I'll assume, that two to three feet would even obstruct the sign itself from the not the non-Dix Avenue side but from the Airport side coming down the road. I don't know if you were out there to take a look. I'm assuming that you were. MR. JACKOSKI-I've driven by it numerous times. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a question? How long has that sign presently been there, how many years? DR. KELLER-Five years. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, okay. MR. URRICO-And I wasn't here last time, either. What triggered the Sign Variance? DR. KELLER-It was brought to my attention. I applied for an addition to my building and at the time when I put the request in for the addition it was brought to my attention that the sign was in non-compliance and the Planning Board had actually asked me to, at that time, I could go for the variance for, to leave the sign in its place. MR. URRICO-When you put the sign in five years ago, did it replace another sign? DR. KELLER-It did, and this sign was behind, actually, that sign. MR. JACKOSKI-And how long ago were you notified of the nonconformance of the sign? DR. KELLER-I would say I'm just starting construction. So my permit was issued January 1St or so, so when we got into the Planning Board review of the property, because there was a site review as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, was Building and Codes, did they actually issue a nonconformance? MR. OBORNE-My understanding is Building and Codes did not. I'm not sure if the applicant had any conversations with the Zoning Administrator in the past prior to the Planning Board making a condition of approval that this sign be placed in a compliant location. That you'd have to ask the applicant about. I'm not sure if Craig and the applicant have had any conversations prior to the site plan. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know if anyone, your agents? DR. KELLER-I know it was brought up during the Planning Board, when they did the Site Plan Review, and then we talked about moving it, but when I talked about moving it, I talked about cutting the trees down, and then at that time the Planning Board said, well, here we'll pass your plans for your new construction project, but go to the Zoning Board and apply for a variance for the sign. That way you don't have to alter the road, and sit in front of them and go from there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but you don't think there were any discussions by you or your agents with the Zoning Administrator before that Planning Board matter, that the sign was not compliant? DR. KELLER-As far as I recall honestly I don't believe that there was ever a point at which that came up, and if it had come up, it had been years. I just don't recall that anyone had ever mentioned, okay, your sign's in noncompliance. Like I said, I put it behind the existing sign, and it had never been a point until the Site Plan Review. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't remember, when we reviewed the kennel Notice of Appeal, that we noticed it, anybody brought up that sign. DR. KELLER-Right. The big issue at that point was the lights and then we got through all that. MR. URRICO-Speaking of lights, is that a lit sign? DR. KELLER-It is. MR. JACKOSKI-Is it downcast? DR. KELLER-It's not downcast. You can actually see the lights right there. There's two sitting just up cast on the side, but they're pretty low wattage lights, pretty much shining right on to the sign itself. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because you do get emergency business at nighttime. DR. KELLER-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you don't have any streetlights out there. DR. KELLER-Correct. Glens Falls Police, Town of Kingsbury bring pets up all hours of the night. We sit far off the road. It's quite dark. MR. KUHL-But the lights are on, they come on at dusk and stay on until dawn? DR. KELLER-Correct. MR. KUHL-So that the sign is lighted? DR. KELLER-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I can look for discussion from the Board. We can poll the Board. We can open up public hearing again. What would the Board like me to do? MR. UNDERWOOD-Open up the public hearing, I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening to continue this matter. Is there anyone here in the audience at this time who'd like to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any additional written public comment? MR. URRICO-Not that I see. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no additional comment, I'll leave the public hearing open, and I'll poll the Board, and I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Well, I think being as how the sign is lighted and moving it back into a compliant fashion would be the simplest, easiest way. I'm against the variance. I think you've got the property base there. I think you've got the line of sight from the road coming both ways. I do note you do have the trees in the way coming from the Airport, but I think if it's lighted people are going to look for you. I think you should move it back. DR. KELLER-The problem with, like I said, with moving it is that, you know, if I have to move it then unfortunately I have to take the trees down, and that's the environmental impact that I'm trying to prevent. MR. KUHL-Moving the sign does not require you to take the trees down. That would be your choice to do it. DR. KELLER-It would be, but it would be an environmental impact as well, and unfortunately I don't feel like the sign would be seen. If you come from the Dix Avenue side, the neighbor next door to me does not maintain his hedgerow at all. You would easily pass the sign. People still do, coming from the Hicks Avenue side, from the SPCA building side, if the sign was moved 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) back, I feel that, the building sits off the road over 300 feet. I feel that the sign and the building would be missed. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-My feeling is the sign should stay where it is. I think there are cases where the variance is needed, and I think this is one of them. I think, given the choice of leaving trees up and having the sign pushed back, I'd rather have the sign in front. It's been there for five years. Maybe it got there a little bit under the radar, but I still think that if we had been given this five years ago or recently, from scratch, that this would have been the best location to put the sign. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I was in favor of the variance last month, and I drove by it several times today from both directions, and I have to agree with the applicant, coming from the Dix Avenue side, if that's set back to be compliant, you won't be able to see it through that hedgerow, and it's not all grown in yet. DR. KELLER-Correct. MR. CLEMENTS-It's also, I mean, you could do other things, too, like move it further down the property, but it's next to the driveway which is a good place for it to be when people want to drive in and find out where it is. So I would still be in favor of the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm going to stick with my decision on this as before. I think that a variance is a little excessive. We're supposed to grant the minimum variance necessary. In addition, site plan, at Site Plan Review, it's stated in 79-2011 that the existing sign will be placed in a compliant location. MR. JACKOSKI-Is that what you agreed to with the? DR. KELLER-No, that's why I applied for a variance. At that meeting that I had with the Planning Board, it was discussed with the Planning Board that I could apply for a variance and at that time, I wouldn't have received a permit if it was, if I had agreed to move the sign. It was contingent basically on what the variance. So, yes, the Planning Board actually moved me in this direction for the variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I haven't changed my opinion. I think this is a very unique case with the building being almost 300 feet from the road. You really can't tell from the road what's back there, and the sign's been there for five years, and I've been by there several times and it's hard to see even where the signage is. It's not large, and I know you had agreed to take down those small signs that were. DR. KELLER-Correct. Yes, I'll definitely remove the small road stake signs. MRS. HUNT-1 have no problem with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. When I look at this, it's a rural area. The sign's got to be out where people can actually see it and I think moving it back five feet, what are you really going to accomplish by doing that? It's not going to change the world by moving it five feet back, but if it results in the trees and not being able to see it coming southbound on that road, it makes no sense at all. So I'm going to have to say that I would support. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. My personal opinion it's an excessive amount of relief. It's way too close to the road. I've driven by it numerous times. I feel you can see it. I think you can't read it at the point which you can see it. You can't read the lettering at the point from which you first notice it from the road. So I agree with Mr. Garrand that it's excessive and I would be against it. Having polled the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion please? We have to do SEQRA. Sorry. Rick? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, THE ZONING BOARD FEELS THAT THIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND WOULD ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SEQRA, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I would like to just note that the applicant has state that if they cut down those trees, that that would be an environmental impact. So I'm hoping that we don't see those trees come down in the very near future, unless it's for disease or safety, etc. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-With a successful SEQRA, is there anyone here this evening who'd like to make a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'll take it. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2012 AJK PROPERTIES, LLC/COUNTRYSIDE VETERINARY CLINIC, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 270 Queensbury Avenue. The applicant is seeking setback relief for an existing plus or minus 25 square foot freestanding sign fronting on Queensbury Avenue. The parcel requires 13.6 feet of setback relief from the 15 foot minimum requirement as per Section 140-613(1). Having reviewed the request here, we do not anticipate any impacts to the neighborhood that aren't already present because the sign has been up for five years. Previously the veterinary services provided there had a sign that was even closer to the road, as per the discussion with the applicant this evening. Whether the benefit could be sought by a different method, it was suggested that the sign be moved back, but I think everybody recognizes that you would not be able to view this sign very well when southbound on Queensbury Avenue. Although the request is substantial at 13.6 feet, or 91% relief, the sign in its current location does not seem to have the negative votes to vote it down. So I would make a motion that we approve this variance as requested. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Should there be any discussion concerning the up cast lighting versus downcast lighting? MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't know what the possibilities are, but, I mean, I think that's something that you could think about. I don't know if the Town has any say on that, really. We're either going to approve it or disapprove it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We have a motion. We have no more discussion. Call the vote. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You have your variance. DR. KELLER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2012 SEQRA TYPE NIGRO COMPANIES AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES PC OWNER(S) UPPER GLEN STREET ASSOC., LLC ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 735 GLEN STREET APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RETROFIT APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FEET OF VACANT RETAIL SPACE LOCATED IN THE PRICE RITE PLAZA FOR A RECOVERY SPORTS GRILL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 22-2012; SP 44-2009; SP 47-2008; BP 2009-162; SV 76-1998 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.0; 0.39; 0.46; 6.33; 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-22, 23, 24 25, 26 SECTION 179-4-090, 179-3-040 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) JON LAPPER & ERIC REDDING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2012, Nigro Companies, Meeting Date: April 18, 2012 "Project Location: 735 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant is proposing to retrofit approximately 8,000 square feet of vacant retail space located in the Price Rite Plaza for a Recovery Sports Grill. Relief Required: Parcel will require area and parking variances as follows: 1. Area Variance - Request for 33 square feet or 0.01% of additional permeability relief. Note, required permeability is 30%, existing is 21.94%, and proposed is 21.93%. 2. Parking space - Request for 373 spaces below the required 729 spaces. Note, required spaces is 729, existing is 356, proposed is 356; there will be no addition or subtraction of spaces. 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. Concerning the relief request for permeability, a feasible alternative would be to convert existing impermeable surface to permeable. With regards to the parking variance, feasible methods by which to avoid an area variance appear unavoidable. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 33 square feet or 0.01% of additional permeability relief may be considered minor relative to the code; however, with existing permeability on site at 21.94% any decrease would not be beneficial. The request for 373 parking spaces below the required 729 spaces required 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 of the parcel may be anticipated as there will be no change to the site relative to parking and the proposed use will slightly increase the requirements for parking. Note: Please see staff comments below. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 44-2009M Outdoor dining area/storm water mitigation Approved 8/18/09 SP 47-08 Building reconfiguration/Five Guys Approved 11/25/08 A.V. 9-05 Parking Relief Approved 1/19/05 S.P. 47-03 Tractor Supply Mod. Approved 1/25/05 A.V. 84-03 Parking Relief Approved 10/15/03 Staff comments: 1. The applicant, Nigro Corporation, has a lease agreement with National Grid for the 219 spaces located on and partially on their lands. The Nigro lands are contiguous with National Grid lands and it should be noted that these 219 spaces are also partially leased to the Toys Are Us retailer to the north. It appears that under any circumstance, the installation of additional parking spaces would be problematic as the parcel is overbuilt and remaining open area is limited and not conducive to paving. 2. Concerning SEAR, the applicant has submitted a Short Form EAF. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-It seems like there were a lot of minor discussions in that application, but if you have any further items to address this Board with, please feel free to do so, and if you could introduce yourself for the record. MR. LAPPER-Of course. For the record, Jon Lapper, project attorney, with Eric Redding from Bergmann Engineering and Jamie Margelot from Nigro Companies. I want to start out by withdrawing the application for the permeability relief because we submitted this to try and get this all together and get on the agenda so that this could get under construction, and when we got the Staff Notes from Keith, we realized that we could find somewhere without affecting the parking count where we could lose some paving and make up. It was .01% was the variance. So we just thought it was so minor just to add the 24 outdoor seats that it just wasn't worth making a change. It was just easiest to ask for a variance for .01% permeability, but when we got the notes from Keith we thought, you know, if we can find a place and just make that go away. So we asked the Planning Board to give a recommendation, with the permeability variance last night, which they did, but told them that we would see what we could do, and we were able to find a spot behind Tractor Supply where it won't affect drive aisle or parking at all. So we added back 54 square feet of permeable area to make up for the 33 square feet of impermeable for the seating area, and I sent that to Keith today so he would see that. So we don't need that variance. So that simplifies our discussion, and that was, we could have figured that out if we had more time to begin with, but that was just a history of that. So then with respect to parking, I've been here over the years many times on this project. Most of you will probably remember when Carvel was here before Taco Bell, and this was kind of an old, tired plaza that has been, was pretty empty and then it got re-tenanted, and we did the Five Guys building. So there's been a lot of changes over the years, but the reason we're here is because in Queensbury when you have an existing commercial plaza, when you change a tenant from a retail tenant to a restaurant tenant, the parking calculation is different. So 8,000 square feet of a little bit of pizzeria and mostly the physician's practice that moved out, now it's going to be 8,000 square feet of restaurant, but it gets calculated based upon the number of seats and the number of employees. So we did all the math and it came out to a difference of 15 spaces, and that's what we're here to ask for relief for not having to add 15 spaces. Keith's discussion was correct, in terms of the total numbers, but when you take into account that there's a lease for 219 spaces on the National Grid property, that's all for this use and for Toys R Us. So it's really just a variance for 15 spaces, because we have a lease and we've been before this Board in 2004 for a variance to let us count that off site because it's just leased for these properties. So, with that said, I think it's a very simple application, and to justify it in terms of the benefit to the applicant and that there won't be an impact on the neighborhood, my partner Steph Bitter went out this week and took pictures at one o'clock and at six o'clock, the two times when you'd mostly be going to a restaurant, to show that there's fields of vacant spaces. So I'd like to just pass this up and put that in the record, and you can all take a look at that, that there's ample, ample parking. There's probably more than you need there. So it's not a situation where we're going to be creating a parking hazard to add the restaurant and part of it is that Tractor Supply is a very, very low traffic generator, and the other argument would be that a restaurant has a different peak hour than certainly Tractor Supply and the supermarket as well. So I hope you'll see this as a simple application, but the guys are here with me to answer any questions. MR. URRICO-The parking lot seems to be bottom heavy in that, well, it's going to be a sports bar, right? A sports grill. And I'm sure those pictures weren't taken during the height of March Madness or Saturday afternoon college football, Sunday afternoon pro football, when you probably see more cars in there and maybe some traffic from Price Rite in there at the same time. So I'm wondering if there's enough, are there enough spaces at that end of the parking lot to sustain that kind of traffic during peak sports times and peak shopping times? MR. LAPPER-1 think I have two good answers to that. One of the pictures that I just submitted shows, at both times of the day, that the area between Five Guys and this building of course is empty. This building is empty right now, but it just means that Five Guys isn't generating anybody for that area, and there's a whole bunch of space there that wouldn't be conducive to Price Rite because it's right next to the Sports Grill. The other answer is that because there's a covered sidewalk in front of the building, that even if somebody, in the worst case, had to go park by Tractor Supply and walk in front of the building, there's an easy way to get to it. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-1, personally, have utilized that plaza a lot for the Dollar Store, and I can tell you that, you know, I get frustrated when I'm the third spot in because there's nobody ever in that parking lot. So with Toys R Us sharing the National Grid area, they're busy basically six days of the year, maybe, right around the Christmas holiday. So there's a ton of parking between those 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) two buildings. Yes, Roy's correct. There's a bit of empty space there in that parking space, but that's where the Sports, the Recovery Room, the bar's going, the Grill's going. So I personally think it's great to see that we're going to, you know, revitalize this thing and get a bunch of usage out of the building. So I think you've got more than enough parking. We're dealing with 15 spots on a very large area of parking. If you look at that picture up on the screen, there is an incredible amount of parking there, and Toys R Us isn't going to fill it up. MR. URRICO-Yes, but you don't see people going from lot to lot. When they park by Toys R Us, they don't go across the road to Price Rite. MR. JACKOSKI-But it's there for them to use. MR. URRICO-But they would not use it. MR. JACKOSKI-But you can't, I mean, we could never get enough parking at the curb. MR. URRICO-Those spaces are not considered in this plan, are they? MR. LAPPER-I want to explain that. I included the Toys R Us analysis because there are 27, when you take the parking requirement for Toys R Us, they've got 156 spaces in front of Toys R Us, and it's, again, only at Christmas or Black Friday when Toys R Us would spill out, because they've got 156 spaces, which is plenty in practicality, but because they have a lease, they're, under the Queensbury Code, they're requirement would be that you would count 27 of the 219 spaces on the National Grid property towards Toys R Us. So I just wanted to be, to disclose that you'd subtract 27 if you were trying to show that Toys R Us had the full count as you calculate under the Town Code. So even that it's still 219 minus 27 is all available for this plaza. MR. JACKOSKI-About how many parties will the restaurant be able to seat at one time? In other words, how many carloads do you think there would be? MR. LAPPER-With 222 seats, and Queensbury counts one per four. Obviously some people come two, you know, in a car, so that would be about 55 cars and then employees. MR. KUHL-On your application you have 198 indoor seats and 24 outdoor. Is that counting the bar, or is that just tables? MR. LAPPER-That's all seats, that's everything, yes. MR. KUHL-All seats. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Anymore discussion at this time from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Could somebody explain to me about the drainage there? I've been out there during rain events and it's been like a lake in certain parts of that parking lot. Can somebody explain to me how that drainage goes there? JAMIE MARGELOT MR. MARGELOT-I'm Jamie Margelot from Nigro Companies. Last year or the year before we put a whole bunch of drainage in the, that ran along by the dumpster corral that we built recently, which picked up a lot of that drainage, and as part of that, we had to witness it after a heavy rainstorm to see if it drained properly, and it did. It was signed off. I remember I met Bruce Frank out there myself. In addition to, we put a, behind the dumpster corral, right on the concrete pad itself, we put almost like a French drain that ties into the system, and then out in the grass area we put a yard drain that picks all that up, and then along the back of the building, along the back of the Price Rite building, we put a wing edge which picks up all the water and brings it down to a catch basin that we installed. We also put a large drainage pipe, because the thing is the whole roof drains to the back of the building, goes down these gutters and has really no place to go. So what I did is I tied in all the roof drains into two big leaders that pipe it down towards the end of the building and then dump it off at the end of the building and then it goes right into the catch basin. So that alleviated a lot of that. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Because in the past there's been flooding everywhere from behind the hot dog place and pizza place all the way back to that building. MR. MARGELOT-That was the purpose of what we had put it in there. It was last year or the year before. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. GARRAND-1 wasn't aware that storm control had been put in there. So thank you. MR. MARGELOT-Yes, thank you. MR. OBORNE-We ran them through the ringer. MR. MARGELOT-You sure did. MR. GARRAND-Remember what rain events would do over there? It was like a lake. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members at this time? MRS. HUNT-1 have a question. If you, now you say you don't need the Area Variance anymore. Now could you spell out the variance needed for parking? MR. LAPPER-The plaza as it exists is permitted, with the number of spaces that are there, based upon all the previous approvals that have been granted, including using offsite parking on National Grid. So the comparison is the different parking calculation from retail, which is five spaces per thousand, to restaurant, which is one per four seats plus one for every two employees, and when we did all the math, as to what's required based upon the square footage in the plaza, the number of spaces, which Keith has signed off on, which is this elaborate chart, we're different by 15 spaces. MRS. HUNT-So that's what you need a variance, 15 spaces? MR. LAPPER-That's the relief, yes. MR. CLEMENTS-It would be 15 spaces from the required. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Required after the variances that we already have. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, what's the required number? MR. OBORNE-You had to go there. Seven hundred plus. MR. CLEMENTS-Seven hundred plus. MR. LAPPER-Well, if you count Toys R Us, 729. MR. CLEMENTS-Seven twenty-nine it says here. Is that what it is? MR. LAPPER-Right. Yes. With Toys R Us that's the right number. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions or comments from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-I'm sorry. I need to get this straight. Does that include the parking spaces in front of Toys R Us on the side of the building? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it includes in front of Toys R Us. It includes Taco Bell, the Bank, Five Guys building. That's everything all in. MR. URRICO-What about the old block, what about New Way cafe, is that a different property? MR. LAPPER-That's on a different property. MR. URRICO-And then what about the side of Tractor Supply? MR. LAPP ER-Everything. Remember it used to be Rustler Steakhouse? MR. URRICO-Yes, I remember that. What about deliveries, where would they be? MR. REDDING-Deliveries will be on the side of the space coming in the back, pretty much where the Price Rite building (lost words). 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. URRICO-They'll be coming around the back side then of Tractor Supply. MR. LAPPER-The outdoor seats, because it's only 24 seats, they're all right up at the front. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. OBORNE-That brings up a good question, I mean, as far as the loading goes. Typically you'd have it on a ground level or a ramp. Is there any thought about potentially putting a ramp in there for loading into the kitchen at this point? Not that that, that wouldn't change anything. That's more of a Site Plan issue. MR. LAPPER-The tenant hasn't asked for that. MR. OBORNE-Okay. Well, they may. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments by Board members? Hearing none, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one at this time, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-1 have not found any. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no comment, I'd like to poll the Board. Start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the fact that you're going to use permeable paving in the outside dining area that you've added the extra drainage over at the end of Tractor Supply. You've upgraded your stormwater prevention plan as per the Town review. MR. OBORNE-They are putting a roof over the patio, though. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, but I'm sure that that's going to have to drain into some kind of a pit or something. It's not just going to go onto the ground. Is it? MR. LAPPER-There's a catch basin nearby. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Yes. I really don't see that the extra 15, or the minus 15 parking that you're lacking here is going to make that much of a difference. I think everybody pretty much understands the fact that there may be a few times a year that it maybe is oversubscribed, the parking. The only conflicts I can see would probably be the Shop N Save, you know, because those little old ladies that are trying to save a dime like to park close nearby so you may get into conflicts on those days. So, I mean, that's really the only troubleshooting I can see as far as that goes. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Looking at the balancing test, I cannot figure a way where they could gain any more parking spaces. Looking at the variance I don't think it'll produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood at all. It's going to remain pretty much the same. The nature of these businesses, they're all not, you're not going to see a massive influx of cars all at the same time for all the businesses simultaneously. It's going to be spread out throughout the day. The request, I don't think, is substantial, and it may be deemed self-created, and in light of the balancing test I'd be in favor of this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I think it's a good addition to the area, a good use of that empty space, and I think the 15 spaces needed for the variance are minimal. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I have to agree with the rest of my Board members. I would also be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. URRICO-1 agree. They should get the variance, but I do feel that there is some problems with the layout of the parking lot there that should be addressed at some point. Booze and that parking lot won't be a good combination, but I'd be in favor of this variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it's a good utilization of the space. When I read this application I was amazed that we have to worry about parking spaces because to me it's always underutilized, not over utilized. So, no, I'm in favor of it. I realize we have calculations, and I realize you have to spend time and money to come for a variance, but that's why we have our rule book, but, no, I think it's a good utilization. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm in favor, too, and I thank the applicant for finding a way to minimize the number of variances that they were trying to accomplish here. So we appreciate that effort. So, given the polling of the Board, I think we should go into SEQRA. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND ANALYSIS OF THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THAT THERE IS NO NEGATIVE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WITH REGARD TO THIS PROJECT, SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE WE GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Do I have a motion concerning the variance? I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Now do I have a motion for the variance? MR. KUHL-Yes, I can make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2012 NIGRO COMPANIES, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 735 Glen Street. The applicant is proposing to retrofit an 8,000 square foot vacant space located in the Price Rite Plaza for a Recovery Sports Grill. The parcel will require an Area Variance for parking. I find that it would be a minor effect or minor change on the neighborhood. The parking variance request is unavoidable and it's for 15 spaces and that's not severe, and that minor impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area for this usage. I recommend we approve this Area Variance. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-We look forward to you doing business in Queensbury. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2012 SEQRA TYPE II JOYCE SHOVAH AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) JOYCE SHOVAH ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION JOHN CLENDON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.68 AND 1.72 ACRES WITH REMAINING 0.65 ACRES TO BE MERGED WITH LANDS TO THE WEST OWNED BY THE APPLICANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, AND ROAD FRONTAGE 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE. CROSS REF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION 6-1994; SUB 2-2012 LOT SIZE 4.05 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 295.14-2-36 SECTION 179-3- 040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2012, Joyce Shovah, Meeting Date: April 18, 2012 "Project Location: John Clendon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into two lots of 1.68 and 1.72 acres with remaining 0.65 acres to be merged with lands to the west owned by the applicant. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Lot 1 Lot Size- Request for 0.32 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre requirement of the MDR zone. Road Frontage- Request for 60.53 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement of the MDR zone. Lot 2 Lot Size- Request for 0.28 acres of relief from the 2.0 acre requirement of the MDR zone. Road Frontage- Request for 60.53 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement of the MDR zone. 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 would be to subdivide the parcel into zoning compliant lots in regards to lot size utilizing the 0.65 acres that is to be merged with the adjoining lands of the applicant. With regard to the 100 foot Road Frontage requirement, feasible alternatives appear limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 0.32 acres or 16% relief for Lot 1 and 0.28 acres or 14% relief for Lot 2 from the 2 acre lot size requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered minor relative to the ordinance. The request for 60.53 feet or 61% relief for both lots from the 100 foot Road Frontage requirement as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, Administrative Subdivision 6-1994 Approved 1994 Subdivision 20-2012: Pending Staff comments: • The purpose of the 0.65 acre merged portion proposed for the lot to the west is for buffer purposes according to the applicant's agent. • It was initially thought that a lot width variance was required; however, the applicant's surveyor has provided information that both proposed lots meet the 100 foot minimum lot width requirement as per§179-3-040. Please see attached correspondence. • The parcel to the west has access off of Mountain View Road. • Both lots have town water. SEQR Status: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) Type II - No environmental review required." MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board met and they voted that based on its limited review they didn't identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed unanimously on April 17tH MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, and if you could identify yourself for the record, please. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I'm Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. BILL NIKAS MR. NIKAS-Bill Nikas, attorney for Mrs. Shovah. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have anything you'd like to add at this time? MR. STEVES-Certainly. Just a brief overview of the property. You all have the maps and I believe have seen the property. It's property on the north side of John Clendon Road. The lots in the back of 1.68 and 1.72 are more than adequate as far as compliance with the area, as far as the general vicinity and the lot sizes in that area, and as stated, the .65 acres to the west is to buffer the existing house that is on that parcel that extends all the way back out to Mountain View Lane, and to create that, and leave that buffer area there between the new lots and the existing home. This was originally an approved subdivision back in 1994, administratively by Jim Martin. It just was never filed at that time. So now we're back in front of the Boards to go through the process to obtain the approvals for the subdivision. It'll be, the shared driveway, if anybody's been out there, there is a path or a driveway that is there currently. It'll be improved to the point where two cars can pass going in and out for the two new residents. Again, onsite septic and Town water. We did locate the edge of the woods and show approximate clearing, and as we stated with the Planning Board last night, that's what we're trying to hold to as far as the clearing to allow as much buffer around these proposed houses. I think Keith has got the photo up there that kind of shows the clearing areas that are depicted on our survey, and I would leave it up to questions from the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the access that you're going to provide to those two lots, has that been a thorny issue with the neighbors at all, as far as, I would think that would be the major impact. MR. NIKAS-There are two houses on this road now. One owned by Laurie Dickinson and one owned by Green. Green actually has a friendly relationship with Ms. Shovah. They support it. I think you have a letter on file by attorney Matt Fuller who represents Dickinson. Years ago there was litigation started because, unfortunately, Ms. Shovah had some bad advice at the time. She thought in order to maintain her subdivision that was approved in '94 that she would have to have a Town approved and accepted road, and there was an encroachment there by Mrs. Dickinson. So litigation was started, and I'm the new boy on the block. We don't need Town Highway. It should have been a private access from Day One. The letter from Matt Fuller indicates that Mrs. Dickinson now supports the application before you, as long as we resolve the litigation, and he's asked for that as a contingency, and I can assure him, as I did last night, as well as you, that there is no problem with access and Mrs. Dickinson. When you look at the two lots that we proposed, they're almost twice the size of the two lots that are currently on this road right now. We deliberately kept the 1994 size for that buffer. If you look at that .65 acre portion, it is treed, and, you know, Mrs. Shovah would like to have her house buffered as well as the house that is proposed buffered by trees. That's why she wants to control it. Other than that, it's a private road. Water lines will be installed. They're not installed yet, and there's roughly 39 feet per car, or per lot, although I assume that we'll have a common driveway, at least 60 feet in width. So there shouldn't be any problem with the width. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the private drive is going to be just to standard so the fire trucks can go in and out if necessary and as per usual when we do these subdivisions? MR. NIKAS-Absolutely. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there going to be any sense that there's going to be minimal tree cutting done for the homes that are going to be created, too? I mean, I would think that would be a critical element. MR. NIKAS-It is. We will have restrictions in the deed, first of all, that protects Mrs. Shovah's lot, but also the marketability of this area, it's a beautiful area, and we want to keep it as treed as possible. When you look along the southerly portion of the right of way, you'll see trees that are in the right of way. Those are to be maintained. I see that Mr. Hayden is here. I know he has a 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) concern about that. Those trees will be maintained so that when you go down that right of way, it'll be like going down a path of trees. MR. STEVES-And if you look again on the plan, relative to the aerial, we tried to place the houses and septic in the area of minimal clearing, basically within the area to the fairly (lost words) lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions at this time from the Board? MR. KUHL-Yes. When did you do this survey? MR. STEVES-When did I do the survey? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. STEVES-1 originally did the survey, I believe, in the 1970's. We updated it again in 1994 for the original subdivision, and then recently updated it in I believe March of this year. MR. KUHL-I was looking for that nail set in asphalt on the Dickinson property, and I couldn't find it. MR. STEVES-We set that, actually when we did the survey for the Dickinsons we did that survey as well, and we set that in 2008. MR. KUHL-Well, because from what I looked at there, I couldn't see this, you have 39.47 and 39.47. 1 couldn't see the points, and I was looking for that point to try to visualize the width of what you're talking about. Because as I see it, I mean, my assumption is the trees that are standing behind the Cochran property are going to be taken down, and that's going to be your access in there, and I just couldn't see 80 feet to the Dickinson lot without taking off their fence and their shrubs and everything in front of their house. So I was looking for that pin, and it says nail set in asphalt, as a reference point, I couldn't find it, and I don't understand how you can, you talk 60 feet, Bill, about the driveway, and the whole thing is 80 feet. Now, what is that, 60 foot of stone you're talking? Well, anyway, I couldn't get a reference and to me it doesn't look like 80 feet there. Maybe it's just because it's on a bias or whatever. MR. NIKAS-I told you why. What you saw as landscaping is a little island, and that was the problem with the litigation. That was part of the problem with the litigation. That was part of the encroachment. The island is surrounded by Dickinsons asphalt. So they actually access their lot by going along the northerly part of that island, and we could have it removed through litigation, but we actually think it enhances the appearance of the entranceway. MR. KUHL-So you're saying that that shrubbery is on your footage? MR. NIKAS-Exactly, and they have access above it. So our discussions with Dickinson is, yes, sure, use that. We'd like to use just south of that portion, which is 39 feet at the mouth of John Clendon, and then it spreads 52 feet, right up to about 60 when you get to the two lots. You're seeing the outside boundary lines, but we're not going to clear to the outside boundary lines. That would ruin the aesthetics of the road. MR. KUHL-Okay, because I just couldn't get 80 feet out of that. I'm sorry. Maybe it's that I'm not a surveyor. I just, I was struggling looking for that. So I was looking for points of reference to get a better view. Also for me, the fact of .065 feet as a buffer, as far as I'm concerned, if that were used with Lot Number One, you wouldn't need a variance for it. The fact that they want a buffer, why don't they plant trees on their existing property. Everybody, they razor cut all their land, and now they want to take .65 from this one and ask for a variance. I think that Lot One should be two acres and you wouldn't need a variance, and I think the lot line should be back to it. Just my view of that whole thing. Okay. Now I think both of these lots could be more in compliance in the two acre zone if you would use that .65 feet and change the line a little bit, in my view. MR. UNDERWOOD-Or in the same line of thought, you could just split the difference between the two lots, you know, and just make it a no cut zone or, you know, do it that way. That would simplify it. MR. NIKAS-Yes, I think what the intention was was to mirror exactly the 1994 map that had been approved, rather than, because we didn't want to reinvent the wheel here. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. URRICO-But you can avoid coming for a variance for that reason by splitting the difference and dividing it up on those two lots, and since we're charged with providing minimum relief, that's no relief. We won't have to be here. MR. NIKAS-We can make that a no cut zone. I mean, that's our intention. We certainly would. MR. UNDERWOOD-You've got 115 feet there, and if that was a no cut zone, I mean, that would be perfect. It wouldn't really matter which lot owned it at that point. I mean, that would be perfect. It wouldn't really matter which lot owned it at that point. MR. STEVES-That's, the reason for the 115 feet, the .65 acres, is to create a buffer. It's just that the applicant owns the entire property and she thought that if she could retain the ownership of that, and it's her house, the larger house, that fronts on Mountain View, that should would have better control of that. MR. NIKAS-Yes, from my viewpoint, looking at worst case scenarios, no cuts are great in deeds for restrictions, but when somebody starts violating it, now you've got to get into court, and by that time the damage is done. With this type of approach, she cannot subdivide her property. This .65 acres is completely under her control. She could charge somebody with trespass if they touched a tree. So from the legal perspective it just represents a much greater control for exactly what we're trying to accomplish, don't cut these trees, but certainly we could do that, but that's why we're asking for the variance. It gives greater control for something that's, for the benefit of everybody in this area, don't cut the trees. MR. KUHL-Hey, Matt, could you explain the Staff comments, the parcel to the west has access off of Mountain View Road. MR. STEVES-Yes. The parcel that, the other tax parcel that is currently owned by Joyce Shovah fronts on the (lost words). MR. KUHL-That's what that comment is. It's got nothing to do with Lot One or Lot Two? MR. OBORNE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. STEVES-And your point is well taken as far as the variances. We always look to try to minimize as well. We really do. Creating the two acre lot is easily accommodated. The lot line between Lot One and Two, if you add .65 acres in,just the way it falls now, that line between the two coming off of the end of the entrance would have to kind of go at an awful angle to accommodate Lot Two to get to two acres. You'd have a little bit of a shift in that line and as a surveyor, and the way people, the way they build, we'd like to try to keep it as perpendicular to parallel as possible. I don't know if you've seen it, but I've seen it hundreds of times in my career, we create a lot line that is not perpendicular to the road or towards the house and they're at a skew off the road, where somebody's always back in to the Zoning Board for a variance because they built parallel to the road and then they're too close to the sideline, and I'm not saying that that's the excuse that we cannot accommodate the two acres, but also the fact of the matter is that trying to keep in conformance with the character of the neighborhood when most of the lots here are way under an acre, we just thought that keeping that buffer for Miss Shovah and creating two lots of almost one and three quarter acres a piece would be a better scenario, but again, if it's the decision of the Board that you do not want to see that two acres, or you want to see those as two acres, we can accommodate that. We just have to adjust that lot line a little bit, and it may not fall as centered on the common driveway as it does now. Not running down the common road, but where it meets the larger open area of the parcel. MR. KUHL-How much is Lot Two below John Clendon Road? Because it seemed like when I walked down there I was going down, down, down. Is that about a 20 foot drop over that length? MR. STEVES-Yes, about eighteen and a half to twenty feet. MR. KUHL-And is that going to cause a problem with any construction on Lot Two? MR. STEVES-It's a four percent grade, from the road all the way back, straight four percent grade. MR. GARRAND-All the properties on the south side of this access road are going to have the trees in front of them clear cut. MR. NIKAS-No, we're keeping them. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. GARRAND-You're going to keep them all? MR. NIKAS-Absolutely. MR. STEVES-If you look at the path of the current open area that goes down through there, you can drive quite a ways down through here. You're only talking about cleaning it up and widening it. It's about eight to ten feet in most places. MR. NIKAS-Right. MR. STEVES-We're going to widen the driven portions to 16, but center it on the path that's there, so you just have a little bit of, you know, brush and (lost words) on the side so that you're not scratching up vehicles, but at the same time you don't have to take down any substantial trees the whole length of the drive. MR. NIKAS-Yes, that's the value of these lots to having the path isolated with trees. It doesn't decrease the value by cutting these trees. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member discussion? MR. KUHL-Well, I have one. I hate to bog this whole thing, but what's going to happen with Green? How are they going to get access to the road? MR. NIKAS-They have a driveway now, depicted on the map that stays. MR. KUHL-Green is the rental house, the little one, Lands of Green, it's a rental house. MR. NIKAS-Right, and you can see there's a driveway that goes into the road now. MR. KUHL-Right, but that's on your client's property. MR. NIKAS-They have an easement. MR. KUHL-There is an easement? MR. NIKAS-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. NIKAS-Both Dickinson and Green have free access to it. MR. STEVES-We'd be maintaining a drive, basically, right where they are, and they would just be branching off the way they're branching off now. MR. KUHL-Okay. I mean, if they want pavers, you're going to put pavers? MR. STEVES-Whoever builds in the back, they'll probably get the benefit of the, the farthest guy out will probably end up maintaining the drive most of the way. MR. UNDERWOOD-Plowing it all the way. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to address the Board concerning this matter? If you could, sir, if you could come to the table and identify yourself and your address for the record we'd appreciate it. Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SCOTT SORGER MR. SORGER-My name is Scott Sorger. I own the property 18 John Clendon Road, directly south of the area in question here. The first thing I'd like to address where that dirt road that comes down behind my property. I found the pins from the survey, one which was put in approximately two and a half years ago when I purchased the property, and one that I hadn't seen before so I'm assuming it's part of the new survey, which is about 30 feet to the north, and the pin from my property, which I'm assuming is from my property, is actually 15 feet north of that dirt road right of way. I don't know if, over time, the way the right of way or that dirt road has found itself has inched over onto my property. So right now it appears that this is on my 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) property, and, you know, when they're going to be coming down there, they're going to have to move this road off of my property for the construction and everything. MR. JACKOSKI-We can certainly ask the surveyor for the applicant what that is. MR. SORGER-Yes, because when I went out there, like I said, you could see two pins, and I was assuming the right of way was the area between the two pins for the two properties. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll try to get an explanation from the applicant. MR. SORGER-Okay, and the next thing I'd like to request a delineation from the DEC on wetlands back there. There's wetlands area on this property. We can hear all the frogs and other things at night there, and I'd just like to have that clarified. I don't know if it's currently set as a wetland, but there's definitely a wetland there, and it does connect with areas that go out to Rush Pond eventually. MR. JACKOSKI-And we can certainly have the applicant address that as well, and I suspect that the Planning Board, when they come to looking at these lots, will certainly address that. MR. SORGER-Okay. They would go to the DEC for clarification on that? MR. JACKOSKI-I won't say that, sir. I will tell, though, that if there are wetlands there, the Planning Board will certainly make that determination of how to deal with them. MR. SORGER-Okay, and as we were talking about a buffer for the people on the side there with trees, as you can see where my property is there, directly to the south, I'm very concerned about how much of a buffer am I going to have of trees between where the driveway is going to be and, you know, the houses themselves. It's not going to be very pleasant looking out my backyard into somebody else's backyard at this point here, you know, with no trees there. MR. KUHL-Your property is south of Lot Two? MR. SORGER-1 believe, it's the last house on John Clendon Road there. MR. KUHL-Okay. Yes. MR. SORGER-So I would like to have, you know, say maybe have 75 feet or whatever, I don't know what they would offer on that of tree buffer, you know, between the houses, between the property and. MR. JACKOSKI-We can certainly talk to the applicant about that and just so you know, though, that if one house came in there, you know, according to Code, they could build right to the line. MR. SORGER-Right to the line. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, they could certainly clear their property. MR. SORGER-They would be allowed to clear the property? MR. JACKOSKI-If there were one house, if somebody bought that parcel right now and just decided to build a house on it, they could pick wherever they wanted there and there may not be a buffer that you would be happy with. So it would be a good time to talk to the applicant now about what their intention is. MR. SORGER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-It would be the same thing as you being able to clear your lot if you wanted to. MR. SORGER-1 understand. Can I talk to you about that tonight? Okay. MR. GARRAND-Keith, what's the restriction on clearing? MR. OBORNE-Well, if it's greater than an acre, you have to have a SWPPP. So, you know, there would be environmental controls involved in that. MR. JACKOSKI-But, right, that's if they clear, almost cut 50% of it. MR. OBORNE-If you clear more of an acre of forest, that does require Site Plan Review. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. GARRAND-That's for both lots, right? MR. OBORNE-No, just for one lot. MR. GARRAND-Each individual lot. What about the driveway or anything associated around that? MR. OBORNE-It's already pretty much cleared through there, at this point. If they're going to do additional disturbance, certainly, you know, we'd have to look at that and have that quantified, and that would be quantified at the building permit stage. Right now you go to Site Plan Review you can get limits of clearing and they're showing limits of clearing. So that's where we're at with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "In response to Joyce Shovah for the variance, I, George Winters, living at 4 John Clendon Road, am in favor of her variance." That's George Winters. Then we have a letter that probably after the fact, since we already know that Mr. Nikas is here. It says "Kindly consider this letter as my authorization for Attorney William L. Nikas to appear on my behalf relative to the above captioned variance application, and to represent my interests before your Board. Thank you very much. Joyce Shovah" And then the third letter I have is, "Dear Mr. Jackoski and ZBA Members: Our firm is counsel to Laurie Dickinson, a neighbor to the Shovah property. As I noted before the Planning Board, and as I note now for the record in writing, our client owns property that abuts the right of way/driveway proposed to be used by Ms. Shovah with regard to her proposed subdivision. There is currently pending litigation between Ms. Shovah, as the plaintiff, and my client, as the defendant, with regard to the use of that right of way, and in particular, improvements that my client and her predecessors have constructed in that area. Though my client does not object to the creation of two lots, as those lots were in fact previously created by subdivision by the map not filed, my client does believe, and I concur, that the litigation must be resolved before a mylar should be signed by the Town. As such, though we see no need to delay the municipal approvals, we do ask that the signing of the mylar be conditioned on the filing of a stipulation of settlement or a final court determination with regard to the pending litigation. Bill Scott from my office and I are working with Mr. Nikas to resolve those issues and I am confident that we will be able to do so. Thank you. Sincerely, Matthew F. Fuller" That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-That is all of the written comment. If you would, kindly, could you maybe address some of the concerns that were brought up during the public comment period. MR. NIKAS-Yes. The trees issue is something that we'll certainly work with neighbors. It's definitely in our best interest to maintain a tree buffer. You see the dotted line within each lot. Those will be no cut zones as well. We'll certainly work with the neighbors on that issue. We would ask that you consider our rationale for maintaining that .65 acres merged into the balance of Miss Shovah's lot, so she can control that very issue. That's a concern to her because it is her home, that those trees represent a buffer to her right now. The road is essentially cleared right now. The dimensions of that road have been established for well over 50 years by whoever subdivided many, many years ago it appears on a filed map. So, you know, we're not reinventing the wheel there, but we'll certainly flag it and meet with the neighbors to accommodate each other. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. NIKAS-As far as wetlands, I know the peepers that he's talking about. It's on the adjoining lands somebody dug a pond over there and there's a little pond on the adjoining neighbor. It's not anywhere near here. These lots are covered with deciduous trees. We've walked every foot of it. There are no wetlands there, but certainly that would be a Planning Board issue. We also have no objection to Mr. Fuller's request, which is probably a Planning Board issue as well, that, you know, we will not proceed with this project without resolving the litigation with Mrs. Dickinson who now supports our application. MR. JACKOSKI-Can you tell me how many acres, or the lot size of Mrs. Shovah's lot? MR. NIKAS-If you open that whole map, she retains 3.16 acres, plus the .65. So she'll end up with 3.8 acres that will remain one lot. So if you were to apply the clustering rationale, although because of the number of lots here it doesn't, clustering would support the density here as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. STEVES-And also, as far as (lost word) the property lines, one of the requirements of subdivision is that we do that upon approval, and we always do that upon approval, and I apologize if you couldn't find all the things out there, but we typically don't go to that expense until it's completely approved, and going back to '94 it was and we didn't mark it all back then, but I will not sit here and certify that they are all still there until we go back out, after approval, and mark them all, but I will make it a point to make sure that all the neighbors know where their property line is, because one of the benefits of that, when we mark this line is they're going to know where theirs are as well. We've done most of the surveys in this area and they agree with themselves, no question. As far as the DEC issue, we did submit information on the subdivision to DEC and we did get a letter back saying that there were no issues with the property wetlands and endangered species. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you maybe address the fact that the neighbors are concerned that the road is encroaching on their property at this time? MR. STEVES-1 don't believe, there are some markings that are in the back there, some previous, if field crew members go out and do any survey work, they flag up anything they find at the time. I know that there were some pipes on that angle point that kind of wrapped around the south side of Lot One. The actual driven portion of the road is depicted on there. We located it all the way down through there. I don't believe that that road encroaches on anybody at this point. There may be a monument that is flagged up on my crew, or it might be one of their control points, but again, I will make it a point to go out there and mark that, but we did locate the tree line on the driveway going in. The only one that's approximate, because we didn't do the full topography on it when we ran the profile, is just that farther, northerly tree line which we just, you know, sketched in there from the field crew. We took a few shots. We did the topo, the whole thing, but we did topo and profile the driveway and locate the driveway and locate the tree line on the way in, but I will go back out and verify that those corners are marked and know which ones they are, but it is my belief that the driveway does not extend off our property. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-I've got some question, as far as in your submission, it says here Joyce Shovah owns 4.05 acres of property. The deed says it's 3.8 acres of property. Why the discrepancy? MR. STEVES-Lots of times the deed would be referenced off a tax map, and/or approximate because they didn't have survey information, and, you know, I can't tell you. I didn't write the deed, but I did the survey. I know, for a fact, that the acreage is based upon the survey. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board questions? Is there a need to poll the Board? Are we in favor of this? MR. URRICO-Probably should discuss it, I think. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Go ahead. Roy? MR. URRICO-No. I just feel that, when you look at the balancing test, there's means to, there's a feasible alternative to the applicant here, and he makes a very compelling point, but when we have something zoned two acres and we're going to be creating two nonconforming lots when the ability to conform them exists, it seems to me that that's not the way to go. So I would have problems with that part of it. I don't have problems with the road frontage variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, I think the road frontage was taken off, wasn't it? MR. OBORNE-No. MRS. HUNT-No? Okay. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. Even though the relief is minor, I still think that the two acre requirement would not be a hardship to be maintained. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm sitting on the fence, as far as making one of the lots compliant. I mean, I think you've gone to the effort of trying to make these lots be similar in size to each other with 1.72 and 1.68, and I sort of, I understand where you're coming from with Mrs. Shovah wanting to be in control of the forest back there, and I think in this instance here, though, I would go with 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) your judgment on that, because I think it's better to have one person control the clear cut, the area that could be cut, as opposed to two people because then you can get into boundary line arguments and things like that, and I think as you mentioned also, keeping that property line at a perpendicular, you know, between the lots, is essential. All the times that we've ever dealt with these weird property lines, you know, somebody always ends up encroaching or needing a variance or adverse possession problems and things like that. So, in this instance here I think you've done a good job, and I think that the key to the whole project is to minimize the amount of cutting up there, and I would trust that Mrs. Shovah owes it to her neighbors, as well as herself, if she wants to maintain the nature of the neighborhood. Certainly the lot sizes, at 1.72 and 1.68, are adequate for, and much larger than most of the ones that exist up there in that neighborhood. So I would approve what you're suggesting. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I can see how we got into a situation like this. I mean, there's neighborhoods all over Queensbury where the zoning changed and the requirements now are for larger lots. That's kind of the direction the Town wants to move in instead of, you know, with a moderate density, you know, a lot of these, they want two acres. The smaller lots were created at a time when zoning was a little more liberal. I wouldn't want to see these lots cleared, for one. I do think she could, you know, add a little property to Lot Number One, to make it more compliant. DEC, according to the applicant, doesn't have a problem with any wetlands on the property. I'm kind of on the fence on this one. I think there's room for her to go on the Lot Number One and make it more compliant, but that's kind of up to the applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're reserving judgment. MR. GARRAND-Reserving judgment for now. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think the applicant's got the opportunity here to make those lots compliant. I think if she wants a buffer she should plant that on her own property. If she ends up with 3.8 acres versus 3.2 acres, what's the big deal? You can make these lots compliant by making them both two acres. The road frontage I'll go along with, but I would like to see the lots compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Thank you. I would say that the Board members have asked some good questions and they have some good points here, but I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Underwood, and I would be in favor. I think that you're going to end up with two lots here anyway, no matter how you do it. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, I'd like to echo a little bit about what Brian suggested. If we're going to end up with two lots here at 1.68 and 1.72, and we add the .65 acres to Mrs. Shovah's lot at 3.81, she may come in front of this Board and ask for a subdivision of her lot, which would result in two parcels at 1.9 each, which would ultimately be bigger than the two that we might approve here tonight, which would set precedent for, why not let her subdivide her current home lot. So I think that adding that .65 acres to her lot, giving her the potential to subdivide her lot into bigger lots than we have with these two lots is not the way we should go. MR. NIKAS-Can I address that? MR. JACKOSKI-Sure. MR. NIKAS-Because we can solve that with a condition of approval by a covenant and a restriction where she files the declaration of restrictions that she cannot subdivide her own lot, and that once this map is filed, a reference to the .65 acre parcel as a no cut zone. That can be done legally, permanently giving up any rights to subdivide, and that's how important, and I can understand Mr. Kuhl. She could comply, but we're setting up a scenario, which is an attorney's nightmare, with the no cut. That is so important in this situation, and she could accomplish the same thing with a declaration of restrictions imposed upon her own lot, to address that. MR. STEVES-Could the deed restrict the current lot to no further subdivision and retain that .65 acres as the (lost words)? MR. NIKAS-And actually reference the filed mylar map, putting on the map a no cut zone. Plus in the declaration of restrictions, which is something she cannot undo, of course this would be subject to your attorney's confirmation of that fact, but that would be easily resolved and protect all of your concerns, and at the same time, maintaining two lots that are ostensibly surveyed, 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) rather than having a, kind of a jigsaw puzzle, which is what we'd have to do to accomplish the two acres. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think that when we do larger subdivisions, we've always had those green space areas, you know, that are commonly held by the subdivision, in perpetuity, and this would accomplish the same thing, you know, what you're trying to do is essentially that, too. MR. NIKAS-We can do that. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, when we have a deed restriction like that, what is the recourse? I mean, who would file the claim if they so chose to come and now say we do want to subdivide our land? I mean, there's no tie back to this other lot. MR. OBORNE-1 would have to defer to their counsel. I could not answer that. MR. NIKAS-You add to the declaration that the benefit of the restriction would be in favor of the Town of Queensbury, as well as the owners of Lot One and Two, and then any enforcement could be done by any of those affected parties. MR. STEVES-It's just like they do with conservancy groups when they take easements over property for purposes of conservation easements, and then in that they ask the owner to put a restriction that no subdivision. That's more enforceable that the note on a map, because the map, unfortunately I've been down the road before with the Planning Board where they say no further subdivision, but that does not preclude future people from coming in, but yet for title purposes it does in the deed restriction. MR. NIKAS-Right. MR. STEVES-1 think we accomplish exactly what we're looking for, understanding what the Board's concern is to make it two acres. We make it two acres and we leave it where it is, you're concerned that maybe she'd come in with a subdivision. Take care of that and then take care of 115 foot buffer zone, and then you're still talking about lots that are substantially larger, and as I say, just from personal experience with those type of lots, if you're starting to jog that line around like we discussed earlier, we can do that, but then it's not centered on the end of the driveway, and if it slides over I'd have to put it at an angle of about probably 20 degrees. I mean, we could do it, but I think we accomplish the same results by putting the restriction and leaving the buffer zone. MR. NIKAS-And the current buffer, to address your concern, she could plant a buffer, but these are mature trees. MR. JACKOSKI-But she's not going to own the property forever. So we can't guarantee that the next property owner is going to have the same mentality about it, and even if you put a restriction in it, like you said, once they're cut down and the restriction's violated, by the time you get to deal with it, it's done. MR. NIKAS-When you have the declaration in favor of the municipality in which it's located, in other words, the declaration of restrictions as to no cut, with the filed map, your Zoning Administrator has the authority to go and do a stop. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand that, but it's always too late. You said it yourself. It's too late once it's done. MR. NIKAS-It's too late between private landowners because we don't have the authority to issue a Stop Work Order or a Stop Cut Order. Municipalities can stop somebody just like that. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but when it's done on a weekend, it's done, and we all know that, and come up to Lake George and watch the trees that go down on the weekend when the Town of Queensbury's not riding around in the white trucks, or they're clearing the shoreline and there's nothing a neighbor can do to deal with that. So while we want to protect her while she owns the home, we're also not protecting the other people who may be purchasing, it's a two sided coin. MR. STEVES-Double-edged sword. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. So I think we go back to feeling the minimum relief required when there is a feasible alternative. At least that's my opinion, but we have polled the Board, and I think right now we had a five and two in the current. Is that where we were? I lost track. MR. OBORNE-1 got three, three. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-I felt that it was something that we should try to get the applicant to be more compliant with the size of the lot, two acres and two acres. MR. NIKAS-Are you recommending that both be compliant, or Lot One be compliant. Can you give us some direction as to what would satisfy your concern in that regard? MR. JACKOSKI-Me, personally? Me personally I'd like to see two two acre lots. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just think the two acre lot thing is just an esoteric thing and I think the two acre lot, when it was created for Waterfront Residential, and even up here, was done so to keep in mind the sense that we thoroughly review anything that comes before, you know, as opposed to dropping down to. MR. GARRAND-Put a couple of restrictions on this lot, no subdivision. MR. URRICO-My feeling is that if it was less than four acres, yes, then we can consider it being less than two acres, but we have 4.05 acres here and two lots. It seems to be simple math to me, overriding decision. MR. NIKAS-If we had 3.99 on the remaining, would that be a better assurance that she cannot subdivide the front lot? MR. GARRAND-No, that's not a better assurance for me at all. MR. OBORNE-We're not here, at all, for the existing lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, we're not here for her lot. We're here for this lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can only really anticipate what the future holds. I mean, we have to do it based upon what's proposed before us this evening here. MR. URRICO-1 just think it's bad precedent to start with something that could be compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-And to be consistent, if I recall we, as a Board, had an application in front of us of a 1.99 acre parcel up on Knox Road on Assembly Point and we voted it down because it didn't have two acres, to subdivide into one acre lots. I think that was the DeRocker parcel, and that's, you know, we voted it down because of .0 1 acres. MR. UNDERWOOD-Matt, if you split the difference on that 115 by 243 there, that's going to put Lot One into compliance? That's going to be over two acres then, right? MR. STEVES-That's correct. Take .65, take .32 of that, make Lot One exactly two acres, leave .32 with Shovah, still leave the no subdivision clause in there, and the buffer, and leave Lot Two at 1.72, or move the whole thing over and, like I say, take that lot line and kind of do some. MR. UNDERWOOD-But the problem is, is you've got the Green property line that's going to skew the whole thing so it's a big hook around turn to get into that first lot. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. NIKAS-I mean, perhaps you'd think that would be a reasonable compromise to make Lot Two comply. That would satisfy the buffer issue because she would still have buffer on her side, Lot One comply, right, then you wouldn't have to. MR. UNDERWOOD-If they make this lot compliant, it's going to be approximately like this. Then this is going to be two acres here. This is still going to remain 1.72. If you start moving this lot. MR. NIKAS-We still keep some buffer on ours, though. If you cut that down the middle, we would still have trees on our side, that she could control. MR. UNDERWOOD-This and this still could be two lots, even if you add this to this one, but I don't see that you. MR. JACKOSKI-And I apologize. We've got a runaway Board at the moment. So let's, I apologize because I probably started it. What I'm concerned about is if we attempt to address 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) the Shovah lot here in this, bring this into the equation, we haven't possibly noticed people within 500 feet of that lot that could be affected by this. Correct? MR. OBORNE-No, people have been noticed on this lot. MR. JACKOSKI-This lot, yes. MR. OBORNE-Within 500 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-But if we start bringing in the existing home lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's not going to change that. MR. OBORNE-It's not going to change the 500 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's already compliant over here. It's just this no man's land in the middle. MR. STEVES-If we were reducing that lot, I believe you would be correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. STEVES-But since we'd be increasing it, I don't believe. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. NIKAS-And does it make any difference whatsoever that this lady, back in '94, filed this map and was approved, and do to another legal beagle who didn't file the map, we wouldn't be here? MR. GARRAND-The zoning did change between now and then, though. I mean, the building boom in this Town has just gone crazy. MR. NIKAS-I know. She would have been grandfathered, though, if it had been filed, and she had anticipated, not this, I can assure you. MR. OBORNE-1 mean, just trying to move this forward, I mean, having Lot One compliant and then splitting the difference, does that help, overall, with the Board? I don't know if the Board needs to be polled again. I mean, that's something the applicant has offered, and it's something that could be taken care of tonight because it's less relief. MR. KUHL-Suppose, Matt, you took the centerline and moved it over to 10 feet, the dashed line is 10 feet. MR. STEVES-That's a 20 foot side setback. MR. KUHL-That's a 20. Move the centerline over 20 foot. That gives you more of Lot One, I mean, make Lot One two acres. That gives you more on Lot Two. You'll almost be compliant on Lot Two. Right. I mean, that's not going to affect your driveway, and I don't know what the square footage. You probably know that better on the top of your head, and that'll probably make Lot Two 1.86 or 1.89, something like that. MR. STEVES-About 5,000 square feet would be added. So about an acre. So you'd be going up to, you know, like 1.81 or thereabouts, and then slide over Lot One so that it has two acres. MR. JACKOSKI-So let me get a clarification from the applicant what the applicant is currently suggesting. MR. STEVES-Well, at the advice of one of the Board members, you take the lot line between Lots One and Two, move that line to the west, going toward Mountain View Lane, paralleling the existing line 20 feet, to increase Lot Two slightly, to end right around 1.8 acres, and then take the westerly line of Lot One and move that over into the area of .65, to the point where it makes Lot One exactly two acres. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to re-poll the Board on that new suggestion by the applicant. MR. UNDERWOOD-This one's going to increase this way. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-And so what I'll reference is, well, Lot Two is going to be approximately 1.8 acres and Lot One will be at exactly two acres, and the remainder of that .65 acres would go back to the Shovah property for the existing home. MR. STEVES-Would you like to see it sketched out? MR. UNDERWOOD-You're going to go approximately over to where that no cut line was, that dotted dashed line. MR. STEVES-That's a 25 foot setback. We suggested 20. 1 could move it a little bit closer, but I didn't want to get, but the 20 feet would work fine. MR. JACKOSKI-So given the revised, and the revisions proposed by the applicant at this time, I'd like to re-poll the Board, and I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I have no problems. That makes sense. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I would accept the revisions. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'd accept it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And Roy. MR. URRICO-That would be better. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and it would be better for me, too. So just for the audience, to make sure they understand what we think we've come to a resolution on is that the subdividing line between Lot One and Lot Two would be moved to the west approximately 20 feet, and the proposed westerly boundary would be moved toward the existing Shovah residence to a point in which that Lot Number One would in fact be a full two acres, leaving the remainder of that current .65 acre designation on the Shovah residence parcel, with a covenant to not subdivide that parcel, as well as cut restrictions as identified on the maps. Have we got all that correct? MR. OBORNE-Whoever is doing the motion hopefully wrote that down. MR. JACKOSKI-The president cannot do the motions, just so you know. I think, do we want to take a few minutes here? MR. OBORNE-Yes. I would suggest you take a few minutes, get everything quantified and qualified. MR. GARRAND-Basically the applicant subdivision of 4.05 acres into two lots. One lot is going to be 1.8 acres. The second lot is going to be two acres. Relief requested from lot size, lot width, and road frontage requirements. Sound good? MR. URRICO-One lot, Lot Two. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR. KUHL-You still need road frontage. MR. GARRAND-For both lots. MR. JACKOSKI-And we've got to make sure we note, Matt, about how many of .65 acres will be put to the residence? MR. STEVES-.25. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. You feel that's pretty close? I mean, do we want to make it so specific that you've got no movement when you go and do the final? MR. STEVES-Say approximately two-tenths of an acre, maybe just over, but you're basically looking at you're adding .08 to Lot Two, and you're adding .32 to Lot One. So that's total of .4, you have to increase the two lots, and you have .65. So you're going to have roughly .25 left. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We just want to make sure we're, and the applicant feels comfortable that the owner of the property will accept that? MR. NIKAS-I do. MR. OBORNE-1 want to make it crystal clear that the resolution is crystal clear. Okay. So I just want to make sure that we have this down, soup to nuts. MR. JACKOSKI-So why don't we take a few minutes here to write it out, so we know what we're going to specifically address, if that's okay with the applicant. MR. NIKAS-Definitely. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 can do it if you want. I'm ready to do it. MR. JACKOSKI-You sure? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. GARRAND-Don't forget about the legal matter between Shovah and Dickinson. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, well, that's more of a Planning Board issue at this point. Is it not? MR. OBORNE-That's more of an applicant issue. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's an applicant. It's not anything to do with us. MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's an issue between the two property owners. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim, I'm sorry. I don't think I closed the public hearing. MR. OBORNE-You have not done SEQRA, either. MR. JACKOSKI-It's a Type 11 SEQRA. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have it as a Type 11. MR. OBORNE-Who said it was Unlisted? MR. URRICO-1 said it was Type 11. MR. OBORNE-1 apologize. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2012 JOYCE SHOVAH, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: John Clendon Road. The applicant is proposing subdivision of a 4.05 acre parcel into two lots, and what we're going to do is we're going to modify. Lot One will be compliant at two acres and we will be moving the property line towards the Shovah property to the southwest. The resulting new lot that will be created will be in compliance at two acres for the zone as specified by the bulk of the Board here. The lot line separating Lot Two from line one will be moved approximately 20 feet due west. That will bring that lot so it will be at 1.80 acres, approximately. As far as the road frontage requirements, they're requesting 60.53 feet of relief from the 100 foot requirement of the mixed residential zone here, and also for Lot Two 60.53 feet of relief because it's a shared drive, and we also recognize the fact that Green and Dickinson share the property also as access through there. The applicant has agreed to minimize the cutting on the access road into the property, and also with the adjoining properties outside their property lines to 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) minimize and maintain the country nature of the neighborhood. The excess land to the west of the Lot Number One not added to Lot Number One to bring into compliance will be added to the Shovah lot to the west, and there will be no further subdivision of that Shovah lot to the west because that's the general feeling of the Board. The dimensions noted are based on the presentation of the map dated 2/29/12 to this Board in the packet. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for working with us. I appreciate it. MR. NIKAS-Thank you for working with us. Appreciate it. Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2012 SEQRA TYPE II STEPHEN H. RICHARDS OWNER(S) STEPHEN H. RICHARDS ZONING MDR-MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 65 HICKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 768 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE ON A 1.26 ACRE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE GARAGES ON A PARCEL. FURTHER, APPLICANT SEEKS REAR YARD SETBACK RELIEF FROM THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2012-081 DETACHED GARAGE; BP 2003-248 DECK; BP 94-536 SFD WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL YES LOT SIZE 1.26 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 297.7-1-26 SECTION 179-5-050D STEPHEN RICHARDS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2012, Stephen H. Richards, Meeting Date: April 18, 2012 "Project Location: 65 Hicks Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 768 square foot second garage on a 1.26 acre parcel. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Relief requested from number of allowable garages on a parcel as per§179-5-020D. • Relief requested from the rear yard setback requirements as per§179-3-040. 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 would be to expand existing garage to the allowable maximum 1,100 square feet in order to accommodate larger items and potentially construct or place compliant shed for smaller items. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. 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. The request 20 feet or 67% relief from the 30 foot rear setback requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the code. 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, 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) BP 2012-081 Detached garage BP 2003-248: 156 sq. ft. Deck BP 1994-536: Single family dwelling Administrative Subdivision 5-1994: McGuire Staff comments: Sign stamped survey on file. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome. If you would like to state your name for the record, please, and if you have anything else you'd like to add at this time, please feel free to do so. MR. RICHARDS-Stephen Richards. DEBORAH RICHARDS MRS. RICHARDS-Deborah Richards. MR. JACKOSKI-I know Mr. Urrico read in the description. Do you think you want to add anything, or do you just want the comments from the Board? MR. RICHARDS-I don't know what to add. We want to build a garage. The garage we have isn't very big. It's attached to the house, and we just, I'd like a bigger building. I have two small buildings, which I'd like to tear down, but we'll see what happens. MR. JACKOSKI-At this time are there comments from the Board? MR. UNDERWOOD-How are you going to access that new garage if we grant it? Which direction are you going to pull in to the new garage? Off the driveway or are you going to go off the back of it? MR. RICHARDS-No, right off the driveway. Yes. I'll have a door in the back of it so I can drive my tractor and stuff in it, but for the cars, it'll be on the road. MR. KUHL-So it'll be accessed from the stone drive that goes into your garage now, or is it going to be accessed off the right of way road? That's what I don't understand. MR. RICHARDS-It's the same. It's the same. MR. KUHL-Okay. The same as? MR. RICHARDS-The same access. MR. KUHL-From the stone drive that goes into your garage now, you're going to make a right, go into the new garage? MR. RICHARDS-No, I'll come off the right of way. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-You will be removing those two small buildings? MR. RICHARDS-I'd like to. One definitely is going to go. It's pretty shabby and we bought the house last year. It's the little house with the pond down on Hicks Road. MR. JACKOSKI-We know. MR. RICHARDS-We've really been doing a lot of work to make it look nice, and, I mean, I want the garage to look nice, too, but I just, I don't like that back shed, and all the railings and all that on it, and that's going to be gone. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think, for me, it lends an opportunity to, if you remember those two small buildings, we've certainly clustered all of the buildings on to this corner of the property and the rest of it's kind of open. So that's kind of nice. MR. RICHARDS-Yes, I like it open like that. MR. JACKOSKI-Other comments from the Board members? Having none, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone out in the audience who'd like to address this Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-There is no written comment. This is a Type II SEQRA. So I'd like to poll the Board, and I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's a Moderate Density Residential zone, and I think that if we look at the impact of this garage, if we allowed it, certainly it's 100% relief necessary for a second garage to be added to the property, but I think if you were going to do total build up, if somebody was going to come in and do a tear down and build something brand new here, we have to keep in mind it's a one story house. It's pretty small as it exists. You certainly could build something a lot larger eventually, if you wanted to, with a huge garage and I think you'd probably be up in the neighborhood of probably able to build about 7,000 or 8,000 square feet based upon the property, and in size, if this was in a restricted zone, even, on the Waterfront. So, you know, to me, it's a very small, modest home, and I think that the garage, even though you do have one, it's rurally located. No one has commented, from the public, that this would be an eyesore or a problem, and I think I would vote for its approval. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Underwood. Considering the size of the property and the location, and the fact that the two sheds will come down, I would be in favor. MR. RICHARDS-Well, my wife just said one shed. MRS. RICHARDS-The eyesore shed, the one that has the railings in front of it, it's rotted. The other one I want to put my lawnmower in, my garden tools. MR. JACKOSKI-It would be really good if you were thinking of getting rid of both sheds, but I'll continue to poll the Board, if you'd like. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 hate to say this, but again, I agree with Mr. Underwood, and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-With or without the two sheds? MR. CLEMENTS-If they were going to get rid of one, that would be fine with me. The other one's. MRS. RICHARDS-The other one's my garden shed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and Roy? MR. URRICO-1 hate to be the one that says it, but I am going to say that I would approve the garage if both sheds were eliminated. I think we're only allowed to give out one garage and one accessory structure, and now we have two garages and two accessory structures, unless they eliminate the two. MR. KOSKINAS-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with Mr. Underwood. I would go along with it, and one shed removal is fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) MR. GARRAND-1 hate to be the stickler, but I think it's too close to the property line and 100% relief for a second garage on a property this small is a little excessive. Just my opinion, though. MR. JACKOSKI-So are you reserving judgment? MR. GARRAND-No. MR. JACKOSKI-You're a no, and I'd like to see, I'd be fine with the one garage building which would allow two on the lot, but I'd like to see both sheds removed. So, depending on how the applicant would like to proceed, I think that we have enough votes for the resolution with no shed or with one shed? One shed. You'll just make it. Okay. So would someone like to make a motion? And I did close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-So be it. MR. CLEMENTS-1 will. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Brian. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2012 STEPHEN H. RICHARDS, Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 65 Hicks Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 768 square foot second garage on a 1.26 acre parcel. The relief required is from the number of allowable garages on a parcel as per Section 179-5-020D and relief requested from the rear yard setback requirements as per Section 179-3-040. In making the determination the Board should consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts may be anticipated. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance. There are limited feasible alternatives. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. It may be considered moderate. Number Four, whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? Minor impacts may be anticipated. Also the applicant has agreed to remove one shed on their property. Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move for approval. The shed being removed is the one closest to the pond. Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to clarify, could we identify specifically which shed is being removed? It's the furthest one from. MRS. RICHARDS-The one near the pond. MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll identify it as the one nearest the pond. MR. RICHARDS-1 don't know how old this picture is. There's a huge tree here now. You really can't see the shed, but the old man, he had little railings. It looked like a dollhouse, and I don't like it. That way it'll be clear from the road. From the road, you really won't even see this garage. MR. OBORNE-So the one closest to the pond? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-The one closest to the pond, and do we have an idea of the square footage of the other shed? Does it matter, Staff, if it's over 100 square feet? MR. OBORNE-No. It's not an accessory structure up to 500 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Five hundred, fine, very good. So we've clarified the motion to be the shed nearest to the pond. AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/18/2012) NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You've got your shed. MR. RICHARDS-Now, on the shed that we're going to tear down, can I build the garage first? MR. OBORNE-It's all part of the application. When you see me tomorrow, whenever, you know, we'll update your plan to indicate that you're going to remove this shed. You'll be fine. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Because that way I can put the junk in the garage. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. To continue on, is there any new business to be brought before the Board? MR. CLEMENTS-No. I have something to say here, though. Our next meeting is the 25th, this next week, a week from tonight. I will not be there. I'll be at Board of Assessment Review training. Just to let Staff know and to let the Board know. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff has so noticed that Brian will not be here and we should get a hold of Mr. Koskinas. I take that back, do we have authority to have Mr. Koskinas sit in an absence? MR. OBORNE-We do. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. Any other business? Do I have a motion to adjourn? MR. KUHL-I'll make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and I hear Joyce seconded it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2012, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of April, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good evening. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 31