Loading...
07-18-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2012 INDEX Sign Variance No. 27-2012 Pride Signs-Jeff Barron 1 Tax Map No. 296.20-1-50.2 Area Variance No. 30-2012 Savario Castellana 5• Tax Map No. 308.11-1-6 Area Variance No. 31-2012 Pierre Rawlins 8• Tax Map No. 308.12-1-8 Area Variance No. 32-2012 DKC Holdings 12. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7.1 Area Variance No. 33-2012 Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner 17. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND BRIAN CLEMENTS LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for tonight, Wednesday, July 18th here in the Queensbury Center at 7 p.m. For those of you who haven't attended in the past, on the back table there is a sheet that explains the process here. It's quite simple. We'll call each application to the table here. The applicant will present their project. The Board will ask questions. We'll open a public hearing when it's advertised and then we'll move forward with the application. We do have some housekeeping to do this evening, before we call the first item, and that is the approval of the meeting minutes. Do I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 16, 2012 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16, 2012, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED PRIDE SIGNS - JEFF BARRON AGENT(S) PRIDE SIGNS -JEFF BARRON OWNER(S) QUEENBEE REALTY, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 255 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ELEVEN ALUMINUM AWNINGS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 8.6 SQ. FT. TO 64 SQ. FT. WITH APPLE GRAPHICS FOR APPLEBEES RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF BP 2012-187 WALL SIGN; BP 2012-183 FREESTANDING SIGN; BP 2012-155 ALUM AWNING (WALL SIGN); BP 2004-897 WALL SIGN; SV 91-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 1.60 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-50.2 SECTION CHAPTER 140 STEVE BELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 27-2012, Pride Signs - Jeff Barron, Meeting Date: July 18, 2012 "Project Location: 255 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install eleven aluminum awnings ranging in size from 8.6 sq. ft. to 64 sq. ft. with apple graphics for Applebees Restaurant. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variances as per§140-6 as follows: 1. Number of allowable wall signs- Request for eleven (11) additional wall signs above previous approvals. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) 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 to moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as approval of additional signage could potentially set a precedent. 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 install a compliant number of signs. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for eleven (11) additional wall signs may be considered 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SV 91-2004 Additional sign Approved 12/15/04 S.P. 29-97M Replace 12,000 sq. ft. building with 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant Approved 9/29/99 Sub 11-98 Two Lot subdivision Approved 10/8/98 S.P. 29-97 121,000 sq. ft. home center and 12,000 sq. ft. retail out building Approved 4/21/98 Staff comments: The applicant has previous approval for 3 wall signs (two Applebee's wall signs and Car side to- go sign) that are slated for removal and replacement in conjunction with this proposal; these sign do not require relief. All relief for this particular proposal is for the eleven (11) awning signs the applicant wishes to install. SEAR Status: Type- Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. BELL-My name's Steve Bell. I'm actually the director of construction for Applebee's Restaurants. I work directly for TL Cannon who own and operate the Applebee's. Right now we're going, we own 60 Applebee's between New York and Connecticut, franchise for this area. Currently we're undergoing, we're probably about 35 restaurants out of the 60 of doing a complete revamp, re-makeover of both our internal workings and the external. In the past, we have done some remodels on the interior, change the booths, do something minor, and we're constantly changing the menu. Every, you know, two, three months upgrading and staying with what people need. We've realized, due to the economy, due to competition, that our niche, our grip on the casual dining began to slip about five, six years ago. So they started saying, all right, what are we doing differently. What do we need to do. So obviously we have changed the interior. The closest one to you guys would be the one in Saratoga, where the entire decor has changed over to reflect 100% local, whether it's school, businesses, community, etc., with, you know, new booths, new carpet, new lighting package, etc., but what we found out in the past by doing the interior, it's great if you're a customer that goes there, but without making a noticeable change, to someone that may have never been there or doesn't go there for whatever reason, we found out that we were missing the mark. So, again, five, six years ago they started doing research, putting together a bunch of different prototypes, etc., and there's still quite a few different variables out there, and we went to a new exterior package, which is a new sign package, which is LED, internally illuminated, which is both energy conscious and at the same time, you know, you don't have them burnt out. They're always on, you know, five, six, seven years, and they don't need any repair on them. The other item was to change out the awnings. The striped awnings were great 20 years ago when, you know, we came about, but they've kind (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) of gone away, and it's, we're trying to go with the new, fresher look. We found out as much as, you know, we've got over 2,000 Applebee's, that if we don't stay competitive with everyone, eventually we could be non-existent. Right now most national (lost words) are not building new. They're going back and taking a look at what they have. The awnings that we're proposing, which is the reason for the variance, are an all aluminum awning, which is illuminated from the front, again, with an LED, to reflect back upon the awning, with a go dark light bar that once it hits the top of the roofline, you know, disappears. In some municipalities the apples, in the case of Queensbury, is considered signage. Other municipalities it's not considered signage, it's considered artwork design, and in this case obviously they consider it part of the signage. We're now looking at 11 needed, or signs needed for variance at this point in time. So again, we're here to find some relief from the 11 that we're asking for, to see what we can accomplish here. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-The illuminated apple is the one above the Applebee's, the main sign? MR. BELL-Yes. MR. URRICO-What about the others that are sort of logos, where are they, they're sort of set up above the windows? Do you know what I'm talking about? There's a red one and there's a? MR. BELL-The silhouettes? MR. URRICO-Yes, silhouettes. MR. BELL-Those are graphics. MR. URRICO-Those are graphics. MR. BELL-Those are not illuminated except from the, you can see those black bars, those are the LED lights that shine back on there. So they shine, but they're not illuminated. MR. URRICO-So they'll be lit underneath. MR. BELL-From the front, yes, right from the front. So, again, the light doesn't go any farther than the sidewalk, doesn't go any farther than the rooftop. MR. KUHL-And you're going to take the awning down over the front door and you're going to put that aluminum canopy, is that what it is? MR. BELL-Yes. MR. KUHL-And that will not have any lights? MR. BELL-That has two lights that come down, just to obviously illuminate the entrance, the door entrance there. MR. KUHL-And the old Applebee's sign goes away and you're going to put a new one with just Applebee's spelled out? MR. BELL-Right, and then the neighborhood grill and bar we found, we put, you know, Neighborhood Bar and Grill up in Saratoga I believe we had it and then we decided to experiment, and we thought that it looked better with the bigger awnings on the front and not the neighborhood grill and bar. I mean, it used to be very emphasis that, you know, it was Neighborhood Grill and Bar. Now everybody kind of, you know, just like used to be, you know, TJI Friday's. Now everyone just calls it Fridays. Applebee's is, I mean, we're still Neighborhood Grill and Bar, but we think we can get away with just being Applebee's anymore. MR. URRICO-But on the other side you're taking out the Carside To Go sign and that's being embedded into the awning above that? MR. BELL-Yes, that becomes in an awning, just like these with the decal, again, with the reflection back on it. MR. URRICO-I think I like this better. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board regarding this application? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-1 do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, I'd like to poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, I think when you look at the criteria, I don't really see much change from before to now. I think the awnings probably will be as attractive if not more attractive. I think we're losing one sign on the other side, the Carside To Go sign goes, and I think it looks better, actually, on the awning, and as far as the graphics, I just look at them as part of the logo. So I really think this is going to be an improvement to the site. I don't think it's going to affect any of the businesses around. Lowe's is the only business that probably can see it, and I don't think we're going to have any problem with this. I don't really see any problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Roy. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 fully agree with Roy. I think it's a simplification of what you have now down there, and I don't have a problem with the apple logo. To me it's more subtle than putting another name on the wall or anything like that, and I think comparing it to next door at the carwash, you know, where there's like a gazillion little intricate signs all over the place, you know, it's much less busy. So I think it's an improvement. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'd just like to commend the Zoning Administrator for his determination of what exactly a sign is. I think it helps us in helping conform to Town Code. Defining what signs are will eliminate a lot of the clutter, and it gives us the option of actually determining what we think it going to be obtrusive in the Town of Queensbury. So I think they did a good job on this. Some municipalities, like the applicant said, don't consider these signs. I like to see Town of Queensbury consider them signs. With that said, I don't see this making any significant change to the neighborhood. It's going to be barely visible. The only place you're really going to see any of this from is if you're heading east on Quaker Road and really looking for it and not paying attention to the road or if you're in the Lowe's parking lot. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I have no issue with it. I mean, if the apples weren't on the awnings, you wouldn't be here. So I don't think it's going against the (lost words) too many signs. I think it'll be a good improvement. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I'd also be in favor. I think it looks more like artwork and I really think that the awnings look better than the ones that they have there now. I think it's a neater looking package and all so I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. I have no problem with it. It's not on a main road visible from the main road, so I'm for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm for it, too. It'll probably be interesting that if you actually had the stripes as your logo I wonder if we consider those signs? MR. BELL-Well, believe it or not, that got into one Zoning Board where they were arguing back and forth that the awnings were as much of a sign of 20 years ago, so they ended up going back and re-writing their Code to adapt this to what awnings really meant, etc. So, but, yes, I mean, it has been a symbol as much as Fridays red and white striped awnings. MR. OBORNE-1 would also add that if there was a peach on there, you wouldn't be here, but because it's an apple, and it's Applebee's, you're here. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we've polled the Board, and at this time, since I don't believe there's any public comment, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-And go into SEAR. Do you want to take it? MR. GARRAND-I'll take it. MOTION THAT BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED, THIS BOARD FEELS THAT THIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND THEREFORE WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-2012 PRIDE SIGNS - JEFF BARRON, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Jim's going to do the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 27-2012 PRIDE SIGNS - JEFF BARRON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 255 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to install 11 aluminum awnings ranging in size from 8.6 square feet to 64 square feet with apple graphics for the Applebee's Restaurant. The parcel will require sign variances and that is for the number of allowable wall signs and the request is for 11 additional wall signs above the previous approvals. In carefully considering, the Board has found that we do not believe that there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. We do feel that these awnings with just the apple logo on them are more subtle. There will be removal of some signs on the building as well, and the building indeed will be much less busy than it was previously. Feasible alternatives would be to install compliant numbers of signs, but the Board does not feel that these constitute excess signage. The request for 11 additional wall signs is considered severe relative to the Code, and as far as the neighborhood goes, having concluded with SEAR we do not see any impacts whatsoever based on the request. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. BELL-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2012 SEQRA TYPE II SAVARIO CASTELLANA OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MDR LOCATION 9 ANTHONY COURT HERALD SQUARE SUB. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE APPROXIMATELY 143 LINEAR FEET OF 6 FOOT STOCKADE FENCE WITHIN THE NON-ARCHITECTURAL FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM STYLE AND LOCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED FENCE. CROSS REF BP 2004-509 - 420 SQ. FT. DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-6 SECTION 179-5-070 SAVARIO CASTELLANA, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2012, Savario Castellana, Meeting Date: July 18, 2012 "Project Location: 9 Anthony Court Herald Square Sub Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place approximately 143 linear feet of 6 foot stockade fence within the non-architectural front yard. Relief Required: Relief requested from maximum height restrictions and for privacy fences located in the front yard. Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Privacy fence in front yard - Request for approximately 143 linear feet for placement of a 6 foot privacy fence along the eastern front boundary as per§179-5-070C(2). (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) 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. A feasible alternative could include placing the fence in a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 143 linear feet or 100% relief for the placement of a 6 foot privacy fence within the non-architectural front yard as per §179-5-070C(2) may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, None Staff comments: Per §179-5-070 - No fence over six feet in height shall be erected or maintained in any rear yard or side yard except for corner lots where no fence over four feet in height shall be erected or maintained along yards adjacent to public streets. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. Would you like to add anything to the application that was read into the record? It's pretty straightforward. JENNIFER SAIN MS. SAIN-Yes. If it's not required. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions that the Board members would like to ask? MRS. HUNT-I have one. Why are you requesting a six foot when you could get four feet without a variance? MS. SAIN-I guess for maximum privacy. MR. CASTELLANA-More so our property kind of slopes down a little bit. So to get the even, I guess the even footage as why we're going a little bit taller. MS. SAIN-I mean, Herald Drive is pretty trafficked. MRS. HUNT-Just curious. MR. GARRAND-In your application you've highlighted wooden stockade fence. MR. KUHL-I question whether six foot is doing anything for you, because your deck is higher up on top of your house, so then when you come down, you know, why not a four foot? Why do you think six foot is going to give you any more or less privacy than a four foot? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MS. SAIN-Well, for the lower part of the deck and for the backyard, for being on the grass. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? Hearing none, we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one at this time, is there any public comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. It's a mystery, though. It says, "I would say yes to a chain link or picket type fence", and it's from an unknown person, and the envelope has no return address. So, yes, there is public comment, but we don't know who it was. MR. KUHL-You're going to run off of the house and then you're going to run 75 feet and then you're going to run 70 feet across the back of the property? MS. SAIN-Yes. We were going to come out and then down. MR. KUHL-But you're not going to make it continuous so, it's not like you're going to fence in a dog or anything. MS. SAIN-Well, we are, but we're come, we're going to continue down the back, and then there's our neighbor's fence and tree growth. MR. KUHL-So it's going to go to your neighbor's fence? MS. SAIN-It's going to go down the side, down the back, and then there's trees there, and then pick up again at his. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to leave the public hearing open and poll the Board. We'll start with Joyce. MRS. HUNT-Yes. We've come across this before, and these corner lots are difficult, and there's not much privacy. I would have no problem with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-I feel the same way. If you weren't on a corner lot, you wouldn't even be here. So, I'd be in favor also. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with the other two Board members. A corner lot requires some additional consideration for privacy. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I have to agree with the other Board members. Corner lots, in and of themselves, do require extra consideration. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We've granted a multitude of these previously, and I see no reason not to grant this. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-This is a Type II SEAR. So do I have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2012 SAVARIO CASTELLANA, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) 9 Anthony Court- Herald Square. The applicant is proposing to place approximately 143 linear feet of 6 foot stockade fence within the non-architectural front yard. Relief requested from the maximum height restrictions and for privacy fences located within, in the front yard. Privacy fence in the front yard request for approximately 143 feet for placement of a six foot privacy fence along the eastern front boundary as per 179-5-070. On the application's balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. For the amount of privacy that they're looking for, I think a six foot stockade fence is appropriate. Will this application produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby properties? I don't think it'll change the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that they're going to be putting in a wooden stockade fence, which is very aesthetically pleasing, as opposed to, say, a plastic fence which would be very obtrusive. Is this request substantial? It may be deemed substantial, given the Ordinance. Will this request have adverse physical or environmental impacts on the neighborhood, I don't think it'll have any effect on the neighborhood whatsoever. Is this difficulty self-created? It may be deemed self-created because it is the applicant coming forth with the request. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 30-2012. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. CASTELLANA-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 PIERRE RAWLINS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) PIERRE RAWLINS ZONING MDR LOCATION 38 EAST DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 0.71 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 0.37 AND 0.34 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF SIB 6-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2012, Pierre Rawlins, Meeting Date: July 18, 2012 "Project Location: 38 East Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.71 acre parcel into 2 lots of 0.37 and 0.34 acres respectively. Relief requested from minimum lot size and road frontage requirements of the MDR zone. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Lot Size (Lot 1) - Request for 1.63 acres of relief from the 2 acre minimum for the MDR zone as per§179-3-040. 2. Lot Size (Lot 2) - Request for 1.66 acres of relief from the 2 acre minimum for the MDR zone as per§179-3-040. 3. Road Frontage (Lot 1) - Request for 51 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum for the MDR zone as per§179-3-040. 4. Road Frontage (Lot 2) - Request for 100 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum for the MDR zone 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. Lot limitations as well as existing (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) conditions appear to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance as proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 1.63 acres and 1.66 acres or 81.5% and 83% relief from the 2 acre lot size requirement for Lot 1 and Lot 2 respectively may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. The request for 51 feet or 51% relief for Lot 1 from the 100 foot road frontage requirement for the MDR zone may be considered moderate to severe relative to the code. The request for 100 feet or 100% relief for Lot 2 from the 100 foot road frontage requirement for the MDR zone may be considered 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, SUB 6-2012 2 Lot Subdivision Pending Staff comments: Highway Superintendent comments will need to be forthcoming prior to any relief consideration. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. URRICO-The handout that was received is from Mike Travis regarding paving on West Drive, and it says, "In regards to the Rawlins project, the Town of Queensbury Highway Department will pave 146 feet (+/-) on West Drive (town land) in order to facilitate the project." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves, representing Pierre Rawlins on this application. Again, brief overview. It's an existing parcel of property on the very end of East and West Drive, runs between both roads. His existing house fronts on East Drive, and he's proposing to build a retirement style home for himself now, and then be able to live in the front house while he builds the back, and then be able to rent that out to help him be able to afford to build the new house. He's been a lifelong resident of this area of Queensbury, and that's the reason for the subdivision, and as far as the West Drive comment, we were at the Planning Board last night for conceptual review of this and for recommendation to you. They had no problems with the subdivision and/or recommending the variance. There was a lot of discussions with Mike Travis. As far as the road, West Drive is Town owned road, all the way to the very north end of this lot, but then it dead ends basically at the Homestead Mobile Home Park, which there is no road to connect to there at that point. So he has no problem in extending the pavement on the Town owned highway, but we wanted to know what the feeling of the Town Planning Board was as far as good planning for how far to bring it, you know, bringing it or paving it the entire 131.55 feet really didn't make any sense. His house plans are for a raised ranch with a side entrance on the garage towards the south. So we looked at it with the Planning Board and talked with Mike Travis, and the 146 gets him about 20 feet, or just over 20 feet of actual paved road in front of that lot and therefore would be a side load and the southerly driveway configuration. It works perfect for him to be able to get in and allows about 12 foot of drive a few feet north of the property line and then leaves Mike enough room to be able to push snow, and that's the paving portion that he was going to make sure there was an area there that he could push with his snowplows, and leave room for emergency vehicles if they needed to get in to the very end of the road. So, again, with discussions between Staff and Mr. Travis, we have rectified that, and I believe you got the letter tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-Matt, I have a question. Is all the empty land that's back behind and adjacent on the other side of East Drive there, is that land ever going to be roaded or subdivided in the future? Do we have any indications of what the Town? MR. STEVES-On the other side of West Drive or East Drive? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, both West and East, you know, either side of there, you know, I think there's, you know, when the Code changed to this two acre zoning I was wondering what the mindset was, why they did that, other than to have a more thorough review of each project as it (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) went in, but, I mean, would we see these roads continue extending, you know, that they're just going to dead end where they are? MR. STEVES-Correct. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. MR. STEVES-Because again, if you look at the map, the property for Homestead runs right into the middle of it. So you'd have to acquire land from both and there was nothing really to connect to going north. The road within the Park, which is a private road, not a Town road, is to the east of that, and on the west side of West Drive that is the CLI parcel, and I believe that's one of the next applications, and that is one large lot that goes all the way to the back of that, and we have plenty of access farther down on West Drive for that particular lot that is proposed. So to answer your question, no. As far as planning purposes, talking to the Planning Board last night, there's no place for it to go. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's like the end of the line. MR. STEVES-You've got it. That's why it kind of stopped where it did because there was no more homes that fronted on this location, but it a municipal highway. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any other questions? MR. KUHL-Wouldn't the fact that the Town's paving 146 feet change the request? Because they would not need 100 feet of relief on the one, on the (lost words) lot, right? MR. OBORNE-They'd still require 100 feet because as the lot exists or is proposed, there's no road frontage. So, right now, in order for him to do this subdivision, he has to have that relief. The road eventually will be paved, but at this point in time it's not up to standards. MR. STEVES-Correct. In order to move forward with the subdivision, we understand it's the Catch-22. We cannot move forward with the subdivision until we get the variance. There isn't a Town road there. Even though he said he's going to do so, at this point in time, it does not exist, but the construction for the home won't happen until such time as Mike comes in there, and he indicated to me today that he was doing some other work, but they were starting their paving in the Town on the different areas where they're going to pave sometime next month into September and it would be done by that time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are they going to extend water in Town out to them? MR. STEVES-There's a hydrant just to the south and then it stubs just to the end of the pavement. So, yes. MR. GARRAND-So taxpayers are on the hook for paving this road now? MR. OBORNE-Taxpayers are on the hook for a lot of things. In this case, and I don't mean to be flip, in this case we do receive Federal Highway funds. So it is, you know, part of that. This is ongoing maintenance. This is something that the Town Highway Department is obligated to do. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So at the taxpayer's expense, we have to put in a road so somebody can subdivide their property? MR. OBORNE-That's the balance you have to. MR. GARRAND-And have an income property on the backside? MR. OBORNE-You have to balance that, yes. MR. STEVES-Well, the question there, and I understand, is that the municipality has deemed that road as a length of road to the very end, even though it's not maintained. So they're receiving Federal funds to maintain a road that they're not maintaining. So we can't, as an applicant or as the, say, developer, but he's not really a developer. He's just a single homeowner, he can't do anything on that road. He cannot, the Town has to do it or it won't get done, and Mike said he has no problem doing it and he was planning on doing it. MR. GARRAND-Yet there's no sense of doing it without anything being down there. There's no sense of really improving the infrastructure down there at all if there's no house down there. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. STEVES-Yes, we could put a driveway down the Town road, we understand, but we were asked to obtain a variance for the 100 feet, which we are here for. We could put a driveway down through there and not need it. We talked to the Highway Superintendent about it and he said no, just like he has done on Assembly Point up on those roads up there where the Town is now putting in a new water system. As buildings are getting built back in there, I think Forest Lane and those. MR. OBORNE-Forest Lane in particular. MR. STEVES-They are extending the road as it goes through. MR. URRICO-So, Keith, that's considered a Town road, regardless of whether it's paved or not. MR. OBORNE-That's correct. It's a paper street. That is correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-I've got a question for Keith, and I don't mean to put you on the spot here, but on the application, the applicant said, for Question Number One, both lots will be larger than the average lot in the area. Do you have any information to confirm or deny that? MR. OBORNE-Just visual information at this point in time. I would concur with that comment. I didn't run any numbers, though. Especially with the trailer park right next door, and those lots are pretty small. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the trailer park is just one big lot. MR. OBORNE-That's true. That's one big lot, but if you look at it from a density purpose. MR. JACKOSKI-If you look at the land surrounding it, it's a much smaller lot than what's around it. MR. STEVES-If you take the average of the lots between East and West Drive, and then the lots on the southerly side of Luzerne Road that are all within the same zoning district. Like I say, to the west is CLI and to the east is the Mobile Home Overlay. The average in that area is .22 acres. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other discussion? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written public comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written public comment, I'll poll the Board. I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Initially I think that my biggest hang up was just with the Town regulations of going to two acre zoning down here, and when you reflect upon all the other lots that pre-exist, if we were looking at a new subdivision, I think we might be more in tune with trying to meet the goals the Town has advised us to take, but in this instance here, it's the last lot at the end of a road. We're extending, the Town is extending the road out so they can gain the frontage on there. So I don't think it's out of character. I don't think it's going to cause any major conniption fits in that neighborhood down there, and I think it's going to give the current landowner an opportunity to rent one place and live in a new back 40. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I've got a little different opinion on this. I think that the Town plan calls for open space, and the mere fact that they made this two acre zoning means that they want larger lots, not smaller lots. We're essentially taking one small nonconforming lot and making two smaller nonconforming lots. At this point I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-I'd be in favor. I think it's in line with the rest of the neighborhood. I don't think that it's going to be a major impact on the neighborhood. So I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. Looking at the land survey probably the two lots would be bigger than, second largest on each street. So I have no problem with the size, and with the Town paving the road, West Drive, I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I kind of understand where Rick is coming from on this, but I think given the location of where this is, I don't see this affecting the neighborhood one way or the other. I really think it's just an isolated lot that's being subdivided, and I don't think it's going to create much of an issue. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members. It kind of fills out the block. It blends in with the characteristics of the neighborhood. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. 1, too, would be in favor. So, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion, please? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2012 PIERRE RAWLINS, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 38 East Drive. The applicant proposes to subdivide a 0.71 acre parcel into two lots of 0.37 and 0.34 acres respectively. Relief requested from minimum lot size and road frontage requirements of the MDR zone. The parcel will require Area Variances as follows: Number One, Lot size, Lot One, request for 1.63 acres of relief from the 2 acre minimum for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040. Number Two, Lot Size (Lot 2) - Request for 1.66 acres of relief from the 2 acre minimum for the MDR zone. Three, Road Frontage (Lot 1) - Request for 51 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum for the MDR zone, and Four, Road Frontage (Lot 2) - Request for 100 feet of relief from the 100 foot minimum for the MDR zone. In making the determination, there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties by granting this variance. The lot sizes will be second largest on each road. So they would really be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. While the request is substantial, 81.5% relief for Lot One and 83% relief for Lot Two, might be considered severe, but as I said, they're typical of this neighborhood. As far as the road frontage, the 100 foot road frontage requirement may be considered moderate to severe, but Lot Two, West Drive is going to be paved by the Town, and Lot Two is pre-existing with the driveway. As I say, there will be minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and while the difficulty may be self-created, I'd be in favor. I move we approve Area Variance No. 31-2012. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, Matt. MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 DKC HOLDINGS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES; NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS ZONING CLI LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD BTWN WEST DR. & SHAWNS JOURNEY DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 15.21 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 3.52, 3.95 & 7.74 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLI ZONE FOR PROPOSED LOT 3. CROSS REF SIB 4-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 15.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7.1 SECTION 179-4-050 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2012, DKC Holdings, Meeting Date: July 18, 2012 "Project Location: Luzerne Road btwn West Dr. & Shawns Journey Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 15.21 acre parcel into 3 lots of 3.52, 3.95 & 7.74 acres respectively. Applicant seeks relief from the road frontage requirements of the CLI zone for proposed Lot 3. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Road Frontage - Request for 100 feet of relief from the 100 foot Road Frontage requirement for the CLI zone 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 appear limited as existing road frontage does not exist. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 100 feet or 100% of relief from the 100 foot road frontage requirement for the CLI as per §179-3-040 may be considered 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, SUB 4-2012 3 Lot Subdivision Pending Staff comments: The applicant's request for 80 feet of relief from the 100 foot road frontage requirements appears to be in need of clarification as no road extension has been offered. Staff has determined that 100 feet of relief is required with the absence of a road extension plan. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. URRICO-Now the Planning Board met, and their motion, in regards to this Variance No. 32- 2012 and Subdivision No. 4-2012, DKC Holdings, they moved for its adoption, and they said that they would grant the stated waivers for landscaping, stormwater, grading, layout and lighting pending individual site plan review when these lots are developed, and that based on their limited review they have identified the following area of concern: that no construction take place until the road is installed, and that was adopted on July 17th and it was unanimous. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and welcome again. MR. STEVES-Good evening again. Matt Steves representing DKC Holdings, Inc. A little twist to this application. Keith and I have dealt with over the last two days, this was before the Planning Board last night, again, for recommendation to this Board. The previous map that was (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) submitted showing the location of West Drive, you see it ends just north of the property line by around 12 feet, in contact with the Highway Department and previous maps and given an address of where the end of the road was, we mapped the end of the paved road south of where it actually is. Today with the discussions regarding Rawlins, we went out there, at the Highway Department's request this morning, and taped in and located the end of the actual asphalt, so that I could give an actual dimension to Mr. Travis to pave to Mr. Rawlins' lot, and when we did that, if you can zoom in a little bit here, you'll see the house that he has his cursor near, that one right there is where everybody anticipated or thought the end of the road was. Now you go out, you can see the pavement extends past the northerly house, and there's a pile of sand and stuff at the end. We uncovered the entire end of the pavement and located it, and it happens to be 122.9 feet north of the southerly line of Lot Three that we're asking for the variance for. So the road is currently improved to that point, so, in talking with Keith, we still wanted to stay on the board because it was the application came in that way, it was discovered at about 10:30 this morning that the actual asphalt does extend beyond the 100 foot range, but knowing that Mr. Travis is coming in to improve that on, he said he's going to V cut that end, like they do when they extend pavement. So if you still wanted to grant the variance, or I'll let Keith talk about that. MR. OBORNE-I would add that there's no indication that that 123 feet, or whatever it was, is actually up to Town standards at this point, either. I mean, there hasn't really been an evaluation. So what I would ask the Board to do would be to consider the application that's before you at this point in time, because this is new information that came in today at 10:30. MR. JACKOSKI-Are all roads in the Town considered to be completely up to Town standards? MR. OBORNE-That's not the point. The point is is what you're here for right now, and it's for road frontage relief. MR. JACKOSKI-But if there's a road there already. MR. OBORNE-I don't know if it's up to Town standards or not. MR. GARRAND-If it's substandard, we become responsible for improvements on the infrastructure. MR. STEVES-Correct, and like I say, you know, it was discovered today. In my opinion, I don't think we need it. It's a 21 foot wide paved asphalt drive. He's definitely not going to tear it up and move it over in any different location. He's just going to extend from the end of it. MR. JACKOSKI-You just said it was an asphalt drive? MR. STEVES-Or asphalt road. Sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to make sure. Does the Town think that they put it there? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So if the Town put it there, then it was up to Code then, and they should be maintaining it. Correct? MR. STEVES-Correct. They are. MR. OBORNE-It depends on what, I would not say that that road is up to Town standards, to be honest with you, even though they installed it. MR. GARRAND-Is there drainage, is there utilities. MR. OBORNE-Exactly. MR. JACKOSKI-There's no drainage on Assembly Point Road, either, but it's a Town maintained road. MR. URRICO-Do we know, this sort of blends into the previous application. MR. OBORNE-Yes, absolutely. MR. URRICO-Do we know where Mike Travis is starting that project from? Because I'm assuming at that point, that's up to standard, otherwise he wouldn't be extending on it. Right? MR. OBORNE-That would be my assumption. Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. STEVES-Two feet south of the existing pavement where he V cuts into it he said. MR. OBORNE-Now keep in mind, this is information that was received this morning. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. (Lost words) if the road is already there, why is the variance needed? MR. STEVES-1 guess the question I have, and both, Keith, I have no problem going either way on this, to make sure it's clarified, but I don't think it's necessary. I believe the Code says to frontage on an improved Town road. MR. OBORNE-Up to Town standards. MR. STEVES-1 understand, when you read through that Code, that's really looking at, if you develop a subdivision and you haven't built the road yet, and there's a lot in the middle of the subdivision and you say, I'm going to build on this lot and the road hasn't been built and dedicated to Town standards so that they can accept it and their ownership and their maintenance package, then that is the reason for that statement in the Code, but in this instance, like I say, the Town's already maintaining it. You go to, I can probably name 60 roads within the Town that are to this width and Town maintained. MR. UNDERWOOD-Matt, you've got Commercial Light Industrial on all three of the proposed lots. What do you anticipate for development on those lots coming down the road? MR. STEVES-Lots One and Two will be some type of an, obviously, commercial building. What's anticipated for Lot Three is an extension of the storage facility, mainly for exterior parking, fenced in, RV's, you know, that type of stuff. That's what it's going to be used for, and it would just be a small gate there, right at the southerly end on the frontage that currently exists, and any drive that would be put in would be improved with a wing and, you know, the apron and everything into there. That's what the anticipated proposed use is for Lot Three. No heavy buildings, no anything at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-How many feet did you say the existing improved road surface is into this lot? MR. STEVES-In front of this lot on the easterly side, 122.9 feet from the property line going north to the edge of pavement. MR. JACKOSKI-That is in the CLI zone. So according to the Zoning Administrator's letter to the applicant it states that the CLI district requires a minimum road frontage of 200 feet. MR. OBORNE-That's wrong. MR. JACKOSKI-On a public highway constructed to Town standards. MR. OBORNE-It's 100. That's wrong. MR. JACKOSKI-We all agree it's wrong? MR. OBORNE-I'll research it again. MR. JACKOSKI-It's just, I haven't seen it before, either, Keith. So I wanted to make sure that we're not actually supposed to be doing 70 some odd feet at this point, or if it's 200. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. MR. STEVES-No, I agree. The frontage, as you look at the other lots, I believe that that requirements of that zone are 100 feet. MR. OBORNE-Road frontage 100 feet, lot width, 200 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Just for the record, the letter that we have here is. MR. OBORNE-Yes, I'm aware of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So you've heard the application. Are there any more questions from the Board members? Matt, all of the lots are actually wholly within the zone? There's no splitting of the lots by the zone? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, having no more questions from Board members, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Mr. Salvador? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Just one short comment. The Town road standard is a three rod road. A Town maintained road is whatever the Highway Superintendent maintains. By law, they're supposed to open all roads that they maintain to three rods. They just don't do it. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? Seeing no one else, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Not that I can find, no. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no other comment, I will leave the public hearing open. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Yes. If West Drive were down on the Town street map the way it should have been, I mean, we wouldn't be here. So I have no problem with this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think I'm okay with this variance if it's needed. If it's not needed, then I'm still okay with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem. We're just giving a variance to West Drive which will take care of it all. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think this is well within the acreage area, and I don't have a problem with it. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Chapter 183, Subdivisions, the engineering should be done at applicant's expense. I think improvements, if any should be made, should be done at the applicant's expense. Also in subdivisions, there's no provision in here for open spaces as per the master plan. I don't want to see the taxpayers of Queensbury possibly have to foot the bill to go through this area and install base binder and top on a road here. So I would not be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the request. MR. JACKOSKI-I think, to err on the side of caution to the applicant, if it's deemed that that roadway is not up to Town standards, giving this variance will resolve that. So I'd be in favor. MR. STEVES-I agree. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2012 DKC HOLDINGS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) East Drive. The applicant is proposing subdivision of a 15.21 acre parcel into three lots of 3.52, 3.95, and 7.74 acres respectively, and they're seeking relief from the road frontage requirements for the Commercial Light Industrial zone for proposed Lot Three. As previously discussed in the previous application, we now recognize that West Drive will be extended and they may not require the full 100 feet of relief from the 100 foot road frontage requirement for the Commercial Light Industrial zone, but nonetheless we are still seeking that just to make sure, but we know it will fall within that 100 in any case. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, it's a Commercial Light Industrial zone. As anticipated, this Lot Three back here where the relief is necessary will be for parking of RV's in regards to the storage center that's out on the forefront on Luzerne Road. Whether the benefit could be sought, feasible alternatives appear to be limited as the existing road frontage does not exist at present but will when the Town improves the road. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The request for 100 feet or 100% of relief from the 100 foot road frontage requirement for the Commercial Light Industrial zone is considered severe, but it will not be the full 100 as we anticipate. We do not anticipate any impacts on the physical or environmental conditions, and I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2012 SEQRA TYPE II GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER AGENT(S) ADIRONDACK DESIGN/J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER ZONING WR LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION TO EXISTING 1,076 SQ. FT. ONE BEDROOM BOATHOUSE TO INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF HIP ROOF AND RECONFIGURATION OF LIVING SPACE RESULTING IN A +/- 786 SQ. FT. STUDIO WITH +/- 290 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF THE WR ZONE AS WELL AS RELIEF FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 40-2012; BP 2008-510 DIET GARAGE, PORCH; BP 2008-384 DEMO; BP 96-476 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-5-060; 179-13-010 JON LAPPER & MICHAEL BIRD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2012, Gregg Brown & Lizabeth Bitner, Meeting Date: July 18, 2012 "Project Location: 31 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes renovation to existing 1,076 sq. ft. one bedroom boathouse to include installation of hip roof and reconfiguration of living space resulting in a +/- 786 sq. ft. studio with +/- 290 sq. ft. sundeck. Relief requested from the height requirement of the WR zone as well as relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Height - Request for 7.65 feet of height relief from the 16 foot maximum height allowed as per§179-5-060. 2. Expansion of a Non-conforming structure. 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) 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 methods would include designing a height compliant structure for this proposal. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7.65 feet or 48% relief from the 16 foot maximum height as per§179-5-060 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by this board as per 179-13-01 OF. 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 environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be expected. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, A.V. 33-12 Height variance Pending S.P. 14-2007 Hard-surfacing w/in 50 ft. of shore Approved 6/17/08 A.V. 9-2008 Lot size relief Approved 3/19/08 Staff comments: Per §179-5-060A(6), 'The maximum surface of any superstructure built upon and/or above any dock shallbe 700 square feet' Regardless of the change to the floor plan for the boathouse, the existing and proposed conditions have not changed with this application and as such the non- conformity has not been reduced as stated in the applicant's narrative; superstructure size is 1076 sq. ft., 376 sq. ft. above the maximum size allowed in the existing zoning code and overall proposed height is 23.65 versus the allowable height of 16 feet. Per ,¢179-5-060A(11)Boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed 16 feet in height measured from the MHW mark to the highest point of the structure. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board met July 171h and their motion was that, based on a limited review, they had not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Attorney Jon Lapper with the applicant, Gregg Brown, and the project architect, Michael Bird. This is an interesting application because for the most part the mass and scale, if you will, of the existing boathouse are going to be substantially reduced. However, in a couple of small regards there we're asking for the variance to basically address aesthetic architectural issues so that the pitch of the roof will match the house and to make this as attractive as possible. So I want to go through the whole picture of what's going on here. What Keith alluded to in his Staff Notes, in terms of measuring this, that it's not getting smaller, he's talking about the floor area, because on the second floor area that's now interior area by the lake, the most visible on the second floor is going to be exterior deck space, so that certainly when you measure, if you're just measuring floor area, you would count the dock level and then the upstairs level. However, if you look at the building itself, and those, the photo rendering with the existing picture really tells the whole story. It's a much smaller building in terms of the mass and scale of the building, and that's the view that somebody on the lake or some neighbor off the lake is going to be looking at, because you're going to be losing the whole front of the top floor by the lake, and this is a case where there's a building that was constructed in the 1930's. So it's a pre-existing structure that can be continued to be maintained in perpetuity, and sort of in exchange for what I hope you'll ultimately decide is a minor variance for one feet of height and some architectural changes, they're losing a lot of interior living space, and making this a smaller building. So I think in terms of the impact from neighbors and the impact from boaters, this is going to be certainly much more attractive, but also smaller. I just want to grab the mic and walk up. If you just, I'll just direct you to the photo rendering. Because of the design of the roof, and Michael will go through this in much greater detail, it is so much more minimized by having the gabled roof on what's there, and it's just, over the windows, over the new interior space, it's just that one foot of height, it's only in the center of that structure. So even what we're asking for, in terms of the height variance or the one foot difference in height 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) from the existing to the proposed, that's not even very much of the structure itself. It's just in that center at the top of the gables, and probably the best exhibit to show that is this one with the dark lines. This shows exactly where the existing lines are, superimposes the existing over the proposed, and it's certainly, on the lakeside you can see a dramatic difference of what is building now and will be light in air in the future. So, with that as an introduction, I'd like to have Michael walk through the design, explain some of the design choices to get this to be as minimal as possible. MR. BIRD-I started working with Gregg and Betsy in about 1994 when they asked me to come and re-design their house. We did that and he said eventually down the road he'd want to re- design the boathouse. So here we are today. They have a large, somewhat unattractive behemoth of a boathouse that sits on the shoreline, and he asked me to see if I could come and give it the same architectural character that we did with the house. Knowing that it was already outside the allowable Code, we worked very hard and diligently to try to make it as diminutive as possible without losing too much of the space, and I think we've successfully done that. We've been able to reduce the interior living space by 27%, but still allowing them the great room space that they want so that they can use it to enjoy it with their family. We looked very diligently into the heights to try to bring this in line with the existing structure. We've reduced the first floor height to the absolute minimum so that we can still allow for a standard door, still get Gregg's boat in the boathouse. Then we went up to the second floor and did the same thing there. We have a minimal, as small a wall height as we can, and it's only in the main section. The other sections you'll see the wall height actually drops as the building goes back towards the shoreline from the chimney. So that wall height is actually just enough for a six foot eight door and the header that's required over it and then the roof starts, and originally the boathouse had a ridgeline that was 29 feet at the 22 foot six and a half feet tall, and we're asking for a six foot ridgeline, which is a foot taller. I think when you take the front half of the building off and push that wall back and reduce the whole mass of the structure, I'm positive to say that when you're driving on the lake and looking at it, you won't be able to see the difference between the one foot height increase because of the perspective that you see buildings in reality. One of the problems I think with elevations oftentimes is people just look at them and say, well, you're adding a foot, but it's going to be much bigger, but elevations are not reality. Perspectives is really the way we see with two eyes that creative the perspective that will help make this building feel much smaller than it is today. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-1 notice that there's a bathroom in this structure. MR. BIRD-That's correct. MR. CLEMENTS-1 haven't seen any place where it shows where that, the waste from that bathroom goes. MR. LAPPER-We had to submit evidence to that to the Planning Staff that was requested. There's an existing bathroom now, and that's hooked in to the new septic system that was replaced previously for the house construction, and we had an engineer certify that it is sized to accommodate the bathroom here as well. MR. CLEMENTS-It is hooked into the system, current system then? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And that bathroom is actually not (lost words) to the lake, correct? MR. LAPPER-The tank certainly isn't. MR. JACKOSKI-We know the tank isn't, but I mean, the physical bathroom itself, isn't, doesn't the land actually go under the boathouse? MR. BIRD-No, the land does not. The back wall of the boathouse sits on the shore, on a back foundation wall. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you going to modify what you have? Are you taking this down completely and starting from scratch? GREGG BROWN (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. BROWN-No, we'll modify it. We'll modify it piece by piece. We're going to drive four steel caissons down, and then connect those with steel beams and then slowly take it apart and put it back together. MR. URRICO-Are you at the lowest height you can possibly be at? Because I know you're talking about perspective, but perspective is not in our Code. We have actual measurements there. MR. BIRD-That's true. MR. LAPPER-Let me answer that first, before you do. If you look at, when it comes up again, how the new roof with the gable, because right now it takes, fills up that whole roof structure right there, and in the corner the gable, it's a lot smaller roof, but in terms of height, Keith had asked that question, and we went into that. Michael alluded to it, but he didn't give you the figure. The height of the first floor, before you get to the floor joist, you reduced that to, what, seven? MR. BIRD-It's eight foot four and a half, which is the floor to floor height, or seven foot four and a half. So the ceiling and the first floor of the boathouse is seven foot four and a half, which normally you would have an eight foot ceiling. MR. LAPPER-So that was an attempt to get that as low as possible, to get that to seven foot four and then start the joists. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, is this considered new construction then completely from scratch, or what's the call on the part of the Town? MR. OBORNE-I can't answer that question. I really can't. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because I think that one question in my mind is the fact that, you know, currently you can maintain what you have because it's pre-existing nonconforming, but if it is indeed new construction which it appears to be, then it should be built conformingly, without the living space, and I think that would preclude the height variance as requested here at the same time. I mean, I understand why you would want to improve the appearance of what you have there, but at the same time, I think it's not unreasonable for us to consider the rules and regulations as they're promulgated in the Codebook. I think the other hoop you've got to jump through is with the APA and who knows what they're going to say, you know, because as far as they're concerned, I think they're going to consider it new construction. MR. LAPPER-It's not APA. It's just the Lake George Park Commission. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it is in the Adirondack Park. It's going to have to pass muster nonetheless. MR. LAPPER-No, the APA. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, you're wrong, it has to go to the APA. So, I mean, we could grant this. It's going to have to go to the APA, and they're going to have to sign off on it. So, I mean, they could turn around and put the roadblock sign up, too. So I just don't know if we're in a position where we are here to be able to grant this based upon their rules and regulations. MR. LAPPER-Any outside agency that has to look at this would want to see what the Town had to say first to begin with, but I guess what we're hoping that you'll see and acknowledge here is that this is a smaller building, that, you know, we come to you for a variance. I understand all these years what it takes with this Board. We come in here certainly hat in hand for a variance, but we have to have something to offer, and what we're offering here is to substantially change the second floor, reduce that interior living space and reduce what you're looking at in terms of the size of that building. There are changes that could be made, but the value of the property certainly includes the boathouse structure. So, if, instead, he was just going to paint it, you know, clean it up and keep it there forever, that doesn't help the lake or the neighbors. It's still much more building than what's being proposed, and we hope that you see that as a tradeoff. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that it's pretty clear that they don't want over height boathouses built within the lake and they don't want living space in those boathouses anywhere in the Park. I think there's a couple of current cases that have just been decided. MR. LAPPER-But the living space is grandfathered. I mean, that's there. That's pre-existing. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know, but it doesn't allow you to expand, in any way, shape or form what you have, and I think if you're going to expand in height, I think that that has to be considered. MR. LAPPER-But we're only talking about a foot, and that foot really makes it look better in terms of the roof slope, I mean, just aesthetically. That's really what we're talking about is that one foot over what Michael said was, what, six foot? MR. BIRD-Six feet. MR. LAPPER-Instead of 23 feet that's there now at the other height, and again, if I direct you to this drawing that shows you just how much of the building is coming down, the roof and the walls over the lakeside, that's something that I don't think every applicant would be coming here proposing to eliminate all of that living space. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the (lost words) on the first level? Are they going to be awninged off? I mean, you see a lot of boathouses that have awnings that block the wind and rain and all that stuff going into the boathouse. So they're completely open allowing the view through the building that you don't get now, and the cut back of the building is, what, 10 feet, 12 feet back? MR. BIRD-Thirteen foot six. MR. JACKOSKI-Thirteen feet. So, I mean, the bulk of that boathouse would be significantly reduced, the view shed. That's what you're after. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BIRD-Now with regards to the APA regulations, I'm pretty confident that that would allow a two foot increase in the height of this structure, being a nonconforming existing structure and expansion for nonconforming structures, a new rule that came out about two or three years ago. MR. OBORNE-Well this, for Number One, is the Lake George Park Commission. That's where this goes to. MR. UNDERWOOD-But we've had many projects up on the lake that have been, they all have to be forwarded to the APA, and any variances we grant are forwarded to the APA. MR. OBORNE-I'm not sure what the Park Commission does. I know that the application was forwarded to the Park Commission. MR. JACKOSKI-The foundation for the existing (lost word) then technically is actually in the lake? MR. BIRD-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And there's actual water behind it? MR. BROWN-Back when it was built, the foundation was poured concrete back there, and I don't believe there's any water that goes behind it. It comes up to the front of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. It ends up being behind that. MR. BIRD-Yes, it does. MR. JACKOSKI-Then actually (lost words). MR. BIRD-No, from that perspective, no. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any other questions at this time? Hearing none, there is a public hearing this evening, and I think we're going to have some public comment. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone currently in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? Mr. Salvador? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I'm a resident in North Queensbury on Alexy Lane. A couple of things I'd like to add to the discussion you had before. The subject of grandfathering came up. The only thing that's grandfathered is something that is (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) legally existing and then doesn't meet, because the Code has changed, but if it hasn't been legally constructed, it can't be grandfathered. There was no public hearing last night at the Planning Board meeting, or I would have spoken there. This is definitely new construction. Just look at the definition in the Building Code for new construction. By definition, this is an accessory structure and does not qualify by Town Code Chapter 179, by definition, as a boathouse. A boathouse is an accessory structure which has direct access to a body of water, and is used for the storage of vessels and associated equipment, and does not have a bathroom or kitchen facilities and is not designed or used for lodging or residency. This is not a boathouse. This is an accessory structure and it's an illegal structure. It was mentioned before it has a bathroom and is used for lodging. As you discussed, a one bedroom boathouse is an illegal structure. It was said that this was built in 1930. Even in 1930 you needed a permit to occupy the public land. I don't know that this structure was registered with the DEC in 1981, as was required by law. I checked with the Lake George Park Commission that an application had been submitted, and they assured me that one had not been. Now all I gave them was a tax parcel number. I don't know what else they go by, but they had not received an application yet. What should be done here is this structure, accessory structure, should be brought into conformance as a boathouse. They want to call it a boathouse, bring it into conformance as a boathouse, and then apply for the variances that they think they need. Also there's the issue of the Town's jurisdiction in this regard. You probably read it in the newspaper this issue's going on and the Appellate Division, Third Department has decided unequivocally that local government does not have jurisdiction on Lake George, on the navigable waterway, and they address Lake George specifically. This is no different than all the other decisions that have come down from the Appellate Division and even the Court of Appeals on this subject of local jurisdiction on Lake George. In addition to that, we have the fact that the Town's boundaries do not extend onto this structure, and so the Town has no jurisdiction in that regard, even if a town did have jurisdiction. So, I would suggest that the avenue of approach here would be, Number One, to bring the structure into conformance as a boathouse and get rid of the living quarters and the bathroom. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board? Yes, sir. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road, just to the north of the Brown's property. First, I appreciate the efforts of the Browns to improve the aesthetics of the property. It is a big box, and they are looking to try to reduce the impact. However, they're asking for a seven and a half foot variance. That's 48% relief, and there's no justification really shown. The only thing is aesthetics. Now, contrary to what Mr. Lapper said, I believe the increased height does allow significantly greater use of the nonconforming structure, the higher roof, and this is a key, because we conveniently forget to discuss that, the dormers going to the north and the south are, provide more usable floor space. So although in their presentation we're cutting it from 1078 down to, whatever, 788, it sounds like you've got a 27% decrease in usable space. Not necessarily so. Last night at the planning Mr. Bird mentioned they were going to take down the structure piece by piece, but then in a follow up question he did confirm they're replacing all the walls. They're obviously replacing the roof, and they're replacing the floors. Now, reality is, you take the construction down to the dock, it opens up space so they can drive the steel casings in, and then you re-build back up. You don't take it down piece by piece. So I do believe we are talking new construction here. There was mention about reduction in the visible mass being reduced. From the north and south, which is that upper view, you might think that, because you're opening up the first level walls and you're moving the structure on the second floor in 13 feet. However, what they're not showing you here, and what you do get in addition is you get a rise of one foot in the roof plus you get those dormers. Then when you come in from the lake, in east/west view, you're coming from the west you're looking, now there's substantial increase in the mass because you've got the two dormers going out both sides, and, oh, by the way, they're, I can't tell the exactly, but it appears they're like a half a foot above the existing roofline. So when you put it all together, it's probably a push, and there is no real reduction in the mass, and people, although Mr. Bird mentioned with the perspective, you are going to be able to tell that the mass is still there, and especially when you're out on the lake looking in, because you're going to get the broad view of the two dormers out the side, and by the way,just being north, the higher you rise that building, the more it's going to obstruct our view from our dock over to Burnt Ridge Mountain. Now, in Mr. Lapper's letter to the Town dated June 141h, he stated the structure was built in the 1930's. He also stated it currently contains a bedroom, a bathroom, a kitchen, a closet, a fireplace and a great room. The letter doesn't make any mention of when these rooms came into being, and I'm not sure there is anything in the records. Now, I'm just learning tonight that they have supposedly produced evidence that the bathroom is connected into the septic. However, two things. First, when I looked at the assessment records on line, there's no mention of the bathroom or the bedroom or the kitchen in the boathouse, only references those type of rooms that are in the main house. Number Two, in 2007 when there 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) was the expansion of the property, Paragon Engineering, Civil Engineering firm, did certified maps of the property showing the then current conditions and then the proposed expansion of the property. That was reviewed by the Town, approved and stamped, and in it there was never any reflection of how the septic was handled from the boathouse to the property, and that was important for two reasons, because there was a real focus on septic issues, and there was a real focus on stormwater management. Now we roll into one other key piece on that certified plan by Paragon. It states right on the plans that that septic system had five laterals of 36 feet. That's180 feet of laterals. There was reference to Mr. Dickenson's certification letter tonight where he claims he reviewed the files and that the system is adequate. We've requested the documentation, when you see the notations, Crandall had put on what he thought the septic system was going to be, it's crossed out and then down below it says we need as built plans. The Paragon plans say five 36 foot laterals based on as built plans. I take more reliance on that than Mr. Dickenson coming in now to take a quick look and a short letter that really isn't a certification it's I reviewed the files. So, I do have a concern about the bathroom and the kitchen. I do echo Mr. Salvador's comments about whether that's a living structure or a boathouse, and it will continue to be. Although they talk about removing the bedroom, and you're just going to have the great room, it sure as heck sounds like a studio apartment to me, where you have a kitchen, you have a bathroom and you have a great room that can be used for anything. So what would I like to see? I would like to see that the variance not be granted for the height, that the height be no more than the existing, Number One. Number Two, I think more work needs to be done to determine whether we really have a viable legal bathroom and kitchen, and whether that ought to be included in this design when it ultimately comes to resolution. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this project? Currently seeing no one else in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. There's a letter from the Lake George Water Keeper. It says, "The above referenced area variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineering and the Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake George Water Keeper has concerns about the negative impacts of the requested variances from the associated use, which appears to be for a second dwelling unit on the property. It is our opinion the proposed development would exceed the capacity for the land to support and mitigate these impacts and impact the natural resources of Lake George. The Lake George Water Keeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-14-080 Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced area variance application. It should be determined if an area variance is required for density. The proposed structure where modifications are proposed should be considered a dwelling unit, since it will contain living area, kitchen and sanitation facilities. Waterfront Residential District requires 2 acres per dwelling unit. Therefore, a total of four acres should be provided for the two dwellings on the property. This application should be determined to be incomplete since no information regarding floor Area Ratio calculations for the living areas is provided. The proposed project is not compatible with the recommendations of the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan promotes the protection of natural resources in Critical Environmental Areas, which was summarized well by Planning Board Chairman Chris Hunsinger at an August 23, 2011 Planning Board meeting, "Creating a greater man-made appearance in a natural environment is not the direction of the Board." The Water Keeper supports that statement and recommend Town review boards are consistent with that approach and do not grant variances for development or expansions within the shoreline setback. The requested variances are not in character with the neighborhood or community. Although the boathouse structure exists, the Zoning Board of Appeals should not approve living space, areas for great rooms, dwellings or expansions over the waters of Lake George when there is an opportunity to bring the site more into compliance. Boathouses with open second floors are the normal in the area around Lake George. All living area should be required to meet the setbacks required in the Town Code for the protection of the community and the Town's natural resources. The requested variances may have potential negative impacts to the environment and neighborhood. The plans do not contain any information regarding wastewater treatment for the structure. Chapter 136 of the Town Code provides separation requirements for wastewater system components, which require setbacks of 50 feet for water-tight house sewer piping, tanks and distribution boxes. It should be determined if variances are required from the Town Board of Health for noncompliance with the Town Code. In addition, the structure to be modified should be considered a dwelling since it contains kitchen facilities and bathroom and therefore, should be included as a bedroom in estimating waste flow calculations for water quality protection. Finally, plans should consider the protection of measures for the previously approved rain gardens and plantings along the shoreline, which could be damaged by the proposed construction. The Water Keeper would recommend the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals deny the application submitted and not approve dwellings and/or expansions in the shoreline setback. At a minimum, we request the Zoning Board of Appeals to seek the following information: 1) 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) Determination whether a density variance is required for a second dwelling; 2) Require the submission of FAR calculations; 3) Approve structures in harmony with the Town Comprehensive Plan; and, 4) Eliminate potential environmental impacts from noncompliance wastewater system components within the shoreline setback. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-This is a case where less is more, and even though people can quibble about what's there, meaning Mr. Salvador and the Water Keeper. It was built in the 30's and it's a pre- existing, nonconforming use, and it can be continued and maintained. That's, I think, 179-79 of the Queensbury Code, pre-existing nonconforming structures and uses, and they can keep it there until the end of time, and so what my client is coming in and saying is, we're going to make it smaller, and even though, I mean, the one foot issue we can talk about, but it's really just to make it look more attractive, but the mass and structure, there's no way that anybody can look at that, at the photo of what's there now and the photo rendering, and not say that this is less. So they're giving something up, and what they're providing to their neighbors is a much nicer view, both through it, on the first floor, as the Chairman asked us, and also certainly on the second floor, everything about it is more attractive. The septic system is a conforming system because it's built for the house and it's all the way back behind the house, nowhere near the lake. So it gets pumped away from the lake, and the applicant purchased the house in '96, but it was purchased by his family around 1968, '69, I'm sorry '46 by your grandparents. Okay. Sorry. So it's been in their family, not when it was originally constructed, but way before Queensbury zoning in 1968. So I'm just asking you to look at what's there and what's being proposed and acknowledge that it's less and it's a better plan. Everything that they're going to have, in terms of the fireplace, the kitchen, the bathroom that's already there, but it's going to be smaller interior space and a smaller structure, and that's got to be a good thing for the lake and for the neighbors. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just want to add one thing. If you look at Staff comments, Staff comments say per Section 179-5-060A(6) the maximum surface of any superstructure built upon and/or above any dock shall be 700 square feet. Regardless of the change to the floor plan for the boathouse, the existing and the proposed conditions have not changed with this application and as such the non-conformity has not been reduced as stated in the applicant's narrative; superstructure size is 1076 sq. ft., 376 sq. ft. above the maximum size allowed in the existing zoning code and the overall proposed height is 23.65 versus the allowable height of 16 feet. So the question I have for you is, why didn't you reduce the ultimate size from, you know, the nonconforming that currently exists? Why didn't you bring it into conformity with the block at the building completely? I think that's, you know, it's easy to do that. We've done it before with other projects. MR. LAPPER-1 don't think any applicant would do that because the value of this property is that they do have the structure on the lake and it's lovely and it's expensive and they purchased it but by making it outdoor space rather than indoor space, that is a significant change to take off the walls and the roof along the lake on the second story. A deck is not the same as interior space. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I'm saying the actual size of the structure, the length of the structure could be foreshortened to bring it into conformity, and then I might consider what you're proposing, but you have not done that either. MR. LAPPER-That would be giving up a lot of square footage. I don't know that anybody would do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Nobody else has a boathouse that long. MR. LAPPER-But the fact that it's pre-existing means that it's legal under the Code, because it's pre-existing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, but if you're going to modify it, why not modify it and bring it into conformity? MR. LAPPER-I understand your question, Jim, and there's always something else that somebody can do, but by taking off the walls and the roof, that's a big deal, at the lake, making it exterior space rather than interior space. I mean, we came in expecting that the Board would acknowledge that that's a pretty big change, visually and in terms of utility. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? I have a couple of comments. Could you address the jurisdiction matter that Mr. Salvador addressed? MR. LAPPER-There's always this issue about, you know, technically whether Queensbury has jurisdiction, whether the east shore of Queensbury is really in the Town of Bolton, and it's something that's been, I would say, partially litigated and it's not something that as representing an applicant we want to fight a jurisdictional battle. We'd rather come here and ask for approvals, rather than make this a court of appeals case as to whether or not your regulations which govern this apply. So here we are. I mean, there's some issue there that is legitimate but it's for another day and another place. MR. JACKOSKI-And this being an appellate board, it is the determination of the Zoning Administrator that puts us here. So, based on his determination, that's why we're here trying to. MR. LAPPER-Right. We're trying to work within the system, but I understand that there's an argument that somebody could make, and Mr. Salvador's made that argument, but we're here to seek approvals. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there going to be a garage door entrance? Have you looked at the structure without the dock? MR. LAPPER-It's really a question of because it's there, they wouldn't want to give it up because it's nice to have it there for a boathouse, and it's been there. I mean, as long as it's not polluting the lake, and it's not, because the leach field is all the way in the back of the house by the road, you know, obviously you couldn't build it today, but it's not an environmental situation because the leach field is in the back of the house. MR. CLEMENTS-When was the property purchased again? MR. BROWN-My grandparents purchased it in 1946. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. BROWN-And then I, 1 mean, it was inherited. I ended up purchasing it from my father in 1996, and as a kid, I can tell you, it's a lot easier to get there in time, going to the bathroom coming out of the lake than trying to get all the way back to the house. MR. KUHL-But it's, in fact, the height were a determining factor, you would reduce it, wouldn't you, Michael? MR. BIRD-We would have to look and see what we could do, but I'd prefer to keep it more like the house. MR. KUHL-I understand that. I mean, you could reduce that roofline down to meet the other one and you'd have the same height as you have now. Okay. I mean, and you're the architect. I'm not, but I'm suggesting that if that were the issue, you would find a way to fix it, wouldn't you? MR. BIRD-Yes. MR. KUHL-Keith, the issue that the Water Keeper talked about structure over the water. How come, I mean, we're taking what the Zoning Administrator gave us looking for variances and that's the area we should stay in and forget about what everybody else says? MR. OBORNE-Well, I mean, obviously, you know, use what other people say for your deliberations, but, I mean, the focus is on the two issues, expansion of a nonconforming structure and height. MR. KUHL-Because the issue of bathroom, bedroom, living room and all that stuff is still in what these gentlemen are calling a boathouse as opposed to a second auxiliary structure. MR. OBORNE-Well, if you want clarification, ask for clarification from the Zoning Administrator on that. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there going to be posts on the docks? I mean, the renderings don't show any of the posts. I mean, there's posts there, but they don't show any posts. (lost words) two by six construction? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. BIRD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Can we put up the picture that you had of the aerial view of the lot and the adjoining lots to the north? Addressing the view shed. So the question in public comment was out on that boathouse dock to the north, you're going to be staring right at the gabled ends that are all windowed, which right now they just have the shingles. MR. LAPPER-I would argue that they're looking at a pretty unattractive big mass of a roof and they're going to be looking at this, you know, much nicer, smaller gabled roof, but I guess aesthetics are personal, you know, they're not that close to it, but I mean, I can only look at that and say that's really attractive. I know that a few of the members of the Planning Board last night said that's one of the most attractive boathouses we've seen on the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-I guess I'm just trying to pick up the trajectory. If you're standing on top of that deck looking over this boathouse, it was suggested in public comment that the view of her ridge was obstructed. MR. LAPPER-This is a good picture. If you're standing on the Collins' deck, dock, excuse me, and this area here in front of my pen is all gone, I mean, I believe that's going to be an improvement. Yes, right now you're looking at that unattractive roof and there will be a gable, but there'll also be a lot less roof because of the valley between the gables, but that's aesthetics. So people can argue. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. Mr. Collins? MR. COLLINS-It's still higher, and although you're backing it up 13 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. I think we understand. I mean, you'd have to be on the record. So just let us answer a couple of more questions and we can always, we've left public comment open. I think if this application gets tabled, if you wouldn't mind, I wouldn't mind visiting your dock and taking a look if that's okay. MR. COLLINS-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir, but I understand what you said. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? Okay. We went through public hearing. I think I'm going to poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. If this was my property, I'd do the exact same thing to what the applicant's doing and I'd rent this thing out and I'd be charging an arm and a leg for this thing every month. What the applicant wants to do is definitely an improvement, but by the same token, as brought up by a member of the public, this is new construction. When you're driving pilings into the floor of Lake George, this is going to be new construction, and with new construction it should conform to the Code for a boathouse. MR. JACKOSKI-So are you in favor or against? MR. GARRAND-Against the way the current proposal is. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it's an improvement to what he has now, but I do believe the height should be lowered to what it is now or less. If it's going to stand the way it's written here, you're asking me to accept or approve what's here, I would turn it down. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-My general feelings, I think I've expressed them, but I feel that the superstructure of the building should be brought into conformity at 700 square feet, the same as every other boathouse on the lake. I think that I might consider some living space in there, but presently as it exists and as it's been proposed, I would consider this to be a second dwelling on the property. I don't think there's anything that precludes us from bringing this property into conformity and I think that's the best way to go. MR. JACKOSKI-So you would not be in favor of the application? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-Not in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm not going to be in favor of it, either, and my reasons are that when you look at the criteria they all strike against it. I think there's going to be some impacts to the neighborhood. We've heard from at least one neighbor. There are feasible alternatives in reducing the height compliance. I understand wanting to keep the aesthetic quality of it, but it's not just over the minimum height requirement. It's over by quite a bit. I believe that 48% is more than it can be. I also believe the expansion of this nonconforming structure is more than it should be also. We've heard from the Water Keeper about the environmental conditions that might be affected. We're not sure, but we think there might be some problems there, and the difficulty is self-created. There's no doubt about that, and so I would be against it. I think we need to do some work on the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Well, as attractive as the new building seems to be, I have a lot of questions, whether or not this is new construction. I have concerns about the height, and also I would like a ruling on whether this is a second dwelling on the property, and I would certainly like to see a ruling by the Adirondack Park Agency. So I would be against this application. MR. LAPPER-We'll table it for tonight, if that's okay, and go back and think about the comments from the Board. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can we ask for an opinion from the Adirondack Park Agency in regards to this project at this point in time? There's nothing precluding us from doing that? MR. OBORNE-You could. I would go to the Park Commission. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think we can ask for both the Park Commission and the Adirondack Park Agency, that the minutes from today's meeting be sent up there for them to peruse. MR. OBORNE-Is there an application before either of those agencies? If there's not an application, I don't know how we can do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it's before our Board, and we're subject to being overturned by the APA. So, I mean, I think it's important that we get a reflection from them, based upon what's been proposed here, if it's remotely ballpark. MR. OBORNE-And I'm not trying to be difficult. I think that's problematic at best, but I think that if you wish to put that in a resolution, I mean, we'll see what we can do obviously. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm formally requesting it be done. Okay. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. MR. UNDERWOOD-Before the next time we hear it. MR. OBORNE-All right. That would have to be put into a resolution. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. What do you guys think? MR. KUHL-I think you make a good point. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 mean, we have been overturned by the APA before. MR. KUHL-And it would save the applicant jumping through hoops if we all got together on the same line. MR. JACKOSKI-So why does it have to be in a formal resolution to do this? Why can't we have an informal communication with the APA? MR. OBORNE-Because it would be on the record. It would be the record. If you want to do it that way, that's fine, too. I just think it's problematic. That's my opinion. MR. URRICO-If the application is being tabled, does it still exist as far as we're concerned, or does it need to be re-advertised? So, I mean, to this point can we ask them? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-No, because it's an active application, outside of a public meeting. MR. OBORNE-Yes. That's a good question. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have to formally request it if we want it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2012 GREGG BROWN & LIZABETH BITNER, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 31 Knox Road. Pending, we would like an opinion from the Adirondack Park Agency because they're the ultimate authority for the Adirondack Park, since this parcel exists in the Adirondack Park, and we're looking at a previous existing nonconforming use which I'm asking is this new construction. I would make a determination that it is, indeed, new construction, and that we would like their opinion based upon the record as it exists in tonight's meeting, and we would like an opinion as to whether, if we approve this as requested, will the APA support it or will they overturn us. Tabled to September 19th. New information would have to be submitted by August 15th. Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And do we have a date when we're going to table this until? MR. UNDERWOOD-We would have to hear back. MR. JACKOSKI-Any recommendations from the applicant as to when you'd like this tabled until? MR. LAPP ER-September. MR. JACKOSKI-So any new information would have to be presented by August 15th. Is that okay, Staff? MR. OBORNE-Yes, that's fine. 19th or the 26th is your dates in September. My preference would be the 19th because we don't know if we'll have a full meeting, enough applications for two meetings. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we'll just note that the resolution would include the date of the 19th of September. Okay. MR. OBORNE-1 just, if the APA comes back and says, yes, that's fine, it's great, I love it, we love it. It comes back to this Board as the same application, you're probably not going to pass it. MR. GARRAND-They're weighing in as evidence. MR. OBORNE-That's fine. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any additional business to be brought before the Board? We have a request from the public to address the Board for three minutes. Mr. Salvador, welcome. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. I've got Mr. Ball here with me tonight also. He might want to make a few comments. This is on the subject of the cell tower, which this Board heard and granted a Use Variance for, if you recall, the cell tower on West Mountain Road. I've addressed a letter to the Town Supervisor expressing my concerns about the project, and I have copies of that here for you tonight, but I'd like to just mention a few salient points. The project was approved by yourselves and the Town Board and the Planning Board as a SEAR Type 1, excuse me, as a SEAR Unlisted action, and according to the SEAR law, it should have been a Type I action because there's a provision in the SEAR law that says any structure exceeding 100 feet above original ground level in a locality without any zoning regulation pertaining to height, and we have no zoning regulation in this Town pertaining to the height of a cell tower. If you can build it 1,000 feet, build it. So it should have been a SEAR Type 1, which is a full environmental review. Also with regard to height our Town Code has a height limitation in a moderate density 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) zone, there's a table of area requirements, and the height, the maximum height of an accessory structure, which this is in a Moderate Density Residential zone, is 16 feet, and no variance was applied for nor granted. The Town Board resolution 85-2011, which effectuated the lease agreement, was subject to, quote, the Rosenberg variance, and so far none has been heard and none has been granted, and I haven't gotten an answer from the Town. More importantly, Town Code Chapter 179-5-130C specifically designates areas where cell towers are restricted to be erected, meaning nowhere else in Town. The way the Code is written, they're restricted to these areas, and of course they're Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial area, but also they say or co- located as a facility, they can only be located outside of these two zoning districts if they are a co-location, and there are two bases for co-location, one is on an existing tower, providing it's 50 feet high, and that's not unusual. The other criteria is co-located on any property where a structure at least 50 feet high exists. Now they picked this water storage tank structure, and that structure is only 40 feet high, and another variance was required and hasn't been sought and hasn't been granted. Mr. Ball can speak to that 40 foot issue. He's quite familiar with it and maybe some other things. RON BALL MR. BALL-Well, yes, that was my biggest concern because I don't know all the Codes like John does, but I do know that there was a Code there that said there had to be a structure of 50 feet or taller for them to even begin the project, and from what I understand from Craig Brown when I talked to him one day with John, they said they missed it. It was an oversight, they missed it. So being they missed it, we'd like you to re-hear it, and have them get a variance for it, and that's one of my biggest issues, and the other issue is these fires, cell tower fires. Now I never showed anybody these. This particular cell tower here that's burning, this is owned by Verizon. This is in Massachusetts. Okay. This is another cell tower fire, completely different from the last one, okay. This is another one. This is completely different from the other two. I don't know if you can see them. Most people didn't even know about cell tower fires. This is one even different yet. Notice the tops, all the photos are from the tops. They're all different cell tower fires, okay. Here's another one. This is completely different from the rest of them. The reason why I'm bringing this up is because that grade going up that hill where they want to put the cell tower is 30 to 40% grade, and our Town Code says a 10% grade is allowable for emergency vehicles to get onto someone's property. I want to know how they could get a permit to install that cell tower up there. MR. JACKOSKI-I can't speak to the building permit. I can speak to this Board granting a variance. It was related to a determination made by the Zoning Administrator, and we went through that process. I don't have anything in front of me at this time to have this Board take any action. There's no Article 78. There's no appeal of the decisions made. So I can't respond. MR. SALVADOR-We understand. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't have a method to respond. So you have to find another alternative to address your problems, which I do believe you've done by contacting Mr. Stec. MR. SALVADOR-Yes, and I haven't gotten an answer, and I really don't expect to. MR. JACKOSKI-So what is it you're hoping you can accomplish with this Board? MR. SALVADOR-Well, the only avenue we have is to have this case, have it re-heard. MR. JACKOSKI-I can't order that. MR. SALVADOR-You can't order it, but you can listen to us appeal for it. We're not ready for it yet. We're not ready. We're trying to get you informed and get more information, but when the time comes, we will appear before you and ask you for a vote to re-hear it. We're not ready to do that yet. We need more information. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that would require a decision by the Zoning Administrator, if I understand correctly. MR. SALVADOR-No, you, the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-And I understand that, and I think, Mr. Salvador, you know, come in front of us two or three times now after the fact. At this point I would recommend that if you're going to make such a motion and request, that when you're ready to do so, instead of continuing to repeat what you believe are the facts of this matter, put that in place and address this Board. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-See if you can't get the Zoning Administrator to make a determination about what he allegedly missed. MR. SALVADOR-The time has run for us to do any kind of an appeal. By the way, it was very cleverly laid out, okay, but the time has run, and you run into all sorts of difficulties with statute of limitations. MR. JACKOSKI-You understand, we can be empathetic, but we can't, our hands are tied. MR. SALVADOR-I understand. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MR. SALVADOR-No, I have one more subject. This deals with the Diane Matthews Class A Marina. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Salvador, you've already talked to this Board about this. Unless there's something in front of us. MR. SALVADOR-Something new has come up that you haven't heard before. MR. JACKOSKI-But I don't have anything in front of me. MR. SALVADOR-I'd like to bring it to your attention. MR. JACKOSKI-I think it needs to be brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator. Unless my Board would like to suggest otherwise. It's up to you. MR. KUHL-I had the thought driving over here last time you presented something that we hadn't even heard, it was just like a waste of time. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it's not so much that as I'm concerned that the applicant that might be affected isn't here, and so we're having discussion that I don't feel has been noticed to the public. I don't feel the applicant is here to hear this side. So I'd rather have all parties in the room to address a specific matter within the Town. MR. SALVADOR-I did submit a Notice of Appeal on the subject. MR. JACKOSKI-And when the Zoning Administrator determines what the merits are of that appeal, then this Board would be getting involved. MR. SALVADOR-I am appealing his determination. I can't expect him to agree with me. That's what you're here for. You're here to sort out and make a judgment between his opinion and my opinion, and if I have to go through him to get to you, that doesn't make any sense. So that's why I submitted my Notice of Appeal directly to you and that's what is allowed by law. Going through the Zoning Administrator is not a procedure that's spelled out in Town Law, but in any case, there is something new with regard to that Matthews application. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, I'm not interested, I don't believe this Board, in all fairness to the applicants involved, if there's something new regarding that application, we should not hear that application at this time. MR. SALVADOR-I have a letter I'll give to you. You can read it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So with that letter being given to us, do I have a motion to adjourn? MR. UNDERWOOD-Motion to adjourn. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. Do I have a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2012) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 18, 2012, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 18th day of July, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman