Loading...
03-20-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners 1. SEQR DECISION Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 thru 35 Area Variance No. 35-2012 Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel&Ellen Nichols 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 288.20-1-18 AND 19 Area Variance No. 52-2012 LARIC Development/DKC Holdings, Inc. 3. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 &7.1 Area Variance No. 5-2013 CRM Housing Dev., Inc. 4. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 302.9-1-28.1 Area Variance No. 7-2013 Keith Ferraro-The Fun Spot S. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-1 Area Variance No. 6-2013 Eric Le Fleur 13. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-39 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/20131 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND KYLE NOONAN HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE JOHN HENKEL,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening everyone. Welcome everyone to tonight's Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. It is March 20th at seven o'clock here in the Town Center,and tonight we have a few housekeeping things to do. We've got quite a few members new members up here, for those of you who attend these meetings regularly. So I'll go slowly because I'm sure I'm going to flub up some names here and there, but we'll just do some housekeeping first, if everybody doesn't mind. For those who haven't been here in the past, we have an agenda on the back table. We also have a piece of paper in the back that kind of explains the process. It's fairly simple. We'll call each application up to the table. They will present,and then we'll ask questions,open or close the public hearing and possibly go through SEQR and then maybe poll the Board, all those little things, and then have a motion,if one is appropriate. So it's very easy. It's very relaxed. Don't be nervous, and all the students who are in the audience, if they want us to sign to prove that you were in attendance, just let us know. Okay. So first housekeeping matter is the SEQR decision on Area Variance No. 61-2011. It's the Queensbury Partners project just over here on the other corner. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SEQRA DECISION: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-We're going to be going through the process of noting that the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury will take Lead Agency status. The applicant can come to the table. I don't know if you need to address us. If you would like to, you can, or we can probably just move forward with granting the Lead Agency status. If you want to maybe do a really brief analysis,that would be fine,but I know we'll be getting into more detail later,and thank you. MR. FULLER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Matt Fuller from Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth for the applicant Queensbury Partners, and I've got Matt Robison from the LA Group with me, too, in case there were any technical questions. I'll be brief. I appreciate the opportunity just to give you a little update. For the new members,we've had a lot of back and forth a number of years, almost a decade. We won't go into all of the other history,but where we are tonight,the last year or so the Planning Board and Zoning Board had a couple of joint meetings and kind of gave us some direction. We had initial plans that,when we get on to the Area Variances maybe I'll give you more of an update then. I can bring some of the older plans,but we've gone back and forth a lot, and the Planning Board and the Zoning Board got together last August and then again over the winter and, you know, kind of gave us some direction, but said, hey, you've been back and forth a couple of times,here's the points that are of most concern. The big one was sticking to a 75 foot setback. The Planning Board had initially had an idea that they'd like to see the buildings closer to Bay, more of a village feel. Now the Zoning Board didn't necessarily agree with that idea. Another issue was height. The buildings,depending on the look and what we were trying to go for,again,with more of a village feel, the buildings out front got a little higher, and again, I don't know if that was entirely palatable to the ZBA, and also density. The density has come down from a high of 176 to now the 142, I believe, 144, the number that's allowed in the zoning is where we've kept it, and so we went back, we engineered it. Architects now are,you know,we're in for a full blown site plan. So you've got, I've seen the stacks that we've delivered a few thousand dollars' worth of paper, into what 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) we've got now, and I'll just really quick run through where we were a couple of months ago and where we are now. Setbacks along Blind Rock, 75 feet is required. Back in, I think it was December, we were talking around 50 feet, but then in looking at the zoning,you can't see it on these pictures, but in some of the other plans you'll see that there's some porches along the front, and those porches extended a couple of feet. So we didn't move the buildings at all, but when we were here last we didn't have the couple of feet because we're, Mike Ingersoll and I were working on it. He didn't realize we had to count those two,the extra two feet, and so that's,it was 50 feet. Now we're proposing 48 which is a requested relief of 27 feet. The Bay residential setback, 300 feet is required. We're asking for 75 on that. That has not changed. The Bay Road setback for the actual structures, 75 feet is required. We were at 75 feet before, but again in talking to Craig Brown, and looking at the zoning, the pergola that's around the front, at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, it's just like a wooden awning you can grow vines or things on it. Those, since they, if they were freestanding, they may not count, but if they touch the building they do. So we weren't going to tiptoe around that. I mean, it is what it is. If the Planning Board or Zoning Board don't necessarily like those, you know, we can work with those plans on that, but we did show them, and so we've asked to, for just those issues, no living space or no commercial space will be within the 75 foot setback. It's just the exterior improvements. There's a couple of awnings and things like that that, you know, if they hang over the building a little bit they would be within that setback. So that was the request there, and most noticeably, the ZBA may have picked up on this in the plans. When we were, 40 feet is required. When we were here back in, again, in December-ish,we were talking just over 50 feet, and that was, that kind of put a, I don't want to say a false peak, but a peak off of the front to hide the mechanicals. Mechanicals and things,you can see them on some of the buildings that are on top, and to try to hide those, shield it and really from an aesthetic standpoint we're talking just over 50 feet. That,we worked with,actually the architect told us that 45 and a half feet is what he can meet. So we put it down as 47,just because we're still working through a couple of the mechanicals, but that's certainly even lower, well under the 50 foot mark that we had initially thrown out in December, and I know it's still over the 40. So I'm not going to play it like it's a huge thing, but it's certainly a significant improvement. We are here tonight on SEQR. The Planning Board has kicked that off(lost word) the snowstorm, and Lead Agency notices are going out. You are the first, another involved agency, to get notice and to be able to take action. Hopefully you won't dispute the Planning Board SEQR Lead Agency status. As the involved agency you are obviously authorized and entitled to give comments back to the Planning Board. So that's certainly your purview. A couple of development items that we're working on right now. Archeological. You may have seen that in one of the spots, one of the spots, one of the parts of the property to the south kicked up a request for further action from SHPO, and we've done that. Did that last year actually, and a follow-up report is going back to SHPO that outlines basically a few thousand items, little shards and pieces of whatever that was out there that they found,but the archeologist that we had on retainer has recommended no further action. So it wasn't anything of significance that they found out there, and just for the new members, the name was originally Charlotte Square. We had found it in a history book, and the Town Historian had come in and said,well, actually that was the Fowler farm, and I can't remember if it was a Planning Board meeting or the joint meeting, but we decided right then and there to change the name, as a nod towards the history of the property going back. So it is the Fowler Square development, and the other big development we have is traffic. We went to Warren County, met with County DOT,and showed them the layout of the road,turning lane and things like that. They had previously actually issued a highway permit, an access permit for the subdivision that's on file, and we're using the same access off of Bay and Blind Rock as the prior subdivision. So they didn't have any issues with the access. They appreciated the turn lane. They didn't necessarily think we needed it, but they appreciated the space for the turning lane, and something I learned, and have not done this for over a decade, but the County DOT does not own any traffic lights. Except for one. The Town owns the traffic lights on all the roads. So we went and met with Mike Travis and our traffic engineers and we'll be back when we're here for a full application. Peter Faith gave the Town a sequencing plan for that light, and last Friday that sequencing plan was actually installed. So if you were out there, I've driven that. I know. So obviously I'm kind of looking for it, but we have gotten some reports back that the timing has been better already. It went from an E to a B within an hour of that time,just doing that, and when they were in the box the Town's traffic engineer noticed that the microwave detectors that are on the poles are broken. They haven't worked for God knows how long, and so new microwave detectors have been ordered and should be here in the next week or so. So in addition to the timing there will also be actual sensors. So off hours, during peak hours the timing takes over, but during off hours you pull up to that light, that sensor's going to kick on and change the switch based on traffic. So when we do get back here for a formal review we'll have a few weeks of data and an updated traffic report that will show that the engineer's numbers were right. That they've actually gone and changed this already. So that's a significant improvement. It sits at around a C, D right now. If we added the car traffic that we would have with this development, we would just kick it into an E, which, if you know traffic grading, you don't really want to head in that direction, but just the change that's out there, even with our proposed traffic, it's still back up to a B. So,you know,that's, 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) without re-working that entire intersection,is pretty much as good as you're going to get,and that's the difference between A and B, it's not really noticeable to the public. So those are the big updates that we have. I appreciate the time, and certainly if you have any initial questions or if anybody's seen anything immediately that they thought was missing or anything like that, we'd be happy to get that submitted so when we do come back we've got information for you. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, Matt,thank you. So for the rest of us here, I guess we need a motion to accept the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as Lead Agency for the SEQR status, and that motion is made by Rick. Thank you, Rick. Can I have a second? MRS. HUNT-Second. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Joyce. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEQR STATUS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. FULLER-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-I was trying to get the attorneys out fast and not do some of the housekeeping here. Do we want to go ahead and do the rest of these motions to table and then we can do minutes and then we can do a couple of letters we've got on file if that's okay. So the attorneys can get out. So the next matter is Area Variance No. 35-2012. FURTHER TABLING: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS MR.JACKOSKI-It is a tabling matter for the Blue Moose Tavern/Daniel and Ellen Nichols project. Of course that's on the corner of Glen Lake Road and Route 9 across from the entrance to the Great Escape Lodge. We do need a tabling motion to the July meeting. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2012 BLUE MOOSE TAVERN/DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled to the first meeting in July. Normal submissions,the 15th of the month prior. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-And we don't really know. So should we just say the first meeting in July? MRS.MOORE-You can. MR. JACKOSKI-And of course that would be normal submissions, the 15th of the month prior, and I believe Joyce seconded that motion. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. The next further tabling is Area Variance No. 52-2012. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT/DKC HOLDINGS,INC. MR.JACKOSKI-For LARIC Development/DKC Holdings, Inc. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT/DKC HOLDINGS. INC., Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: Tabled to an April meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-And the date that the Staff would appreciate? MRS.MOORE-I would ask you to move it for April. MR. JACKOSKI-And that would be to our April meeting with, well, that submission deadline has already passed. Is that okay? MRS.MOORE-Correct,and they have submitted information. MR.JACKOSKI-Excellent. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-The next tabling is Area Variance No. 5-2013. AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2013 CRM HOUSING DEV.,INC. MR. JACKOSKI-CRM Housing Development, Inc., and we want to table this to the April meeting as well. MRS.MOORE-April meeting as well. MR.JACKOSKI-And they've submitted on time,correct? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2013 CRM HOUSING, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: Tabled to an April meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote; AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and then we need a motion to approve the meeting minutes of January 16th for the Zoning Board,and I'll note it's been past practice of this Board to generally only approve the, for those to approve the minutes who were actually in attendance. So, we still have a quorum tonight with old members. So,can I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16, 2013 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-And then the other three members here will abstain. I will continue on with an important matter, I feel. For those of you who have attended in the past, Brian Clements used to be on this Board until recently. He resigned in order to take the position on the Town Board. So we're quite excited to have one of our own as part of that Board now. I'd like to read a letter that Brian Clements addressed to us, me particularly, dated March 18, 2013. I'd like to read it into the record. "Dear Steve: Please regard this letter as my intention to resign from the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. It has been a pleasure to serve the Town for the past eight years. I expect my tenure will serve as a constant reminder of the trust the public places in town boards and officials as I begin my term as Queensbury Councilman for the Second Ward. The Board has changed membership through the years, but from my standpoint everyone I have worked with has shown a dedication to be fair and unbiased as I hope I have. Please give my regards and best wishes to all the board members. I know they will guide the new members with their wisdom and integrity. Finally, thank you for your thoughtful leadership and your willingness to step into the chairmanship under such short notice. You have helped us do our important work by guiding the meetings through fair and unbiased commentary from all sides, which has helped us come to just and reasonable conclusions. The town has been very lucky to have a chairman and board as dedicated and hard working as you all. I wish you and all the board members the best of luck in the future. Kind regards, Brian Clements" So,we wish Brian the best of luck, and we'll move on with our meeting this evening. Finally, New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2013 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED KEITH FERRARO - THE FUN SPOT AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) ANTHONY & MARY SUE FERRARO ZONING CI LOCATION 1035 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 3,529 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR RECONFIGURATION OF THE LASER TAG/ARCADE AREA OF THE AMUSEMENT CENTER AND TO INCLUDE THREE CLASSROOMS FOR A FULL DAY-CARE FACILITY. DAYCARE CENTER IN A CI ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMBINED USES. CROSS REF SP 10-2013, AV 42-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2013 LOT SIZE 3.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-1 SECTION 179-4-09OF JON LAPPER&TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 7-2013, Keith Ferraro - The Fun Spot, Meeting Date: March 20, 2013 "Project Location: 1035 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 3,529 sq. ft. addition to an existing building for reconfiguration of the laser tag / arcade area of the amusement center and to include three classrooms for a full day-care facility. Daycare Center in a Cl zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: minimum parking space requirements for combined uses. The applicant has requested to provide 118 parking spaces where 264 are required. The 264 number is the minimum number of parking spaces needed for the amusement center usage and the day care facility. 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 may be available to reduce the variance requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The number of parking spaces to be provided is about 55% less than what is required could be considered substantial. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Little adverse impacts on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood may be expected 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The hardship must be created by the ordinance. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 10-2013 -Pending, review required for addition to the existing structure for construction of 3 daycare classrooms and reconfiguration of internal amusement center attractions. AV 42-2006 -Relief granted for setback and parking for construction of a miniature golf course (note parking required 292 spaces and 118 were granted) Staff comments: The applicant has submitted plans identifying the existing and proposed parking arrangements on the site. The parking chart provided with the materials indicates amusement center uses along with the parking needs per weather conditions. The applicant has received a previous area variance for parking and the miniature golf project where 118 spaces were granted. The applicant has also submitted building elevations and site plan materials. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. URRICO-Also the Planning Board met and they made a recommendation on behalf of their Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for this Area Variance, and it was introduced by Stephen Traver and seconded by Brad Magowan, and based on its limited review, they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was carried unanimously on March 19, 2013. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I seem to do this a lot these days. In the interest of full disclosure, I must note that I have a majority ownership in a company that owns property just down the road from this project. However, I don't feel there's any conflict of interest because I do not have any financial gain as a result of this particular project. So I just want to make everyone note that I do own that parcel down the street. I don't think it's within 500 feet,but maybe it is. I don't know. MR. LAPPER-Not if you didn't get a notice. MR.JACKOSKI-Who knows if I got a notice. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, and for the members I haven't yet met, I'm Jon Lapper, the project attorney, with Tom Jarrett, the project engineer, and Keith Ferraro, the applicant. I'd like to start off with just a little bit of history of this site. It was about six years ago that we were before this Board for a variance that lead to a complete re-design of this site. Everything that's up front, the mini golf, which is obviously a feature but also a landscaping project because this was all hard surface, it was all parking lot in the front for decades before Keith re-did it the way it is now. We needed a series of variances, in terms of the front setback, dealing with where structures were located, and primarily parking variances at the time, and the justification that this Board used in granting the variances at the time was that because these were complimentary uses that we've got the skating and the go kart and the mini golf and an arcade and a laser tag, and that they happen at different times of the year at different, indoor versus outdoor, at different times of the day, older kids and younger kids, and good weather/bad weather in the summer, and this has fortunately been borne out over the last six years. Keith has kept a record, every day, of what parking spaces are left. I should mention right up front that a lot of us that have kids in the community we've dropped them off and,you know,you just hover for a minute and pick them up, especially now with cell phones. So a lot of it isn't parking it's just driving up, dropping your child off and driving up and picking them up, and for that reason it's worked very well. There has never been a situation, and Keith can talk about this,where there wasn't adequate parking, and sometimes when you do all 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) of the, make your arguments and provide the numbers for the Zoning Board, you expect that it's going to pan out and you hope it's going to pan out, and in this case it certainly has because there hasn't been a parking problem in all these years. So for the application, Craig Brown asked us to go recalculate the 257,what it would be,but obviously we have a variance for 118 for everything that's there now for the 118 spaces that exist, and as Laura said in the Staff Notes, the incremental difference for these, to the daycare in the back and the small addition to the laser tag, is seven spaces. So our application is just to relocate spaces and keep it at that 118,because there's no need for additional spaces based upon how the site has operated for all this time and please feel free to grill Keith about that. In terms of the daycare use itself, the State mandates that it has a separate entrance because daycares are so heavily regulated. So that's going to be in the back, and the older kids, most people enter from the front,because that's the obvious entrance that you can see. So the drop off and pick up for the daycare will be in the rear of the facility, not a conflict, and they've had experience, now, because they've got kids in afterschool programs and summer camp programs, which are larger than what they're proposing with the daycare and all at different times, and the daycare would just be during the day itself, not on weekends,which is their peak hour. So for those reasons we feel that it's a complimentary use, not a conflict, and that the site is absolutely adequate the way it is now. Keith,would you like to add anything at this point? KEITH FERRARO MR. FERRARO-I can answer any questions you might have. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we can certainly turn it over to the Board to ask questions at this time. MR. LAPPER-Tom,did you want to add anything? MR. JARRETT-No, Jon described it very well. We did provide a chart, in the application materials that you have, showing all of the uses,the diversity of uses, and we've documented that our current need is approximately 109. There are a couple of days a year that he exceeds 109, but three additional for the daycare would give us a theoretical need of 112. We're asking to stay at the same variance that we were granted six years ago of 118, like Jon described, but I think the chart shows that pretty clearly. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do any Board members have any questions at this time before we open it up for the public hearing? MR. URRICO-At one time you had a reciprocal agreement with the movie theater, whatever was there at the time. How will that work? Davidson Brothers announced their plans? MR. LAPPER-A couple of answers to that, Roy. It's been sort of a handshake, because the current owner always knew that they would be trying to sell. So they never wanted to actually grant something, but it's been available if necessary, and in all this time it hasn't been necessary. What Keith said last night when we were asked that question by the Planning Board, more the people next door are parked in his lot because they'd rather park in the front rather than the back. So it's kind of worked the other way around. They'll certainly approach the Davidson guys and it's the same thing. Probably time of day is going to be different for when you're going to be in a group (lost word) than a lot of this which happens during the day on the weekends, the peak hour, but at this point we'd have to consider that we don't know what the new owners are going to do. MR.URRIC0-But they talked about it being a tourist destination,that it would be a factory store. So there might be more parking space utilized. MR. LAPPER-Yes,but even so, Keith hasn't needed those spaces. That's really the answer,in all this time. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR.JARRETT-There's actually a lot of potential parking in the rear that has not been developed,and if they develop that, that would give the perfect opportunity for shared parking between the two uses. So there's a lot of potential there that's not been tapped so far. MR. GARRAND-What type of potential out back are you talking about? MR.JARRETT-Numbers? MR. GARRAND-Yes. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR.JARRETT-I would say at least 50. 1 have not really calculated,behind,next door. MR. GARRAND-Behind the brew pub? MR.JARRETT-Yes. MR. GARRAND-I've been there before and I've parked over in the theater parking lot just so that I wouldn't have to navigate through that parking lot, and it was kind of a nightmare in the summertime,in the middle of summer it is kind of a nightmare navigating in and out of that parking lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there an opportunity for an interconnect there? I mean, I know Planning Board certainly likes to have those. MR.LAPPER-It's existing. MR.JACKOSKI-I know,that's what I'm getting at. Could that be moved forward instead? MR. GARRAND-I'd like to see some sort of agreement with maybe Davidson Brothers or something. I'd love to see something like that because I parked over there simply because I didn't want my car to get banged up when I was using your facility. It was real busy when I was there. It was in the summer. MR. FREER-So if I ride my bike,is there a place,a bike rack,to do active transportation available? MR. FERRARO-Yes,there is a bike rack. MR. NOONAN-Now is there going to be any kind of buses dropping off kids, I mean is that going to be a problem navigating around that parking lot? MR. FE RRARO-Normally our camp traffic where people come in and do those type of activities is Monday through Friday, normally in the morning obviously because they're under a time constraint as well. So those buses will arrive at our facility anywhere from nine or ten o'clock in the morning and normally leave by one,two,two thirty at the latest. MR. NOONAN-There won't be any buses needed for the daycare at all? MR. FERRARO-We do have one small school bus that we have on property, and that fits into a parking space. MR.JACKOSKI-And does the Queensbury school district allow drop offs at a daycare facility? MR. FERRARO-Yes. They presently drop off to our afterschool program out on Route 9. MR.JACKOSKI-So they get off on 9? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR.URRICO-Lake George does as well,right? MR. FERRARO-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Not across district lines. MR. FERRARO-Correct. So that's why we have our own small school bus. MR. URRICO-I thought they used to supply a special bus at certain times when, okay, maybe I'm wrong. MR. FERRARO-Yes, no, we did explore that opportunity, but Lake George said they would not dismiss their kids beyond their school district boundaries,which is very close. It's just up the road, but it's still beyond their area. MR.NOONAN-So there wouldn't be any spaces needed for large buses,just regular size? s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR. FERRARO-No,the ones I was talking about were camp programs that come in the summertime, and they park out in the middle of the back parking lot, which is before we get busy to the public anyway,because normally the, let's face it,people don't get up early anymore. So it's 11, 12 o'clock before,you know, anybody starts to (lost words) camp activities normally. MR.JACKOSKI-I get up early. MR. FERRARO-Okay. You're the exception. MR.JACKOSKI-Jonathan,you get up early. Tell me, do you ever have tour buses? MR. FERRARO-Yes,we do. MR.JACKOSKI-And how do they navigate the? MR. FERRARO-There haven't been any problems. MR. JACKOSKI-But do they end up using the Davidson, or the future Davidson parcel, or current Davidson parcel? MR. FERRARO-No. They normally park out in the middle of the back parking lot. MR.JACKOSKI-And they can turn it around with all the spaces full? MR. GARRAND-So you're going to have buses parking out there where kids are being dropped off for daycare? MR. FERRARO-The kids are dropped off for daycare very early in the morning between seven thirty and eight thirty before the parents go to work. So those buses aren't there at that point in time. MR. LAPPER-And the back parking lot is not utilized very much. MR. FERRARO-No,except for overflow parking. MR. GARRAND-That's a long walk. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,are you going to offer a golf cart down the street back and forth. MR. FERRARO-But that's another nice thing about this. It would give us an entrance to the back parking lot. I haven't exactly figured out how we'll be able to utilize that in the wintertime for an entrance, but in the summertime for an entrance and an exit, it can be used where people can park out back and come into our facility to buy tickets and use our attractions from the back parking lot much more readily than they can now having to go all the way around the front. MR.URRICO-How will that work? Will you have an entrance in the back parking? MR. FERRARO-Well, there's an entrance that we're proposing in the addition,which is required per New York State for their child care facility, but the child care area is separated from our entertainment center by, it's going to be separated by a biometric scanner and a locked door. So people can come into the facility and if they wanted to get into the child care area, they'd have to have the correct fingerprint to get that door to open to access that part, for security reasons, but they could just pass through the building otherwise to come into our entertainment center say in the summertime. MR.JACKOSKI-So the daycare facility will be open year round? MR. FERRARO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Will it be open during school breaks? MR. FERRARO-Yes,but normally(lost words) on a very limited basis. MR. JACKOSKI-So I wasn't on the Board back when the improvements to the front of the property, but those Board members that were here, I mean, what was the, it seems like it was a significant granting of relief. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR.URRICO-Yes,at that time I think that reciprocal agreement made a big difference. MR.JACKOSKI-But that was supposed to be in formal writing. MR. URRICO-That was an understanding, I think. It wasn't, well we knew that was going to be allowed,so that was considered when we granted that variance. Other than noise issue,which was not a Zoning Board issue,those were the two primary issues. MR. LAPPER-I guess I would just say that people are parking across the property line because they want to be close to the front door, and the back parking lot is still available. The site provides parking even though people have to walk. So the site can accommodate it even though it's less convenient. So even if that's not available with the new owners,they still can accommodate it. MR.JACKOSKI-Tom,is there any way to add ten more spaces? MR.JARRETT-Not this site,well,I say that, not 10. This site can't accommodate 10 more,but there some lawn areas where we can accommodate some overflow parking, and we could get probably, we think, six or seven there,without too much difficulty. Especially in the wintertime when we can plow it hard and then it'll freeze up in the winter. MR.JACKOSKI-I don't know,personally, if I'm seriously concerned about the wintertime as much as those July and August. I mean, I know the facility's really busy right through until October. MR. JARRETT-The advantage we have from six years ago is that Keith can monitor his parking. He hasn't needed more than the 118 that he was granted. I mean,we did have the interconnect shown right there,and it hasn't been needed. MR.JACKOSKI-But it's no longer going to be there. MR.JARRETT-Well,it will be there if we can develop an agreement with this owner. MR.LAPPER-Well,the interconnect has to stay because it's a. MR. JACKOSKI-But you're parking in front of it. How do you drive through it if you're parking in front of it? MR. JARRETT-We're showing parking there, but that would be extinguished in favor of the agreement with the neighbor, if we can get that established. So those three spaces would go away in favor of the interconnect agreement. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think what I'm hearing from Board members who were here is that's a critical component. MR.JARRETT-And right now as it exists there's no real formal parking. MR. URRICO-To be fair, it was a critical component back then. We didn't have the historical perspective that we do now, in terms of what was needed and what was actually used. So that I would not say that that's a concern for me at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So why don't we go ahead and, do you want to open the public hearing and then poll the Board, or do you want to poll the Board first and then open the public hearing? Okay. So why don't we go ahead and open the public hearing,if you guys don't mind. It was advertised for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one. Is there any public comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Nothing written either. I'm going to leave the public hearing open,but I am going to poll the Board, and I won't make any of the new guys go first. So, I usually used to pick on poor Brian on the other end. So, Rick,what are your thoughts? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR. GARRAND-We're adding a use here, a daycare use. We've already got two uses here. The last time around what really swayed me was the fact that they had all that available parking next door, and (lost words). At this point without any kind of agreement next door, adding a use to it, I just can't see it. It just seems like we're adding a need for more parking,whether it be transient or not, it's still a need for more parking. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm going to go down the list test, and I don't think there will be any kind of change to the character of the neighborhood. I think it's pretty much going to be status quo. Even if there is something put next door, there was something next door at one point before that, and that was also along an amusement arena at some point. I think feasible alternatives may be to, somewhere here if we could add a few spaces it would help, I think. Even though the use will be used on a temporary basis, the parking spaces would be mostly drop off. You are going to have some staff there. They're going to need more spaces as well. So that's going to use up some of the spaces that you have. So I would say with the 118 spaces, it's starting to shrink, as a result of that, and if you have some people coming in that are staying there on the property that would make it even less, but I think the number of parking spaces probably, to me, seem adequate. I think even without the reciprocal agreement,whatever comes about,I'm sure there'll be some sort of a process where the two of you come to an understanding, because I think you're going to need each other in that space. The entrance is going to be the same for both of you. So I just have a feeling that's going to work out. So I'm not as concerned with that. I don't think there'll be any environmental impacts, and certainly it's self-created, but I think to me daycare is a natural outgrowth of what's already there. So I would be in favor of it at this point. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Roy. Joyce? MRS.HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I keep thinking back to that K-Mart and all of that, and as you said,you haven't really had a problem in the past, and you do have a little area that you could use,a lawn area that you could use in an emergency. So I would have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I guess I have my thoughts on both sides of the fence, in terms of, I guess one of the concerns I would think, you mentioned that there wasn't much of a worry about traffic in the beginning of the day because of the difference in drop off time the public comes in,but pick up time in the afternoon, that three to five in the summertime, that might, if you have a bus in the back, something to that effect might not work well in the back end. I don't know if there's any, if you hadn't thought about pick up time from school, or from daycare. MR. FERRARO-Well, pick up time basically, as far as the entertainment center is concerned, basically that's different times. Most of our activities are wrapping up around five o'clock. Parents are getting out of work at five o'clock. So our pick up time is mainly between five thirty and six for the daycare aspect of the business. So it's another (lost word) time as far as the entertainment center is concerned. It would be highly unusual for there to be a bus there, and even so, with the diminished demand for the rest of the parking lot it would be easy for them to navigate even with the parents picking up the kids. MR. NOONAN-Okay. Thank you,but I also,on the other side, I went up the street and I counted the parking spots at the other mini golf and go kart place, and 180, I can't remember, something like that, but that place is very busy in the summertime and I feel like I've always been able to find parking there. That Pirates Cove seems to draw a lot more business at times. I don't know the numbers, but I feel that there's always a line at Pirates Cove and I feel like there's always, I've been able to find parking whenever we do go there as well when it is busy. Less parking and from my standpoint means less paved surfaces, more permeable surfaces, more,less runoff, and I'm a fan of that, I mean, I think maybe what I see as a positive does outweigh what 1,my cons to this. MR.JACKOSKI-So, Kyle,you'd be in favor? MR. NOONAN-I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-I also have no problem with it. I think if you could talk to the Davidson Brothers and work out some kind of a deal with the back there,it would be probably a more positive thing,but I'd say no problem also with it. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I think the age group that you're sort of attracting should be more active transportation. So I'm happy that you're encouraging them to ride their bikes instead of have their parents drive them. Save gas and help them. So I can live with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So my only concern is that interconnect. Is there any way of getting three spots back if we were to leave that area open? MR. JARRETT-I can put the overflow on the lawn. We don't technically think we need those three spaces, but I was trying to match the 118 that we had before. So I can designate them on the lawn as overflow, and I've already designed the stormwater system to handle that anyway. So I can remove them from the interconnect and show them as overflow on the lawn. They can be designated for staff. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm going to leave it up to the Planning Board to decide, but, you know, I am concern that if a bus turns in there, and it is a busy day, I don't know how they get out. There's just no real way to navigate if you've got a tour bus that pulls in there to drop, you know, a tour group off and Davidsons decides to maintain their parcel as their parcel. MR. JARRETT-(lost words) loop in the rear, there, a one way loop, change that parking to be a one way loop with an island. MR.JACKOSKI-I see it,and a full size bus can navigate that? MR.JARRETT-I don't want them going through there at 40 miles an hour. It is navigable. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. Okay. So, hearing what we've heard from the Board members,we do, I left the public hearing open. I guess I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-This was,is this a SEQR project? I don't remember. It's Unlisted? MR.URRICO-It's Unlisted. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's good. So does anybody want to ask any more questions? We closed the public hearing. Can I get a motion? MR. LAPPER-You need a SEQR. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct,sorry. A motion for SEQR. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE PROVIDED INFORMATION. THIS BOARD DEEMS THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS SO I MOVE FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2013 KEITH FERRARO - THE FUN SPOT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-And now for the main motion. Do I have a motion to approve the project? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2013 KEITH FERRARO - THE FUN SPOT, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 1035 State Route 9. The applicant has proposed the construction of a 3,529 sq. ft. addition to an existing building for reconfiguration of the laser tag/arcade area of the amusement center and that will include three classrooms for a full day-care facility. A Daycare Center in the Cl zone. Parcel will require area variances as follows. The minimum parking space requirement for combined uses. The applicant has requested that they provide 118 parking spaces where 264 are required, and in making this determination, the 264 number is also the minimum number of parking spaces needed 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) for this amusement center usage in a daycare facility. In making this determination, the Board has considered that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood that would be anticipated, that feasible alternatives may be available, but we've looked at those, and other than possibly meeting with the Davidson Brothers when that becomes possible to come to some sort of agreement which would sort of ease the possibility of a problem there,but would be strongly recommended if we can, and the area variance is 55%, but it does equal what was there prior to this daycare center being put in, and we see little adverse effects on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood, and the difficulty may be considered self-created. I move that we approve this Area Variance. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2013 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ERIC LE FLEUR OWNER(S) ERIC LE FLEUR ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 67 SUNSET TRAIL APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,152 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED IS FOR A SECOND GARAGE AS WELL AS FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE GARAGE SIZE. CROSS REF BP 8171 YR 1983 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-39 SECTION 179-5-020 D ERIC LE FLEUR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2013, Eric LeFleur, Meeting Date: March 20, 2013 "Project Location: 67 Sunset Trail Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,152 sq.ft.freestanding garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Second garage as well as from the maximum allowable garage size. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be not to build a second garage or increase the existing garage to the maximum size allowed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional garage where only one is allowed may be considered substantial. The request for 4.7% more building sq.ft.may be considered minimal to the size allowed for parcels less than 5 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 8171 1983 SFD construction 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add a second garage to the parcel to be located to the rear of the property. The plans show the proposed garage is accessed by an existing gravel drive that the applicant has indicated existed prior to the purchase of the home. The applicant has also provided an elevation drawing and internal layout of the proposed garage. The applicant has indicated to expand the existing garage would require relocation of the existing well, a change to the driveway, and a change to the roofline. The second variance request is to have a detached garage larger than the maximum size of 1,100 sq. ft. where the applicant has indicated that it is only slightly larger than the allowed size. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. JACKOS KI-Welcome. This is really easy. You've done a lot of these before. So we'll, if you want to add anything to the record, please feel free to do so. Otherwise we can just open it up to questions. Great. You've got a nice big parcel there. Does anyone have any questions at this time? I mean,I have a few. MR. FREER-I guess my question is why did you need the larger than normal allowed? Are you going to put your boat in there? Is that the? MR. LE FLEUR-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. LE FLEUR-That just happens to be the plan I came up with. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-That was one of my questions, too. So just for the record. Just to get it on the record. Okay, and I know that we're slightly over the 1100 square feet. To me it's negligible, but, any other questions at this time? MR.FREER-Have we heard from any of the neighbors? MR. JACKOSKI-We'll get to that in public comment. So we do have a public hearing scheduled. I'll open up the public hearing then we'll poll the Board after the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this? We do have someone. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LAURA COLES MS. COLES-My name is Laura Coles. I own a house directly across the street. A couple of the neighbors actually that are in Florida called me about this because they had my phone number because they said,gosh,we just got this letter in the mail, and I said,well I just got it in the mail,too, and haven't had a chance to see as to. So between myself and the neighbors we have seven questions. Just because we like to know what's going on in the neighborhood. We wanted to know a little bit more in detail exactly where the site was going to be. You're putting it where your existing shed is currently and so will it replace the existing shed or be an addition to the existing shed? MR.JACKOSKI-In addition. MS. COLES-In addition to the existing shed. MR. JACKOSKI-And we can get all these questions for you. So if you want to go through them all and we'll follow up. MS. COLES-Sure. Location on the site,whether it's replacing the existing shed or it's an addition to the existing shed. Will it be visible from the street? I know your boat. I know where you currently are at it kind of dips down. So maybe your height will still be hidden from the rest of the neighborhood or what have you. Will the facade match the existing house. I drove the street today 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) myself and everybody else on the street that has a detached item has made it so that it matches the facade work among the house, that it fits the character of the rest of the house on the lot. Concern over, would it be just storage or was it going to have heat, water and etc., and at some point five years from now someone's going to come in and say, oh, now we want to make it a mother-in-law house or whatever. Okay. You made a comment that the gravel drive was pre-existing the purchase. That's not right. That was added. Only because I've been in that house for seven years. So then the question was was that going to remain gravel or are you planning to pave that to make it more permanent or permeable or not? And again, I only came because I just got this two days ago and a couple of neighbors did call me and say what do you know, you live across the street, and I said, gosh, I'm surprised, I didn't hear anything about it until I got this letter in the mail. I haven't had a chance to walk across the street and ask him in the last 24 hours. So don't take it personally, but the neighbors want to know. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and it's actually always nice that the neighbors, you know, obviously you guys have a nice relationship. So it's always nice that everybody get well informed on a project before we move forward. So a lot of the questions that the neighbors have. MS. COLES-Probably are consistent with. MR.JACKOSKI-We ask the same questions. MS. COLES-I've been in front of you guys before on other projects. So I kind of have a list. MR.JACKOSKI-And one question always is screening,and,you know,what kind of landscaping. MS. COLES-Right. MR.JACKOSKI-But usually taken care of by the Planning Board. MS.COLES-So it's going to be (lost words)the existing shed. MR. FREER-Well,you're not going to get your boat out of there tomorrow. There's a lot of snow. (Conversation between applicant and public,not on the microphone) MS. COLES-That's all I had. Just please be aware. MR. JACKOSKI-That's okay. We'll ask the questions. We'll get follow up. There is no one else in the audience looking to make public comment. Is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-Not that I can find. MR. JACKOSKI-So there is no written comment. So obviously, I mean, the neighbors do, of course, want to know a little bit more about screening and what kind of driveway. I think it is important to understand,is it going to be a paved driveway or is it going to be a gravel drive? MR. LE FLEUR-Well,it's gravel now. It's going to stay that way. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So it's going to stay gravel. So that's fine, and obviously there's a lot of trees there,and can you maybe talk a little bit about your tree clearing plan. MR. LE FLEUR-Where the proposed garage would be there's no trees in the way at all right now. MR. JACKOSKI-So, and that driveway will stay the same width and there's no intent to, you know, because you're backing boats in there's no intent to clear some more trees to make it all (lost word). MR. LE FLEUR-No, and that was an existing, I got a permit last year for that. Well, it wasn't existing, but the back end of the driveway, about 40 feet was, he had it there, he had a boat stored there before with a temporary garage. MR.JACKOSKI-So he had a crushed laid down there? MR. LE FLEUR-Yes. So basically that's where the garage is. MR. JACKOSKI-As far as the siding is concerned, can you maybe tell us a little bit about your color scheme and how you plan to match the existing house? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR. LE FLEUR-Well, that's a big problem, and that's one of the reasons I couldn't expand my existing garage because the bricks are Adirondack rustic bricks and the company is out of business. It's impossible to get them or even come anything close to match. MR.JACKOSKI-But you're not planning on neon pink or yellow or electric blue? MR. LE FLEUR-Vinyl, whatever I can get to match as close as I can to the brick. It's not going to be easy,but. MR.JACKOSKI-But it won't be white. MR. LE FLEUR-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Or off white. So,yes,we don't expect you to build a brick garage MR. LE FLEUR-Yes, I would if I could, at least the face to make it match up, because my intent was (lost word). MR.JACKOSKI-The garage doors themselves,what color will they be? MR. LE FLEUR-Good question. I haven't really thought about that because my color scheme's kind of tan on the building I'm thinking to match. MR.JACKOSKI-It's just that those doors are so large that a big white garage door would be. ?(Lost word) something not to be so conspicuous. It's a nice neighborhood and we want to leave that blend. MR. LE FLEUR-Yes. Landscaping is nice around the house. I plan on landscaping around it real nice. White would be a problem as far as doors go. MR.JACKOSKI-And are you planning to run utilities out? I mean, obviously electricity. MR. LE FLEUR-Just electricity. MR.JACKOSKI-But what about water and sewer? MR. LE FLEUR-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Heat? MR. LE FLEUR-Just if I'm out there working. MR.JACKOSKI-Working,or if it's 50 degrees,keep the boat up,and the second story? No lofts? MR. LE FLEUR-So there could never be an apartment. There's not going to be any upstairs storage. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, and we do note that there's trusses. Any other questions from Board members? MR. URRICO-I have a semantical question. Are we actually dealing with a variance for a second garage, not necessarily a garage that exceeds the maximum of? If it was one garage, we would consider the size of it. Because we're considering a second garage, as far as I know there are no rules for a second garage,if it's granted,in terms of size. MR.JACKOSKI-I understood we have two things going on here,was a second garage and the square footage. MRS.MOORE-That's what the variance is. MR.URRICO-Total square footage. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.URRICO-And not just for the second garage. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Total square footage of the entire building. I don't know what you're saying, Roy. MR.URRICO-Well,are we dealing with the 1156 square feet. MRS. HUNT-It says it, too, a second garage as well as maximum allowable garage size. So those are two variances. MR.URRICO-Okay. Yes. MR. HENKEL-It says 1100 square feet is the maximum. They're going to 1152. MR.URRICO-So if we grant it,we're granting a variance for the second garage, and then another one for the maximum allowable garage size? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-That's correct. MR.URRICO-Okay. I said it was semantic. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. No, it's good to make sure we get all this. Okay. Are there any other questions from Board members? I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I guess we can get a quick polling of the Board. We'll start with Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I don't see any major problems. I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem. I think it's, we had this before where people have wanted a second garage,where they could not enlarge the first one,and I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I also have no problem with it as long as the neighbors are all right with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Same here. No problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Normally I would be concerned about two variances for a garage and also having a second garage and I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with this. So I'm going to say no for now. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm not comfortable with the second garage on a small parcel. Traditionally we have allowed second garages on large parcels, especially where there's been (lost word) applications and the need to store equipment and stuff,but at this point I couldn't be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Would you folks be willing to give up the little shed? MR. LE FLEUR-I'd rather not, but I mean, if that's what it comes down to. I mean, we're talking a foot and a half bigger than (lost word). MR.JACKO SKI-I understand. In the past we've kind of stayed firm on how many little buildings are on each parcel. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) MR. LE FLEUR-I mean, I'm under the maximum, I'm way under the minimum, or the maximum building. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,that shed is how many square feet? MR. LE FLEUR-It's 120 I believe. MR.JACKOSKI-And the Code is 100 square feet,right? MRS.MOORE-No,its 120. MR.JACKOSKI-Is it 120? He doesn't need a building permit. MR. LE FLEUR-The previous owner had a permit for the shed. MR.JACKOSKI-And you'll keep as much the trees that are there now on site as possible? Okay. I'm okay with it,too. MR. LE FLEUR-I'm going to plant some more and do the landscaping around it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay. I mean, I like the fact that you've acknowledge that it's a very nice neighborhood there and that you're hoping to,you know,and you did site it way in the back. MR. LE FLEUR-Trying to keep it minimum impact as possible. MR.JACKOSKI-Hopefully you won't have great big blue tarps covering the boat. MR. LE FLEUR-No. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have five approvals. So I'm going to, I guess,this is a Type II SEQR. So we don't need a SEQR. So I guess we'll look for a motion. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2013 ERIC LE FLEUR, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 67 Sunset Trail. The applicant proposes construction of a 1,052 sq. ft. freestanding garage. The parcel will require variances as follows: Second garage as well as from the maximum allowable garage size. In determining this, there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. The feasible alternatives are rather limited for the owner. It's impossible to build connecting to the house and he probably wouldn't want that anyhow. It wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. Request for 4.7% more square footage may be considered minimal, and the request for additional garage is substantial, but the garage is 68 feet from the street and will not be really visible from the street, and there will be minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and the difficulty may be considered self-created. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 6- 2013. Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. Good luck to the neighbors. Maybe you'll get invited to another party at that house. Okay. Is there any other business to be brought in front of the Board this evening? MR. FREER-I want to know if any of the people in the audience know what SEQR stands for. MR. JACKOSKI-All right, students. Thank you very much for attending. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/20/2013) Duly adopted this 20th day of March, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Good evening. It's 8:09. How wonderful. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 19