Loading...
04-24-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24,2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners,LLC 1. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 thru 35 Area Variance No. 52-2012 LARIC Development 14. Tax Map No. 308.12-1-3 and 7.1 Area Variance No. 11-2013 Kathryn Tabner Revocable Trust/Jodi Tabner-Thayer 17. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-23 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT JOHN HENKEL RICHARD GARRAND MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this evening's Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting,April 24th here at 7 o'clock p.m. For those of you who haven't been here in the past,on the back table there is a sheet that briefly explains our process. It's quite easy. We'll call up each application. The applicant will sit at the table and we'll read the application into the record. We'll have the applicant give us some additional information. We will have Board members ask questions. We'll open up the public hearing when it's been advertised and then we'll take it from there and possibly have resolution. So this evening we have three items on the agenda, and the first item this evening under Old Business is Queensbury Partners, LLC. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SEQRA TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK RDS APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT.. ON A 34.05 ACRE PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL AND MULTIFAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL USE SETBACK FROM BAY ROAD AND FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE ZONE. CROSS REF SP 62-2011; FWW 6-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2013 LOT SIZE 34.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THRU 35 SECTION 179-3-040 JEFF MEYER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC, Meeting Date: April 24, 2013 "Project Location: Corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a total of 56,180 sq.ft.. of commercial development distributed between five (5) buildings and development of 175 residential apartment units distributed between 11 buildings to include 93 residential units within four (4) of the proposed commercial structures. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Variances required as presented: 1. Residential units within 300 feet of Bay Road Professional Office setback line as per§179-3- 040B(2)(a)[1]. 2. Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO) - First floor canopies,awnings and pergolas only, not for habitable structure per§179-3-040B(2)(b)[2] 3. Building Front setback on Blind Rock Road-75 foot front setback requirement as per§179- 3-040B(2)(b)[7]. 4. Height-maximum 40 ft.. allowed per§179-3-040B(2)(b)[9]. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) 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. Impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated as this area has not seen this type of development for greater than 10 years. The comprehensive plan did consider the land uses in this area as what is being proposed. 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. The applicant's proposal has changed significantly based on the discussion with the Planning Board and Zoning Board during the joint meeting held in December 2012.The number of variances requested was reduced to 4. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Residential units to be located 75 ft.. from Bay Road where 300 ft. is required; First floor canopies, awnings and pergolas to be located 50 ft. from Bay Road where 75 ft. is required; Buildings on Blind Rock Road to be located 48 ft. from front property line where 75 ft. is proposed. The location of the buildings and work activity takes into account the topography and typology on the site for the three setback requested variances can be considered minimal to moderate. The fourth variance for Building height is to be 47 ft. where a maximum of 40 ft. is allowed can be considered minimal noting the height is to mask rooftop mechanicals. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Planning Board will be conducting a SEQR review using the long form to determine if the project will be considered adverse. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SB 13-1999: 35.12 acre parcel - 14 commercial lots Approved 8/15/2000 SP 62-2011: Pending Staff comments: The Planning Board and Zoning Board met in a joint session in December of 2012 -minutes attached. The applicant considered the Boards comments and has incorporated them within the plan. SEQR Status: Type I" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board also passed a resolution that based on its limited review they had not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. This was adopted April 23rd,and it was passed unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mr. Fuller,welcome. MR. MEYER-Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Fitzgerald Morris Baker and Firth, here on behalf of the applicant, Queensbury Partners, and with me from the LA Group is Mr. Brovastin. We're here to present and request the formal variance applications. As everyone here knows and the Town is most likely aware, you know, we've been at this for quite some time. Between the original concept and where we are today, we've removed I think it's over 30 different variance requests,completely rearranged and scaled the project down to something that was in line with the Town Comprehensive Plan and the Town zoning. Yes, there's still four variances that we're requesting, and it's our opinion that those variances are minimal, and were only done for the benefit of the Town. It makes it more environmentally friendly. Were completely avoiding the wetland area. We've completely avoided all slopes. We have the roads essentially away from Bay and Blind Rock. We've worked very hard in designing it to create the town center/village center type feel. It's a mixed use project which is in line with, you know, some of the property, or the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) property on the other side of Blind Rock, and as you head down Bay Road toward the City of Glens Falls. This project has the benefit of the wetland complex in back as opposed to up front. On some of the properties, once you get past ACC,but,you know, it was designed with that in mind and to fit in with what the Town of Queensbury is expecting and requesting. If you go through the variance criteria, we had submitted it previously, and we have,you know, some of the proposed responses, in our view. Whether there's an undesirable change to the neighborhood character, we don't believe so. As I said before, it's in line with the existing development. You have the neighboring uses that are all fairly similar. You look at the existing setbacks,whether it's the new credit union that's just gone in and some of the houses as you get further down Bay Road, the apartments and some of the other professional office buildings, they're all kind of set along similar setbacks, and in terms of neighborhood character, the intent is to almost kind of create its own neighborhood character. That's one of the purposes of mixed use, and why we're pleased with the project that we've presented to the Town. If you're looking at some of the other things, some of the height and the 50 foot encroachment and the setbacks. Those are based on design details. It's not necessarily livable space. It's pergolas. It's to make the roof more attractive. It's to hide the mechanicals and the units essentially for the betterment of the project and for the Town and its neighbors. Whether or not there's feasible alternatives. We've poured through this project a number of times. The alternatives are all, in our opinion, a detriment to the Town. It would require flipping the buildings and the roads, which,you know, isn't visually attractive. It isn't in keeping with the proper design and it,long term,would end up creating more problems than it would solve. You have the aesthetic pergolas, some of the walking areas. They're still set back quite a ways from Bay and Blind Rock, but they're all design improvements. There's no,necessarily, extreme benefit to the applicant. It's more designed with the Town in mind. Whether the variance is substantial. If you're going to look at numbers and percentages,you can manipulate numbers. So everything's substantial. In looking at this project, some of the numbers are larger than others. The 300 feet from Bay Road is a big number,but if you view it as,you know, the first floor isn't residential,which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and what the Town desires, you know, so if you are only looking at the first floor residential, we do meet that, and it's not as large of a number as it may appear, and again, the roof heights and things like that, it's a number. By the percentages, it could be larger than others, but it's a design improvement, and we're not inside the Park, so the 40 foot isn't necessarily the bible. In looking at the adverse environmental impacts, the Planning Board thoroughly reviewed the project through the SEQR,the Long Form EAF. We designed the project ready to go to Site Plan, knowing that the Board would want it and would want to know the answers to that question in order to make its decision. The Planning Board found that there were no significant adverse impacts. If you balance the potential impacts versus what's actually been done,whether it's traffic or avoiding the wetlands, we think it's a positive, and that we satisfy that as well. Whether a project is self-created, any time you build something it's going to be arguably self-created. We've done everything we can to mitigate it,and when you balance the equities,you know,we think that it tips in our favor. Knowing that this one factor can't and shouldn't preclude granting of a variance, we've done the best we could. We've engineered this extensively and we've brought our engineers and we're happy to answer any questions that the Board or the public may have. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. What happens to those setbacks if the road is put like,you know, if you could put like two lanes each way? That's going to definitely cause problems with those setbacks. I mean,you've got,you know,some of those setbacks are,what, 48 feet or? MR. MEYER-Fifty feet I believe is the smallest. MR.HENKEL-Is it? Okay. MR. MEYER-And that was actually, it was designed under the potential of having a turn lane. So, you know, adding that lane, and I believe there was an agreement at the Planning Board that it would be reviewed,if not at that time,but within a couple of years of the project actually going in to see if it was necessary, and it's still, you know, would chew into the setback a little bit, but not substantially because when the State came through and the County came through to widen and clean up Bay,you know,they acquired a lot of this property already. MR.HENKEL-So you're not saying much land, 50 feet,how much are you going to get into that? MR. BROVASTIN-If they add in the lane on Bay and Blind Rock? The travel lane is roughly 12 feet. There's more than 12 feet from the edge of road to our property line now. So it would just be grading into our property, which means we'd be granted to do that, but effectively the distance would be the same to the property line. The road may appear closer, but the property line's not 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) going to change. Unless there's a taking or a need for that, some additional land, but it should be able to fit within those areas, adding another lane. MR. URRICO-But if the road is widened, then the setback becomes more of an issue because if the road is widened. MR. BROVASTIN-If the right of way is widened? Because the road can widen. There's some distance between the edge of pavement on Blind Rock and Bay to the property line. MR.URRICO-Well,the question is,the setback is more of an issue. MR. MEYER-It would visually change,but it may not necessarily impact the variance because there's already room on the property lines from which the variance was measured. MR. HENKEL-Then how come they're not stating that as far as? MR. BROVASTIN-Because the variances are taken from the property line itself not from the edge of pavement line. So the edge of pavement,there's additional room to widen that road. That would not cause us to take any more property from, so the variance wouldn't change, but the cars would then be coming closer to the site. So visually the cars would be an additional 12 feet closer to the buildings. I think that's what you're asking. MRS. HUNT-Yes, but I have a question. What is the elevation of the buildings in front visa vie the street, Bay Road? MR. MEYER-They're 47 feet in total height,and I believe. MRS. HUNT-I don't mean that elevation. I mean the ground level, right, from Bay Road to the buildings. MR. BROVASTIN-The road at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock will be actually higher than the finished floor of the building on the corner. It will, the building will rise up to the midpoint where the entrance of the road comes in, off of that road, where the boulevard entrance, where the one entrance does come in. It will rise up with the grade of the road,so that at that point it'll be slightly higher than the road,but in the corner it will be three to four feet lower than the road at this time. MR. JACKOSKI-Why do we keep putting this seating area, picnic area, whatever it is, right on that main corner? I mean, to me it seems like if you do have a major accident that somebody could easily wipe out that area of seating. I just don't understand why we keep putting a seating area so close to a major intersection. Who would want to sit there on that corner, besides some little kid selling lemonade? I just don't understand why you would want that seating area there. MR. MEYER-It's a distance away. It is for aesthetics. MR.JACKOSKI-It sure doesn't feel it. MR. HENKEL-It's going to be a distance away if you're talking only 48 feet there. That doesn't give you much room. MR. MEYER-The way the road is designed now, it's more than that because you have the 12 foot travel lane and things which we just discussed. It also makes for prettier pictures when it's drawn out with some walkways and some landscaping and screening. MR. BROVASTIN-The area between Blind Rock and that seating area would be planted with trees. So if there are any accidents going into that road, going into that area, it would be mitigated by those trees before it gets to the, anybody sitting in those areas. It would be nice to use an outdoor space and a patio within a community center for food services, those types of restaurants would enjoy those spaces and want those,see them as an asset for coming here. MR.JACKOSKI-I just don't see it on that corner. I think it's dangerous. PETER FAITH MR. FAITH-My name is Peter Faith. I did the traffic impact study for this, and these you have how far off a structure should be from a highway, it's something called a clear zone in highway design, and it's something that highway engineers constantly have to review for safety and when guiderails 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) are warranted, and a typical clear zone for a road like this is about 10 feet off the edge of the through lane, if you will. I think we talked about some of these (lost words) 48 feet back. It's well beyond the clear zone, the area that you want to keep open for errant vehicles. So it's really not in the path of what a highway designer would consider something that, an obstacle in the path of an errant vehicle. MR. MEYER-And this is also with future tenants and developments in mind. There is limited outside seating for restaurants within, the closer you get to the City of Glens Falls, there's very few restaurants with outside seating, and where they are,they're literally in parking lots. The outside seating is screened. It has the other visual attractions, and it is,you know, an attractive feature for a potential client. If, ultimately, the restaurant doesn't want to go in there, it's something that may never be built, but it's an attractive feature to have, and it's of limited quantity in the Town of Queensbury and we think an asset to the project. MR.JACKOSKI-And there's no way to move these buildings so that you don't have to require 27 feet of relief on that 7S foot setback on Blind Rock? There's just 27 feet. There's no way to move those to the south? MR.MEYER-Not without impacting the wetland. MR. BROVASTIN-We're really on a steep slope coming down to that wetland as it is. MR.JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself,please. DAN GALUSHA MR. GALUSHA-Yes, I'm Dan Galusha. I think what we looked at before was trying to put the buildings next to the wetlands and a road out there, but, you know, that was an issue. People wanted to see the road in the back and the impact on wetlands. So that's kind of how that got flipped around. We originally met that,but. MR. GARRAND-During the subsequent meetings we had asked you guys to back off the wetlands. MR. GALUSHA-Exactly. MR. GARRAND-So that was us. MR.GALUSHA-And what happened here in the front,I mean,what you're looking at there is more of a decorative wall, if you will. I mean, it was more for aesthetics that the Planning Board was trying to get at, to try to make it a Town center, not necessarily as a, I don't know how many people are going to be seated there,but very little. MR. HENKEL-Is that going to (lost word) any drainage ditches at all? MR. GALUSHA-Well,there will be next to the turning lane, or next to the highway there, there's got to be a drainage. There's got to be a swale. I mean, it was more for aesthetics than anything else, to try to make it a Town center,if you will. That's really why it's there. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? I do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. As part of the public hearing, I think what we'll do this time is, do we have any written comment to read into the record,first,and then we'll open it up to the public. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-We do. "Queensbury Zoning Board RE: Queensbury Partners' Fowler Square Proposal I am unable to attend tonight's meeting and ask that the Zoning Board Chairman read this letter at the beginning of the public hearing and into the minutes, so that my time is not deducted from someone else who wishes to speak. With all due respect to those Zoning Board members who work hard to represent the best interests of the community, the Zoning Board gradually and steadily is being inured to a proposal that blatantly violates the zoning code for setback and height. Over the past decade it has been clear that Queensbury Partners has wanted to build a large residential development on their property at the southwest corner of Blind Rock and Bay Road, contrary to the zoning code. As part of the Bay Road corridor, this property has long been intended for professional offices and other developers have complied with this vision. Ever since Queensbury Partners' 2004 proposal for a 174 unit multi-family development was soundly defeated after significant objections from the community at large, Queensbury Partners has made S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) every effort to convince the Town, Planning and Zoning Boards to acquiesce. Their tactics have included convincing the Town Board (as part of the updated 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan) to reduce the setback for residences from 1000 to 300 feet, a provision that applied to few other parcels since most of the corridor had already been developed with the 1000 foot setback. More recently, they attempted to get the Town to designate a special zone for their parcel This was tabled when Town Supervisor Dan Stec suggested a joint committee of Zoning and Planning Boards to resolve their"differences" on the project. Dan probably recognized that granting a new zone for one parcel owned by politically connected individuals was indefensible and also unwise while running for the NY State Assembly. Since then, Queensbury Partners has had many opportunities to present its gradually evolving proposal to the Planning and Zoning Boards, largely without the opportunity for public comment. It has been difficult for the public to keep track when it seems only immediately adjacent landowners have received written notification of public hearings. It is also difficult to keep changing petition language to fit the proposal as it changes. The last petition which will be partially presented tonight dates back to objections over changing the zoning for just that one parcel last year. The underlying concerns of the citizens have not changed; they don't want such significant variances granted to benefit one developer and they don't want land intended for offices to be converted to residential. The current Fowler Square proposal completely ignores even the reduced 300 foot setback for residential units along Bay Road and also requests variance for a 48 foot setback along Blind Rock Road. The project is mostly residential, with apartments above the first floor of the retail/office building setback 75 feet from Bay Road. Last night, Planning Board member Don Krebs stated that it was the Planning Board that caused the Queensbury Partners to require variances from the zoning code. This is disingenuous and misleading. The Planning Board did not require apartments above the first floor of the retail/office building. To the contrary, I was present at a Planning Board meeting when members of the Planning Board told Queensbury Partners that those floors needed to be office space. Further, the proposal reserves the southern section of the property for future undetermined development, which adds to the eventual density. Queensbury Partners should not be allowed to later develop this section as residential; it should be restricted to office use. Don't let your exhaustion over the thousands of pages and many hours since spent over this plot of land deter you from holding this landowner to the code. There have been far too many opportunities for Queensbury Partners to present their case to you without public comment. they have lead you down this path to approval without changing what is objectionable about this project to the community, as evidenced in petitions collected in 2004 and last year. There are other issues that need to be addressed by the Planning Board, such as traffic and future sewer pump station upgrades due to the density of the project. The nanotech park in Malta is progressing. It takes time, but eventually there will be demand for office space in Queensbury for businesses auxiliary to nanotech, such as engineering firms with good paying jobs. Don't do what Dan Stec avoided last year by unofficially re-zoning some of the last easily developable land in Queensbury to more residential use,which places a greater demand on municipal services than the tax revenues it generates. Much of the undeveloped land left in Queensbury has water, access or space issues. Please don't give this developer special treatment and set a very unfortunate precedent. Kathleen Sonnabend 55 Cedar Court Queensbury, NY 12804" MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any other written comment? MR.URRICO-I did not find any,but I'll keep looking. MR.JACKOSKI-So,while Roy is continuing to look for written public comment, is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this matter? We actually do have several folks. Mr. Brothers? PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Thanks,Steve. MR.JACKOSKI-You're welcome. MR. BROTHERS-Just quickly. I'm not opposed to any development. I do feel, though, that the specific concerns about the loss of valuable land for office space, putting any kind of business there, and businesses, of course, create jobs, and I think many, if not everyone here, would agree that we need jobs created, as opposed to this project here with the apartments, maybe jobs for tradesmen and other workers in the beginning, but afterwards maybe a maintenance person here and there, whatever, for the facility, but other than that, it's not really sustainable financially for taxpayers as would be commercial professional office, and I just feel that the variances are too significant and would like to see a focus on the businesses, you know, the commercial and/or professional office, and that's my comments. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Sir? DOUG AUER MR. AUER-My name is Doug Auer, 16 Oakwood Drive. As Yogi Berra famously said many, many years ago, this is de ja vu all over again. I was here nine years ago almost to the day when this was first presented. Precious little has changed since then on this. If anybody would like,in addition to the letter that was written, I have that here. They can have that, but I have here over 300 signatures signed by residents in the area that we did back in December when this was being talked about by the Town Board, and these people couldn't grab this away fast enough. The specifics of this are on this. So there's no charades with this. They knew exactly what they were signing. So there's a significant number of folks here that read this, were aware of it. It's sad that they don't show up, but, you know, they were willing to put their black letter type signature on this. So I'm going to present this for the consideration of the Board. Now, I was here originally because I worked for Rich Schermerhorn. I was a staff engineer with him at the time, and what we saw, and obviously I was being paid to represent him,but I'm here tonight, not paid by anybody. I'm here as Doug Auer, concerned citizen. What I said back nine years ago is exactly the same as I'm going to say tonight. No one else on Bay Road has had to ask for this kind of a variance, and if you look at all of the other buildings,what Valente is doing in front of Baybridge, he's following the Code. What Rich Schermerhorn did with his large two story building,he followed the Code, all the setbacks, and you notice they didn't put any sitting areas or any of that other mumbo jumbo out in front of it. There are walking trails in behind that. Now, this clearly, clearly has been an attempt to use the term, if you've ever heard the term a blivit. This is a blivit. Okay. I don't know if you're familiar with that term. I'm not going to tell you the definition of it, but this is a blivit, but the reality of it, that this property doesn't lend itself to this kind of a gargantuan building. There is no building on Bay Road that has that height associated with it, and this is driven solely by the need to put two more stories of residential on top of a commercial space. Now, I'll say this to you with absolute certainty, Rich Schermerhorn never built, and he's arguably one of the most successful builders in Upstate New York, hands down. He has never built a building that has commercial space on the bottom and apartments over the top of it. I will submit to you that five years from now, that is going to go vacant, and they'll figure out a way that they'll turn that into apartments,because they'll come and say,gee whiz,we couldn't very well rent this space. Nobody is,this is Queensbury, folks. This is not Downtown Glens Falls. So I'd love to see the marketing study that they did that would show the efficacy to this. I'd submit,again,that it doesn't exist. The bottom line on all of this is that this project is no different than it was nine years ago. The Planning Board, at the time, was like overwhelmed by this, and the Zoning Board, I don't even know if there was a vote on this. I don't remember anymore,but I don't believe so. I think they folded the tents,but these folks have a lot of patience, and make no mistake about it,there's a lot of money riding on this. The developers stand to do quite well if this comes to fruition. I'm not quite sure that they're going to do as well as they think they are with the commercial space on the bottom. Who wants to put an office in a place that has apartments over it? Who knows what kind of problems you run into? What are you going to do if you've got children are running around upstairs? I mean,these aren't not specious arguments. This is reality. Do you want to go into a law office and be talking to somebody about divorce or whatever and having people jumping around upstairs, hear loud music or whatever, there's a restaurant downstairs and somebody trying to sleep upstairs? It doesn't make any sense. It's crazy. This could be done, if Rich Schermerhorn owned that property, I guarantee you he'd do something that would look nice, be functional, and he wouldn't have to ask for a single variance on it. Because he's never asked for one on Bay Road, not one. Jon Lapper's outside. You can ask him. So, and I'm tired, I'm sick and tired of watching the erosion, the continuous erosion of what a lot of good people did. You folks stand on the shoulders of those that came before you. This all didn't just happen. This happened because good people did what they needed to do. I know my time is up, but,you know, think about that for a second. What we have is because critical thinking people did what was right. Do what is right with this, okay. Don't feel sorry for these guys. They're all millionaires. The lawyers are doing what they're being paid for, and they're being paid handsomely for that. I paid nothing for this, all right, it's just my time, and I'm not crazy. I'm passionate about this. Don't confuse passion with craziness. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Auer. Is there anyone else here this evening in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one else in the audience, is there any additional written comment? MR.URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-I will leave the public hearing open. Mr. Meyer, if you could come back to the table and maybe address some of the comments made. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR.AUER-I have some petitions. MR.JACKOSKI-Laura will take the petitions,Mr.Auer. Thank you. MR.AUER-Thank you. MR. MEYER-Again, my name is Jeff Meyer. We have a project that has a great deal of commercial space. There's retail, professional offices. Yes, there's a residential component. The residential component has consistently been scaled back to meet the requirements of the Town and the Town Code. In terms of units, we're well within our densities. In terms of looking around at the neighborhood and the adjoining properties, you know,we are in line with the community and the community character. We'd just, I guess, request to focus back on the variances that are being requested and why we're here. Mr. Auer and Ms. Sonnabend raised some planning issues which are being addressed and will be addressed,but in looking at the variances that are being requested, the office space that is being provided, as well as the commercial and the potential retail, restaurants and things of that nature, it is in line with what the Town has requested in its comprehensive plan, put forward in its zoning, and what the Town Board, Planning Board and we believe this Board is relatively in keeping with those requirements. MR. JACKOSKI-So a couple of things that were addressed in the letter was that the Queensbury Partners were told by the Planning Board at the Planning Board meeting to make those floors office space. Can you address that? MR. MEYER-I'm going to ask Mr. Galusha to come forward,because I wasn't at that specific meeting. Perhaps he can address it. MR. GALUSHA-What was your question again? MR. JACKOSKI-In the Sonnabend letter it is noted that at the meeting, the Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board told Queensbury Partners that those floors needed to be office space. MR. GALUSHA-As far as that comment, I don't really recall exactly what that conversation was, but in light of what we're trying to do, we're trying to look at more of a service oriented village, if you will. There is an office component to it, but we're looking more for like a restaurant and like a dry cleaner, more of a, you know, like service oriented, and the residential component of it kind of mixes together with it. I mean, we've done, we haven't personally done it, but we've done a lot of site work for these types of buildings and units within the area, Saratoga, Clifton Park. So we're very familiar with what the demographics are and how that works, and, you know, this is kind of what the Town has wanted us to do. I mean, originally, we brought in a plan that was totally compliant to what the zoning was, and we were ready to go do that, and we were asked to do this, and I think we took a lot of time, you know, they say we didn't go to the neighbors. We did. We had a meeting here. We took a,you know,we did a lot of those things on our own. We were asked to do them and we did. Pretty much everything that we've done here has been asked by either residents, Town Board members, Planning Board members, Zoning. We've tried to take everybody's ideas and build them into this project to try to please as many people as we could. Are we going to please everybody? Probably not, but we're doing what we've been asked to do on this project,and that's why we're here tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. In addition to that letter, it says that the southern section of the property is being reserved for future undetermined development. Could you address that,too,please. MR. GALUSHA-Well, basically we have committed that the residential component of this project isn't going to change. What we looked at there is if someone came in and wanted a big office or whatever,we would like to have the flexibility to do that,but as you well know, office space,there's a lot of it, and I think it's,this is something different. I understand everybody's concern, but like I say,we've done these projects and we're very familiar with how these things work and they've been very successful in other areas, and that's why that's reserved, but the, you know, people say we're going to convert the office to residential, that is not true. We have a density. We've committed to that density,and that's what it is. MR. HENKEL-Is the acreage available to the other parcel that you have there? MR. GALUSHA-I don't know the acreage. MR. BROVASTIN-Less than five acres. It would be somewhere in the range of three to four on that southern building. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. MEYER-And anything that would eventually be built would still have to be compliant with the Code and the density requirements. None of those things are going to change. MR. GALUSHA-Correct. It's not smoke and mirrors. I've been at this thing way too long. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to accomplish what everybody's asking me to do, and it's been very difficult to do that. MR. HENKEL-These developments work out very nicely. I've seen, you know, of course the ones in Saratoga that(lost word) has a very nice. MR. GALUSHA-Yes,this is very,very similar to that project. MR. HENKEL-Price Chopper on the bottom there and the apartments on top. They have them down south. This is a little different situation. It's kind of outside the town. MR. GALUSHA-If you go down on Weibel Avenue, we're doing a project right there now, that's almost identical to this project. MR. HENKEL-But that is all office space on the bottom floors? MR. GALUSHA-It's office. It's not residential,no,it is not. It's a mixed use. MR. URRICO-The difference with Weibel Avenue, though, is that there are commercial businesses on that road. I mean, you have Hannaford. You have Tractor Supply. You have a lot of different businesses that are right on that road. So it's really in character with what that is. So it's not quite identical. It's similar but not quite identical. Just thought I'd mention that. MR.GALUSHA-Any other questions? MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Okay. MR. GALUSHA-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Just to remind everyone, this is a Type I SEQR. So at this time, if there's nothing more to be added by the applicant, I guess I'm going to poll the Board to get a feeling for where we're going to move with this this evening,and,Rick, I'll start with you if you don't mind. MR. GARRAND-Do I have a choice? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,we could start with Joyce. MR. GARRAND-We've gone round and round with this project for a long time. I personally had a lot of input on this. I asked them to pull off the wetlands. I didn't want to see the wetlands behind this area destroyed,because the wetlands in Queensbury are basically an area for the water,a place for the water to go from development like this, and the mere fact that we've been taking all the wetland away from Queensbury has caused a lot of the flooding in these areas. What I didn't want to see here was a project pushing water into another parcel,you know, one developer flooding out somebody else, flooding out residents or other businesses. I didn't want to see them encroaching as much on the church, aesthetically and physically on the church, and affecting other property owners. Other people like Jim Underwood, John Strough, Craig Brown and Keith Oborne, they all had a lot of input on this project. I challenge anybody to look at some of these other drawings, some of these drawings are very old. They've been sitting around for a long time, and if you look at the project from start to where it is now,it's considerably different. There is a marked difference in what it was at one point to what it is now. I've told them repeatedly no on projects even similar to this,but in this case,the applicant has basically gone back to the drawing board time and time again to appease us. They've done everything we've asked of them. I think anything beyond what they've done,asking them to do more at this point would be simply punitive. At this point I'd be in favor of this project. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Rick. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to take a different tact. I don't think it's punitive to hold people accountable for variances. I mean, we're tasked with the charge to keep variances to a minimum as much as possible, and even though we're reduced to four variances, they're pretty significant variances. Before we give the okay sign, I think there still needs to be some consideration given. I'm not sure 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) that 300 feet of Bay Road professional office space, granting a variance that allows them to build 75 feet, is not going to produce an undesirable change in that neighborhood. I also think there is a problem with the setback on Blind Rock Road as well. I think these are, if not moderate, they're still something to think about. I think we need some further review, and the other thing is the height. I know we keep hearing that it's not the whole floor, that it's there to shield what's behind it,but the visual impact of it's still the same. Whether it's one foot thick or 25 foot thick or a whole floor, it still creates a wall, and if other, if we grant this one and then the neighbor next to them does the same,before you know it we have a wall down Bay Road, even if it's only one foot thick. So I'm still against the project,mainly for the reasons I just gave. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Roy. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I've been working on this for nine years, and I recall that your original one had asked for no variances and actually the Town put you through all these hoops, and I think I agree with the Board, with the Staff, the variances now that are down to four are minimal to moderate and I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Well, I haven't been on the Board very long, so, and it's really hard to say. I think it's a great project, but that one variance does bother me, you know, the 300 feet required, and the proposed is 75 I think. I still think it's a great project,but I'm going to have to say no,you've got to work on that, I guess that's all I can say. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have a limited Board this evening and obviously we already have two noes, and I don't know what the Board wants to do, because we normally would provide some guidance on how to accomplish something here. Joyce, Roy, John, Rick, does anyone have any suggestions on how you want to try to proceed? Is there anything this evening that we could continue to discuss that would allow for? MR.URRICO-We haven't heard your vote. Maybe they won't need it. MR.JACKOSKI-You know,we've done an incredible amount of work on this project, and I think that the joint committee that was established by the Town Board allowed for a lot more discussion than normal because it is such a large project and there is so much impact. I am concerned about the 27 feet of relief on Blind Rock. I understand, Roy,your comments about the wall so to speak, the wall effect or tunneling effect, but I think that it is a change. I know it's a change. It's a large change. We're all so used to that pastoral view there, but I think I would be, with all the considerations, I probably would be in favor of the project as it sits, and let the Planning Board work out all the details that they need to work out, but again, that doesn't necessarily help us this evening, and I apologize we're short Board members,but we do need four yeses,and we clearly only have three. MR. MEYER-I understand, and I certainly would, short of someone changing their mind at the last minute, would prefer if it would just be tabled. Any additional guidance? I hear what you're saying. I hear what the Board has said in the past. I'm a little bit at a loss. I mean, if you're going to hold tight and there's very little to no wiggle room on the 300 feet. It's helpful to know. I don't want to sound like I'm creating any kind of ultimatum or, you know, we're going to completely scrap it and go back to the first plan. It's just, it's a little bit frustrating for us as it is for you guys to keep at it and keep going back and forth. In terms of the variance along Blind Rock, that's, you know, one of the smaller variances, and there are, you know, a lot of other structures that are similarly situated that are already existing. So, you know, is that, we're running out of ways to further treat the project to completely avoid the wetlands,to realize any kind of economic return on the property, and to appease the direction that, the request for different directions from the Town. So I guess I'd ask if you guys could provide any additional guidance it would be appreciated. MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any way,Mr. Meyer, of increasing the setback off of Bay? MR. BROVASTIN-If you were to increase that, the buildings and the roads would have to go with it, which would impact the wetlands in that area, and it could put the buildings within the wetland setback, which is also something we've stayed out of, any structures within the wetland setback. Going closer to that wetland would create more of an issue. MR. JACKOSKI-But, for example, if Building Number Eight was reduced in size and you simply moved everything toward the west, I think that's west,right? Could you gain,and I understand you don't want to eliminate a building or a unit,but is that even possible? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. BROVASTIN-Which building? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, it's the building that's furthest into the property. I'm looking at it geographically. MR. BROVASTIN-You can't see it but there's a grading kind of a knoll that sits there,and that's really about all that can go in that area,kind of straddle that area. MR. JACKOSKI-About how much of a distance is it from, I would call it the southwest to northeast corner of that building? If you give me the overall length,we can estimate. Is 120 feet right? MR. GALUSHA-Yes. What we tried to do there is, I don't know, if you walked over there you could see it, is exactly, is we tried to position the buildings, I mean, we looked at the wetlands, and we totally stayed away from the wetlands. We got our Army Corps stuff and that was a lot of what we did, and if you look along Blind Rock, I mean, once again,we flipped that to do that. So we've kind of created, in some aspects,some of these variances,to mitigate the wetlands and some of the other issues,the same as on Bay. MRS. HUNT-Mr. Chairman, would it be prudent to ask the two people who said no what they specifically object to and how they would? MR. JACKOSKI-I don't disagree. We were just trying to theorize for a little bit here. I think one of the things that troubles me is that when I do look at some of the Schermerhorn buildings,they look naked. It really does look naked. MR. GALUSHA-If you look,you know,this property is similar to some of that. I mean,the good part of the land is out front. You have a large setback there because of Bay Road and what they want to do there, 75 feet, and that's a lot of the good property to try to mitigate the wetlands. We looked at trying to do some stuff up front, push the buildings back, but then people don't want to look at the parking lot. So you're trying to accommodate that at the same time. What we looked at the front of these buildings is some of the pergolas and some of those things that extend out beyond that were more for decoration than anything else, but you have to put them into the variance because technically that's what they are,but they're not the building,if you will. MR. MEYER-Just to follow up on that, I mean,that's essentially the point. It's,you know, if you look at the materials that are shown and it's not the be all and end all with the colors and the stone,but I mean, that's why we're trying to break that up. That's why we're showing the trees. That's why we're showing the pergolas. The landscaping has already been developed for the Zoning Board where usually it wouldn't come in until later because the scope of the project and the potential impact to the Town which we've done everything we can to mitigate. MR. GALUSHA-Steve, I agree with you some of the stuff is blah. I mean, it is, and we're trying to avoid it as much as we can,but,you know,our hands are tied on certain things. MR.JACKOSKI-I think if you were to build single story buildings such as Valente has built you could build those single story professional office buildings how close to the road? MR. GALUSHA-It's the same. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So just by adding, I mean, we could still be that close as to where we are. Correct? MR. GALUSHA-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-So it's just the height now. MR. GALUSHA-I mean, we could slice off the decorations in the front and still meet that, but that's not what the Town is trying to accomplish. MR.JACKOSKI-I understand. Because we've added the residential portion that we run into that 300 feet issue. Otherwise buildings could be that close to the road. MR. GALUSHA-Correct. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. BROVASTIN-Similarly on the height, if those roofs, the roofs that are covering those mechanicals were to be a flat roof,that variance would not be required. Now, nobody wants to see a flat roof with mechanicals. MR. GALUSHA-Right,that's why we did it. We discussed that,you know,we discussed,we can meet the criteria,and they said,well,that's not really what we want. We want a little more of this type of component in it. So,you know, I understand where you're coming from,but we've done everything we can do. MR. JACKOSKI-And me, based on looking at what I'm seeing on drawings, you don't feel that we could just sneak these buildings off of Blind Rock and,I mean I know if you take away that one path. MR. BROVASTIN-As soon as you go any closer to the wetland area, there is like five feet from the wetland buffer to that one building. MR.JACKOSKI-See that's not shown on there. The buffer's not shown on there. MR. GALUSHA-Right, and then you're into the buffer. We've, trust me, we've laid this thing out a bazillion different ways to try to accommodate everybody's concerns,and. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, like Mrs. Hunt said, why don't we talk with John and Roy and try to offer you some guidance. MR. GALUSHA-Sure. MR. URRICO-I'll just re-state what I said before. I think 75 feet for 300 feet is way too much, and the height I'm not totally objecting to, but I will say that to me it's a shield. It's still a variance, it's still needed. The height doesn't have to be that high. You wouldn't need a height variance. So, I mean,you want some alternatives,that's an alternative. Make a lower building and we won't need a height variance. I offer you two suggestions. MR.JACKOSKI-And is it fair to say, Roy,that if these floors,these additional floors were office space, you'd still have that tunneling effect,correct? MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-But they'd be allowed to do it. MR.URRICO-They're not. MR.JACKOSKI-No, I understand. John? MR. URRICO-I really think we're putting pressure on one of the members of the Board to change their votes. MR.JACKOSKI-No,no,we're not asking for a change. MR. HENKEL-I've been dealing with this long enough,you know, I've been here two months and so I don't know this project real well, and I'm just, you know, taking the, I went to the Board meeting last night and I was listening to the people. So I kind of felt,you know. MR.JACKOSKI-Mr. Meyer has already suggested that they table,or request a tabling. MR. MEYER-I'm just trying to get more information in addition to that request. MR.URRICO-That's not the way it's coming across. MR. HENKEL-I love the project. I think it's great. I've seen this down south, Saratoga, it's a great project,but. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. GARRAND-So I make a motion we table. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) Tabled to the May 22, 2013 meeting. To address concerns Board members have had about the setback distance and the height on Blind Rock and Bay Road. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And to which date? I mean, I don't know what we're going to, what are we asking the applicant to do? I guess that's where I'm struggling with. MRS.MOORE-Are you asking for alternatives? MR.JACKOSKI-I'm asking for Staff to help. MR. MEYER-The next possible agenda for the Zoning Board, and I think we've received as many (lost words). MR.JACKOSKI-And again,you could always come to the Board with more members present and try to present yourself again. MRS. MOORE-So you're asking the applicant to address the couple of concerns that the Board members have had about the setback distance and the height, specifically, and that's, is Blind Rock Road more of a concern than Bay Road? Or are both the concern with the setback? MR.URRICO-For me they're both. MRS. MOORE-They're both a concern. Okay. So I guess some sort of information from the applicant to have supporting information of why that's necessary, or maybe an alternative options that might be available. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do have a tabling motion, and we're going to table it until the May meeting. Is that enough time? MR. MEYER-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-The first meeting in May? MR. MEYER-That's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do a have a motion to table this application until the agenda for the first meeting in May. I will remind everyone that we did leave the public hearing open. MRS.MOORE-1 did have one discussion. You have on your first meeting in May. MR.JACKOSKI-Right,the submission deadline has gone past,right? MRS.MOORE-That is true. You have two,potentially you have two items that may be lengthy at that time. MR.JACKOSKI-Are they old or new business? MRS.MOORE-They're under an appeal and an area variance under Kitchen. MR.JACKOSKI-I think we can squeeze this one in. MRS.MOORE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan MR. MEYER-Thank you,guys. OLD BUSINESS: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2012 SEQRA TYPE II LARIC DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DKC HOLDINGS, INC. ZONING MDR LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD, OFF EXISTING BURNT HILLS SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A 36-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1 ACRE TO 2.52 ACRES. THE SUBDIVISION INCLUDES ACCESS TO SHERMAN AVENUE AND LUZERNE ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONE. THIRTY- THREE (33) OF THE THIRTY-SIX (36) LOTS ARE LESS THAN THE 2-ACRE REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF SUB NO. 5-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE 58.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-3 AND 7.1 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There were public hearing scheduled on August 17th, December 19th, January 16th, and April 24th,and I will turn it over to Roy to add to the record,please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2012, LARIC Development, Meeting Date: April 24, 2013 "Project Location: Luzerne Road, off existing Burnt Hills Subdivision Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 36-lot residential subdivision with lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 2.52 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR zone. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Lot Size- Relief requested from the 2-acre lot size requirements of the MDR zone for lots 1 through 5 and 9 through 36; total lots in need of relief is 33. Density - 22 lots allowed at 2-acres based on the useable acres of 45.53 or the project area. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to design a subdivision that does not need lot size relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request is for lot size relief where 33 of 36 lots will be less than 2 acres. Density relief is requested where 22 lots could be developed on the site at 2 acres per lot meeting the zoning requirements the project information indicates 36 lots are proposed with an average lot size of 1.45 acres per lot. The relief requested could be considered moderate to severe relevant to the code requirements. 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, SB 5-12 -Pending Planning Board SEQR review Staff comments: The applicant has submitted plans for review that include 2 acre lots, 1/2 acre lots and the proposed lot configuration ranging from 1plus acres to 2plus acres where 33 lots are less than the 2 acre requirement. The applicant has indicated that the lot configuration is consistent with the 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) neighboring Burnt Ridge subdivision. The applicant's subdivision information for preliminary review will revised the existing plans with details that include building setbacks, entryway landscaping, and 25 ft. buffer near national grid property line along with 1 acre set-a-side lot to mitigate habit of the Karner-Blue Butterfly, SEQR Status: Type I -Realty Subdivision coordinated review with Planning Board as Lead Agency." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board last night, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal. That was carried unanimously, and they passed a Negative Declaration as far as SEQR, also passed unanimously. MR.JACKOSKI-Thankyou. Mr.Lapper,welcome. MR. LAPPE R-Everyone, for the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center, project engineer, and Larry Clute is behind us to answer questions as well. I'd like to start out kind of putting this into context with the neighborhood in this part of Town. Some of you will recall Larry and I were here probably four years ago for an area variance on Geneva Drive,which is on the north side of Sherman Avenue. It's the Howard Street area which was previously a lot of kind of shacks,dilapidated trailers,really a mixed area, and we received a variance there to do a connection to connect Howard to Geneva Drive, so that it was a loop road, and as a result of that, Larry has, over time, purchased a lot of the underutilized parcels, if you will, removed cabins that have been there for a long time and really brought up the character of that area. He did the Burnt Hills subdivision,which is on the northern end of the property that we're here to talk about, and at the time that he did that, he had included two stub streets with the intention that if this property were ever re-zoned, because at the time it was industrial,that the road network was available to connect this to Luzerne,and it's always been, or not always, but it's been for a number of years in the Town's Comprehensive Plan to create a connection between Sherman and Luzerne that is east of West Mountain Road for emergency services and the general public to just make it easier to get around on the west side of the Northway, and this proposal is to do that. That's part of what this proposal is about, but the variance that's we're asking for is a density variance and everything on the west side of Town that's left to be developed is in the MDR zone or primarily everything and the MDR zone, it's a one acre zone only if you have public sewer and water, and it's a two acre zone otherwise, or two acre minimum lot size. This property has public water but not public sewer,and it's not feasible to bring public sewer because it's a significant enough distance that it wouldn't be cost effective. At the same time this is all sandy soils,which are very conducive to septic systems and good for treating stormwater. So there's not a need for sewer on this property. So we're not here making the argument that there's something wrong with the MDR zone and we should go to the Town Board and ask for a re-zoning. It's just that on this particular piece of property, because of what it's located next to, both in terms of the size of the lots and also the character of the area, that two acre lot,which is what's considered an estate lot, very large, large lots, it just doesn't work, in terms of doing what's more of an affordable development in terms of the price point of what you're going to get based upon what's here, and part of the reason is that on the east side of this project there's a small area of industrial and then it's the Homestead Village Trailer Park, and on the south side it's very close to the West Side Auto junkyard. So it's kind of a mixed area, and that's why I made the analogy to Geneva Drive, just on the other side of Sherman, and Howard Street where there's a lot of areas nearby that effect the value, you know, and what's appropriate to design on this site, but then nevertheless,you have to ask, in terms of the compatibility with the neighborhood, the impact on the neighborhood, how does this fit in with the lot size of other lots that are here, and, granted, Burnt Hills was done at a different time when the zoning was different, but not that long ago, and those are half acre lots. So when you look at what we're proposing, the average lot size is 1.45 acres, and that's why Tom submitted a map showing even smaller lots,just for comparison's sake. These are substantially larger lots than the Burnt Hills subdivision, and because in the layout that was submitted the houses are clustered close to the road because for an affordable house you don't want to have a lot of driveway and a lot of land clearing,this area is well wooded. This allows for a buffer area on the back of all the lots that are on the perimeter of this property, and in the center of the lots that are in the center of the property. So this can remain nicely wooded and still handle the stormwater and septic on each lot,but most importantly the 1.45 acre average lot size is larger than nearly everything around. So you wouldn't say,you know, compared to the zoning, of course, it's less than two acres, but you can't say that these are undersized lots compared to what's there. Now the give and take here is that by doing the 36 lots that we've proposed, Larry can justify the cost of the infrastructure to connect this from Burnt Hills stub streets to Luzerne Road, and we've submitted letters from the Highway Superintendent, West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company, West Glens Falls Emergency Squad,that talk about the benefits to the Town,which is,you know,the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) benefits to the public in general of making this connection, in the case of an emergency, emergency services won't have to go all the way out to West Mountain Road and down Luzerne, if you will, West Mountain Road and then down Sherman. So there is a public benefit here, which is kind of unique. You don't usually get that in a residential subdivision. Then you have to ask the question in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, and I know that there was a petition for the Planning Board,which was really only about a third of the people in Burnt Hills,which is a nice sign, saying that they're concerned that people are going to drive past their homes. So there I would start out first by making the analogy to Hidden Hills, which is on the north side of Sherman, in between Sherman Ave. and Dixon, which is another location where people use it to cut through, and that's analogous in another way as well. It's,the configuration here is not a straight shot, by any means, just like Hidden Hills, and it's not that people don't drive through it. I drive through it. It does get you from Dixon to Sherman if you're dropping your daughter off at the other side of Town which is what my life's about, but because it meanders, just like what is proposed here, it doesn't, it's not conducive to going too fast, you know, you know you're in a neighborhood so, yes, you're going to use it, which you're allowed to as any public street,but you're not going to, it's not a straight away, and this was designed with that in mind. So we don't see this any different than the Hidden Hills neighborhood,in terms of the impact on the Burnt Hills people,and was certainly shown to them on the map when Larry designed Burnt Hills,that we had these scrub streets. So we think that there's a public benefit to the Town, to the community, and not a negative impact on them because it's no different than Hidden Hills, if you will. It's not the case where we're asking, again, for one acre lots. I mean, in theory somebody could have come in with half acre lots and said this is where you are in this part of Town and this is what you have in Burnt Hills,the fact that it's 1.45 acres. These are big lots,but Larry needs to get the 36 lots to be able to justify putting in this large road network. So we were very pleased that we got the unanimous from the Planning Board as well as a Neg Dec. We went through the full Long Form SEQR last night, and finally,you know, an alternative would be to use less land to do a cluster, to not make the connection to do two cul de sacs off the end of Burnt Hills and that doesn't seem like the best planning because it wouldn't create the connection. So we're hoping that you'll see the benefits to this over any perceived impact, and we really think that these lot sizes are appropriate for this part of Town. Do you want to add anything? Okay. Larry, do you want to add anything at this point? Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll turn it over to the Board. Any questions from Board members at this time concerning this application? MR. GARRAND-Here's the original proposal that we have,lots.62 acres,.79,.58. MR. CENTER-If I can interrupt for a second,just about those,this question came up last night. We were asked during the recommendation phase to look at different options of most recommendation. Those aren't proposed. The 36 lot is what always has been proposed. Those other two configurations are just to show what a subdivision of that size would look like and show the impact to that area. That was never the intention that they're being asked or proposed as a subdivision. It's always been the 36 lot subdivision. The C-1A and the C-113 was something when Keith Oborne was here asked us to provide a couple of different plans to compare what the 36 would be,more higher density versus the two acre density. So that's nothing that was proposed. MR. GARRAND-Okay. What's the smallest lot size that you're proposing? MR.CENTER-The smallest lot size was 1.,I believe it's 1.25 acres maybe, 1.23. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional questions from Board members? 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 particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-Not that I can find. MR. JACKOSKI-Having received no written comment either, I'm going to poll the Board. Rick? I'll start with you. I'm mixing it up tonight. MR. GARRAND-1 don't think this area was mis-zoned at all. Asking for two acre zoning isn't a lot, but also by the same token one acre lots are going to be bigger than most of what's in this area. If 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) you go up and down the road, a lot of these flag lots have been subdivided. You go through Burnt Hills, even at half acre lots, a lot of Burnt Hills doesn't look too congested, even though most of those lots are literally about half the size of some of these lots. Given the size of the proposed lots ion the subdivision, I don't think it would be out of character with that neighborhood. I think it would be a pretty good transition. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. I think, Roy,you were next last time,right. So, Roy? MR. URRICO-I really don't have any objections to the project as currently configured. I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree. Mr. Clute has done some wonderful work building for middle income, and considering what's on Sherman Avenue, I think that I would have no problem at all. I'd be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also definitely in favor of it. The emergency road, that's going to help out a lot right there, and I know there's concerns with people worried about traffic zooming through,but the way it's designed,there's no way you can zoom through there. Definitely yes. MR.JACKOSKI-And Roy wants my opinion now,too,right? I'm in favor also. So I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Remind everyone this one's a Type I SEQR. Does anyone want to make a motion? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO . 52-2012 LARIC DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: Luzerne Road, off existing Burnt Hills Subdivision. The applicant is proposing a 36 lot residential subdivision with lots ranging in size from 1 to 2.25 acres. Relief requested from the minimum lot size for the MDR zone. The parcel will require area variances as follows: lot size relief requested from the two acre lot size requirements of the MDR zone for Lots One through Five and Nine through Thirty-Six, total lots in need of relief is thirty-three. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. As stated by the applicant, it's not feasible, on a cost basis,to build this road through here and install the necessary infrastructure on a proposed development with less lots. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? I do not believe it will. Is this request substantial? I don't see any adverse environmental problems with this. Looking at this cumulatively, I don't think it's substantial. will this have adverse physical or environmental effects, like I said, I don't think it will. Is this difficulty self-created? It maybe deemed as self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 52-2012. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2013 SEQRA TYPE II KATHRYN TABNER REVOCABLE TRUST/JODY TABNER THAYER AGENT(S) BPSR AND HUTCHINS ENGINEERING ZONING WR LOCATION 89 MASON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,607 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 1,478 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY 3-BEDROOM 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) DWELLING. PROJECT INVOLVES RENOVATION OF A 2 BEDROOM BUNKHOUSE TO A ONE BEDROOM. UPGRADES TO SEPTIC AND INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER MEASURES ARE INCLUDED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS,AND PERMEABILITY FOR THE WR ZONE. CROSS REF SP 17- 2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2013 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 26.12-1-23 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER&TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 11-2013, Kathryn Tabner Revocable Trust/Jody Tabner Thayer, Meeting Date: April 24, 2013 "Project Location: 89 Mason Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,607 sq. ft. residence and construction of a new 1,478 sq. ft. single-family 3-bedroom dwelling. Project involves renovation of a 2 bedroom bunkhouse to a one bedroom. Upgrades to septic and installation of stormwater measures are included. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Floor Area Ratio is to be a 13.8% increase from the maximum allowable, height is to be 7.17 ft higher than the maximum allowed, setback is to be less than 12.7 ft from the required; and permeability is 6.8%less than the required for the WR zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may include reducing the size of the new dwelling. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Permeability 75% required 68.2% proposed; Southside setback 20 ft. setback required 7.3 ft. setback proposed; Floor area ratio .22 required and .358 proposed; height where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed and 35.17 ft. is proposed. The requested variances may be considered minimal relevant to the code requirements. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 17-2013 Planning Board Recommendation and Site Plan Review Pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing single family dwelling to construct a new 3-bedroom and to renovate an existing bunkhouse to one -bedroom. The applicant has indicated there is a new septic system to be installed and stormwater control measures that were not previously on the site. The applicant intends to leave the bunkhouse as a buffer to the Sans Souci restaurant that is directly across the street from this residence. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review needed" 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, on April 23rd, last night, said that based on its limited review had not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal,and that motion was passed unanimously. MR.JAC KOSKI-Welcome,again, Mr.Lapper and Mr.Hutchins. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, again,for the record,Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins. The family that is the applicant here, the Tabners, Jack was a very well regarded land use attorney in Albany, now in his early 80's. He was the guy who knew sewer and water districts for all these years in the Capital District, and Lake George was his escape, and he purchased this property with his wife in the early 70's, I think'71, and the applicants now are his daughters. They're,Jack and his wife,are still alive, but they've transferred the property to the daughter. So that's the Tabner/Tabner. They are the two girls, and the house has obviously been there for a long time with a lot of nonconformities. When you look at the application initially, you think that it's a lot of relief, but what it really is is a very small lot. It's about 10,500 square feet. So basically a quarter of an acre, and for that reason it doesn't allow a lot of house, but when we looked at this to begin with, we sat with them and talked about what should be done with this lot to accommodate their needs, their goals,but also to improve on what's there, and to start with, there's about a two and a half foot setback on the south side to the existing neighbor. That house on the south side was within the last, I'm going to say six or seven years, granted a variance and renovated, replaced, and this house, now,was pushed back. So it is essentially lined up with the house to the south. The house to the north is much closer to the lake. So on the list of improvements that we've made to comparing this to what's there now, we've increased the nonconforming side setback. There wasn't a lot to give there, but we've increased it from what was there,the two and a half feet. We've increased the lake setback. We've pretty dramatically increased the site permeability. There were already some shoreline plantings, but Tom has added a lot more shoreline plantings as a buffer to the lake. Significantly the number of bedrooms on the total site is proposed to go from six to four, and right now there's a very nonconforming septic system that somehow is located along the south property line,which is hard to imagine how you could shoehorn that in there, and Tom is proposing a completely conforming septic system for the four bedrooms. Part of what makes the relief here seem like a lot in terms of the square footage is because of the bunkhouse building in the back, and what we're proposing is to reduce that from an existing two bedroom building to a one bedroom building. You could look at this and say, gee, if you remove the bunkhouse building, you'd be asking for less relief, but that's really pretty important to the utility of this lot, because it is immediately adjacent to the San Souci, which, you know, obviously it has been for all these years, and we've been here talking about the San Souci a number of times, as that's been changed, but the San Souci functions as sort of a living room for everybody on Cleverdale. So you get a lot of noise, not so many cars because a lot of people walk, but you get cars and noise and people are there late, and it's not that the Tabners haven't lived with that and don't understand that,but the bunkhouse is a really nice barrier both for them to enjoy their lot. It also blocks the Sans from the lake, from anyone going by on the lake. So part of the justification, I think, and certainly explanation for the relief that's requested, is to keep the bunkhouse there as a pretty significant barrier to the Sans. I know that we have, in the record, a letter from the most immediately adjacent neighbor, saying that they support the change, that, you know, they're going to be the ones that would still have the closest setback, but because we're improving it and also replacing it with a nice new house,they're in support of it, and they would be the people that would likely typically be the ones to stand up and say we'd like it to be moved farther. So that's the general explanation. I'd like to ask Tom to give you some more details. MR. HUTCHINS-I'll just summarize what we've tried to do here and then turn it over to the Board. We've tried to leave the shoreline alone. There's a well-established buffer area from, it is steep,but it is well-established, well-vegetated, and there's existing, there's big vegetation, there's medium vegetation and there's small vegetation throughout that. We're leaving that alone and we're actually extending it with buffer plantings closer toward the house. Again, we have pushed the house back away from the lake, in comparison to the existing. We've utilized a whole lot of permeable pavers, and frankly that allows us to show an actual decrease in site permeability, and we have incorporated a compliant and reasonably environmentally friendly septic system, more than reasonably, very environmentally friendly septic system, that is completely compliant, and with that I'll turn it over to the Board for questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,Tom. Were there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. GARRAND-Why are we going up 10 feet, 11 feet in height? MR. LAPPER-That primarily has to do with the topography of the site, because it comes down so steep, as Tom said, in terms of the grade along the lake. It's really measuring from the bottom by the lake to the top of the peak. MR. GARRAND-Yes,it's going to be three stories facing the lake. MR. LAPPER-It is a walk out basement but that's really because, partly because of that topography issue, and I think the neighbor's house is pretty similar to the south, which is a three story as well. So it's not incompatible. MR. HUTCHINS-It's very similar in size and height to that, I think it's within inches of the height of that. MR. GARRAND-This is new construction, though. This is an opportunity to be a little more compliant, instead of being like the neighbors or, you know, totally throwing the Code out the window. MR. LAPPER-They,you know, I hear you. To go from the six bedroom to the four bedroom,they're really understanding that they needed to give something up and to design the site environmentally to be an improvement on the lake, but they are hoping to wind up with four bedrooms,three in the house and one in the bunkhouse. MR. HENKEL-Would it help to eliminate the bunkhouse and put evergreens there or something for a buffer instead of,that would help be more compliant there? MR. LAPPER-They would rather not, but it's certainly, you know, we're always here to talk about what it takes. MR. HENKEL-Because that San Souci's been there actually before the Tabner's even owned the place. That's been there forever. So they knew that when they bought the place. MR. LAPPER-There's no issue, you're right. It certainly has been, but it still creates a lot of noise and havoc. MR. HENKEL-Sure, I've been there. At one time wasn't there a boat slip down there for the San Souci down there along the property line, too? Wasn't there at one time,way back, like in the 60's, 70's? MR. HUTCHINS-There is a right of way for. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think at one time there used to be a dock. MR. LAPPER-That's probably what it was,you mean,so you could come and dock your boat. MR. HENKEL-Right. You used to be able to, there used to be a few docks there and you used to be able to. MR. LAPPER-Before our time. MR.JACKOSKI-(Lost word) resurrect that one. I'd get to the Sans a lot faster that way. MR.URRICO-Is there any wiggle room on the height? Because that,to me,is pretty. MR. LAPPER-John,is there any wiggle room on the height of the design of the roof? JOHN MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-(Lost words) The house to the south is new construction. It's not an old boathouse. It's within the last five years. MR.JACKOSKI-And that was Dr.Cavayero's house,correct? MR.URRICO-Previous to the new construction,it was below the height restrictions. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. LAPPER-The house next door. You mean the existing house? Yes, but I guess John's point is, that's John Michaels, for the record, who's going to build the house. From the street side it is compliant height wise, it's because of the way it drops off. Do you have the elevation of the roof, in terms of the pitch of the roof? I'm just looking at the pitch to see, to answer Roy's question if there's any give on the roof height. MR. MICHAELS-It's the rock outcrop that's (lost word). The building itself is totally compliant. Actually height restrictions, from the lake side the only time you're going to see any difference in height is by boat, it's the exact same height as the neighbor next door. You can't build a two story house on a slope with a 28 foot ceiling. You just can't, unless you have a ranch, and to put four bedrooms in a ranch,you would use almost the whole lot. That's the real problem. It is compliant from the street,but because of the grade,it's not compliant. MR. JACKOSKI-Last week if you all remember we had the Merritt application and they terraced from the lake up, you know, they stepped the house up, until they got to the back, and then it was steep. MRS. HUNT-1 have a question. It's my understanding that the bunkhouse is going to be renovated but not torn down and re-built. Is that correct? MR.LAPPER-That's right. So that it still stays there as a wall to block the restaurant. MRS. HUNT-So it's really not new construction. MR. LAPPER-Right. The bunkhouse is not new construction. MR.JACKOSKI-Why haven't they centered the house more on the lot? MR. LAPPER-To leave some usable area,the lawn area,that if you moved it in the center,you'd sort of have both sides that wouldn't be very functional because it's a narrow lot, and it's that, fortunately the neighbor on the south side that said that they're satisfied with the request. MR. HENKEL-It's 1300 feet above the allowable. MR. LAPPER-That's really the problem, that the zoning has changed, that this was a standard lot size at the time. MR. HENKEL-But a standard sized lot for that particular house, size house that is more of a camp, like the one to the north of it. MR. LAPPER-But it is really similar in size to the one to the south. So in terms of what's proposed, in terms of the character of the area,and these guys are stuck with the Sans behind them. MR.JACKOSKI-What does it do to the FAR if we get rid of the bunkhouse? MR. LAPPER-It drops it down by about four percent. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Anymore questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, and I'm sure the Water Keeper is here for this project. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Is there any comment from the public this evening? Mr.Water Keeper,welcome. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We do support some of the site improvements that have been proposed which include stormwater management and wastewater treatment system and recognize those would have environmental benefits. However, we feel the project proposes to increase the intensity with the Floor Area Ratio and also have concerns with the shoreline variance on the small parcel with the steep slopes, and we feel it appears there may be additional variances required for the project. First, we feel it should be determined if a variance is required for stormwater infiltration devices within 100 feet of the shoreline. It is recognized rain gardens could be considered retrofit,but also they are required due 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) to the increase in the impervious cover associated with the expansion of the dwelling. The requested variances are not the minimum necessary for the applicant to achieve their intended use and can be considered substantial. As been discussed by the Board, there are alternatives we feel. The house size could be reduced. The discussion on the bunkhouse, and that could be removed with additional or a change in buffering and shielding and screening from the commercial use. The addition of reducing the building size and/or removing the bunkhouse would also further increase the permeability of the property, and regarding the variances, there could be potential impacts to the lake. The plan requests a shoreline variance with the increased building size, which requires grading and earth work on the steep slopes close to the lake. They're proposing about four feet of fill along that northwest corner, I believe, which actually directs the runoff to the north and not towards the rain garden. So we feel, again, with this increased size, building, the earth work required could have impacts. So we feel that there are alternatives that can be looked at and examined, and we also request that the additional variances be determined if they are required. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Seeing no one else. John,would you like to speak? Sure. JOHN MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Good evening. John Michaels from The Michaels Group for the record. I just wanted to make a couple of points about the property. First of all, a lot of discussion about the bunkhouse. The bunkhouse is there. The bunkhouse has been there for decades. No one's ever cared about the bunkhouse. No one's ever drove by and wrote the Town and said let's get rid of this bunkhouse. I mean, it's an existing structure that is, buffers the Sans and this whole conversation is coming up because they want to improve the property that they have. Now they have six bedrooms right now with a very noncompliant septic. This is an opportunity to bring the standards up on this lot, both septic and with stormwater. The other thing about the bunkhouse, the bunkhouse and the regular house is three bedrooms, it's not going to fly. They're not going to go, two families aren't going to go from six bedrooms to three bedrooms. It's not going to work. We've proven that we can put a four bedroom compliant system in. So just getting rid of something,the tradeoff isn't just that for that. It's just not that simple. We can work on the house design, but you're not going to get bedrooms upstairs in a 28 foot structure on a lot that drops off 10 feet. I think on a level lot we could do this. We'd solve this problem easily, and I think we are meeting it from the street. That's where people are going to drive by. That's where people see it from the Sans. When people go by the lake it's going to look very similar to the house next door, and the alternatives for these people is really sell and also maybe go somewhere else, and we need to get four bedrooms in there. Going from six to four with a compliant system,we're open to ideas as to how to get there. It's just some variables we're stuck against. I can't change the grade. We don't want to go down by the lake and disturb all that natural vegetation that's there by creating fake retaining walls that all of a sudden make this thing not as high. I mean,there's a lot of things we can do. We're trying to use the existing grade that's there,with the least disturbance possible. So this has been, I know it sounds like a lot. It's a lot because the lot is small, but we're asking to just leave an existing building, renovate it and remove a bedroom, and allow these people to build a fairly modest three bedroom house,and that's all I have to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Jonathan, Tom. Jonathan, maybe if you could address some of the concerns brought up by Mr.Water Keeper. MR. LAPPER-First of all, I really appreciate that Chris recognized that the, in terms of the stormwater and the septic, that this is an improvement, and that was obviously something necessary here,but it's nice for him to acknowledge that,and as John said,you know,we didn't have a lot to work with,and I know that you guys are always careful,but we're trying to do the best thing that we can to accommodate them. Still the, it's not a jumbo house. It's just a small lot, and they are going from six bedrooms to four. So we really think, you know, we're all big boys and we understood what we had to work with here,but we're trying to give enough to justify the relief and certainly not overdevelop the lot, and the fact that Chris recognizes that there are benefits to this and the neighbor is supportive, we think that, you know, this is not a typical situation where somebody's ox is gored on the lake, we're trying to make this better, and I think that, as John said, the bunkhouse has been there, and it really is kind of important, even from the lake, to block the Sans, so you don't see the commercial nature of that when you're driving by in a boat. So we hope that you'll see this for what it is,that we're not asking for too much. We're just trying to work it out and build a modest house. John also mentions that they're not looking for a garage that somebody else might have added a garage to this. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional comments from Board members? The public hearing still is open, reminding everyone this is a Type II SEQR. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR.URRICO-I have a couple of letters. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm sorry about that. Thank you, Roy. MR. URRICO-"To the Zoning Board: I am the owner of 87 Mason Road in Cleverdale. The north side of my property adjoins the property owned by Kate Tabner and Jodi Tabner-Thayer. Although my family and I have only owned our house in Cleverdale for one year,we have a great respect for the lake and neighborhood. We are very interested in the areas history and want to maintain its wonderful character. I plan to make this my full time residence within the next several years and currently spend as much time as possible there. Upon reviewing the proposed plans for the construction of a new house on my neighbor's property, I would like to offer my support for the overall project. I believe it is in keeping with the updated character of Cleverdale, while maintaining the necessary respect for the past. Additionally, I also support their request to keep the "bunkhouse" because I believe it provides a good buffer or screen from the entrance of the San Souci Restaurant. If you would like to speak with me please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Bill Kimmons" And I think there's one more. "I have been a full time resident in Cleverdale,New York for many years, and my property is immediately to the north of the property owned by Jodi Tabner- Thayer and Kate Tabner. I have reviewed the proposed site plan and elevations submitted to you for your consideration of a home to be built at 89 Mason Road. I am in full support of the granting of variances to allow the owners to build this home as proposed as I believe that it will be an improvement over the current house and in keeping with the environment in Cleverdale. I am also in support of the owners maintaining the "bunkhouse". The bunkhouse helps to serve as a buffer for the noise and traffic from the San-Souci as well as the structure and parked cars at the San Souci. Sincerely,Jonathan Berger" He doesn't give an address. Do you know where he is? MR.JACKOSKI-He's right north. He's on the other side. MR.URRICO-I'm sorry,89. Nevermind. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Any additional? MR.URRICO-No. MR.JACKOSKI-No additional. So why don't we go ahead and poll the Board now. Do you want me to keep the same order all night? Rick? MR. GARRAND-Sure. Pull the house back towards the road. You've got, you can get rid of that height variance because you eliminate the grade,a lot of it anyway. MR. HUTCHINS-Then I'd lose my septic system. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That's the problem. That's the only place for the compliant septic system, because of the lake. MR. GARRAND-Honestly, the floor area ratio, those bedrooms that were there before must have been awful small for four bedrooms in one building and two in the other. It's a lot of FAR and the height still bothers me. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I don't see overwhelming objections from the neighborhood there. Normally the height would bother me, but I think in this case, I think the plans conform to the property and conform to the neighborhood. So I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Urrico. The home size is being decreased. The neighbors have no objection to the bunkhouse. I think it's a good, historic. I've been to the San Souci and I think it's a good buffer. I would be in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I guess since the neighbors don't have any problem with it,I guess I don't. Definitely the stormwater's going to be better. The septic's going to be better. I guess I'll be in favor. Yes. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Boy, everyone here knows how I hate being in that 50 feet off the lake. Is there any chance we can gain any distance,I mean,with this house by pushing it toward the septic system? MR. LAPPER-John threw out that answer, which I didn't get out quick enough, that it's all about having that compliant new septic system, and that's why the distance from the house, the distance from the lake,the distance from the neighbors. That's what that was about. MR. MICHAELS-There's a few feet. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean, could you get five feet? What I worry about though, is obstructing the view, because I know that, I call it the Cavayero house, I don't know the new neighbors,you know, as we continue to push the house back,but it is way up high. MR. HUTCHINS-I could get four or five feet. MR. LAPPER-Four or five? MR. HUTCHINS-I could get five. MR.JACKOSKI-Is that going to upset the applicant? MR. LAPPER-No,if Tom says it can be done and John says it can be done,it can be done. MR. MICHAELS-You're talking about from the lake? MR. LAPPER-Yes,moving the house. MR. JACKOSKI-How does that affect the stairs and the pavers and, I mean, every foot we can get off that lake. MR. HUTCHINS-The grading very slightly, but, I mean, the elevation is based upon the access elevation back here,so that doesn't have to change. It can be pushed back. MR. MICHAELS-I think it would be five feet. Plus I could re-do the house (lost word) that five. MR. LAPPER-So the answer is,yes,five feet,the house can move back five feet away from the lake. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,does the rest of the Board want to make the applicant move it? MR. HENKEL-I think it's a good idea. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm trying to think of consistency. We've asked applicants in the past to center the house on the lot. We've asked them,when they can, and this is when they can. I actually think the bunkhouse is charming and I hate to see that era of Lake George go by having it removed. So, you know, I think the Planning Board is going to look at the steep topography and spend a lot of time on that shoreline. So if the variance request for the shoreline setback relief is reduced to, if they're going to propose 36.6,so 13.4 feet of relief instead. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, thanks for the pressure. Just having that stormwater control and having the new compliant system and reducing the number of bedrooms to,quote unquote four,I'd be in favor. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Since Rick wasn't in favor of the project, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And can I get a motion from either Joyce or Roy or John? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2013 KATHRYN TABNER REVOCABLE TRUST[JODY TABNER THAYER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) 89 Mason Road. The applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,607 square foot residence and construction of a new 1,478 square foot single family three bedroom dwelling. The project involves renovation of a 2 bedroom bunkhouse to a one bedroom. Upgrades to septic and installation of stormwater measures are included. Relief required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Floor Area Ratio to be 13.8%increase from the maximum allowable; height to be 7.7 feet higher than the maximum allowed; shoreline setback to be 36.6. Criteria for considering such a variance, there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. Feasible alternatives may include reducing the size of the new building, but it's already been reduced from the original. Whether the variance is substantial. Permeability, 75% required, 68.2% proposed; south side setback 20 foot setback required, 7.3 foot setback proposed; Floor area ratio .22 required and .358 proposed; height where 28 feet is the maximum allowed and 35.17 feet is proposed. The setback from the shoreline will be 36.6 feet. The requested variances may be considered minimal. There will be minor to no impacts on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and the difficulty maybe considered self-created. I move we approve Area Variance No. 11-2013. Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: MRS. HUNT-And the shoreline setback is to be,do you know what that is now? MR.JACKOSKI-Sorry. 36.6. MRS. HUNT-It's less than. MRS.MOORE-That's in reference to a side setback? MR. LAPPER-Shoreline. MRS.MOORE-Shoreline. MRS. HUNT-It doesn't mention that here. MRS.MOORE-The dimension for the shoreline setback is not on there. MR. GARRAND-No,it wasn't included in the Staff Notes. MRS. HUNT-So we have to add that,right? MRS.MOORE-Yes,you do. So what will the setback from the shoreline,well, I'll put that in later. MR. LAPPER-36.6 will be the setback. MR. JACKOSKI-One thing I just want to make sure we address, Laura, is the stormwater devices within 100 feet of the shoreline that the Water Keeper brought up. MRS.MOORE-I'll have Tom answer that because that was a question that Tom and I addressed. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. The reason those are there, and this has been to Chazen for review, and they have a couple of comments, not including that. The reasons those are there were to enhance buffer plantings. We actually have a, when taking the permeable pavement into consideration,we have a net decrease in impervious area, which those technically we don't need to incorporate stormwater controls,because it's a reduction. We did it because it's a good thing to do. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR.HENKEL-(Lost words) bring the house back more,it's not going to increase the height at all? MR.JACKOSKI-If anything it'll reduce that variance a whisker. MR. LAPPER-We'll stipulate it won't increase that. MR. HENKEL-But you're not going to increase the size of the house? The house is going to stay the same size? MR.JACKOSKI-I'm not in favor of making you reduce the size of this house. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2013) MR. MICHAELS-But we can get that, if it had to be a foot, and Tom gives me four foot, we'll get the five foot. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, I mean,because I do think it's a very modest home for two families to share, and it's nice to see that generations are keeping these houses instead of selling them. So we certainly don't want to restrict their usage of the property,at least I don't. MR. LAPPER-That seems like a fair compromise. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everybody. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any further business to be brought before the Board this evening? Mr. Navitsky has asked to address the Board. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Briefly, we are wanting to inform the Board we have our annual low impact development conference next week on Thursday at the Holiday Inn. It's free. We offer land use training for all attendees. It helps you meet your training requirements. So I just wanted to make the Board aware. MR. GARRAND-What time is it? MR. NAVITSKY-It is 8:30 to 4:00. I understand it may conflict with work schedules,but. MR.JACKOSKI-If you could, I'd like one of those,please. MR. NAVITSKY-Yes,and it's free and we have registration at our website. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional business to be brought before the Board? Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 24th day of April, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 26