Loading...
09-24-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 61-2014 Joseph Leuci 1. Tax Map No. 301.15-1-19 Area Variance No. 69-2014 Fritz&Mary Stefanizick 10. Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11 Area Variance No.49-2014 Russell M. Canterbury 17. Tax Map No. 289.17-1-25 Sign Variance No. 70-2014 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 296.13-1-22 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 09/24/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 24,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RICHARD GARRAND,VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL MICHAEL MC CABE HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to open the meeting, this evening, of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, on the back table there is an agenda as well as an information sheet explaining the process. It's actually quite simple. We'll call each application. Roy will read it into the record. The applicant will join us here at the table with their agents. The Board will ask questions. We'll open a public comment period when a public comment period has been advertised. We'll then probably poll the Board as to what their thoughts are on the project, and then move forward accordingly,whether it's with a motion or a tabling or some other matter. So that's the process, and this evening the first item on the agenda is Joseph Leuci,Area Variance No. 61-2014. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2014 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 1 - COORDINATED REVIEW JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S) TOM CENTER- NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JOSEPH LEUCI ZONING MDR LOCATION SOUTH SIDE OF PEGGY ANN ROAD, BTWN QUAIL RUN TO THE WEST AND FERRIS DRIVE TO THE EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 18-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH LOTS RANGING FROM 0.58 ACRES TO 1.46 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM LOT AREA REQUIREMENT OF 2-ACRES AS REQUIRED WITHIN THE MDR DISTRICT. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM DENSITY,AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR DISTRICT. CROSS REF SUBD. 2-14 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 14.8 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.15-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER&TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2014, Joseph Leuci, Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 "Project Location: south side of Peggy Ann Road, btwn Quail Run TO the west and Ferris Drive to the east Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 18 lot residential subdivision with lots ranging in size from 0.58 acres to 1.46 acres. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested to develop a subdivision with lots less than the required 2 acre per lot minimum and design requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts for Moderate Density Residential zone dimensional requirements. Lot size (MDR) Required 2 acres Proposed (minimum) 0.58-1.46 Relief .58 less than required Criteria for considering as Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) 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. The applicant has indicated the development is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods with some lots larger in the proposed than in the area. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce the number of lots. Staff would encourage lot 1 merge with the remaining lots as the lot becomes difficult to develop over time where additional review may be necessary for pool,sheds,or a deck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code as all lots proposed are less than 2 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SB 2-2014: Pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes an 18 lot subdivision on a 14.8 acre parcel with lots ranging in size from 0.58 acres to 1.6 acres. The entrance to the subdivision is off of Peggy Ann Road. The plans show the lot arrangement with a single cul-de-sac. The applicant has indicated the lots proposed are similar to lots in the neighboring subdivisions. The lots are proposed for single family dwellings where the plans show the building envelope for each lot, clearing areas, no cut areas, septic with test pit information, and stormwater and erosion control measures. The application materials have been forwarded to the Town engineer for review as part of the subdivision process. The project is currently being reviewed by the Planning Board for SEQRA and will be forwarded to the Zoning Board based on the decision of the Planning Board. The Zoning Board at the August 2014 meeting consented to the Planning Board being the lead agency for the SEQRA review process. SEQR Status: SEQR Type I -ZBA consented to the designation of the PB as lead agency" MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, in a motion, made a recommendation on its behalf to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variance No. 61-2014 and the Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted September 231d with a unanimous vote. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome,gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center, project engineer, and the Leuci's are sitting right behind me. This project is an infill project. This is the last lot on the south side of Peggy Ann Road. It's been owned by the City of Glens Falls for many years. and the Leuci's were able to purchase it. The reason why we're here asking for a lot size variance is because of the character of the neighborhood. We think that what's proposed is larger than most of the lots in the area,and the idea of building estate lot,two acre lots,you know,the cost of the house you'd have to build to justify the road cost isn't feasible in this neighborhood. We want to build something in character with the neighborhood. The other issue is that there's a junkyard in the back. So also not really suitable for large, two acre estate lots, just in terms of what's there, but, you know, more than that we think that this is really compatible with what's there, and tried to design a subdivision that looks a lot like the neighborhood. The other advantage to this site is that there's at least 12 feet of sand. So in terms of stormwater, Rick Garrand had mentioned at the meeting where you consented to Lead Agency, that we should look into the issue with Queen Victoria's Grant and Michaels Drive, two areas that have had stormwater issues in the 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) past. This lot is approximately 40 feet higher than those lots, and it is all well drained sand, but that's, you know, certainly a legitimate issue that we should explain and Tom's here with some additional maps to show you just how that works, you know, what the drainage issues were and why they don't exist here. We have a photo of an engineer and the hole. They went down 12 feet and didn't find any groundwater. So it's at least 12 feet and, you know, could be 20 feet here, but well-draining sand. So a good location for stormwater and for septic systems, but we'll get into that in a little more detail in a little while, but as part of this last night the Planning Board went through the SEQR, the Long Form. We had a full discussion and then ultimately they issued a Negative Declaration and did recommend the variance. Laura made the comment to both Boards about Lot One, which is the smallest lot because of the angle of Peggy Ann Road, and what we agreed with the Planning Board was that we would change the lot line at least on the first three lots to make the Lot One bigger. We would fan it out, which we haven't done yet. We view that as a Planning Board issue, but certainly something that we consented to last night that, you know, should we get the variance and get back to the Planning Board, that we will change the size of Lot One and just make One bigger so that her concern is addressed. That's really it for my general comments. Tom, if you could show the map, in terms of the relative lot size, and also the stormwater issue. MR. CENTER-Okay. We'll start with the first one, Laura,that one right there. This first drawing is a map of the area. It was actually used, Mr. Nace was the one who worked on the drainage issues down in Queen Victoria's Grant, down in this area, right in there, where the blue line is. That is a series of under drains that go to the northeast of the parcel and eventually outlet into the watershed property in Glens Falls, and that was the fix in that area to, it was due to a groundwater issue down in that low spot,and if you see, our lot is right here. Our lot is right here where you can see the 450, and down in this area is 400, as is down on Michaels Drive, which was the other area that had a groundwater issue which the Town had Mr. Ryan run an under drain similar to what was done in Queen Victoria's Grant. That under drain goes out to Luzerne Road, and empties into a manhole through Charlton Lane on Luzerne Road, and that drains that area. Both of these systems have been found to significantly reduce the issues of groundwater in the subdivision locations. If you drive through them you can see that a lot of the houses in these subdivisions are barely above the road. You can see where they would have issues, and then the groundwater issue compounding that problem. The one in particular in Queen Victoria's Grant, talking with Tom today, was everything was draining to this area down in here, from this entire subdivision in the low area and the stormwater was exacerbating the groundwater problem in that lot, and this under drain has solved that issue. We're significantly higher than that. We have greater depth to,we've gone down 12 feet and not seen any signs of mottling or groundwater, and that's from front to the back of the, from the very back of the lot all the way to the front of the lot at Peggy Ann. So in regards to the stormwater I think we're in a completely different situation than either of those two locations that have had previous problems. The other drawing you can see the highlighted lots, and they include the ones off to the left. All the highlighted lots are all smaller than.67 acres,which is the average size of our lots, and that kind of characterizes the entire neighborhood. As Jon said before, that our lots are the same size or larger than any of these highlighted lots that are throughout this area, up and down the Peggy Ann Road. MR. LAPPER-You're saying the lots to the left. MR. CENTER-The lots to the left,yes. MR. LAPPER-They don't show up on that map. MR. CENTER-It shows up on here, but all of these lots in this area, down in here, down into here, everything down in this corner, all of these highlighted lots are all larger, or smaller than the lots that we're proposing. So that's a pretty significant portion of this area that has lots that are smaller than what we have proposed. So as far as, the question is, does it change the character of the neighborhood. We feel that we fit in with the character of the neighborhood,with the lot sizes that we've proposed. Many of these are .46, .46 acre lots inhere. Some of these down inhere are .55. These are.46 are the smaller ones in the central part of the subdivisions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members before I open the public comment period? MR. URRICO-Yes. You said that Lot One, the size of it would be increased. Where would that size come from? MR. LAPPER-Probably about,we'd go halfway back, and then we'd fan it to the south. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR.URRICO-So it wouldn't take away from any of the other lots? MR. LAPPER-No, and then we'd do the same thing on the next three lots,just so that they wouldn't be parallel. They would widen, or they would move to the south in the back. So we could pick up more acreage for Lot One and just make the other ones a little smaller. MR.URRICO-So what are we talking about,size wise,then? MR. LAPPER-So basically we'd be going from.58 to.67, approximately. MR.URRICO-On all of them? MR. LAPPER-The first lot. MR. CENTER-Try to keep .67 all the way back. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. CENTER-Through to here. MR.URRICO-So Lot 9 would lose? MR. CENTER-We would take it,we would try to take some from Lot 9 and then slide it all, in talking with the surveyor, he believes that we can work something out with a lot line adjustment, that we can take that lot line and canter them all towards the southeast there and get us closer to that.67. MR.URRICO-So Lot 9 will be something like 1.07 or something like that? MR. LAPPER-We were thinking,with the Planning Board,that we might not have to go back that far to make it work, but,you know, certainly we look at that as something that's absolutely doable and as a condition they said what they wanted and we said we could do it. Just to make that first lot significantly larger,and take it out of the other ones nearby. MR. HENKEL-The lot size is probably not totally the problem, it's the,what have you got like 46 feet there in the back there,something like that,would create a problem with variances,maybe. MR. LAPPER-Yes,so we'd make it more. MR. CENTER-It's the buildable area,the offsets,start to create that issue in the back. So by bringing it and extending that 45 feet, getting a greater area there, that leaves an area for a shed, for a pool, something that you can fit in that area. MR. LAPPER-It would be more parallel to Peggy Ann Road,that second half of that lot line. MR. HENKEL-So roughly what would be the increase of that? MR. CENTER-I haven't run the numbers yet. MR. HENKEL-Maybe somewhere around maybe 80 feet or something like that? MR. CENTER-It could be as much as 80. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Just so you don't have to worry about other variances later on for sheds or pools. MR. LAPPER-Yes,it's certainly a legitimate issue to try avoid now. MR. FREER-So all the smaller lots that you pointed out, were any of those built since we changed the zoning to two acre? MR. LAPPER-I don't know that they were. This was pretty much built up before the MDR zone. So if anything, it might be McEchron, but I think that was done around 2000. So I don't think so. I think this whole area was really done under the older zoning. MR. FREER-Thank you. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. GARRAND-McEchron is the larger size lots in the area. My big concern is this parcel, with all the infiltration that's going to be going on, is going to add to the groundwater in the area, and I'm not concerned about the parcel that you're building on here. I'm concerned about the other parcels,because the biggest water problems in this area are all down on Ferris Drive, and they still, those people down there still have groundwater problems, even though we do have that perforated pipe that runs through Queen Victoria's Grant and drains into the watershed. The more development that they did up above,the more water problems that they had down there. MR. LAPPER-Can you explain the stormwater plan for this lot? MR. CENTER-The stormwater plan, what we're doing is we're taking the water that falls now down onto the ground and getting it back into the ground as close to the location of where it falls now, taking into a series of, I think we have eight sets of drywells, eight drywells, four sets of eight in here, and allowing it to naturally go through the soil and go down in there. I did an infiltration test. We're actually designing it with 10 times the factor safety of what we actually have there. So our numbers,we have plenty of infiltration into the soil. We have deep soils all the way down. I drove though those areas today, looking at, there's, you know, maybe 10 drywells throughout some of those areas, and you can't see, you know, issues as far as the runoff from the roads. There's no drywells, it's not going anywhere. It's going into lawns, and you can see that there's not a problem, in this higher. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem in the lower area. The lower area has a soils issue,has a depth that boundary condition, and that's why these under drains were put in,but, you know,we're 30 feet higher than the surface at Michaels Drive, and we're 50 feet higher than the surface down below. It's the same amount of water that's going down, that's coming from the sky. We're just putting it back into the ground. Development doesn't create additional water. It's the runoff, it's the direction. If you're putting it back into the ground where it's already coming down, you're not creating additional stormwater. MR. GARRAND-But you're adding to it by taking out all the trees and all the vegetation that's currently there. MR. CENTER-We're still leaving many of the trees. We're putting it back into the ground. It still goes into the ground. The trees do take up some of it, but that's why we've, a lot of these lots have been, you know, left open in the backsides. We've left a no cut area. Our development is pushed towards the road as opposed to being deeper in the back and requiring more clearing. We've kind of minimized that impact, and it's well drained sand. I mean, I had the Department of Health out there with us and. MR. GARRAND-Yes,it drains really well. MR. CENTER-The soils are well drained. MR. GARRAND-There's no real topsoil in that area so it doesn't stay there and there's no evaporation. It just percolates right through. My concern is, the taxpayers of Queensbury spent roughly a million dollars to remediate the problems down in this neighborhood. I don't want to turn around and do something that's going to re-exacerbate this. MR. LAPPER-The difference is that that was not an optimal area to be doing the development because it's so low and they don't have all the sand. I mean,this is the high land area here. MR. GARRAND-This is a good place to develop. I'm just worried about the impact it's going to have on the other neighborhoods. MR. LAPPER-And what Tom's trying to say is that it's all being handled on the site with infiltration, so it's not going to run offsite. It's not going to exacerbate anything. MR. GARRAND-But the water table is what I'm concerned with, the Spring water table. I mean, if we go back and we start flooding these people out again, we're going to open ourselves up to more lawsuit. MR. CENTER-We're at least 20 feet above any water, if not more than that. I mean, we're down 12 feet, with nothing, we're seeing well drained sands, with no issue. There's plenty of capacity. We're above that. We're spreading the water out in these drywells. Many of the drywells down below in those, whether it was Queen Victoria's Grant or in the other one in Michaels Drive, and some of them still have metal cans. The ones I looked at today,that were in Ferriss Drive and what not, still have the metal can,which may have some stone on the outside, it may not have any. Those were dry as a bone. There was no water in the bottom of them. There was no issue. They're six 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) feet deep. These are going to be eight feet deep. We're taking that water. We're spreading it out amongst multiple, plus we're running, we're running a pipe between the two of them, underneath the road. So we're taking that water,we're dispersing it evenly into the area, into the soil, allowing it to perc through. So we're not taking it to a single pond where it could exacerbate a problem for a neighbor. We're spreading it out, that water that comes down now, and getting it back into the ground,and we're way above the existing water table. MR. GARRAND-What happens if the proposed development exacerbates the problem down there? MR. CENTER-I believe it will not. I mean, it's one 14 acre lot that has, that we're taking the stormwater and getting it back into the ground. There's, we're well above the, we don't even see any sign of seasonal high groundwater at the 12 foot mark. MR. GARRAND-I can't see where you would up there. MR. CENTER-So that means there's even more soil below us, that allows it to disperse. The boundary conditions, the things in the lower portion, is a soils issue in that area, for that area, and that,you know,that's the natural,that's the drainage that's in that area and those soils. The houses are built lower,you know, closer to that surface. They're not built up. We just,you know, I was in Michaels Drive with the Ball site plans recently and did those. You're looking at four feet in some instances near there. MR. GARRAND-It seems like everything in that area drains down into there. Everything seems to channel down towards Sherman Avenue,that area. MR. CENTER-There's natural flows. It's all in regards,you're not exacerbating the problem. Again, you're not creating the stormwater, that it's the same amount of water that comes down. Yes, is there some that gets taken up by trees? Yes, but you go up and down Peggy Ann Road, there's no stormwater at all on it. If that was the case where hard surface is creating a problem up and down Peggy Ann Road, it looks like it's all going, especially on the high marks, it's going right into the soil, right along there. There's no, very little channeling. There's no big erosion problem. It's all, it's taking whatever big storms we have,it's going through,you know, into the soils and out. I can't see where we are up here. MR. GARRAND-Most of one side of Peggy Ann Road is undeveloped,though. There's no houses. MR. CENTER-It still has the same soil. I believe that this soil, I think that we're not going to create an issue anywhere downstream with the soils that we have here in the neighborhood. We're far enough away from any of those, and we're dispersing it on site back into the ground, and taking treatment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public comment period? MR. KUHL-Because of the issue of Lot One, why don't you just take Lot One and Two and combine them? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we looked at that and it's just kind of making it look more symmetric. We want to have a house up front, all kind of similar size. I mean, certainly that's something we looked at and we could do that, but it just seemed that Laura's issue could be addressed by just making that lot bigger, and it would be suitable, and then you'd just have two houses along Peggy Ann. It would look symmetric. MR. KUHL-But the subdivision wouldn't be approved, and you would make Lot One and Lot Two one lot, and then it would get approved. If that was the thing that stopped you, you'd combine it, wouldn't you? MR. LAPPER-That would always be the right answer. Yes. MR. KUHL-That would be the right answer. Because, I mean, you're not showing us what you're going to do to make Lot One the right size. MR. LAPPER-And that's only because it came up last night. MR. KUHL-I've got you,but you've had all day. I mean,you were probably on the golf course. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. LAPPER-Hardly. Coming up with these pretty maps. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public comment period. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. This is from Steve Gurzler from Glens Falls. It says "Concerns. It is important to the City of Glens Falls that any subdivision approved for this area has proper design of stormwater and wastewater systems in order to ensure that stormwater and nutrient transport does not adversely affect the quality of water in our reservoir." That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one I will note that I'm leaving the public comment period open. Does Staff have any comments at this time? MRS.MOORE-No, I do not. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time I guess we'll poll the Board, if that's okay with everyone. Mike, I'll start with you. MR. MC CABE-I've got a couple of problems here. Essentially we're being asked to ignore the MDR zoning district here. I don't like that. It was done for a reason, and a better approach would be to change the zoning. I agree that,you know, the lots on either side here are much smaller,but that's not our concern. Our concern is we're looking at a two acre minimum, and there isn't a single lot in this development that's getting two acres. So that's one problem I have. The other problem I have is we're talking about drainage, and I believe that drainage is very good in this particular area, but it's very heavily wooded, and I believe that you've understated the value of the tree. I believe the tree sucks up a lot of water. I don't believe all the water that comes down goes out. I believe a lot of water that comes down gets sucked up into those trees, particularly with the density of the trees in this particular area. When you have smaller lots,you tend to clear them. When you have bigger lots, you tend to leave more trees. I'm not comfortable with allowing this number of lots in this particular area. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I think that you are asking a lot. The idea that these smaller lots were built before we changed was sort of where my question originated from. I would support it if you went to 17 and combined,so that that smallest Lot One became dispersed in the other lots. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes. I'm kind of torn,because at the time this area was developed,this specific area, it was pretty common for the lot sizes to be around .67, .7, .8, somewhere around there, 10,000 square feet, and now this, it would seem to be out of character of the neighborhood for us to force somebody to build two acre lots right where this is. On the other hand,there are some issues here with the sizes of the lots as it concerns density and runoff, and I, too, would like to see a little bit larger lots across the board, not just Lot One, but maybe by eliminating Lot One, the rest of the lots can be made bigger, maybe even two lots to go, but I think there's too many lots crammed into too small a space, and that I do have a problem with. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Well, if this was my property, I'd come to the Board with an application like this also to make the maximum amount of money, but it's not, and I'm sitting here and the zoning calls for two acres, and as Staff Notes state,it is substantial. They're asking for substantial relief. The latest subdivision in here, with the new zoning, McEchron is more in line with what we're looking for in the Town, and you don't get so many problems with the water. I'd rather err on the side of caution and have larger lot size. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with Rick as far as the lot size. With 14 acres, I think you're asking for a lot of relief. I think you should have larger lots, not necessarily at two acres,but I think they all should be at least over an acre. So I would not be in favor the way it's presented. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Well, I can see definitely combing Lot One with the project and making a little larger lots. I wouldn't say you have to make them also like Mr. Kuhl said that you don't have to make them two acres, but I'd say definitely take Lot One away and combining. So I would definitely be against the project as presented. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm wondering, if you went to a 16 lot subdivision,what would the minimum size lot be? MR. LAPPER-It would be.80. MR. CENTER-It would be close to.8. You'd be sliding all the lot lines,eliminating two. MR.JACKOSKI-So the road's only taking up about an acre and a quarter,out of the 14? MR.URRICO-.87. MR.JACKOSKI-Is the road? MR.URRICO-No, I'm sorry. MR.JACKOSKI-The average. MR.URRICO-Well,that would be the average. MR.JACKOSKI-If you did 16 out 14 acres,yes,but now you've got to take out the road. MR. HENKEL-You've got 14.8 acres,almost 15 acres. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think it's an interesting concept at this point. You've heard the comments from the Board members that they're not happy and that this is a significant amount of relief. Some of the comments were such that it should be an acre plus, and actually I think I kind of like the acre plus. That puts you down to a 13 lot subdivision,thereabouts. MR. CENTER-The road's just under an acre. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. CENTER-Not huge driveways,though. MR. LAPPER-As a compromise I think that .8 at 16 lots could work. I mean, it's part of it. It's the cost of the road, and trying to build houses at a price point that'll sell. These are,you know,kind of starter homes for,you know, the families. So it's always about compromising, but I think that,you know, estate lots are just not going to work here, and to compare it to McEchron, that was much wider. So they were able to get their density without having to have too much frontage. So it still made sense. This is a much narrower piece of property, and most important just the character of the neighborhood, just what you're going to build there, what people are going to buy is not going to be something that's dramatically larger and more expensive than what's there. So I think that, at two lots left and moving the area around to make larger lots I think that's doable, but beyond that it's really not going to be a successful project for the applicants. So if there was a consensus that we could do that, I think we could go forward. MR. JACKOSKI-When you mention that it's not possible to be successful for the applicant, I assume you mean that based on a financial concern? MR. LAPPER-Yes,financial,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-And so what does a lot like this sell for in the Town of Queensbury? MR. LAPPER-Well,they're going to build. MR.JACKOSKI-But there's still a land value. I mean,is it a$60,000 lot? MR. LAPPER-Well,it's not just the cost of the land. It's the cost of the road that you're. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but if it's a $50,000 lot and there's 16 lots, that's $900,000, I'm sorry, $800,000. Right? Did the lot cost$800,000 from the City of Glens Falls? MR. LAPPER-But they're buying it to do a successful project and pay for all the costs. So it's more than just the acquisition of the land. MR.JAC KO SKI-What was the acquisition of the land cost? That's public record,right? MR. LAPPER-I don't know. $210,000 is what they paid for the land. MR. JACKOSKI-So they have $550,000 to develop the property with. Assuming a $50,000 lot. I think it's quite feasible at a lower number of lots,but. MR. LAPPER-I guess it's also just a question of what exists there and,you know, what the character is. It would still be larger. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay with trying to keep the lots at .85 and higher. I understand we're concerned with the one acre or more. I don't know that we have the votes for even .85 acres or more. MR. LAPPER-I guess we'd like to know that. Because that could work. MR. HENKEL-I'd be willing to go with the 16 lots. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I think what I want to suggest is that up to 16 lots at .85 acre minimum. Is there anyone else willing to try to accomplish that? MR.URRICO-Yes. I would go for that. MR. LAPPER-Is that minimum or average? MR.JACKOSKI-I'd say minimum. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Can somebody put forth a motion? I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison,do you want to try to put the motion forward? RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 61-2014, Joseph Leuci, Peggy Ann Road, Tax Map No. 301.15-1-19 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joseph Leuci for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of an 18-lot residential subdivision with lots ranging from 0.58 acres to 1.46 acres. Relief requested from the minimum lot area requirement of 2-acres as required within the MDR district. Also, relief requested from the minimum density, and lot width requirements for the MDR district. The approval is for no more than 16 lots with a minimum size of 0.85 acres in the subdivision,and the relief requested is for the two-acre as required in the MDR district. SEQR Type I - Coordinated Review A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,September 24,2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No, because many of the existing lots are approximately that size and the homes are accordingly sized for those kind of lots. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? No. There's a price point and a development size that is required. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The variance should be considered substantial since we're half of the two-acre requirement,but the applicant has shown some flexibility in terms of a minimum lot size of 0.85. 4. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes. 5. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 61-2014,Joseph Leuci, Introduced by Harrison Freer,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 24th day of September,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2014 SEQRA TYPE II FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK OWNER(S) FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK ZONING WR LOCATION 43 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL AND RE-CONSTRUCTION OF GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY, MINIMUM FRONT, AND SIDE PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR SUCH ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 61-14, BP 94-359 ADDITION; BP 93-279 ADDITION TO DECK; BP 92-507 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.40 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 FRITZ STEFANZICK, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2014, Franz & Mary Stefanzick, Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 "Project Location: 43 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) Applicant proposes removal and re-construction of a garage addition. The existing garage is 536 sq. ft.and the project final is for a 576 sq.ft.two car garage with storage space above. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested for the reconstruction project of a garage and garage addition where the building does not meet the height, setback or permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts for the Waterfront residential zone dimensional requirements, Section 179-5-020 Accessory structures -garage WR Permeability Front *Rear North Height Required 75 % 30 ft. 30 ft. 16 ft. Proposed 68.9% 2.6 ft. 0.45 ft. 23 ft.9 in. Relief 6.1 % 27.4 ft. 29.55 Excess of 7.9 ft. *This property fronts on two roads so the property setbacks are two rears and two fronts. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce the size of the structure by height where the applicant has indicated the activity occurs within the existing footprint and minimal disturbance is to occur. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 94-359: Addition BP 93-279: Deck addition BP 92-507: Deck Staff comments: The applicant proposes the reconstruction project because the existing garage is in disrepair. The project will allow for a 2 car garage and new storage. The garage is 536 sq. ft. where an additional 40 sq. ft. is to be added to the overall structure -with a total of 576 sq. ft. The floor plans show a portion of the garage to be concrete block as 12 ft. x 24 ft. that is to remain. The remaining wood frame portion is to be removed and replaced with the addition to square off the structure. The roofline would be changed to extend over the new portion of the garage and to add dormers this would accommodate attic storage. The new garage would have a height of 23 ft. 9 in. at the property grade as shown on the plans. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board, on September 231d, met and they passed a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted unanimously. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. STEFANZICK-Hi. I'm Fritz Stefanzick, and I do appreciate your time. What I would like to do, if I could start, work off of this sketch that you have, this visual, and then this sketch that I've put together here also. Starting with the forward, this is just a visual to get an idea of what's existing there now and a concept of what I would like to have there, and the plan would be to keep the right half of that garage, the existing garage, which is a block structure. It's a sound foundation, sound wall, and remove the wooden part of that. I would then re-build that part. All of this is on the same footprint. It would be adjoined to the block part that I'm leaving and then I would put a new roof line. I think you can see from what I have now to what I would like to have. I would be eliminating a significant eyesore. I think from a visual standpoint in the neighborhood this is going to be an enhancement to the neighborhood. If you've ever gone down Hanneford road, it's a great country road. I think this would fit in nicely with the characteristics of the neighborhood, and I think for myself, from a selfish standpoint,this would significantly help me with storage,being able to park two cars. I have no storage in the main house, no basement, no attic. So that's kind of a visual overview of what's there and what I would like to have. If you go to, and you look at the dimension sketch, as was reported here, what I would be doing, what I knocked down the wooden frame. I would re-build that and square that off. Once again all this is on the existing footprint. So the surface area would go from 536 feet to 576 feet, because I'm adding that squared off area which is, I think, the southwest corner of the garage. So that's basically what I would be looking to do. Now to do this, I would,the relief that I am looking for is because of the permeability,the height and also the relief. I would like to know, and I believe you're aware, that this is an existing structure. Each of these conditions,the site variance,the height and the permeability, already exists. I believe with the Staff Notes, the Staff Notes did correctly say that it is significant deviation to the Code. However, if you look, and I do believe I do agree with that, but if you look at the existing property that's been there for many decades, it's not that significant. The side variances, relief from the side and the front yard,they're going to be exactly the same. They're going to even be improved on the north side. What I plan on doing is removing the eaves. There's an eaves right now that encroaches on my neighbor's property. That will be eliminated, and there won't be an eaves over there. So that is a slight improvement. But the rest of the footprint stays the same. From a permeability standpoint,from what is there now to what I'm going to have,it's only 1.6%more. So the big, which I don't think is significant. The biggest change here would be in the height. I'm looking to get about another seven feet and a couple of inches over the existing height. The existing height right now doesn't meet Code requirements either, but I think that's about the biggest difference that I see right now from the structure that's there to what I'm looking at. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-What are you going to put in the house, in the garage? Are you going to put water and electric, or just electric? MR. STEFANZICK-There is no water right now. There is electric line that comes from the house and that's going to stay there. That line provides for a light that's in the garage, plus an outlet. So I'm going to keep that. There is no water. There is no sewer. There's no heat, and that's the way it's going to stay. MR. KUHL-Why the dormer? MR. STEFANZICK-The dormer is going to be up there for ventilation and for light. I am looking to have significant storage area up there. With all the storage area that I plan to have up there, I'm also looking to have the proper headroom to do some work up there. I'm going to put some of my tools up there and do some wood crafting or whatever, but it's basically there for light and for ventilation. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. FREER-So you could certainly say that we're supposed to give you the minimum variance necessary. MR. STEFANZICK-Yes,sir. MR. FREER-So that gets to why you need to have this so much taller than the current structure and so much taller than Code. Can you comment on it? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. STEFANZICK-Sure. You know if you look at the property right now,there's two different fixed points. There's the road elevation and then there's the property elevation, right, and the different between those is almost two feet. So when you look at starting the elevation,height of the building from the property elevation, it automatically adds two more feet onto whatever you want to do,but the way this is set right now is the garage ceiling, or the attic floor, whichever you want, that is at the minimum height right now, so I could open up a garage door. All right. So then the rest of the height comes from the attic, of course. What I'd like to have is a 10 by 12 pitch, which is very desirable to me. I think it fits in with some of the other houses on there,but then that also gives me the proper headroom for me to be able to walk around without knocking my head, and it also is what I think is the minimum is you need that to be able to come up the stairs. Once you come up the stairs, you have like about six feet right at the top of the stairs, with this design right now. So that kind of gives me the right headroom for once I come up the stairs. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, is the reason the permeability is so low, so to speak, because of the road? That's factored into his calculations,right? MR. HENKEL-Are you building this yourself or is somebody else? MR. STEFANZICK-I'm going to have professionals build this. MR. HENKEL-$20,000 sounds kind of cheap for a big project like that. MR. STEFANZICK-Well, I've already gotten some quotes for foundations, for framing, and it looks like about$20,000. I will end up doing the inside work,sheet rocking and stuff like that. MR. HENKEL-With the amount you're putting into that, wouldn't be almost better to move it a little bit,so you would comply a little better? That north side there is awful close. MR. STEFANZICK-It's very close. MR. HENKEL-And there's kind of a stormwater that kind of goes through there from the mountain. You're talking about a major remodeling project like that. It would almost be better to comply a little bit. Move it. Basically you're just keeping one stall the same, really, you're dismantling the other shed part. MR. STEFANZICK-Exactly, and I'm doing this to maintain cost. Right now that garage is a solid garage. Once I change the door on that, I'm going to be able to easily get a car in there. I'll be able to remove all the stuff that's in there right now that I'm storing and be able to re-locate that so I can actually get a car in there. I believe that removing that structure and having to build a whole new foundation, that's going to really increase the cost significantly. I think that,you know, $20,000 is just something that I think is, you know, from my standpoint, a personal standpoint, it makes the economics work. I also believe that, where can I move it? I mean, I can move it in towards the middle, but then I've got to move the driveway, because the driveway's there, and then, you know, I've got this big beautiful rhododendron there that everyone says is the world's biggest rhododendron. If I have to keep on going over, I have to remove that. MR. HENKEL-You can build a little bit more to the west and a little bit towards the south. I saw you were clearing some trees there. So it looks like you're making room for, you know, you cleared quite a few trees,didn't you,or no? MR. STEFANZICK-Those trees, I did remove those. Those were three elms that were dead. They died,the Dutch Elm disease, and then there was a pine, a very large pine that was beginning to split, and all of that was staring to cause a safety hazard. My neighbor and everything was falling on his boat and all of that stuff. MR. HENKEL-Yes,it makes sense. MR. STEFANZICK-I have considered, I mean, if I were starting over, absolutely, that's what I would do. Just from an economic standpoint,just having to remove everything, the demolition costs just to do that, and re-doing the foundation, from a personal financial standpoint, I don't think that would be feasible. MR. HENKEL-What kind of foundation is underneath the shed part,the western part of that garage? MR. STEFANZICK-Right now that's just a wooden structure. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. HENKEL-So there's no foundation at all underneath there? MR. STEFANZICK-No foundation. MR. HENKEL-No slab or anything? MR. STEFANZICK-No slab or anything, right, it's just gravel and stuff like that. So that'll be, removing that part and then just digging that out is going to be, I think,pretty straightforward. MR. HENKEL-So you're really not keeping the same footprint, per se. You're keeping the footprint of the one car garage basically. MR. STEFANZICK-True, but then the foundation will go right onto that same footprint where that building is right now, where that building has been. So it's going to end up being 24 by 24. Right now when you look at that structure, with the wood and the cement block, that's a 24 foot wide structure. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. STEFANZICK-And the new property, or the new structure that I'm proposing, would also be 24 feet. MR.JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public comment period? MR.URRICO-How much are you willing to compromise on the height of the garage? MR. STEFANZICK-As I've learned from the previous meeting, I would be flexible. I am, I have looked at two feet lower,to be honest with you,and it, I'm going to lose,by going two feet lower, I'm going to lose 30 feet, 30 square, 30%of the square foot of the second floor. Tome that's significant. I don't have room in my main house. No attic, no basement. Eventually I'm looking to move up here permanently, and I'm going to need that space. Would I do it, could I do it? I probably could, but two feet would be a burden, and,you know, even with where it is right now, I think I have some pictures that, you know, on the second page of the, it fits in with other houses. The house across the street is a garage, and then an apartment on top that's significantly higher than what I have. Diagonally over it's the same type of garage with a high roof that's about the same as what I'm proposing. So,you know, I think it fits in with the character. So what, I was looking for a minimum that would suit me but also kind of stay within the character of the neighborhood. MR.URRICO-Is that a Town maintained road? MR. STEFANZICK-Yes, sir. For about, right past myself and my neighbor, so a couple more feet down. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public comment period and ask Roy if there's any written comments. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-I do not see any written comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comments, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public comment period open and we'll poll the Board. Ron,we'll start with you. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I'm not a fan of height variances,but I can see how this is going to blend in very nicely and compliment your property, but I would encourage you, if you're going to move up here, the more space you have, the more junk you're going to keep, but be that as it may, I think it's an improvement to what you have, you know, I'd be in favor of it, but if you want to drop it two feet, I'd be in favor of the two foot drop,too,but I'm in favor of it the way it is. I think it's going to improve your property. I think it's going to look good, and you're just putting electricity in there. So you're not going to move your mother-in-law in, and you're not going to run your business out of it. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. STEFANZICK-I appreciate it. Thanks. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-As Staff stated,the relief requested is significant. I wouldn't be in favor of it as is. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I have a problem with it, just because it's a major re-model, and that amount of money he's putting into it, I think it would be better to comply a little bit better. The height doesn't bother me too much. The permeability doesn't bother me. It's just that, if you're going to put that much money into a place, I think you could move it and comply a little bit better. So I'm against the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-The only way I would be in favor of the project is if the height is lowered by the two feet. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. So I understand the economics of building on the footprint that you're on. So, even though the requests are significant with regard to setbacks, I could live with that. I don't think that we would be doing our job by granting the height variance that you requested based on you know, the minimum necessary. I understand you lose some total headroom, but most of that area would be still used for storage and as my colleague suggests,you know,we all build things and then fill it. So we're helping you out whether you know it or not. So I would only be in favor if the height was reduced by the two feet that we discussed. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think the project would enhance the neighborhood. It's kind of an eclectic neighborhood. I don't like the present garage. So I would be in favor of the new garage as is. I would support the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I think there's plenty of room to move the garage. Economics are not, it's the applicant's choice to build the new garage, and, to me, it should come off both the lawns. So I wouldn't be in favor of the project. So the public comment period is still open. I can close the public comment period and seek a motion. MR. STEFANZICK-Am I allowed to? MR.JACKOSKI-Of course. MR. STEFANZICK-I appreciate everybody's comments. As I mentioned, I did go through and get estimates. I do believe I could do this at $20,000, around that. I think moving it is going to be significantly more money, and I don't know exactly where I'm going to move it. I could move it a couple of feet to the west, as was mentioned, but I'm not sure if that's going to be a major change difference than what I'm proposing, and the costs just end up making that non-feasible, and it would be a burden to have to do that, and now I have a structure sitting there that's just falling apart. So I do respect everybody's input on that,but I just didn't want it coming back on that. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR.URRICO-If you lowered your garage by two feet, I think you have enough votes here to pass. MRS. MOORE-Another option is if the applicant chooses to table it to re-design the project and come back before the Board at a different time, or the applicant can choose to offer to lower it a certain amount of feet. MR. STEFANZICK-I will agree to the two foot reduction. I think, like I said, I looked at that as the minimum. It doesn't exactly get me what I want,but if it fits in with what everybody else's position is,then I'm willing to compromise on that. MR. JACKOSKI-So make note that the applicant has requested that the Board consider the variance application to be two feet less as it relates to the height variance requested. 1s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-So I'm closing the public hearing and seeking a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 69-2014, Fritz Stefanzick, 43 Hanneford Road,Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Fritz and Mary Stefanzick for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes removal and re-construction of a garage addition. Relief requested from minimum permeability, minimum front, and side property line setbacks for the WR zoning district. Also, relief requested from maximum allowable height limitation for such accessory structure. So these reliefs, then, will read 6.1% relief for permeability; 27.4 feet relief from front setback; 29.55 feet relief from rear north setback,and 5.9 feet from the height setback. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,September 24,2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? We find no. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance? It could,but at considerable less cost. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? Moderately so. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We find no. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,it is. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 69-2014, Fritz and Mary Stefanzick, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 24th day of September 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Thank you. Good luck. MR. STEFANZICK-Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2014 SEQRA TYPE II RUSSELL M. CANTERBURY AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL - RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) RUSSELL M. CANTERBURY ZONING WR LOCATION 39 CANTERBURY DRIVE ON WEST END OF GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 1,979 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH REVISED SIZE FOOTPRINT OF 2,118 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY, SIDE, REAR AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL (WR) DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF IS NEEDED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON A PARCEL WITHOUT THE NECESSARY MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FREESTANDING STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FEET OF SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 15 PERCENT. CROSS REF SB MODIFICATION 3-06; SP 46-14 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2014 LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-25 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSSELL CANTERBURY, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-We've seen this project before. So, Roy, if you could read the modifications into the record,that would be great. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 49-2014, Russell M. Canterbury, Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 "Project Location: 39 Canterbury Drive on west end of Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,979 sq. ft. residence and construction of a new single family dwelling with revised size footprint of 2,118 sq. ft. The information has been revised as part of the submission for the September review. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from section 179-3-040 establishment of districts -area requirements for waterfront residential and 179-4-050 road frontage: Permeability Side South Shoreline Height FAR Road Frontage Required 75% 20 ft. 50 ft. Max allowed Max allowed 22%/ 50 ft. 28 2,720.5 sq.ft. Proposed 68.29% 18 ft. 6 in. 16.1 ft. 30 ft. 35.9%/4443 sq.ft. 0 ft. Relief 6.71 % 1.4 ft. 33.9 ft. Excess 2 ft. Excess 13.9% 50 ft. 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. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce the amount of relief requested with a smaller footprint and or floor area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The applicant has made revisions to the plans to reduce the relief requested for height,permeability,shoreline, and side setback. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions 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 3-06: Modification SP 19-13: SFD (Benton) Staff comments: The applicant had requested tabling at the July 16th Zoning Board meeting. The applicant has completed a variance application for the demolition of an existing home to construct a new home. The relief requested is for permeability, a south side setback, shoreline setback, height, floor area ratio and road frontage. The revised information submitted shows the location of the existing and proposed home, elevations, floor plans, septic system, site details including planting plans and permeable paver location on the site. The applicant plans include planting areas and stormwater management on the site. Staff would recommend the septic upgrade as a condition. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review required" MR.JACKOSKI-Go for it. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle of Rucinski/Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Russ Canterbury, owner of the project. The drawing that's up here is the existing conditions as we've gone over before. The blue area represents the area of the lot that is buildable without variance,which is a very narrow area. Our total lot depth is 80 feet from the lake to the back of the lot,and from the roadway here that goes up quite substantially. That's,we'd kind of gone over that in pretty good detail before. The modifications that were made based on the review, when we were here last time. We made the deck significantly smaller. The outline of the old deck is on there. So we dropped the deck back. I moved the building back an additional three and a half feet away from the lake. So we've increased from our original, our original was eight feet. We increased now up to 16 feet back from the lake. We tried to bring that back as far as we could. I've crowded the building as close to that right of way access as I can do it without having to, without endangering the corners of the building from plowing and things like that. Again, part of this project is to purchase a piece of the adjoining property so that we can get the septic out of the lake. With only an 80 foot deep lot overall, that's the kind of major focus there. So we've done that. We also reduced the height of the building down by lowering the roof pitches down from the requested 32 10 that we had before down to a 30 foot. We dropped that down as low as we could get it. It gives us a three on twelve pitch. Which means it's going to wind up being either a rubber roof or a metal roof on that upper portion to get that down there. The other things that we did,we looked, when we made the deck smaller, we eliminated the access from that deck down onto the ground, and we moved the access out and away from the building a little farther, put the stairs on the side and added a walkway that goes down to the current dock. Outside of that,those were kind of the major changes that were made in response to what we heard here last night. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ethan. I have a couple of questions. Ignoring the permeable patio, you're really 21 feet 8 inches off the lake? MR. HALL-Correct,and that's within inches of where the existing building is. MR.JACKOSKI-And what are you doing for parking? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. HALL-There's always existing parking here, and there's a two car garage. So he's got two parking spaces in front of the garage and two spaces within the garage. MR. JACKOSKI-And those two parking spaces in front of the garage aren't going to impact the right of way? MR. HALL-No, no, the right of way comes down, it's basically exactly the way it stands right now. This is the existing parking. The garage is here, and the right of way is around. So it just pushes everything back. MR. HENKEL-Now if you're going to purchase extra property there, couldn't that road, can't you change that road a little bit? MR. HALL-The way that that bank goes up. MR. HENKEL-Can't you cut that a little bit and put a retaining wall? MR. GARRAND-That's a deeded easement,too. MR. HALL-It's a deeded right of way. All of Canterbury Lane down through there is a deeded right of way, because it's a private road, it crosses all of those individual properties, and this is so steep back up in here, it's like a 25 foot drop from the Benton's property up on top down to this road, and it's almost unhikeable it's so steep. MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. CANTERBURY-The roof line of these houses is below the foundation. MR. HALL-Are below,yes. The pictures that I gave you, one of the comments that we had last time was the view from the bike path. So I went up to the bike path and took some pictures looking back down, and interesting, the bike path out on the other side of that path that we've got shown there, the bike path goes up, but grade goes up from the bike path back down to the Benton's area, and then back up again. So all of these pictures, there's a couple of them that you can actually see this adjoining house for Thomas. You can see those, and then a little bit of the blue house and the Canterbury's house that's there,but by the time you get up and around the corner a little bit,this is, it's completely out of view. MR. CANTERBURY-It's heavily forested,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-I don't think there's any issue with the road variance. Ethan, are these all eight foot ceilings? MR. HALL-Yes. Yes, I dropped everything down to eight foot ceilings. There's no cathedral. The only cathedral space is out in the front where it's open to the upstairs, but everything has been dropped down to eight foot. MR. HENKEL-How about the permeability, is that going to change because if you buy this extra property? That permeability's going to drop,right? MR. HALL-No,that takes into account. MR. HENKEL-That does take into account? MR. HALL-Yes,my permeability numbers take into account the engineering of the property. MR. HENKEL-But the FAR. MR. CANTERBURY-Significantly more permeability than existing because we're getting rid of concrete,plus the new land,you know,for the septic. MR. HALL-That's there now. I mean, if you take the permeability of what's there now, everything in front of the building and around to one side is all existing concrete. It's all hard surface from the house right down to the. MR. KUHL-Are you putting in a new septic? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. CANTERBURY-Yes. MR. HALL-Yes, and the portion from Staff Notes,that's a given. We have to do that. I mean,there's nowhere on this lot to put a legal septic system without going to the Town Board to get a variance. So the easiest way to do it was to purchase that piece and force it back up so we can get the 100 foot separation to the lake. I mean,that was the whole crux of this thing to begin with. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open that public comment period and ask Roy if there's any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-I do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Okay. Seeing no one, I do have the public comment period remaining open,and I'll poll the Board. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Given the constraints of this lot, I think it's a brilliant design. Things had to be shoehorned in here and a lot of modifications had to be made and they reduced the relief considerably. I'm happy with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I think this is a much better project now,and I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I've never heard him say brilliant before. I don't think I was here for this before, but I can live with this. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my Board members. I'm not going to nickel and dime the 1.4 foot you want on the south side. I agree with it. It's good. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with it. It's a tough lot there to work with. They've definitely made some good concessions. I'd be in favor of the project? MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I like the fact that they worked with us, made improvements. I was against it in the beginning,but I've changed my mind. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good. So that's pretty nice, isn't it? So I'm going to close the public comment period and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Why not. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 49-2014, Russell M. Canterbury, 39 Canterbury Drive,Tax Map No. 289.17-1-25 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell M. Canterbury for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 and 179-4-050 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,979 sq. ft. residence and construction of a new single-family dwelling with revised footprint of 2,118 square feet. Relief requested from minimum permeability, side, rear, and shoreline setback requirements. Relief requested from maximum allowable height, and Floor Area Ratio requirements of the Waterfront Residential; (WR) district. Additionally, relief is needed for development of a principal structure on a parcel without the necessary minimum road 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) frontage on a public highway. Site Plan Review is required for construction of new hardsurfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline and for the construction of a freestanding structure within 50 feet of slopes in excess of 15 percent. Relief requested is 6.7% permeability; south side setback 1.4 feet; shoreline 33.9 feet; height two foot; Floor Area Ratio 13.9%and front road frontage 50 feet. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 24,2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Because of the lot size,this is the best use of that lot. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? You might take a look at all the requests that are being asked,but it's good for what it is,and it's a good use of the property. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor impacts are anticipated. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is self-created. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No.49-2014, Russell Canterbury, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 24th day of September,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-In all the years of living on Glen Lake, it's nice to see all these new houses going up that are really well planned. So thank you, appreciate it. MR. CANTERBURY-Thank you very much. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-At this time, due to a conflict of interest, I'm going to excuse myself from the Board for the next matter. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 70-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC OWNER(S) 697 UPPER GLEN STREET, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 989 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FOR BUSINESS COMPLEX WITH SIGNAGE POLE PREEXISTING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH A SIGN. BP 14-369 FS SIGN 989 NORTH; BP 1-430 FS SIGN NEW BEG CHURCH; BP 97-3008 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS FS SIGN; SP 58-09 SMAXL HOLDINGS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 3.58 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-22 SECTION CHAPTER 140 STEVEN JACKOSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 70-2014, 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC, Meeting Date: September 24, 2014 "Project Location: 989 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign for a business complex with signage pole pre- existing. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief is requested to locate a 45 sq ft sign on an existing signage structure base that does not meet the required setbacks. Section 140 Signs Cl Front Yard Required 15 ft. Proposed (minimum) 5 ft. Relief 10 ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible may be available to relocate the sign structure to a compliant location. The applicant has indicated the new sign is a replacement and no changes to the base structure are proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 14-369: Freestanding sign,pending BP 10-430: Freestanding sign BP 97-3008: K of C sign 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) BP 58-09: SMAXL Holdings Staff comments: The applicant proposes to update an existing sign identifying the tenants within the building. There are no changes to the site. The plans show the location of the sign and the new signage proposed. The applicant has indicated placing the sign in the existing location will minimize disturbance on the site where a utilities would need to be relocated for a new sign location. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. GARRAND-For the purpose of the record,please state your name. MR.JACKOSKI-My name is Steve Jackoski and I represent 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC. MR. GARRAND-Thank you,sir. Please tell us about your project. MR. JACKOSKI-I think Mr. Urrico pretty well explained it all. It is a freestanding existing illuminated sign that is here simply because the Code requires it to come into conformance within the next five years of when it was adopted in 2009. So all we're doing is looking for a copy change. MR. GARRAND-Thank you,sir. At this time I'll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GARRAND-Any questions from the Board members? MR. KUHL-Yes. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. So that puts you in a higher rate of pay because you're not Mr. Chairman. MR. GARRAND-But they won't pay me higher. MR. KUHL-I see. There'll be no additions to this sign,sir? MR.JACKOSKI-No,we're looking for the four businesses that will be located there to have signage. MR. KUHL-Is the Knights of Columbus still there? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. KUHL-Really? MR.JACKOSKI-In the lower level. They can't give up their home. MR. KUHL-I didn't know that. Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members have any comments for the applicant? At this time I'll ask if any members in the public would like to speak about this Sign Variance request? MR. URRICO-There's a note from the Water Department, Chris Harrington. "It is our recommendation that this variance not be heard by the Zoning Board. The variance for exemption from sewer hookup expired in 2011. They need to hookup to a sewer as required by Code or seek another variance from the Town Board." This is Chris Harrington,Water Superintendent, Director of Wastewater. MR. GARRAND-Which last I heard is the purview of the Town Board since they are the Board of Health. MRS. MOORE-I can, there is a public hearing scheduled. So that is moving forward. So the applicant has,is complying with the request. MR. GARRAND-October,isn't it? MR.JACKOSKI-October 6th. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. KUHL-You're not excited about this request? MR.JACKOSKI-Which request? No,the $30,000 to $70,000 expense of putting in a pump system to hookup that sewer system for a few extra toilets? No. MR. KUHL-Is that what you have to do? MR.JACKOSKI-It's because we're on the hill,and the line is really low right there. MR. URRICO-The second part of that was that it was resolved by the Town Board on September 22nd MRS.MOORE-It's for the public hearing. It has not been heard yet. MR.URRICO-Okay. MRS.MOORE-It's just to set the public hearing. MR. URRICO-Okay. It's a lot to read here. I need an attorney to interpret this. Anyway, it's going to be heard, as we just heard. MR.JACKOSKI-It's in the works. MR. GARRAND-No more comments from Board members? No comments from the public? At this time I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-And we have to do SEQR on this. Anybody who would like to do SEQR? Since this is an Unlisted action. I'll just go through it. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 70-2014 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC (Steven Jackoski) Business Plaza: 989 North based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 24th day of September.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Jackoski MR. GARRAND-On that note, I'll poll the Board members. Anybody have a problem with this? MR. KUHL-No. MR. HENKEL-No. MR. FREER-No. MR. GARRAND-Okay,at this time I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 70-2014, 697 Upper Glen Street, Tax Map No. 296.13-1-22 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 697 Upper Glen Street. LLC (Steven Jackoski) Business Plaza: 989 North for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign for a business complex with signage pole preexisting. Relief requested from the minimum front yard setback requirements for such sign. The relief requested is 10 feet. SEQR Type: Unlisted; 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 70-2014 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC (Steven Jackoski) Business Plaza: 989 North based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 24th day of September.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Jackoski A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 24,2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested sign variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an sign variance? The benefit could be sought by some other method feasible,but it really isn't practical from a financial standpoint. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Not really,since the sign is already existing. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Again,not really since the sign is existing. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? No,the sign has existed for a number of years. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 70-2014, 697 Upper Glen Street, LLC (Steven Jackoski) Business Plaza: 989 North, Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 24th day of September,2014,by the following vote: 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr.Jackoski MR. KUHL-Where do you have to put that grinder pump,in the building,inside? MR. JACKOSKI-On the side of the drive-in. Okay. I'm back, now that I don't have a conflict of interest anymore. Mr. Salvador has requested three minutes with the Board. So I'm going to give him his three minutes to discuss things with the Board. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to mention two things to the Board tonight, and they're not really directly associated with Zoning Board issues, but as you are part of the whole planning and land development process in the Town, I think you should be aware of these. Before we had sewers on Route 9, Bay Road, Meadowbrook Road, the industrial park, even west of the Northway for the Schermerhorn project, the Warren County Board of Supervisors entered into an agreement with the City of Glens Falls. I'm going to read to you our Town Supervisor's comments at that time, at the Board meeting. Our Town Supervisor was Mr. Dennis Brower. Mr. Brower commended Supervisors for the unending support provided to the Town of Queensbury and the City of Glens Falls, keeping in mind the need for balanced growth within the County and keeping in mind the need for light industrial manufacturing to balance the tourism and retail growth that the County is already successful in attaining. He continued,noting that thanks to the Supervisor's great efforts they have been able to achieve a sewer agreement and they are under construction on South Queensbury avenue sewer line which will bring sewer to the new Queensbury industrial park on County Line Road. He said it would also allow them to sewer the airport and the Warren/Washington County Industrial Park which was essentially for the future industrial growth in the Town. He said it has also allowed them to expand sewer service on Route 9 and they are moving rapidly to form a district which will extend sewer from the Sleep Inn at the top of Miller Hill to Route 149. He said they also intend to sewer Corinth Road past Interstate 87 toward the industrial parks and Bay Road was also planned to be sewered. Mr. Brower said he felt this was important for balanced growth for the County and for the future enabling full time year round good paying jobs with benefits for residents of the community. What is the nature of this agreement? The County agreed to make annual payments to the City of Glens Falls to the tune of two percent of the net County sales tax received. The net County sales tax is that amount of money in excess of what the County makes available to the towns from the three percent Warren County sales tax that's collected, and it's roughly 50% of the three percent that's collected. That agreement amounted to $388,000 in 2003,and as the sales tax collected has escalated just due to inflation,that payment in 2013 was $515,000. Now mind you this agreement has no specificity in it whatsoever. The City is not obligated to do anything specific with that money. I maintain the contract's not legal. You've got to have consideration in a contract, and the County does not exercise any oversight on the money that they pay. Between 2003 and last year,the total sum of money paid by the County to the City amounted to five million dollars, and the remaining 19 years of that contract, by the way, did I mention it's a 30 year contract, the remaining 19 years will amount to about eleven million dollars. Now, those monies that are paid by the County to the City represent a tax increase for the rest of us in Warren County. Those monies would have been used to reduce our property taxes. So, that shift is going on, and I thought you should be aware of it. By rights this money, if it had to be paid to the City for whatever reason, it should have been paid by the sewer district,not the County in general. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. MR. SALVADOR-I'll leave with you a copy of a letter I've addressed to Mr. Strough on this subject. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there any more business this evening in front of the Board? MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me, I have one other thing. MR.JACKOSKI-I gave you your three minutes. It's actually been five. MR. SALVADOR-I have one important thing. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/24/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, John, we set public comment period for three minutes for individuals. That's been a policy of this Board for a very, very long time. I asked you three and I gave you five. Any other comments from Board members? MRS. MOORE-I do have conference that Board members can attend. The Soil and Water is associated with it and being able to pay the fee. So if you are interested in attending,please let Pam Whiting know. MR. GARRAND-What's the date? MR. HENKEL-The 16th. MRS.MOORE-The 16th of October. MR. HENKEL-Of October,eight to four. MR. KUHL-Which one is it? MRS. MOORE-It's a stormwater tradeshow, and there's four presenters, I believe, that day. One of them is being Bill Lupo as a keynote. MR.JACKOSKI-And it counts toward our training requirements? MRS.MOORE-It does. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anything else for the Board? Motion to adjourn,please. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 24, 2014, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 24th day of September, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 27