Loading...
10-22-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 71-2014 Douglas Coon 2. Tax Map No. 296.12-1-12, 13, 14,and 25 Area Variance No. 34-2014 Diane and Craig Goodman 3. Tax Map No. 227.18-1-21 Sign Variance No. 5 6-2 014 Northway Outlets, LLC 12. (The Outlets at Lake George West) Tax Map No. 288.00-1-53 Area Variance No. 72-2014 David Gearwar 15. Tax Map No. 265.00-1-48 Area Variance No. 73-2014 Cheryl Daniels 21. Tax Map No. 316.9-1-3 and 316.9-1-9.1 Area Variance No. 75-2014 Robert G. Palmer 27. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-3 Area Variance No. 76-2014 Brian Battease 31. Tax Map No. 302.17-4-15 Sign Variance No. 77-2014 FX3, Inc. 35. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-28 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 22,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE RICHARD GARRAND JOHN HENKEL HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT KYLE NOONAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome everyone to this evening's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, there is an agenda on the back table. There's also a sheet of paper explaining the process, though it is quite simple. We'll call each application up to the table, Roy will read it into the record. We'll ask the applicant to expand upon what was read into the record, if they feel it's appropriate. The Board will ask questions. When there is a public comment period advertised, or a public hearing, we will definitely open that up, seek public comment, and then depending on the will of the Board we may close public comment or leave it open, and then take action accordingly on the application. We are short a Board member this evening, so for those of you who may wish to have a full Board review the application or vote on the application,you certainly could request that the Board table your application if you so wish. We have a very long agenda this evening. We chose to do one meeting this month instead of two, and we have some housekeeping to do here. So let us get through the housekeeping and then we'll get into our regular business. First item this evening is the approval of the September 11th meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 11, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 231d day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone. The next item is the September 17th meeting minutes. September 17, 2014 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2014, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 231d day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski MR.JACKOSKI-And I will note that Kyle and Roy and Harrison were not at that meeting. NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone, and finally the September 24th meeting. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 24,2014, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 231d day of October, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On the agenda this evening we did have Area Variance No. 25-2014 William and Pamela Roberts, to take action upon that. However, the applicants have submitted a formal letter asking us to withdraw the application. So we will not be taking any action on that matter. Under Administrative Items we also have Area Variance No. 71-2014. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2014 DOUGLAS COON ZBA TO REVIEW PLANNING BOARD REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQRA PURPOSES (SEE DESCRIPTION BELOW) AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DOUGLAS COON AGENT(S) T. HUTCHINS, HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/J. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DOUGLAS COON ZONING MDR LOCATION EAST END BAYBERRY DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF A 15.59 ACRE PARCEL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR (4) NEW BUILDING LOTS WITH LESS THAN 2-ACRES. LOT 5 TO RETAIN EXISTING TEN-ACRE AGRICULTURAL/HORSE USE WITH BARN AND HOME TO REMAIN. LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 DO NOT MEET THE LOT SIZE AND LOTS 3 AND 4 DO NOT MEET THE ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND ROAD FRONTAGE. CROSS REF SB 3-2012; FWW; [32 BAYBERRY DRIVE: BP 2005-282 SEPTIC ALT.,BP 2000-449 LEAN-TO FOR HOSE SHELTER; BP 88-941 ADDITION; BP 6628 YR. 1980 SFD; BP 6627 YR 1980 BARN] BP 93-698 STORAGE SHED; WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3.64; 0.69; 1.13; 10.11 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-12, 13, 14 AND 25 SECTION CHAPTER 183 ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM ONLY JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-Can I make a resolution? MR. LAPPER-We're just here to answer any questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The applicant is here at the table if there are any questions from the Board members before we actually take a resolution. Any further discussion from Board members? We're all comfortable letting the Planning Board be the Lead Agency? Okay. Go ahead, Mike. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Douglas Coon for a variance from Chapter 183 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes a 5-lot residential subdivision of a 15.59 acre parcel for construction of four (4) new building lots with less than 2-acres. Lot 5 to retain existing ten-acre agricultural/horse use with barn and home to remain. Lots 1 through 4 do not meet the lot size and lots 3 and 4 do not meet the road frontage requirement. Relief requested for minimum lot size and road frontage. RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEQRA PURPOSES, Area Variance No. 71-2014, Douglas Coon, Tax Map No. 296.12-1-12, 13. 17.and 25 Introduced By Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22nd day of October,2014 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone. Now onto applications. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 95 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT HAS INSTALLED A 6,307 SQ. FT. TENNIS COURT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND RELIEF FROM HEIGHT OF FENCE FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 94-953 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 92-756 3- CAR DET. GARAGE; BP 8760 YR.1984 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR.JACKOSKI-This project has been in front of us before. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 34-2014, Diane and Craig Goodman, Meeting Date: October 22, 2014 "Project Location: 95 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has installed a 6,307 sq. ft. tennis court and a 10 ft. high fence around the court. Relief requested from setback requirements for the WR zoning district and fence height. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance from section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional requirements setbacks for WR zone and section 179-5-070 fences -height in the front yard: Front Setback Side Setback-east Side Setback-west Fence height corner corner Required 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 4 ft.max in front yard Proposed 0 0.6 ft. 9.3 ft. 10 ft. Relief 30 ft. 19.4 ft. 10.7 ft. 6 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. 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 considered limited as the court has already been constructed. The applicant has detailed efforts to locate the court to so trees would not need to be removed, not to interfere with an existing septic system, and so the current waterline remains in an existing open area for repair if needed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered 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. The applicant has indicated stormwater has been addressed with a trench to the side of the court and the design of the court. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) BP 94-953: Septic, 10-17-94 BP 92-756: 3 car detached garage Staff comments: The applicant requests relief for an already constructed 6,307 sq. ft.tennis court that does not meet the required setbacks of the zone and the fence does not meet the height requirements. The applicant has submitted additional information to address screening of the court. This includes installing 22 Norway spruce trees between seven and eight feet in height -the proposal and photo rendering are included. The applicant has also included a petition of support with 50 plus signatures from neighbors -those that live there or have homes nearby. Previous notes explained the applicant had indicated the contractor that constructed the tennis court had installed a drainage trench on the side of the court and underneath the court. The applicant had also explained prior to construction they had understood from the contractor no review was required. The project is subject to a minor stormwater permit due to the location -the applicant has received correspondence from the contractor and soil and water conservation service to address the information necessary for the permit. In addition the applicant has described previously the process to locate the court so to minimize disturbance on the site. The survey shows the location of court. SEQR Status: Type II" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Craig and Diane. Diane's behind us. This is obviously an unfortunate situation that they had no idea that a tennis court is a structure and is subject to building setbacks, but obviously in the Town of Queensbury it is. Since they were here last time,as Roy said,they've submitted the photo rendering with 22 expensive blue spruces as an effort to minimize the visual impact, and I guess, I think that their best argument here is just that if they were to relocate it at great expense,because unfortunately it's not something that can be picked up and moved, obviously, it would be parallel to the road and even if it was 30 foot back, it would just be a lot more visible because you'd be looking at the long side rather than the short side. So you just see a lot more of it and obviously with seven to eight foot trees in a few years it'll be pretty well hidden. It was a pretty big deal I think that 50 of their neighbors are in support of it. I know that a lot of the neighbors are using it. It's sort of a community amenity in Pilot Knob now, because it's not like the Goodmans need to play tennis all day long, but they're just here humbly asking your permission to keep it. It was just a mistake and if they had known differently they would have done something differently, but I think that they probably still would have asked for a variance rather than to have it across the whole front lawn where it would have been more visible,and that's it. Hope you'll see it their way. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Do Board members have any questions at this time before we continue the public comment period? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, Roy,do we have the? MR. URRICO-There is a letter dated 10/21 that says "I am opposed to allowing the tennis court on Pilot Knob Rd. to remain as built, for the following reasons - 1 - The Zoning Board is setting a bad precedent for allowing the very obvious violation of zoning law! 2 - This is very dangerous for vehicles going south on Pilot Knob Rd. as drivers have been distracted as they watched the tennis players - there is a right turning curve by the tennis court. Vehicle drivers may be distracted and drive into the opposite lane - as has happened. 3 - If residents are allowed to openly violate area zoning, what is to stop the next neighbor from doing something similar? I do not think that the owner residents built the tennis court with any bad intent- only a bad mistake. James Amann 40 Pulver Road Queensbury" And that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and Staff, we do have the 50 signatures that were presented on a petition, correct? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MRS.MOORE-Yes,we do. MR. URRICO-And, I'm sorry, I do have another letter, two more. "Bruce & I live across the street (Pilot Knob Rd.) from the Goodmans. We have no problem with their tennis court in its current location and hope that this matter can be settled soon. Nancy McClellan" And one more. "To Whom It May Concern: Diane and Craig Goodman abut my property on 21 Hickok Lane. I have NO problem with their tennis court and actually find it wonderful to see them playing tennis. It is wonderful to see young adults, teenagers, and adults out there playing tennis and enjoying each other's company and participating in such a wonderful activity. In my opinion,they reflect a model that would be good for many families to follow - they are playing together, working out, staying fit, and enjoying the Lake George area. If only more families were to be this active! I hope you will allow this variance and let the Goodman's continue to play tennis with their family and friends. Sincerely, Edith Perkins, Ed.D. Owner 21 Hickok Lane, Kattskill Bay, 12844" MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members at this time? Do you want to add anything, Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-There were a couple of other things in the file. Washington County DPW had contacted Laura about whether there was any issue with road maintenance and they said that there wasn't,based upon this location,and I guess I'd just like to point out that the Goodmans,this is their principle residence,their only home, and they've lived there for 24 years. MR.JACKOSKI-Will there be any Norway Spruces on the east end of the court? MR. LAPPER-I would think this would be the east side,it would be facing the road. MR.JACKOSKI-So who's property will those be on? MR. LAPPER-Right on the border, I guess. I looked at the survey, and probably the last two would be within the right of way. MR.JACKOSKI-So it would be in the County's property? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I mean,plenty of people plant on that County,but they probably. MR.JACKOSKI-Do they need to get a permit to plant on the County? MR. LAPPER-It's not like Quaker Road. Pilot Knob is residential, but probably for the last two the best thing to do would be to ask permission. MR.JACKOSKI-And what is the road salt going to do to those trees,being so close to the road? MR. LAPPER-They're actually not that close because there's a pretty good right of way on the survey. Between the distance between the edge of pavement and the property line. So they did ask Gould's Landscaping and they recommended the Norway Spruce with the road salt in mind. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I just want to make sure, is there anyone in the audience who wants to address the Board at this time? Mr.Water Keeper. Sure. Could you come to the table? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky,Water Keeper. The one question we had was that the application said there was stormwater on the south side of the court, and there was a three foot wide trench. If there's .6 feet of separation, it seems there should be some guarantee that's on somebody else's property,so there could be some guarantee that that will stay in. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Could you address that? CRAIG GOODMAN MR. GOODMAN-Yes. That stormwater management,it was constructed very well,obviously,as was brought up in previous meetings that unfortunately I wasn't able to attend,but where that is,that's completely on our property. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-So how does the water cascade off the south side of the? MR. GOODMAN-Actually since that's been constructed, we have a lot less problems with the water settling in the front yard. It used to come down off of Pilot Knob, up off the ridge,come down and it would puddle, somewhat significantly, and since this has been constructed, it doesn't puddle the way that Brian built it. It takes care of the stormwater runoff actually say 100% better than what was there previously. MR. LAPPER-It infiltrates. MR. GOODMAN-It infiltrates,yes. MR. HENKEL-You're saying it's sloped from the south to the north basically? MR. GOODMAN-You've got the information, I believe. The Town has that. Anything that is in the front yard, my backyard is higher than the front yard. So water would have to run uphill to impact the lake. MR. HENKEL-Okay. That's not the question I was asking. MR. LAPPER-Where does it go,underground. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. MR. GOODMAN-It goes, I don't know, I'm not an engineer. I don't, you know, that's not my expertise,obviously,but,like I said,it doesn't run like it used to. MR. LAPPER-And it's stone? MR. GOODMAN-Yes,that was presented previously, if I'm not mistaken. MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I don't think I have that. MRS.MOORE-I just have to look at the file and then I can read it verbatim. MR. HENKEL-But you are talking a surface of over 6,000 square feet that's hard surface. So it's got to be,you know,the water's taken care of in your property,you were saying. It's not shedded off to someone else's property? MR. GOODMAN-No,it's not shedded off to someone else's property. MR. JACKOSKI-So where is that three foot trench that is addressed on the south line? Because I've been up there. I've seen it. I've driven by it. I don't necessarily understand it either,Jonathan. MR. LAPPER-Is it underground? MRS. MOORE-A majority of it is handled underneath, correct, it is underneath, but the way Mr. O'Connor has described it is we will ensure that during construction infiltration trenching was incorporated along the entire length of the south side of the court, at least four in depth and three feet wide, and I understand Chris' comment that it may overextend,but that's, it's only the length of the court. I don't know what happens up to that corner that's on the east side, but it's the entire south side of that court, and Dean did look at it and he came up with assistance with a calculation for that to address the stormwater permit that has to be reviewed yet. MR. LAPPER-So a three foot wide by four foot deep trench with stone? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-But it can't possibly be on the Goodman property. MR. LAPPER-No,it is,because it's inside the fence,and the fence is along the property. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR. HENKEL-That one corner, how would it be, because you're talking about it's on the property line,that one corner. MR. LAPPER-That's the fence that's on the corner. MRS.MOORE-That's the fence on the corner. MR. LAPPER-And the trench is inside the fence. MR. HENKEL-The hard surface is right up to that fence also. MR. GOODMAN-It is. I'm not an engineer. MR. HENKEL-It's right up to that point. So it's right thereon the property line. There's no. MR. GOODMAN-I think at the last meeting it was,there's a pitch to the court. MR. HENKEL-I said there must be a pitch,the court's pitched towards the north. MR.JACKOSKI-So is there a trench to the north? MR. HENKEL-That's what I'm saying. MR. JACKOSKI-Because I'm sure, because they had water problems puddling in the front yard before, I wouldn't doubt they trenched it to the south,and then they can't control their stormwater. MR. GOODMAN-We've had some very significant rain since this court was constructed, and there has not been flooding on either the south,the north,the east or the west. MR. JACKOSKI-It's not so much that as that property owners are required to maintain their water within their own property boundaries. MR. LAPPER-That's a legitimate question,and we don't have the answer tonight,as to exactly where it is,because it's subsurface,but it's obviously something we can get from the site contractor. MR. HENKEL-You said there is a stormwater review to be done? MRS.MOORE-No,there's stormwater retention underneath that tennis court. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-We're in an unfortunate situation. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We're trying to figure out what we can do without violating what we're charged to do. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and if you want us to come back with information on that stormwater system,we certainly will. MR. JACKOSKI-At this time I'd like to leave the public comment period open and I'd like to poll the Board for their comment. Does anybody want to go first? MR. HENKEL-I'll go first. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-In the beginning I was kind of really against it, but it is great to see people out there instead of playing video games inside, but I do have a little problem. It would be nice if it could be cut back a foot and a half off that line, you know, adding to the end closer to the house, but then I know that would be probably not very feasible and it would be hard, but I definitely, the fence is definitely a major problem because we've worked with other applicants before and we've never given them a 10 foot fence. So that would be something that would have to be definitely dropped down to four foot. I know that would cause a problem with the balls going into the road, causing maybe accidents,but you just can't have a 10 foot fence that close to the road. So I'd have definitely 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) a, that's one of my problems, but I guess I don't have a problem with the court so much, now, but definitely the fence. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Going over the balancing test, since it's already constructed, I don't think other means are feasible, except swinging that around towards the front yard, swinging what's on the roadside around and into the front yard might be a feasible alternative, although it will be quite costly. I think it does produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. I've also got concerns about tennis balls going out into the road and like as somebody previously stated possible distractions to drivers going up and down Pilot Knob Road. It is substantial. It's 100% relief on the front, almost 100% on the side, six feet of relief on the fence, and I do believe it's self created. So I do still have a problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I want to know whether Diane volunteered this in the back, because, you know, she came alone and unarmed and you come with a lawyer. Is there like a message? No, I'm kidding. MR. GOODMAN-Well, unfortunately I work in the law enforcement community and there was a problem with my facility and I wasn't able to come the previous two times. So I apologize for that. MR. FREER-Yes. So I think Rick did address the sort of neighborhood thing,but from my standpoint it's pretty compelling that,and a lot of work, I'm sure,to get 50 people up there to sign your petition saying that they had no problem with it. So it is bad, as I understand what was discussed about the south drainage is that that three by four foot water control is underneath the hard surface so the water runs into that on your property. If I got that wrong, then there's a, you know, I would say that keeping the water on your property is important. As I understand what was discussed is that that trench is around the hard surface but it doesn't extend three feet past the hard surface. It's just under the hard surface. So the water runs off the hard surface into that three by four foot water encampment, or treatment. Given that I'm right in that understanding and the overwhelming support from the neighbors, I would support the relief. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I understand it's the 20 Norway Spruces, are they going to completely block the fencing on that side? MR. LAPP E R-Eventually. MR. URRICO-Eventually,but when we start we're going to have some space in there. The fence will still be sort of a distraction,right. MR. LAPPER-This is pretty much what it would look like to begin with because they're seven to eight feet. So you'd still see it for a few years. MR. URRICO-What I'm looking for is some sort of a compromise that we can live with on both sides, because it's very obvious that, you know, this is a lot of relief, but at the same time I understand where you're at,and,you know, I don't want to see a lose/lose situation. I'd rather see a win/win if we can get one. Is there any way to put some more of those trees in there than the 20? MR. GOODMAN-We've done a lot of obviously research and inquiries. There's actually a company that makes a vinyl fencing that looks like arborvitae that you could put up there. Because we've had arborvitae with the intent that the deer don't like that,but they forgot to tell the deer,but we could put that up as a screening. We have daylilies that we could have grow across in the front and it would look more natural in the summertime. In the wintertime, obviously arborvitae maintain their color year round. So that is also another option that we do have. MR.URRICO-That would be in addition to the trees? MR. GOODMAN-In addition to,or in lieu of. MR. URRICO-I think at this stage I would be in favor of the application, providing they follow through on that part of it. MR. LAPPER-More vegetation. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR.URRICO-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think, you know, the whole situation here was unfortunate, caused by the contractor originally and no fault to the applicant. I would be in favor of their relief. I'm concerned about the fence,but it's really not practical to have a tennis court without a fence, and so I'll have to eschew the fence. So I would support the application. MR.JACKOSKI-I like what Mr.Urrico suggested. I don't know what it is. MR. LAPPER-We've got a very flexible applicant. So you tell us what you want and they'll do it. MR. JACKOSKI-My role here has often been to find a solution, and work with everybody, how can we make it work. I'm really bothered by this tennis court sitting there, and I'm thinking that I'm going to need you to prove to me that you can screen it better. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR.JACKOSKI-Because at this point I'm just not in favor of it. MR. LAPPER-Well,that's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-I want to be. I don't want you to go through the expense. I don't want to have to have the Town of Queensbury be the bad guy here. I know the community. I your neighbors,but I drive by that thing and it's right there in your face. MR. LAPPER-It's the opposite. They offered $12,000 in plantings to satisfy the Board and they'll go back and re-do it and get something that's more of a hedge rather than the spruce trees. We'll go back and talk to the landscaper and come up with something that's a solid hedge. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean, I hate to make you come back. MR. LAPPER-No,that's all right. MR.JACKOSKI-It gives you an opportunity to have a full Board,if that's what you're requesting,but I look at this balancing test and I look at the neighborhood and I understand you've got all those neighbors saying yes,and that really does weigh heavily on me,as Harrison suggested,but it is right there. MR. LAPPER-All right. So we'll try and get a solid hedge that covers the whole thing. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know what this, I want to call it a Franken-vitae but I don't know what that imitation arborvitae thing is. MR. GOODMAN-It's a vinyl screening that covers the outside,the perimeter of the fence,that makes it, if you go on the company's website, they're doing a lot of constructionaries and things of that nature, because it hides what is, obscures what is behind it, and to make it look more natural and inviting to the neighborhood. MR.JACKOSKI-So it's a three dimensional application? It's not a printed application to make it look like arborvitae? MR. GOODMAN-It is, it's printed. I mean, we didn't bring that tonight. We can obviously, you know,copy information off of the website and,you know,present that to the Board if necessary. MR. LAPPER-But that's just one option. We can comeback with a number of options. MR. GOODMAN-Trust me. We've driven around. We've looked at a lot of things, there's a lot of natural grasses that we have seen that are,that grow to ten to twelve feet tall,that would obscure it, almost as if when you're on Cleverdale Road, as you get there where Rockhurst,there's the big barn behind that. That's,you can't see it, and that's,you go down to the Abares who are down on Seelye Road. They've got the trees, and they're a lot closer to the road, albeit that road does not get as much traffic as Pilot Road Knob gets, but again, it's obscure, you wouldn't know that tennis court was there, you know, if you were driving by and not really paying attention, you wouldn't know. We're trying to get a balance and I'd love to have something, put something in that would balance 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) with the neighborhood, look natural to any people, you know, driving by. I mean, it's unfortunate, and I can understand the person who said, but we've never seen anybody drive into the other lane, any time. Believe it or not, more of our, it's sometimes more distracting for us because people go by and they beep at us and they wave. So, you know, in the middle of tennis. So we've haven't seen that,but I mean,you have to respect the letters,you know,submitted by,you know,concerned neighbors,because they have a right to be concerned. MR. JACKOSKI-But there is a curve, and I mean, I've got, I've watched you play. I mean, I've been driving and I've watched you play and you're right, my eyes are off the road, but the Abares is a perfect example of what I would hope you could accomplish. I think that it is right on the road, and I walk that road all the time. It's right there and you don't even really notice it. I think it's just that your structure,unfortunately 10 feet tall,right there on a very busy,fast road,it's a different effect. MR. LAPPER-So we'll come back with some better screening. MR. GOODMAN-Trust me,we want to accommodate the best that we can,because as was presented previously, when I was unable to attend, but nothing here was done with the intent to get away with something. I mean,we've had other contractors where we've had projects built where they've come and received all the proper permits and done everything. We're a homeowner, okay. I know more about this than I ever probably would have cared to previously, but again, the contractor that we utilized, topnotch, beautiful work, you know, was under the opinion that we were okay. That's the homeowner's due diligence. It's not his due diligence, and we should have done probably better research on this prior to putting it in there,but,again,it wasn't our intent that somebody else down the road could say, hey, the Goodmans did it. Why don't we do it. Because that would be then the intent to do something that is against the rules. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Jonathan, the only other thing I want to ask is on that south side, is it wet there, the neighbor's property,is it wet? MR. GOODMAN-Our neighbors previously installed a gravel driveway there, and I don't know if they had any permits. I don't know. That's not my. Yes, there's a gravel driveway, not, right about where, okay, right there is where their driveway begins. So it's built up there. So the one thing that they did do underneath there,they did put a drainage pipe,just underneath there. MR. LAPPER-And that made a difference? MR. GOODMAN-I mean, that was done so many years ago, I just, I mean, it's never, again, it's never flooded. It's never flooded there, and even when we had Irene, it didn't flood there, and that was some substantial, I mean, the rain came off of the mountain, and Lakewood, it pushed all their gravel out, and it was probably two feet to three feet across the road. Ourselves and our neighbors went out with wheelbarrows and shovels and removed the gravel because we were concerned that somebody was going to hit that going down Pilot Knob Road 30 miles an hour and wreck their car or get injured. So,you know, we've had some significant rain earlier this year since we put that in and there has not been any flooding on the south side, on the north side, any side there, and based on, from what I understand, and again, I'm not an engineer,based on the stormwater,the folks that came and checked that out for us as part of previous records, indicated they didn't believe that there was a, it actually improved the area because there wasn't any adverse effects based on what was put there. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HENKEL-So we want to table this then? MR.JACKOSKI-I don't know. The applicant,yes,if the applicant is requesting to table. MR. LAPPER-We'll request to table and we'll come back with a better screening option and we'll figure out exactly what the drainage facility is and where it is. MR. HENKEL-When do you want to table it to? MR.JACKOSKI-I mean, I'm sure you want to get it resolved. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-So I would recommend you table it to as soon as possible. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR. LAPPER-Yes, November. MR.JACKOSKI-Is it possible, Staff? MR. GARRAND-It's past the deadline date. MR. GOODMAN-May I just ask when are the dates for November? MR.JACKOSKI-She's checking because of the holiday. MRS. MOORE-There is room, and our next meeting that's possible would be December 3rd, but that information has, the Board needs to come up with a submission time, so that I can get it onto the agenda for your November meetings. MR.URRICO-You said December 3rd. MRS. MOORE-Yes, December 3rd is your second November meeting, or you can push it off to December, and then there's adequate time for submission and definitely being able to put it on the agenda at that time. MR. GOODMAN-Because my son has to have surgery in November. MR. LAPPER-December 3rd okay? We'd probably just take a week for us to come up with a drawing,right? We'll talk about it. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2014 DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Tabled until the December 3rd meeting,with information to be submitted by October 28th. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2014, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-So I'll make a resolution that we table Area Variance No. 34-2014, until the first December meeting date,with submission by December 3rd? MRS.MOORE-The November meetings. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, October 15th was the November meeting submission deadline. So we're past that point. MRS.MOORE-Right,but you're looking at the December 3rd meeting? MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So would it be reasonable to say by the end of October, for a submission date? MR. LAPPER-That would be next Friday. MRS.MOORE-We need to be able to set the agenda before that date. So by next Tuesday would be. MR. LAPPER-This coming Tuesday. I don't know. MR.JACKOSKI-If you could just get us the information on what that screening is,and whether or not you could add more trees or not. I think you can get representative samples of that product and you could at least identify it in your request,in your paperwork. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We'll get something in by Tuesday. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So for the December 3rd meeting. Information to be submitted by October 28th. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan SIGN VARIANCE NO. 56-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC (THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST) AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. & S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) OWNER(S) NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 (THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST) APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE SIGN APPLICATION FOR A 56.98 SQ. FT. NON-TENANT WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO IDENTIFY THE PLAZA NAME. APPLICANT SEEKS RELIEF FOR A SECOND NON-TENANT SIGN FOR PLAZA IDENTIFICATION. CROSS REF SV 32-2014; BP 2013-464 NEW BUILDING COM'L/INDUS; BP 2013-528 DEMO OF MONTCALM REST.; BP 2013-499 DEMO GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2014 LOT SIZE 6.21 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-53 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 56-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC (The Outlets at Lake George West), Meeting Date: October 22, 2014, "'Project Location: 1415 State Route 9 (The Outlets at Lake George West), Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has revised the sign application for a 56.98 sq.ft.non-tenant wall sign on the north side of the building to identify the plaza name. Relief Required: Parcel will require sign variance relief from Section 140 Signs. 2nd Non-tenant wall sign (CI) Allowed None Proposed 2nd Non-tenant wall sign Relief 1 additional beyond one previously approved Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the applicant's desire to provide information to the visitor about additional stores availability and to limit vehicle traffic movement. The applicant has revised the size of the proposed sign and has removed the designation of the plaza name leaving only the tenant names in the sign. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered 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 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, SV 32-14: 100 sq. ft. wall sign with sign copy to read: "The Outlets at Lake George West". Relief requested for non-tenant wall sign. 4-23-14 SP 35-13: 49,615 sq. ft. retail plaza with associated site work for parking, stormwater and landscaping, 7-23-13 BP 13-464: New building BP 13-528: Demo of Montcalm Rest. BP 13-499: Demo of garage Staff comments: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) The applicant has revised the size of the sign from 84 sq. ft. to 56.98 listing the tenants of the building and has removed the Plaza Name. The revision was a result of the discussion at the zoning board meeting of September. The signage will inform visitors using the ramp from the adjoining French Mountain Commons plaza about the stores at the bottom of the ramp. The applicant intends for the signage to encourage pedestrian traffic through the outlets in the area and discourage vehicle traffic. The plans show signage for 12 tenants with 7 inch letters this is larger than code requirements. The signage is to be consistent with the other signage of the plaza in color and lettering. SEQR Status: SEQR Type Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward. MR. LAPPER-Yes,this is an applicant who heard what the Board said. We removed the plaza name because you thought that wasn't necessary, and dramatically reduced the size of the sign,but we do think it's important that it be this size so you can see it from the top of the ramp at French Mountain Commons. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members at this time? You're not going to give us a sneak peek as to who those other eight or nine tenants are? MR. LAPPER-Well, I think it was already announced that Anne Taylor loft, which is pretty popular, is about to start construction, and they're waiting a decision from a really popular national tenant this week. So we're getting there,gaining on it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Yes, Lisa's very happy about Anne Taylor loft. That's nice. MR. LAPPER-Yes. All right. Any other questions? There is a public comment period scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any additional written comment? MR.URRICO-There is not. MR. JACKOSKI-We do have SEQR to complete on this, but I'll poll the Board as to how they feel about this. I'll start with Roy. MR.URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the application as it exists right now. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's a good compromise from what the original application was. I'd be for it,yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I agree with Mr. Henkel. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-No problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-Excellent. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And we'll seek SEQR,please. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 56-2014, Northway Outlets. LLC - The Outlets at Lake George West, 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 22nd day of October.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-And could I seek a motion for approval,please. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 56-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC (The Outlets at Lake George West),Tax Map No. 288.00-1-53. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Northway Outlets. LLC for the Outlets at Lake George West for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has revised the sign application for a 56.98 sq. ft. non-tenant wall sign on the north side of the building to identify the plaza name. Applicant seeks relief for a second non-tenant wall sign for plaza identification. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 56-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC - The Outlets at Lake George West, 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 22nd day of October.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,October 22,2014; 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? There will not be an undesirable change 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? Benefit could be achieved by the applicant by some other method,but really not feasible. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We feel not. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We feel not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 56-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC (The Outlets at Lake George West) 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 22nd day of October,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2014 SEQRA TYPE II DAVID GEARWAR AGENT(S) J. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) DAVID GEARWAR ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 1695 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND STORY RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SECOND STORY ADDITION. CROSS REF NO RECORD HISTORY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2014 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 8.41 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 265.00-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVID GEARWAR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2014, David Gearwar, Meeting Date: October 22, 2014 "Project Location: 1695 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a rebuild of an existing home including the first floor exterior walls and to complete the construction of a 2nd story residential addition to the existing single family dwelling. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements of RR-5A zone: Relief from minimum setback requirements for the rebuild of an existing 950 sq.ft.home and to include a 2nd story addition. (RR-5A) Front Setbacks Bay Front Setback Lockhart Required 100 ft. 100 ft. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) Proposed 57.8 ft.existing to remain 41.5 ft.existing to remain Relief 42.2 ft. 58.5 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. 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 locate the home in a more compliant location. The applicant has indicated maintaining the existing home in the current location would minimize disturbance on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is 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 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, No record history Staff comments: The applicant proposes a rebuild of an existing home where a portion of the work has started. The rear porch has been removed and will be reconstructed as a mudroom. The front porch will be reconstructed as a living room area. The 2nd floor which has been removed will be reconstructed for bedrooms. The applicant has indicated that a compliant septic system is to be installed as part of the project. The property records indicate the home was built in the 1930's where the applicant recently purchased the home. The applicant was in the process of rehabbing the home and was notified upon removal of the 2nd floor that additional review was necessary. The information submitted shows the proposed floor plan and the survey shows distance for the setbacks. SEQR Status: Type II' MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. LAPPER-For the record, again, Jon Lapper with Dave Gearwar. So the application really tells the story,but this was an old dilapidated 1930's house that Dave recently purchased with the intent of renovating it, and the goal for the second floor is just to make it a full second floor rather than a half second floor, you know, not a major expansion but within the same footprint of the walls, and because of where this is on Bay Road and on the corner, there are these very large setbacks, although the house is really set back pretty far from the road. So I don't think that there's an impact, you know, it is in the Code, but in terms of the neighborhood, I don't see that this is an impact and certainly it's a site and a house that was allowed before he bought it to fall into really bad disrepair and needs to be finished. So just extending the second floor so there's a nicer second floor and no bigger than the first floor, should be a big improvement. Do you want to add anything, Dave? MR. GEARWAR-Yes, just to minimally, I actually, as some of these older houses go, this is the first one I've ever bought,but as you know, sometimes they add on to them in pieces and whatever else, and I actually took off two structures from what was probably added over the years. One was concrete in the ground. It was an enclosed, part of the enclosed porch that was added on, and the back as well as the front porch that was partially enclosed. So actually the footprint's even smaller than it was, and I had no idea going into it that was going to be in such a need of repair. Initially it was supposed to be more cosmetic, and that's what the appraiser for the bank that I also spent a lot 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) of money for told me it was all fine and as I got into it, there was tremendous water and termite damage, and I just got into something pretty substantial, and it was my understanding, when Mr. Hatin came out, I was, I don't know what I'm doing really. I'm just a guy buying a house trying to fix it up. I had Mr. Hatin come by and asked him,you know, about ideas about the house and he said as long as you stay on the footprint it would be fine. So that's what I did, but I didn't realize that if you take off something, it's considered new construction. Go up on the existing footprint, that's fine, well, it was, and then I didn't realize that that's all that it was, and I did end up buying my, paying for my permit, which I thought was fine, but I guess it wasn't. So, anyway, I'm here just trying to make things work, and it is an existing septic that's in good working order that was recently used even by me, and, you know, I don't see a need to mess around with that, but I guess that's about it for now. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR. GARRAND-Yes. The application does state that you will install a compliant septic system. MR. LAPPER-Laura said that,but you talked to Dave Hatin who said you didn't need to. MR. GEARWAR-Actually when I initially talked to Mr. Hatin,he said given that it's the same number of bedrooms,given that it's fully functional,it's not required. MR. LAPPER-Unless it was failing,which it isn't. MR. GEARWAR-Which it is not. Yes. I was not told that I would have to have one. MRS. MOORE-So, and I spoke with John the other day, and my understanding is the same,that if it's a compliant system,and it's not failing,then he does not need to replace it. MR. GARRAND-And you guys have inspected it, Staff has looked at it? MRS.MOORE-That's Dave Hatin's. I do not know, MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,what does compliant mean? Because I mean that house was vacant for. MR. GARRAND-Yes,that house was abandoned. MRS.MOORE-It's non-failing. MR. LAPPER-We could leave that as, let the Building Department make that call, that if they say it has to be replaced,it has to be replaced,but Dave. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I'd like to have Dave take a look at it and see what they can figure out, whether it needs one or not. MR. LAPPER-We can talk to the Building Department about it. It's not a variance issue. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, it would help me with the balancing test of improving the overall property and gaining more. MR. LAPPER-It's just a question of, if it's sufficient he doesn't need to spend the money, if it needs to be replaced,to replace it. We'll talk to the Building Department about that. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open up the public comment period? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I see several folks. Sir, I'll start with you. Can you come to the table, please, and identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS SWINTON MR. SWINTON-Hello. My name is Chris Swinton. 1662 Bay Road,property owner and future home builder. This property has been neglected for many years, and for what this gentleman is planning to do, I encourage you all to put a yes stamp on this tonight so we can have a better neighborhood for all of us in the area. For those of you that don't drive by, it's an eyesore right now. David came 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) in, bought the property and has done a tremendous amount of work on the property where Don and Beatrice were not physically able to over the years. As a neighbor, I'm kind of sick of looking at it, and I think that what the Board did or what the Town did to him to stop it is foolishness. This is a hardworking man. All he wants to do is live in his house and he's forced, right now, to live outside of his house because the project was stopped over a minor detail about setbacks, which may be major to everybody else. However, all he's doing is fixing what was originally there, and unfortunately your rules are vague and cause him to have to come here tonight and waste a lot of time and work schedule for him. It's getting cold. I know he's living on the property, or I believe he's living on the property, and why not allow this gentleman to finish his house and make something better for the neighborhood. I think if you voted no on this that you're all pretty foolish and hurting the Town of Queensbury overall. I'm finished. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Mr.Water Keeper. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We have no problem with the application regarding the variances. We just feel it's an opportunity to take a look at a septic system that obviously could be 80 years old. We have no information, but we think that that should be a consideration for the Board, to bring that into compliance. Three bedrooms are proposed. I don't know if three were existing, and I would have a hard time believing that that wouldn't be compliant to existing standards. So to make a better project for the entire neighborhood,to make the neighborhood good, I think that would also include a new septic system. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,sir. Sir? TOM BARBER MR. BARBER-Good evening. My name is Tom Barber. I own property around Mr. Gearwar. I've had the pleasure of getting to know him a little bit in the last four months. Hardworking man, medical profession. I know he's been working all night so he's tired. I knew the previous homeowner, Don Shaw. We were good friends. He actually worked with me for quite a while. Many, many years ago. I've been in the house many times. It's a functioning septic system. I've been there. I've used his bathrooms. Have never seen or heard of an issue from Don. Don was a garbage man so he collected and horded a lot of stuff, and I know this gentleman has spent a tremendous amount of money, time and energy cleaning the place up, and as his neighbor, and I know there's a few other neighbors here, too, I'd put a stamp of approval on this thing. He's on a tight time constraint to get his home complete and financial constraints. So I'm just here to say that he's got my approval. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board? LARRY GRAY MR. GRAY-I'm Larry Gray. I've lived in Queensbury all my life, and around Lake George, and I live directly across the street from Dave Gearwar, and I've been in the house, too, as Tom Barber, and I've watched Dave Gearwar try to re-build the house, and as he tore off the walls, the studs on the bottom half were rotted. The sill plate was gone on the back end. On the front side he found the same problems. So, he's had a lot of expenses come in regards to that. He has done a survey and he's got a house plan that he had to pay for, and I think the idea that his septic is, or may need to be upgraded to me septic tanks need to be upgraded if they fail, not before. He doesn't have the money to spend five or ten thousand more today. If it failed, the west wind comes directly at my house. I can assure you, as I've told everybody in the Building Department, I will be the first one to call. The wind would obviously blow it my way, and I've lived there 24 years and never smelled a problem with his septic. So that's my opinion, and I don't want to see him throw the towel in. He's at a point right now, he didn't say it, but I don't want that property to end up looking like Tracey's down the road. I want to see it fixed. He's got the banking to do it right now, and I hope everybody here will just approve it. That's all. Thank you. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else this evening? Roy,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No,there is no written comment. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR. LAPPER-I guess the request is if we can just leave it with the subject that we'll talk to the Building Department and let them determine if it's failing. If it's not failing he doesn't have to replace it,but let the Building Department make that call. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this time I'm going to leave the public hearing open and I'm going to poll the Board. Unless Board members have any other questions after public comment. Mike, I'll start with you. MR. MC CABE-I think I'd be in favor of the project. I think it'll be a big improvement to the property and I'll support it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thanks. Harrison? MR. FREER-So, I'd like to make a couple of comments, because we have some observers here, and I just had to suggest that it's never as easy as folks want it to be when we're trying to make these decisions, and to call what we're trying to do with regard to setbacks foolish is probably not the right tactic when you're trying to support a position. We are charged to provide minimum variances to the zoning laws that were approved. We don't take that lightly. There's always three sides to every story, so I think that the other thing that I would say is that if the septic is not compliant,then we need to stipulate that in our resolution,that it be a compliant septic. Hearsay in terms of septic with a new construction in my mind is not sufficient, and, you know, the other comment is that,you know,buyer beware in terms of that's the way the world works. If you're the seller,you know, try to get the best price and,you know, our responsibility is to make sure that we balance those tests and criteria and that,trying to say that if we don't approve something that we're being foolish I think is kind of hit me the wrong way, but in any regard, I will support the variance with the caveat that a compliant septic be endorsed by the engineering department. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Harrison, I don't want to put you on the spot, but I want to make sure I understand. A compliant system which would be compliant to new construction standards, or a compliant system as in it is currently functioning? Because I think there's a definite differentiation there. MR. GARRAND-Yes, because it might be two different things. A serviceable septic system versus one that is compliant to today's standards. MR. FREER-If we're doing new construction here, then it should be compliant with the current Code. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I just wanted that clarification to understand what you were thinking. Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm going to go on the balancing test. I agree that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood. This house previously was little more than a shack with a couple of additions built on it, typical New England building as they build on as they needed, as the families got bigger. I don't think this is going to have any fabulous environmental impact on the neighborhood whatsoever. I don't think it's self-created. I think he's trying to save a little money by using the existing foundation. All I can see he's doing is pouring a new foundation wall on the back side of the house, and pretty much using the existing stone foundation which in itself might be a nightmare for the applicant,but more power to you. I would be in favor of this. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm going to agree with Rick. I agree with what he said, and I don't think we need to make the septic system compliant with new construction. I just think we have to make sure that it's working. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Roy. I think what they're asking for as far as the setbacks is very minor and I don't see any impacts to the neighborhood or anything. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm in favor of the project, too. I've got to tell you, it's nice to see that it's getting renovated. I drive by it every single day,two to four times, and you always wondered what kind of history was in that house because it was so old and dilapidated you just, it felt like you were back in the 30's or 40's when you drove by it. So I would like your septic system obviously to be functioning properly, and as long as we've got the assurance that the Building Department will 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) ensure that,then I'm okay with the project. It is unfortunate that,you know, as some of my fellow Board members suggested, buyer beware, and that house, when I looked at it, was in rough shape. So it's unfortunate but you'll get through it eventually. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to seek a motion,please. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. RESOLUTION TO: Approve, Area Variance No. 72-2014, David Gearwar, 1695 Bay Road, Tax Map No. 265.00-1-48 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Gearwar for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 950 sq. ft. home and to include a 2nd story addition. The project involves reconstructing exterior wall sections, converting an existing front porch to living space, converting a rear porch area to a mudroom, and to construct the 2nd story with 3 bedrooms. Project includes updated septic. Relief requested for setback requirements in the portion of property in the RR-5A zone of a corner lot. - Location: 1695 Bay Road - Tax Map No. 265.00-1-48 - RR-5A, LC10 and RR3A...All project work is in the RR-5A Zone. On the front setback, they're required to have 100 feet. The requested relief is 42.2 feet. On the Lockhart Mountain Road setback, it's supposed to be 100 feet. The relief requested is 58.5 feet SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,October 22,2014; 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? A positive change. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? That might be relative in this case. I mean,it would be a tremendous cost to re-excavate,fill in the existing foundation and replace the entire foundation. The applicant is trying to save money where he can by using the existing foundation where he can. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? As Staff Notes stipulate,it's moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't think it'll produce any whatsoever. The applicant has agreed to allow Staff on site to inspect the septic system. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I don't think it's 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. 72-2014, David Gearwar, Introduced by Richard Garrand, 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; 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) 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 22nd day of October 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-See,we're not that bad,right? MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everybody. AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2014 SEQRA TYPE II CHERYL DANIELS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) CHERYL DANIELS ZONING WR AND MDR LOCATION 5 BOSS ROAD AND WOLFE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE ON A PORTION OF PARCEL 316.9-1-9.1 WHICH WILL BE MERGED WITH PARCEL 316.9-1-3 WHERE A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE CURRENTLY EXISTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. BP 2013-013 SFD, BP 2012-407 DEMO OF SFD; BP 96-733 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 7388 YR. 1982 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.34; 1.54 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 316.9-1-3 AND 316.9-1-9.1 SECTION 179-5-020 MAT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2014, Cheryl Daniels, Meeting Date: October 22, 2014 "Project Location: 5 Boss Road and Wolfe Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 900 sq. ft. detached garage on a portion of parcel 316.9-1-9.1 which will be merged with parcel 316.9-1-3 where a single family dwelling with an attached garage currently exists. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance from section 179-5-020 accessory structures -garage. Relief for a second garage. 2nd Garage Required 1 Proposed 2 Relief 1 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. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) 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 considered limited as the assisting home has a current attached garage and any reconfiguration or addition may trigger additional variances on the shoreline parcel area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 13-13: SFD SUB Hudson Bay Estates Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq.ft.second garage. The new garage will be located on a portion of an existing parcel that was part of Hudson Bay Estates that will be merged with the parcel on the shore -this will create a land hooked parcel. The applicant has indicated that there are specialty cars that will not fit in the existing garage and storing offsite is cost prohibitive. The plans show the location of the building, where there are two 10' x 10' garage doors and one access door at the front of the building. The building is compliant with setback requirements of the zone. SEQR Status: Type II' MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Pretty straightforward. Welcome. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Cheryl Daniels, representing Cheryl on this application. Pretty straightforward. I'll make it very brief. This is property, obviously, on Boss Road down on the river. Her existing home is on the west side. She owns approximately 3.5 acres of land on the east going out to Big Bay and Wolfe Road that was Hudson Bay Estates and had three approximately one acre parcels. She has, prior to this meeting, merged all three of those tax parcels together, and then there was this one kind of like key portion, key way portion of it that jutted out onto Boss Road, and merging the other three parcels into one lot and then land hooking that.3 acres to her house lot so she could accommodate a garage, detached garage, from her house. If anybody's been down in that area,you know that the houses on there, everybody wants to be on the water side obviously, and you kind of prohibit yourself from expanding to any much of a garage or storage or anything along the riverside because of the narrowness of most of those lots and then the bank that is along the Hudson River there, just over halfway, not quite two thirds of the way running westerly off of Boss Road, you hit a substantial embankment there down to the river. As far as in character with the neighborhood, if you go down that road I believe there are two other additional detached garages on the east side of this road. We have picked a location, Staff has it up there with that little keyway that's out. We're trying to center the garage in the most suitable location to remove the least amount of trees and keep the most amount of buffering around this garage on both the north,south and east sides. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-You're not going to use the garage as a business or anything like that? CHERYL DANIELS MRS. DANIELS-I'm sorry? MR. HENKEL-No business will be run out of there? MRS. DANIELS-No. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR. HENKEL-There's just going to be power in the garage? MRS. DANIELS-There will be power to it,but there won't be water to it. MR.JACKOSKI-Is there a reason the doors have to be 10 by 10? MRS. DANIELS-I'm also going to store my boat. I have a 20 foot pontoon boat. So that's why I'm putting the big bay doors on there. That's why it has to be the size that it is. MR. STEVES-Most pontoon boats are typically eight and a half foot wide beam without anything hanging off the sides. So an eight foot door just doesn't cut it. MR.JACKOSKI-And what about the height? Does it have to be a 10 foot door height? MRS. DANIELS-I don't suppose it absolutely has to be. MR. JACKOSKI-It just looks so industrial. Staff comments say there are two 10 foot by 10 foot garage doors. MR. STEVES-I believe that's what the builder speced. Let me take a look. MR. GARRAND-That does look industrial. MRS. DANIELS-Ten by ten. That's what I requested. MR. MC CABE-It looks like the house next door. MR.JACKOSKI-Just curious as to why. Okay. MR. STEVES-It's fairly consistent with the other two garages that are there as well. They could reduce it to a nine foot door. An eight foot door even gets tight, if you're pulling in a pickup truck with a cap on it. MR. HENKEL-If you're putting a pontoon boat in there on a trailer. MRS. DANIELS-On a trailer. MR. HENKEL-And then you probably have a,there's probably a curtain type on top of the. MR. STEVES-Your Bimini top. MRS. DANIELS-Bimini,yes. MR. STEVES-We would rather leave the 10 foot doors,unless there's a significant. MR.JACKOSKI-I just wanted to establish why they were necessary. MR. STEVES-Understood. Thank you. MRS. DANIELS-And then on the other side I have my old car that does not fit in my garage very well and my existing garage very well. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other Board questions? MR. GARRAND-Yes. On the application it lists as a lot size .34 acres and 1.54 acres. Where's the other 1.2 acres come from? Because all I'm seeing is .33 and 3.4 acres as far as lot sizes here that were supposed to be already combined as per the deed. MRS.MOORE-In the process. During this application they were in the process of combining them. MR. STEVES-Process,sorry. MRS. MOORE-So the initial application does, shows the larger lot and the smaller lot. Now I have in hand the deeds that show the two smaller as one lot. MR. HENKEL-So it would be 1.54. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR. GARRAND-Yes, 1.54 and.34, and on here you've got one lot at.33 and the one at. MR. STEVES-The 1.54, to answer your question, that was before, that was one of the lots of the three of the Hudson Bay Estates that were merged, and then the .33 would have been, we were trying to break off, on this lot, leaving that 1.54 and then carving this .33 off of it, and then the, that was going to require another variance. So we decided to merge all the lots together, and that took that portion of it away. MR. GARRAND-So it is 1.54 lot, acres total for that one parcel? MR. STEVES-No, now it's 3.21, we merged all three of them together. I know it's confusing. This was a 1.54 acre parcel, this was attached to it,this keyway, and there were two other one acre lots, but breaking this off from an already pre-existing lot that was under the two acre, it was going to require a variance just to break this off. So what Mrs. Daniels decided to do was to merge all three of these lots together and then do a lot line adjustment between the larger parcel,to create this and land hook it to her house. So that has been accomplished. MR. HENKEL-So now you're saying,so it's .65. MRS. DANIELS-I had four deeds. Now I have two. MR. STEVES-Two. MRS. DANIELS-Does that make sense? MR. HENKEL-I thought it was going to be 1.54 acres. Okay, because it says right here, lot size .34, then it says after combining it sounds like it's supposed to be 1.54. Isn't that the way? MR. STEVES-It was 1.54 and then she wanted to break this off and then merge it with this lot, then that would have made that non-conforming. So we merged all three together. That was the original application. MR. HENKEL-So now you've got what? MR. STEVES-So in other words instead of having three one acre lots,you know have one three acre lot and her house lot now has a small piece of.33 that is attached to it across the road. MR.JACKOSKI-So what you did is you methodically got around the two acre mess. MR. STEVES-Correct, by creating a large lot, one lot, where she could have come for a variance to break that little keyway off, that wouldn't have really impacted that lot because of the way it was shaped originally, but she wants to keep that in her family and decided to let her daughter build on there and have a nice large lot. MR. HENKEL-So how big is your existing garage that's attached to the house now? MRS. DANIELS-How big is it? I think it's on the map. Maybe not. It's considered a two car garage, but then I put my cellarway in the garage, because my house is very small. I downsized. So I put the cellarway in the garage. So now it's about one and a half. MR. HENKEL-So it's like a 24 by 22, 24 by 24,roughly. MR. STEVES-It ends up being,inside dimensions,about 18 and a half by one. MR. MC CABE-So enough to park one car,basically. MRS. DANIELS-Comfortably,one car. I do park, I do have two cars parked in it. MR. STEVES-But you can see how narrow. MRS. DANIELS-I have 16 inches, and that's my cellarway. If I get out of my car. MR. HENKEL-So you have to get out the opposite side. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MRS. DANIELS-I almost fell down my cellar stairs the other day because I brought something with me, and I stepped back a little bit too far and almost fell down my cellar stairs. It's tight with two cars,and I only have 12 inches between the two cars. MR.JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment and seeing no one in the audience, any other questions from Board members before I poll the Board? I'll poll the Board. Harrison? MR. FREER-So looking at the criteria that we're supposed to look at in terms of detrimental effect to the neighborhood or change in the tone for creating an environmental issue, I think that you guys have dealt with that properly,and with good intention,and I can support this as printed. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, the real relief here is that we're asking for a second garage on one piece of property, and this is, I think, a substantial enough piece of property to hold two garages. I accept the explanation. I think the relief is still substantial, but I also think that it won't impact the neighborhood. I think the feasible alternatives have been looked at. I think this is probably the best alternative, and I see minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood,and on balance I'd say I would be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm still opposed to any second garages on lots less than five acres. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Rick. In the past, generally we don't allow, I mean, if it was a 1.54 acres, I was all set for it, but not with .65 acres. I just think it's too much garage for that property, even though it's not really attached,per se. So I'm against it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay with it because of its location, that is across the road. A lot of your lot is steep and you'd have to have storage, obviously, for your toys. If this were on a.65 acre lot itself, I don't think I would be in favor of it,but because it's across the road, and it's disjointed, so to speak, it doesn't feel as crowded as it would as if it was on your main lot. So I don't think it's different from the neighborhood, what's there already. It's obviously self-created, but I'm okay with it. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 73-2014, Cheryl Daniels, 5 Boss Road and Wolfe Road,Tax Map No. 316.9-1-3 and 316.9-1-9.1 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cheryl Daniels for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 900 sq.ft. detached garage on a portion of parcel 316.9- 1-9.1 which will be merged with parcel 316.9-1-3 where a single-family dwelling with attached garage currently exists. Relief requested for a second garage. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,October 22,2014; 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) 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 undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearly properties be created by granting of the request for a second garage. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Not really. Trying to expand the existing garage isn't feasible. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? Not really in our mind. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We think not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Certainly not. 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. 73-2014, Cheryl Daniels, Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: 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 22nd day of October 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR. STEVES-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2014 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT G. PALMER AGENT(S) DANIEL W. RYAN, P.E. VISION ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S) ROBERT G. AND DONNA L. PALMER ZONING MDR LOCATION 510 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 390 SQ. FT. 1-CAR GARAGE ADDITION AND 64 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED TO EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 86-712 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.93 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-3 SECTION 179-5-020, 179-3-040 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2014, Robert G. Palmer, Meeting Date: October 22, 2014 Project Location: 510 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 392 sq. ft. 1-car garage addition and a 64 sq. ft. storage shed addition to an existing multi-family dwelling. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance from section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the MDR zone: Relief from minimum side yard setback for the MDR zone. Minimum Side Setback Minimum Side Setback Garage attached storage shed Required 25 ft. 25 ft. Proposed 9.02 ft. 12.14 ft. Relief 15.98 ft. 12.86 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. 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 consider locating the new garage and attached storage area to a more compliant location. The applicant has indicated the septic systems for the existing units is to the rear of the property. The width of the property at 100 ft. and existing structure on the property may limit the amount of relocation available. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate in reference 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 86-712: SFD Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 392 sq. ft. garage addition to the west side of an existing duplex unit and a 64 sq. ft. storage area on the east side of the structure. The applicant has indicated both additions will be screened from neighbors with existing vegetation. The submission explains the two units will be reconfigured so unit 2 will have two garage bays and unit 1 will have one bay while both will be accessible from their designated unit. SEQR Status: Type II' MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. RYAN-Good evening. I'm Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering. I'm here on behalf of Bob and Donna Palmer. They're out of town so they're not able to attend tonight. I'll give you a brief overview of the submission, which is pretty thorough and detailed, and I'd be happy to answer any questions once I'm through with that. Currently kind of a situation where the owners are empty nesters. They have family, and children that have now moved south, and they do spend about half their year in Florida. They are long-time residents of Queensbury, and if you're familiar with 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) Queensbury, there's a blue house on the corner of Aviation and West Mountain Road that's currently for sale. That is their current residence in Queensbury. They bought this duplex last year with the intent of occupying half of the duplex, allowing some income with the second unit, since they are only here for half the year, essentially. With that being the game plan,they also have a unique situation where there is an existing tenant in Unit Number Two,who has been a long time tenant of the prior owner, and she would like to remain. So although the owners prefer to have Unit Two with the essentially attached garage, because previously one garage stall was shared and was designated for each unit. Being that they're owner occupants, they want to have a garage that's directly accessing their unit. So that's what's driving the addition that is proposed here, which primarily consists of the garage. It is a one car garage which would be direct access from the existing driveway, and it would allow an entry right into Unit Number One. Unit Number Two would have the two garage stalls. She does have only one vehicle, but she does desire some additional storage space. So basically the two garage stalls would be opened up to each other so that that tenant can use both, and then the shed addition is primarily so that the owner has a location to store lawn maintenance equipment and other types of things he might use to maintain the property. There is a, according to the original drawings when the building was constructed, there are two separate leach fields in the back of the property,and then without going all the way to Pitcher Road, that's pretty much all forested and untouched land which the owner would prefer to keep that way. So that's what's driving the location and positioning of the proposed additions. I'd be happy to answer any detail questions. I did provide some drawings of the additions as well as site plans. So hopefully you've got the information you need. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Are there any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? Hearing none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening that would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-At this time I'll leave the public hearing open, and I'll seek comment from the Board members. Rick? MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's an unusual request. The applicant is doing a good thing by keeping the area towards Pitcher Road forested. I think it's a moderate request for a garage on this side. It's a duplex, otherwise I'd say no,but they are attaching it to the building, and there are two units at this place, and there've been two units here for quite a while. I can see what they're trying to do here. I don't know if the storage shed that they want to build on is absolutely necessary, since both of those garages that are currently there have storage built right into them. So I don't think that might be necessary, but the garage on the side of the building, I'd be in favor of that. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd like to see that shed moved so it wouldn't be a setback problem. You could put it behind Unit One there, but I would definitely, I'd be in favor of it, but I would like to see that shed, if possible, moved behind Unit One. Then there wouldn't be any problem with another setback there. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree. I think that would be a feasible solution, but I would be in favor of the garage as well. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I think it's a reasonable request and I will support the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Well, I think that the garage I don't have a problem with. My colleagues make good points about trying to provide the minimal variances necessary by looking at the storage shed in a way that doesn't require a variance,but the rest of the balance test I could support as is. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm okay with the application. I mean, if you can remove the shed and move it to another location. MR. RYAN-I guess I'll explain that a little bit more. I don't think it'll tip the scale here,based on the comments, but I guess just for, in terms of discussions sake, the purpose of the shed is to, Laura, I don't know if you have that floor plan that was provided on there. It should be, go to the, yes, go one more page beyond that one I think. Okay. So you can see the shed. It's a little bit difficult to see, but you're right, there are storage components that are already built into the two garage stalls at the back side. The purpose of the positioning of the shed was so that owner could utilize and share some of that storage space, so that it didn't have to have garage access that the tenant would be using. So I guess the alternative to allow,basically without having to go to a bigger shed and an alternative location, he would be able to use some of that storage space in the garage as well. So connecting the two would give him about the space he was hoping to have. An alternative position would be to the front of the building, which was something he didn't feel would be, in terms of aesthetics,would be pleasing. So we do,you know, we would have a compliant location within the setbacks on the front of the existing building in order to still probably connect to that area, but again,just throwing that out there so that you have a better understanding of why. MR. HENKEL-So you're saying basically the shed is going to be opened into the garage? MR. RYAN-There's a door that would be connecting to that back storage space. MR. HENKEL-So therefore. MR. RYAN-The alternative would be to have, you know, a 12 by 15 shed somewhere else, versus allowing us to share that space there. So that was really the purpose of that. MR. HENKEL-How big is the existing two car garage? MR. RYAN-I can tell you that. I have a little trouble reading the dimensions here. MR. HENKEL-The new garage building is going to be 15 by 26. MR. RYAN-Yes, 26. MR. HENKEL-That's a pretty good sized,that's going to give you some storage space. MR. RYAN-Yes, well, they were hoping to maybe get two small sedan vehicles in there, but I don't know if that's going to be possible. MR. HENKEL-That's not going to work. MR. RYAN-I think ultimately they'll have one vehicle in there. MR. HENKEL-That's two smart cars. MR. RYAN-Electric cars maybe. Hang on, I can get you that dimension. MR. HENKEL-See, I still don't agree with that. MR. GARRAND-I don't like the positioning either. MR. HENKEL-I think the one relief is perfect,and put the other shed behind,attach it to this garage. MR. RYAN-Yes, the existing garage is 30 feet. So, and it looks like when it was originally built there's about six feet of storage on the back end of that. MR. HENKEL-I think there's plenty there. MR. RYAN-I don't have the applicant here, but on his behalf I'd be willing to, you know, agree to accepting the variance for the garage, if that's something you'd consider, and we can remove the shed for today's discussion sake and,you know, I can talk to them about their alternatives, if that's what the Board desires. MR.JACKOSKI-Sounds good to us. If you want to modify your application to be just that,that's fine with us. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR. RYAN-Okay. I'd be willing to amend the application, on the record, such that the shed will be removed from the application, and we'll seek variances and approval for the garage, the one car garage. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,sir. MR. HENKEL-So does that leave it wide open so if they wanted to put a shed somewhere else on the, not attached to the property,they could still do that. Right? MR. RYAN-The zoning does permit a detached. MR. HENKEL-A 10 by 10 or whatever. MR.JACKOSKI-If it meets Code,they don't have to come back to us. MR. GARRAND-As long as it meets Code. MR. RYAN-And if he's set on re-visiting this,we'd come back with a different application. MR.JACKOSKI-That's fine. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, we're basically segmenting it, but we're forcing the segmentation. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion again. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 75-2014, Robert G. Palmer, 510 Corinth Road, Tax Map No. 308.15-1-3 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert G. Palmer for a variance from Section(s): 179-5-020; 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 392 sq. ft. 1-car garage addition to existing multifamily dwelling. Relief requested from minimum side yard setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. The required setback is 25; proposed is 9; relief requested is 15.98 feet. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,October 22,2014; 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? I don't think it'll produce any change in the neighborhood at all. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? To get the desired results, no. They want a garage for Unit One and this is the only logical place to put a garage on Unit One that provides interior access to the garage. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? No, I would say it's moderate, as per the Staff Notes. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,it will not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It may be deemed self-created because it is the applicant that is coming before us for the additional setback relief. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) 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. 75-2014, Robert G. Palmer, Introduced by Richard Garrand, 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 Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll remind those that are still here that if you wish to ask the Board to table your application because we do not have a full Board this evening, we certainly will entertain that request. AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2014 SEQRA TYPE II BRIAN BATTEASE OWNER(S) BRIAN AND MARY BATTEASE ZONING MDR LOCATION 16 RESERVOIR DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED 117 SQ. FT. SHED; EXISTING SHED WAS REMOVED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF NONE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRE(S) SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 BRIAN BATTEASE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2014, Brian Battease, Meeting Date: October 22, 2014 "Project Location: 16 Reservoir Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete construction of an attached 117 sq.ft.shed; existing shed was removed. Relief Required: Parcel will require an area variance from section 179-5-020 accessory structures -storage shed attached: Relief requested from minimum rear yard setback requirement of the MDR zone. Minimum Rear Setback Required 30 ft. Proposed 2.5 ft. Relief 27.5 ft. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) 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 limited due to the size of the parcel at 9,598 sq.ft.and the parcel being a corner lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, None Found Staff comments: The applicant request to complete an under construction attached storage shed (lean-to). The applicant has indicated the shed was in disrepair and needed to be removed. The applicant utilizes the shed for storage as there is limited house storage. The applicant has indicated the location is in the same place as the original storage. SEQR Status: Type II' MR. JACKOSKI-Pretty straightforward application. Welcome, and if you could identify yourself for the record. MR. BATTEASE-Yes, I'm Brian Battease. I own the residence at 16 Reservoir Drive in Queensbury. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Do you want to add anything else or just field questions from the Board members? MR. BATTEASE-Well, I do, you know, again, the reason why I tore down the shed was because it was in disrepair. It was falling apart. I'd like to say it's an eyesore, but it was more of an eyesore for us because it's really quite concealed to the neighborhood, and I do have a letter from my neighbors Mark and Lisa Mahoney that indicate that they do not have an issue, and their property is,you know,their garage is right on the other side of the fence from my property. If you guys want to see that or want me to read that, I'd be more than willing to do that. MR.JACKOSKI-Well,you can give it to the secretary of the Board and he can read it into the record. MR. HENKEL-So that would be like on the east side of you you're saying? That would be on the east side,right? Or which one are you talking? Because behind you is the power lines. So it's this one. MR. BATTEASE-Right here. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? Having no questions from Board members, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, Roy,if you could read in the written comment. MR. URRICO-"We are the homeowners of the property located at 14 Reservoir Drive, Queensbury, IVY,Tax Map No. 307.17-4-14, and we are writing in support of the construction of an attached shed on the property of our neighbor Brian Battease residing at 16 Reservoir Drive, Queensbury, NY. The shed is located on the southwest side of the property behind a six foot stockade fence and is shielded from our yard and residence by our unattached one car garage. We see no negative impact on our property or our lifestyle, nor do we see any negative impact on any future owners of this property of allowing Mr. Battease to retain and enhance his shed. Sincerely Mark C. Mahoney and Lisa M. Sax Mahoney" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Having no other written comment, having no public comment, I'll poll the Board. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I understand that the new Code, as you start taking stuff down, it comes back to bite you, but this makes sense to me and it's the reason we have a Zoning Board of Appeals so that we don't do stupid stuff to homeowners. So I can live with this. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, the lot sizes there, it's tough whatever you do and obviously it would be an eyesore to put in your front yard. That's about the only place you could put it without any kind of problem. So I agree with it,yes,that's not a problem. Go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-You're just lucky National Grid lets you use their property. MR. BATTEASE-Yes, all that stuff was there when I bought the property and they informed me that they had some sort of landscaping easement with them. MR. GARRAND-Yes, you can buy it for like a dollar from National Grid. They'll let you improve it, but if they ever need to get in there they can tear your fences and everything else out to get in there, if they've got to get in there with a truck. MR. BATTEASE-They've actually constructed the gates, putting the gates up and those things. So they actually put the, they could have put that on my property I suppose, but they didn't. So they've been nothing but good. MR. GARRAND-Yes, I've been in there. MR. BATTEASE-I'm in favor of it. The neighbor doesn't have a problem with it, and I think it's, given the constraints of this lot, he doesn't have a lot of choice here. He's going to need relief one way or another if he's going to put anything up on this property. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 76-2014, Brian Battease, 16 Reservoir Drive, Tax Map No. 302.17-4-15 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brian Battease for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to complete construction of an attached 117 sq. ft. shed ; existing shed was removed. Relief requested from the minimum rear yard setback 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) requirement. The requirement is 30 feet; the proposed is 2.5 feet; the relief requested is 27.5 feet. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,October 22,2014; 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 undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting the requested Area Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Not really. He's repairing an existing shed. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? No,it's not. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? It will not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Not really because the shed has been there all along. 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. 76-2014, Brian Battease, 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. 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 22nd day of October 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. BATTEASE-Thank you. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) SIGN VARIANCE NO. 77-2014 Fx3, INC. SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED OWNER(S) J & T TSAI, INC.,KEVIN SHUFELT ZONING Cl LOCATION 682 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE AN EXISTING PYLON SIGN STRUCTURE FOR A 36 SQ. FT. SIGN FOR A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH SIGN. CROSS REF BP 2006-458 COWL ALT.; BP 2006-422 SIGN; BP 93-401 INC. ALT.; BP 6589 YR. 1980 SIGN; BP 6206 YR. 1979 SIGN; BP 324 OF YR. 1969 SIGN WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.76 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-28 SECTION CHAPTER 140 KEVIN SHUFELT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 77-2014, Fx3, Inc., Meeting Date: October 22, 2014 "Project Location: 682 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to use an existing pylon sign structure for a 36 sq.ft.sign for a fast food restaurant. Relief Required: Parcel will require a sign variance from Section 140 Signs. Relief requested from the minimum front yard setback requirements for such sign. Minimum Front Yard Setback Required 15 ft. Proposed 13.2 ft. Relief 1.8 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 alternatives may be available as this is a new sign. The applicant intends to use the existing signage structure to place the new sign in the signage space. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal 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 impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 06-458: Commercial alteration BP 06-422: Sign BP 93-401: Interior alteration BP 6589: Sign (1980) BP 6206: Sign (1979) BP 324: Sign (1969) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing signage structure to install a 36 sq. ft. panel sign. The existing structure is located 13.2 ft. from the property line. The size of the sign is compliant with a freestanding sign being no larger than 45 sq. ft. The applicant proposes no changes to the pylon 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) structure. Board should confirm if the pylon will be painted. The information submitted indicates there will be an area for interchangeable lettering and the sign will be lit from the interior with LED. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-A very straightforward application. I suspect you just want to field questions from the Board. MR. SHUFELT-Sure. MR.URRICO-Yes, I notice there are no menus in here. MR.JACKOSKI-No,no menus. Yes, I'm a little disappointed. MR. GARRAND-I'm curious. MR. SHUFELT-Well,we have the menus. We just finished everything and everything out on line on our website,and we'll have brochures out probably by Friday. MR. GARRAND-As far as healthy dining,what type of food are you going to primarily? MR. SHUFELT-Well, a little something for everybody. Grilled chicken, antibiotic free,hormone free chicken, lean burgers, then we have salads and some tabouli and some more of clean eating stuff, smoothies. So a little bit of everything. MR. GARRAND-Good. MR.JACKOSKI-The community's anxious. MR. SHUFELT-We have no fried fries at all. We have baked fries and baked chicken tenders, brought in some pretty expensive equipment to handle that stuff. MR.JACKOSKI-Cool. Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at this time? MR.URRICO-Those were questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Comments. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.JACKOSKI-Seeing no one,is there any written comment? MR.URRICO-No comment. MR.JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. Roy? MR.URRICO-I'd be in favor of this project. It's a good use of something that's already existing. MR.JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-The pylon's been there for a long time, so I don't think it's going to make much difference. So I'll support the project. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I support the project also. The only problem with every time we support a sign project, it seems like the put 50 more other little signs out there,bunch of little stick in the grounds. Is there any way of stopping that, or is that just when we give the approval on this they can go ahead and do that? It seems like. MR. JACKOSKI-That's not our can of worms to fight. That is Craig Brown and Dave Hatin and I don't know who else. MR. HENKEL-So,yes, I'm all for it. Go ahead. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'll be in favor of the application also. MR.JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I favor. MR.JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-SEQR. MR.JACKOSKI-I'll seek a SEQR motion. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 77-2014 Fx3, Inc. -Kevin Shufelt (Fit Food Fast); 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 Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 22nd day of October 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-And now may I have a motion for approval of the application itself. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 77-2014, Fx3, Inc. Kevin Shufelt (Fit Food Fast), Tax Map No. 302.7-1-28 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Fx3, Inc. - Kevin Shufelt (Fit Food Fast) for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to use an existing pylon sign structure for a 36 sq.ft. sign for a fast food restaurant. Relief requested from the minimum front yard setback requirements for such sign. It requires a 1.8 foot variance from the front setback. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 77-2014 Fx3, Inc. -Kevin Shufelt (Fit Food Fast); 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 Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 22nd day of October 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,October 22,2014; 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: 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) 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? It won't create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The benefits of using the existing sign make a lot of sense. It seems like the right thing to do. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It's not substantial. It's very minor. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It's self-created because he's trying to re-use the pylon. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 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. 77-2014,Fx3, Inc. - Kevin Shufelt (Fit Food Fast), Introduced by Harrison Freer, 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. 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 22nd day of October 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-Good luck and congratulations. MR. SHUFELT-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-So I have a few things for the Board this evening, if I could just, so the next thing I want to address with everybody is a thank you for allowing us to have an extended agenda this evening. As you can tell we got out within two hours and we got through a lot of applications. So I appreciate everyone's efforts in making that happen. I also want to congratulate Roy for still continuing to be insane as he has been renewed for another long term here on the Zoning Board. So, thank you, Roy, for that. The Town Board acted on that last Monday. We appreciate your service, and then also to announce to the Board members and the public that Andrew Allison has 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/22/2014) been approved as another alternate for us. So now we finally have our second alternate again. Not that, Harrison, you weren't doing a great job by yourself, but it is nice for us to have a second alternate to use. So we welcome Andy to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Is there anything else for Board members? May I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 2014, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Steven Jackoski: Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Goodnight. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 39