Loading...
06-17-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 25-2015 Robert& Robin Bentley 1. Tax Map No. 301.17-3-43 Area Variance No. 28-2015 Concord Pools, Inc. 4. Tax Map No. 309.17-1-24 Area Variance No. 29-2015 Tabassum Sheikh d/b/a ASAD Petroleum, Inc. 9. Tax Map No. 266.0-1-78 and 79 Area Variance No. 30-2015 Mark Ryan 13. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-58 Area Variance No. 33-2015 Ed Moore, Ed & Ed T. Enterprises, LLC 18. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-17 and 19 Notice of Appeal No. 2-2015 Michael J. & Heather O'Connor 22. Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1 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. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL MICHAEL MC CABE RICHARD GARRAND HARRISON FREER, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN HENKEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call this evening's meeting to order for the Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually an easy process. We'll identify each project that's in front of us this evening on the agenda. There is a sheet of paper in the back that explains our process and procedures. We'll call up the applicant to join us at the small table. Roy will read the application into the record as applicable. When there is a public comment period or hearing scheduled we'll open the public comment and hearing. We will listen to the applicants. We'll ask questions. We'll open up that public hearing. We'll then maybe take a poll of the Board to see where we want to go from there and then make a resolution if applicable. The first thing I want to do is some housekeeping if you don't mind. I'm going to do approval of the May 20th minutes for the Zoning Board of Appeals. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 20, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAY 20, 2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on the agenda is to approve the minutes for the meeting of May 27th of the Zoning Board. May 27, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAY 27, 2015 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone, for housekeeping. Fortunately for everyone here we have New Business only on the agenda this evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2015 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT & ROBIN BENTLEY OWNER(S) ROBERT & ROBIN BENTLEY ZONING MDR LOCATION 1 CRANBERRY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 216 SQ. FT. SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF BP 2015-138 SHED; BP 89-435 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.17-343 SECTION 179-5- 020, 179-3-040 ROBERT & ROBIN BENTLEY, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2015, Robert & Robin Bentley, Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 "Project Location: 1 Cranberry Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval of an already placed 216 sq. ft. shed. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance as follows: Minimum rear yard setback. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements. Required 30 ft. (Cranberry Lane) 30 ft. Rear Proposed 17.3 ft. 15 ft. Relief 12.7 ft. 15 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. The aerial indicates a few property in the neighborhood have sheds. 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 place the unit in a more compliant location however this would place it in the architectural front yard area. In addition, the parcel is a corner parcel where property setbacks is 30 ft. for front and 30 ft. for rear-there are no sides. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal to 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. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has already placed a 216 sq. ft. shed to the south east corner of the parcel. The applicant has indicated the shed would allow for storage of a lawn equipment, outdoor furniture and similar outdoor seasonal items. The applicant has explained the placement of the shed is in proximity of the driveway area for access and to not disturb the front yard area. The information submitted shows the location of the shed, type of shed." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, and it's quite a simple process. So it's a very straightforward application. I think we've all seen the property. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time or would you just like to field questions from Board members if the Board members have any questions? MR. BENTLEY-Ask away. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Do the Board members have any questions at this time? So we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open that public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "I am the owner of the house at 3 Cranberry Lane Queensbury, NY and received a letter this past week noting my neighbors, Robert & Robin Bentley, are requesting a zoning variance. I share a property boundary with Bob and Robin and they have put a shed on their property, specifically on their driveway. The shed is 3-4 feet closer to our property line than the zoning rules allow. I met with Bob and Robin this past week and discussed the matter. I am fine with their request for the zoning variance as long as they keep the shed where it is, on the driveway with the front edge of the shed being even with the front edge of their garage. I don't want them to move the shed any closer to the property line. They agreed not to do this and are happy with the shed where it is. Please file these comments with Bob and Robins request for the zoning variance so they can be public record and reflect my agreement with my comments above. I appreciate your help with this matter. Please feel free to call me should there be any question. Thanks for your help with this request. Best, Greg Keefer, 3 Cranberry Lane" MR. JACKOSKI-It sounds like you've got your neighbors' approval. MRS. BENTLEY-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member comments or questions at this time? I'll poll the Board quickly. Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no problem with this. It seems straightforward. I think the fact that it's a corner lot makes it difficult to put it somewhere else and the pool also. So I'd be in favor of this variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 agree with the placement of this. I don't think it would look as good facing Sherman Avenue. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I can live with this. It seems to be what we're here for is to look at the extenuating circumstances and given the lot, I can live with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'd feel a lot more comfortable, it kind of looks unfinished, and if there were something put along the bottom. Right now it's just kind of jacked up on the. MR. BENTLEY-I've skirted it already, yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. When I went by it was just on the bottom. MR. BENTLEY-Yes. It was open at the time, yes. Now it's skirted. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. BENTLEY-And the colors are, it's all going to match perfectly. MR. BENTLEY-Right. MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm not happy with it being placed there before coming to the Zoning Board, but other than that, I mean, that's a big deal to me, but if this was coming to us with clean hands, I would probably approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I feel the same way. If you had come to us before you did it, we don't like to do it after the fact, but it's the right location with the orientation of the home and the corner lot and everything. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Robert and Robin Bentley. Applicant proposes construction of a 216 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested from minimum rear yard setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. SEAR Type 11 - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015; 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because there are other properties in the area with sheds and there is a property with a detached garage. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the board, are not reasonable because of the orientation of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the orientation of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. 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. 25-2015 Robert & Robin Bentley, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MRS. BENTLEY-Thank you, very, very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CONCORD POOLS, INC. AGENT(S) TOM NACE - NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) 60 BIG BOOM ROAD, LLC ZONING CLI LOCATION 60 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE EXISTING 2,400 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO OPERATE A SWIMMING POOL SALES FACILITY FOR THE DISPLAY, SALES, AND STORAGE OF POOLS. PROJECT ACTIVITY INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR 25,000 SQ. FT. OF DISPLAY AREA, GRADING ON ADJACENT NORTH AND SOUTH PROPERTIES AND A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH SOUTH PROPERTY IS ALSO PROPOSED. INSTALLATION OF A DISPLAY POOL AND DECKING AREA ARE PROPOSED AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE WITHOUT DIRECT ACCESS TO PROPERTY, FRONT SETBACK, AND PLACEMENT OF A POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. CROSS REF SP 39-2015; BP 2014-510 COM'L ALT.; (G & G BOAT N RV, LLC; BP 2011493 T & T SALES (HEAVY EQUIPMENT): BP 2011-018 C/O KADANT; BP 2007-153 C/O KRUGER CONCRETE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2015 LOT SIZE 1.93 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.17-1-24 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4- 050; 179-5-020 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; MIKE GIAVANONE, PRESENT 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2015, Concord Pools, Inc., Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 "Project Location: 60 Big Boom Road Description of Proposed Project: To reuse existing 2,400 sq. ft. building to operate a swimming pool sales facility for display, sales and storage of pools. Project activity includes site work for 25,000 sq. ft. of display area, grading on adjacent north and south properties and a shared driveway with south property is also proposed. Installation of a display pool and decking area are proposed at the front of the building. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Section 179-5-020 Accessory structures -pools, proposed pool in front yard, Section 179-4-050 Frontage -direct access, proposed access to site from an adjacent parcel, and Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts -dimensional requirements, proposed new front access landing within setback of front property line. Pool in front yard Road frontage Access landing front setback Required Rear yard 50 ft. 50 ft. Proposed Front yard Adjacent lot 48.8 ft. access Relief Front yard 50 ft. 1.20 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 for a more compliant location for the pool, access to the site. The applicant has indicated the pool location is for business display. The access would minimize a curb cut and the steps are located at a current entrance area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to 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. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building and site to operate a pools sale and storage area. The plans submitted show the location of the display pool to be in the front yard - where the Town Code regulations to not differ for commercial or residential pools therefore a variance is required for the location. The applicant has indicated the front of the building is to be renovated for the display pool and access to the area from the building with a new landing and steps. The new landing area is located within the 50 ft. setback area requiring front setback relief. The plans show the shared driveway for both the Boat/RV storage facility and the proposed Concord pool facility where the code requires each lot have direct access to the road. The applicant has indicated that the storage facility will be gated and the pool facility area is fenced in so there is controlled access with the shared driveway." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met and they, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted June 16. 2015 with a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-And I just want to ask Staff. I understood residential and commercial pools are not differentiated, but given the intent of this pool is not for swimming purposes, why isn't it considered a display, and therefore not fall under the regulations of a regular pool which the Town Code has anticipated to be used as a swimming pool. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-It doesn't differentiate. It says pool is a pool. Whether it's being used as a display, it doesn't tell me that pool is a display or a unit of observation. I mean, it's not an advertisement, the pool. MR. KUHL-That's probably something you should put on your to do list to fix. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, because to me it seems silly. This is not intended to swim in. It's not intended to have children running around in and I understand why pools go in backyards, but in this case, this is a commercial area where they display. It's an oversized pond. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace of Nace Engineering and Mike Giavanone, the owner of Concord Pools. Mike also owns the property to the south which is currently being developed with his Boat N RV storage yard. One of the variances is for use of the entrance into the Boat N RV Storage yard as also being the entrance into Concord Pools, thereby reducing one curb cut on Big Boom Road. We believe it's desirable from both the Town aspect and are aspect. The second variance for the swimming pool in the front yard, I couldn't agree with you more, Steve, that there should be some differentiation there. That swimming pool setbacks fall within the residential code, not necessarily commercial. The third setback is it's an existing building. They want to renovate it to be used for pool sales and storage and in order to get a porch on the front of it that we can use to lead down to the demonstration or the display pool, we end up having to put part of that porch or deck within the setback. So there, basically, is what we're proposing. If MR. KUHL-What's the distance from the fence to the road going to be? MR. NACE-I'd have to scale it. MR. KUHL-It just looks like, I mean, it's got to be, what do we need, Staff, 30 feet? A fence, because they're going to put a fence in front of the pool. MRS. MOORE-It's fine. MR. KUHL-It's fine? The distance is good? MRS. MOORE-There's not a distance issue with the fence. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-In the commercial zone. MR. KUHL-How about, how come you didn't combine the two lots, Mike? You own both lots, right? MR. NACE-At this point, no, he does not own. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. NACE-He has a lease, purchase agreement. MR. KUHL-Will you ever combine them or will you always lease one and own the other? Will you eventually own what you're leasing? MIKE GIAVANONE MR. GIAVANONE-Yes, we will. We have a lease purchase on the building and we're putting a large investment into the building. The reason that we would like to, we propose to put the pool in the front yard, the backyard is a display area, as far as a storage area. The road we want to put in and share with Boat N RV common, eliminates a curb cut and two driveways that are approximate to each other, and I believe it makes a much safer entrance because as you come in the patrons to the pool store will not be able to enter through the coded gate into the storage facility. So it will just simply be an in and a right hand turn. We'll have less pavement than we have there now. We'll have a, it's not only a display pool, but in our 43 years of putting in swimming pools in the Capital District, safety has always been paramount to anything around the pool. This pool's going to be fenced, highly landscaped, and it's going to have an auto cover, that the pool is only open when you're showing it. The cover could, the entire Board in front of me could stand on this cover. It notifies you if it even moves on your cell phone. It's a very safe display lot, and we're trying to show folks, our clients, not only what a pool looks like, 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) but what a pool should be, and that's safe. So bringing the pool in the front of the building makes a lot of sense to us and that's why we propose it there. As far as the setback, I believe we're only about a foot and a half, about a foot and a half short. MR. KUHL-And you'll have four foot of water in it? It'll be a full pool? MR. GIAVANONE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Interesting, twice when I went by that facility the UPS trailers are right on the road. Now if they have to get a variance for a pool, is UPS allowed to park their trailers out that far, or are they just doing that? MR. GIAVANONE-That's a wonderful question. MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, I'm familiar with the property and I've been by it several times, and I keep saying, well, maybe that was a quick one because they had to do something, and how about that, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Their vehicles that they're storing on their site? MR. KUHL-They're putting their trailers, the raw trailers, not a trailer with a tractor on it. They're just putting, both times when I went by there was a trailer sitting there and it actually blocks out the view to that property. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, let's have Staff work on that end. MR. KUHL-Yes, she can't answer that tonight? MRS. MOORE-I'd have to look into it. MR. KUHL-There's no markings on their asphalt. Would you work on that? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? MR. URRICO-Yes. Will that display be changed from time to time? Is it a permanent display or is it going to be swapped out for different pools over a period of time? MR. NACE-It's going to be permanent. MR. GIAVANONE-Yes, it's permanent. It certainly could be, but typically a display pool would be put in place for seven to ten years. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. GIAVANONE-Of course the landscape and the surrounds could be altered, but it's pretty much a permanent structure. MR. URRICO-And it'll be year round? MR. GIAVANONE-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open it now. Is there any written record? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anybody in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open and I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I don't see really a problem with any of the variances on this. I think this makes perfect sense to me that there should be a pool display and the one driveway also makes sense to me. I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. MC CABE-1 looked at it. I have no problem with the project as it stands. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-The same here. It makes sense. You guys have given us a good rationale for what you want to do, and looking through the criteria, it's not substantial. It doesn't have any environmental impact. So I think it's good. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-This is a display in a CLI zone. I don't think it's going to produce any undesirable change to this neighborhood. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's a good utilization of the property, and we welcome you. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a SEAR resolution. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. I REVIEWED THE SEAR FORM, AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT CONTAINED WITHIN THE PACKET, I MOVE THAT WE GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Now that we've done SEAR, can I have a motion, please, for approval of this application. MR. KUHL-Can I make that recommendation? MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Concord Pools, Inc. Applicant proposes to reuse existing 2,400 sq. ft. building to operate a swimming pool sales facility for the display, sales, and storage of pools. Project activity includes site work for 25,000 sq. ft. of display area, grading on adjacent north and south properties and a shared driveway with south property is also proposed. Installation of a display pool and decking area are proposed at the front of the building. Relief requested for road frontage without direct access to property, front setback, and placement of a pool in the front yard. Access from the front should be 50 feet. It's going to be 48.8 ft., so we're giving them relief for 1.20 feet. SEAR Type Unlisted I REVIEWED THE SEAR FORM, AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT CONTAINED WITHIN THE PACKET, I MOVE THAT WE GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015; 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought can be achieved by some other means feasible for the applicant to pursue. The applicant has indicated the pool location is really for display purposes only, and that the access from the other lot, the full 50 foot road frontage relief we're giving them, is actually saving us one curb cut. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's moderate at best. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The project will have minimal to no adverse effect. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2015 CONCORD POOLS, INC. Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you and congratulations. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2015 SEQRA TYPE II TABASSUM SHEIKH D/B/A ASAD PETROLEUM, INC. AGENT(S) ZACH MONROE -WINCHIP DESIGN OWNER(S) ASAD PETROLEUM, INC. ZONING NC LOCATION 985 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 6,120 SQ. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS AND DIESEL CANOPIES. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE ALTERATIONS WITH NEW CURB CUT AREAS, LANDSCAPING, AND LIGHTING. PROPOSED GAS CANOPY DOES NOT MEET SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON ROUTE 149. CROSS REF SP 35-2015; FWW 2-2015; BP 2000-078 SFD; BP 2000-077 DEMO OF SFD; BP 99-539 BOATHOUSE; BP 89-467 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-58 SECTION 179-3-040 ZACH MONROE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2015, Tabassum Sheikh d/b/a ASAD Petroleum, Inc., Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 "Project Location: 985 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new 6,120 sq. ft. convenience store with gas and diesel canopies. Project includes site alterations with new curb cut areas, landscaping, and lighting. Proposed gas canopy does meet setbacks. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance as follows: Section 179-4-030 Travel Corridor-minimum travel corridor overlay setback. Required 75 ft. Proposed 42.5 ft. Relief 32.5 ft. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) 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. There is an existing fuel service and convenience store on the west side of Ridge Road across the street from the proposed. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to have the canopy in a more compliant location. The parcel is a corner lot and has a residential use to the north. 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. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environment conditions of the area. The applicant has indicated the current DEC cleanup will be completed in early summer and the new technology of fuel service will be installed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing gas service building to develop the site with a new 6,120 sq. ft. convenience store, gas and diesel pumps. The project site is located at the corner of Ridge Road and Route 149. The applicant proposes 8 gas pumps with a 2,964 sq. ft. canopy and 8 diesel pumps with a 1607 sq. ft. canopy. Internal businesses for the building are proposed at this time for Subway and Dunkin Donuts. The gas canopy is to be located 42.5 ft. from Route 149 where a 75 ft. setback is required. The applicant has indicated the placement of the canopies, building and site details was in part because of the shape of the lot and that it is a corner lot." MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board met and reviewed this and they didn't identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. They adopted that on June 16, 2015 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy, and, Staff, do you happen to know the distance that the canopy is for the other business on the other corner? MRS. MOORE-I can check, it was less. It's much closer. MR. JACKOSKI-It's closer than the 42 feet? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. MR. MONROE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourselves for the record, please, and I assume you just want the Board to ask you questions. MR. MONROE-Yes. Zach Monroe from Winchip Engineering, and this is Mr. Sheikh. Toby. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff's looking up that information for us. MRS. MOORE-It's about 26 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Twenty-six feet. Just to help us get an orientation as to what we're looking at. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. KUHL-What was the 26 feet for? MR. JACKOSKI-The Stewarts canopy is 26 feet from Route 149. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-The property line. MR. KUHL-What is that in relation to this? MR. JACKOSKI-This one is 42 feet. MR. KUHL-So he's doing better. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know. We'll find out. Any Board member questions? MR. KUHL-Could you have, at 149 and move the gas back? But I guess we'd need 75 feet. So you wouldn't have the 75 feet. MR. MONROE-Exactly. You'd still be in the same situation. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions? Could you fill us in a little bit about the DEC cleanup? TOBY SHEIKH MR. SHEIKH-1 just had a call from the DEC, Steve Basco, yesterday morning, and he said he got information from Getty Realty on the cleanup, but he's got to go over the scope of work in July, and hopefully it will be the middle or end of July they will cleanup. The cleanup is just about the whole gas station actually for cleanup. It's a big work and he said it's going to take about a couple of weeks to do it. Hopefully it will happen by the end of July. It was supposed to happen in June, but it didn't happen. MR. JACKOSKI-But the site will be cleaned up before construction will begin? MR. SHEIKH-Yes, before construction. And Getty is responsible for that and part of the sale was I bought the property and it was part of the sale that they had to clean it up. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. URRICO-That 75 foot overlay is left over from when the State was going to expand the road at that point and did already take place, the 75 foot overlay? MRS. MOORE-No, that's the Town. It has nothing to do with the State. MR. URRICO-So the 75 foot overlay. MRS. MOORE-Is a Town implemented Code. MR. URRICO-For anticipated expansion of the road? MRS. MOORE-No, to cover having an impact on the road, having buildings or structures 75 foot setback so there's a corridor. MR. URRICO-Okay, and we've already determined that the Stewarts across the street is closer than that 75 feet? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Walker's building is a lot closer than the other building is as close. MR. URRICO-It's a nursery there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and any questions from Board members? MR. GARRAND-Is signage going to be compliant to the Code? MR. SHEIKH-Yes. It's got to be 25 feet setback and I think I would be allowed 60 feet and my signage, 55.7. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing and ask Roy if there's any written comment. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Just one. "I would like to see a landscaped buffer on the north boundary with high planting barrier such as arborvitae or similar to block noise and activity. Also would like downward lighting only. Benjamin L. Aronson 1516 Ridge Road" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That's a Planning Board matter that we're confident the Planning Board will take care of when they see the Site Plan Review process in front of them. So is there any other written comment? MR. URRICO-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board and I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-This is really a minor variance compared to what's already in that corridor. The scope of this project is pretty, for them to come here with such a small variance, I think it's actually minor. I agree with Staff Notes that it is a moderate request. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 agree with Rick. I remember when this was first, reclamation project was proposed maybe 10 years ago and there were more variances then than this requires. I would definitely be in favor of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, it's going to be nice to see that corner get cleaned up, and it looks like you have a good plan, and I support the variances. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with what was said. I think it's a good application. I think we're fortunate, as a Town, that somebody is going to come in and invest this kind of money and clean up that area. So I'm really in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think it will enhance the area and I'm in favor of the project as it stands. MR. JACKOSKI-And as I am. So I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing at this time, given the polling of the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll seek a motion. Thank you, Rick. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tabassum Sheikh d/b/a ASAD Petroleum, Inc. Applicant proposes construction of a new 6,120 sq. ft. convenience store with gas and diesel canopies. Project includes site alterations with new curb cut areas, landscaping, and lighting. Proposed gas canopy does not meet setback requirements. Project subject to Site Plan Review. Relief requested from minimum Travel Corridor Overlay setback requirements on Route 149. Relief requested here for the canopy alone is 32.5 feet from the required 75 foot setback. SEAR Type 11 - no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015; 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. I don't think it will produce any change at all to the neighborhood. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) 2. Whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. There are a lot of places on the property where he can put this canopy, but you also want it close to the road for in and out traffic. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I think any impacts it may have should be mitigated by the Planning Board's looking at landscaping for shielding this and for buffering. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2015, TABASSUM SHEIKH D/B/A ASAD PETROLEUM, INC., Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. MONROE-Thank you. MR. SHEIKH-1 appreciate it. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MARK RYAN OWNER(S) MARK RYAN ZONING WR LOCATION 28 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY EXISTING STORAGE UNITS; 90 SQ. FT. SHED AND 24 SQ. FT. TRASH RECYCLE CENTER. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. CROSS REF SP 35-2015; BP 2000-078 SFD; BP 2000-077 DEMO OF SFD; BP 99-539 BOATHOUSE; BP 89-467 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-58 SECTION 179-3- 040 MARK RYAN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2015, Mark Ryan, Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 "Project Location: 28 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed sheds -90 sq. ft. and 24 sq. ft. trash recycle center. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Section 179-5-020 accessory structures, 179-3- 040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements. 90 sq. ft. Shoreline setback 24 sq. ft. Shed side yard setback Side yard setback Required 20 ft. 75 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 18.5 ft. -2 ft. 8.5 ft. Relief 1.5 ft. 77 ft. 11.5 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. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) 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 a variance may be needed for work on the property 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. The project will have minimal adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The shed is located within the wetland area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant is requesting to maintain an existing 90 sq. ft. shed and a 24 sq. ft. wooden trash container. The applicant had received a notice of violation in July of 2014 for the two units on the site. The units do not meet the required setbacks in the WR zone. The applicant's property is split by Rockhurst Road where 13,952 sq. ft. is located on the west side and 7,714 sq. ft. is located on the east side. The larger piece contains the 90 sq. ft. shed and a portion of the property is an APA wetland area. The smaller piece is located on the Lake George shoreline where the trash unit is located to the rear of the home away from the shoreline. The survey provides information to the location of the shed and trash unit. The applicant proposes to keep the shed as is for storage use of items that cannot be kept in the home -tractor, outdoor furniture. The trash unit at the rear of the home is to remain to keep animals out and to maintain the property." MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they adopted that on June 16, 2015 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record and add anything you'd like to. MR. RYAN-Hi. My name is Mark Ryan. I'm the owner of 28 Rockhurst Road, and I'm here if you have any questions. MR. JACKOSKI-So there is a lot of property there. Is there any reason you just can't simply move the sheds? MR. RYAN-I could, but I think we discussed that there wasn't a. MRS. MOORE-There's not a compliant location. MR. JACKOSKI-Because of the wetlands? MRS. MOORE-Because of the wetlands. No matter where the applicant proposes some work on the property, there's probably going to be a variance involved, and/or site plan involved. MR. RYAN-So the 90 sq. ft. was there since 2001. The south, the west lot, the south side of the shed, when National Grid put the telephone pole in, they cut down all the trees and dumped them there. So when the State was out, they suggested that I clean that all out. So I kind of created that spot for all the drainage to go over there, and then also that west lot, the southwest side of it, I cleaned that all out also. So when I graded that area, because the whole lot kind of drains towards there, we put the shed in the spot in 2001. The 24 sq. ft. I kept on replacing plastic, like Rubbermaid style little sheds that the animals kind of rip apart. So I finally got tired of that and decided to build a wooden one, and so that's where we are with that, and those were there since the house was built in 2001, different plastic. Over the years they get chewed through and broken. MR. FREER-So I'm a little confused about the trash recycle center. Are you claiming that the addition on the back of the house is now a trash recycle center? MR. RYAN-There's no addition on the back of the house. As a matter of fact I think the way the pictures were, I pulled it away from the house when I stained it last year. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. FREER-Okay. So that what looked like when you were constructing it as a mud shed or, you know, a mud entrance you're saying is not attached to the house and is a trash? MR. RYAN-Yes, it's not attached to the house at all. It's sitting on a couple of patio blocks, and when I pulled it away, you know, I can move it again now. I can put it pretty much anywhere you want. It's not finished because when we got the notification we didn't put the siding on the side of it, and if there was an entrance to the house here that would go into the back refrigerator, at that spot, and then to the right of that where the air conditioner sits, would go to, well, the air conditioning system. There's no entrances to the home there or could ever be there. MR. FREER-So you're asking for an additional footprint on that small lot for this accessory facility? MR. RYAN-Yes, a wooden one instead of a plastic one, and so the animals can't kind of rip it apart. MR. URRICO-But you already had it? MR. RYAN-Yes, that's correct. MR. URRICO-So you're not asking for permission for it. You're asking for permission to keep it. MR. RYAN-That's correct. MR. URRICO-Can you explain the notice of violation in July of 2014 and what happened then? MR. RYAN-There was a notice of violation on both sheds, and there was requests for a survey to be done, and a survey was done, and I submitted the paperwork. MR. FREER-Well, there was a blue container that you had there for year, too, right? So that was part of the issue? MR. RYAN-Not with these two, no. No letter about that, and the blue container was not there for a year. MR. KUHL-But it's your intention, should you get approval, you're going to finish off, it'll look like the house? MR. RYAN-Yes, I've got the, as a matter of fact the cedar is sitting there. MR. KUHL-So it'll go away as an eyesore. I just don't understand that minus two feet. MR. RYAN-From the lake, if you measured from the lake to the front of the house through the house to there, I guess that's where the minus. MR. KUHL-No, that's not for you to answer. Thank you, though. MR. RYAN-Sorry. MR. KUHL-But to me if it's 77 feet away from the lake, it's compliant, unless the property next door is wetlands. MRS. MOORE-It's the shoreline of the wetland. MR. KUHL-Okay. Say no more. I didn't see it on the drawing. I understand. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "Dear Board Members: There is no justification for approving this variance. The variance process tries to predict future impact. We in the neighborhood already know the impact and conditions because we have observed the property daily for years. The as-is condition is unacceptable. The applicant should be denied the variance and required to correct all violations (these and any others discovered). To the 5 points the Board will consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change ....The impact to the character of the neighborhood is evident in the existence of a junkyard at the entrance to the residential area on Rockhurst Road. This impact is not anticipated, it has existed for years. Residents drive to their place at the Lake and have to pass through a backyard full of discarded household goods (couches, containers of 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) used engine oil, household supplies, discarded play equipment, leftover boat cleaning chemicals and more). 2. Whether the benefit....can be achieved.....All residents on Rockhurst must deal with space constraints and compliance. The applicant seems indifferent to known restrictions. There is no reason for anyone to encroach wetlands, there are feasible alternatives. Currently there is even a pile of construction debris behind the shed on the wetland area. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial. This variance is definitely substantial. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect....There is both a significant physical and detrimental environmental impact in the as-is condition and this impact will continue if left unchecked. For example a blue 50-foot metal shipping container was on property for over one year. The applicant seemed uninterested in removing the container when requested via a Public Inquiry. Rockhurst residents suspect that they will see more violations in the future. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. This alleged difficulty is self created. The applicant continues with construction even after notice of violation. Calling the non-compliant structural addition to the house a `trash recycle center' is amusing. Thank you for your consideration. Ron Miller" It doesn't give an address. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Mr. Miller does live on Rockhurst Road. Any other written comment? MR. URRICO-No, that's it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll open the public hearing this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application that is in addition to what was just read into the record? I see the Water Keeper asking to come. Welcome, Chris. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I realize the site has some constraints with the setbacks, especially for the shoreline. However, it appears that there are alternatives to try to increase that setback. We've lost a lot of our wetlands around the land. Even though it may be minimal with two feet, it's still, we're still losing, not gaining. So I'm just wondering if there are alternatives. It appears that could be shifted, dragged, put I a better position. Also it appears this would require APA permit, and I don't know if there's been any feedback from the APA. I would hope that they're not supportive of losing wetlands either. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, if the applicant could re-join us at the table, please. So would you like to address either the Water Keeper's comments or the neighbor's comments? MR. RYAN-I'm very happy to move it if the suggestion. MR. JACKOSKI-We can't make suggestions. I mean, you can. I think what we'll do is we'll poll the Board. You'll get the flavor for what the Board is thinking and then if you need to make a suggestion, you can. MR. RYAN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Does that seem reasonable with everyone? Okay. Leaving the public hearing open, I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I cannot be in favor of this application. I think there are feasible alternatives. I think it is substantial relief that we would be granting, and I'm not even sure that the impact to the environment is minimal. I think there might be more. . So I would be against this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I, too, oppose this request. I believe that if he can't comply with having the shed on his property that he should remove it and find some appropriate place to keep his materials that have been there for a long time. I also think that the storage, garbage center was originally attached to the house and it was after that he removed it and it's an unsightly, and I believe it's a non-compliant addition to a footprint that was non-compliant in itself. So I don't support this variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. GARRAND-1 don't like the garbage shed on the side of the house. It's terribly unsightly. Nothing needs to be that big to hold the couple of garbage cans and a recycling container. I would be against that. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Well, when I viewed it, I was kind of upset by the looks that the shed and the garbage container presented. The neighborhood looks to be nice and neat and I didn't think that that was congruent with the looks of the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with the shed across the street, but it's with the garbage container, and I wouldn't be in favor of it because of that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So you've heard the comments from the Board. Generally in a situation like this the applicant asks for a tabling or the offer up less relief, but given the graveness here, I'm not sure what you would like us to do. MR. RYAN-I don't think there was any more relief that, when we looked at this. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. RYAN-If we moved the garbage center behind the house, the garbage cans are going to be attacked and dragged and like they have been in the past. The plastic ones will last for a period of time. Again, it wasn't finished because we got the letter saying that we were in violation, so it was never finished to match the house, and again, there's no way that that was ever attached. I mean, you can look at the siding to see if it was attached or not, and it's not. Never was, and there's two entrances to that first floor. The refrigerator's there. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, I noticed that this is one tax ID number. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yet there's multiple accessory structures. There's a dock complex. There's a garbage shed and a regular shed. Wouldn't there be a variance required for more than one accessory structure? MRS. MOORE-The dock is not. MR. RYAN-And it's less than 25 sq. ft. MRS. MOORE-The only variances are the ones that are given. It's correct that there's not a compliant location for the shed to be located, but if the applicant proposes to table then we can look at where there may be a more compliant location to move the shed or if the applicant proposes to alter the application, Staff would be willing to work with them, if it's tabled. MR. JACKOSKI-My instinct is that you're going to request to table your application. MR. RYAN-And ask Staff. MR. JACKOSKI-And work with Staff to see if you can find an alternative solution to the problems you have with your property. MR. RYAN-Would the Board be interested in if we made another thing to keep the garbage cans in? Because it's not attached in any way. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but we can't suggest to you what to do. MR. RYAN-No, I understand. MR. JACKOSKI-We would have to have you come back to us. The Staff is aware what we're not happy with. You've heard public comment concerning the wetlands and everything. MR. RYAN-Okay. I'll ask to table it. MR. JACKOSKI-I do have a request from the applicant to table the application. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark Ryan. Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed storage units; 90 sq. ft. shed and 24 sq. ft. trash recycle center. Relief requested from minimum side yard and shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Project subject to Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands Permit. SEAR Type II; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 and left open; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2015 MARK RYAN, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Until an August meeting with the appropriate paperwork to be submitted by the July submission deadline. Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-An August meeting. MR. MC CABE-Until an August meeting with the appropriate paperwork to be submitted by the end of July. MR. JACKOSKI-No, we've got to say by the July submission deadline. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MC CABE-By the July submission deadline. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED ED MOORE, ED & ED T. ENTERPRISES, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) ED MOORE, ED & ED T. ENTERPRISES, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 1476 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO EXPAND EXISTING PARKING LOT BY 22,310 SQ. FT. FOR THE LOG JAM OUTLET CENTER. THE CURRENT SITE HAS 139 SPACES AND 71 ADDITIONAL SPACES ARE PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF PARKING SPACES AND IMPERMEABLE SURFACES IN EXCESS OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PERCENTAGES FOR THE CI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 38-2015; SP MOD. 17-1986; MULTIPLE LISTINGS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2015 LOT SIZE 4.51 AND 11.27 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-17 AND 19 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2015, Ed Moore, Ed & Ed T. Enterprises, LLC, Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 "Project Location: 1476 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to expand existing parking lot by 22,310 sq. ft. for the Log Jam Outlet Center. The current site has 139 spaces and 71 additional spaces are proposed. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance as follows: Expansion of parking spaces; impermeable surfaces in excess of maximum allowable percentages for Cl zone. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements. Required 30% minimum permeable Proposed 23.9% Relief 6.1% Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) 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 shape of the parcel and the existing building configuration on the site. 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. The project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 22,310 sq. ft. of new parking area to the back area of the existing French Mountain Commons outlet center. The area will be improved with 71 new parking spaces, nine light poles and 8 drywells. The applicant requests relief for installing new hard surfacing parking area where 30% permeable is required for the Commercial Intensive zone at 23.9%." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. That was adopted on June 16, 2015 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, if you could identify yourselves for the record. ZACH MOORE MR. MOORE-I'm Ed's son, Zach Moore. MR. HUTCHINS-And I'm Tom Hutchins from Hutchins Engineering, and this proposal is about parking, plain and simple. The Log Jam Factory Outlet presently has 139 some parking spaces plus or minus a couple. This proposal would allow them to add 71 to give them around 210. Your current Code at five spaces per thousand square feet of area would require probably 250, 225, I'm sorry, 225. So we're still under what the minimum would be if this were new construction, but we're getting it to what we feel is a workable number. Obviously the parking would be entirely to the rear of the building, the new parking. This will be predominantly employee parking. With that it would be well lit, because it's in the rear, it's well lit, although not real visible. It does allow us to address an existing stormwater problem to a certain extent and that is there's currently a storm sewer running along the southerly bounds of the Outlet Center that runs essentially Route 9 all the way back to, with a series of inlet structures and straight pipe back to the rear of the facility and discharges over the bank, and from there it runs down, crosses underneath the access road down to the boat storage area and flows overland down toward the brook running adjacent to the bike path. With our proposal we've utilized a series of drywells to not only infiltrate the runoff from our new parking area but also a great deal of the runoff from this entirely swath from the southerly side of the building, which is almost half the building roof, which is a sizeable area. All of that water would be directed to the infiltration facilities beneath the new parking area, and the runoff will be significantly reduced. We looked at a number of different layouts, a number of different options. This one we felt worked best to get us a workable number of parking spaces, and that's my story, and, Zach, do you want to add anything to it? MR. MOORE-No. That's our story and we're sticking to it. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Any questions from Board members? MR. URRICO-I just have, I think, a correction to make. On the first page of Staff Notes it refers to, it says the Log Jam Outlet Center, and the second page refers to it as the French Mountain Commons Outlet Center. MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. It's Log Jam only. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. FREER-So how big of a bike rack are you putting in here in association with these parking spots that you're adding? MR. HUTCHINS-We haven't proposed a bike rack but that could certainly be considered. I don't know that it's Code requirement but. MR. FREER-Every 25 parking spots is supposed to have room for three bikes. So would you be acceptable to putting a bike rack in association with this project? MR. MOORE-Yes MR. FREER-Because some of your employees will probably ride their bikes. Save some gas and get some exercise and use the bike path. MR. JACKOSKI-Is it reasonable to say four or five, or are we going to dictate how many? MR. FREER-No. You guys can look at it. Some place to park your, a legitimate. MR. HUTCHINS-A reasonable location to locate a bike rack. MR. FREER-That's my pet peeve. A lot of people don't think of that. MR. HUTCHINS-Good point. That's good, actually. MR. KUHL-Tom, was this project motivated by the need for runoff, or is that just a side benefit? MR. HUTCHINS-That's a side benefit. It's motivated by parking. MR. KUHL-The need for parking. MR. HUTCHINS-1 mean, runoff isn't causing any significant damage. It's been there for a long, long time, but it could be improved. MR. KUHL-And basically the access to the building, the Outlet Center, is on the other side anyway. MR. HUTCHINS-Is along the north side, yes. MR. KUHL-So you're not going to designate, are you going to designate this as employee parking or no? MR. MOORE-We will ask them during the busier seasons to park there. MR. KUHL-No, no. I'm just asking if you're going to designate it as employee parking. MR. MOORE-It wasn't going to be. MR. HUTCHINS-1 mean, patrons aren't going to want to park there unless there's no other obvious. MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? Having none, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing and ask Roy if there's any written comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open, and I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-1 believe that this area is in need of additional parking, and I see no problem with the proposal and I'll support it as it stands. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it's good that the engineer took into consideration runoff and I think it's a good use of the area, and I'm not on the positive side of bike racks, but I'm in favor of the way it's presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 agree. I think it's a good resolution. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, given the request to include reasonable bike racks, I would support this. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 know that that area desperately needs an area for employees to park, especially during busy times. One thing about the employees who work there is people come and go at a very rapid clip in this Outlet Center, and to have their cars in close proximity to the people coming and going a lot lends itself to employee's cars getting damaged in the parking lot. For them to have their own area, I think it's an advantage. I also like the fact that there's some stormwater mitigation being included. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have polled the Board with success. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. Whether that motion contains a condition for bike parking we'll find out. MR. GARRAND-It's Unlisted. MR. JACKOSKI-It is an Unlisted SEAR. I'm sorry. We have to do an Unlisted SEAR. Rick? I'VE GONE OVER THE SEAR FORM AND HIGHLIGHTED THE RELEVANT AREAS, AND I DON'T FIND ANY AREA OF CONCERN FOR THIS PROJECT. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT I MOVE THAT WE GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and now may we have a motion, please, for the project. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ed Moore, Ed & Ed T. Enterprises, LLC. The applicant proposes to expand existing parking lot by 22,310 sq. ft. for the Log Jam Outlet Center. The current site has 139 spaces and 71 additional spaces are proposed. Relief requested for the expansion of parking spaces and impermeable surfaces in excess of the maximum allowable percentages for the CI zoning district. What's required for permeability is 30%. What's proposed is 23.9. Relief is 6.1%. SEAR Type Unlisted; I'VE GONE OVER THE SEAR FORM AND HIGHLIGHTED THE RELEVANT AREAS, AND I DON'T FIND ANY AREA OF CONCERN FOR THIS PROJECT. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT I MOVE THAT WE GIVE THIS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015; 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. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit to the applicant can be achieved by some other means feasible for the applicant to pursue. There are limited methods. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because I would say it's minimal relevant to the Code. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Being as how they're doing some stormwater mitigation, I think that falls on the positive side. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is self-created. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2015, Ed Moore, Ed & Ed T. Enterprises, LLC (Log Jam Outlet Center), Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Thank you. MR. MOORE-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time we're going to take about a 10 minute recess. Let's say we get back here at quarter after. Hello, everyone. Welcome back. NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2015 SEQRA TYPE N/A MICHAEL J. & HEATHER O'CONNOR OWNER(S) KIMBERLEE POLUNCI - TAILS WAG INN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION MADE ON MARCH 13, 2015 REGARDING 21 BLIND ROCK ROAD, TAILS WAG INN THAT THE PROJECT WILL REQUIRE AN AREA VARIANCE ONLY FOR PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 17-2015; SUP 18-2015; SUP 15-09; FW 1- 09; BP 2011-528 SIGN PERMIT; BP 2010-021 COWL BLDGS; BP 2000-101 SHED; BP 99-771 SFD; AV 48-2008; SUP 30-08; SP 18-05; SP 4-98; SP 11-97; SP 73-96; SP 36-96; SP 67-95 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 20.13 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1- 1.1 179-3-040, 179-10-070 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, before you get started, I have a procedural question. For the record, Jon Lapper. I'm here on behalf of the Polunci's to be considered a real party in interest because they're the permit holder. So we'd like to request party status so we're not limited to five minutes. I know this has come up in the past in similar cases where permits are being challenged. So I just want to request consideration that we're considered a party. MR. JACKOSKI-It seems reasonable and, Mr. Lapper, just so you know, this is about procedure. This is not about the actual project and its merits. It's specifically about procedure. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. LAPPER-Yes, thank you. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 2-2015, Michael J. & Heather O'Conner, Meeting Date: June 17, 2015 "Project Location 21 Blind Rock Road Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a March 13, 2015 determination from the Zoning Administrator regarding a kennel operation. Staff comments: First, Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? The appeal was filed within the required timeframe. • The Notice of Appeal application was signed and filed with the Town May 12, 2015. • While the appellant has not offered any information regarding a direct damage or harm to them that differs from that of the general public, or an explanation of how they are aggrieved, they are a nearby property owner ( approx. 1200 ft. between existing structures) Second, Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing: The appellant is appealing a Zoning Administrator interpretation regarding the need for an Area Variance for setbacks associated with outdoor kenneling areas. The project plans have been revised to eliminate any outdoor kennel areas, relocate all structures to meet the 200 ft. property line setback and the previous Area Variance application has been withdrawn. KENNEL is an allowed use within the Rural Residential; (RR3-A) district subject to Special Use Permit review and approval by the Planning Board. It appears as though the appellants' position is that there are several different businesses operating on the parcel. It is the Zoning Administrator position that the items listed * in the appellants papers are all incidental, accessory and ancillary practices of the main Tails Wag Inn operations. All referenced operations are either "...grooming, breeding, boarding, training or selling..." which are, by definition, components of a Kennel. The addition of building spaces and the offering of accessory practices are reasons that the applicant is currently back before our Planning Board for Special Use Permit review. Further, the applicant is appearing before the Planning Board at this time in order to satisfy a condition of approval that they reapply for approval within 4 years of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy which, in this case, was issued on October 5, 2011. The Planning Board Special Use Permit review determines the allowable intensity of such a use. *The referenced Polunci Heating & Cooling operation does not appear to be on the subject property. Note: The "Conditions of Approval" supplied with the Appellants papers are not the actual approved conditions. (see attached) Facts: • Kennel is an allowable use within the RR zone with SUP • No Area Variances from the 200 ft. setback are required" MR. URRICO-Applicant has a pending Special Use Permit with the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome, Mr. O'Connor. If I could just ask a couple of quick questions before we get started. As a means of clarification here for everyone. This particular application for the variance that was originally requested has been withdrawn. MR. O'CONNOR-Correct. That's fine. I understand that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and you're asking the Board to look at if this project should have had an Area Variance instead. MR. O'CONNOR-Or whether it should have a Use Variance. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, that's correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-On the issue of standing, I represent, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & O'Connor. I represent Michael O'Connor & Heather O'Connor, the owners of the property on Fitzgerald Road, north of the proposed activity. Their property is situated at an elevation above the elevation of the kennel activity, or the area where the kennel now exists. They can hear the activity on that site in their yard on many, many occasions. They find that something that they think devalues their property. They also have had two occasions where they have had problems with dogs that have come from that property. One time a dog attacked their dog and did some damage requiring the dog to go to the vet and get some services, and I believe last November their 12 year old daughter was bit by a dog from that property. They do believe that they have standing. They do believe that they are impacted by this activity and the proposal that would expand it and also the proposal that would perhaps change the character of what takes place on that property. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So let's just confirm that we do believe you have standing. Correct, Board? MR. MC CABE-1 believe so. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and we do believe you provided the proper notice. MR. MC CABE-1 believe so. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of the problem I have is that this is a moving target and not necessarily anyone's fault. The letter that I filed the Appeal for was March 13, 2015, and I presume that in issuing that letter Mr. Brown did look at the fact as to whether or not a Use Variance was required and his letter did not indicate that. So that is the basis of the Appeal, notwithstanding the fact that in that letter he said the only variance that would be required would be an area setback variance because of the proximity to a boundary line. MR. JACKOSKI-But how do we appeal something that was not done? I mean, we can only appeal what was done and what was done was a determination that an Area Variance was required, which has now been withdrawn. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think, negatively, by not requiring a Use Variance, he has said that one was not required. I also, I noted in the Staff comments, a report of the position of Mr. Brown. I don't think there's a written letter on file that that's an opinion, at least I'm not aware of one, and if there was, I'm appealing that. I want to preserve my right as to a determination that was made. Is it fair, can I ask Mr. Brown whether or not he has made a determination that a Use Variance is not necessary? MR. JACKOSKI-I think what we need to do is present your side of the discussion and we'll have Mr. Brown present his side of the discussion. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. My understanding is that in the public record at the Warren County Clerk's Office there are d/b/a files for at least six different operations, all of which claim to have this address as their place of business, or in presentations to this Board or the Planning Board the applicant says that they are there and that they will operate from there. Tails Dog Inn, certainly the main activity on the property is a kennel. It was limited to 30 dogs. Canine Connection, I'm told, operates from there. They don't specify in their d/b/a that they do. Polunci Heating and Cooling lists this property as being their place of business, 21 Blind Rock Road. The same as Tails Dog Inn lists their property as 21 Blind Rock Road. The Friends of Phoebe Animal Rescue, Inc., which is a separate corporation and it looks like in all materials they are a rehabilitation center for domestic animals. That's a separate corporation. I don't think you have a separate corporation as an accessory use to another operation. The main concern that we have is the operation of a pound for the SPCA. The SPCA is certainly a worthy and a good organization. We have no problems with them. We have no problems with them locating at this particular property. Zoning requires at least 10 acres for a kennel. In the calculations that are made, I don't see where there's any allocation for all these other uses. So there might still be a need for an Area Variance, if the Board determines what needs to be set aside for development. Accessory use, which is part of the language of the Staff Notes, it was deemed that this was an accessory use to the kennel practice, is a use customarily incidental and clearly subordinate to the main use or building located on same lot. It should not be such 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) that it would dominate in area, extent or purpose the principal use of the building. Accessory structure says pretty much the same language. The purpose of a pound, a County wide pound, is different than a kennel that boards domestic animals. Typically it's done at a veterinary hospital. It's not done at a kennel. It's a daycare center, something of that nature. A kennel is limited, usually, in hours of operation. Under the existing Special Use Permit they can operate from seven to seven. They have limited time in the morning, I think seven to nine, for customary drop off, pick up of animals, and a time five to seven at night, for the customary delivery and pick up of animals, but they are told that they could, on occasion, do from seven to seven. A pound operates 24 hours a day. A pound also doesn't necessarily have the same type of animals. If you look at the definition of kennel, an establishment to house dogs, cats and other household pets. Well, if you listen to the SPCA director, the employee, he's charged with picking up all nuisance animals throughout the County or housing all nuisance animals throughout the County, not just dogs, cats or domestic animals. These are animals that might be suspected of rabies or something of that nature or that are damaged in a car accident. It's not for boarding, that activity is not for boarding of household pets, and I think there' s a distinction, and I think that they need a Use Variance to put that in that particular zone. It's a commercial operation even if it's by a non-profit operation or entity, but it's not the same as a kennel, and that's really the argument that we want to make and we want to preserve the right for. If you have any questions. MR. JACKOSKI-You mentioned six businesses on the property. I thought I counted five. Polunci Heating and Cooling, Tails Wag Inn, Canine Connections, Friends of Phoebe Animal Rescue, Inc., and the SPCA kennel. ?-And the dog grooming. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. So I think at this time I'd like to hear from the real party in interest before we hear from Mr. Brown, if that's okay. MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-Then we'll allow Board member questions. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Kim Polunci, John Polunci and Jim Fitzgerald with the SPCA, and Tom Hutchins, the project engineer, is here as well. When we were here a month ago, we had our presentation for the Area Variance, as you'll remember, and we went home after that and realized that we could modify the project to avoid the need for a setback, for setback from the property line and we did that. So we have an application pending at the Planning Board for a modification of the existing Special Use Permit which includes all operations being indoors. We were also, at that point, proposing that there would be an outdoor run for dogs, and that's not the case anymore. So we tried to make that the best application that we could and eliminate the need for a variance. That is scheduled to be heard next week, but because Mike appealed, we're here tonight to address the Appeal. So I have just some simple documentation to address every prong of his Appeal. First is the Certificate of Occupancy because his Appeal stated that the Special Use Permit had expired by its own terms because it was only good for four years and by the language in that resolution, it was four years from the date of the Certificate of Occupancy. So I have a copy of the Certificate of Occupancy which is dated Wednesday, October 5, 2011. So four years would be Wednesday, October 4, 2015. So we're not there yet. So, Jim, if you could hand that up, please. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could give that to the secretary. MR. LAPPER-Next there was an issue in Mike's submission about the language in the condition that he talked about the fact that there was a conveyance of title to the property to Kim, and it was a condition in the approval that the neighbors had to be notified if there was going to be a transfer of title, but that condition, which I have up here, says permittee agrees to provide the owners of neighboring properties with a minimum of 30 days prior written notice of intent to sell the property which is the subject of this permit, and the permitee is Kim and John Polunci. The permit was issued to them. They're the applicant. So I have that condition and I have a copy of the site plan application, excuse me, the site plan resolution granting, from 2009, Special Use Permit 15-09, which says Motion to Approve Special Use Permit and Freshwater Wetlands Permit, John and Kim Polunci. So since they're the permittees, what this condition contemplates is that if they're going to sell the business, it was always contemplated that they were going to run the business, it was going to be their business. The property was Kim's mom. When they made the application, she took title, but this condition clearly says permittee. Kim and John have to provide notice if they're going to sell it. So I have a copy of the Special Use Permit resolution which states that they're the permittee and a copy of that condition which 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) says that they have to make the notice. I just want to, I don't know where this is going so I just want to make sure that the record is very clear. MR. JACKOSKI-You don't have to have that out now. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Next I have the definition of kennel, and I think that when Craig was talking about ancillary, he just meant additional uses and not accessory, not the legal term accessory, because the definition of kennel from the Town Code, an establishment to house, dogs, cats and other household pets, where grooming, breeding, boarding, training or selling of animals is conducted as a business. So that's not talking about ancillary. That's saying, that's a definition of a kennel. That's what a kennel does. An establishment to house, dogs, cats, other household pets, grooming, breeding, boarding, training, selling is conducted as a business. So everything that Mike mentioned, even though they're conducted with, you know, it's a not for profit for rescue dogs, but that still counts as boarding. So everything there, there was a d/b/a for the woman who does the grooming. That's the primary use of the kennel, grooming, boarding. If they rescue dogs, it's still boarding. The Polunci Heating and Cooling was never operated from this site. If you drive down the driveway you'll see there's a garage, which is on the adjacent property of Rich Schermerhorn, which is part of the apartment complex, which John has rented for years, where he stores his trucks, but he doesn't operate out of there. He operates out of Lafayette Street in Queensbury, over by Glen Street. He was using this address as a mailing address, not conducting business, but just so that he could get mail close to his house. So when we looked at this, he submitted a Certificate of Discontinuance of Doing Business to document that this business doesn't operate, it never did, but this takes care of that, that he had filed a d/b/a that said he was doing business at 21 Blind Rock, so that he could get mail, and that's gone, and he doesn't operate there. He just stores his trucks and that's on the adjacent site, not on this property. We have a survey that shows that, that's on Schermerhorn's property, that garage located, but his business operated, always has been, 15 Lafayette, and I guess just beyond that, the Rural Residential zone is the zone in Queensbury where you can have a kennel, and in other towns it can be in a commercial district. Not in Queensbury, so by definition you're going to have people who live near a kennel, but that's what the Code contemplated. That's what a previous Town Board decided, and that's what it is. I've had clients in the past that wanted to operate a kennel on Quaker Road and it wasn't permitted because it has to be in Rural Residential. So, you know, like it or not, that's where a kennel is supposed to be. They worked hard to build this nice business there. It's a 22 acre lot, which, you know, obviously, it could be bigger, it could be smaller, but 22 acres is pretty good to buffer this. We have an application pending to modify the Special Use Permit. The SPCA use shouldn't really be part of the discussion in terms of anything that's going on now. That's something that we're requesting the Special Use Permit to be modified to allow that, but in terms of that use, when the Queensbury Animal Control Officer gets an animal, right now it would go to another kennel in Town, and that's what they do, they bring them to a kennel, whether it's Glens Falls Animal Hospital on Glenwood, Dr. Glendenning on Ridge, they use existing kennels just like this. So there's nothing unusual about that, and in terms of, if it was a wild animal. JIM FITZGERALD MR. FITZGERALD-Any rabid animals do not come back to an impound. We can an officer out, a law enforcement officer, or a DEC, and that animal is either taken in by the DEC, shot, put away. I mean, rabid animals do not come in to an impound. They do not even come in to my van. So that's, and I also talked to Bob and John O'Connor about this. They are an animal hospital, and a surgery center now. I wouldn't have had these discussions about this building unless I talked to them first, and they fully support this because they want to get back to being an animal hospital. MR. LAPPER-So we just wanted all this on the record, that any questions for Kim and John, but everything that's being done there, even though there's a few different entities, it's all part of the kennel. It's just a question of whether people are bringing them in and charging or whether they're being boarded there because some of them need to be rescued, and the story that Kim told me, as an example, is when somebody passes away and, you know, someone lives by themselves and there's an animal that lives with them, that animal is alone and so they have to take the animal in to take care of it, and that's what Friends of Phoebe does. So it's still being boarded, but it's being boarded because some situation happened where that animals needs a home. So that's what that's about, and so all of those uses are boarding, grooming, training, just as it's permitted. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-Yes. Not much to add on my part. I think the two issues, you know, I could try and boil this down to, and certainly Mr. O'Connor will chime in when he comes back up, but two issues are, is kennel an allowable use in this district, or does it need a Use Variance. I think 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) that's pretty clear that a kennel is an allowable use subject to Site Plan Review. So I don't think there's any question that there's no Use Variance required for that. There's no determination that needs to be made whether a Use Variance is or isn't needed for a kennel because the Code, the black and white, the plain language of the Code says it's an allowable use. I think the main question we're trying to get to the bottom of is is the SPCA operation, SPCA operation a kennel, and I think, you know, as you go through the hundreds of pages of documents in the Zoning Code, despite all the words, despite all the uses that are defined in here, you're never going to find a document that encompasses every single use. You're going to have to do your best effort, I'm going to have to do, I do my best effort, to try and find a use that's as close as possible to an allowable use. If it's reasonable, I kind of lump it into that use and proceed down that path. So if the question comes, is the SPCA, are the SPCA operations akin to a kennel operation, my answer would be, yes. So, you know, if we want to discuss that tonight rather than writing another letter and waiting 60 more days and appealing again, you know, I certainly don't take exception to adding that to whatever discussions we have tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lapper. Mr. O'Connor, do you want to come back up. Is there anything you'd like to add at this point? MR. O'CONNOR-1 have no problem with you including the determination whether or not you think a pound is a kennel under the terms of the Town Ordinance. I think that was really, as I said, this has been a moving target, and they propose to have a lease on the new building that they're building to them. So we might just as well acknowledge it now as opposed to getting a letter later and filing another appeal. Because that's our main issue. We don't think it is a kennel. It serves a different purpose. MR. JACKOSKI-Where do you think it fits into the determinations that the Town has? MR. O'CONNOR-1 think it's a commercial operation. Akin to a commercial operation. MR. JACKOSKI-But isn't a kennel akin to a commercial operation? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, but a different type. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So what type is this other entity that you're referring to? MR. O'CONNOR-1 think because it's not, kennels are specifically allowed in this zone, but even though it's a like use where it involves care of animals because of the pound. Their hours of operation are different. The animals that they will take care of are different. Even the timing, or the time that they will hold animals that is not something that's paid for by individuals. The kennel was with the idea that people would bring in, and I'd go back to the early presentations that were made by the applicant for the project, that all the dogs would be licensed. They would be brought in at certain hours, and this is different. Some of the animals that come in are not going to be licensed. There's going to be some stray dogs. They aren't all going to be dogs picked up at somebody's home after they've died. It's going to be a completely different environment that's going to come into the neighborhood with this particular use, and it's not accessory. It's not, in fact, I think the square footage of the building that they're going to have use of is larger than the existing kennel. Although I can't tell. They all have different additions that are going on different buildings, and that's basically the argument. I think legally this is different. MR. JACKOSKI-And even though they already have a Special Use Permit on the property. MR. O'CONNOR-They have a Special Use Permit for a kennel. Not for a pound. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? I think before I open the public hearing, because there is one scheduled for this evening, I think as a Board we should have some discussion about, we now have in front of us Mr. Brown's determination that a special use variance, sorry, a Use Variance is not required, and I think the Area Variance was withdrawn. Instead of going through the process of appealing again, how do we feel about the fact that should a Use Variance determination be made that a Use Variance is required? MR. URRICO-1 guess my question is, are we segmenting the project? How can one part of it not be under the Special Use Permit and one part be under? Considering that both of them are going to be under the Special Use Permit? MR. JACKOSKI-I think the argument is that there is a differentiation that is not just that the SPCA function is not a simple kennel. It is a different entity of business. MR. LAPPER-Steve, can I address just that one point? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think that's fine. Briefly. MR. LAPPER-About 10 seconds. Just that SPCA use is boarding. One of the uses under kennel, all it is is boarding. So it's the same thing under the Queensbury Code. It would be part of a kennel, it would be boarding, and that's where they go now. They go to the animal hospital at the kennel. So that's boarding. It's the same use. It doesn't require a Use Variance. Where would you board dogs if you're SPCA? In a kennel. This is a kennel. That's all. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I go back to just intent on that, though? And I think the commonsense approach to what was envisioned when they talked about permitting kennels, they were talking about individuals bringing their animals in on a temporary basis, and keeping them off site at a kennel. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So let me ask Staff. Is there anywhere in the Town of Queensbury that there is an impound or has the SPCA always used other area kennels such as Glens Falls Animal Hospital, such as the folks on Ridge Road, etc.? MR. BROWN-To my knowledge they've been using animal hospitals. MR. JACKOSKI-So, are they considered kennels or are they considered animal hospitals under the Code? MR. BROWN-Maybe a third option, a vet clinic. Which is an allowable use in certain districts. MR. JACKOSKI-Part of being a vet clinic is having a kennel? MR. BROWN-Boarding and kenneling animals, sure. MR. KUHL-But isn't it a fact that the ASPCA uses a facility like this for short term animal stay, not for long term? MR. URRICO-That's the ASPCA. This is the SPCA. MR. KUHL-This is what? MR. URRICO-This is different than the operation on Queensbury Avenue. MR. KUHL-But they get these animals, am I using the wrong term? This is SPCA as opposed to ASPCA? But, okay, whatever the alphabet soup is all about, these animals that they bring in are not there for long term. They're there for short term until they can be placed somewhere. Is that right? MR. BROWN-1 believe so. I think that's a better question for. MR. KUHL-Well, and, you know, if that is so, when I bring my little ditzy four legged thing in to the kennel because I go away for a short period of time, isn't that the same type of use then? MR. BROWN-Well, I guess that's my argument, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's Mr. Brown's argument. That's not the argument of Mr. O'Connor. MR. KUHL-I understand that, and, you know, the splitting the hair, the definition of kennel versus pound, I can't get into that. I'm looking but, you know, it's interpretation. You're interpreting something, and you're presenting your side. I got that. I understand that, I mean, but if you're suggesting a use difference, and if, in fact, the use from what they use it for today for my four legged friend is similar to what the SPCA, I don't see a difference. MR. O'CONNOR-They're typically brought to a veterinary clinic, because a veterinary clinic updates their shots and takes care of them. This is not a veterinary clinic. The veterinary clinic isn't allowed in this zone. I mean, they don't just put them in a cage and hope that somebody is going to show up. If they're a licensed dog they can check the Town records, I believe, and find out, but if they're not, they don't have a license on them, they've broken their collar and they've done whatever, and they have no means of identification, they need veterinary services before they go anyplace. MR. KUHL-Yes, but now we're talking about process, all right. We're talking about process, not use. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-Right now they use a veterinary clinic because of the needs and the services that they provide to the public, and this is County wide. This is not just Town. This is going to be a facility that's going to, as I understood the presentations that were made before, is going to be used for, throughout the County, they're going to use this as one facility, but it's not just a matter of bringing the four legged creature in and putting them in a cage. Not in a pound. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. O'Connor, could you explain the difference, if we need a Use Variance, why not just piggyback this onto the Special Use Permit? MR. O'CONNOR-You can't get a Special Use Permit for a non-permitted use. MR. JACKOSKI-N on-perm itted use. MR. LAPPER-Jim could tell you more about the uses. MR. O'CONNOR-The other question I'd ask, somebody raised it, Roy. Are you segmenting this from the Special Use? I don't know for sure about SEAR. I know they filed a Short Form SEAR affidavit, but no determination has been made by the Planning Board, and I didn't see any recommendation by the Planning Board in your minutes for tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-This is about the Appeal. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-This is not about a variance. This is not about an Area Variance or a Use Variance. This is simply about the Appeal. MR. LAPPER-Would you like to get some facts about the use? MR. JACKOSKI-No, I mean, we've heard it before with the project itself that they're not going to be housing any bears or any turkeys or any raccoons or. MR. LAPPER-Five days. MR. JACKOSKI-So they say. I guess the real issue for this Board to determine is if the County gets a call and says there's a wounded raccoon and needs to be housed or a nuisance raccoon. MR. FITZGERALD-We only get called out for wildlife if a public safety incident and then I have to call DEC. MR. JACKOSKI-I know, and that's what we're saying. It can, that can happen. You can get called out. MR. FITZGERALD-Yes. I can get called out, but I'm not bringing a rabid animal. MR. JACKOSKI-Nobody's asking you about rabid. We understand. We're trying to determine how all the details here are going to get worked out, because we all know businesses change over time. MR. URRICO-So if I understand it, the Appeal has changed? MR. JACKOSKI-The Appeal has now been modified, and Craig was okay with it, because now Craig has made an official determination that a Use Variance is not required. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-The O'Connor family is suggesting that Use Variance is required because of the different nature of the commercial entity SPCA versus the residential oriented kennel, grooming services, etc. MR. URRICO-We're not discussing the actual use itself, but the appeal about that use. MR. JACKOSKI-That's correct. This is not procedure. Mr. Brown has made a determination that everything in the Code suggests that the SPCA use is ancillary or accessory to the kennel function. Correct? So any other discussion before the open the public hearing? Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-I'm good for now. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. O'Connor? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Real Property Interest Owner? MR. LAPPER-1 think it would help for Jim to just testify for two minutes about clarifying that it's just a kennel use, that it's a boarding use. MR. FITZGERALD-When the dogs are brought in, they have only five days. I'm sorry, I'm Jim Fitzgerald, President of the Warren County SPCA. When the dogs are brought in there's only State law, you can only house them for five days if they're licensed. Now you're saying it's a whole County operation, cats don't come to this facility at all. And that's what the County wide contract is for cats. So you're talking about County wide. There is, each individual town will choose their own place. We're just talking about dogs. It's the same thing. Yes, a cat or two, I'll be honest with you, would be brought in, if a late night call or something, but the contract for the County SPCA is for animal cruelty to investigate stables and pick up stray cats which go to Glens Falls Animal Hospital. Each town has its own contracts. It's not the whole County we'll be throwing every dog to this impound. If a town that I have a contract with, that I do animal control through SPCA, they may want Schroon Animal Hospital as their impound facility. Chestertown had built their own impound facility at their DPW. So they have their own, each town has their own rules, and in no way is this entire County wide operation going to this impound. It's just impossible. MR. LAPPER-Just talk about the use, Jim. MR. O'CONNOR-How many kennels do you have contracts with? MR. FITZGERALD-Three. MR. O'CONNOR-Who are the kennels? MR. FITZGERALD-Lake Luzerne, Village of Lake George and the Town of Lake George. MR. JACKOSKI-So Jim you said licensed animals could only be kept five days? MR. FITZGERALD-Licensed animals? No, they would be easily found. I mean, in Queensbury we return licensed animals right away. MR. JACKOSKI-So when they're not licensed, then what? MR. FITZGERALD-We hold them for five days. What they do is they go to the animal hospital first. We'll get them vaccinated. We'll hold them for five days and then they go right to a rescue. They go to Hope, Seventh Hour, Eleventh Hour. We have a process in place already that at that fifth day we move them out of Glens Falls Animal Hospital. It's the same process. So it's very quick. MR. JACKOSKI-How many animals are currently in the Glens Falls Animal Hospital? MR. FITZGERALD-Right now there's seven dogs. MR. JACKOSKI-So why do we need such a large facility for you now? MR. FITZGERALD-Well, I asked for15 stalls, and then we were going to do officer training, like just make sure my officers are trained, and we can do that right in the middle. So that was the reason, to actually do training. We do have trained animal control officers in Warren County now, and they're also humane officers. So it's better if you have those animals there you can train with them and work with them. So that's the only reason. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not a training school? MR. FITZGERALD-No, it's not a training school. I just like, when I have new officers come in, I'd like to show them how the operation works. MR. BROWN-Do you bring any wildlife there, Jim? MR. FITZGERALD-No, not at all. Never. Wildlife, if it's rabid, will be euthanized and it will be incinerated. If there was not exposure, then it'll be tested. So there's a whole different procedure for wildlife and rabid animals. So, and that's more ENCON. I just respond to rabid animal calls for public safety because ENCON can't get there quickly. I mean, they're statewide. So you kind of just secure the scene and wait for wildlife guys to show up. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD-You're welcome. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Board members, I'd like to maybe just poll the Board, before we open the public hearing, with the differences in Appeal, on your opinion as to whether or not a Use Variance is required for this intended use of this property as the applicants have suggested. Is that fair? Does anybody want to volunteer to go first? MR. KUHL-I'd like you to define this intended use. MR. JACKOSKI-What we're hearing is that there's going to be the kennel operations by the Polunci's and then there will be the SPCA impounding facility and training area of the larger building that's going to be built on the property. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-I'll lead off. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mike. MR. MC CABE-Based on my training and experience I believe that what is proposed here by the SPCA is no different than a customer bringing his animal in for boarding and therefore I will agree with Craig Brown. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Mr. O'Connor's brought up some interesting points about the operation and the animals brought in. I personally think the definition's got to be clarified in the Code itself, instead of getting into, you know, what the definition of this and that are. Under the broad terms of Queensbury's definition of kennel, I don't think we have any other choice but to refer back to the Special Use permit that this is an allowed use in the zone and that an Area Variance at the time was warranted and a Use Variance was not. MR. JACKOSKI-So you would support Mr. Brown? MR. GARRAND-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I kind of agree with that statement, but what concerns me is that Mr. O"Connor presented that a child was bitten, and that seems to have fallen through the cracks, or not answered. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately this is about process and procedure of what Mr. Brown did on behalf of the Town of Queensbury. As far as the project, that's up to the Planning Board in the Special Use Permit, etc. MR. KUHL-So I would uphold Mr. Brown's findings. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-1, too, think Mr. Brown made the right decision in coming to the conclusion that a Use Variance is not required and that it was essentially the same as a kennel and fell in that legitimate kennel definition. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? Sorry. Roy? MR. URRICO-1 believe it's consistent with a kennel use, and therefore should come under the umbrella of the Special Use Permit. I uphold Mr. Brown's findings. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and because I don't have anything else in the Code that tells me otherwise, it seems that the kennel definition is most relevant to what's going to be happening on that site. I think also because I know it would be subject to a Special Use Permit by the Planning Board, I think that would be the opportunity for the Planning Board to limit hours of operation, and that would be the intended use of requiring a Special Use Permit. So 1, too, think that what Mr. Brown suggested is that it falls best under the kennel boarding category. Sol 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) know we've polled the Board. We haven't made a decision. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. MR. JACKOSKI-And what I want to say before, we're not going to reiterate points over and over again. If you have something new to add to the record, please do so. Again, this is about process and procedure. It's not about the merits of the case or any accusations or claims about loose dogs and all that other stuff. MR. URRICO-I have to ask a question, then. There are two letters, but I'm not sure if they're pertinent to the subject of the matter for tonight. I can read them in. MR. JACKOSKI-The letter that was, the Cote letter, I don't believe, addresses process and the Appeal. I understand it addresses the merits of the property rights and all of that stuff, and it's certainly in the packet, but I don't believe it's germane to tonight's discussion, and the same goes for, this is the second letter. Staff, we've got letters in the record but they aren't really specific to the issue at hand. They're more project specific and property right specific. They're not about the actual Appeal of Mr. Brown's determination. So they're in the record, but I don't see that we should read all that into the record, because it's not specific to what we're talking about. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board before we move forward with our vote on this matter? Yes, Mrs. Sonnabend. KATHLEEN SONNABEND MRS. SONNABEND-I understand your description of the process tonight, but I was wondering if it's possible to correct the record on some of the statements that the applicant made tonight that were not accurate. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't know how to, I mean, that really is a Planning Board matter. This is specifically about Mr. Brown's determination. MRS. SONNABEND-Okay. Well, my point is that we've gotten conflicting information from them. Jim Fitzgerald made a big pitch about how this was going to save Queensbury a lot of money because he wouldn't have to board cats for $1400. Now he's telling you there's no cats. So I'm not quite sure where the truth is. They also said that they eliminate all outside activity. They're not supposed to have outside activity now, but they still do have outside activity which I saw when I went over to see their operations. So you're not getting the clear story here. MR. JACKOSKI-We can tell you this, that that activity is related to a kennel operation. That would fall under the Special Use Permit discussions with the Planning Board. MRS. SONNABEND-But SPCA dogs are very different from kennel dogs. They often have been running wild. They're not necessarily as manageable as domestic pets. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that's a, but they are, somebody could make the argument that one dog is black and one dog is white. The issue here is are they boarding the dogs or not, and is it part of a typical kennel operation and under our Code we have no other definition to suggest anything else other than boarding is boarding. MRS. SONNABEND-I think neighbors are very concerned about the kind of dogs which could get loose and have gotten loose in the past from this facility. MR. JACKOSKI-We don't disagree, and that's why the Planning Board has the authority, under the Special Use Permit conditions, to regulate that. MRS. SONNABEND-But also I want to point out that it's not true that kennels are allowed in Rural Residential areas. There are kennels allowed in Commercial Moderate, if you take a look at the Commercial Use Tables. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll check with Mr. Brown on that. Mr. Brown? MR. BROWN-1 believe Commercial Moderate and Land Conservation. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-So there are three zones that are allowed uses, correct? MR. BROWN-All by Special Use Permit. MR. JACKOSKI-Special Use Permit. MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who'd like to address this Board before we take a formal vote? NANCY MURTHA MRS. MURTHA-Good evening. My name's Nancy Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road in Queensbury. I understand that you're trying not to let us go outside the realm of what your use permit or Use Variance is all about tonight. My letter isn't about that necessarily. I modified it today after I had read the notes that the, the Staff Notes earlier today. I hope you'll just bear with me for a minute. I'll try and be brief. With all due respect, I have a brief comment to make tonight. This is not the comment I would have made only a handful of hours ago. Sadly the Staff Notes regarding the Appeal involving the Tails Wag Inn kennel expansion have literally taken the wind out of my sails. The 100 plus citizens, some of them here tonight, who previously opposed a kennel being permitted in the midst of our residential neighborhoods are justly outraged to find ourselves once again for a quality of life we moved here to enjoy. I am disappointed to have learned that there's nothing the Zoning Board can do to assist us in preventing the further intrusion into the peace and quiet which attracted us to this area in Queensbury. I did hope this Board would give us a ray of hope and a starting place in finding a way to stop this travesty from becoming an even larger annoyance and disturbance to our lifestyles. I believe we all know the request for a kennel is even more unethical now than when the Tails Wag Inn kennel was approved four years ago. I am leery of the privilege and policies which seem to warrant more concern than the opinions and protests of the majority of residents living around the kennel location. I will leave here tonight trying to come to terms with the fact that this issue is bigger than all of us here tonight put together, and it is, unfortunately, something about which we, the neighbors, will have little to say virtually no control over. Thank you for listening. BOB MURTHA MR. MURTHA-Good evening. My name is Bob Murtha. I live at 28 Fitzgerald Road. I feel the new expansion of the dog kennel will make this even a more commercial business. They now have many businesses working out of the kennel, and with the new buildings, it will include more businesses. This will only benefit a few people and effect many of the homeowners with noise and traffic. Please consider that they did not live up to the last rules, such as hooking up with the Pet Care Association or keeping the dogs inside. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-And just so I may address, personally. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit the specifics of an appeal. Unfortunately we can't get into the merits of the project and the benefits of living in Queensbury because of the neighborhood. We understand all that. We have to stay focused on the Appeal. What I can tell you, though, is it's a multi-pronged approach. The Planning Board is there with a Special Use Permit in order to hear exactly what you're saying, and I do believe the conditions of the four year renewal were put in place after as a safeguard to address what you might be experiencing now. So I don't think the Town of Queensbury is letting you down. It's just a process that's going to take some time to get through and by all means, since obviously you're all here, you've got to go to the Planning Board and work it out with the Planning Board. This Board doesn't have anything in front of it that can help you. That's our issue. MARY BETH DELA ROSA MRS. DELA ROSA-Hi. I'm Marybeth DelaRosa. I live at 29 Cedar Court. Mr. Brown, I just would ask for clarification on a comment that you just made, and this does involve the Appeal. You mentioned that there were three zones that allowed kennels. MR. JACKOSKI-Commercial Moderate, Land Conservation, and the RR-3. MRS. DELA ROSA-Okay, and so did I hear you correctly that two of those did require Special Use? MR. JACKOSKI-All require Special Use. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) MRS. DELA ROSA-Okay, but this was determined not to be Special Use? MR. JACKOSKI-That's not true. There's a difference between a Use Variance and a Special Use Permit. So there's Code and there are certain businesses that, under the Code, require a Special Use Permit, and that would be done by the Planning Board. If the use itself was completely outside of the Code, you'd have to get a variance. That would be coming through us. MRS. DELA ROSA-Okay. So in any of those three zones. MR. JACKOSKI-They'd have to get a Special Use Permit through that Planning Board. MRS. DELA ROSA-And that was done, and that's the one that's expiring? MR. JACKOSKI-That's right, whatever that date is, October something. MRS. DELA ROSA-Okay. That was my only question. MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll have Mr. O'Connor come back to the table. Mr. O'Connor has no further comments. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. JACKOSKI-No comments. Mr. Brown? No further comment. Can I get a motion from the Board? RESOLUTION TO: Disapprove Appeal No. 2-2015, Michael J. & Heather O'Connor regarding property owned by Kimberlee Polunci - Tails Wag Inn at 21 Blind Rock Road, Tax Map No. 289.15-1-1.1; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael J. & Heather O'Connor from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-10-070 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to appeal the Zoning Administrator's determination made on March 13, 2015 & June 17, 2015 regarding 21 Blind Rock Road, Tails Wag Inn that the project will require an Area Variance only for property line setbacks. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the applicable criteria of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of the NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. The Appeal was filed within the required 60-day timeframe. 2. The Appealing Party is aggrieved and were found to have standing. 3. The merits of the argument as provided by the appellant with responses from the Zoning Administrator have been considered. It is our finding that the positions offered by the appellant are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision at hand. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO DENY Appeal No. 2-2015, Michael J. & Heather O'Conner, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And that's (the Area Variance) has been withdrawn. So actually it won't require an Area Variance. So, in short basically what Mike just said was that we vote to uphold the findings of the Zoning Administrator. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So everybody's clear that Craig made a determination that there was no Use Variance required. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2015) AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel MR. JACKOSKI-Any additional business to be brought before the Board this evening? May I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 17, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of June, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 36