Loading...
09-16-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-2 Area Variance No. 49-2015 Omall Family LTD Partnership 2. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-5 Sign Variance No. 50-2015 Ray Sign Inc. for TJ Maxx 5. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Area Variance No. 27-2015 Harold & Patricia Taylor 9. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-39 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL MICHAEL MC CABE KYLE NOONAN RICHARD GARRAND LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order this evening's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those people who haven't been here before, it's actually a very simple process. It is outlined on some paperwork in the back. There is an agenda as well for this evening. We'll call each application forward to the small table. We'll read each application into the record. The applicant may feel free to add anything to what was read into the record. Board members may ask questions. We'll open up a public comment period. We'll poll the Board and we'll move forward from there. We do have some brief housekeeping to do here. We'll start with the approval of the August 19th minutes. Could I have a motion, please, to approve those minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 19, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 19, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. August 26, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a request for an item on the agenda this evening to be tabled to November. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 SEQRA TYPE II BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) THOMAS R. KNAPP, STAFFORD, CARR & MC NALLY, P.C. OWNER(S) BURNETT FAMILY TRUST & ESTATE OF DAVID BURNETT ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-LOT SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE, WATER FRONTAGE, AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF IS REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE, PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE CREATION OF TWO LOTS FROM THE ONE PARENT LOT. CROSS REF SIB 8-2015; BP 2004-677 DOCK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2015 ADIRONDACK 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179- 3-040 For those who may be in the audience who were looking to be for that public comment period, we do have a public comment period open. Do we need to open it, even though there's been a tabling, because it has been advertised? MRS. MOORE-It has been advertised. You can open it, and it will be re-advertised just because it is over a month and a half away. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to waive the reading of the application if there's no one here in the audience for that particular project. MR. MC CABE-Variance 21-2015. MRS. MOORE-It's for the Burnett Family Trust. MR. NOONAN-Mr. Chairman, if I just may. For the record, I ran into Mr. Burnett at the property when I went out to look and he gave me a lot of information. I obviously didn't talk much about his project, but I just wanted to have it on the record that I did speak to the homeowner for quite a long time today. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board concerning that application? Seeing none, we'll leave the public comment period open, and I'll seek a resolution to delay this application to the November meeting. MOTION TO TABLE Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: To a November Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with a submission date of October 15, 2015 so that the applicant can submit a revised plan. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. New Business. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2015 SEAR TYPE II OMALL FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) AL BOYCHUK ZONING Cl LOCATION 63 QUAKER ROAD — MARK PLAZA APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 339 SQ. FT. ROOF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NORTHERN MOST LOADING DOCK LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM FAR REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 53-2015; SV 16-2013; MULTIPLE LISTINGS FOR BLDG. PERMITS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 3.18 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2015, Omall Family LTD Partnership, Meeting Date: September 16, 2015 "Project Location: 63 Quaker Road — Mark Plaza Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 339 sq. ft. roof addition to an existing northern most loading dock located on the east side of the building. Relief requested from FAR requirements. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—Commercial Intensive Parcel will require area variance as follows: Floor area ratio Allowed 30% Proposed 37% Relief 7% in excess Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the applicant would need to remove covered building area. 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 as proposed may have minimal to no impact to the neighborhood where it is predominately commercial/retail. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant requests relief for the construction of a 339 sq. ft. canopy where the floor area ratio allowed is 30% and proposed is 37%. The project is for a loading dock at the Mark Plaza on Quaker Road. The applicant has indicated there are two rear loading docks where the northern dock is to include the proposed canopy. The canopy will allow for the transport of items during inclement weather. The plans show the canopy to be sloped to the east and a set of steps to the north side." 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. And that was adopted on September 15, 2015 by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome, Mr. Jarrett. MR. JARRETT-Members of the Board, good evening. For the record, my name is Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers. As read in, I'm representing Mr. Boychuk who owns Mark Plaza. It's a very simple project. It's a canopy over an existing loading dock, the northern loading dock, which is at the northeast corner of the building. The variance we seek is to aggravate a pre- existing, nonconforming FAR ratio. It's actually 3.7.2 right now. Thirty is allowed in the zone as was stated, and we're increasing it, proposing to increase it to 37.5. So it's a .3 increase. It's not a seven percent increase as one might guess at first blush. I think it's very, very simple. It's a straightforward, very simple canopy and I will open it up for questions, comments or observations. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Board members, any questions at this time? MR. KUHL-Tom, it's just that you're going to be putting a canopy over the existing? MR. JARRETT-Correct. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. GARRAND-Over the asphalt. MR. JARRETT-Over the concrete loading dock. It's already impervious, and the concrete loading dock is just going to have a cover on it. MR. MC CABE-It makes sense. MR. JACKOSKI-Hearing no other questions from Board members, there is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there any written comment? I'll open the public hearing. 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 application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-I don't think it'll produce any undesirable change in the neighborhood at all. It's going to have no environmental impacts whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project. I see it absolutely minimal invasion. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with my Board members. It's a good project. I would be in support of it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm also. It's tucked in there nice. You can't even see it. So it's good. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think it passes the test easily. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Hearing members, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll seek a motion for approval. MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Omall Family LTD Partnership — Al Boychuk. Applicant proposes construction of a 339 sq. ft. roof addition to an existing northern most loading dock located on the east side of the building. Relief requested from FAR requirements. Zoning section 179-3-040, they're allowed 30% FAR. They're requesting 37%, which is 7% in excess. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 16, 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: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. It probably won't even be noticed. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and are not possible; I don't see how. The Board hasn't seen any other way. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's minimal at best. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The canopy is just going to be covering up what's already impermeable. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created because the tenant that's moving in there has a building that is as-is and permeability has always been an issue there. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2015, OMALL FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP — AL BOYCHUCK Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 50-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED RAY SIGN INC. FOR TJ MAXX AGENT(S) ATLANTA, GA 30305 OWNER(S) RCG QUEENSBURY, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 (NORTHWAY PLAZA) APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 4 COLUMN BUILDING SIGNS, EACH 4 FT. BY 14 INCHES (TOTAL FOR THE 4 SIGNS = 18.67 SQ. FT.) TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS FOR A BUSINESS IN A BUSINESS PLAZA. CROSS REF MULTIPLE LISTINGS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 22.87 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION CHAPTER 140 DARLA DOLEZAL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 50-2015, Ray Sign Inc. for TJ Maxx, Meeting Date: September 16, 2015 "Project Location: 820 State Route 9 (Northway Plaza) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of 4 column building signs, each 4 ft. by 14 inches (total for the 4 signs = 18.67 sq. ft.) to the front of the building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a business in a Business Plaza. Relief required Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 140 Signage Parcel will require area variance as follows: Number of signs Allowed 2 signs one wall and one free standing Proposed 4 column signs Relief More than one wall sign Criteria for considering a SIGN variance pursuant 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 to impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The plaza does not have similar signage as proposed. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) 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 to reduce the number of signs requested. 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 as proposed may have minimal impact to the neighborhood or area. The column signage does not appear in the existing plaza. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes four additional signs that are to be 4.6 sq. ft. each and to be placed on the columns outside the TJ Maxx store. The relief requested is for having more than one wall sign. The applicant has indicated that column signs are primarily for brand identification. The applicant has also indicated that the signage on the columns will assist with attracting customers." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, please. MS. DOLEZAL-I'm Darla Dolezal. I'm here for Ray Sign. This is part of their branding package. They are not, I actually Google searched TJ Maxx stores. They are not one of the stores that likes to hang a lot of extra banners in the windows and they tend to have less windows than some of the other stores. This is, for one, not just to attract people but to identify for those closer to the building. They're not a lit sign, and they're relatively small. I think this is just basic, to me, it would be aside from branding, it would be directional also, for people that are walking down in front of the building. Again, of course they want to attract people and customers. MR. JACKOSKI-So I drove by this evening, and thank you, and I notice Hobby Lobby doesn't have any of these column signs, and quite frankly the TJ Maxx sign is pretty obvious. I'm just curious as to why they're concerned that the signage that they have up already isn't enough. MS. DOLEZAL-That I don't know. I'm not, we are doing this for another sign company who's doing it for TJ Maxx. So I can't answer that question. All I know that this is the look they're trying to identify the stores with, rather than that cluttery look with the stuff on the windows. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I notice, I mean, the TJ Maxx sign that's there, to me, you don't even have to read it. You just know that logo, that font, that red T J Maxx, but that's just my. Any other Board members have comments or questions before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have a question, Mr. Chairman. What is going to be on these four signs? MS. DOLEZAL-TJ Maxx. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. KUHL-Really? Because it's interesting, I had the same opinion that that big TJ Maxx, that just jumps right out, and when I saw this document I said, well, what's going to be on there, but you're just saying they're going to want to put TJ Maxx four more times? MS. DOLEZAL-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? MR. URRICO-Are they going to have signs on each of the pillars out by the road as well? MR. JACKOSKI-Pylons? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. URRICO-Pylons? MS. DOLEZAL-On the pylon signs? They're going to have, yes. MR. URRICO-Both of them? MS. DOLEZAL-That I'm not aware of. MRS. MOORE-1 believe it's just the one panel sign that currently has their permit that's up now. MR. URRICO-So they will have one pillar sign? MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. URRICO-And then they'll have on the facing the building. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. URRICO-And that's what they're allowed? MRS. MOORE-That's what they're allowed. Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member comments or questions? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. 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-I have not found any. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm leaving the public comment period open. We do have to do SEQR. I think I'll poll the Board first and then move accordingly. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 think these column signs would be excessive. I would not be in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think when you see the size of the TJ Maxx sign that's there now, I don't think anybody's going to have problems locating that building. I don't think these signs are going to help in any way, and we've been, you know, over the years we've allowed too many signs in that Plaza to begin with. I don't want to make that mistake again. So I would not allow it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members also. I think it's excessive. So I'd be against the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I understand what they're trying to do. There's no doubt, if you're driving by, you know, the T J Maxx sign is certainly apparent, but if you're coming out of the tanning booth there or coming around the corner from the Post Office or something like that, you can't see those signs, and so that's what I believe the intent of the column sign. It used to be like when there was the old Peter Harris there and you had like Peter Harris Plus, it was not straightforward which door you went into. So that's what you're trying to solve with these signs is to, you know, directed the people to T J Maxx. It doesn't seem excessive. To me it seems reasonable. So I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Four seems like a lot in excess, especially when you can see this sign from probably a thousand yards away without glasses. So it does seem excessive, substantial also, and self-created. So I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. KUHL-Yes, I know we have a lot of business along this corridor. Price Chopper put up multiple signs outside their facade, but it was for different products. I think just re-stating TJ Maxx is setting a bad example for future applications and I think it's excessive. So I wouldn't be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and 1, too, feel that way. I think that most of the pedestrians are going to be walking behind the signs anyway, under the canopy. So if they are at the other stores they can't see these signs because they're on the other side of the pillars. So I don't think that it's necessary either, and I do think there's going to still be quite a bit of stuff going on in the windows. So I'm not in favor either, and I don't think it's consistent with the Plaza as it sits now. Given the polling of the Board, you know, there's certainly several options that you, as the applicant, can choose from. Obviously you can request us to table it. You can withdraw your application or you can ask us to take a vote. It's really at this point we like to give you the opportunity to request us what you'd like to do. MS. DOLEZAL-I would say, based on what I've heard, I would say take a vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there any further discussion that Board members want to have before we do the SEQR process? And, Staff, to verify, the wall sign that's currently there did not receive a variance. Did not need a variance, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-What is the maximum square footage of that sign that's allowed there? MRS. MOORE-It's over 200 feet back, I'd have to look it up. Because it's distance is set back so far from the property line, it's allowed a larger sign. I think there's a max, I think it's something like 200 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other discussions that we should have as a Board? Okay. Before we can do a vote, we need to go through SEQR, and, Rick, would you go through the Short Form SEQR for us? MR. GARRAND-Certainly. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 50-2015 Ray Sign, Inc. for TJ Maxx based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Now concerning the actual requested Sign Variance. Other than some of the obvious things that we've stated as a Board concerning the duplicative nature of the TJ Maxx brand, the other stores in the area not having these similar column signs, is there anything else that we want to address, and the fact that the T J Maxx brand is pretty obvious from quite a distance away? Could I have a motion, please? MR. GARRAND-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ray Sign, Inc. for TJ Maxx for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 4 column building signs, each 4 ft. by 14 inches (total for the 4 signs = 18.67 sq. ft. ) to the front of the building. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a business in a Business Plaza. They're allowed one wall and one freestanding. They're asking for four additional column signs. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 50-2015 Ray Sign, Inc. for TJ Maxx based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 16, 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? Mr. Kuhl stated that it is not like other properties in the neighborhood and that it may potentially cause other applicants to seek more signage in an area where we've tried to limit signage. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The other means I feel is the existing signage they have there. That is sufficient. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Four signs over, yes, it would be considered substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We do believe it would, since it would add to the clutter in the buildings in there. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It should be deemed self-created because the applicant is the one coming forward with the proposal. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO DENY Sign Variance No. 50-2015, Ray Sign Inc. for TJ Maxx, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry, but thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2015 SEQRA TYPE II HAROLD & PATRICIA TAYLOR AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL, ARCHITECT — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) HAROLD & PATRICIA TAYLOR ZONING WR LOCATION 27 REARDON ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING HOME ENCLOSING AN OPEN PORCH AND ALTERING INTERIOR LIVING AREA AND BEDROOMS WITH A 289 SQ. FT. ADDITION; NEW FLOOR AREA OF 589 SQ. FT. — NEW HOME WILL HAVE 2,399 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-3-040, 179-6-050, 179-13-010 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALTERING SHORELINE WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REF SP 33-2015; AV 7-2012; AV 81-2003; BP 2012-099 CARPORT; BP 2012-115 DEMO GARAGE/SHED; BP 2004-193 SEPTIC ALT.; BP 2003-617 ALT.; BP 2003-616 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.7-1-39 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2015, Harold & Patricia Taylor, Meeting Date: September 16, 2015 "Project Location: 27 Reardon Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 289 sq. ft. residential addition. Renovations to the existing 1,100 sq. ft. house includes 589 sq. ft. additional floor area for a total of 2,899 sq. ft. floor area. Relief requested from minimum property line and shoreline setback requirements. Also, relief requested from maximum allowable height, floor area ratio requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a Critical Environmental Area. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—Waterfront residential and 179-13-010 for expansion of a non-conforming structure. Parcel will require area variance as follows: Shoreline Permeability Side N Height Floor area Required 62.75 ft. 75% 12 ft. 28 ft. 22% max allowed Proposed 16 ft. 1 60.5% existing 3.68 ft. to new 28.6 ft. 27% in. and to remain construction Relief 46.75 ft 14.5 % in 8.32 ft. 6 in in 5% in in excess excess excess excess. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the floor area ratio and height request. The project site and existing conditions may be considered limiting as any new construction may require variance relief for setbacks and permeability. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial for the number of variances and type requested 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 as proposed may have minimal to no impact to the neighborhood where it is residential development. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant requests variances for shoreline and side setback, floor area ratio, height, and permeability to construct a 289 sq. ft. addition footprint and overall adding 589 sq. ft. of floor area ratio to the shoreline side of the home. The plans show the expansion and internal arrangement of the space to be used. The site does have new construction along the shoreside where the board may consider encouraging additional plantings on the shore. The Planning Board recommended no significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current proposal at their June 2015 meeting —the applicant was having a survey prepared to as part of the area variance." MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I have to recuse myself from this for personal reasons. Mr. Taylor and I are on the Board of Directors of the Glen Lake Protective Association. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. We don't have an alternate this evening. Welcome. It's up to you, truly, to wish to have a full Board seated or go with the Board that is currently seated, but that certainly is your option. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. FULLER-We'll just go with what's currently seated. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, welcome. If you could state your name for the record, please, and add anything to the record that you wish. MR. FULLER-My name is Cullen Fuller from Rucinski Hall Architecture, and I'm representing Harold & Patricia Taylor for their expansion project on Glen Lake. For the most part it's a pretty, as I would say a straightforward case. It's a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. However, where we're presenting to do an expansion is on a pre-existing concrete pad that is already non-permeable. We're not going to develop anymore of this site than what's already developed as we speak. We are not going to go any higher than the pre-existing conditions of the house. So we're staying within the envelope of the actual pre-existing building and we're going to maintain the same amount of height that's already currently there. So for the most part we're trying to limit as much, actually we're really not going to be, for all intents and purposes, putting a shovel in the earth more or less. This is going to be all proposed to just fill in an already existing spot on the site. As far as the aesthetics of the project, which I'm sure really don't come into play here, it will be a more aesthetically pleasing residence after we're all said and done with this project. As far as the setbacks go, like I said, it's not going to be protruding any farther than it already is towards any of the boundaries, shoreline. The setbacks are what they are as we speak, and we're not going to develop any more than what's already there. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Staff, is it possible to put up the aerial views of the lot? Are there any questions at this time from the Board members who are sitting on this application? MR. HENKEL-With all these concrete pads, is there any way of getting rid of some of those to get that permeability up, I mean, just a little bit? That's, you know, 14% is quite a bit. The other things don't bother me too much, but the permeability plus disturbing that close to the shoreline. You're only 16 feet. There's no other way of putting? I mean, you'd have to, like you said, put the shovel in the ground if you're going to build towards the road on the other side and not eliminate that porch towards the shoreline. MR. FULLER-Right now as you speak, the layout of the land more or less is it slopes down towards the lake. We are actually looking at, if you go to the front view of the residence, we're one story, as far as, well, I guess it would be considered the rear elevation. There really isn't too much we can go in the front of this house, otherwise it just wouldn't be accessible to the actual residents. The entryway is the tallest point of this house currently, and as you go into the entryway it does step down. It just, it's not possible to add any more additional square feet to the back of the lot, and I understand your concern as far as the concrete pads, if you will. Currently right now it's more or less a retaining wall that we're building on and this is a structure that would be difficult to remove without jeopardizing the existing foundations that we already have there. I think it would more or less jeopardize the integrity of the structure if we were to move that. As far as the pad that we're actually building on that we'd be framing on to, it's more than sturdy enough to support a stick frame building. However to remove that would potentially jeopardize the integrity of the whole foundation. HAROLD TAYLOR MR. TAYLOR-I would add, Mr. Henkel, that I understand what your concern is. The lot is very permeable. It's extremely sandy. I have one drywell out near the road. It's not near the lake but it's a drywell to drain the water that comes from the roof of the garage. MR. HENKEL-I see it's very level here. From your house to your carport area it's definitely very level. So I'm sure, obviously that water's not running down into the lake. I assume. So I agree with you there. I'm just concerned about the shoreline there being 16 feet from the disturbance there. MR. TAYLOR-The only thing I can tell you is there won't be any more concrete pad than there is now. It's the same as the existing. MR. HENKEL-So you're saying that will support that second story. MR. FULLER-1 mean, it's fairly significant concrete retaining wall. MR. HENKEL-There will no more pouring of any cement there you're saying? MR. FULLER-No. As far as foundation in the ground, that's it. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-This is new construction. It's a good opportunity to become more compliant. I mean, you're basically tearing the house out and putting another one on top of the existing pad. MR. FULLER-There isn't going to be any actual demolition to the existing house, other than, you know, a few walls here and there. The demolition plan that has been proposed to Mr. Taylor, it more or less just has a few walls just being shifted on the inside. MR. GARRAND-So you're not going to move any structural members within the house at all? MR. FULLER-Offhand, as far as structural members go, we're, you know, as far as exterior walls, maybe a few of them will be coming down. As far as supporting them with new construction, yes, the openings will be. MR. GARRAND-Because this proposal looks considerably different than the house that's there. MR. FULLER-Yes, it is. As far as. MR. GARRAND-1 mean, structurally they look completely different. MR. FULLER-If you look on the proposed lakeside elevation, basically we're going to maintain this roofline and we're just going to reverse gable it into the existing roof that's already there. I mean, it does, it's going to look significantly different, but a lot of the components of the house are going to remain. So it'll be dormered or stick framed into the existing residence. MR. GARRAND-Now you said the height isn't increasing at all, but my view from the driveway, when I look down towards the lake and I see the mountains and the water and everything over the top of that house, that's not going to change at all? MR. FULLER-If you look at the proposed rear elevation, and again, we have like a seven twelve pitch. This actually might be less. This might even bridge the top of the house, but the entryway from the rear elevation, we've got nine foot six from grade up to the new peak, which is, what we're proposing is matching existing identically. However, it could actually be lower and there's a good chance that it might not even bridge the top of the house from the rear elevation looking out to the mountains. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because that's a pretty nice view from there. MR. FULLER-Yes, and I'm almost positive, after doing construction drawings, you know, furthering the project along a little bit more, not necessarily doing construction drawings but reviewing the situation, I think originally we had a seven and a half twelve pitch to maintain the exact height more or less. We're going to go with a seven twelve pitch, and that will bring the peak of that house down below the existing other peak of the house. So, in my honest opinion there will actually be no change. What we're proposing is maybe two square feet of actual pitch that's going to be visible, and if you see the rear elevation right to where the dimension line goes to, Drawing Four, proposed floor plan, but that is, I mean, we're not going to be interfering with any views that are, you know, existing as of right now. MR. GARRAND-I'd still like to see some more permeability in that area. This lot is, it's 2.4 acres, and the amount of construction that's on there now seems excessive. I don't know how it was ever approved with this much impermeability on the lot, how it ever got to this point, but I think it's a good opportunity to maybe remove something to make it more compliant. Part of my concern also is the fact this house is also so far forward towards the water it's more forward than other houses in the area. It's going to jut out. I mean, you take a house a couple of doors down, the one that's under like permanent construction, you know, the shell, I don't, I heard rumors about that, but I don't know, but, you know, that's set way back, and that's kind of where we want to see a house. I understand you're in a position where you're going to use the existing pad. MR. FULLER-Yes, the footprint will not change, as far as, you know, permeability and everything that goes, right now we're not, like I said, we don't propose to add any non- permeable space on this lot. We want to just utilize what's already previously non-permeable, to maintain, you know, as much permeable space as there already is right now. That was a big concern of ours going in is that we didn't want to extend it any farther towards the lake. We 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) wanted to maintain the integrity of the actual lake and, you know, the views and what have you, and not ask for too much here. MR. GARRAND-Can you find some way to get that permeability down? MR. HENKEL-I'm really surprised the permeability isn't better with that size lot. I mean, we've worked with other ones on the lake that were using almost the whole property and the permeability was not that bad. That's hard to believe that it's off that much. MR. FULLER-To look at the actual site plan, and I agree with what you're saying. I've done a few projects where I thought the permeability would be an issue, where it didn't even come close. As far as the numbers go, I mean, it is what it is. A lot of the work that was done here prior was done prior to zoning regulations and kind of, you know, already a pre-existing, nonconforming structure. So as far as, you know, our hands are kind of tied as far as these concrete patios. I think they do provide a lot of structural integrity to the whole entire residence. I mean, the site and the way it slopes down, you know, as far as the steps go, it does make it a little tough to remove any of this concrete, too, without jeopardizing the integrity of the house, and the way it was built prior to zoning regulations it is, you know, it's structurally sound now. To remove any of this concrete might jeopardize the actual integrity of the structure as it is. MR. GARRAND-Also Staff Notes point out that there's going to be two kitchens in there. What's the reason for that? MR. TAYLOR-There's not two kitchens. There's, the house is a ranch, essentially, with an open basement. It actually looks like a two story from the front view, but in the basement we have a refrigerator. We have a range which we're not using now and a sink, but the purpose of it was to accommodate people when we have parties and we're using the deck out front. The deck will be gone so it won't even be used for that anymore. We're going to leave the refrigerator there because we use it for upstairs. MR. FULLER-So there will be no renting or anything of that nature going on. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because that's what Staff, I believe, was alluding to. MR. FULLER-Yes, no, it's a family residence, and, you know, it's a seasonal place, and, you know, to kind of, instead of going up and down the stairs, you know, it's nice to have a fridge downstairs. MR. JACKOSKI-So may I ask a few questions? So the existing porch versus the first floor facade at the lakeside. Is that facade in line, right now, with the existing front of the porch? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-And then the second story windows, how far forward are those windows from the current second story facade, the new window from the second story? MR. FULLER-1 want to say about 12 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Which is the depth of the wood porch and the concrete patio. MR. FULLER-Yes. It's completely flush front elevation. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, and then the, what I'll call the gable end, lakeside, how far forward is the peak of that from the peak of the existing roof that goes perpendicular to the new peaked roof? In other words, how far is that ridge line forward of the existing ridge line that runs parallel to the Iakeshore? Because I find it to be a very interesting roof cross section there of the proposed left side elevation. MR. FULLER-I'm going to say we're going out, you know, the proposed is 12 feet. You've got 31 feet all together. So 15 and 12 from that peak. MRS. MOORE-Is that the image you're trying to look at? MR. JACKOSKI-I tried to scale it. I'm guessing it's about 25 to 30 feet out. MR. FULLER-Yes. I'd say about 27 feet maximum. I think the peak is set a little bit towards the new gable end. I don't believe it's completely centered on there. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-One of the things that I've been consistent with on all the homes, whether it's Glen Lake or the Hudson River or it's Lake George, is that that is a wall, a very tall wall right there at the lakeside, and at least right now you have a stepping back to kind of go along with the topography of the property, and being that it's so far forward into the shoreline, it's just, to me, that is a wall of buildings right on the water. I know there are a few other homes that were built on Glen Lake that go straight up three stories, if you want to call it three stories, but it's problematic for me simply to be consistent with all the other applications that I've seen and denied because it's such a large facade being pulled forward right off the water, off the lake. It's just a matter of being consistent in my approach. So I'm trying to look at this project individually, and I just can't get myself over the hurdle. MR. GARRAND-Similarly the opposite of Glen Lake three months back. MR. JACKOSKI-Canterbury, right, and also the Johnson project. MR. TAYLOR-It seems to me that the water coming off from the main roof right now, it goes to the, we'll call it the deck roof. MR. JACKOSKI-Which goes onto the lake. MR. TAYLOR-When I would go down to the lake, with the new design, it's going to go off to the side. Now we might be able to do something like put gutters on it and lead them to a drywell or something like that. I don't know if it'll work. MR. JACKOSKI-It's just the boldness of that home from the water. I mean, it's just so tall and right there in your face. At least right now what I see is the gradation of the rooflines following the contours of the property back up the hill, and again, it's just that, to be consistent with previous applications, I'm just struggling with it. I certainly don't, we always want to try to work with the applicant to figure things out, but it just feels to me that that narrow part of the lake, that outlet and that very large facade staring you right in the face off the shoreline, you're only 16 feet off the shore at that dock point. I realize you have a little bit more going forward, but it's got two docks. Landscaping is, I know there's a big tree to the, is that the southeast. I don't believe that's your tree. I believe that's a neighbor's tree. Right? MR. TAYLOR-No, that tree is actually on, the pine you're talking about? MR. JACKOSKI-That great big one. You can actually see it on the aerial of the tax map. So that one, see the red dot, yes, so that one right there on the right, or the bottom portion of their lot, keep going, Laura, a little lower. Right there. That's your tree. Is that your tree? MR. FULLER-Yes. So, I mean, I understand your concerns about that, and I would be pressed to say it's a three story residence. I mean, I understand where you're coming from. We're adding two stories to the front here, and it looks as though it's three stories with those triangular windows on the top, and those are just decorative. They're just basically stick framed roof structure rather than a truss. The foliage and, you know, the tree scape and everything is already presenting some blockage as far as views go, and it would be kind of tough to accommodate the basic structure of the house without coming all the way out with a gabled end like so. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand what you did and I think the look is very attractive. I understand. I'm just trying to be consistent with, if it wasn't so close to the lake it would be, for me, personally, I understand it. I think that the layout and what's been done here looks fantastic. It certainly dresses it up. It's that it's so close to the lake and it's so tall, but anyway, there are other Board members. Are there other Board members with comments or questions at this time? Seeing none, and seeing no one in the audience, the public hearing is open. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-There's no written comment. There's no public hear to speak this evening concerning the project. This is a Type 11 SEQR. So I'm going to poll the Board on what their thoughts are at this time on the application. MR. TAYLOR-Before you progress, I did, I don't think it's been mentioned, but I did, each one of my neighbors wrote a letter saying that they approved of the project. I don't know if that's in your package or not. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't have it in mine. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MRS. MOORE-Would it be in the application itself? MR. JACKOSKI-Let it be noted that Mr. Taylor has noted that the neighbors are both in agreement on either side of him, they don't have a problem with the project, and Staff will attempt to see if they can locate anything at this time, and Roy is also looking into the record. MR. TAYLOR-Full disclosure, one of the neighbors is also my daughter. MR. HENKEL-That's all right. Different name, right? MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Does anyone want to volunteer to go first on this discussion? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-1 think the Board raised good questions regarding their concerns. I also have the concern about the wall of building, compared to what's currently there, and I was waiting to hear what the neighbors had to say, because it is such permanent change, and considering the neighbors don't, didn't say anything or agree, I don't have a problem with the proposal or the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. Mike? MR. MC CABE-When I first looked at this on paper, I objected to the number of relief requests. I could handle a couple of them, but five seemed in excess, but then when I took a look and saw that, you know, in essence there was really no change to what was there, I changed my mind, and so I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, on first glance this looks like an enormous request with all the variances, I agree, but when you look at the project the way it's supposed to be completed and what was there before, there really is not much difference in what was given prior, what was there before and what is going to be there afterwards. So even though the variance requests seem excessive, they really aren't, compared to what existed prior to this. I would like to see some more permeability if that's possible. I mean I know you've explained why we can't have the permeability improved, but we do have an alternative, and that is not to let the project go ahead, and that is an alternative. So there's nothing that says we have to approve the project. So I think, I would be in favor of the project if the permeability can somehow be reduced, beyond what it is right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 agree with Mr. Urrico. I think there's some leeway as far as permeability goes here. I also think you made some good points about the fact that there's going to be a straight up wall 16 feet from the shoreline. The Board has traditionally not approved projects so close to the lake, with such an in your face type of construction, but I definitely think there's some ways they could go with the permeability, that's a big one with me, especially looking at the elevations here and the way water flows down off this property. It's going to flow right off the house. I mean, you can infiltrate some of it, not all of it with all this impermeability on this end of the property. So as proposed I wouldn't be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-John, please? MR. HENKEL-This one, it is tough like they were all saying. The, you know, the variances they all wanted, it looked like a lot. When you look at the project, they're really not changing a whole lot. With this project, they're not decreasing the permeability. It's the same as what it is right now. Right? MR. FULLER-It's not going to change it. MR. HENKEL-I wish that could be changed to make it better, but as long as the project's not making it worse, I'd have to, you know, support the project. I would be for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and I have mentioned the way it's proposed right now, I'm against it. I don't want to be. I'd like to find a solution, but to be consistent with my rulings in the past, it's 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) just too much building, too close to the lake, too tall. I think you could probably go off the back and add height that way instead, and maybe even take off that porch and that concrete patio in the front to get your building to be less forward on the lot. I also think the Board hasn't discussed thoroughly enough the shoreline re-buffering requirements of our Code as it relates to plantings and stuff as Staff has mentioned in their notes. So that's my personal opinion, but at the moment what we have here is more yes buts regarding permeability than just yeses. This Board typically doesn't offer suggestions on how to get a permeability up or down. I mean, it's up to the applicant to try to offer that. Sometimes more time is needed. I assume you're probably looking at a construction schedule and the seasons are fast approaching here for winter. So some things that I can think of are the carport's impermeability, the walkway's impermeability, the wood deck on the south, I guess that would be the southwest corner. There's some opportunity there maybe. I don't want to make you give stuff up, but on the other hand permeability is very important that close to the lake. MR. TAYLOR-Your comment about the possibility of being able to go out from the back of the house with the addition rather than the front is a little bit problematic. On one side of the building is our septic tank and the field is off of that down towards the garage. On the other side is some underground wiring. We're looking at also having a generator installed over there. MR. JACKOSKI-I did see that. I was thinking more that the concrete patio that is there could be expanded upon, and it wouldn't come anywhere near the tank. Quite frankly, a tank is very easy to move toward the leach fields. MR. FULLER-As far as the height requirements, regardless, we have to take into account that we're going from the lowest point on grade up. So if we went to the rear of the house that would put us substantially higher than our requirements. MR. JACKOSKI-Actually the rear of the house is up, the topography there is much higher than the lakeside part of the house. So I believe you can follow the gradations up. Correct, Staff? MR. GARRAND-1 think they'd have to cut back into the bank, wouldn't you, if you were going to build off the back, in order to maintain height? MR. FULLER-We wouldn't be able to maintain height. We'd be, and the view from, you know, that part of the property, it would just basically be null. We'd have a much higher larger structure looking out from, that view of the mountains would be very much compromised. MR. TAYLOR-The other problem, and I know it has nothing to do with zoning, but the layout, the internal layout of the house really wouldn't lend itself to having it in that area. MR. FULLER-1 mean, right now that entryway steps down into the house. So there would be some substantial excavation in order to go into the back of the house there, and the permeability would also be jeopardized significantly. MR. NOONAN-Is there a percentage of more permeability that the Board is looking for to maybe help the applicant? MR. JACKOSKI-This is where we get into, and Roy gets nervous when I start talking about here we could do this and we could do that, and I already started to do that and I was waiting for Roy to slap my wrist. So it's very difficult for us because we don't like to say no. MR. URRICO-Personally, I'm not looking for all of it to be gone. I'm just looking for some of it to be gone. Whatever that comes out to. I just would like to see some progress in that area, and I also want to remind that there's only six members on the Board tonight. So that's another option. So if the concrete patio turned into a paver patio? MR. FULLER-I'd say maybe the paved walk turned into paver stone. The permeability, that concrete patio towards the back. Again, I mean, a lot of this is structural. It would be really difficult to undermine the structural components of this house without jeopardizing, you know, some grade shifts in the actual residence. Generally speaking, it was built to last, more or less, you know, they really went through and made it, you know, and made it, you know, and made it absolutely sound and sometimes that can not lend itself out to being moved, without really jeopardizing the integrity of the structure. MR. TAYLOR-I'd be a little concerned, if that concrete patio was gone and it was pavers instead of concrete, I'd be a little bit concerned about the back wall of the house. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. FULLER-And just so we're clear on this, the concrete patio that we're referring to is the one to the rear of the house in front of the septic tank? MR. NOONAN-Yes, that's what I, again, some Board members were hoping to find somewhere where you could get more permeability. When you see concrete sometimes you think maybe you can make it there, but. MR. TAYLOR-The lines of the septic tank, of course, goes underneath that concrete patio also. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the concrete gutter on the neighbor's property? The concrete gutter, that's labeled on the south side of the side line, is that on the neighbor's property? MR. TAYLOR-No. MR. JACKOSKI-There's a concrete gutter to the south of the lamppost, and it appears that it goes on to the neighbor's property. MR. TAYLOR-I'll have to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know. I didn't think that it was, but. MR. JACKOSKI-And then there's a wood deck at the very forefront of the house that appears to go over the property line as well, and is the vinyl shed yours or is it the neighbor's? MR. TAYLOR-And that was put there many, many years ago. It was there when we bought the house. My daughter put the deck there. I don't think she knew where the lines were. MR. JACKOSKI-So which home is your daughter's home? MR. TAYLOR-It's the one to the north. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member comments at this time? This is kind of one of those difficult positions to put the applicant in, but right now we don't have enough votes for a full approval, and I guess I'm seeking some input from the applicant as to how to move forward. MR. FULLER-As far as, you know, we have that paved walk. If it would appease the Board we could take a look at seeing how much square footage, removing that and putting in permeable paver blocks, or something of that nature. As far as the actual house goes, are we dead set right now on the permeability, and that's the main issue at task for approval. I mean, is that, you mentioned. MR. GARRAND-That's a big one for me. The permeability's the big one. MR. TAYLOR-You might not have seen the walkway in front of that carport. When they put the carport up, we were told that you couldn't have concrete in that. So this whole area is not concrete. That is pavers for that reason. So from that, the doors on the back of that carport, all the way over to the end of that carport are pavers. MR. JACKOSKI-But they're covered by a roof. Correct? MR. TAYLOR-No. MR. JACKOSKI-The brick walkway, is that what you're referring to? MR. TAYLOR-That's not covered by a roof. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, when was the carport added? MR. HENKEL-2012. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Was there a building permit filed for it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. GARRAND-And permeability didn't get triggered? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MRS. MOORE-There was an Area Variance in 2012. MR. JACKOSKI-There was an Area Variance in 2012? 1 couldn't have been sitting on the Board then because I don't remember it. MR. TAYLOR-That's about right, I think, 2012. MR. HENKEL-Yes, that's what it says here, in 2012. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, a variance was granted then. Okay. So, again, unfortunately I can't theorize what you should do and how you should do it, but there's several options you have this evening, obviously. You can take a vote. You can delay the project, you know, you can request a tabling of this project. You can offer, again, some form of less required relief to have us take a vote on, or you can withdraw the application. We don't certainly want to put you through all that, but. MR. TAYLOR-The problem is that in order to make the decision as to whether or not we want to come back to you, we've got to know what the project is going to cost us., and I don't know what the fix is to trying to make the lot a little more permeable, but know it's going to cost money. MR. JACKOSKI-And again, as Staff Notes have mentioned, we haven't even talked about the shoreline re-buffering, right? That is a requirement of the Code. MRS. MOORE-Right, and the Board can make suggestions. The Planning Board also takes a look at it for shoreline buffer as well. MR. JACKOSKI-So this will go to the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-This will go to the Planning Board. MR. HENKEL-Did you go for a variance? You must have gone for a variance for that carport. Right? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, Staff is saying. MR. HENKEL-Were they talking about permeability at that time or no? MR. TAYLOR-The only thing they talked about was the fact that they didn't like that sidewalk. It was over the end of the field from our septic, and they thought that that should be something more permeable and concrete and we settled on putting in the pavers. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're not surprising you with our concerns as well. MR. TAYLOR-Well, to be honest I didn't think about it being an issue, but. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We kind of have to take our lead from you at this point, unfortunately. MRS. MOORE-And the next available agenda would be in November. MR. TAYLOR-Can you just delay this? MR. JACKOSKI-Table it? We'd be more than happy to table it to a revised plan date of October 15tH MRS. MOORE-A submission deadline of October 15th for a November meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-For a November meeting, and we would try to get you on the first one in November, if there's more than one. MR. FULLER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. We hate putting you through this, but there's some concerns here. Based on the polling of the Board, even if Ron was here, I don't see that you would have enough votes to get it through without any revisions, and even if there was an alternate here, I don't see, even if we voted just yes, there's not enough here, there's two yeses and there are three yes buts and one no. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) MR. FULLER-And just so we're on the same page, if we come back, and we do meet the permeability or we do make, you know, great strides with the permeability, the blockage of the actual residence is not going to come into play with getting approved? MR. JACKOSKI-Right now from what I understood from my fellow Board members, they didn't have as much of a concern about the height as I did. MR. FULLER-Okay, and the whole, you know, the side of it being, you know, that wall situation. MR. JACKOSKI-I didn't hear that from any of the Board members. I think permeability and shoreline buffer were the keys, unfortunately. I mean, we live on a lake and it's sensitive and it's tough. MR. GARRAND-A critical environmental area. We're not so much concerned about you but the cumulative effect of all the people who do this on the lake. MR. JACKOSKI-So the applicant has requested that we table the application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Harold and Patricia Taylor. Applicant proposes construction of a 289 sq. ft. residential addition. Renovations to the existing 1,100 sq. ft. house includes 589 sq. ft. additional floor area for a total of 2,899 sq. ft. floor area. Relief requested from minimum property line and shoreline setback requirements. Also, relief requested from maximum allowable height, floor area ratio requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a Critical Environmental Area. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 and Left OPEN MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2015 HAROLD & PATRICIA TAYLOR, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Tabled to the November meeting with a submission of new plan data by the October 15th deadline. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And the architectural significance of that project looks great. I hope you can figure out a way to make it work. MR. FULLER-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Staff, could you look up that variance application approval for us, and get it to us, on the carport. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you e-mail it to us, or how would you get it to us? MRS. MOORE-Actually it would be on line. MR. JACKOSKI-As in minutes? What month? MRS. MOORE-I'll find out. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could. I'm sorry, we are still in meeting format. So can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/16/2015) Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 21