Loading...
11-18-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 88-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 &49 Sign Variance No. 87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 &49 Area Variance No. 74-2014 David Hartman 3. 1-YEAR EXTEND APPROVAL Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 Area Variance No. 27-2015 Harold & Patricia Taylor 4. Tax Map No. 289.7-1-39 Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust 7. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Area Variance No. 60-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp. 8. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-54 Sign Variance No. 61-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp. 9. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-54 Area Variance No. 58-2015 Fritz & Mary Stefanzick 9. Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11 Area Variance No. 63-2015 Jeffrey and Dawn Hamilton 13. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-19 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 11/18/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL RICHARD GARRAND HARRISON FREER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I apologize for being a little bit late, but we're getting things organized. So welcome, everyone. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, I see a lot of students in the audience, it's actually a very easy process that we follow here. There is an agenda on the back table. There are some general guidelines that we follow. We'll call to order the meeting. We'll do some housekeeping, administratively. We'll work on Old Business, then we'll work on New Business. We'll call each application up to the table here. Roy will be reading the applications into the record. We'll ask the applicant some questions or their representative some questions. We will open the public comment period when there is a public comment period advertised and for every one of these there is a public comment period advertised. We will then deliberate a little bit. We'll poll the Board to see where we're leaning and we'll take action accordingly after we close the public hearing, if we can close the public hearing. So, for those of you who may have written letters to the Board, they will get read into the record. You do not have to approach us at the table. If you do decide to make public comment, please don't regurgitate anything that's already been discussed. We're aware of it. We don't have to necessarily hear it five or six or seven times. We get it, and we'll simply start our meeting. So, for the students, you'll be happy to know you don't have to stay for the whole meeting. I'm not going to tattle on you guys if you leave a little bit early, but at least try to stay until about 11:30. All right. Here we go. I need a motion to approve the meeting minutes of October 21St APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 21, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18TH day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Jackoski ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Meeting minutes of October 28tH October 28, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18TH day of November, 2015, by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE TO FEBRUARY 2016 OR DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE: AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 MC DONALD'S SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MC DONALD'S MR. JACKOSKI-The next thing, we have a request to further table the McDonald's. Do we have to do these separately, Staff, or can we do them together? MRS. MOORE-You can do them together. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. We have a request to further table to the February 2016 meeting calendar or deny the application without prejudice of the McDonald's Area Variance No. 88- 2014 and Sign Variance No. 87-2014. So we could use some discussion as to what we'd like to do. MRS. MOORE-1 understood that, from their tabling and from discussions with them, that they are looking to update their application materials, specifically for the permeability. I don't know what that means. You already saw one version of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Have their resolved their ownership problem? MRS. MOORE-Ownership is still, will remain as is, but you were provided previously information about that contract is, extends to 2019 for use of that property. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So by the time they build this facility and wrap it out in 2017 or 18 and turn around and use it, then they lose their parking lots because they don't negotiate a renewal of that lease, then we're left with a project that has no parking. Correct? MRS. MOOR E-Potentially, if it played out. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. URRICO-Did they ask for the extension or are we just doing this? MRS. MOORE-No, they have asked for an extension. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll poll the Board. Roy? MR. URRICO-I don't see any problem in extending it. I think we'll have to re-hear it at some point anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Also no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-Table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no problem with tabling it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-Great. We'll table it to the February 2016 meeting with a submission deadline in January. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from McDonald's USA, LLC. The applicant proposes demolition of existing 4,800 sq. ft. restaurant as well as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached shed/garage. Applicant proposes construction of a new 4,365 sq. ft. restaurant. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements as well as from maximum permeability requirements in the Cl zoning district. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the variance application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its review; in December 2014 there was a recommendation of No County Impact; SEQR Type II -no further review required; The ZBA conducted a public hearing on Wednesday, August 19, 2015 and was left open; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 and SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014, MCDONALD'S LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: At the request of the applicant. The applications are Tabled to the first meeting in February, 2016 with paperwork to be submitted by the middle of January. Duly adopted this 18th day of November 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE REQUEST FOR A 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2014 DAVID HARTMANN MR. JACKOSKI-We have a request from the applicant, request for a one year extension of approval of Area Variance No. 24-2014 David Hartman. Staff, can you explain? MRS. MOORE-Yes. The applicant met with Staff and described that they weren't able to provide, to handle construction this year. So he has asked for an extension, and the applicant is in the audience if you have additional questions. MR. JACKOSKI-Do Board members have any problem with extending this for one year? Hearing no objections, can I have a motion? RESOLUTION FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR ONE YEAR, Area Variance No. 74- 2014, David Hartmann, 51 Assembly Point Road, Tax Map No. 239.12-2-15 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request from David Hartmann for an extension of approval from the November 19, 2014 original review and approval date. The applicant proposes demolition of existing 1,448 sq. ft. cottage and construction of a new year-round single-family dwelling. The new home will be 3,585.5 sq. ft. The variances required; minimum side on the north side: 15 ft. is required, 6.2 ft. is proposed, 8.8 ft. of relief. The south side: 15 ft. is required, proposed is 13.1 ft., relief requested is 1.9 ft. The shoreline: 55 ft. on average for a house setback; proposed is 52.3 ft.; the relief requested is 2.7 ft. Floor Area Ratio: 22 percent is required, proposing 29 percent; requesting 7 percent relief. On the height: maximum height 28 ft. required; proposed is plus or minus 31.8 ft. and it will be less than 3.8 ft. And, that the stormwater—the rain gardens will comply with 1.5 gallons per square foot. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A RESOLUTION THAT WE EXTEND THE APPROVAL OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2014, UNTIL NOVEMBER , 2016 (1-YEAR FROM TODAY); DAVID HARTMANN, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Can we extend it for a year or do we have to say November 2016? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-I think that's fair. MR. JACKOSKI-So that's the extension of the previous approval. Correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. You're extending, you're not tabling. Sorry. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Now, Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: 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 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. REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED WITH REMOVAL OF 109 SQ. FT. TO BE CONVERTED TO PERMEABLE AREA ALONG THE SHORE. 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. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. 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 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; HAROLD TAYLOR, PRESENT MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I have to recuse myself, as I did last time. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Andy's (Allison) here. Come on up, Andy. So, I will have Roy read into the record anything that's new. MR. URRICO-I'm not sure what's new. I could read the whole thing in. MR. JACKOSKI-Permeability. MRS. MOORE-It's primary, there's revised plans submitted with the removal of 109 sq. ft. of impermeable surface converted to permeable. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2015, Harold & Patricia Taylor, Meeting Date: November 18, 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. Revised plans submitted with removal of 109 sq. ft. to be converted to permeable area along the shore. Relief requested from minimum property line and shoreline setback requirements, maximum allowable height, floor area ratio requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a Critical Environmental Area. Project subject to Site Plan Review. 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 nonconforming structure. Parcel will require area variance as follows: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) Shoreline Permeability (New) Side N Height Floor area Required 62.75 ft. 75% 12 ft. 28 ft. 22% max allowed Proposed 16 ft. 1 60.8% existing and 3.68 ft. to new 28.6 ft. 27% in. 61.5% proposed construction Relief 46.75 ft. 13.5 % in excess 8.32 ft. 6 in in 5% in excess in exces excess. s 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 impacts 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 applicant attended the Planning Board meeting of September 22nd to provide a revised plan showing a 109 sq. ft. of impermeable area to be converted to permeable/ planted area." MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall principle with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Harold Taylor, the applicant. We've been here before with this application, was asked to go back and do some work on removing some of the hard surfaces. Mr. Taylor agreed to remove the patio pavers that are right down next to the lake. That work's actually already been done. We've taken that all into account, added that back into and increased our permeability, and as we said previously, the footprint of this building is remaining as it is. We're just going straight up. We're not encroaching any further into our setbacks. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any additional comments or questions from Board members before I re-open the public hearing? Having seeing no hands go up, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is no written comment that I can see. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address this Board on this particular application? Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to keep the public hearing open, and I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Harrison. MR. FREER-Don't start with me. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'll start with Rick. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. GARRAND-The applicant did what I asked him to do. I wanted him to get a little more permeability on this piece of property and they did that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm impressed that the applicant made changes and I will favor this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. In my judgment the changes make it a better application, so I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-How about now, Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I listened to this last time, but I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Andy? ANDREW ALLISON, ALTERNATE MR. ALLISON-Yes, I looked through the plans and application and I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-So, unfortunately I'm going to be the one that's frustrated because I never approve projects that are this close to the lake and that tall, but you've got your approval. So we're going to lose the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion. 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. Revised plans submitted with removal of 109 sq. ft. to be converted to permeable area along the shore. 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. Project subject to Site Plan Review. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 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 the structure is essentially the same as what exists now. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because of the size of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial when it's considered that it's basically on the same footprint that it is now. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is certainly self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2015 HAROLD & PATRICIA TAYLOR, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel; Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Allison, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico NOES: Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. Enjoy it. MR. TAYLOR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 SEQRA TYPE II BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) THOMAS R. KNAPP, ESQ. 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; LOT SIZE 28,639 SQ. FT. LOT A AND 28,754 SQ. FT. LOT B; NO CHANGES TO EXISTING HOMES OR FEATURES, DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE, WATER FRONTAGE, LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS, AND LOT A FOR NOT HAVING PHYSICAL ROAD FRONTAGE. 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 PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179-4-050; 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening, and I'll turn it over to Roy to read anything new into the record. MRS. MOORE-This application is being tabled. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. There was a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open that public hearing and give those who may be here to address that application a chance to speak to us. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-I do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 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. I am going to ask Staff what it is they would like us to do with the application. Extend it a month, two months? MRS. MOORE-You're tabling it until the December 16th meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-And they've met their submission criterion already? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mike. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from the Burnett Family Trust. Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision; lot size 28,639 sq. ft. Lot A and28,754 sq. ft. Lot B; no changes to existing homes or features, driveway. Relief requested from minimum road frontage, water frontage, lot width requirements, and Lot A for not having physical road frontage. 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. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015, BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AND ESTATE OF DAVID BURNETT, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled Until the December 16, 2015 meeting; Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015 by the following vote: 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-And this will be the last time we table this, is that fair to say, Staff? MRS. MOORE-It's possible, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Because I think that's what the Board is suggesting. MRS. MOORE-I've got it. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to now skip the agenda a little bit and I'm going to go to the Stewart's Shops. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2015 SEQRA TYPE II STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) CHUCK MARSHALL OWNER(S) SANDRI REALTY, INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 1433 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING GAS SERVICE/CONVENIENCE STORE (SUNOCO) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 3,897 CONVENIENCE STORE (STEWART'S SHOP) WITH A 1,500 SQ. FT. GASOLINE CANOPY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL. CROSS REF SP 59-2015; SV 51-2014; BP 2009-324 COWL ALT.; BP 97-157 ADDITION; BP 91-315 WALKIN COOLER; BP 91-828 ALT.; BP 88-777 GAS CANOPY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 0.68 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-54 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearings scheduled for this evening and it's a Type 11 SEQR. I don't need to have Roy read it all into the record at this time. Is that fair? MRS. MOORE-Correct. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment, Roy? Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning the Stewart's Area Variance No. 60-2015 located at 1433 State Route 9? Seeing no one in the audience, I'm going to wait to see if there's any written comment. MR. URRICO-No, I don't see any comments. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment, I'm going to leave the public hearing open and I'm going to seek a motion to table this application until? MRS. MOORE-Until the first meeting in January. MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to make that motion? MRS. MOORE-You also have a Sign Variance. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to do one and then I'll do the other. MRS. MOORE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Stewart's Shops Corp. Applicant proposes demolition of the existing gas service / convenience store (Sunoco) and construction of a new 3,897 sq. ft. convenience store (Stewart's Shop) with a 1,500 sq. ft. gasoline canopy. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and from minimum permeability requirements in the Cl zoning district. Project subject to site plan for new convenience store with fuel. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 and left Open 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2015, STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl To the first meeting in January, 2016 with information due by December 15, 2015. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to then bring forward the Stewart's Shops Corp. Sign Variance No. 61-2015. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 61-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED STEWART'S SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S) CHUCK MARSHALL OWNER(S) SANDRI REALTY, INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 1433 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 63 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FREESTANDING SIGN AND HAVING A SIGN GREATER THAN 60 SQ. FT. CROSS REF AV 60-2015; SP 59-2015; BP 2009-324 COWL ALT.; BP 97-147 ADDITION; BP 91-315 WALKIN COOLER; BP 91-828 ALT.; BP 88-777 GAS CANOPY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2015 LOT SIZE 0.68 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-54 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MR. JACKOSKI-I'll note that we had the public hearing open for the other application. This one is open as well. Just to double check, is there anyone here in the audience wishing to address the Board on this matter? Was there any written comment received? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stewart's Shops Corp. for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 63 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief requested from the minimum front and side setback requirements for the freestanding sign and having a sign greater than 60 sq. ft. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 and left Open BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 61-2015, STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer; To January, 2016 with a December submission date. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2015 SEQRA TYPE II OWNER(S) FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK ZONING WR LOCATION 43 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,025 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO THE ONE STORY 1,410 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FOOTPRINT FOR FLOOR AREA EXISTING 2,562 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 3,587 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 58-2015; AV 69-2014; SP 61-2014; BP 2015-022 IN-GROUND POOL; BP 2014-486 GARAGE ADDITION; BP 94-359 ADDITION; BP 93-279 ADDITION TO DECK; BP 92-507 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 40 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.6- 1-11 SECTION 179-3-040 FRITZ STEFANZICK, PRESENT 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2015, Fritz & Mary Stefanzick, Meeting Date: November 18, 2015 "Project Location: 43 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,025 sq. ft. second floor addition to the one- story 2,562 sq. ft. single-family dwelling for a total floor area of 3,587 sq. ft. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Project subject to site plan review for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. 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: Side South Required 30 ft. Proposed Existing 5 ft. and proposed 5ft Relief 25 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 limited as the applicant is applying for new construction over an existing one story home. The new construction is proposed to be the same setback as the existing first floor. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the removal of the existing roof on a 1 story home 1,410 sq. ft. (footprint) to construct a 2nd story addition (over the first floor except the sunroom). The new second story is 1,025 sq. ft. floor area. The addition is designed for an upstairs bedroom and loft area and the first floor will have a bedroom, living room area, dining area, kitchen and laundry. The existing sunroom is to remain as is where the addition does not go over the sunroom. The covered porch on the first floor allows will be converted into a larger kitchen area. The applicant has received a septic variance from the local board of health for installation of new system." MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board also 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 on November 17, 2015 and it was approved unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, sir. MR. STEFANZICK-Thank you, and for the record, my name is Fritz Stefanzick. I'm the owner of 43 Hanneford, and just as the gentleman said, I'm looking to renovate and enhance my single story frame house by adding an addition off the second floor. All of that will be on the existing foundation. The challenge is that the existing foundation is five feet away from my south 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) neighbor's borderline. Since I'm going straight up and not out, that's not going to change. It won't get worse, it won't get better, but all area setbacks, all other requirements, distance to the lake, floor area ratio, all that meets the requirements that the Town set forth. I've looked at all other alternatives. This, by far, is the easiest and least impactful. Least disturbance to the land, neighbors and all of that. My direct neighbor next to me is in support of this. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Can you just clarify in that the existing structure is 2500 square feet? MR. STEFANZICK-No, the existing structure is 1410 sq. ft. MR. JACKOSKI-And the addition is 1,025 sq. ft.? MR. STEFANZICK-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Which will give us a total of 2435 sq. ft., and what is the 3,587? MR. STEFANZICK-It's the separate garage that I took the floor area for that and then we add that on. It's separate from the house. So when we add that on to that, that's what you get. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is everybody okay with that? I don't know how the math adds up, but 1,025 plus 1410 to me adds up to 2,435 and not 2,562, but. MR. STEFANZICK-I'm sorry, but then you have to add 92 sq. ft. on to that because there is a covered porch that's part of the foundation. So you add that on. MR. JACKOSKI-That 1025 is going over the 1410. MR. STEFANZICK-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Okay. Everybody's clear on the numbers? Are there any other questions from Board members at this time regarding this application? MR. HENKEL-Is there a problem with the permeability? No? Isn't there a variance needed for that? MRS. MOORE-That was already granted. That was granted previously when the garage. MR. HENKEL-When we did the garage? Okay. MR. FREER-You said your neighbor, both neighbors? MR. STEFANZICK-All of my neighbors have supported this. I think that there's a written record of support, but the neighbor next to me is right next to the five foot. MR. FREER-Okay. The neighbor to the south? MR. STEFANZICK-Yes. MR. KUHL-I assume that the west deck will stay? MR. STEFANZICK-The west deck will stay. Yes. MR. KUHL-And the other north will stay also? MR. STEFANZICK-Yes. That's been there forever. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. URRICO-Yes. There's some written comment. There are three letters that are relatively the same, but I'll read the first one in and then the names of everybody. "As the owners of the property across from the Stefanzick's home, I offer my full support of their requested Area Variance as well as the associated wastewater replacement plan. In the few years that the Stefanzick's have lived here they have significantly enhanced their property and have made a positive impact on the overall appearance and character of our community. All of their improvements have been made with consideration to both the surrounding environment and neighbors. We believe their future renovation plans will further enhance and add to the overall desirability of our community." And that's James Valastro, 48 Hanneford Road. And then another letter practically the same is from the neighbor directly next to them, Mr. and Mrs. Rooney at 47 Hanneford Road, and a third letter is another one directly across, Harold Smith, 44 Hanneford Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Any further comment? None? I'll leave the public hearing open at the moment. I'm going to poll the Board. Is there anyone who'd like to volunteer their opinion on this? MR. MC CABE-I'll start. I've looked at this. First of all, I'm really impressed that the applicant has polled his neighbors and gotten their support. I agree that it will be an enhancement to the neighborhood, and I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'll also support the project. They're not changing anything on the footprint. The variance isn't going to change on the south side or any of the other variances. So I'd be supportive. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with my fellow Board members and I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I like the project in that it's going up. It's not going out, and it's going to enhance the wastewater treatment system. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, since giving you approval for the garage and seeing what the applicant did to improve that garage, I see this as an improvement and I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I agree. I think this is a good project, and I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to seek a motion. 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 Fritz and Mary Stefanzick. Applicant proposes construction of a 1,025 sq. ft. second floor addition to the one-story 1,410 sq. ft. single-family dwelling footprint for floor area existing 2,562 sq. ft. and proposed 3,587 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Project subject to site plan review for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 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 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2015, FRITZ AND MARY STEFANZICK, 43 Hanneford Road, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: The applicant proposes construction of a 1,025 sq. ft. second floor addition to the one-story 2,562 sq. ft. single-family dwelling for a total FAR of 3,587 sq. ft. The applicant requests relief from the minimum setback requirements in the Waterfront Residential zone. Relief requested under Section 179-13-010; it will meet our approval for expansion of nonconforming, but they do need the relief for the setback. The south side setback required is 30 ft., proposed is existing 5 ft. with a 25 ft. of relief requested on the south side setback. This is not increasing with this new construction of the second floor. Therefore, on the balancing tests, using the same foundation benefits can probably not be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. We don't foresee any undesirable change in the neighborhood. The request probably would be deemed as moderate given the expansion of this structure. The average physical or environmental effects; we don't believe there are any, it's actually a positive within the wastewater treatment plan. Is this difficulty self-created; it may deemed as self-created since it is the applicant coming forth with the application and the changes. Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. STEFANZICK-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2015 JEFFREY AND DAWN HAMILTON AGENT(S) DEVIN DICKINSON AND DEAN HOWLAND OWNER(S) JEFFREY AND DAWN HAMILTON ZONING WR LOCATION 61 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF 1,135 SQ. FT. HOME AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS AND PATIOS TO REPLACE WITH A 2-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. ALSO, PROPOSING NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE GREATER THAN 5,000 SQ. FT., NEW FLOOR AREA OF 2,188 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR MINIMUM SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 60-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-19 SECTION 179-3- 040 DEAN HOWLAND & DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2015, Jeffrey and Dawn Hamilton, Meeting Date: November 18, 2015 "Project Location: 61 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of 1,135 sq. ft. home and removal of existing sidewalks and patios to replace with a 2-story single-family home. Also, proposing new septic system and stormwater management. Project includes disturbance greater than 5,000 sq. ft., new floor area of 2,188 sq. ft. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—Waterfront residential. Side N Side S Floor area Required 12 ft. 12 ft. Allowed up to 22% (2000 sq. ft.) Proposed 5.6 ft. 8.3 ft. 24% (2188 sq. ft.) Relief 6.4 ft. 3.7 ft. In excess of 2 % (188 sq. ft.) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) 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 considered to reduce the floor area ratio. The project site and existing conditions of a 50 ft. wide parcel may be considered limiting as any new construction may require variance relief for side setbacks. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief 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 as proposed may have minimal impacts 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 proposes to remove an existing 1135 sq. ft. single story home to construct a new 2 story home of 2188 sq. ft. total floor area. The new footprint of the home is 1222 sq. ft. The applicant also proposes removal of slate walkways and patio that currently existing on the site. The project includes installation of a new septic system, stormwater management measures, a stone-walkway at the front of the house, a 10x20 lawn sitting area, and a 475 grass paver parking area. The new home does not meet the side setbacks or floor area ratio requirements for the Waterfront Residential Zone. " MR. URRICO-And then Planning Board, 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 November 17th by a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome, Dean. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time or just take questions from the Board? MR. HOWLAND-I'm Dean Howland, one of the agents for the owner, and what the existing, it's a camp up on piers. It's got some problems. They'd like to build a year round home. They won't be living there year round but they'd like to build it year round, and we're going to try to keep the north side five feet six on the setback as it exists now to maintain that. They'd also like to bring it forward a little bit, about 17 feet, but the proposed house would still be behind the neighbor to the north and to the south, they're much closer to the water. The one item on the south side might have a screened porch and that seemed to be the only place we could do it to not get over the height restriction. The technical aspects of stormwater and sewer, their new septic system is significant right now. MR. DICKINSON-My name is Devin Dickinson from Dickinson Associates. I did the site plan and the engineering work. We are proposing some stormwater controls. We're proposing a grass parking area which is a permeable surface, and we're also proposing a new Elgin bed with the wastewater treatment, and the part of the house actually hinged on that septic system. We put it in to meet all the separation distances and the setback lines to the house and all that. Like the application said, we are removing quite a bit of hard surface there. I think that's about it. There was one comment from Chazen. They wanted to verify that there were no wells within 100 feet of the grass pavers. The closest well is about 130 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-I have a question. Where's the water source for the house you're building? MR. HOWLAND-It comes out of the lake. MR. KUHL-And what about the trees, are they remaining? MR. HOWLAND-There's one big tree on the shoreline. Of course that's going to remain, and then along the two property lines right now there's an overgrown hedgerow of all the greens. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) They'd like to remove those and replace them in kind, not with arborvitae because the deer just eat everything on it. So any tree that would be removed, we'll be putting new trees in on the property line. I have, the Planning Board last night asked me for a shrubbery plan, and I'll have that tomorrow for them. We've already met with a landscaper. MR. JACKOSKI-So that everyone knows, this project does go in front of the Planning Board for Site Plan Review. Any other questions? MR. KUHL-How are you going to handle that 10 foot drop in the front of the house where you removed the patio? MR. HOWLAND-Well, what I did there is I put an eight foot high wall, but the floor is going to be, well the bottom of the floor is going to be down five feet, with crushed stone, and then if you take a look at the plans, what I did is I put a, I'm sorry, it's on this one. I put a brick ledge on the, so I just put a two inch brick ledge. MR. KUHL-So there'll be no access in front of the house then, just from the porch? MR. HOWLAND-Right. There's only access from the porch. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. DICKINSON-And to clarify, it's about a five or six foot elevation change with the one foot contours there. MR. KUHL-I was close. MR. GARRAND-Between the septic and the parking area, is the septic a raised bed? MR. HOWLAND-It is slightly raised, yes. MR. GARRAND-So there'll be some delineation so that people aren't parking on it, driving up on it or anything like that? MR. DICKINSON-Yes, we're actually proposing a natural stone retaining wall approximately two feet high that'll actually surround the entire system. MR. GARRAND-All four sides. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, and then we propose some screening plants as well. MR. GARRAND-Good idea. MR. JACKOSKI-How many cars can get on the parking space? MR. DICKINSON-You could actually fit four cars in that. You'd have to stack them deep. MR. JACKOSKI-Four little tiny cars or four big luxury cars? MR. DICKINSON-It would be a mix. I think I sized it for two 18 foot spaces, nine by eighteen. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I drove on the site today. I mean, there's not even really a driveway there now. MR. HOWLAND-No, and they park on the north side, and that's where the leach field wants to go, and they want to plant some trees, some evergreen trees. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the porch going to be a heated space? MR. HOWLAND-No. Just a screened porch. MR. JACKOSKI-So it's not going to be enclosed for living space? MR. HOWLAND-No. It's going to have a deck on it. It's got a two feet high knee wall on it. MR. JACKOSKI-So it would be easy to convert it to living space. MR. HOWLAND-Well, you could, but you've got to insulate it and do all that. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-We're responsible for granting the minimum amount of relief. That's a pretty big porch encroaching on the setback. MR. HENKEL-If you make it smaller, it's going to give it 10 foot. MR. HOWLAND-Ten foot's about minimal. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't have a porch. So how do you expect to gain access to the front of the property? You're so tight to the front of the, to the lot lines, and with plantings on, you said you're going to re-plant the borders. That gives you really no property to access down to the front of the property. MR. HOWLAND-You could drive a car, like my Toyota truck would be able to get down through there, but other than that, I don't know why you'd have to get there. MR. JACKOSKI-I've got eight feet before you even have the shrubbery and the trees. So if you have shrubbery and trees which are roughly a two foot diameter, you can't get your truck down there. Your mirrors would be scraping the side of the house. MR. HOWLAND-1 don't know why they'd have to get down there with a vehicle for any reason. MR. JACKOSKI-What about yard equipment? MR. HOWLAND-I'm sorry? MR. JACKOSKI-Yard equipment. How are you going to get down there to maintain? MR. HOWLAND-The lawn mower? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. HOWLAND-1 assume they've got a push mower. I mean, it's not a very big lot. MR. JACKOSKI-It just seems like we're really cramming a lot on this little tiny lot. Any other questions from Board members before I open a public hearing? MR. KUHL-You said you're going to do an Elgin system. Is that going to be gravity or are you going to pump it out? MR. DICKINSON-We're going to pump it. MR. KUHL-So you're going to pump it. Will the house have a generator in case of power failure? MR. HOWLAND-Again, it's a part-time house, but I mean, they asked us to put one in but we'd have to find a spot to do that. MR. DICKINSON-In a case of a power failure, pulling water from the lake, they won't be able to draw any water in a power failure. MR. JACKOSKI-But they're still going to have pressure in the system, in the tanks, that will allow them to use the toilets for at least a little bit. MR. DICKINSON-You might get some residual. Typically, like in your pump station, you could easily have 2 or 300 gallons of free water that's released. MR. KUHL-We usually require it when the houses are a pie, in case it were flushed down into the lake, and functionally you could say there is a leach towards where your system is going to be in the lake, not as drastic as some of the other ones we've come across. We ask that question just if there is a failure and I'm also understanding, and your point is valid, that you're pulling lake water. So you're not going to pull water, but still you're going to have a pressure tank that's probably got, what, 25 gallons in it? MR. DICKINSON-Maybe. The pump station, in this case, I believe is 1,000 gallon tank. At most it would have 200 gallons in it, let's say, if you kept your pump submerged. So I mean, if you're talking an extreme case of overflow, we're still talking six or eight hundred gallons. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. JACKOSKI-When the Town Board approved, I'm sorry, the Board of Health approved the plan for the septic system, did they address the generator at all? MRS. MOORE-It didn't go before the Board of Health. MR. JACKOSKI-It did not? Okay. MR. HOWLAND-They want us to put one in. We just don't know where it put it yet. The owners asked us to put a generator in this house, but it would probably go on the back side, on the road side of the house. MR. KUHL-I understand. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're very aware of the re-buffering requirements of the first 30 feet of the shoreline on projects being developed in Queensbury, right? MR. HOWLAND-Right now it's just lawn, and one large tree down by the, as you go down the steps to the dock or the ramp to the dock. MR. DICKINSON-And there is vegetation, dense vegetation on the bank. MR. JACKOSKI-But you'll comply with the buffering requirements? MR. HOWLAND-Yes. MR. DICKINSON-In the landscaping plan. MR. KUHL-And your comment about parking the car on the north side of Assembly Point Road. Do they own that property, or do they just use it? MR. HOWLAND-No, what I said was they park on this property now, on the north side of their property. The parking is being moved to the south side. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I am going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Mr. Water Keeper if you could. While the Water Keeper is taking the table, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, Chris. We haven't seen you in a while, so welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We'd like to recognize a couple of improvements on this project. The septic system, which will have water quality benefits along with some grass pavers which we think are a good implementation of low impact development. Some of our concerns were site oriented for the Planning Board, and we appreciate the Chairman's recognition of the buffer requirement and that'll be a comment forwarded to the Planning Board. Again, your intent is to balance the requested variance with the benefits sought by the applicant and potential impacts. It's our thought that it is asking a bit too much there. It's close to the floor area ratio. They are providing stormwater management, but it is only for what is required above the new impervious. It addresses nothing of the existing impervious. We feel that a good balance would be to consider stormwater management for the entire property which would address stormwater from the existing impervious surfaces, which would provide water quality improvement. Right now we're not improving stormwater runoff. We're just addressing the little bit of improvement or expansion that there is above the existing. So we feel we're okay with, the setbacks are getting close. The floor area ratio, we tend not to support that, but we feel that if stormwater is provided for the entire site development, not just the increase, we feel that that would be a good balance, since it's not an over the top expansion on the floor area ratio. So that's our comments on that. MR. JACKOSKI-And you'll be handling the stormwater matters with the Planning Board, correct? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. NAVITSKY-But we feel that, yes, we will raise that with the Planning Board. We feel that that is a condition that could possibly be tied to the variance also. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-On stormwater, to address the runoff on all impervious surfaces, if you look at their drawings, they only provided for the increase in impervious cover. If you look on Sheet Two where increase in impervious cover is 77 sq. ft., and that's what they've provided management for. So the existing impervious cover is not being, management's not provided for that. So we feel that it would be a good balance. The applicant could achieve what they want with the variance request, but also there could be improvements, further improvements, for water quality. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else here in the audience who'd like to address the Board? We have one more. DAVID HARTMAN MR. HARTMAN-Hi. My name's David Hartman of 51 Assembly Point Road. I figured I was here for my other reason, I might as well participate, but I just wanted to say I have no problem with what the applicant's proposing. I think I've looked into much of this myself. It's a reasonable improvement to the neighborhood. That's all. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening? There is no written comment. So I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I think, Dean, the only thing you really want to address at this point is the Water Keeper's suggestion that you provide stormwater management for the entire parcel, and that the Board possibly could make the approvals of the setback requirements, the floor area ratios, continued on all impervious surfaces being handled with stormwater. MR. DICKINSON-If I can address the stormwater there, we have the grass parking area, which is, by DEC standards, 100% pervious. Through the Town they've allowed 50%. So if you really take into account everything we're removing and the porous grass parking area, we're actually reducing our impervious surface, and even if you take the 50%, the 77 sq. ft. of increased impervious area is only 15 cubic feet of that. So I haven't exactly addressed all the stormwater on the site, but we've improved it considerably over what's there, by the pervious parking, reducing the impervious areas and also treating MR. JACKOSKI-What is the total impervious area of the parcel? MR. DICKINSON-950 sq. ft. MR. JACKOSKI-And there's no way to handle all of the stormwater related to that? MR. DICKINSON-There is no runoff on the parking. MR. JACKOSKI-Not just the parking, but the building, the sidewalks, the brick ways, the retaining walls. MR. DICKINSON-1 think we were just trying to find a balance between adding some stormwater management and also it is a small lot and we didn't want to encumber the entire lot with stormwater controls. MR. JACKOSKI-But you're encumbering the entire lot with a large house. MR. DICKINSON-The house footprint actually is only 87 sq. ft. larger than the existing house. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. It's a large house on a small parcel to begin with. Narrow site. MR. DICKINSON-Yes, it's definitely a pre-existing nonconforming parcel. MR. JACKOSKI-Board member comments? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. HENKEL-Well, they are 4.6% above the required permeability. Right? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-We're just trying to address the public's comments. Okay. Hearing no other Board member comments, I'm going to seek a polling of the Board. Is there anyone who'd like to volunteer to go first? MR. KUHL-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. MR. KUHL-I think it's an improvement to what's there now. I don't see any walkways to the boathouse but I assume that you're going to keep it as grass. MR. HOWLAND-We're taking a walkway out. We're removing all those. MR. KUHL-Why you didn't put infiltration trenches in the front of the house to take care of that water, I don't know. I think you're asking for minimum relief, and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else? MR. MC CABE-1 think overall the applicant is making a large improvement to the property and therefore I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I agree that it is an improvement on the property, but I'd also like to have the Planning Board look at ways that they could increase the infiltration on this property to control some of the stormwater. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I think they're doing, they're on the right track. I just understand the size difference, it would have been nice if you could have kept it on 1135 instead of bumping it up to 1220. That's kind of the rule that we try to do is if you're going to grandfather a nonconforming, expanding makes it tougher on all. So I would have liked to have seen them stay on the footprint for a nonconforming. They've done a good job of putting that forward. So I'll support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think, in my judgment they've made all the improvements they can and I would be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'd also be in favor of the project. They're definitely making quite a few improvements. They're not really changing the setbacks much there. They're taking away some slate walks that they've already got there and they're not building close to the lake. They're only asking for 188 sq. ft. over the floor area ratio. I would definitely be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. There we go. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion, please, for approval? MR. KUHL-I can make that motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey and Dawn Hamilton. Applicant proposes demolition of 1,135 sq. ft. home and removal of existing sidewalks and patios to replace with a 2-story single-family home. Also, proposing new septic system and 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) stormwater management. Project includes disturbance of greater than 5,000 sq. ft., new floor area of 2,188 sq. ft. The relief sought on the north side required 12 ft., proposed is 5.6 ft.; the relief is 6.4 ft. On the south side, the required is 12 ft., proposed is 8 ft. 3 in.; relief is 3 percent. The floor area allowed is 22 percent; the proposed is 24 percent where we are going to give relief of 2 percent. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 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. In making the determination whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood; this is an improvement; we believe minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit by the applicant could be achieved by some other method. Feasible alternatives are considered limited due to the site and the size of the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial; it could be considered moderate, at best. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood; we believe that it is minimal at best. And, we believe it is self-created. 5. Approval Conditions: a. We condition this that the applicant must follow the guidelines of the shoreline re- buffering of the Town of Queensbury. b. Also, the driveway should not be paved in the future unless they come back and ask for a variance. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2015, JEFFREY AND DAWN HAMILTON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-So can we condition this that the applicant must follow the guidelines of the shoreline re-buffering of the Town of Queensbury? MR. URRICO-Isn't that assumed? MR. JACKOSKI-No, it's not assumed. The Planning Board does not have to. I mean, so we've got a couple of things. What happens if they decide to pave their driveway? How do we manage that? MR. KUHL-There's no paving on this approval. MRS. MOORE- Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, but you know as well as I do that on a Saturday afternoon somebody's going to pave a driveway and there's nothing you can do a year from now. Are there any conditions we'd like to add to the application? MR. MC CABE-Could we add that? MRS. MOORE-You can add that, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I want to make sure that the shoreline re-buffering is taken care of. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2015) MR. KUHL-Okay. So then let's add that. MR. MC CABE-Also they cannot pave the drive? MR. JACKOSKI-Driveways should not be paved in the future unless they come back and ask for a variance. MRS. MOORE-They'd have to ask for a variance. MR. DICKINSON-1 was going to say, if we add stormwater controls or something. We don't have any plans now. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand, but they could sell the property. Somebody else could come in, pave it, cut all the trees down and that big tree out front goes away on a snowy winter day in February. We know it happens. All right. So we have those two conditions. Anything else? AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. Good luck. For the students, you can leave. You can tell your teacher you did a wonderful job here this evening. Is there any other business in front of the Board? Hearing none, could I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th day of November, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 22