Loading...
01-20-2016 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2016 INDEX Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust 2. PZ-0021-2015 Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Area Variance No. 60-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp. 7. PZ-0018-2015 Tax Map No. 288.00-1-54 Sign Variance No. 61-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp. 12. PZ-0020-2015 Tax Map No. 288.00-1-54 Use Variance No. PZ-0045-2015 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 18. Tax Map No. 278.-1-20 Area Variance No. PZ-0047-2015 Robert& Trisha End 24. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-31, 227.17-1-30 Area Variance No. PZ-0049-2015 John & Cathy Hodgkins 30. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-84 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 01/20/2016) JANUARY 20, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN HARRISON FREER MICHAEL MC CABE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-All right, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board for Wednesday, January 20th. Happy New Years to those of you who come to see us frequently and those of you who haven't been here before, welcome. We have some housekeeping, again, this evening, but for those of you who are here with applications, it's a very easy process. There are instructions on the back table. There is an agenda on the back table as well. We'll call each application up to the small table here. The applicants will listen to their applications being read into the record. We'll ask questions of the applicants. They'll provide us with additional information if necessary. We will open the public hearing when one has been advertised and we'll poll the Board accordingly and then determine what course of action we're going to take. It's a relatively easy process. We do have some housekeeping to take care of this evening being that it is our first meeting of 2016. The first of which is I would like to request a nomination for our office of Secretary, and I believe I need a motion to appoint our Secretary for the 2016 year. APPOINTMENT OF ZBA OFFICERS FOR YEAR 2016 MOTION TO APPOINT ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. The next item we have to deal with is the appointment of our Vice Chairman for the year. Do we have anyone interested in the Vice Chair position? MR. MC CABE-1 would be interested. MR. JACKOSKI-Is anyone else interested? No? Kyle shaking his head no frantically. Okay. We do have Mike. I need someone to nominate Mike, please. MOTION TO APPOINT MICHAEL MC CABE FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2016, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everybody. We're on our way. This evening we do have a six member Board instead of a seven member Board due to the fact that one of our alternates moved up to a permanent seat, we have no alternates currently identified to the Town, and one of our members is absent this evening. So if any applicant decides that they want to reschedule in order to have a full Board, I can't guarantee there'll be a full Board the next time, but you certainly allowed to request us to postpone your application to another meeting. However, we will open the public hearing for it since one was advertised, and we'll go forward from there. So we'll start right away. We need the approval of the meeting minutes of November 18tH APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 18, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-The first item on tonight's agenda is under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 PZ-0021-2015 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 THOMAS KNAPP, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll have Roy read the application into the record. I assume just anything that's new, right, Staff, or does he have to read the whole application? MRS. MOORE-He does not have to read the whole application in. MR. URRICO-Okay. What should I read in? MRS. MOORE-1 would say the lot size. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2015 PZ-0021-2015, Burnett Family Trust, Meeting Date: January 20, 2016 "Project Location: 11 Andrew Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision; lot size 28,639 sq. ft. Lot A and 28,754 sq. ft. Lot B. Relief requested from minimum road frontage, water frontage, and lot width requirements. Also, 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) 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. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —Waterfront residential, 179-4-050 frontage where Lot A does not have physical access. Parcel will require area variance as follows: Road Water frontage Lot width Lot size Lot A Lot B side frontage side setback Setbac ks Required 150 ft. 150 ft. 150 ft. 2 ac 20 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 87 ft. Lot A 96 ft., Lot 87 ft. each 28,639 sq. ft. Lot Lot A Lot B patio 2.8 each B 91 ft. A/ 28,754 sq. ft. 5.19 ft., covered Lot B 58481 sq. ft., porch 6.2 ft. ft. Relief 63 ft. Lot A 54 ft., Lot 63 ft. each 58481 sq. ft. 14.81 Patio 17.2 ft., each B 59 ft. (1.34 ac) Lot A/ ft. porch 13.8 ft. 58366 sq. ft. (1.34ac) Lot B 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 intent is to separate the two buildings onto individual lots 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 to no impact to the neighborhood where it is residential along Lake George. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff comments: The applicant requests relief for the subdivision of a parcel with two existing homes where variance relief is required. The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 1.32 acre parcel located in the waterfront residential zone. The real property information on the parcel indicates the cottage is on the south property and the cabin is located on the north parcel." MR. KNAPP-Tom Knapp, with Stafford, Carr, McNally on behalf of the applicant, Burnett Family Trust, and I think the information on the survey there I don't think is updated. I think there was another document that was provided that showed the updated measurements. The application is, the property is owned by more or less two individuals, the Burnett Family Trust and currently the Estate of David Burnett. The property, for some time, has more or less been used almost as two separate properties. Each proposed parcel has its own structure on it. I know the Burnett Family Trust has more or less maintained and used the structure located on the proposed Lot B. David Burnett, during his lifetime, used the structure located on Lot A. Really this property has been almost used as two separate properties for some time. Currently the Estate is looking to, you know, and the Burnett Family Trust are in agreement that this should 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) be subdivided and each party should have their own lot parcel. We've also been in discussion for, as far as easements are concerned, access from Parcel B to access Lot A in order to maintain buildings and any other structures on the property and the same thing with Proposed Lot A. There's also going to bean easement for Lot A to use the physical access from the road to access their property and also the driveway is going to be shared, as it kind of moves back and forth between both of the properties. This property was owned by the family for some time. I believe it was the previous owner, which was the father of the two current owners, had actually taken two different parcels and then put them together, adjusted the boundaries a little bit, but more or less this was two properties at one point in time, and, you know, no decision of the current owners, it was merged as one property, and they've been using it as such for the past probably 30, 40 years I believe. MR. JACKOSKI-Simple application. MR. KNAPP-Yes. Are there any questions from Board members at this time before we open up the public hearing? MR. FREER-Just to make sure that I understand the map. So each lot is .66 acres? MRS. MOORE-.66, yes. So, correct, Mr. Henkel is correct that the survey is, the numbers that I have shown on lot size, the survey shows the most updated arrangement. MR. HENKEL-I just got this in the mail the other day, so that was updated for what we have for a Staff sheet. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-.66 acres, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other clarifications before we open up the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open that public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? The Water Keeper? Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I just had a question on the septic systems, if they were on the same lot, because that may play into whatever relief there is. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you want to have an additional opportunity to speak once we have that answered? You may. Does the applicant's representative know if this is the case? MR. KNAPP-1 guess I don't know exactly where they are. It's my understanding that each parcel has their own system, that I think more or less they've maintained their own system over the years. I don't know for sure. My client isn't here. He was here last night but he isn't here today. My understanding was that there's really going to be no change to the physical makeup of the property. Each parcel is going to be able to function, you know, as its own parcel. There's not going to be any issue. MR. JACKOSKI-But if there's not, with all due respect, if there are not easements across easements necessary to maintain these septic systems, and there ends up being a feud between the two neighbors, how can we be assured that there's enough septic system capacity for each parcel should there be a definitive division of the ownership of the parcels of the maintenance of the parcels? MRS. MOORE-1 met on site with the APA and the property owner a few weeks ago, by now it's about a month ago, and we identified where those two septic systems are. They're on opposite sides of the house. The Lot A is in front of the house and Lot B is to the south of the house. So there are two different systems out there. We were clear that if they were to do anything to those buildings that they would need to install compliant septic systems so the APA is aware of that as well. MR. JACKOSKI-So is the Lot A septic system within 100 feet of the shore? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. HENKEL-It can't be. If they're saying it's the front, it's 109 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So is Staff referring to the front as the lakeside or the roadside? MRS. MOORE-The lakeside. MR. HENKEL-So it's 109 feet, the house is. So the septic system's got to be closer. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? Mr. Water Keeper, are you okay? MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, thanks. Anyone else here who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. Are there any other questions from Board members at this time? MR. NOONAN-I have a question. Let's say this application doesn't get approved and we keep it as, it stays as one lot, and then one home wants to be re-built on this property, the Planning Board would consider it a nonconforming lot right now and then it would, two parcels on one lot? MR. JACKOSKI-Because it would be two single family residences on one lot. Correct? We're going through that right now on. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So if they build anything differently on this property they're going to have to deal with. MR. NOONAN-So right now as a variance it's dimensional relief that they're asking for? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. NOONAN-Not a use. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. I struggle with the application simply because we've denied parcels, subdivisions on the lake before for as little as one one-hundredth of an acre with DeRocker on Knox Road, and plenty of lakefront, plenty of width, met the requirements of acreage, but, I'm sorry, they didn't quite meet that, and we told them no, and this one is asking for .66 acres out of two acre zoning. MR. NOONAN-Mr. Chairman, do you remember what the vote on that on was? Was it unanimous? Or was it a split vote? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just trying to stay consistent. I just remember the DeRocker project, but anyway, any other questions at this time before we take a vote? I'll poll the Board. Would anyone like to volunteer to go first? MR. HENKEL-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, John. MR. HENKEL-I think definitely each house should be on its own property, but I do struggle with this because the lack of property. If we allow this, later one when someone tears down one of their houses and wants to build a new one, it's going to create a lot of variances there. So I would not really be in favor of this the way it's presented right now with this lack of property and the whole variances that they're requiring to make this go. So I would not be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to volunteer? Harrison? MR. FREER-I, too, find this to be a significant request. It's not like, you know, some small percentage of relief that's requested. It's more than 1.3 acres on a two acre zone, and all of the side setbacks through the whole property there's just nothing there, and so if this gets approved as suggested we're sort of saying that you don't really think that the two acre zoning on the waterfront is what we want, and that's what the plan says. So I don't agree with this either. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Harrison. Mike, do you want to go next? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. MC CABE-Sure. It's an unusual property. Right now two acres doesn't exist. So there's two houses on less than two acres, and I support the idea that, you know, one house should be on one property. So I think that's the important issue here, and so I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Again, it is a tough application for me. Because if we do decide that as a Board this gets cut into two pieces of property, what's stopping every single neighbor from doing the same thing, putting up another small cabin on a .65 or so size piece of property and then that happening all the way through? But I have to make a decision based on what I see in front of me. I would also be not in favor of this application as currently proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think we do have an unusual situation. We already have two places of residence on this property, which is under two acres, but there seems like a way to get around what the intention was when we created the zoning in this area. So I think that looking at the test I believe creating this kind of situation further would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood. I think it would create a change in the neighborhood's environment in terms of the size of the lots. If we allow this we're basically changing the zoning for that area. Because it's going to be very hard to refuse somebody coming along with a lot size that's about the same size of this or smaller. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I would look at the balancing test as well, and I certainly feel that, as a Board, we are aware of the community, but also the environment, and I think that, I understand that there's two homes being used there now. If I could ask the applicant if the deed is currently in both names, the Trust and the Estate? MR. KNAPP-The deed is currently in one of the owners and tenants, the Burnett Family Trust. The other David Burnett who has recently passed about a year or so ago. MR. JACKOSKI-And was he the actual trustee of the Trust? MR. KNAPP-No, the trustee of the Trust is Steve Burnett. MR. JACKOSKI-But after Mr. Burnett passed away or before he passed away? MR. KNAPP-He was the trustee of the Trust before David Burnett passed away. So the Trust and David Burnett had owned the property at the same time. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. So I think being that the parcel is 1.32 acres to begin with, it's already under the two acre requirement, I think that the required lakefront which was 150 feet. Is that correct, Staff? And now we're down to 80 and 90-ish, again, extremely narrow. Topography issues of course, driveway issues. Because this runs with the land, I'm concerned that these two lots could then be built upon and these two homes could be torn down and start over. That might not be a bad thing for the lake because of stormwater management opportunities, but as I look at can they achieve the benefit sought by a different means, quite frankly they've been using this parcel in harmony already. So I don't know that they need this benefit that they're requesting of a subdivision. Part II, is there going to be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or the character, again, because this runs with the land, it provides additional opportunity for the applicants that they could both teardown both houses and build two new ones where at least they right now are going to be obligated right now if they do anything on that parcel come back and get variances and Planning Board approval. I do think this request is extremely substantial. They're already starting out with a substandard lot according to zoning and now we're splitting it in half. Will the request have adverse physical or environmental effects? Again, future development weighs heavily on my mind, and then finally whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. It's absolutely self-created. They can continue to use their land as is, and there's no, to me, I don't believe there's any harm to them by not having the subdivision. They've obviously been using the land for 30 to 40 years as it's been sitting there according to the applicant. So I, too, am not in favor of the application as it sits. To be very honest, I don't know what alternatives there are to come back to the Board, but that's not really up to us to have to determine at this. In polling the Board, you can see that there is concern. At this point I always allow the opportunity for the applicant to withdraw the application or request a tabling of the application or have the Board go ahead and formally vote. MR. KNAPP-I think at this time I would request a tabling of the application. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-So the public hearing is still open. I'll leave the public hearing open. The applicant has requested a tabling of the application to any particular month? MR. KNAPP-March, to give the parties time to discuss. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, could we do this the second meeting of March? I guess we'll do it the first meeting in March, right? With an application deadline of February 15tH MRS. MOORE-February 16tH MR. JACKOSKI-Again, the public hearing is still open. May I have a motion, please, to table this application as requested by the applicant? MR. NOONAN-I'll make it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. 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 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. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the first March meeting with a February 15th deadline for application submission date. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2015 PZ-0018-2015 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 61-2014; BP 2009-324 COWL ALT.; BP 97-157 ADDITION; BP 91-315 WALK-IN 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 CHUCK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-And I'll turn it over to Roy to read in the changes to the application. MR. URRICO-Am I reading them in one at a time? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think we probably should. Yes, let's do one at a time. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2015, PZ-0018-2015, Stewart's Shop Corp., Meeting Date: January 20, 2016 "Project Location: 1433 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: 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 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) permeability requirements in the Cl zoning district. Project subject to site plan: new convenience store with fuel. Relief Required: Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—Commercial Intensive (CI). Building rear Building side Canopy front Permeability setback (west) setback (south) setback (east) Required 25 ft. 20 ft. 75 ft. 30% Proposed 21 ft. 10 ft. 23 ft. 11% Relief 4 ft. 10 ft. 52 ft. 19% 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 size of the building, reduce the fuel canopy size or increase permeability. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact to the neighborhood as there is intensive commercial use in the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes demolition of an existing gas service station/convenience store and replace with a new 3,897 sq. ft. Stewart's Shop with three self-serve multi-product dispensers under a 1,500 sq. ft. canopy. The plans show the new location of the building to be on the south side of the property with the new fuel canopy to be at the north end. The applicant's plans include fuel delivery and refuse pick up travel routes access to the rear portion of the building and fueling area —as the area of pavement is the most extensive on the north side of the building. The applicant proposes landscaping primarily on the south side of the site and ties into the sidewalk system with the adjoining Lake George West outlets. The plans also show an adjustment to the south curb cut to be moved closer to the north curb cut. Relief is being requested for the building setbacks, fuel canopy setbacks and permeability." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, on January 19th, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed unanimously. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Pretty simple application but feel free to provide us with any details you'd like to in addition to what Roy just read into the record. MR. MARSHALL-Sure. My name's Chuck Marshall. I'm one of the real estate representatives from Stewart's. With me is Steve Kinley from my office. This is the existing Sunoco at 1433 State Route 9. It's in front of the French Mountain Commons. Just so we're aware, the site goes, the grade on the French Mountain side goes up here. There's a small retaining wall along here, and the property line takes a diagonal here. So some of the items that we're 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) seeking relief from would have been mitigated if the property line was even kept perpendicular to Route 9 there. Because that's approximately 6100 square feet, and that would have all been used for green space. We did try, initially, to do an interconnect which would have freed up this curb cut which was of issue, but we were not able to obtain that with the owner of the new outlet center. The property is a north and south running rectangle. When we look at sites and look at the constraints that come with them, the longer side is that way. So some of the relief that we're seeking is primarily due to the circulation of the fuel tank delivery and then the trash refuse pick up. We did, in agreement with the Planning Board recommendation, remove a parking spot here to accommodate this, but the reality is, is that we're trying to take a constrained site, make an improvement to it, versus what's there now. So I don't know if there's specific questions to specific aspects, but I'd be glad to answer them. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. FREER-Have you looked at any permeability mitigation? That, to me, is sort of one of the things that we try to get people to think about when they come here for a variance. MR. MARSHALL-Yes. Unfortunately as a DEC hot spot, it's difficult for us to mitigate in some of the ways that other sites with alternative drainage techniques can utilize. It's important to realize that even though we don't meet the percent permeability, the drainage will improve. What's there now is broken asphalt and defunct drywells. So part of our stormwater proposal is to install a number of drywells that exceed the requirement the area. So we're going to decrease the runoff off the existing site. So while we're not meeting the percentage, we're accommodating it through improved drywell and filtration. MR. FREER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you explain the DEC hot spot? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. As a petroleum bulk storage site DEC doesn't like stormwater to be mixed, you know, in the event of a petroleum spill at the gas pumps, they don't want the petroleum product entering the stormwater and then eventually being discharged into a, some type of outlet, whatever that may be. So what we do to prevent that is grading around the gas canopy, and then the installation of either snouts which are like a rag type system in the catch basins or just varying the catch basin levels. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any allowance in this plan for RV or recreation vehicle access or parking? It seems like a very tight spots, and one of the members was wondering if. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I mean, the reality is that with the circulation of the fuel tanker, RV's should theoretically be able to circulate in the same manner. MR. JACKOSKI-They can circulate, but if they want to get out and get something out of the store, where do they park their vehicles? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, that would be this parallel parking through here. I mean, that's really the only space to accommodate it without taking up, you know, if they backed in over here, they would extend into the second level of parking. What the parallel parking through here, or, I'm not sure the length of a typical RV. MR. HENKEL-Thirty. MR. MARSHALL-Thirty? MR. JACKOSKI-Thirty is reasonable. Thirty-five, forty. MR. MC CABE-If these guys are pulling a car. MR. JACKOSKI-Hopefully not 53. MR. MARSHALL-So two spaces would be 40, and they're, you know, not as wide. So we typically account for 30 feet between the fueling canopy and the back of parking, which is allowed for here, and that should enable a vehicle to extend into the drive lane and then have one pass through. If an RV were to be fueling, the reality is that they would probably back, they would have to pick the furthest fuel location that will allow circulation to other parts of the lot. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. HENKEL-I've got one question. The requirement is 26 spaces. You're providing 29 spaces. Now could you eliminate that? I'd rather give you a variance for spaces and increase the permeability. Because you could increase the permeability if you, like, say knocked it down to 24 spaces. I'd rather give you a variance for that then the variance for the, you know, relief for the 19% permeability. Is that a thought? MR. MARSHALL-It hadn't because there's essentially no good space to eliminate. So a parking space is roughly 200 square feet. So if you decrease the number of parking spaces, so let's say you eliminated these three parking spaces, or these four, you've eliminated only 800 square feet or you've eliminated 800 square feet of pavement. The site is just, it's 31,500 square feet. So one percent's, you know, 315 square feet. So even as you eliminate four spaces you're only talking about two percent. I mean, that's still. MR. HENKEL-Two percent's two percent, though. It helps. It counts towards permeability. MR. MARSHALL-We made the tradeoff by improving the drywell situation versus, you know, because the flipside is two percent is still looking for twelve percent relief versus, we feel the better case was to improve the, you know, management of the stormwater. MR. FREER-Wish you could do both, right, John? MR. HENKEL-It would provide room for bikes, Harrison. MR. MARSHALL-Let me tell you, this. It's easier to provide a bike rack than it would be to eliminate the parking spaces, but we did do that, and I guess that's one thing that would have gone unnoticed. I would say in this area here we'll provide a bike rack. MR. HENKEL-Yes, because there are a lot of bikers. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, no, that makes sense and I'll provide that note to our designers. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. NOONAN-1 was just curious. Was there thought given to the potential for causing any sort of traffic backup on that section of Route 9 as it is now? Because clearly if you've been down through there in the summertime, there's nothing to assist that traffic backup. Because it's terrible. It takes sometimes 45 minutes to go from the corner to the next one, to the next light. I didn't have that issue I thought until somebody mentioned that RV piece. MR. MARSHALL-Yes, so there's a couple of different ways of looking at that, and I'll go through them. The first one is when you look at a trip generation analysis ITE manual, we're actually decreasing the trip generated by decreasing the amount of gas pumps. So in the manual the driving factor is the number of pumps in am or pm. So here we're decreasing the number of pumps, and then by doing so decreasing the amount of trips. The second is is that if you look at this corridor, the reality is is that we're looking to pick up the southbound traffic and the Jolley is going to keep the northbound. I mean, you're not making a left into or out. The second thing we're doing is this curb cut, now, I believe is lined up with the curb cut to the outlets on the east side of the road. We're offsetting that. So those two vehicles aren't in conflict. MR. NOONAN-Thank you. MR. URRICO-I do have one question. I noticed you have a delivery pad on the back side, and there's a dumpster there at the end. So that's where the dumpster will be picked up? MR. MARSHALL-Yes. MR. URRICO-Are trucks going to be backing into that? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, that's shown on S-6, the pickup of the dumpster in the rear of the property. Again, for aesthetic purposes, there's a four or five foot, well, I guess the wall itself is three feet or something, but we thought it best to hide the dumpster on the back of the building, and then we accommodated that by showing the routing and then when the initial Planning Board meeting, which you'll hear in the second set of variances we're requesting, we appeared in November, and when we appeared in November we realized our deal is with Sandri Oil. Sandri's a Sunoco distributor. So our branding had to be Sunoco, which is why we're seeking some of the latter variances, and we realized when coming in that we didn't have the branding on the signage. So we eliminated the parking spaces in here to accommodate the better routing of the dumpster pickup. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. URRICO-So they'll be backing into that? MR. MARSHALL-No, they'll be pulling in and then backing out. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MARSHALL-Because if they pull in with, yes, they pull in. The forklifts are on the front, and then they dump the garbage over the top of the truck. MR. URRICO-That generally takes place in the morning. What about the other deliveries you'll be getting? MR. MARSHALL-Sure. We deliver most of the goods, especially in this area, come from our warehouse in Greenfield. They're on deliveries every three days. Outside deliveries are from Freihofers, and we, you know, we have pretty good control over when those deliveries will be made, but it would be the same. Here we do have a rear door delivery. I would anticipate a delivery truck following essentially the same routing as the, the same pattern as the fuel truck, and then backing to the delivery door with a rear ramp. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MARSHALL-One of the other things that we do that would, and I think that might be one of the, we, and I think it's true, are canopies are 17 feet tall, and our trucks are 14. So we pick up a little bit of room under the canopy for the circulation of the larger deliveries. MR. HENKEL-Would it take a little less room for the pumps to be angled instead of being square to the road there? MR. MARSHALL-It actually takes up more room when you turn them. Because of the separation between the, because if you turn these at a 60 or a 45, the space between, you lose space between them. So keeping them perpendicular is actually the best in this instance. So it creates an awkward, you have to swing in, but it creates a better out. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any written comment, Roy? MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no written comment, I'll poll the Board at this time. Would anyone like to go first? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-For this Area Variance, I do feel that it will be a better looking site than what's there now. Stewart's does a very good job. They own their own company. They want to make sure they have a nice product. So I'm in favor of this application as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other volunteers? Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. 1, too, would support this. I would like to see the permeability dropped because it's a pretty significant, but the fact that you addressed it leads me to support it as is, but I'd also ask you to look at, if there's ways to further mitigate permeability. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-The only concerns I have is the permeability and plus the RV parking and plus the bike parking also, but they've addressed that and I'd be on board with this project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. URRICO-Yes, I'd be in favor of the project as it's presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-So will 1. So I will close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NOONAN-I'll make the motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 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. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 2015, and Wednesday, January 20, 2016. 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 as we found that this is a business that will look nicer and have better environmental impact than what is there now. 2. There is no necessity for feasible alternatives. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not 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. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2015 & PZ-0018-2015 STEWART'S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016 by the following vote: MR. NOONAN-Actually, if I might ask Staff, the number is PZ-0018-2015, are those the new numbers? MR. JACKOSKI-Which one do you want us to use in our motion? MRS. MOORE-You're using them both. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-We're switching over to a new data system. So the numbers are going to be transposed a little bit, and then probably by June they'll be one number. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. 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 A 58 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND THREE WALL SIGNS WITH ONE ON THE STORE AND TWO ON THE FUEL CANOPY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FREESTANDING SIGN SETBACK AND NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF AV 60-2015; SP 59-2015; BP 2009-324 COWL ALT.; BP 97-157 ADDITION; BP 91-315 WALK-IN 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 CHUCK MARSHALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 61-2015, Stewart's Shops Corp, Meeting Date: January 20, 2016 "Project Location: 1433 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 58 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Project also includes 3 wall signs with one on the building and two on the fuel canopy. Relief requested from the minimum front and side setback requirements for the freestanding sign and number of walls signs. Relief Required: Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 140 Signage Sign setback front Sign setback # of walls signs side Allowed 25 ft. 25 ft. 1 Proposed 5 ft. 6 ft. 3 Relief 20 ft. 19 ft. 2 Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the free standing sign is located in proximity of an access for the adjoining property. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to locate the sign in a more compliant location and to reduce the number of walls sign. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The signs may have a minor impact on the neighborhood due to location and the number of wall signs. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 58 sq. ft. sign to advertise Stewart's Store and fuel prices. The sign is proposed to be located 5 ft. from the front property line and 6 ft. from the north side property line. Signs are allowed to be up to 60 sq. ft. with a setback of 25 ft. from all property lines. The wall signs as described are Stewart's at 17 sq. ft. and two Sunoco canopy signs at 14 sq. ft." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board also met on this 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 January 19th by a unanimous vote. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome back. MR. MARSHALL-Still Chuck Marshall. I'd like to handle the setback relief first and then go into the number of signs, but I want to make sure everyone has one of these. MR. URRICO-We have it. 0 MR. MARSHALL-Okay. As we discussed at the initial meeting of the Planning Board in November, the freestanding sign is actually, that is the only location it can go because it can't, there's not enough room as this grade goes up, for the French Mountain Commons. You can't put a sign further back because the benefit of the sign is the visibility, and the advertising of the pricing. We attempted to locate the pricing on the canopy because we thought that that was one version of relief. When we do that, because there's a prohibition in the Town on LED pricing, the only other alternative was scroll pricing, which is actually a manual scroll that allows automated changing of the pricing, but we can't physically fit that on the canopy. So the sign you have before you is actually a sign that will have, or will require personnel to manually change the pricing. So that is the only location that sign can go. The existing sign for the Sunoco is in this corner, but again, as indicated on the plans, their piece of the property differs as they use the short side of the rectangle and we propose to use the long side. For the number of signs, we're only proposing one Stewart's Shop sign on the building itself and the two Sunoco signs are, again, part of the Sunoco corporate signage policy. So those signs will all be externally illuminated with gooseneck lighting, and the Sunoco on the canopy will be individual cans, which is the cut material. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you explain a little bit about the size of the freestanding sign? MR. MARSHALL-Sure. We initially proposed essentially a 62.7 square feet freestanding sign. That sign would have been eight feet wide by seven feet ten inches. When we went before the Planning Board we realized we had to incorporate the Sunoco branding in the sign. We decreased the width of the sign, while increasing the height, and we now have a sign before you that's 57.6 square feet. What it does is as our supplier here is Sunoco, it labels the Sunoco, the Stewart's and then the regular and diesel pricing. We just went through, and in the Town of Queensbury which has I believe five other Stewart's, went through and did a complete sign makeover, and the sign that we've gone to is the Stewart's Shop with the underscore, but because of the desire to make the freestanding signs smaller, we've eliminated the Shops with the underscore here and just have Stewart's. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any other Board member questions at this time on the proposed application? MR. URRICO-Not all your signs in the Town are the same as this, though. They're not changeable manually only, are they? MR. MARSHALL-No, like the sign at Exit, on the west side, what we call West Glens Falls at the west side of Exist 18, that is the manual scroll. MR. URRICO-But not on Dix Avenue and Quaker Road, Dix Avenue there across from K-Mart? MR. MARSHALL-They all vary, and it varies by supplier. So if there's a Mobil or Sunoco, we have to alter the sign per location, but we've gone to almost all our building signs are the Stewart's Shop with the underscore. MR. URRICO-Doesn't that make it harder for the employees to change the sign? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, I mean, you know, again, outside the Town of Queensbury in other municipalities that have restrictions on LED pricing, almost all of our signs are LED, but we have to here go to a manual sign because there's no, if we went with the, you couldn't do a scroll sign. To make a scroll sign that is, displays both diesel and regular, the sign becomes wider again, and the variance request becomes more severe. So this, we felt, was the least of all evils. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any other questions. MR. NOONAN-So Sunoco has, I guess, the requirement that their part of the sign wants to be as big as it is? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. MARSHALL-Yes. This is a, Sunoco has a corporate signage program. So to sell Sunoco fuels, it's a chicken and an egg situation because they want to sell Sunoco fuels and then they give you requirements that you, you know, have to, in this instance, seek to meet. So, yes, we have to display Sunoco in the manner that we do. We had to have the signs approved by their corporate signage people. MR. HENKEL-There has to be two on the canopy? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, one visible from each elevation. MR. JACKOSKI-So given that the signs are so close to the road, is there any chance that we could get corporate to approve a smaller sign? MR. MARSHALL-Unfortunately I can't answer that question. I can ask it, but I can't answer it. If the Board was, I think I'm going to, you know, our company's very candid and, you know, try and do the best we can, as upfront as we can be. I can't see changing the freestanding sign. Because we've decreased it from our corporate signage program to match, or come into compliance with theirs, and I will remove the canopy signage, if that makes an application acceptable to the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-1 do not see any written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. At this time I'll poll the Board on the application. Any volunteers to go first? MR. MC CABE-I'll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. MR. MC CABE-1 respect the business that has the property visibility of their brand name. In this particular case it's a little different because it's actually two businesses in one location. I would support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other volunteers? MR. NOONAN-I'll go. I also support the project. Again, similar comments to last time. Stewart's, I think, I feel like does the best they can to work with each town, and this is the best plan. I think, you look at the Manchester store and, you know, how you work over there to make that work, and it's very specific to each town, and I think you did a good job making it fit, given all the constraints you have. So 1, too, would be in favor of this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I agree with my colleagues. We do need to review signs so that we don't get into some of the rolling dervish that we have seen, but it looks like you guys have at least taken into consideration how to do this in as painless a manner as possible, and so I support the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm bothered by the size of the sign. I know Stewart's is trying to accommodate like they have in other instances, and I think we have one set of regulations. We don't have sign regulations for every sign company that comes in. If we did that, then we would have a problem, and every corporation has what they want and it's the town that has to fight to make sure that we don't become inundated with signs that are all over the place of all sizes and garish, and I think there's opportunity to make the sign smaller, and also redu9ce the signs on the canopy as well. So I think we have to make a better effort. I would not approve this. MR. JACKOSKI-John? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think Stewart's is a great corporation. They're great to communities and everything, but I agree with Roy. As signs as a whole, I'm not picking on this situation, but I think it's a little too much for me also. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Before I cast my vote, can I confirm that there's no back lit signage here? MR. MARSHALL-Correct, there's no back lit. So all that's externally illuminated signage. MR. JACKOSKI-And that's the downcast lighting from on top? MR. MARSHALL-Yes, those are goosenecks visible for both the canopy and the freestanding sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you think the goosenecks are really going to illuminate down toward the bottom of that sign for the pricing of the gasoline? I noticed, by the way, you were at$2.99. MR. MARSHALL-I know. It's funny because people used to say, oh, are we going to get that pricing, and now they're like I wouldn't pay that price. It's, I mean, it's amazing, I personal can't believe that gas it, we have locations where it's $1.99. MR. JACKOSKI-But it is gooseneck down? MR. MARSHALL=Yes, there's no internally illuminated. MR. JACKOSKI-Stewart's also got that LED lit sign put in there on Dix Avenue and Quaker. So I'm just making sure. MR. MARSHALL-There are no LED components. MR. JACKOSKI-Not in this one. Did you develop that LED sign down on Dix and Quaker? MR. MARSHALL-I did not have anything to do with it, but I will say this, and I think obviously we have a number of stores within the Town. That LED pricing, if it was offensive or obtrusive, whatever you want to call it, it would solve the situation here that is not achievable in other means. So if you had or if you allowed LED pricing, we could take the pricing off the freestanding sign, which would address the concerns of the Board over the size of the freestanding sign and put it on the canopy, but we can't because it's not allowed. MR. JACKOSKI-Until our Town fathers change the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARSHALL-No, no, no, listen, I understand. I'm just saying that's one of the, you know, when we deal with a number of municipalities, trying to accommodate their requests, that's one of the go to moves we have. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay with the application as presented. So I'm a yes. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion, please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Do you want to do the SEQR first? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you for being on top of that, Mike. Excellent. That was Rick's job. MR. MC CABE-You guys put me in that position. Right? MR. JACKOSKI-Go for it, Mike. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 61-2015, Stewart's Shops Corp. 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016 , by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Now can I have a motion? 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 a 58 sq. ft. freestanding sign and three wall signs with one on the store and two on the fuel canopy. Relief requested for freestanding sign setback and number of wall signs. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 61-2015, Stewart's Shops Corp. 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 2015, and Wednesday, January 20, 2016 Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested Sign Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? There are very few options for the applicant so he can't really seek some other method here. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I do not believe that it's a substantial request. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It certainly is. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 61-2015 Stewart's Shops Corp., Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MARSHALL-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: USE VARIANCE NO. PZ-0045-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) YOUNG/SOMMER LLC OWNER(S) RYAN SESSELMAN ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 373 RT. 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES 199' LATTICE TOWER FOR CELL TOWER. THE PROJECT WILL OCCUR ON 100' X 100' AREA OF AN 11.81 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES UTILIZING AN EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE TO ACCESS THE PROJECT AREA. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS RESIDENTIAL USE AND AN EXISTING 297 FT. TALL RADIO TOWER. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION FOR PLACEMENT OF A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER IN AN RR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ- 0038-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.1.81 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040 DAVE BRENNAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. PZ-0045-2015, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Meeting Date: January 20, 2016 "Project Location: 373 Rt. 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 199' lattice tower for cell tower. The project will occur on 100' x 100' area of an 11.81 acre parcel. Project includes utilizing an existing gravel drive to access the project area. The site currently has residential use and an existing 297 ft. tall radio tower that has been evaluated for colocation and determined to have constructional constraints. Existing tower would need additional structural supports for Verizon usage — would not cover any additional add-ons— i.e. emergency services. Relief Required: Parcel will require a use variances as follows: 179-5-130 Telecommunication Towers — designated areas where relief is requested to locate the tower in a MDR zone that is not one of the allowed zones for a new cell tower location. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: The four (4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. Verizon Wireless is consider a public utility under New York decisional law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of "personal wireless services" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a use variance: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. The applicant has provided detail information about the gap in service of this area and the ability to place a structure with minimal impact to the surrounding area. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. The applicant has provided that service gap will be reduced by the placement of the structure and the height of the structure. 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. The applicant has provided site evaluation materials as outlined in the code. The applicant's project may be considered to be at a minimal and still provide the capacity needed for the area of coverage. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize a 10,000 sq. ft. area to install a 199 ft. lattice cellular tower and associated equipment. The area to be fenced in will be 75 ft. X75 ft. and will be accessed by an existing drive path on the site. The site also contains a home and existing 297 ft. radio tower." MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they adopted that on January 19th, 2016 by a six zero vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. A very straightforward application again this evening, but if you'd like to add anything to the record, please feel free to do so. MR. BRENNAN-Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dave Brennan with the law firm of Young Summer of Albany. By way of quick introduction with me is Steven Matthews to my left, who is a professional engineer who is with us tonight if there were any engineering type questions and further down is Rick Andrus who's a radio frequency or RF engineer with Verizon Wireless if there are any technical questions on RF propagation, and sitting over my right shoulder is Bob Watson who is a real estate specialist for Techtonic Engineering who did the site selection and knocks on doors and selects site for us. Just by way of a little additional background, this is located on the Sesselman property on 373 Route 149. There is an existing, you know, fairly visible well-known FM tower that's 297 feet tall located on that property, and by way of history, in 2001 Sprint PCS collocated a set of antennas at about the 200 foot centerline on that tower, and we did submit the structural analysis from 2001, and at that time, that tower was in the mid to high 90% of its structural capacity that was utilized in full with the addition of Sprint. We did first take a look at whether that tower could be reinforced and that is primarily why Steve is with me tonight if there were particular questions, but that tower is what we would classify as a light duty tower. At the top of it, spanning about the top, 30 feet, is a very large but not very visible FM antenna that was primarily designed back in the day for that light FM antenna. There was some capacity left that Sprint has used up. We initially took a look at if we could reinforce that tower, which we sometimes do, and it failed, in various iterations of trying to make it work at 171, 182 or 130%, various portions of its height, and the guy wires were at 120 or 150% of the capacity with Verizon not on it. Because it was failing so extremely, it would also require an engineering analysis and site investigation of the guy wires, the guy foundations as well as the tower foundations, which from what we could tell all needed to be reinforced and reinforcing the foundation and guy foundations is neither easy nor a preferable way to do things. Complicating this is that after Verizon were to do this work, a few things would fall into place. If we could get it reasonably with enough capacity to support Verizon, there would be no further capacity left on the tower for the next person. During this process we were contacted first by a Town Board member regarding the need for additional emergency services for the fire department in that area of the community and more recently, as a result of that interaction, by the Sheriff's Department and they're looking to add two 22 foot whips to the tower, and so that light duty tower is just not going to support that and certainly wouldn't support another carrier in the community. So as a result, what we've done is we've proposed an additional tower 300 feet, or 275 feet further north of that existing tower which will support the Verizon Wireless one and three additional carriers and that would be structurally sufficient for the emergency services needs of the community, and we've been in discussion with the Sheriff's Department about the process to get that space on the tower, and so I had a slight disagreement with the community about whether this was a permitted use or a non-permitted use. the Zoning Administrator determined it requires a Use Variance so we've submitted for the Use Variance, and in support of the Use Variance in and of itself is that we have the RF propagation maps in our materials indicating that we have a very large gap in service, primarily along 149, that is not covered other than by deploying a site in the vicinity to cover that gap, and so from our perspective the first thing we do is we look at other existing tall structures that we can collocate on. In this case there is a tall structure but it's not feasible to collocate on it, and so secondarily we decided to attempt to cluster the towers on the same spot so that we're not putting the towers on disparate locations in the community, rather than to keep them together. That's the quick overview of 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) what brings us here tonight. I imagine there's probably some specific questions. We'll just dive into those. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions at this time? MR. HENKEL-Didn't we approve a tower for AT&T on Ridge Road, and weren't they providing extra capacity for two other providers? MR. JACKOSKI-Two other providers. MR. BRENNAN-Sure, we do have, and we were asked, there were a couple of things that came up at the Planning Board meeting last night, one of which, and also Laura had mentioned that tower, and so we do have an RF plot. That tower is fairly removed to the east at the edge of where we're trying to serve. We did run a plot at the available height on that tower, the tower is 130? RICK ANDRUS MR. ANDRUS-Yes, the tower is 130. So best case we would be around 115. So, based on our analysis it would be a very good complement to our proposed site, but not a replacement for it. So it would definitely be a tower that we would look at. MR. JACKOSKI-Which area is going to get improved the coverage with this new tower that you're requesting, and Part II of my question is why not just take down the 297 and extend yours to be larger, and then have just one tower in the vicinity instead of two? Why not just add on to your height for the FM station? MR. BRENNAN-That did come up last night, and we were discussing that with the Planning Board last night. We discussed whether we should reinforce the foundation on our proposed tower as well as the base steel to get to the height that we want and then make it extendable, if at some point in the future it was desired to extend that tower and migrate the FM station over. I think the difficulty with doing that, possibly from the community's perspective, is that FM tower is a light duty tower. It's about I'd say a foot across on its face with guy wires which makes it fairly not visible as to the fact that it's painted white and orange, has a light on the top of it. The self-support tower that we're proposing at its base right now is approximately 20 feet across and it tapers to approximately six feet across at the top of it. If we were to extend that to 300 feet, those proportions would increase, and so what did come up during the site plan review process is whether that was viable, and I guess it's a question of whether the Town considers, you know, one slender tower and a smaller one behind it or one rather large tower, you know, again, we're keeping it at 199 feet which means it doesn't have to be painted or marked. The galvanized structure will fade to a weathered gray. If you go up 200 feet, whatever goes there and replaced, will need to be, again, painted and lit, and so we'd have a much wider, you know, lattice style. We're six feet on top now. We're going to be six or eight, again, six feet at the top with 300 feet, and the whole thing will be painted, and so as I was thinking about the Planning Board's comment last night, my concern would be you would actually create a more visible, like a monument. You would create certainly much more visibility when you paint white and orange something that's anywhere from twenty to, you know, six feet across. MR. JACKOSKI-So there's no engineering available in this world to reduce the height of that last 100 feet? You can't just, I don't understand if we can build skyscrapers the way we build them, I just don't understand the engineering. You tell me the engineers can't come up with a way to get to your six foot by six foot or whatever it is at the 199 mark and then just be a foot for the rest of the height. MR. ANDRUS-It would be one feet wide for. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, that's what it is now, correct? MR. ANDRUS-You would have to add guy wires to that to make it. So you'd essentially be recreating a guy tower. MR. JACKOSKI-And that's not possible? MR. ANDRUS-It's something we haven't looked at, at this site. MR. BRENNAN-The question was raised last evening about that. I've never seen a hybrid or self-supportive part guy on the top, not to say that they don't exist, shows either a monopole, a self-support or a guy tower. Is it possible? I imagine that we can look at that question. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-It just seems like the applicants come in to us and always promise us extra capacity, but then we never ever get collocations and extra capacities to be utilized other than maybe the emergency services through the Town. So, you know, how many of you are going to be there? AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, you've all got three or four extra collocation capabilities, but nobody ever seems to want to locate on somebody else's tower. MR. BRENNAN-Possibly you're not seeing it right now, but we do collocate on each other's towers regularly, and, you know, there's plenty of situations, you go by a tower, and there's two, three, four, there's one in Schenectady that I can think of that's got five or six sets of antennas. It certainly is a function, though, of the networks don't necessarily mirror each other. So what AT&T has just proposed, and it was approved in October or November, to the east, works for what they need and doesn't work for what we need because the networks, the frequencies aren't the same and the coverage patterns aren't exactly the same. So it is not an identical, you know, replacement, one for one, across the network. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're used to seeing those cute little charts or maps with all the red. So can you tell us what area is going to be better served by this tower that you're proposing? MR. BRENNAN-Sure. If you go to tab eight in the materials that were submitted, there's a before and after plot of what we're looking to serve, and it shows the center of the tower just north of the tip of Glen Lake, and then the next page will show the proposed coverage area. MR. ANDRUS-While we're looking at the plots, I'll hand out these other ones. MR. HENKEL-Laura, if it's required to be a three acre to have something on it, not because it's a lease, what's the reason? Just because it's not a three acre? MRS. MOORE-The way the Zoning Code for telecommunication towers. MR. BRENNAN-Can I give you copies for the Planning Board as well? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you. MR. URRICO-Is there a plan, I mean, is there an overall plan as to, I know we'll never probably ever see this built out, you know, in anticipation, but there must be some anticipating in terms of what, how many towers you're going to need, how many devices you're going to need to pass along the capacity that's going to be needed in this area. So how many more are we going to see of these types of towers that are going to be needed say in the next five or ten years? They seem to come piecemeal. We know the capacity is not going to be sufficient, you know, for a long time, right. You're going to need, there are going to be some other gaps that are going to come up as a result of this or because there's more people using devices. So where do we go from here? What's the next step? BOB WATSON MR. WATSON-1 can try to speak to that issue. I can tell you for sure that we have three additional sites in, for sure the Aviation Mall we're trying to collocate on the water tanks behind Aviation Mall. That's one project that we have in the works. We also are pursuing, we didn't realize that AT&T was approved for a new tower, but we're also looking at an sba tower that's, I believe, an hour probably east south east from where the AT&T tower was recently approved. The AT&T tower is better than this tower. So we may very well try to collocate on their tower in addition to the site that we're here for tonight. We're also trying to collocate on the tower right before you go into the Adirondack Park over towards Fort Anne. So those are, including this tower, the four active projects that we have currently within the Town or very close to the Town. So that would complete the stretch across 149, as well as solve, we have a major capacity issue in the area surrounding Aviation Mall. MR. URRICO-That's just Verizon. It's not? MR. WATSON-Correct, and then just to touch on the, you know, we seem to come in piecemeal. We have approximately six, seven hundred sites in queue and in the pipeline, so to speak. We build somewhere between 70 and 100 a year. So that's about a 10 year rolling process across the entire Upstate New York. So a lot of it is priority based on, you know, maybe they need more sites in Rochester or more in Buffalo, you know, down in the southern 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) end of the State. So the sites are spread all over the country. It's based on priority. That's why they tend to come in spurts where, it depends on where you end up in the queue. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, we approved a site on Top of the World. That's Verizon, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Where is that on this map? It's called Pilot Knob? MR. ANDRUS-It's right under the 105 and the. MR. JACKOSKI-I just never knew that Pilot Knob went all the way down there. MR. BRENNAN-It's an ongoing joke with me, so when the RF engineers, who don't necessarily live right in the community, look at a map, they're looking for large nearby features to call on a site, and so we don't go by the street addresses because it gets completely mindboggling to do something like 105 Main Street. So they pick, and then the site then might not end up right where it starts. They may migrate, but it keeps, because the search area is named after a geographic feature, and then as we find a site to put it in, sometimes it migrates, you know, in some cases several miles or, you know, as it falls. So, yes, we do pick up more often than not and I come in and we get teased by the community that you've named it after something that's nowhere near what they're calling it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I recall the promises that, and I remember being quoted in the newspaper being pleased that that was going to provide better service on the lake, especially for emergency communications for those boating on the lake, etc., but certainly for all of us along Assembly Point and Cleverdale and Rockhurst, and, quite frankly, I saw no benefit to that tower going on line. In fact I just found out tonight that it actually is on line. So, you know, when you come to us and you tell us all this is going to improve coverage, I didn't experience that. MR. WATSON-I'm not sure where Assembly Point is. Is it on the east? MR. JACKOSKI-The east shore. MR. WATSON-The west side between Lake George and Pilot Knob. MR. JACKOSKI-The east side between Lake George and Pilot Knob. That tower, which was supposed to improve, at least that's what the chart showed us when they came in front of us, it didn't. So how do we know these are going to really improve the service areas? MR. BRENNAN-Yes, so I guess one of the issues is that all sites moving forward are 4G only. So depending on which model of phone. So unfortunately like voice for a lot of people is still on the 3G network. SO all of our new sites do not support 3G technology. So you have to have a 4G advanced calling, they call it, or voice over LTE. MR. JACKOSKI-It says 4G LTE on my little phone. MR. BRENNAN-Right, but depending on which phone you have, there may be 4G data. Like pretty much every phone is 4G data now, but depending on which model you have, you have to opt in or go to a store and say I want 4G LTE voice, and assuming your phone is capable, then you would be o the 4G network. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Well, anyway. I don't think coverage exists at Dunham's Bay. It doesn't exist. I mean, I drive it every day. It does not exist. Upper Bay Road does not exist. I can see that in here. You show that it doesn't exist. You have to get to the top of Assembly Point before you can get coverage again, and then you go down the hill again, you lose coverage again. I'm just curious as we rely on all this technology that you provide us, and all these great graphs and charts, but how are you assured that you're really going to get that kind of coverage? I'm just curious. Anyway, enough of the application. Do we have any more on this one? I know it's an Unlisted SEQR, Mike. So hang on. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening for this application. Is there anyone here who would like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none that I can find. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. I'm going to poll the Board. Does anybody want to go first? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. These are one of those, I do think they're necessary to have, and again, looking at it from an emergency situation, if you end up calling someone in an emergency situation when you're on that stretch I think it would be important to have this coverage up that way. I do, you know, in your supporting documents, this picture here labeled P-9, Section 11, that tower that's there now, that 297 foot tower, you can see that from everywhere on the hill in Queensbury. I can see it from my neighborhood and I live over here somewhere. So the one that you're proposing, 199 feet, so it's just shy of 100 feet shorter, you won't see it from everywhere in Queensbury. So actually I'm okay with the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyone else want to volunteer? MR. MC CABE-1 find that the site or the area is pretty remote. I think it's well suited and the fact that there's already a radio tower there, I think it's well suited for a communication tower, and so therefore I will support the project. MR. HENKEL-I also agree. It's a good use of the land considering there's already a tower there. I agree with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I understand that cell towers are not the most sought after neighborhood occupants, but the reality is that we keep moving in to the 21St century with people using more data, there's a market for it, and you guys have done an adequate job to sort through so it makes sense, and so I support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I've been down the road before a few times with cell towers, and there have been many that are fairly obvious, but this is kind of innocuous in terms of its appearance, and I think, you know, this is the world we live in today. We need to have the service. Everybody demands the service, and we have to fill in the gaps as we get to them. I think this will be a good project where it's located and what it's going to look like. MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm okay as well, simply because if you do look at the three criterion associated with a Use Variance, I think they meet all three of those, so I'm satisfied with it as well. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to ask Mike to do an Unlisted SEQR. MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SEQRA LONG FORM WE'VE CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND FIND THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL HAVE NO UNDESIRABLE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE WELL DECLARE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just for your, they did submit a Long Form. So you can still say the same motion. I just wanted to clarify that it's a Long Form and not a Short Form. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I'll amend my statement to eliminate Short Form and include Long Form. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Now the next item will be for a motion to approve the application as stated. MR. FREER-I'll make that motion. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless for a variance from Section(s) 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes 199' lattice tower for cell tower. The project will occur on 100' x 100' area of an 11.81 acre parcel. Project includes utilizing an existing gravel drive to access the project area. The site currently has residential use and an existing 297 ft. tall radio tower. Variance: Relief requested from restriction for placement of a telecommunications tower in a RR-3A zoning district. The four (4) criteria usually associated with a Use Variance are different in this case. Verizon Wireless is consider a public utility under New York decisional law (Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of "personal wireless services"under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a Use Variance: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. It is our finding that: That this finding is met. 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. It is our finding that: This is the case based on the documentation that the applicant has provided. 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. It is our finding that: It is minimal. Based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant [ HAS ] demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SEQRA LONG FORM WE'VE CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND FIND THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL HAVE NO UNDESIRABLE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE WELL DECLARE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 201h day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl Based upon all of the above, I make a MOTION TO: APPROVE Use Variance PZ-0045- 2015 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; Introduced by: Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, Seconded by: John Henkel: Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations and good luck. MR. BRENNAN-Thank you for your help this evening. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0047-2015 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROBERT & TRISHA END AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 8 & 10 WATERS EDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON TWO PARCELS TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH FOOTPRINT OF 4633 SQ. FT. 7042 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA RATIO. PROJECT INCLUDES DISTURBANCE OF 35,855 SQ. FT. MAJOR STORM WATER — SITE PLAN REVIEW. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT, FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITHIN 100 FT. OF A WATER BODY. CROSS 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) REF SP PZ-0040-2015; AV 4-2001 GARAGE & SEPTIC; SEVERAL GARAGE AV'S & SP'S WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY AT LATER DATE LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES (COMBINED) TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-31, 227.17-1- 30 SECTION 147-11; 179-3-040; 179-40-050 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT END, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, AV # PZ-0047-2015, Robert & Trisha End, Meeting Date: January 20, 2016 "Project Location: 8 & 10 Waters Edge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of multiple buildings on two parcels to construct a single family home with footprint of 4633 sq. ft., 7042 sq. ft. floor area ratio. Project includes disturbance of 35,855 sq. ft., major storm water—site plan review. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from height, frontage on a public road, storm water management within 100 ft. of a water body. Height Stormwater Physical access Required 28 ft. max allowed 100 ft. or greater 50 ft. Proposed 29.9 ft. 54 ft., 28 ft. 45 ft. 0 ft.* frontage of 28.74 ft. is on Seelye Rd but driveway is proposed for Waters Edge Relief 1.9 ft. in excess 46 ft., 72 ft., 55 50 ft. 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. The project as proposed may have minimal to no change on the character of the neighborhood. 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. The project may be able to reduce the height to be more compliant. Due to the site location and configuration variance may be required for any development on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief for the variances 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 may have minimal impact on the environment as the applicant is updating septic and stormwater management for the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The site currently exists as two parcels with multiple structures that are to be removed. This also includes removal of a shoreline home and septic system. The property is to be graded for the placement of a single family structure, stormwater measures, and other site improvements. The new home is to have two floors and to have a floor area of 7,042 sq. ft. and compliant less than 22%. The floor plans shows master bedroom, great room, dining room, enclosed porch 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) area, and garage on main floor. The second floor is proposed to have additional bedrooms, rec area and bathrooms. The plans show additional shoreline plantings." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board introduced the motion and adopted it, based on its limited did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal other than a review of the relief requested. That was adopted January 19th by a six to zero vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. Very straightforward application, Dennis, but feel free to add whatever you would like. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I'm Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design Partnership, and I'm representing the applicant and property owners Bob and Trisha End. Bob is sitting here on my right and Trisha is in the audience along with Bill Dean who's the general contractor for the project, and Dennis Magowan who is an architect involved, and with me on my right is Mike Tuck from the architectural firm of Balzar & Tuck, project architects, and if that weren't enough, Mike O'Connor's in the back, in the bullpen. So thank you for hearing us tonight. This project, as explained, is somewhat unique in that the Ends own two lakefront parcels. The first where their residence is they've owned for 22 years, and along the way they were able to acquire the property to the north at 10 Waters Edge, and just for clarification, Waters Edge Drive is located off of Seelye Road. It has frontage on the Warner Bay side, that area of Cleverdale/Rockhurst. Again, they've owned both parcels and the proposal is to remove both residences and a guest cottage and a detached garage and a gazebo that are on those two parcels, merge the lots, and rebuild, re-develop this new single family residence. I should note that the existing structures, their current residence, is a pre-existing, nonconforming in terms of Iakeshore setback, as well as the property at 10 Waters Edge Drive, which, if you've been to the site, you can see that that is literally right on the water, and at about a 30 foot, 29 foot height. So Bob and Trisha have thought about this and how to best use the property in the future and they would like to merge the two lots and build one house. So this is sort of the reverse of what you hear regularly. It's taking, it's a less intensive use on the Iakeshore. There will be stormwater management, formal stormwater management that heretofore hasn't existed on either of those two lots. There'll be a decrease in impervious area from 11,000, roughly 11,000 square feet of grooves and driveways down to about 7200 square feet. So a vast decrease of impervious area, and in addition the stormwater management, while not necessarily required to address all of that, all of that new impervious is incorporated within the stormwater management system proposed, rain gardens being the primary method. We're able to capture runoff from the roofs and with the benefit of elevation we're able to provide that type of treatment and management. The three variances that we're after, building height is one. I'll get into the detail of that, and Mike will assist me in that explanation. Frontage on a public road because Waters Edge Drive is a private road. This is just really a housekeeping measure. Those are two issues that are Zoning Ordinance related, and then the third variance is stormwater ordinance related, in that the stormwater devices that we're proposing, because this is a major, would be classified as a major stormwater project, the standard is that any of those infiltration devices need to be 100 feet from the lake. You've seen this request before. It really is the basis of an inconsistency in the a in that zoning allows a house to be 50 feet away. The stormwater generated from that impervious surface falls there in that 50 to 100 foot zone, but yet the regulations state that the standard is supposed to be 100 feet. So we can't conform with that. We can't comply with that as it exists, so the mechanism is to request an Area Variance from this Board. So that's the essence of the proposal. We've got a lot of positive things. The one thing I didn't mention, another significant undertaking of the project is to remove over 300 feet of seawall and return that to a natural stone riprap along there. That's a real positive thing. DEC certainly discourages seawalls. The Town regulations, I think, discourage seawalls in the future as well. So while there is something there. It could be restored or rehabbed, but the owners felt it was important to make that move and remove the existing seawall and rebuild to that natural riprap formation that I think is better received, certainly, by DEC and all the different environmental committees. I want to talk a little bit about building height. I think that's the most significant variance that we're probably requesting, and it's really a function of the fact that lot, if you visited, it's a nice level lot. It's pretty desirable in terms of shorefront properties, but what comes with that is a relationship to groundwater, and if you can kind of assume that the groundwater is related to the lake level, we know that there's not a great differential there. So to have proper drainage around a foundation and a crawl space, not a basement, you wouldn't be able to build a basement in a location like that, to be able to go deep. You could only go up, because you'd want to be able to have the proper perimeter drainage around that foundation. So Mike and Dennis have worked hard to try to incorporate a design that would at least give some measure of a crawl space, and if you deciphered the materials provided you can see that we've got a crawl space that really has only 40 inches of headroom. The most restrictive area that we've got. Another 54 inches to the floor system. So it's a challenging space in itself, limited to that amount to be able to do the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) mechanical systems in that type of space, but again, the groundwater pushes us up. The building height standard pushes us down. So something had to give in this case and we've proposed a design that's at 29.9. So it's a little less than two foot of relief from the standard, but we feel that it's not only in keeping with the neighborhood. There's a house immediately to the south which is basically at the same elevation. The white house that is being removed is approximately that same elevation and Mike can get into some of the details on that, but we think that it's an appropriate relief granted in consideration of the other benefits, let's say, of the property. This new structure, you can recognize that it meets the setback, whereas the other two houses did not. It's one structure. It's far less impervious area. It's even actually less structure area in the one house than all the others combined that have been proposed for removal. So that's that, and maybe I'd give Mike and opportunity just to discuss a little bit of the height issue. MIKE TUCK MR. TUCK-Sure. Thank you. Just to talk about the building height for a moment. One of the things that we considered when we approached this project, the first of which was what would the form of this house be able to be if we didn't have a groundwater issue, and would we be able to create this in compliance and we tested it and were able to create a taller house that fit within the 28 foot height requirement, and then we considered if we were to go up, how high do we need to go up in order to get the groundwater issue resolved from the stormwater and maintains the separation from infiltration devices to this groundwater, and grade around the house to accomplish that would be about two and a half feet. So we initially were going to try and come up two and a half feet for the house, and then to the north, if you looked at the site plan, there's an existing mounded septic system that services the white house, 10 Waters Edge, which we thought would be a great opportunity to re-purpose as a stormwater system. It's already in place so we could cause less disturbance. The consequence of that is the top of that mound is at 327. So existing grade is about 323. So that would have brought us up four feet, and then we step back and we say, okay, we understand where the parameters and implications of groundwater. What does that do to the neighborhood, and looking at the existing house and its relationship to the lake and the height that that is, that sort of sets a precedence for what might be acceptable for the neighborhood without changing, adversely, the character, and then looking to the left on the top image to the south of the site, the neighboring structure, setting that as another reference point. So we felt that if we stayed generally within the heights of those two structures, we'd be maintaining the character of the neighborhood at a reasonable level. So that told us that about two feet would work. Four feet wouldn't feel right for the neighborhood and wouldn't feel good looking forward. Another aspect that I thought about were view considerations. Does adding height to this building, the requested two foot variance, impact neighbors in the area, and there really isn't a current review behind, due to the layers of vegetation that happen on other properties between eight and ten Waters Edge and the houses up on Seelye Road that are slightly elevated. So they don't have views now. If the houses were to all go away they wouldn't have views. We didn't see our proposal diminishing their views, and the next test that we thought about was the impact as viewed from the lake, and with the substantial tree and planting buffer that happened there's tall trees in the area that, relative to the landscape, this two foot relief would be, in our minds, very minor and not adversely impact the lake. So while we realize that we're asking for relief from an important variance, we felt that the two foot, or one point nine feet was relatively minor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Just to cover the other items briefly. The frontage on a Town road, or on a public road, that's really a housekeeping issue. This is a pre-existing condition. Access is from Waters Edge Drive which is a private road. As long as we were in the variance business here it was suggested that we include that so that cleans up that housekeeping issue. Because the access is from Waters Edge Drive, we're indicating that there's zero frontage on a public road. Technically there's about 28 feet that fronts on Seelye Road, but because the access is off of Waters Edge Drive we're asking for full relief on that, and the third thing is again, in the stormwater, Chapter 147 variance, which requires that 100 foot setback to the infiltration devices, we provided a design that really tucks the stormwater devices close to the structure. Again, we have the benefit of capturing from the roof area that's the impervious area that we're dealing with. We've incorporated rain gardens into that. That's another factor that comes into play, or it's a side benefit of raising that also, because now we can incorporate those devices and still maintain the required two foot vertical separation that's a technical requirement for those rain gardens. We don't meet 100 feet. We're seeking that relief on those three particular rain garden areas. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from Board members at this time before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, I'm opening the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this application? Chris? Staff? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-1 just had a correction in my Staff Notes. It indicated there was a new septic system and that's incorrect. It's going to be an updated or modification of the existing system on the site. Since there's two there now, they're modifying one to handle stormwater and the other one will be modified to handle the one dwelling unit on the site. MR. JACKOSKI-That will be all addressed by the Planning Board. Correct? MR. HENKEL-So you'll be using the septic system on the south side. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That's an existing five bedroom system that was approved by the Town. MR. HENKEL-And how far back is that from the lake? MR. MAC ELROY-Over 100 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Navitsky. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Water Keeper acknowledges the proposal for the installation of rain gardens for stormwater management and the removal of buildings on the shoreline and the water quality benefits that these actions can provide. I think it's also commendable about the removal of the seawall. I think that that is a very good aspect of that. I couldn't really tell by the drawings on that, but that is clearly a benefit. We do have some questions about the disturbance proposed and the potential impacts that that may have on natural conditions, and we do have a question whether the benefit to the applicant can be achieved by another method feasible by reducing the amount of fill proposed for the re-development. Waters Edge Road has experienced water problems for many years, and this development has been concentrated along the shoreline and has prevented the natural drainage patterns, really kind of created almost like a dam in keeping the runoff in which has caused flooding on the roads. It built the road up over the years, and that's perpetuated. The re-development proposes approximately three feet of fill that will further have effects on the drainage patterns, and they state that the building height is necessary to have a functional crawl space and that is understood. However, we ask if the site could be graded differently and causing natural drainage patterns toward the lake instead of along the south and maybe the north sides of those areas could be lowered. Possibly the natural drainage patterns coming, I guess north or east from the Seelye Road and down towards that point on the lake, if that could allow drainage to get down to the lake naturally, thus lowering the groundwater elevation. Also, it appears on the application that there are catch basins that are proposed along Waters Edge Road and piping that is being discharged towards the southern property line. I don't know. It's not labeled, but I don't believe that they're there now. So if that is the case and they're putting in catch basins and drainage, will that lower the effective groundwater level, and then also consider a reduction of the height variance. Again, we acknowledge the presence of the mature vegetation. We feel that it's in their benefit, and it would provide more mitigating measures if they would label the trees that would remain on the drawing and maybe the trees that would be removed that would correspond with the rendering that was shown. Regarding the rain gardens, we support that and we understand the variance. I will agree with Dennis on this, that there is an inconsistency on this, although we may feel the inconsistencies on separate matters such as maybe the building setback should be further back, but that's for another time. So we feel that possibly it could be to reconfigure the rain gardens. The one that has the 28 foot setback really kind of goes further, closer toward the lake and possibly could hug the building a bit more, you know, a few feet of relief, but that's a few feet more. So those are just our suggestions. We feel it's a good re-development of the project, but a couple of considerations and maybe clarifications on whether there is drainage that is proposed along Waters Edge. Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board on this application? Are there any written comments? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. Our names are Stephen and Caryn LaFleche and we live at 12 Waters Edge Drive in Queensbury. We have lived directly next door to Bob and Trisha End 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) since August of 2008. The purpose of this letter is to voice our full support for their proposed new home at 8 and 10 Waters Edge Drive, We have reviewed the plans with the Ends and do not have any issues with the variances being requested. The Ends cherish the magnificence and beauty of Lake George like we do and they go above and beyond to protect it. They are role models residents and great neighbors. I will not be in attendance at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Wednesday, January 20th. My wife Caryn will be in attendance as a show of our support for the project. Please let me know if you would like any further information from me before or after the meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Stephen P. LaFleche 12 Waters Edge Drive Queensbury, New York" "Dear Sirs: I offer this letter of information in relation to the submitted application for land and building construction (Type SPPZ-0040-2015 ordinance 147-11; 179-3-040; 179-4-050) in the area east of Waters Edge Road extending to Lake George, Warner Bay, Rockhurst and Queensbury. As a resident of 16 Waters Edge Road for over 55 years, I have observed many changes. Most seriously related to this application is the insidious rise in ground water levels involving not only the above application, but the multiple acres surrounding it. Also of concern has been the death of some dozen huge maple and willow trees and the clear subsidence of land (into the lake) over much of this acreage. These changes have been dramatically seen in the last 15-20 years. I submit this condition is due primarily to the rising ground water levels. Important history of this area as told to me some 50 years ago by Vernon West (Seelye-West) and the Hon. G. Thomas Moynihan was that now, some 100 years ago, the entire area (some '/4 mile of lake frontage) was "filled in" with impervious yellow clay and huge rocks to give foundation to all the homes of Waters Edge Road and Seelye Road North. For some 50 years the homes and septic systems functioned well. Those folks who then did the construction realized that the natural stream flowing east from Sandy Bay swamp and surface waters from Rockhurst Hill had to reach the lake. They effectively managed this problem by providing a 6 foot deep conduit of stone and gravel. This conduit passed under Seelye Road North across the 75 yard field and then under Waters Edge Road eastward toward the lake. For some 50 years this conduit nicely managed the natural flow of water to the lake. For the last 50 years however, there has been increasing evidence that this conduit has "filled in" and no longer drains the many acres east of Sandy Bay swamp and Seelye Road North. Most unfortunately, the "dam" is no longer simply the original fill supporting the homes, but now is the very access road to these homes-Waters Edge Road. Over the last 30 years this access road has been raised by well-meaning folks some 15-20 inches to "fill in" the potholes. This of course dams up the water in the field which naturally still runs over the road east to the lake. All of these areas see a rise in ground water including lands east of Waters Edge Road. Clearly the 6 foot deep conduit from Seelye Road North east under Waters Edge Road to the lake must be re-established. These acres will never be well habitable without it. Once this conduit is established and the ground water level significantly lowered, one can expect septic functions to improve, trees to live, earth to slow it's subsidence into the lake, access roads and property to become dry and importantly to see existing septic mounds come closer to compliance. Sincerely, J. George Russo, M.D." "Dear ZBA Members: We are neighbors to the south of Robert & Trisha End and are aware of their plans to demolish multiple buildings and construct a single family home at 8 & 10 Waters Edge Drive. We will not be available for the scheduled meeting and wish to address this proposal. We have reviewed the building plans and feel the changes will be positive for all neighbors, the Town and the lake. The removal of the two houses, guest house, unattached garage and gazebo with replacement of one home, although quite large, will improve surrounding neighbors' view of the lake. Besides uncluttering the property, conformance with the lake setback requirements should also be a healthful benefit to the lake compared to the current structures sitting on the edge of the lake. We also feel the requested two foot height variance will not be a detriment to our view or property and have no objection to the request and feel it is reasonable considering that the house at 10 Waters Edge is currently a non-conforming structure at the height variance being requested. Sincerely, Darwin DeLappa Cynthia DeLappa" And they are at 61 Seelye Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Anything to add concerning the Water Keeper's comments? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. The one issue Chris had observed, which was certainly more of a site plan issue and would be discussed in greater detail there, but on the frontage along Waters Edge Drive, as Chris observed, there is a series of catch basins and this is graded and installed for the purpose of capturing some of that up gradient westerly drainage that might be moving that way that is not necessarily taken into the groundwater regime, and brings it around into a, I would almost say it is a natural drainage pattern that exists on that site, in an area between the Ends' residence and DeLappa's to the south. There is an existing drainage way there. So that just encourages that water to make its way to that location and ultimately discharging. So that does clarify some confusion that Chris might have had from not seeing this on the variance plan. It's more readily addressed on the site plan because it's a drainage issue that he was correct in seeing that there was something there and in fact there is. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions before we poll the Board? So the LaFleche house, is that Bill Moynihan's old house? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Cindy, is she still working for the Park Commission? MR. MAC ELROY-The Park Commission, correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Got some good eyes watching over the project. Does anyone want to go first with polling the Board? MR. MC CABE-I'll go first. On the surface it looks like these variances requested are significant, but I'll have to say that the applicant, I think, has done an excellent job trying to balance the construction of a new house and doing an overall improvement of the property, and I do believe that the plan as presented will be an overall improvement of the property when you consider the property being the two lots. The height, we've been pretty stringent about not granting a lot of height relief, but in this particular instance I think you've explained the requirement well, and therefore I'll support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Mike. MR. NOONAN-I'll go next. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I'm less wordy than Mike on this one. I think it's a nice project. Again, the lengths that have been gone to to address a lot of the concerns are good. You have good people working with you so I would approve the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-The only concerns I had was the height also, and I think Mr. MacElroy did a nice job of explaining that and it's definitely better than those two projects that are there now so it's, I'd be for it, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I'm particularly happy that you're getting rid of that house that's sitting within zero feet of the lake because I think that supports what you're trying to do in terms of preserving the lake. So I think that getting rid of all the structures on 8 will be an interesting challenge, and I support the project. I'm just curious how long you think it's going to take to do. Do you have a timeline? BOB END MR. END-We are hoping, if we get the necessary approvals, that we would start construction, the demolition this spring, start construction in May. Hopefully be done this, May to May. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison you were a yes? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think the benefits to the community and to the applicant far outweigh any detrimental effects. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So am 1. 1 will close the public hearing, and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert & Trisha End. Applicant proposes demolition of multiple buildings on two parcels to construct a single family home with footprint of 4633 sq. ft., 7042 sq. ft. floor area ratio. Project includes disturbance of 35,855 sq. ft., major storm water — site plan review. Variance: Relief requested from height, frontage on a public road, storm water management within 100 ft. of a water body. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016; 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: Special Note: The Recording Device for the ZBA Meeting "cut-out" and the language was lost for transcription purposes; however, the application was Approved. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0047-2015, Robert & Trisha End, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0049-2015 SEQRA TYPE TYPE III JOHN & CATHY HODGKINS AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY, PE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 218 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OF 2,927 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF 1,081 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT; PROJECT WILL INCLUDE NEW STORMWATER, NEW SEPTIC, NEW PLANTINGS NAD GRADING ON SITE. PROJECT OCCURS WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORE. PROJECT INCLUDES RETAINING AN EXISTING GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED AND TWO ARE PROPOSED. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SP PZ-0041-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY AT LATER DATE LOT SIZE 0.61 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-84 SECTION 179-6-060 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN HODGKINS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0049-2015, John & Cathy Hodgkins, Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 "Project Location: 218 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a single family home of 2,927 sq. ft. Project includes demolition of 1,081 sq. ft. footprint; project will include new storm water, new septic, new plantings and grading on site. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shore. Project includes retaining an existing garage where only one is allowed and two are proposed. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from Section 179-5-020 for a second garage. Option 1 Garage# Allowed 1 Proposed 2. Relief 1. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) 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. The project to maintain an existing garage may be considered a change allowing two garages on one site. 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 remove the existing garage or to not include a garage in the proposed new single family home. The project may also consider the reduction of door width to convert to an oversize shed (different variance). 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 be considered to have minimal to no environmental impact on the neighborhood 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty can be considered to be self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a new single family dwelling with an attached garage and to maintain an existing garage on the site. The information provided shows the location of the existing and proposed buildings on the site. The project does include a new septic system, new plantings and stormwater management on the site. The new construction and site work is developed around the garage to remain." MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they adopted that on January 19th, 2016 by a six zero vote. Note: The Record in Device for the ZBA Meetin "cut-out" and a ortion of the meeting minutes was lost for transcription purposes; MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any questions from Board members at this time? Having no questions from Board members I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board on this application? Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "This letter of support is to be read into the record during the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 at 7 p.m. at the Queensbury Activities Center: I am writing this letter of support on behalf of Beverly Sebold, my aunt, who owns and is in the process of gifting to me her property at 222 Lake Parkway. This property lies adjacent southerly to the Hodgkins' property. John and Cathy Hodgkins have been wonderful neighbors for a number of years. The variances which they are requesting from the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals I believe are reasonable and would not affect the Sebold property. John and Cathy care deeply for Lake George and its health. They are thorough researches in this regard and are concerned about how people's activities interface with and affect the lake. They are responsible land owners and managers. The proposed second garage and the retention of the existing garage which lies adjacent to the north boundary of the Sebold property is of no consequence to us. The Hodgkins have put careful consideration into all aspects of their plan to create a suitable year-round place to live into their retirement years. As neighbors are in favor of their rebuild which will result in their year-round presence next door. They have always watched out for the Sebolds. Having the benefit of their watchful all year will be extremely reassuring for us as neighbors. Please grant the variances and give positive review of the matters which are under consideration. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey Sebold Greenwood 487 West Morris Rd. Morris, CT 06763" "We understand the subject variance request will be heard at the Wed., Jan. 20 meeting. We wish to comment on the request. As a neighbor at 26 Forest Rd., which abuts at the north-east corner of the subject property, we encourage the Board to approve the request to retain an existing garage, as is. Permitting the owners to retain the building as a garage can only improve the neighborhood, as compared to requiring that it be converted to an accessory structure. Converting the existing structure to a permitted size and use will not have a positive impact on the neighborhood. The square footage difference between a permitted structure compared to the size of the existing 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) structure is negligible. Changing the size of the existing garage door to a smaller permitted width will only contribute to a reduction in the appearance of the neighborhood. By retaining the structure as a garage, the owners will be able to continue to store large items inside, rather than requiring them to leave such items parked outside in the yard. In short, we believe that the structure size should remain unchanged and the Board's approval of the variance request is in the interest of both the property owner and their neighbors. Thank you. Dave Wilcox" 26 Forest Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. MR. HODGKINS-I do have a couple of comments, if I could. MR. JACKOSKI-Just hang on one second. I want to see if the Water Keeper would like to comment. MR. HODGKINS-I just want to put a couple of thoughts together. We did want a larger garage space area, but when we looked and had the two areas together, just to say the structure of the two is less than the allowed maximum structure of a garage on the property. Secondly, one of the reasons for keeping that is our electrical service does come through that building and allows us to have the underground electrical service into that building and down into the house as we build it. It does, you know, advantageous to us obviously we don't have to reconfigure that garage or build a larger garage on the other side, and the other thing is we avoid having, be able to store boats inside in the winter instead of having them outside with a tarp on the appearance of the neighborhood, detriment. We are keeping the other side of the road completely clear, except for the wastewater system over there. So it's going to be all wooded on that side, and in keeping with the nature it's going to look exactly like it does up there at this time, and I also did talk to the neighbor to the north and they had no problem with the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I poll the Board? Would anyone like to go first? MR. NOONAN-I'll go first. I don't have a problem with it as proposed. I'd be in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. A second garage is something we try not to do unless it's a five acre kind of thing, but in this case, it makes sense. You go through it and it's a reasonable request, and I hope this doesn't open the floodgates of us putting two garages on every stamp of property in Assembly Point, but I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Two garages on a small piece of property is not preferred, but that's why we judge each case on its merits, on its own, and in this case I think it makes sense to keep things the way they are. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-We've been pretty consistent in not allowing a second garage on a small property. I certainly would support the existing building with a smaller door, but I cannot support it as a second garage on a small property like this. So I'm against it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with it staying there. I just would want to maybe put it in the conditions that there can be no other sheds or anything put on the property. MR. HODGKINS-That's fine. MR. HENKEL-With that being the conditions, I'd be acceptable to, I like the project. You've moved away from the lake. You've put the septic system across the road. It's got a lot of pluses. So in most cases I would not allow a second garage, but I'll go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-And I feel the same way our secretary does. It's very rare that we do a second garage, but it is there. I do like where the septic system is located. I do think it goes over to the Planning Board next. John, I'm in favor of it as well. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. NOONAN-I'll do it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John & Cathy Hodgkins. Applicant proposes construction of a single family home of 2,927 sq. ft. Project includes demolition of 1,081 sq. ft. footprint; project will include new storm water, new septic, new plantings and grading on site. Project occurs within 50 ft. of 15% slopes and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shore. Project includes retaining an existing garage where only one is allowed and two are proposed. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief requested for second garage. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016; 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. 2. Feasible alternatives were discussed but we found on this Board that it was unnecessary to follow through with those. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as the structure already stands. I mean, it ultimately is 100% relief but the structure is already there. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty could be considered not self-created again as the structure was already in existence. 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. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) On this property there shall be no additional accessory structures or garages in the future. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0049-2015, John & Cathy Hodgkins, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, John. Good luck. MR. HODGKINS-Thank you. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other business Board members would like to address this evening? Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2016, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 20th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 36