Loading...
03-16-2016 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2016 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice H. Combs 2. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Area Variance PZ-0096-2016 Spruce Hospitality Group, LLC 4. CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 309.14-1-89.1 & 86.11 Area Variance No. 51-2015 Burnett Family Trust 5. Area Variance PZ-0021-2015 Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Area Variance PZ-0071-2016 Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises 11. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Sign Variance PZ-0072-2016 Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises 25. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 Area Variance PZ-0069-2016 Switchco, LLC 27. Tax Map No. 309.13-1-73 Area Variance PZ-0074-2016 Big Bay Lodging, LLC 32. Tax Map No. 309-13-2-2 thru 9 Area Variance PZ-0086-2016 Frank M. DeNardo 39. Tax Map No. 240.00-1-31 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 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY HARRISON FREER KYLE NOONAN MEMBERS ABSENT JOHN HENKEL MICHAEL MC CABE RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone. Welcome. I'd like to call to order the meeting this evening of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here before, it is actually a very easy process. We've got some housekeeping to do at the beginning here, some administrative items. Then we have Old Business followed by New Business, and we'll call each application up to the small table here. The applicant can certainly join us with their agents. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll listen to some more input. We'll open a public hearing when there is a public hearing advertised. We'll generally poll the Board, see where they're leaning so that we can give you some input and then take action accordingly and move on to the next agenda item. We are obviously a short Board this evening. So the first thing I want to do under housekeeping is offer to anyone here in the audience who is an applicant if you would prefer to postpone your application to a full Board, please know that you have to have a unanimous four of us approving your application this evening if we take a vote on it. So we always like to give you the opportunity of having more members available to vote on your application, but that's simply up to you. For those of you who are in the audience, is there anyone here this evening who would like to possibly postpone their project hearing? Come forward please. DENNIS PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, my name is Dennis Phillips. I'm here on behalf of Morris Combs and we would request a postponement of the public hearing until the next available time. MR. JACKOSKI-So I appreciate that because, Laura, correct me if I'm wrong, but because we have advertised it, I do have to open the public hearing, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-So what I'd like to do is do a very brief reading of your application into the record, very brief. Is that fair? And then we'll see if there's any written comments. We'll open the public hearing for anyone here to address the Board, but then we will make a motion to table this until the next available meeting. MR. PHILLIPS-And would you be holding the public hearing open until next time? MR. JACKOSKI-Absolutely. MR. PHILLIPS-So actually we can make a presentation next time as opposed to this time? MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to give the opportunity to anyone who is here to actually speak on your project, but we did advertise the public hearing. MR. PHILLIPS-Thank you. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So I'm going to do that now. I apologize to everybody. It's going to delay things a little bit. So the application that we're going to be hearing a tabling request on is Morris H. Combs. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015 SEQRA TYPE I MAURICE H. COMBS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING/MC PHILLIPS, FITZGERALD & CULLUM OWNER(S) MAURICE COMBS ZONING MDR LOCATION 636 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND DEVELOPMENT OF A 7-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH LOT SIZES RANGING FROM 1.01 ACRES TO 1.45 ACRES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION. CROSS REF SIB 6-2015; UV 71-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 9.09 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, if you could just briefly read in where we are at this point. The public hearing has been held open. MR. URRICO-Okay. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2015, Maurice H. Combs, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: 636 Corinth Road "Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes a 7 lot subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel with lots ranging from 1.01 ac to 1.45 ac. The project proposes 1,080 ft. cul-de-sac town road (1.18 ac) that has a single access on Corinth Road. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts Moderate Density Residential lot size requirements. MR. JACKOSKI-So again this application has been in front of us before. Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There is written comment. Should I read that in now or should I wait? MR. JACKOSKI-We'll wait until the next one. Nobody's going to comment on it. So we can wait until the next one. Unless you want to hear it now? MR. PHILLIPS-We'll wait. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you very much. Okay. So I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to request a motion to table to the next available date with the normal submission deadlines for May. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Maurice H. Combs. Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. Planning Board: Subdivision review required for subdivision. SEQR Type I —ZBA consented to Planning Board as Lead Agent on March 18, 2015; A public hearing was advertised and held on: April 22, 2015, August 19, 2015, October 21, 2015, and March 16, 2016 and left open; 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 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015, Maurice H. Combs at the request of the applicant's agent Dennis Phillips: Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: To the May, 18, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, with paperwork to be submitted by the April 15th deadline date. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-Is the May meeting okay, Dennis? MR. PHILLIPS-Do you have a date on that? MRS. MOORE-I have May 18tH MR. PHILLIPS-That's good. No April? MR. JACKOSKI-The problem is April's already. Go ahead, Laura, can we get it in for April? I mean, we're the ones that have got a short Board. MRS. MOORE-Right. So it's possible you may be short in April as well. That's why May would be a better date, if you're just concerned about the number of Board members that are going to be present. MR. JACKOSKI-We have four in April as well. May? MR. PHILLIPS-May is fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you for the resolution, Harrison. I do have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. URRICO-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Any further discussion? Call the vote. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Dennis. I appreciate it. The next item on the agenda this evening is the approval of the meeting minutes of February 17th. Could I have a motion for approval? APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 17, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2016, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: ZBA TO CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY PLANNING BOARD 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) AREA VARIANCE PZ-0096-2016 SEQRA TYPE COORDINATED SEQRA SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART, & RHODES, P.C. OWNER(S) BIG BOOM REALTY, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION MAIN STREET, OFF — EAST SIDE OF BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15, 310 SQ. FT. 3-STORY, 79-ROOM HOTEL (MARRIOTT HOTEL). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW: SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR MAIN STREET REQUIREMENTS. SEQRA: PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. CROSS REF SP PZ-0091-2016; SUP PZ-90-2016; BP 98-3170 SIGN; BP 97-573 ALTERATIONS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2016 LOT SIZE 17.46 & 2.93 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-89.1 & 86.11 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-Roy, why don't you just read in, again, a brief description. Is the applicant here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0096-2016, Spruce Hospitality Group, LLC, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: Main Street off— east side of Big Boom Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 15,310 sq. ft. (footprint), three story (45 ft. in height) approximately 45,930 sq. ft. of floor area, 79 room hotel and associated site work that includes installation of parking, landscaping, lighting, stormwater management and preparation for future development with some tree clearing. Project includes reconfiguration of two lots to accommodate 18.44 acre and 1.79 acre parcel. Part of the project is installation of sewer connections as an out of district user. The proposed project is subject to a variance for height relief. The project is located in the Main Street zone where a special use permit is part of the application for the parking at the front of the building. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the minimum building width due to the lot configuration." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Is there anything that the applicant would like to add at this time before we vote on this? MR. LAPPER-This is really just administrative. We're excited about this. That lot's been vacant since the O'Connor's stopped using it as a driving range and it's going to be much improved with the four story hotel. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone, I don't have to hold a public hearing on this. MRS. MOORE-No. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Spruce Hospitality Group, LLC. Applicant proposes construction of a 15,310 sq. ft. 3- story, 79-room hotel (Marriott Hotel). Relief requested from building height restrictions and minimum lot width requirements for the Main Street zoning district. Project subject to Planning Board review: Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit for Main Street requirements. SEQRA: Planning Board request for Lead Agency. SEQR Type Unlisted — Coordinate with Planning Board; MOTION TO ACCEPT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY FOR THE SEAR STATUS, PZ-0096-2016 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC (MARRIOTT HOTEL), Introduced By: Roy Urrico, who moved for its adoption, Seconded By: Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015 PZ-0021-2015 SEQRA TYPE II BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AGENT(S) DEBORAH SLEZAK COFFI, SLEZAK AND WILDGRUBE, 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. APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL PROJECT INFORMATION. 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 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179-4-050; 179-3-040 DEBORAH SLEZAK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2015, Burnett Family Trust, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: 11 Andrew Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-lot subdivision; lot size 28,661 sq. ft. Lot A and 28,730 sq. ft. Lot B. Relief requested from minimum road frontage, water frontage, and lot width requirements. Also, relief is requested from minimum lot size, property line setbacks for the WR zoning district. Subdivision approval is required for the creation of two lots from the one parent lot. Applicant has submitted additional project information. The document includes details on the history of the existing parcel being at one time two parcels, an average acreage of parcels, lake frontage and square footage of living area near to the project site. 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 Lot width Lot size Lot A Lot B side frontage frontage side setback Setbacks Required 150 ft. 150 ft. 150 ft. 2 ac 20 ft. 20 ft. Proposed 87 ft. each Lot A 90 ft. 87 +/- ft. Lot A 28,661 Lot A Lot B patio sq. ft. (0.66 ac) 5.19 ft., 2.8 ft., Lot B 90 ft. covered Lot B 28,730 porch 6.2 ft. sq. ft. (0.66 ac) Relief 63 ft. each Lot A 60 ft. 63 +/-ft. Lot A 58,459 14.81 ft. Patio 17.2 ft., sq. ft. (1.34 ac) porch 13.8 ft. Lot B 60 ft. / Lot B 58,390 sq. ft. (1.34ac) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) 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. The applicant has submitted additional information about the project site and the history of the two camps." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, hello. MS. SLEZAK-Hello. For the record my name is Deborah Slezak. I'm the new counsel for the Stephen Burnett Family Trust. The other applicant, the Estate of David Burnett, is represented by Matt Berry who is not present tonight, but I believe he sent, on behalf of the three children of that estate, a letter in support. Did you receive that as well? MRS. MOORE-They did this evening. MS. SLEZAK-It only came in this evening? MRS. MOORE-It should have been in their note packets. I know that there's a second copy with them this evening. MS. SLEZAK-Okay. So we have, since the last, and I just wanted to say this so that we're all on the same page since this is my first appearance before you, since the last time my client and his other attorney was here there has been this large submission. Yes, some have green and some have black folders, and then the letter of support from Mr. Berry who is the attorney for the estate. So, yes, they did receive those? Okay. MR. URRICO-I don't see the letter from Mr. Berry. MRS. MOORE-That's the information that you have in front of you. MR. URRICO-Is that this thing? MS. SLEZAK-The folder submission was in an effort to alleviate some of the concerns that it appeared the Board had from what we could tell from the audio transcripts from the last meeting that you had. It seems from looking at the five prongs in granting an Area Variance three of the five prongs are not a large concern of this Board, and again, since this is my first appearance before you I just want to make sure that, again, we're on the same page. What I mean by that is, and if the Board were to grant this Area Variance, it seems that an undesirable change would not be produced in the character of the neighborhood as there already are two cottages on this property. So the impact, if any, would be minimal to the neighborhood. The second prong, whether or not the benefit could be achieved by some other means, our argument is, and I think it's very supportable, is that there is no feasible alternative for the applicant to achieve this ends of for them to pursue. The property is held as tenants in common as between the two brothers for some time, since 1987, and sadly Mr. Burnett's brother has died, and at this point, as you 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) probably know, when one tenant in common dies, his or her share passes through their estate. So now the result of, one of the results, I should say, of Mr. Burnett's brother dying is that Mr. Burnett's share is held half in his trust and the other half by David Burnett's estate. The beneficiaries of that estate are his three children. They want to settle his estate. There are debts in that estate. The only asset of the estate is his half share in this camp, the cottage. So the only way, the only feasible way to get this to happen is for the property to be split I half, and his estate to be able to sell that one half estate and settle the estate. We see no other feasible alternative to achieve that end. Third, it is our opinion that the requested Area Variance is, in fact, not substantial, and the support for that is in the folder that you were given, actually prepared by my clients, in that when you look at the spread sheets prepared, and they are color coordinated, color coated, not color coordinated, excuse me, color coated, it would appear that in this case the Board could make a finding that this is not a substantial variance based on the documentation and the analysis because the resulting two lots will be in keeping with the other lots in the neighborhood. The other lots in the neighborhood are, in fact, on average, about the same size as the two resulting lots. Fourth, the proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Due to the fact that the property already has two cottages located thereon there's not going to be a change. Therefore, the variances granted would have minimal impact. Finally, the alleged difficulty in this case was not, in fact, self-created. The hardship, as demonstrated in the application, is as follows, and bear with me. I'm sorry this is repetitive. The property was held as tenants in common as between the two brothers. One brother has died and now his estate needs to be settled. This requires selling the estate's one half interest in the property. The other brother, Stephen Burnett, does not desire to sell his one half interest, and therein lies the problem. We have two owners with very different needs and interests. In addition, the underlying condition here, the fact that there are two cottages, was created in 1921 and 1923 respectively. That's when the two cottages were, in fact, built, and please note those dates pre-dated zoning, the dates of the two cottages being built. In addition, the gift of the property to the two brothers was in 1987 and that was something that they, the two brothers, did not have anything to do with. Mr. Burnett's father unilaterally gifted the property to him and his brother as tenants in common. There was no discussion, no planning. I do not mean to be pejorative as to how Mr., the elder Mr. Burnett planned this, but it has now created this untenable situation. In any event, should you disagree with me in any of my analysis and consider that this hardship is in fact self- created, this consideration, though relevant to the decision of the ZBA, does not necessarily preclude the granting of a variance. As you know, a number of years ago the New York State Court of Appeals, the highest court, ruled that a self-created hardship was only one factor to be taken into account in considering an application for an Area Variance and that it should not be the determinant factor. That's in matter of DiSiena versus Board of Zoning Appeals of Hemstead, a 1978 case. So in summary we ask that upon balancing these factors, the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby grant the Area Variance as it is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and because the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and it will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. So that is our presentation to support the submissions and we are, of course, open for any questions that you might have. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any Board members have questions at this time before I re-open the public hearing? MR. NOONAN-The other cabin, not yours, well, actually, what's the septic like for both of these cabins? Do you each have your own separate septic tanks or do you share? STEPHEN BURNETT MR. BURNETT-They're separate septic tanks. History is the cabin that my brother took possession of was the family cottage. We all grew up there. We knew everything about it. Before he moved in I serviced both septic systems on both houses. They're to the south of Lot B house and to the north of Lot A house, and they were marked and I believe Mrs. Moore also saw it during the APA survey on the 18th of December, when I gave an explanation for their questions and a tour of the property. MR. NOONAN-Is that the original septic system that's been in Lot A cabin original septic system? MR. BURNETT-1 haven't changed it. It was an original. Mine is working fine. I believe they were put in about the same time, and we've had, I guess, good luck from the floating classroom that comes in to our bay and tells us when they're on their ship doing studies that it's one of the cleanest and clearest places on Lake George, which is just off the end of our dock. So there's no hot spots in our area. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Laura, could you put up the overhead of the neighborhood? Any other questions from Board members at this time? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Roy, is there any additional written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-Other than the letter that they mentioned, no. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening that would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I just want to clarify some discussions I've had with Staff on the application. Was this lot ever two individual subdivided lots? MR. BURNETT-The history behind it is, according to my grandmother and my father, the property originally was part of my great-grandfather's estate. Upon his death, it was divided between the three sons. My grandfather got this property, and then his wife purchased the adjacent lot to the south that borders on Denise Freihofer's property. When my grandmother, a widow passed, my father and his brother and surviving sister-in-law inherited the property. My father owned, or I should say my grandmother owned the adjacent lot and she deeded that 100% to my father. The other lot that the two cottages are on was one lot, and that was deeded to the three sons or their estates, and so they would take one third of that but my father had the other portion. He then tried to buy out his siblings and sold approximately half of the adjacent lot to the south to buy them out, and that was in 1973. My grandmother died in 1971. So the two cottages were on one lot. There was an adjacent lot that when he divided the lot they merged the two. MS. SLEZAK-So this resulting lot is part of another, a quarter of it is part of another lot. MR. BURNETT-No, it's to the side, to the south side. MR. FREER-So which lot are we, can you? MR. BURNETT-Can I go up there? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, of course. Speak loudly or hopefully the microphone over your head will pick it up. MR. BURNETT-This is Mrs. Freihofer's lot. The stake and stones is here, and the marker for I believe our lot was right about here there was a stump of a pine tree that was the edge of the lot that the two cottages were on, and my father sold approximately half which I think they got a little bit more than half, but about 45 feet over here, Ms. Freihofer, well she has it now. It was sold to the Galley family, and then they sold to Ms. Freihofer, but the property runs from here, and it originally ran over to right about here, the edge of her dock. So I sold this much and kept that part, and then they were merged together, and they asked my father should we merge the lots or keep them separate, and he said, you know, one lot, but that was all done with no knowledge of his children. He was working to settle his father's estate. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions or comments from Board members? So the frustration I have with this is while it has been developed, it does not meet current Code, and I understand that it was developed before the Codes were in place, but once you subdivide this lot, it becomes an independently buildable two lots that can, in fact, have these cottages torn down and re-developed. Correct? It adds value, significant value, to the overall parcel value by having two separate lots. I don't know what the current assessment is and I'm certainly not an assessor, but we all know that two individual lots on Lake George are going to be worth a lot more than one lot with two houses on it. I think that's fair to say, so you're trying to capitalize on the maximum value of the property that you already own, but as far as the five items that we look at, I agree that the character of the neighborhood can't change. It's been that way since 1920 something, but it could change in the future once you get this subdivision, because two new houses can be built on that property then. We're not limiting the property to the existing improvements. That's not what your application is requesting. I do think that this is self- inflicted, so to speak, because either you could buy each other out, or you could just continue to be living on the property the way you've been living for the last 90 years, 95 years. I mean, it's been in the family like this since 1920 something. So there is no detriment, to me, to the applicant to continue on with their current use. It's been being used this way forever. MR. BURNETT-My nieces and nephew want out. They want to pay off their student loans. They don't want to be there. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, I do understand the economics of it, but if I had to make a decision for every family based on their own personal economics, I've got to look at the Town of Queensbury. The Town of Queensbury has this zoning in place for minimum lake frontage, minimum road frontage. We can certainly grant variances, and that's what we're here for, but I continue to struggle with this very uniquely shaped subdivision. You could continue using your property as is. MR. BURNETT-I've been paying the taxes for 26 years, not because I want to, but because I work for the government and I have a security clearance. If I don't pay my bills, I lose my job. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand paying taxes, but this one's a hard one for me because we have, this Board has continuously, and I can think of the DeRocker property for one foot we did not allow that subdivision to go through. So it's difficult to be consistent, and I understand your plight because you've got a family property that you've all inherited that's been overdeveloped with two properties, but that's what you've got. MR. BURNETT-They have provided nothing in support of the property or the taxes, nothing, sir, and I have been doing this. It's been a great detriment to my retirement plan, taking money out of my existing house to pay the bills on time. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that you may have family dynamic concerns. I certainly can appreciate that, but what I'm dealing with here is what we're dealing with with the zoning. MS. SLEZAK-Well, given that we do have, you had at the beginning advised us that there was a smaller group here and that we could not have it go to a vote, may I just have a moment? MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. Do you want to hear from other Board members first? MS. SLEZAK-Well, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, I think that's more reasonable, to give you some feedback. MS. SLEZAK-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll poll the Board and the public hearing is still left open. Would anybody like to volunteer to go first? Kyle? MR. NOONAN-All right. I'll go first. I was against this originally, when we spoke about it in a previous meeting, because of the precedent that could be set and some of the issues that we're currently facing in the Town of Queensbury with too much building on particular lots right around Lake George, and at this time I probably would still be against this project as proposed. I would say it's too much relief that's being requested. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, so 1, too, do not support this. I do appreciate the extensive amount of work to look at the properties and the sizes of lots and paperwork, and I did get through virtually all of this and I recognize that there's a lot of family dynamics and history here that you should be honored with and proud of, but that's history and we're dealing with the current Code and the current responsibilities in terms of maintaining the Code, and this is, in my opinion, a substantial deviation that there are other alternatives. They might not be totally pleasant to all, but from a County, or I mean from the Town's standpoint, asking for this variance I don't support because I think there are other remedies that might not be perfect but that don't dilute the zoning as it currently exists. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I hate to jump on you for the same reasons, but we would be creating two substandard lots in an area that, where the zoning has changed to two acres, and I don't think that's something that we can do. Our judgment cannot be based on, you know, as much as your personal situation is a problem, I understand that. We still have to make the judgment based on the Town Code, and I don't think this would be good planning. MR. JACKOSKI-And that's our frustration. It's nothing about you personally, but unfortunately we can't take that into consideration. We have to look at the top five criteria here, and I don't know how to solve your family problem, I really don't. MR. BURNETT-Then you're probably forcing me to sell. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, believe me, it's not I who is personally trying to do that. I want you to understand that we're bound by the Code set by the Town Board members. MR. BURNETT-Sir, I did a survey of the properties. Many of these properties have like .26 acres, .26 is very small, and there are many houses that only have like 454 feet, square feet. If I was to re-build, would I not be able to stay on the same footprint as what's there? Would that change the dynamics of the neighborhood? I'm on a 35 degree slope, from Lockhart Loop at the top, to water level, it's 100 feet elevation. MR. JACKOSKI-We know, and then that would trigger stormwater management control processes, when you re-develop that property to try to build in that footprint, it would require significant investment into those lots, and that's what I'm concerned about is that we're potentially creating an adverse impact to the neighborhood because when those lots get redeveloped there's an incredible amount of work that's going to have to go in to re-developing them to minimize and to mitigate the excessive slopes, the lack of road frontage, the permeability. There's a lot of relief being requested, but I'm only one Board member. There are four of us here, again, saying this is a tough one for this Board. Believe me, it's not very often, the attorneys in the audience will tell you it's not very often that we say no, but this is a tough one for us. MS. SLEZAK-How many Board members do you have total? MR. JACKOSKI-Right now we have four sitting Board members sitting here this evening. There are three others who. MS. SLEZAK-I can see that. So you have seven. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but if the four of us stay consistent, those three aren't going to help you any, and we do not have any alternates at this time. MR. URRICO-1 would still recommend you postpone the building. It might change, and we'll have three more members. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I wouldn't withdraw your application. MS. SLEZAK-No, we're not going to withdraw. I'm thinking we should. MR. BURNETT-I'm just disturbed that I've gone through this since the summertime and this is the first time that I've heard that there's a major problem. Variances on property, all I want to do is divide a line to let my siblings, not my siblings, my nieces and nephew settle their father's estate, pay their bills off, and maintain a piece of property for myself that's been in my family for 100 years. That's all I wanted to do. MS. SLEZAK-Is there any more information that we can provide that would help you or that could persuade you to change your mind? MR. JACKOSKI-And I'm going to address that. I don't think so based on the current information that is in front of us, and just so that you are aware, I think you heard us all say we all had the similar concern with this application since the beginning. So it's not the first time. You should have been made aware by your counsel. You should have been made aware by your agents that we had an issue with this. That's why you're hearing this. MR. BURNETT-It is, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-What I'm saying to you is you've come in front of us all these times, so there have been problems. MS. SLEZAK-I would propose that we table this until May, when the full Board will be here, and that will give us some time to regroup and perhaps make some further arguments, if that's acceptable. MR. JACKOSKI-Normally when we table an application, there is something substantive that's going to be changing. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-If you're just looking for additional information, supporting information. MS. SLEZAK-Can we adjourn until May when you have a full Board? Is that proper? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Certainly. I'm going to leave the public hearing open. At the request of the applicant we have a request for postponement of this application or continuance of this application with any new materials being submitted to the Board for the April typical deadlines for submission of materials. Could I have a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from: Burnett Family Trust & Estate of David Burnett. 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. Applicant has submitted additional project information. 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. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on; September 16, 2015, November 18, 2015, December 16, 2015; January 20, 2016; and March 16, 2016 and Left Open; 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: BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2015, BURNETT FAMILY TRUST AND ESTATE OF DAVID BURNETT, Until a meeting in May 2016; Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: At the request of the applicant. Any new materials to be submitted to the Board by the typical April deadline. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 2016 by the following vote: MS. SLEZAK-Is it tabled or postponed? MRS. MOORE-You're tabling the Area Variance, you're tabling the application due to the fact there's not enough members, or the applicant is asking you to table the motion because they would prefer a full Board review the application. Because you gave them that option. MS. SLEZAK-Okay. So this is procedurally all right? MR. JACKOSKI-I think so. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Again, our apologies. This is hard for us, too. We don't like having to do this, but this is a tough one for us. MR. BURNETT-1 drove a thousand miles tonight to get here. I've done this several times for the meeting. It's very hard to do this. I probably have 600,000 miles under my belt coming to these meetings. Thank you, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0071-2016 SEQRA TYPE II RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PC OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THREE MAIN BUILDINGS, SHED AND SOME SITE GRADING TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS IN THREE PHASES. FIRST BUILDING TO BE 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) 4,200 +/- SQ. FT. WITH PARKING FROM MAIN ST. TO PINE ST. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGING PARCELS CREATING TWO PARCELS. SECOND PHASE TO BE REMAINDER OF THE FIRST BUILDING 4,200 +/- SQ. FT., THEN THIRD PHASE IS TWO ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS 2,400 SQ. FT. AND 1,600 SQ. FT. WITH A DRIVE THROUGH. SEAR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED BLDG. 2 AND BLDG. 3 REQUIRE RELIEF FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (PINE STREET SIDE) AND BLDG. 3 REQUIRES MINIMUM SETBACK RELIEF FOR THE BANK DRIVE- THRU FOR THE MAIN STREET (MS) ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ-0073-2016; SV PZ-0072-2016; SUP PZ-0068-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24; 0.42; 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION 179-3- 040; 179-7-030; 179-7-070; 179-10-040 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0071-2016, Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: 75-79 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct three new buildings in three phases. First building to be 4,200 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. Second phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then third phase is two additional buildings 2,400 sq. ft. and 1,600 sq. ft. with a drive through. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested; Bldg.2 and Bldg. 3 require relief from minimum setback requirements (Pine Street side), and Bldg. 3 requires minimum setback relief for the bank drive-thru for the Main Street (MS) zoning District. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements, Building 2 and Building 3 are proposed to be located at 0 ft. setback from Pine Street where a 20 ft. setback is required. Section 179-7-070 Design Standards Main Street Drive thru windows are prohibited beyond 500 ft. of the Northway where the applicant proposes a bank drive-thru beyond 500 feet from the Northway -1,600 +/- ft. relief 1,100 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 for Building 2 and 3 are part of the third phase of the project where during Phase 1 all buildings on the parcels will be demolished and the third phase building areas would be seeded and grassed. All three Buildings are to be single story buildings where the existing buildings are greater than one story. The neighborhood view would be altered where the Main Street zoning encourages 2 story buildings and increasing the pedestrian activity. The applicant's request for a drive-through specific to a bank use would not be considered consistent with the new Main Street code. 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 indicates buildings 2 and 3 will be located on one parcel of 0.32 acres with a width 75 ft. There are no doors facing Pine Street only the drive through exit and two-way access drive for vehicles. The lot width for the proposed lot may be considered limiting feasible alternatives to location of the buildings as adjustments may reduce parking availability for the intended uses and site landscaping. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for setbacks and drive-through 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 main street zoning indicates the intent is to promote pedestrian interest and continuity; the street-level shops 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) shall be retail, office, professional office, gallery, personal service establishment, restaurant or tavern along Main Street. The zone also includes residential uses above the first and second floor are encouraged throughout the district. The project as proposed includes some elements of the Main Street items including the outdoor eating area and front building design but the variance requested would have an impact on the physical neighborhood in regards to the drive-thru and setbacks based on the code. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The project as proposed may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to redevelop three properties on Main Street for the phased construction of three commercial buildings. The variance is associated with proposed Lot 1 where two buildings noted as building 2 and 3 will be constructed as part of phase 3 and includes a drive thru. Variance relief is required for the setbacks of the two buildings on Pine Street and the construction of a drive-thru greater than 500 ft. from the Northway. The Board should be aware that considerable time and effort was spent developing the Main Street design standards. Staff would request careful consideration be given to the intent of these requirements and whether the Board's review of the balancing test would outweigh the detriments for granting changes to the requirements." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Did you want to present your project for us a little bit? I mean, it seems self-explanatory, but if you wouldn't mind just adding a little bit. Identify yourself for the record. MR. LANSING-For the record, I'm Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering representing Russ Faden who is here. Basically what I'd like to do is just go through our objectives for this evening. Obviously we'd like to ask the Board's consideration for granting of the three variances that we are asking for. I would like to note that this is a project that we've been working on for some time. We have been working with the Planning Board. We did submit a conceptual drawing several months ago to get feedback from the Planning Board. Obtained their feedback, modified the plan, adjusted the plan to suit their comments and we did prepare a full plan, water, sewer, things of that nature to develop the project. So we know it's buildable and something we'd like to move forward with. Basically the existing conditions we're at approximately 1.08 acres. There are three parcels, three existing structures on those three parcels. Surrounding uses, as the Board notes there's residential, commercial and there's a cemetery in the back rear portion of the property. We are zoned Main Street. As for our proposed conditions, we are proposing to demolish the three structures that are on the parcel. We're proposing the three buildings that are up on the board. The first building is Building Number One, which includes a restaurant and retail, approximately 8,200 square feet. There would be a Subway located within the front retail portion of that Building Number One which is depicted on the architectural rendering that we have for the Board to look at this evening. The second building, Building Number Two, would be a bank on that building. We are proposing a drive thru on the building. We did try to positon that drive thru on the back side of the building so it's not in direct view from Main Street, and we do feel that a drive thru for a bank is something that is highly desirable for a bank. As far as access for that drive thru, the access would be from the internal portion of the project. It would discharge out to Pine Street. That would be one way out to Pine Street. There would not be any entrances in that drive thru from the Pine Street area. Last but not least is Building Number Three which is an office building of approximately 1600 square feet for that back building. Access for the overall parcel, we are proposing full access from both Main Street and Pine Street, full access on Main Street on the southern side and then full access on Pine Street on the northern portion, and again that curb cut in the middle would be strictly a discharge for that drive thru and discharge only. Sidewalk system, we do have sidewalks throughout the project connecting each one of the uses within the project. So we've connected those pedestrians out to the Main Street area as well. There will be a sidewalk obviously along that to connect to other businesses along Main Street area. We are proposing an outdoor dining area as a part of the Subway restaurant. It is depicted in the rendering that we have prepared and it would be located on the south and southwest corner of the building wrapping around that building. Overall parking, we are proposing 70 parking spaces. We follow the Code for parking for each one of the uses. As far as our driveways, parking would all be proposed privately owned maintained by the applicant. Nothing is proposed for dedication to the Town in the form of maintenance. As far as utilities, water, storm and sewer, we would have public water, public sewer, and we would be managing any stormwater on site. Again, in tune with what we presented earlier, we have provided a full preliminary submission and we received comments from Chazen Engineering relative to water, 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) storm, sewer, grading, drainage, things of that nature. We have addressed those comments. As far as the variances that we are seeking this evening, the first one is relative to the sign location. It's my understanding that the Code requires 15 foot setback for the sign. Our sign is located just to the east of the full access drive on Main Street. That sign, as far as the area requirements and the sign, display area of the sign, we are proposing to meet the Code. As far as the setback, what we are proposing is a 10 foot variance from the Code. The Code requires a 15 foot setback from the right of way line. We are proposing a five foot setback. Our reason for that is that sign, if it were set back at the 15 foot mark, it would be behind the front facade of those buildings. So we feel that as far as motorists going up and down Main Street, we wanted that sign out so it was visible for motorists to be able to see and identify the different businesses that are on the parcel. That is the sign setback. The next variance that we're asking for is relative to the drive thru. The drive thru, again, is proposed on the northern side of the building. We feel it is screened very nicely from Main Street. It's not a primary function of the site. It's just an ancillary type use associated with the bank use. We feel it's secluded and secure from the main visibility of the road. It would provide a benefit to the site. Last but not least is relative to the setbacks of Building's Two and Three from Pine Street. The Code outlines a 20 foot setback from Pine Street. It is our opinion that it seems inconsistent with the Main Street zoning in that the Main Street zoning seems to be trying to push visibilities towards the roadway, street scape, street facade, interactive sidewalks. We'd like to ask permission for a variance from that setback, from 20 feet to 0 feet. We're basically putting that building very8 close to the property line, especially by the corner. There's one corner of the property where there's basically a cut through the corner of the property, and that's where that setback is proposed to go down to 0 feet. That's essentially it for the variances that we are requesting. We'd like to answer any questions we could possibly answer from the Board, but we'd like to ask the Board's consideration for granting of the three variances. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Thank you. So I'll start. I have a couple of questions. As you probably read the Code, it's encouraged that there's residential use above the buildings, and I'm wondering why you chose not to take a look at that and add the residential component to the development of the project? MR. FADEN-That was more of an economic decision on my part. I wanted to keep it one story commercial. I know that they had recommended that they want two story with residential on top, but I felt the overall project that isn't what I wanted to do with the property. MR. JACKOSKI-And you own the property now, you've already bought it? MR. FADEN-It's under contract. MR. JACKOSKI-Because, I mean, the little house, I call it the little house. I don't know what it is anymore, but at the corner of Western and this Main Street corridor, we really paid attention to making that building appear to have a second story. So we're very focused on maintaining that criteria that the Board has recommended. MR. FADEN-I believe we made the height of the building 17 feet. We proposed it as 15, so it will probably appear as more of a single story, but it is 17 feet high. MR. JACKOSKI-It's clearly used as a single story. The appearance, the Main Street corridor is all that second level. That's just my concern, and that the bank consideration for me, the drive thru, the Town has spent a lot of time on this Main Street corridor, the thought behind developing this corridor. So having that drive thru and that bank more than 500 feet from the I- 87 corridor is three times farther than what they were hoping. Do you have another use that you could use that for instead of having a drive thru? MR. FADEN-Currently, no, and again, the development of the project, that's going to be phased. That's going to be Phase II. A bank seemed to be the best fit for that location based on the set up, because the Subway restaurant, we wanted parking on the side. There's not a lot of room for a building to the west side of that. We felt that a bank, from a development standpoint, was the best fit there, and 95% of banks require drive thrus. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members? MR. URRICO-No, I agree. I think we have two big problems here, and one is the drive thru and the second is not having the second story. MRS. MOORE-The second story is an issue with the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right. MR. FREER-When you say that you mean because they changed the zoning law, we can't consider? MRS. MOORE-You can consider, you can consider everything. MR. JACKOSKI-We can consider the setbacks. They're looking to develop the site with these kinds of setbacks. We could force the buildings to get closer to the center. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-And that causes all kinds of crises, but that's our task. MRS. MOORE-But the Special Use permit criteria so someone, so the applicant, because of the zoning the Special Use criteria kicks in because this applicant is proposing one story, but the one story is not an Area Variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. URRICO-But the Staff seems to make a special point of that twice. So is it an issue or is it not an issue? MRS. MOORE-1 just don't want you to get caught up that it's not an area variance. I'm making you aware of it, but I sort of caught the impression that you were trying to make it part of the Area Variance itself. MR. JACKOSKI-But here's what I look at as far as the setbacks are concerned. So we grant these variances, develop this site, which goes with the land forever and ever, develop the site closer to the lot lines, and then they go up two or three stories. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I think that's important to know whether those tall buildings are along the side road or not and it's being done in phases, Phase 1, Phase 11, and Phase III. So I think it's great that you're not segmenting the property. I mean, it's important you came to us with the whole master plan because it's not coming to us in bits and pieces. MRS. MOORE-1 follow your logic. I agree with what you're proceeding with. MR. JACKOSKI-The Town just recently went through and re-evaluated this whole Main Street corridor and really stuck to their guns on certain aspects of what they want to see there. We're charged with making sure that that vision isn't violated significantly. I mean, not every project can be, we've got three lots here. It's a good sized parcel. We're asking for three variances that aren't necessarily going to have development be in keeping with what the Town wants there. Not what I want, it's what the Town says they want. Any other comments from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is public comment. This is comment for the Planning Board, but "Due to prior commitment we are unable to attend tonight's Planning Board meeting. As property owners in the area we would like our opinions heard. We feel that setback relief should not be granted for the sign proposed. This intersection is one of the busiest in the area and the sign could pose a traffic hazard. In regards to the building project, we feel that this project will create traffic hazards on an already congested road. To have a drive thru bank entering or exiting on Main Street would be a major hazard and could the turning lane into a traveled lane posing more chance for traffic accidents. We have seen traffic accidents occur in the Broad Street area where the bank is located and feel that this relief should not be granted. A project of this size would be better served on the other side of the Northway where the traffic is less congested. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Phillip Steves Trina Steves" 74 Main Street. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Are there any other written comments? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I see several people. So if you could give up the table for a little bit. DOREEN WALL MS. WALL-My name's Doreen Wall. I'm 19 Pine Street. MR. JACKOSKI-So you're right behind. MS. WALL-I'm the only residence on Pine. I sit next to the cemetery, and the main reason I wanted to come was just to place some concern on traffic. It's going to be a huge concern. Pine Street, as of right now, is already a cut through. I mean people fly up and down through there all the time, and other than, it's all residential out through there. You've got the cemetery on the one side and the rest of it's all residential. Except for where it comes to Main Street. So obviously traffic is a concern. Secondly I was also concerned, it's going to come right to my property. I have children and I have grandchildren. I have pets. My concern is what they were looking at as far as fencing or something to distinguish, you know, the property so that 1, you know, I don't have to look at it all the time. I think it's great that they're wanting to do something with, those houses are an eyesore. They've been an eyesore for a long time, but that's my biggest concern was just the traffic and wanting to make sure that my home is protected from, you know, parking lots. I heard a tavern mentioned. I'm not really crazy about there being anything like that in there, then we look at a whole other problem with drinking and activity like that. So, yes, there's some concerns, but that's my biggest concern is the traffic. MR. JACKOSKI-And I appreciate that and so what I'm going to say to you is I think it's imperative that you attend the Planning Board meetings when they do have this application in front of the Planning Board because those types of discussions will be had regarding the landscaping, screening, traffic studies, all that kind of stuff. That's where they will get into that element of this project significantly. MS. WALL-So as a homeowner I will be notified of whenever there'll be hearings with this? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you'll be notified. MR. JACKOSKI-But it doesn't hurt you to go out and check the internet site, because the agendas are online every month. The Planning Board meetings the third and fourth Tuesdays of every month. So you can at least check out the agendas, but it is imperative that you go to those Planning Board meetings. MS. WALL-Okay, and I know they have all these things that are already set in place as far as the corridor and stuff. I personally don't have an issue with there being a single level building there. I wasn't really sure what their theory was with the double buildings and that, but I don't have a problem with something being single. I actually think it might be more beneficial for me if it wasn't something large. MR. JACKOSKI-That's very important for us to here. Thank you. MS. WALL-Okay. So that's my concern. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-Hi. I'm Don Daniels. I own six different properties east of this property. We've all been struggling, and I know you people have, the Planning Board with this Main Street zone, and we've already had a lot of changes and there's a lot more coming because of different things. We have a bunch of crappy houses and buildings all up and down a beautiful street. The Main Street zone has created lots of different problems, you know, for us and the bank that they're talking about, I don't know if there's any bank anywhere that would build or go into a bank with apartments upstairs. No Subway shop, no restaurant shop is going to have any apartments living above it. Nobody wants them. I've got two or three restaurants myself where I had apartments, and they dump some water or a toilet goes over it runs into the restaurant, it 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) doesn't make any sense, and we don't have any bike lanes out there. The Town would like to have parking behind all the buildings, and if there are children out there, where are they going to ride their bikes, in the parking lot? Running into people's cars? It's illegal to ride on the sidewalk, which is right on the edge of the street anyway. There's no place to get off if you're riding along the side of the street. Even the people that ride their bikes, you know, the curbing out there. So it's really quite a problem. I mean, you have to deal with this problem and I sympathize. I would like to do some developing of my properties, but not under these circumstances. Everything can fall down like half the buildings out there are collapsing and, you know, we've got a nice sign out by the Northway Welcome to Queensbury and I'm sure tourists and other people that come off that Northway Welcome to Queensbury and drive into Glens Falls and see nothing but junk on the sides of the road. So it's a real problem, and I know you have to deal with it and John Strough is dealing with it. Billy VanNess out there in his district. So those are my comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Thank you. Is there anyone else this evening who'd like to address the Board on this application? If the applicants wouldn't mind coming back to the table for us. You've heard some of the public comment. Do you have anything further? MR. LANSING-Some things, first off, as far as traffic. Again, we have been working with the Planning Board and the Town designated engineer, Chazen Engineering. They do have traffic engineers on staff, and they did not voice any concerns about significant traffic impacts for a project of this size. Just to note the proposed Subway, in our opinion, is something that's not a destination. It's more of a people passing by. So we don't see that as a high trip generator, and as far as the other uses on the site, we feel that they're relatively small in size and also would not be significant trip generators for the site or for the area. So from a traffic standpoint we think we'll do okay in that regard. As far as fencing and buffers, I know it's not necessarily the purview of this Board, but just to address that, on the other side of the site we are proposing a fence, a six foot high stockade fence, and we're also providing five to six foot high arborvitaes planted along that section of the property. So we feel like we are providing that screening in accordance with the Code for that area. As far as, there was mention of a tavern. I don't recall anything in the application outlining a tavern. I don't think we've mentioned that. That's not a proposal at the present time, and then lastly as far as the drive thru, we do recognize that that is a concern of the Board, but it's our opinion that the Main Street code outlines a drive thru within 500 feet of the Northway, and it's our opinion that the intention of that was more for heavily drive thru focus type uses like fast food restaurants or something like that that would be close by the Northway, close by the traffic on the Northway, and we think that, in our opinion, that was the intent of the Code. As far as a drive thru for a bank, a bank is an allowed use in the zone, and it's our opinion that the bank would want some type of drive thru facility for their site. So we view that as a permitted use within the zone. We're asking for some flexibility relative to the drive thru for the particular site. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I will say that my financial advisor is located in Downtown Glens Falls above the Subway there and I get that every time I go into that office because it smells so good. I can understand why a residence might be a problem. Staff, do you think it was the intent of the Town Board, when they allowed banks as a use, that they automatically intended that the banks would have a drive thru? MRS. MOORE-1 can't answer that question. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, that's really the big question here is when they meant drive thru were they meaning only restaurant drive thrus? MRS. MOORE-They didn't specify so it was assumed both. The best thing to do is to have a conversation with the Zoning Administrator, but I believe that would have come up sooner if the opinion was. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand his interpretation. I guess my thought is the intent of, let's face it, 95% of banks have drive thrus. So I wonder if they knew that the potential bank locating there would have a drive thru? MR. FREER-I would say that 95% of the banks, you know, along main streets have drive thrus. Most banks on a multi-story main streets have walk-up ATM's, and a lobby. MRS. MOORE-1 just want to explain to the Board and to the applicant the Chazen in their review process, in this instance they were only requested to review stormwater. So they weren't asked to do traffic in addition, but you addressed traffic. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Well, the setbacks will certainly allow much more development of the property. You push those buildings back towards the center off of Pine, I mean, it significantly changes how you can develop that property. MRS. MOORE-Then you lose space. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members before we poll the Board? MR. NOONAN-I'd like to make a few comments. I think Mr. Daniels made some good points he brought up. That's his neighborhood. That's his neck of the woods and the whole idea of having to have to have residential upstairs, and then the thought of if you live there where are you going to walk, where are you going to ride your bike, where are kids going to be, does bring up a good point. If he's there more than I am. Of course I get that's the Town Code, but to force residential upstairs may be creating problem on certain parts of this corner than, you know, would create these problems that we might not want to deal with as a Town. The Code is written and it's our interpretations, but again, the points he made are resonating with me a little bit as I think about this application. MRS. MOORE-You do understand that it's not just residential that's upstairs. They can do office as well. It doesn't have to be just residential. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison, would you like to go first on polling the Board? MR. FREER-Sure. So I do not feel like we should, I don't plan to vote for these variances. I think it's not in keeping with the intent and the context of what they're trying to do down on Main Street corridor, and that is develop a multi-story pedestrian friendly environment. We're not there, and I know, Mr. Daniels, there's lot of tough choices, that the zoning has come down requiring the two or three story look, but it's still part of what they're trying to do and part of the Comprehensive Plan, and part of what they're actually going to do across the street here that they'd rather take that budget and Main Street, there's lots of issues. So at this point I wouldn't support any of the variances that are being asked for, specifically the drive thru. If the issue was fast foods only, and I believe that people would have put it in the Code. It hasn't come up, as Staff has said, and I will also, to my knowledge, it's not illegal to ride your bike in Queensbury on the sidewalk. There are some municipalities that do have those rules. We do not. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Well, I'm kind of torn, because I think on one hand it's a very attractive project. I think it would solve a need in that area. It moves the Subway from where it's located now to here. So the Subway sort of sits back from the road where it's currently located and it's been in that area for many years, but that's what happens, and I don't really, on the face of it, I don't see much of a difference in having a parking lot and having a drive thru for the bank because the traffic is relatively the same, and there are some areas in the Town where the drive thru is low maintenance, so to speak. There is, it's there, but you don't see it overcrowded. Cars don't back up. I happen to know a little bit about the banking industry that people are not visiting banks as much as they used to. They're doing a lot more online. So that issue is becoming less and less of a problem. However, now we're backed against this Main Street design, and there's design standards that's separate from the actual building project and separate from, apparently, the variances we're assigned to judge on. So I'm not sure where we're going with this. I don't know what the criteria is going to be to rule on this, and I think I need clarification on that. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm actually in favor of this project as proposed. I feel that the amount of activity or density that you could get out of one building with two stories is being achieved with the three buildings that are, you know, higher than just the 15 foot or 17 feet. I like the layout of the parking lot there. I would think, you know, as looking at the Code and the parking behind, that whole corridor has up on the street parking behind, that consistency all the way through. My interpretation is it won't be a very good look. Something like this to break it up on the corner I think is a nice look, you know, and I think you're seeing some of the issues with the Code, you know, we've had a few projects before us already, Dollar General, that's a one story building. Correct? We granted them the variance and I think it looks nice there. Designers, engineers, current designers, current engineers are proposing things that look like this for areas that are proposed for what we have, and this I feel like is a modern look. It's something nice. I am in favor of this project as proposed. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. So I'm struggling, too. I like the balance of the single story with your neighbor across Pine Street. I think that helps balance that interesting building on the other corner. You're not guaranteeing your architecture as shown here. So once we grant variances you can put up whatever you wish to put up. It wouldn't look as attractive, I'm sure you're going to, but you're not guaranteeing us. I'm struggling with the setbacks on Pine Street being that significant. I'd like to really find out about that bank issue and the drive thru issue because I agree, 95% of banks, and I mean, they have a lot of usage. Most people today would rather pull up and wait in line than go inside. So I don't know that it's less use than a fast food establishment, other than hours, obviously, but if they can pull up, you're still going to get some use. So I understand the traffic concern. I'm just concerned that granting of the variance on the Pine Street side is a lot of relief, but then as far as the sign is concerned, Staff, how much relief did we grant to the Dollar General? Do you recall? MRS. MOORE-They didn't put up a freestanding sign. That was one. MR. JACKOSKI-We wouldn't let them put that freestanding sign. MRS. MOORE-Correct. You said no freestanding sign, you get a wall sign, an extra wall sign. MR. JACKOSKI-So being consistent with that, that's interesting, too. So we allowed them I think a little bit bigger wall signs and took away the freestanding sign. Is that what we did MR. URRICO-Something like that. MR. FADEN-I just want to say a couple of things. So in regards to the sign, this is a multi-use project. So we could end up having five to six tenants in this complex. So having a freestanding sign is imperative for the development of this project. MR. URRICO-Could I just say something? We haven't read that in yet. Do we want to read the Sign Variance portion in, because it's come up in the letter and it's coming up again here. I just want to know if we should read that in before we start discussing it? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, let's hold the sign part out. We're going to end up discussing it in detail again at the next application. MR. FADEN-As far as the concept of this project, again, with the drive thru, to get some clarification with that, and what Main Street development wants. I know it's two story, you change it to one story and I know there's no guarantees that the building's going to look like this. I mean, one of the benefits, to me, doing this, being the developer and owning the Subway, is that, you know, I'll have more, I guess skin in the game with this. I'm not just going to develop it as cheap as I can and then sell it. I'm going to own a business there so I'll have more into this project and when you look at it from Main Street, having the drive thru there, we actually will have some renters. You won't see anything different from Main Street. It will still have that nice look, you know, sidewalks connecting all the buildings. We have that outdoor seating which gives that, you know, that Main Street feel, you know, and believe this, we're doing this project in phases, and I think it has a very good look for what the Town wants. I'll show the renderings here, and as far as like the setback from Pine Street, like you mentioned before, trying to maximize the space. MR. FREER-Why don't you build up? If you want to maximize the space, why don't you just make the second floor office, because that small building is office. Is that what you're talking about? MR. FADEN-That would be retail. They challenged me to go to second story rental space that never cuts it. So economically it makes more sense for us to stay commercially one story, maximize the space, and it comes to demand, you know, how much demand is there for office space, how much demand is there for, you know, if it's apartments, you know, what can you get for apartments? There's a lot involved with going, to do a two story. So that's why we decided to stay with the one story, to maximize the space, and going towards Pine Street a little bit more, you know, it's either to have, you know, more building or would just be, you know, grass space, you know, it's not going to affect the visibility coming up to the street light, and I don't feel as though the drive thru's going to create that much more traffic where it's going to become an issue. Like somebody mentioned it's no different than having, you know, more retail there and people just coming through the parking lot and exiting out at Pine Street. MR. JACKOSKI-And technically you're not asking for a variance for that drive thru either. I mean, I want to hold off to find out if there really is a variance required. Was the intent that a bank would have a drive thru. Then is it really a variance? Do we need a Code interpretation? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) Do we need a Code interpretation? I can't believe the Board would say that they would allow banks and not imply that there was going to be a drive thru attached to it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I find that hard to believe. I just wonder if we've got a conflict there that this might not be a variance. MRS. MOORE-I mean, it is according to the way the Code is written now, but the drive thru, you're asking for something, I thought you were asking for something different. You're saying when the Board reviewed the Code adding drive thru's, where they thinking drive thru's were for restaurants and things like that. I don't know that answer. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm trying to have to get away from having that requested variance. Well, I'm struggling with it as it is now. I think I need some more time to get some Code clarification what the intent was, or is, and maybe I won't get it. I don't know, but right now I think the relief is too great, and if the drive thru's really were not intended, that use would, I mean, it could just be office space, unless that drive thru goes away. MR. FREER-If you didn't ask for the setback variance and had a two story property, I would support a drive thru in there, but this does not comply with my understanding of what the Town Comprehensive Plan and the zoning that they tried to implement and this is not, so if you want to build those three buildings, that's your right, and you don't have to come to us unless you ask for a variance. Right? Okay, and so if you come for variances then you have to understand that the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning establish Main Street with a purpose of making it more friendly and making it multi-story and you're asking us to approve variances on a piece of property that don't line up with that. MR. FADEN-I completely understand where you're coming from. If we don't get the relief on Pine Street, that changes that building from being about 40 by 60 to 20 by 60, which, so it almost eliminates Building Two and Three from a development standpoint. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand that. We get it, but you are buying property with the current zone attached to it and that should reflect your purchase price. It should be reflected in your development plans, your pay back plans. It is what's there unfortunately. The Town has been looking at this so much and they're trying to make sure they're happy with where it is and that last round of revisions didn't change that setback requirement. They kept it at 20 for a reason. So I, believe me I love what that looks like. I think it's phenomenal. I think that it's such an incredible improvement from what's there, when you cross the street. I mean, it's fantastic. It's just that we're bound by the current Code of Main Street, and that's the hard part for us. If this were Route 9, great, are you kidding, hurry up and do it, this is fantastic, but we're struck with. MR. FADEN-I know the Town went from two stories to one story. I guess my only question would be how much more interest have you guys received since you went from two story to one story? MR. JACKOSKI-I think it takes some time to develop that interest, but once the word gets out that it's there, I mean, we've had, Dollar General came through. MR. FADEN-I guess that's my point of continuing to push for the two story is that they changed the Code. It's not a requirement. So that's why we're proposing one story. MR. JACKOSKI-I think none of us are, I mean, you could do your one story Subway building there on your lot without any variances and it would be great. I hear you. I understand, but as my fellow colleague here, Harrison, suggested, it's not in keeping with what we understand the concept is supposed to be for Main Street. Any other Board member comments at this time? MR. NOONAN-Does it have to be a functioning second story? Can it be a? MRS. MOORE-It can't be a false, no. That's not the intent. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, and I can't see where they would spend the money for the second story and just have it. I'm okay with the one story. MR. URRICO-So the only issue we have right now is the drive thru? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-The setback, Pine Street setback. I mean, let's face it, you could build a very big building in the middle of that property and meet the setbacks and have parking where it needs to be. You could do another plan. MR. URRICO-But is the setback being created by the design standards? MR. JACKOSKI-I think the setback's being created by the applicant's desire to have three independent buildings spread apart by parking and driveways down the middle. That's the hard part. MR. FADEN-I guess my question is if you were to grant the setback, would there be any adverse effects to the site, I mean, as far as stormwater, that's all going to be managed on site. I guess what would be a setback or a negative aspect to building that as close as you can to the road, almost like Main Street, as close as you can to the road, would create that, it would almost, it would make that corner look a lot better having a building closer to Main Street and closer to Pine Street as much as you can to get that Downtown feel look with the sidewalks close to the building. MR. JACKOSKI-I think the Town was, I mean, they intentionally kept the side street setback at 20 feet and didn't make it the same as Main Street itself. I think their intent was to keep those side streets quieter. I mean, I truly believe if they wanted what you're suggesting, to keep it and make it look like Main Street they would have kept the setbacks the same on Main Street and the side streets. It's a simple thing. Believe me we would like nothing more than to kick start off the re-development, keep this going and have great buildings like that, but we are trying to deal with the design standard. MR. FADEN-By not allowing that setback, this project is almost dead because it doesn't, that's a huge piece to this puzzle of being able to build another 4,000 square feet. So pretty much that corner lot is not going to get any use, very little use. It completely changes the look of that, of the development. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. We can't recommend to you what to do. We can listen to your recommendation to us on how you would like to proceed, but given, you've heard the polling of the Board and where they sit. MR. FADEN-So I have one that's in favor. I mean, we're going to have to table this. We need four people on board with it. How many yeses do we have to this entire project? MR. JACKOSKI-Right now I think you have one. I'd like to have a little more clarification on the bank issue before I could vote yes or no, but if I had to vote right now I would vote no to the setbacks and to the drive thru being located on that corner. MR. FADEN-Is it an all or nothing vote, or is it pieces, like can you vote on one, two or three of them, or is it all? MR. JACKOSKI-You can minimize, we can minimize, you've got to be careful with that because you can't come back to us and then ask again. That would be segmentation of the project, the Master Plan. We can grant you less relief than you've currently requested in your application, but we can't grant you more relief than you've currently requested in your application. So if you withdraw the teller, the drive thru part and you just want us to vote on the setbacks, that would be an option to you, or vice versa. So we can grant you less relief than you fully requested, but not more. You have to request us to modify the application and take stuff out. You need four. 1, I'm going to be very honest with you, I'm still struggling with being so close to Pine Street and I'm still struggling, right now, with that drive thru. MR. NOONAN-So how many lots are you looking to buy right now, three? MR. JACKOSKI-There's three. MR. NOONAN-Is all of Building Two and Three on only one lot, or is that split two lots? MR. FADEN-That's one lot. MR. NOONAN-So then, could you buy and put your parking lot the second, the third one in, put your parking lot Building One footprint and then leave the one on the corner hanging out there? MR. LANSING-No one's going to buy it. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. FADEN-It's the same owner. It's a package deal. MR. NOONAN-It is? MR. FADEN-Yes, and the way it was structured was for a phased plan. MR. URRICO-How much flexibility do you have where those buildings are located? Can you move them at all? MR. FADEN-1 guess you can move anything. What are you suggesting? MR. URRICO-Do you have any flexibility there in terms of where it is on Pine Street, rather than zero setback, giving us something . MR. FADEN-Well, the challenge is when we have Building One, you need X amount of square feet to get two sides of parking, and it only leaves you, you know, the building's 40 feet wide and that's with the zero setback. You bring that to 20, virtually that building is 20 feet wide. Nobody, maybe do a 20 by 60. 1 mean, that's not going to look good. MR. URRICO-You're taking down all of what's there. So the parking lot, each building is going to have its own parking area. Can you have a central parking area to accommodate all three buildings? MR. FADEN-That's how it's set up now. Phase One is going to be 4 to 200 square feet which is what you saw up there. We're knocking down all the buildings and as of right now we don't have any tenants, but when you see Building Two and Three, that's going to be, we're knocking down the building and that's going to be grass, you know, seeded, mulched. That's going to look nice. So right now Phase One is only Subway. We're going to have the parking lot coming up on Main Street off of Pine Street, and that's just for future development. So the infrastructure is set up for all three buildings, but Building Two and Three and the back of Building One I don't know when that's going to be developed, but the way I've structured it was just to have, just to do the front building for now and see what kind of interest we get. MR. LANSING-Just for the Board's clarification, this line right here is the existing lot line for this lot. As part of the proposed application we're going to be shifting the lot line to this area, so that lot will be getting bigger. MR. JACKOSKI-You're actually going to create, you're still going to have your three separate lots. MR. LANSING-They'll be two separate lots. We're going from three to two. The two lots on the eastern side, and just for the Board's reference, as far as setbacks from Pine Street, we are proposing zero on the corner. There is a clipped corner on the parcel, just about touch the property line. For the balance of the site we are a couple of feet off the property line. So we did ask for 20 feet, full relief from the 20 feet for that one corner. Technically it is 18 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, clarify for me, please. Being that there will remain two separate independent lots, the corner lot, how does it meet its parking requirements for the Main Street corridor? MRS. MOORE-He can explain. MR. LANSING-If I could answer that. As far as the, we have this lot line strategically positioned such that there is parking within that lot for that use, and there would be access easements for the drive aisles. MR. URRICO-I'm sorry, this may have been asked already, but is there access from Pine Street into the complex there or is that anticipated? MR. LANSING-Yes, there would be full access from Pine Street to this area. So you'd be exiting at the drive thru. MR. URRICO-From Pine Street? Not from Main Street. MR. LANSING-There would be full access from Main Street down to this site. MR. FADEN-The vision for this project, too, the properties east of this, where there's some vacant land, you know, in the future, you know, especially on Main Street, traffic gets pretty 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) heavy. In the future there's probably going to be access in the back behind all of these parcels, too. So there's all that entire corner. So in the future, I mean, you're not seeing, except back here, you would have access as these other parcels get developed, where there may be access in the back. So it relieves from Main Street as well, the traffic here. MR. URRICO-How small can those buildings go and still remain relevant to you? I'm trying to create some more setback there on Pine Street so you don't have the zero setback issue and the minimal issue and create some more setback there, at least we have something to go on, and then we can deal with the drive thru issue. MR. FREER-I guess I thought, maybe I misread, that the Number Two building was office space. You're saying it's retail? MR. LANSING-Number Three is listed as office. MR. FREER-Yes. So that's why I'm saying just put the office on the second floor and, you know, comply with what we're trying to do, but if you're saying it's going to be retail, that's a different animal, and, you know, I understand that retail on the second floor is not going to, that dog ain't gonna hunt. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, this Board can't tell you what to do or recommend to you what to do, but where we sit at this very moment, I'm looking for your direction as to how you want us to proceed. MR. FADEN-When would it be tabled to, if we were to table it? MR. JACKOSKI-See the problem is in April we only have four Board members again. MR. FREER-The same four. MR. JACKOSKI-Sorry. MR. FADEN-And I have deadlines I have to meet for the acquisition. MRS. MOORE-The second meeting in April I think you will have another Board member. MR. JACKOSKI-It's very difficult not having alternates. MR. URRICO-It at least gives us a chance to clarify some things. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I think that's fair to say. MR. URRICO-Because I'm not totally against the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, I'm not either. MR. URRICO-You're halfway there. MR. JACKOSKI-Could we table it to the April. MR. FADEN-The thing is that pushes back the Planning Board meeting now, too. Because that's why the last one got canceled and it pushed us back a month for this. That's another month. MR. FREER-SO have you been to the Planning Board yet? MR. FADEN-Yes. Once. MR. FREER-And what did they say? MR. LANSING-For concept, for preliminary review and in my opinion they received the project very well, slight adjustments to the plan, we worked with the Planning Board to address all their concerns. I believe we have a positive recommendation from the Planning Board. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? Did the Planning Board consider the design standards at all? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MRS. MOORE-They considered the, right, so they considered the variances in relation to the site and they felt that the project could move forward to the Zoning Board. MR. FADEN-Yes, we have very good feedback from the Planning Board as far as development, the look, kind of what feel they thought Main Street had with the pedestrian walkways and the seating and the look. MR. URRICO-If they can soften the setback, for me, and I can get clarification about the drive thru, then I would be on board with the project. MRS. MOORE-In April, the April 27th meeting is a Zoning Board, and due to the primary in April, the second Planning Board meeting is scheduled for April 28tH MR. FADEN-So in theory it could be Zoning Board 27th and Planning Board 28 th? MR. JACKOSKI-Does the Board feel comfortable with that? MR. URRICO-Well, I can't speak for everybody, but I would be comfortable with that. MRS. MOORE-Then the next item, if you're going to proceed that way, is to give enough time for the applicant to, if plans are being amended, to provide that information so that information can be reviewed by Staff and forwarded to the Board. So our April deadline was March 15tH MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, I'm willing to request from Staff that they could do an accelerated review, not have the typical timelines. Is that even possible? Do we have an issue with making the documents available to the public with so many days prior to the applications being heard? MRS. MOORE-I've been working with the applicant so they've been able to give that information electronically and that information has been able to be loaded to the laser fiche, the public website. MR. JACKOSKI-And how many days before the actual public meeting does the public have, do we have to put that information out? MRS. MOORE-There would be, I'd have to look at how it's worded, but they normally get noticed required, I believe it's seven days prior to the meeting, if not five, seven or five. MR. JACKOSKI-I just want to make sure that if we do this accelerated and we've already missed our March deadline for submission of new material, can we make that submission deadline April 5th? Does that give Staff enough time to give the public enough time to look at the information? What I'd like to do is get us to do some research, talk with Staff and then hopefully Staff can communicate back and forth with you and give you some time to do whatever it is. MR. FREER-If your intent is retail and you have office in the application, we should get that clarified, or if you want to make it both, that was one of the things that. MR. JACKOSKI-It is important to understand. Is it going to be retail or office? MR. FADEN-Retail. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So it would be beneficial if the information was supplied to us by March 28tH which is a Monday. I don't know how short notice that is, but. MR. JACKOSKI-I think I can do my research tomorrow. I mean, some things have come up here that I need to better understand. MR. LANSING-We will work very quickly once we get the feedback. MR. JACKOSKI-Could we push them to the first meeting in April? MRS. MOORE-Yes. You can. MR. JACKOSKI-Would that make you more comfortable? That way we could then put you on the second meeting in April if something goes wrong. MR. FADEN-I guess if you guess get clarification that you need and you say, yes, we can move forward. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-That's the big thing, if we say yes. MR. FREER-Yes, I mean, if we got clarification I would still oppose the project, granting the setbacks, okay. If they said, drive thru's a gimme, but I'm only one of seven, so if there's more people, I can be outvoted clearly. MR. URRICO-For the first meeting you're one of four. MR. JACKOSKI-So the first meeting's the same four. The next meeting in April there might be a fifth. MR. FADEN-The 27th would be four? MR. JACKOSKI-No, we would have possibly five. MRS. MOORE-We could possibly have five. Right now I'm thinking there'll only be four on the 20th. MR. JACKOSKI-On the 20th I'm going to go to Carlisle and enjoy a car show and relax. MR. FADEN-The 27th is the only option, I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-I apologize. We want to see this developed. We want to see this happen. I love the look of your project. I just need to get some more clarification, setting the tone. You're one of the pioneers in this area. We've got to make sure we don't set a precedent. It's close and you're under some strict deadlines, but I don't want to tell you no tonight and then scrap your project. We're trying to work with you. All right. So can I have a motion to table this application as requested by the applicants to the April 27th meeting with any new data or information submitted by. MRS. MOORE-By March 28tH MR. JACKOSKI-By March 28th which is a Monday. I'm going to hold off on additional public comment. We have left the public comment period open so we can talk about it next time. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Faden / Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes demolition of three main buildings, shed and some site grading to construct three new buildings in three phases. First building to be 4,200 +/- sq. ft. with parking from Main St. to Pine St. Project includes merging parcels creating two parcels. Second phase to be remainder of first building 4,200 +/- sq. ft., then third phase is two additional buildings 2,400 sq. ft. and 1,600 sq. ft. with a drive through. SEAR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested; Bldg. 2 and Bldg. 3 require relief from minimum setback requirements (Pine Street side), and Bldg. 3 requires minimum setback relief for the bank drive-thru for the Main Street (MS) zoning District. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 16, 2016 and Left Open; 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: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0071-2016 RUSSELL FADEN / FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled until the April 27th meeting with a submission for all new materials; amended materials by Monday, March 28tH Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So the next application in front of us is the same applicant for the same property regarding the Sign Variance. SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0072-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S) LANSING ENGINEERING, PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75-79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN (SUBWAY AND FUTURE TENANT NAMES) WITH A 5 FT. FRONT SETBACK ON MAIN STREET. SEAR PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MAIN STREET ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AV PZ-0071-2016; SP PZ-0073-2016 SUP PZ-0068-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.24; 0.42; 0.46 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47, 48, 49 SECTION CHAPTER 140 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to have Roy read this application briefly into the record. I'm going to open the public hearing, but I suspect the applicant is going to also request us to table this to the same meeting as the first one. Is that fair? It would be a comprehensive review of the whole project. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. PZ-0072-2016, Russell Faden/Faden Enterprises, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: 75-79 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign (Subway and future tenant names) with a 5 ft. front setback on Main Street. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from sign setback restrictions for the Main Street zoning district. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required-setbacks Applicant proposes a 45 sq. ft. sign to be located 5 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft. setback is required." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. The applicant, welcome. Obviously we've had some brief comments about the signage. We know what you're looking for. I can open the public hearing and leave the public hearing open and then I'm going to ask for the Board members to do another resolution just like the previous one. It's a self-explanatory application. Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this application regarding the signage? First I'm going to ask Roy if there's any written comment regarding the Sign Variance? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-It's the same written comment that I read in with the prior application. MR. JACKOSKI-Duly noted that that was the same. If you could, please. DON DANIELS MR. DANIELS-As I was listening to all the different things that we were talking about, earlier I had alluded to apartments being on the second floor and most of the talking we were doing here is about offices, but if you have an office over any of these retail businesses, which I think the Code says 12 feet from the first floor, we have to have an elevator. They all have to be ADA compliant. So each of these three buildings would need an elevator, which can run as much as $100,000. You can't have a ramp. A ramp 12 feet would be 144 feet long. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand. This is about the Sign Variance at this time. I mean, this application in front of us is strictly about the Sign Variance. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. DANIELS-Okay. I think it's okay, the Sign Variance, as close to the road as possible, as big as possible, changeable copy. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. You might as well add digital format at that. MR. DANIELS-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Anyway. There is no additional public comment concerning this application. So I'm going to request a motion from the Board members for a similar motion as the previous one and leave the public hearing open. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Russell Faden / Faden Enterprises for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign (Subway and future tenant names) with a 5 ft. front setback on Main Street. SEAR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested from sign setback restrictions for the Main Street zoning district. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0072-2016 RUSSELL FADEN/FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Tabled to the April 27th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with new materials to be submitted by March 28, 2016. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Hang in there. We'll get through this. It's just going to take us a little bit of time. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0069-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD SWITCHCO, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) SWITCHCO, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION CORINTH RD. & 1-87 EXIT 18 (NW) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A PORTION OF A 16.38 ACRE PARCEL FOR A 13,800 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) 4-STORY (55 FT.) 100- ROOM HOTEL (HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE Cl ZONE. CROSS REF SP PZ-0051-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 16.38 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.13-1-73 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0069-2016, Switchcho, LLC, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: Corinth Rd. & 1-87 Exit 18 (NW) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to develop a portion of a 16.38 acre parcel for a 13,800 sq. ft. (footprint) 4 story (55 ft.), 100 room Holiday Inn Express hotel. The floor area for the site is 54,233 sq. ft., this includes all floors of the project in relation to the lot size. Site work includes construction of an access road, installation of parking spaces, landscaping, lighting and stormwater management. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from height restrictions in the Cl zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts -Dimension requirements. 1. The building is proposed to be 55 ft. in height where a 40 ft. height maximum is allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) 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 neighborhood view would be altered where the maximum height in the area is 40 ft. 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 site is an area that is under Town Board review for CI-18 zoning where height, density, uses, landscaping, and design are being considered. The applicant is aware of the Town Board's review of new zoning but has submitted the application under the current zoning. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief would be considered moderate in relation 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 Cl zone is an existing area of intense commercial development. The code indicates the purpose is to provide continued infill of commercial development for improvement and appearance of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created where the applicant is aware new zoning may be implemented that may minimize or eliminate the variance for height. Staff comments: The applicant has completed a variance application for the development of four- story hotel where relief is requested for building height. The Town Board is in the process of reviewing zoning changes for Exit 18 that includes an area traffic analysis and code revisions." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board passed a motion, 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 March 15th and that was a five zero vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy, and before we begin, Mr. Lapper, to clarify with Staff, the revisions that are being explored regarding the commercial Exit 18 corridor, can you communicate to us what it is that they discussed regarding height? MRS. MOORE-Height would be potentially 70 feet at 400 feet back. So it would be significantly higher. MR. JACKOSKI-I just wanted to make sure I understood that correctly. So I suspect the reason why you're here is you don't want to wait for them. MR. LAPPER-That's all it is. That's exactly right. MR. JACKOSKI-Simple application. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I will be brief because it's late. For the record Jon Lapper with Chris Boyea and Josh O'Connor from Bohler Engineering. Some of you who are as gray as me were here when we did this eight years ago with Rich Schermerhorn. He has this site under contract and he received a height variance for a proposed hotel at the same location. The recession hit. He decided to stick to what he knows best, residential, and he let the contract go. At that point Jerry Nudi purchased the land and now he's proposing very similar to what this Board had looked at, not exactly, but the hotel is essentially the same location. The site design is a little bit different, the building's a little bit different, but the main justification for us is just that this is kind of in a hole, if you will, if you look at it from the Northway. The Northway is about 30 feet high there, and as it relates to McDonald's, it's all the way in the back, in terms of it being a visual issue which really, Laura's notes were really good about in fill in the Commercial Intensive zone, and in some way this building acts actually as a buffer between the residential uses in the back, kind of a dense residential development to the north, and this is somewhat of a transition use if you think about all the potential commercial uses you could have in a Cl zone, because this is residential character, but not the same, it's a good transition between the residential uses, and this building would serve to block whatever happens in the future, if there's more 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) restaurants, etc., out in front. So we think it's an appropriate use for the back of this site. Jerry Nudi expects that, or hopes that over the next few years, once the Exit 18 corridor becomes more developed with these projects that are pending, that there'll be more interest in the rest of his site and we'll be back for more development, but in terms of this project, to answer the Chairman's question, we could have waited and come in with a 70 foot building most likely because the Town Board seems intent to do that, although we're not saying that's happening because it hasn't happened yet, but I think that also, it helps our argument in terms of the impact and the character of the corridor, because this is now viewed as a very different road, in growth, even in terms of height. So I'll let Chris walk you through the site plan, but the building itself is not 55 feet, five feet is to change the grade to make it a positive grade for stormwater management, and the building itself is about 49 feet. So just when you look at it visually it's not a 55 foot building. It's four story. Part of it is the architectural detail on the top, the parapet, which is just at the very center of the building to make it a little bit more prominent. I'll let Chris go through that. MR. JACKOSKI-Chris, if you don't mind I'd like to just poll the Board for a moment because frankly I'd like to hear what they have to say before we have you get into an extensive amount. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle, at this point do you see any significant issues with the height variance? MR. NOONAN-I don't, no. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-No. MR. URRICO-I don't have any issues with it. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to open the public hearing. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-And we'll go forward from there. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'm going to open that public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. Other than what I read in. MR. JACKOSKI-Other than what you read in. Being that there's no written comment, is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Come to the table, please. JUSTINA BESWICK MRS. BESWICK-I'm Justina Beswick with Stephen Beswick. MR. JACKOSKI-And are you comfortable with the, I mean, I cut them off a little bit with their presentation, but are you comfortable? MRS. BESWICK-That's fine. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MRS. BESWICK-We live at 38 Massachusetts Avenue, which is the last, furthest from where this is proposed. As far as the height goes and the height variance, I don't necessarily have a problem with that. The biggest thing I'm concerned about is lighting, and how that might affect the residential area behind us, as well as lighting along the roadway, what type of lighting, you know, how far does it shine. We do enjoy our evenings in the backyard, and being up against the wooded area. The other concern that we have is making sure that there is a privacy fence along that whole back part of the property, not a chain link, but something that. MR. JACKOSKI-Screening. MRS. BESWICK-Very much, and preferably eight to ten feet. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Can't go that high by Code but. MR. LAPPER-We'll look at that. MRS. BESWICK-Perfect. Yes, so traffic is the other thing, but we will be coming to the Planning Board. I understand that that's. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, lighting is part of the Planning Board. Stormwater management is going to be part of the Planning Board. Traffic flow is going to be part of the Planning Board, dumpster enclosures and all those good things are going to be really part of the Planning Board. MRS. BESWICK-Okay, and even where they're building this. Where are they going to be kind of coming in and all that. That's Planning Board stuff. MR. JACKOSKI-And that might not be, but that'll get fleshed out. Maybe Mr. Lapper will be able to talk about that now for us. MRS. BESWICK-Okay. Well, my only concern is we have lots of kids at our house and there's also a playground on that back side where kids kind of roam. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, those streets back there don't have a lot of traffic on them. MRS. BESWICK-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, and we appreciate your comments. MRS. BESWICK-Thank you. MR. FREER-I'll just say that one of the reasons we have zoning laws is because of lighting. So they are tougher than they used to be. So you would benefit. MRS. BESWICK-My biggest concern was like with A/C, if there's going to be any noise from the building. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MRS. BESWICK-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board concerning this application? Sir? GARY SPRINGER MR. SPRINGER-Hi, my name is Gary Springer. I live right across from Justina, and I have the same thing. My biggest thing is the fencing. When Mr. Schermerhorn came here, he agreed to put a fence down through the whole thing because kids are in there, you know, garbage is in there. That's my opinion, I want a fence. MR. JACKOSKI-And do you know with the fencing, did they also add any kind of shrubbery or anything to hide the fence? Again, that would be the Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-We'll talk about it. We'll do the fence. MR. SPRINGER-And there was something in there about a buffer zone. I mean, he couldn't build right up to the fence. MR. JACKOSKI-And that'll all come out at the Planning Board. Right now there are no, just so you're aware, there are no requests to modify the setbacks. So they're not asking to build any closer to the lot lines than they are able to without a variance. MR. SPRINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome, sir. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'll ask Mr. Lapper to just confirm that they are intending to have some screening or fencing and any other little items before we take a vote. MR. LAPPER-I'll let Chris just show you that. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. BOYEA-And I can appreciate, if I could have just one minute to address some of the comments. I'll quickly address a lot of the comments that you had. First, Laura, Town Staff, had given us a heads up about the fence, and so our current plan includes a fence, and it's not a chain link fence. It is a stockade privacy fence. So it's solid, and that would run all along the edge of the parking lot here at this location. Another thing, just to make sure that everybody understands, is you can see that we're capping any utility back here with this little grass strip. We are keeping and respecting a large buffer of mature trees here. So this is all the property that is owned. We're keeping these trees, in addition to the fence. So there is a wide swath that will be provided there of mature trees. The fence does run down that area. As far as construction traffic, access, any of that type of thing, not once did we intend to ever utilize any of the residential streets that are behind us. We have one access that we're maintaining off the commercial, not even for construction. So these are all dead end streets. They will remain that way. We're not cutting the trees to make an access way back there. I hope that answers some of your questions. There will be more at the Planning Board, but I just wanted to at least get you those, that information that's there. MRS. BESWICK-That fence, is there a way to extend it? The problem that we have on our street is there's a lot of kids, teens, traffic that kind of come, garbage that gets dropped off onto your property. MR. BOYEA-We'll consider that. That'll be a Planning Board, though. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately I've got to let him continue, protocol wise. We can have more public comment if we don't have a resolution tonight, but you'll certainly have those chances to talk about that fencing at the Planning Board. We really have no jurisdiction right now over that request for fencing. MR. BOYEA-The last item that was mentioned was lighting. All of our entrance lighting in the presentation is at the front of the building, not at the rear of the building, and the fence being a solid fence is there to block any parking lot lights, car movement lights, headlights, those types of things. The mature trees that we're leaving in this buffer zone that's required back here takes care of any higher up lighting that may be. So with that, I'll answer any other questions that the Board may have. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I poll the Board? I'll poll the Board. Anyone want to go first? Harrison? MR. FREER-I have no problem with the 55 foot height. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think as long as they're heading in the same direction that they just explained, I would be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 am also in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're all in favor of the project as proposed. So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. LAPPER-They did SEQR last night. MR. JACKOSKI-SEQR Unlisted. They did SEQR last night. MRS. MOORE-SEQR has been completed. MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion knowing that SEQR has been completed. We don't have to re-confirm that? MRS. MOORE-'No, you do not. MR. LAPPER-You agreed to the Planning Board being Lead Agency. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Who would like to make a motion? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. NOONAN-I'll make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Switchco, LLC. The applicant proposes to develop a portion of a 16.38 acre parcel for a 13,800 sq. ft. (footprint) 4-story 100- room hotel (Holiday Inn Express) and associated sitework. Relief requested from height restrictions in the Cl zoning district. SEQR Type Unlisted — ZBA consented to Planning Board as Lead Agency on February 17, 2016; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 16, 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. We don't necessarily have to discuss feasible alternatives. We're all in agreement with this project as presented. 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. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created as you're asking for relief greater than the Zoning Code currently allows. 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. PZ-0069-2016 Switchco, LLC, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 16th day March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. LAPPER-Thanks everyone. We appreciate it. MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0074-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED — COORDINATE WITH PLANNING BOARD BIG BAY LODGING, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING MA, LLC OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING CI LOCATION BIG BAY ROAD, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 15,095 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), 89-ROOM, 4-STORY (66 FT.) (HILTON HOME2) AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP PZ-0054-2016; BP 2012-240 COWL BLDG (TACO BELL SITE) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2016 LOT SIZE BASED ON 2.3 ACRE(S) OF 6.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 SECTION 179-3-040 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) CHRIS BOYEA &JOSH O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This is an Unlisted SEQR coordinated with our Planning Board. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0074-2016, Big Bay Lodging, LLC, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: Big Bay Road, southeast of intersection of Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 15,095 sq. ft. (footprint), 66 ft. four story Hilton Home2 Suites hotel building with 89 rooms, associated parking and inter- connect between Corinth and Big Bay Roads. The floor area for the site is 60,380 sq. ft., this includes all floors of the project in relation to the lot size of 2.3 ac. Project includes site work for stormwater management and connection to municipal water and sewer. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from maximum height restrictions, allowable Floor Area Ratio, and minimum road frontage requirements. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts -Dimension requirements. 1. The building is proposed to be 66 ft. in height where a 40 ft. height maximum is allowed. 2. The building is to proposed to have 60,380 sq. ft. of floor area for a proposed 2.3 ac parcel where at 0.3 requirement the maximum allowed is 30,056 sq. ft. floor area. Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets. 1. The building is proposed to have zero road frontage on Big Bay Road where 50 ft. is required. 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 neighborhood view would be altered where the maximum height in the area is 40 ft. 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 site is an area that is under Town Board review for CI-18 zoning where height, density, uses, landscaping, and design are being considered. The applicant is aware of the Town Board's review of new zoning but has submitted the application under the current zoning. The applicant is proposing a 2.3 acre parcel for the development of the hotel where it may be considered to have additional property to achieve the 0.3 FAR requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief would be considered moderate in relation 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 Cl zone is an existing area of intense commercial development. The code indicates the purpose is to provide continued infill of commercial development for improvement and appearance of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created where the applicant is aware new zoning may be implemented that may minimize or eliminate the variance for height. The applicant has proposed a 2.3 acre parcel where additional acreage may be considered in regards to eliminating the floor area request. Staff comments: The applicant has completed a variance application for the development of four- story hotel where relief is requested for building height, floor area ratio and physical access. The 2.3 acre parcel is part of a parcel rearrangement of 8 parcels to 3 —lots. Lot arrangement is to be Lot 1 of 1.29 acres includes the Taco Bell restaurant, a vacant Lot to be 4.40 acres to include the access easement roadway and separately the hotel lot of 2.3 acres. The Town Board is in the process of reviewing zoning changes for Exit 18 that includes an area traffic analysis and code revisions." 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review passed a motion where they didn't identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed five zero on March 15, 2016. MR. JACKOSKI-Hello and welcome. MR. BOYEA-Yes, good evening. For the record, my name's Chris Boyea. I'm with Bohler Engineering and here with me tonight is Josh O'Connor with Bohler Engineering, as well as the project sponsor who came in, Chet Cante, and this is a pretty exciting project because we're going to bring a Hilton product to Queensbury and similar to the application that was just before us, this is a similar project where we are proposing a four story hotel. This is a smaller project than the one before. We're only 89 rooms here versus 100 room across the street. Again, there is talk that the zoning may be changing here to allow a 70 foot high building, and this application is here because they would like to build a project prior to the Town making a decision on that proposed zone change. This project has an attractive elevation that's shown here below. It backs up to an industrial use which is the Curtis Lumber facility as you can see in the aerial photography to the bottom of the page. There is an existing motel to the right, and then there's the interstate, which is off a little bit further. The hotel sits in here very nicely. It is going to utilize an access road that's already been constructed for the Taco Bell. As far as lot area and density goes, we are proposing a subdivided lot. There are currently eight lots there today that Mr. Parillo lots. We are combining a lot of these little lots to form a bigger lot to construct this hotel. Chet and his partners would own, fee and simple, this land. Mr. Parillo would be selling him this land. Again, the Hilton product with only 89 rooms, four stories is not much activity for this proposal as far as rooms per floor or activity. If this was a four story office building or something of that nature, it would house a lot more activity than just this hotel. It's a fairly benign use as far as parking demand, as far as activity goes, and it seems to fit in really well with the overall plans in this area. So we're here tonight to answer any questions that the public may have, the Board may have, in hopes of proceeding back to Site Plan Review to finish that. We did start the process with them but we would still need site plan review, final, as well. So with that I'll turn it right back over to you guys. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So my biggest concern is that is an incredible amount of relief for floor area ratio. MR. BOYEA-Yes, and I think that when we were in negotiations with the current landowner, which is Mr. Parillo, we had agreed to actually build this road that's here which is off of our site. He wanted to maintain ownership of that. Had we owned that road, that would have probably reduced the floor area ratio as far as land ownership under control, but that is part of this project here. The other aspect of that from a floor area ratio, is again that type of use that we are, this higher end motel unit. They're larger rooms. It's, again, just the amount of activity here. This is not the same square footage of retail and/or office type uses or, you know, something that would demand more parking or more activity on the ground, more occupation of space on the ground, and then it also was recommended as part of the Town Codes I believe to try to infill this corridor with the dense development that's here. So we've taken all of those items and tried to come up with the best project that we feel we have here tonight, and it even includes not actually having our own access on our frontage. So we have the frontage for an access here, but we're combining and being part of an overall planned out future development. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm okay with the access. I'm really struggling with the height and the floor area ratio. That is significant relief for a small parcel. Any other Board members wish to comment before I open the public hearing? MR. FREER-So, yes, my question is the proposed 2.3 acres that can be used to reduce the floor area ratio. Did you talk about that? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant is proposing 2.3 acres, but in this process of developing this site, there's eight lots that are being combined. So this applicant is only utilizing 2.3 acres of that. If the applicant, the comment that I have in Staff Notes is, if the applicant had increased acreage size than it would reduce the floor area. That's not what the applicant intends to do. They have purchased this 2.3, or they're proposing to purchase this 2.3 acres. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand, okay. So in other words if you had more land available to you from Mr. Parillo you would buy it, but he's not offering it so you're stuck with what you've got. MR. BOYEA-Absolutely. He's a very sharp businessman and this is what we have. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? If you could give up the table for us please. FLORENCE GOEDERT MS. GOEDERT-Good evening. My name is Florence Goedert. I live over at 469 Big Bay Road, right across the street from Curtis and right where they want to build the hotel. My neighbor and I are here together. We have several concerns. I don't know, you know, if some of them have to go before the Planning Board or, you know, but we're not so much concerned about the height of the building. We're concerned about the building being there to begin with because we're concerned about the noise level that it's going to bring, because we're going to be having people coming all hours of the day and night there to check into a hotel or check out or whatever, and we're concerned about how it's going to affect the traffic flow. I mean, you've got three major hotels going in in this area, which is insane, because I don't know what's in Queensbury to attract all these hotels. There's nothing that goes on around here, and the traffic is already so backed up during the morning and late afternoon evening commute, and then this is just going to add more to it. I don't know how they plan to, the Town or whatever plans to control the traffic flow, the overflow of traffic. We're concerned about the lighting, because my neighbor lives I think pretty much directly across the road. We're right next to her. So we're concerned about the lighting, and the buffering, like I said, of the noise level, how are they going to buffer the noise if they have this open lot in the front, how are they going to buffer noise, and the lighting as well, and then we're concerned about the type of people that are going to be going to the hotel. I mean, you know, they're going to have large rooms and such and I think, I believe some of them have kitchenettes and such in them. Do they plan on, because even the manager of Curtis Lumber and I were discussing this also. I mean, are there plans that they're going to be like sexual offenders and criminals that are getting released from prison and stuff that are going to be boarded at these hotels? We have those major concerns and I especially do because I am a survivor of rape and such and I certainly don't want to be living across the street from sexual offenders and such, and like I said, we're just baffled by why all these hotels are being built here, and then we just want to know, you know, how and when will we get a response to our concerns. MR. JACKOSKI-I can try to answer some of those in a bit, and the applicant will address those, but would you like to speak as well? Okay. LORRAINE TROY MS. TROY-Hello, everyone. I'm Lorraine Troy and I'm a neighbor to her. One of my concerns is I would like to know just where the ingress and egress is going to be there and that's, other than everything that she already mentioned, that is a concern of mine because I think I'm right across. MR. JACKOSKI-It's my understanding that there will be no ingress or egress across from your home. MS. TROY-Right. Can I be shown on the map where they're planning it? MR. JACKOSKI-Of course. They'll be happy to show you that. MR. O'CONNOR-This would be the entrance and exit on Big Bay right here. I believe this is you? MS. TROY-Yes. That's a little bit better. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-When you look at that map you can see it a little bit better. MS. TROY-1 saw it. He showed it to me. I guess, other than what she already mentioned. Parking. Which end of? MR. JACKOSKI-All the gray area. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MS. TROY-All the gray area is going to be parking. Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, if the applicants could re-join the table and maybe try to answer some of the questions that the first public commenter made. Again, we understand a lot of those are Planning Board issues. MS. GOEDERT-Now will we be notified for that meeting? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. If you were notified for this one you will be notified for that one as well. MS. GOEDERT-Okay. MR. BOYEA-Okay. I tried to take some notes. We'll go right through those comments. Okay with the height of the building. Just concerned with the project in general of the use here with noise. Okay. We do have some HVAC. It'll be rooftop mounted, and it will be on top of that, behind these parapet walls that are up here. So, in a sense, due to the elevation of the height that we're okay with, it's going to be mitigated from a residential standpoint. It would be over here. I can't imagine the HVAC, these are new units. These are not old units, would be any louder than the interstate that's here. I think it's going to be unnoticeable. MS. GOEDERT-We're more concerned about people noise. MR. BOYEA-Understood. Traffic, again, 89 rooms here. That would be, you know, could double that 90 it's 180 trips total. We have a signalized intersection and there's been capacity built in to Corinth Road much better than it was prior to those road improvements. So it's tough to get out of McDonald's, but they fixed a lot of that. MS. TROY-It's tough to get out of my driveway right now. MR. BOYEA-Yes, a small use, though, in general. To put it in perspective, Taco Bell has many more trips than this hotel would ever generate, like a restaurant use or something of that. So this is, from a traffic standpoint, this is a low intense use. Lighting, we are proposing full cut off light fixtures for the parking lot, which means that, just like this, if this shines straight down, there's no decorative lights that would glare upwards in that area. Sex offenders. This is a brand new hotel. This is extended stay to a point for a single night. This is a Hilton brand product. I would imagine room rates are going to be about$150 plus a night. I'm not expecting that that clientele would be, that this is to cater to that type of clientele. The cost for the room rate and the brand for what you're being provided with indoor pool and facilities of that nature, I just don't see that being the use. I think there's other options, potentially, but certainly not the market they're going after, and then as far as the access goes, I think Josh had pointed out on the map where that access is. We're trying to keep it up closer to the light. It will be utilized by any future development that's there. MS. TROY-Is that going to be both ingress and egress? MR. BOYEA-Yes, that's correct. It'll be full access here, and that will serve the property, and I hope that answers your questions. MR. JACKOSKI-So at this time I'm going to leave the public hearing open. I'm going to ask for a polling of the Board as to how they feel about this application as it's currently presented, unless there's any more comments from Board members. Does anyone want to volunteer to go first? MR. URRICO-This seems a little bit more intense than the last project we looked at, and I'm reluctant to approve it, given that the Town is already looking at it and reviewing this. I do not want to pre-empt them from making any decisions. If we allow this to go through, we might, and the Town backs off of some of the items that they have on their agenda, then we're left with a project that's too big for this lot, and that would be my concern. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. FREER-So my question to Staff, is the .3 floor area ratio in discussion for change as well? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. FREER-That's the more significant sort of piece in my mind is that you're asking for half of that. We usually try to get close to the floor area ratio. You're saying you want a floor area 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) ratio that is going to be half of what is approved. Right? So that would be my concern is how to get floor area ratio closer to the zoning rules. The height I could, you know, we just approved one that was five foot higher, or five foot lower, but that didn't have this significant floor area ratio issue, and it doesn't sound like that's even in a discussion. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Well, I guess that's what makes the Board interesting. I actually don't have a problem with the way it is presented at this point in time. This area is prime for development. I guess we're trying to fit in a certain type of development. I'm okay with this project. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm not. Unfortunately I'm just not. I think there's too much height relief for the current Code, but the floor area ratio, to me, is just excessive. I don't mind giving some relief, but I think this will change the character and establish a different neighborhood if everyone utilized that much relief for all of the future development that will happen in that corridor. I'm just not in favor of it as designed. I love the concept. I love the idea that it's a Hilton brand coming to Queensbury. I think that's fantastic, but I think this site is just too small for what you're trying to do. MR. BOYEA-Okay. We'll take that under advisement. It's something to look at. The real reason, what we're looking at here is I think that there's only so many hotels that are going to come to this area, and I doubt that this would be used as a precedent because the use itself is really what we were looking at. Maybe we didn't look at it correctly, but our thought was is that because of the hotel use, just the demand per square foot, and what that equates to for the ground, parking, amenities, those types of things, it's pretty unique to the hotel use. So in other words an office building couldn't come in and necessarily say well, geez, we've still got that same floor area ratio because their demand per square foot is quite different, and that could be flat thinking on our part. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, because I could argue with you that with the office structure it's usually just daytime hours where a structure like this is all hours. MR. BOYEA-1 understand. MR. JACKOSKI-But right now you have three Board members suggesting that they're not in favor as presented. I can't tell you what to do, but I suspect you're going to request a tabling of some sort. MR. BOYEA-Yes, that's definitely going to happen. I just want to make sure if there's any additional direction that the Board can provide us. We can certainly go back to the landowner and have some additional discussions to see whether we can, I mean, it doesn't sound like height really is a big issue. I guess to some it's lesser of an issue, again, as you can see from the rendering, the overall building height is much lower than the peak. We're taking the worst point of that, and if that's an issue, you know, maybe we can try to lower that point down or reduce the point, the highest. So we'll take that under advisement, and the only way I can think about getting the ratio closer is to get more land or reduce the size of the hotel. Those would be the only two that I'm thinking, and if I'm missing something, you know, okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I do like the idea that this building becomes the buffer, so to speak, with the industrial aspects of Curtis Lumber. I think that's a nice transition point, but it's big. MR. BOYEA-Yes. The only other piece to, I guess consider, is that we're not asking for green space variances as far as like lot coverage and those types of things. We provide the green space that's required. So it is truly just that, that floor area ratio. MR. FREER-Yes, and this is a conundrum, right, because they want to build three story buildings yet they have the same floor area ratio, you know, that you would expect elsewhere. So you guys are up at four stories. So it is a conundrum but I think that at least two of us are struggling with the floor area ratio, the significance of it. That's one of our charges. MR. BOYEA-1 understand. MR. JACKOSKI-How tall is that"tallest point". MR. BOYEA-The tallest point is 66 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-But I mean, I'm sorry, how tall is it above the main part of the building itself? Just for the record. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. O'CONNOR-Fourteen feet. From the parapet to the top of what they call their beacon. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. So how tall is it from the top of that actual portion? MR. O'CONNOR-We're requesting 66 feet, so it would be. MR. JACKOSKI-See the darker gray part of the building? Up. MR. O'CONNOR-So the actual parapet is 56 feet or excuse me 52 feet right here. MR. JACKOSKI-But isn't that part of the building shorter than the part where the beacon is? There you go. How tall is it from there? MR. O'CONNOR-This is 56 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So only one foot more than where the other one was without the beacon. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-I get it. I get it. It's the two times the allowed floor area ratio. MR. BOYEA-So the height, I've got you. So the height, that floor area ratio. MR. JACKOSKI-There's other Board members here. MR. BOYEA-1 understand. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you going to ask for a tabling to April? MR. URRICO-1 wasn't concerned about the height. I was concerned about the floor area ratio. MR. FREER-Which is not part of the discussion. MRS. MOORE-Not at this time. MR. URRICO-Not at this time. MRS. MOORE-1 will bring that to Staff and see if they are, if there's been any changes. Right now it's still in draft and so there may be additional changes. MR. BOYEA-Okay. We would like to table the application so that we can have time. It won't take us long. There's no changes necessarily to the plan at this point. We just need to talk to the landowner. So as soon as possible. MR. URRICO-How much would that change, purchasing that strip of property, how much would that change the? MR. BOYEA-1 don't know the answer to that. That's something I'm going to look into. I would be guessing at this point, and I don't want to take the Board's time. MR. JACKOSKI-If you come back, just so you're aware of my concerns, if you come back to us, instead of saying we want two times the allowable floor area, which is what you've requested now, a little over two times, and you come back, okay, we want 1.97, 1.4, 1.3 maybe, but I'm not going to be anywhere near two. So you're aware. MR. BOYEA-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Unless somebody changes my mind. MR. BOYEA-1 appreciate it. It's very helpful. I really appreciate you advising us. MR. JACKOSKI-And I don't work for Mr. Parillo so he can sell more land. Okay. So I do have a request by the applicant to table this application. Can we do another one in April or are we getting tight? MRS. MOORE-We're very tight. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Is May okay? The first meeting in May. MRS. MOORE-The first meeting in May is May 18tH MR. JACKOSKI-That's what you've got at this point. So either May or after. MR. BOYEA-May. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So can I have a motion to table to the first meeting in May with an April submission deadline for any new materials. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Big Bay Lodging, LLC — Hilton Home2. The applicant proposes construction of a 15,095 sq. ft. (footprint), 89-room, 4-story hotel (Hilton Home2) and associated sitework. SEAR Planning Board request for Lead Agency. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions, allowable Floor Area Ratio, and minimum road frontage requirements. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0074-2016 BIG BAY LODGING, LLC, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Tabled to the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in May with a deadline for submission of new materials by the April deadline. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. I do note that the public hearing is still open. I really can't take your comment at this point. MS. GOEDERT-I don't have a comment. I just have a question about the meeting. Does this come to this variance meeting again before it goes to the Zoning Board? MR. JACKOSKI-Before the Planning Board, yes. MS. GOEDERT-I mean the Planning Board, I'm sorry. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, it will come here first. MS. GOEDERT-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It will be tabled at the Planning Board level. MR. JACKOSKI-And to be very frank with you, my instinct is you're probably better served to go to the Planning Board meeting than what's going to be happening here next time because we've heard exactly what you've said. Not that we, by all means, show up. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0086-2016 SEQRA II FRANK M. DENARDO OWNER(S) FRANK M. DENARDO ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 2380 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND NEW PORCHES TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE. PROPOSED FRONT PORCH TO BE 230 SQ. FT. ALONG THE FRONT WITH A SMALL WRAP ON THE NORTH SIDE; REAR PORCH TO BE 224 SQ. F. WITH A SMALLER UPPER DECK; HOUSE RENOVATION TO RAISE THE ROOF FOR TWO FULL STORIES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES IN THE RR-5A ZONING DISTRICT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION IN A CEA. CROSS REF BP 2015-493 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.00-1-31 SECTION 179-3-040 FRANK DENARDO, PRESENT STAFFINPUT 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0086-2016, Frank M. DeNardo, Meeting Date: March 16, 2016 "Project Location: 2380 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes renovations and new porches to an existing residence. Proposed front porch to be 230 sq. ft. along the front with a small wrap on the north side; rear porch to be 224 sq. ft. with a smaller upper deck; house renovation to raise the roof for two full stories. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in the RR-5A zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimension requirements. Front Porch proposed front 37.4 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required. Front Porch proposed side 27. 6 ft. south side and 47.2 ft. on the north side where 75 ft. setback is required. Rear Porch proposed rear 47.6 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required. Rear Porch proposed side 31.9 ft. south side and 53.1 ft. on the north side where a 75 ft. setback is required. House proposed side 27.6 ft. and 26.3 ft. south, proposed side 53.1 ft. north where 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 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 may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the new construction is for rear and front porches. 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 feasible alternatives may be limited to due to the lot size of 0.34 ac in a the RR-5A zoning 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 be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to alter an existing home with the construction of two new porches. The front porch is to be 230 sq. ft. and the rear porch to be 224 sq. ft. The project includes an alteration to the roofline for a portion of the home to create a 23'11" height with additional living space upstairs. A new balcony is also proposed on the rear portion of the home for master bedroom upstairs." MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board met, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they passed the resolution on May 15th by a five to zero vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Very simple application. Very straightforward. If you could identify yourself for the record. I assume you just want the Board to ask you some questions. MR. DENARDO-For the record I'm Frank Denardo, owner of the house. MR. JACKOSKI-So do any Board members have questions at this time regarding this project? Seeing everybody shake their head I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? Seeing that there's no written comment. I'm going to leave the public hearing open and I'm going to poll the Board. Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank M. DeNardo. Applicant proposes renovations and new porches to an existing residence. Proposed front porch to be 230 sq. ft. along the front with a small wrap on the north side; rear porch to be 224 sq. ft. with a smaller upper deck; house renovation to raise the roof for two full stories. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in the RR-5A zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion in a CEA. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 16, 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 would be difficult as the lot size is already on .34 acres. 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. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created as you're adding these on. 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. PZ-0086-2016 Frank M. DeNardo, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion to adjourn, please. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/2016) MR. URRICO-So moved. MR. FREER-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 16, 2016, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Maria. Thank you, Laura. MRS. MOORE-You're welcome. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 43